Bush Visiting Other Nations

[DaStottman]

As we all know, Bush does not like to travel outside the country often. In fact, his last trip outside was to Canada. Anyone else think that he, as the leader of the free world, should be making more of an effort? Tony Blair has visited Iraq numerous times, while Bush only went once. Bush is supposedly not going to be visiting the areas struck by the tsunamis.

[thesightless]

STOP looking for reasons to criticize him. he has a job to do here. let him do it. he just offered 350 million and is calling for the US citizens to do more. i know it sounds mean, but the USA is pretty fucked up due to the near 50/50 partisanship. personally, i would lock him up at the whitehouse with about 200 accountants and finanaciers and non-stop flow of starbucks. then i would send in a teacher from every county in the country and let him sort out the schools. lord knows we need that.

[Yao]

I second that, sometimes this is bitching just for the sake of it...is it gonna help those people if he's showing his face out there? Don't think so....

[brakada]

Other US presidents had to do their jobs, too, but still traveled a lot. But personally, I don't know what would change if George travelled around more...

And on the other hand, there are not that many places he could go to; if I were him, I would also try to avoid seeing anti-bush protestors wherever I'd go... :wink:

[thesightless]

i want to punch those people. btw. i dont go out protesting that idiot chirac or tony blair,, who btw seems to be in a bit of campaign trouble lately?

[Yao]

i want to punch those people. btw. i dont go out protesting that idiot chirac or tony blair,, who btw seems to be in a bit of campaign trouble lately?

Chirac and Blair don't go invading countries on the scale Bush has...they are relatively low profile in international politics compared to Dubya, and they sure as hell don't take such an extreme position, religiously and politically.

Not to say that they're doing just fine, far from that...

[brakada]

i want to punch those people. btw. i dont go out protesting that idiot chirac or tony blair,, who btw seems to be in a bit of campaign trouble lately?

No, the Americans change french fries to freedom fries and "boycott" french products, when french disagree with them...

I don't see why would you want to punch those people. It's the right of individuals to express their disagreement with world politics, as long as it doesn't get violent, which is often the case...

[thesightless]

No, the Americans change french fries to freedom fries and "boycott" french products, when french disagree with them...

I don't see why would you want to punch those people. It's the right of individuals to express their disagreement with world politics, as long as it doesn't get violent, which is often the case...

1. dont associate the general population with a group of old liberal elitists who could tell the french leadership to fuck off. they did a BS stupid move to attempt to show they didnt like what was said at the time.

2. and most of the protesters i have met do it to inconveince people in an attempt to sway them to thier side. i hated when all those idiots tied up the streets around penn station(NYC). people have lives to lead and shit to do. stop wasting my time b/c you cant do anything for your cause other than standing in the streets. go get an education in law and fight for it.

[brakada]

1. dont associate the general population with a group of old liberal elitists who could tell the french leadership to fuck off. they did a BS stupid move to attempt to show they didnt like what was said at the time.

I was just teasing you a little... :wink: but you must admit there are a lot of anti-french sentiments all around America, basically because of the french disagreement with US foreign policy...

people have lives to lead and shit to do. stop wasting my time b/c you cant do anything for your cause other than standing in the streets. go get an education in law and fight for it.

Well, if they were disturbing you directly, you have the right to punch them... :wink: I was talking more about anti-bush protestors globally (around Europe and the rest of the world)...

[davetlv]

I was just teasing you a little... :wink: but you must admit there are a lot of anti-french sentiments all around America, basically because of the french disagreement with US foreign policy...

Anti-french sentiments, as you put it, is not just something that comes out of the USA, a lot of the English speaking world share those views, just like there is a large amount of anti-anglo sentiment coming out of France.

Makes me yearn for the good old days of colonialisim!

[Civic_Zen]

Chirac and Blair don't go invading countries on the scale Bush has...they are relatively low profile in international politics compared to Dubya, and they sure as hell don't take such an extreme position, religiously and politically.

Oh really?? It isn't an extreme position to take sides with the most extreme radicals on the planet?? And insisting that the most tiranical leader of our time be burried in France after his death?? The ties between France and the underground movement against Israel, and most of the west are too many to deny. Thats why they were so against the war in Iraq, they were taking stance with the other side. Maybe your narrow one sided view doesn't allow you to see it because France is indirectly involved, as Saddam was too. But they are and were nonetheless involved.

[Yao]

Oh really?? It isn't an extreme position to take sides with the most extreme radicals on the planet?? And insisting that the most tiranical leader of our time be burried in France after his death?? The ties between France and the underground movement against Israel, and most of the west are too many to deny. Thats why they were so against the war in Iraq, they were taking stance with the other side. Maybe your narrow one sided view doesn't allow you to see it because France is indirectly involved, as Saddam was too. But they are and were nonetheless involved.

Hey, I didn't say I approved of that, did I? How come that when they don't take the side if the US, they're instantly taking sides with the most extreme radicals on the planet? If you really think it is like that, you seriously need to find some different sources of news and opinion my friend...

Can't blame you for describing Arafat as the most tyrannical leader of our time. They don't feed you any other info on they guy over there I guess, which is pretty logical given the US policiy on the Middle East. He was a crook, but I think there was more to the story than they're telling us...too many factions and split-offs to blame just one guy.

You're actually saying France has (in)directly supported terrorism. That is pretty heavy my friend, and you'll have to come up with some very, very hard evidence before anyone is going to believe that. And you can't. This is becoming dangerous, views are getting extremer by the day, and people are making serious accusations out of rancune at the moment. you don't have to like the French, but the US is no better than they are, just look at history. Both have the same record of supporting regimes through backdoor politics, and even managed regime changes that way. Both have mainly focused on their political and economical interests in he past, and are still doing that now.
It bothers me, all this blind Europe bashing without even trying to look at what we have done right in the past, and still do. It bothers me, this blind faith in muscle politics, and in the belief that only the gun can force changes for the good.

Most politically engaged people on this board know me for someone who has always tried to find the middle, see both sides of the story. I'm very critical on Europe, too, but I despise the way some American politicians and other people are trying to put it down all the time, like Europe is one big useless political pile of shit. This is taking the looks of an ideological battle, and we've all seen where that leads to.

Maybe your narrow one sided view doesn't allow you to see it

Thnx for the compliment. I'm not the one with the one-sided view here.

[Civic_Zen]

Not even close to the same. Chiroc is a crook, and the French government idolizes what Arafat did. That is support enough. There are different kinds of support my friend, spoken and unspoken. France nevertheless supported Arafat, and Iraq both. If by no other means that saying that Saddam doesn't need to be taken out of office, that is support for what he is doing. It may not always be so black and white, and how the US did it isn't necessarily right. But Saddam WAS a black and white issue, he either needed to be taken down, or not.

Chiroc and the French government have said some seriously strange things. Even after the incidents in your home country took place, it was France who was on the forefront of trying to hide that for what it was. That is support, even if not direct support. I'm not saying Chiroc sends checks out to the al-quada and the like. I know a lot of dutch people too, some just visited over the hollidays for a wedding down here. Crazy wedding BTW, when you make 7 figures, they are always fun. Any way, the fact is that we were just talking about the incidents in Holland and how so many over there changed their views overnight. Its pretty much the same thing that happened in the US, except 9/11 was a lot bigger. Obviously you are all very liberal for the most part, but more and more of them that I talk to have come around, and see more of what is going on.

http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/jacques_iraq.htm#n6

Here is a link for your reading pleasure. Make sure to visit all of the sources for anything you might question. And this is just Chiroc and Saddam in cahoots. I'll try to find some about what he said after 9/11, which caused the huge freedom fry ruckus, which maybe was going too far. But not when he says something to the extent of we deserved what we got. And some stuff on him and Arafat

[Civic_Zen]

Another double post, but I don't care. Here is some interesting reading for you, since I know you like the liberal news. Even they know whats up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/decision_makers_and_diplomacy/58568.stm

And I have a lot more where that came from. Stay tuned.

[Yao]

Okay hold it: first of all, I may have jumped the gun a little here. Seems I don't really cope well with the ongoing lashing out on Europe...but:

Let's make the difference here. I did know about the realtionship between France & Saddam. That is what bothers a lot of Europeans btw.

But I still don't see the link with supporting terrorism. France did have ties with Arafat, but it wouldn't so stupid to support terrorism that would eventually hurt itself, either openly or covertly.
There must be more to it, France has always gone it's own course, but usually in the interest of Europe as well. The French mentality is not one of cowardice, mostly one of political and economical benefits. That is easy to see when you study it's colonial history in Africa.

If France is still having ties, it will be because it thinks gain economically or politically from it. Smart? No, but on the other hand it always tries to use it's influence there when needed. If anyone would have had a chance of making Saddam retreat, it was France. They didn't succeed, unfortunately.

I'm looking onti the France-Palestine link now, I'll see what I can find about that.

Let's both stay tuned :wink:

Oh, by the way: did you know it is a DUTCH merchant that sold the Sarin gas to Saddam...? People here are out for his head man...