Posted on 11/08/2004 12:41:20 AM PST by kattracks
PARISTHE French spent the days leading up to the U.S. election cat aloging the evidence of an irreparable schism between les deux Amérique: Red states vs. blue states, coastal voters vs. heartland voters, rich vs. poor. But the re-election of President Bush last Tuesday will expose more domestic fault lines in Western Europe than in the United States over the next four years.
More than three-quarters of French citizens would have voted for John Kerry, according to international polls. But say this for the French: They accepted their electoral rout quickly and stoically.
The French — from the elites of the political class to the waiters in cafés — understood immediately that they could no longer view their two-year-old split with America as a temporary quarrel with a barely legitimate president. The Le Monde newspaper called Bush's triumph "a conservative revolution." Le Figaro lamented that "this year, the Democrats' resounding defeat cannot be doubted."
[snip]
And when Bush reforms America's Social Security system during his second term, America will leave France and Germany further behind — because an aging Europe faces the same entitlement-reform challenges that America is finally confronting.
So Bush's second-term mandate for Europe is: Change economically, or admit your political irrelevance.
Europeans loathe the message. But after last Tuesday, they know they are in no position to fight the messenger.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
OK, probably 2 sides to the story. I hope you're doing the right thing.
I'll read the info I got from another person, too. Looks like a lot.
We do need to talk to each other, you know. I don't know where you live, but people in the cities are ***SCARED*** of getting hit again. Lots of tears that night. You won an election, but the two sides will have to convince each other that they're reasonable human beings if we are to get through the next four years.
We can disagree, that's OK, but we are not enemies.
McGovern got his ass whooped, but Vietnam was still stopped. Our opinion does mean something, but I think as long as we are convinced that the country has not gone mad, we'll do what's best for the country.
OK, answer to questions:
Nobody that I know trusts Kerry, which is part of the reason he lost. Lesser evil, in the opinions of everyone I know who voted for him. I don't think he would have gotten us into this war, but of course he's scum. By the time it was clear to us that Howard Dean was a loonie, it was too late to find an electable antiwar candidate.
You do understand that virtually nobody really endorsed Kerry, don't you? They believed that Bush was the worst pres in our history, not that Kerry was good.
And if Bush believed Saddam had WMD, no, he wasn't lying.
I could see the strategic advantage, but if you think he was good enough buddies with Syria to give them his WMDs instead of blowing up Israel when he had nothing to lose, I don't know what to say.
One last point. Remember the tape released by bin Laden 4 days before the election? Did you take the time to read the transcript? It sounds just like a Kerry campaign speech. Seriously. Does that not make you look in the mirror and wonder why the world's most evil man is saying the exact same things as your party's leaders? What happened to the old Democratic party that was willing to stand up for America and didn't blame it for all the world's problems? You guys need to get away from the far-left America-hating loonies like Michael Moore, or you'll never win another election again.
It isn't that Saddam was buddies with Syria. Rather he was, or thought he could be, buddies with terrorist factions in Syria, which are not something that Assad necessarily controls. You may also recall that Saddam sent his fighters to Iran during the first Gulf War and he certainly had been buddies with them.
Oh My, there you go again. Being buddies has absolutely nothing to do with it.
You do not understand. Syria provides safe harbour for terrorists right now cause they pay. And they do not threaten regime. [Earlier, When the palestinians did cause trouble the current leaders father killed oh 30,000 or so destroying a town completely - since then they came to a more profitable arrangement]
No i would not be surprised if weapons or material was sent to Syria from Iraq.
In Gulf war part I , i was surprised that Saddam made a deal to send his surviving air force to Iran for safe keeping. This only months after a ten year slaughter between the two countries. But i have learned a lot since then and hope i am not quite so naive as i once was.
Correction: Meant to say Saddam hadn't been buddies with Iran.
Have you read this book by Laurie Mylroie called The War Against America?
She makes the case that Saddam was involved in 9-11.
I am not sure she is right, but she has some interesting information.
Also, after 9-11 how can we let someone like Saddam be sponsoring terrorists and giving them money and weapons?
He had biological and chemical weapons. If he got rid of them, he knew how to make more fast enough.
Even of OBL and Saddam hated each other, theat doesn't mean they won't cooperate against an enemy. We didn't love Stalin, but he was our ally to beat the NAZIS.
The French, Russians, Arabs and others were getting bribes from Saddam to promote his policies in the UN. He was very corrupting. I think this war is worth it.
Ok. I definitely agree that there needs to be more dialogue between the 2 parties. If we fail to understand each other's points-of-view, then we'll just drift farther and farther apart.
What turns off those of us on the right is when people like Al Gore get up on stage and start raging about how "Bush lied" or how "He betrayed this country". That's deceptive, takes advantage of people's emotions, and drives a wedge between liberals and conservatives.
As a side note: nearly all conservatives that I've talked to really like Joe Liebermann. He loves this country and when the chips are down, he's willing to stand up and defend it. We didn't vote for him in 2000 because Gore is a prick. Take a lesson from that. If you want to win back voters, get away from Michael Moore and start learning from Joe.
Forget about Europe.
Bush had better look in the mirror, the dollar is on a long term slide against the Euro along with our standard of living.
The world is threatening to dethrone the dollar from its reserve currency status, especially the oil suppliers and Asians who are tired of a dollar overhang and our burgeoning debt.
It is too late for the country to reverse course because the money has been spent. Hyperinflation is coming and the smart money has been dumping its dollar assets before it is too late.
BUMP
"Mcgovern got his ass whooped, but Vietnam was still stopped. Our opinion does mean something.." Vietnam was STOPPED? In that statement you betray your inability to come to a sound judgement, in terms of national self interest, or by broader moral criteria, even after thirty freakin years. I don't think your time here tonite is going to be to much avail.
Please define for me what a 'weapon of mass destruction is'? I've been asking this question for 3 years to whomever uses the term and have yet to get an answer.
How many people need to be killed in order for it to be a weapon of mass destruction? Is it a car bomb with a relative of yours being one of the victims? How about any bomb which can take out 1 city block ... or, just how many city blocks? Maybe it's a 2 ounce vile of poison thrown into the water supply and kills 10,000 people. My guess is, you and others have narrowed the definition strictly to some sort of nuclear device capable of turning 100 square miles into waste land.
obviously you are not very well read and get your info from the MSM..No connection between all you mention ?..I suggest Victor Davis Hanson for starts ..Iraq was for starters the $$ behind terrorist training , a breeding ground , weapons store etc ..Oh yes you must have forgotten about WTC I as well ..READ MORON
I quote Hanson
The harpies shrieked that Saddam's petrofueled barbarity was not connected with al Qaeda or even the larger wave of Islamic terrorism — as if, say, Aryan Nazis could not have had anti-democratic alliances of convenience with Asian imperialists in Japan; as if the first World Trade Center bombing, the North Africa killings, the career of Zarqawi, and the al Qaedists in Kurdistan were either nonexistent or irrelevant.
In response, George Bush maintained that Islamic fascism is global, fed by self-induced failures of Middle East autocrats, who hand-in-glove with terrorists diverted the frustration of the Arab Street against America — a hyperpower that is not, pace bin Laden, libertine Sweden but rather their worst nightmare. Autocracy is their illness, and democracy, not American apologies, is their cure.
ummm sorry we dont need to talk to each other.
i want the left in this country destroyed nearly as much as i want the terrorists destroyed. i have no use for dumbocraps ever in my life.
Your assumptions about a strong Euro are somewhat wrong, as a strong Euro vs. the $$$ isn't neccessarily a good thing for the Union countries.
Why? Because a weak dollar hurts the European export economy, i.e. it makes their exports shipped to the States more expensive vs. domestically manufactured products, hence they lose market share over here. This is a good thing for U.S. companies.
Also, U.S. exports to Euro countries are cheaper(before the tariffs are tagged on), building market share overseas (due to the weaker dollar vs. Euro), however profit margins will be down for the domestic(U.S.) manufactured goods.
Feelings...nothing more then feelings....
That must have been why they were having talks in the nineties about Saddam giving UBL refuge in Iraq, because they hated each other.
Whatever. Go forth and read some of the reports from back then.
You still have time to come over from the Dark side......
Others have mentioned a couple of good books to read, I'll just add the following for your consideration. I agree that both sides should talk more; however, whenever I've tried to have any discussion w a liberal, they keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm lying, etc., etc. and will not even listed to my point of view(of course, most of them get all their news from the Seattle PI (or a similar liberal rag in their community or CNN). Sorry it's still early here and I'm on my 1st cup of coffee, so if I incorrectly listed anything, please correct - -I do not want to be accused of lying or misleading.1. Saddam used WMD against the Kurds and the Iranians
2. There was a Cease Fire at the end of the 1st Gulf War (this was not a Peace Treaty), which stated we would cease fire if he agreed to certain items (including UN insepctions).
3. There were approximately 17 UN resolutions over 10 years stating he needed to comply. The last one (which was approved by all the Security Council members said he must comply or face the consequences).
4. He kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq in 1998-2001 (sorry don't remember the exact year).
5. He attacked our pilots in both the North and South fly zones almost daily (they had a right to be there as part of the Cease-Fire Agrmt).
6. He financed the homicide bombers in Israel - $25k to their family members.
7. All the intelligence agencies of the world (including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Russian, UK, US, etc., etc.) said he had WMD.
8. The last UN Chief Inspector (sorry, his name escapes me right now - the one that just came out of there said, while they didn't find WMD,
(a) he's not sure that they were not moved (possibly to Syria), and
(b) Saddam was just trying to bide his time and was working w the French, Chinese, etc. so that the sanctions would end and this inspector said he would have been much more dangerous in a couple of years as he was actively pursuing a nuclear program.9. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall reading that he was actually trying to buy yellocake from Africa (contrary to reports from Joe Wilson). Yellocake is used in nuclear weapons.
10. Clinton stated in 1998 that we were changing our policy to pre-emptive strikes and Kerry and all the other Dems agreed.
11. Clinton and most in Congress said in 1998 that Saddam and Iraq were threats and needed to be dealt with. And, they believed at that time he had WMD.
12. The Dems and Reps in Congress said the same as what is in #11 in 2001-2003 (don't remember the exact dates, but it was at least a couple of times during this period).
13. Ilwaqri (sp) is the most wanted terrorists in Iraq today. He is Al Queda, was injured in Afghanistan, and has been in Iraq for some time (was initially taken to one of the best hospitals). He would not have been allowed to do this without Saddam's approval.
14. There are reports of meetings of some of Saddam's men with Bin Laden's men.
15. Terrorist training camps were found in Iraq (including 1 with an airliner).
16. Americans have been attacked at home (WTC in 1993)and abroad - the barracks, embassies, the Cole, etc. over a number of years and we did little in retaliation. The terrorists kept getting bolder because we did little in response. We had to take some action or it would have kept getting worse.
17. Iraq is part of the greater WOT. We've been able to wipe out some of the terrorists, the training camps, and freeze a lot of their $s worldwide.
18. After 9-11 the Bush doctrine was that if you harbor a terrorist, fund a terrorist, you're as guilty as a terrorist (paraphrasing) and we'll come after you too (Clinton and the Dems seemed to approve of this
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.