Posted on 03/17/2003 5:05:50 AM PST by ~Vor~
It's far more likely that conservatives will be strengthened and twits like Germany's Schroeder will be tossed on their ear.
Witnessing 3000 innocent civilians die in an inferno will do that to a person.
Uhh, how will a Socialist EU be stronger? Have you been asleep for the past 80 years?
The UN has a great chance of falling into irrelevance. The UN being France's only source of world power, they will find themselves out of power in the EU also.
Actions have consequences.
This statement, is on it's face, correct. A closer look at our relationship with France will however show that she is our friend when it suits her aims. Only when pushed by her old enemies the British or the Germans does France remember to be our friend.
I believe we had a treaty with South Vietnam. It may have been semi-bogus, but it existed.
Korea was a U.N. operation, wasn't it?
This statement, is on it's face, correct.
Didn't the French chop off the heads of the people who supported us in the Revolution?
"Safer for Socialism"? Yeah, right. The socialists right now, right at this very time frame, are at the pinnacle of their power and influence in Europe. The last dying gasps of a profane, unnatural and irresponsible theology will from this point on see diminishing returns, sometimes quite rapid and startling. Borne on the wings of revolution in the early 20th century, socialism seems doomed by a triad of competing political realities that it may never recover from.
This triad is (1) the realization, finally, that socialism doesn't work, never has, and never will; (2) the new Bush doctrine buffeting it from conservative (right-wing) governments in the US and in other states relavent to the region; and (3) the inexorable pressures from below from Islam.
Demographics do not favor the growth of socialism in Europe for the next 20 to 50 years. The area is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The main features of this demographic Doppelgänger are declining birth rates and the immigration flood. Of course, if Europe fails to address these problems, making the Union safer for socialism will not only become the least of their problems, it may cease to be an option at all.
Blair may or may not be in trouble. As soon as the Frenchies expressed their desire to overrule anything British, his countrymen reverted to national instinct. Almost immediately support for both Blair and the war increased, and continues to do so even as we speak.
I'm getting a little tired of these "polls" that show a position's support at 70, 80, or even 90 percent, as Tim Russert belched yesterday. Where have you ever seen figures like that on anything, especially in Europe?!? Well, Bush I was at 91% after the first Gulf war, but what ever happened to him and that level of support? Clinton, in periods between elections, was in the 60's, but oddly never got to the coveted 50% in any national election. Hmmmm....
It is possible that in some areas figures could approach this level on the antiwar theme, but if that is truly the case, then the EU is in a lot more trouble than it, or most observers, realize. Being "anti" anything is not a good foundation for a union, especially one as ambitious as the EU. That's one reason I feel confident that that union is not going to make it. (Oh, there are lots of other ones, too, but we'll save them for another time.)
If all these "conservative" governments are in trouble in "socialist" Europe, how'd they get elected in the first place? While I agree that the constant (left-wing) media drumbeat does have an influence (it's worse over there than it is over here), it's awfully hard to ignore reality when you realize that the ass that the alligator just bit was yours. That's what determines elections, and that's what a lot of Euros will see when they look out their windows come election day.
"What is your position on the issues, and why should I support and vote for you?"
"I am against the Americans and all they have done to make our current lives a living hell."
"I see. Anything else?.
"I support Paris and Berlin forcing us to accede to their every whim and command. Other than that, no."
That sounds like a winning platform anywhere in Europe, save for France and (maybe) Germany. But trust me, they've already been written off.
When times are good, Europe, it seems, can fancifully entertain itself with Utopian dalliances. We are not, however, riding the crest of good times. That being the case, most of these states in question will either find leadership defined by their leaders, or their leaders will find it pushing up from below, in which case the current ruling cliques could (and probably will) find themselves on the outside looking in.
Yet, you believe the EU will be strengthened, and NATO weakened, eh? You're probably right about NATO. It's time appears to be coming to and end. Oh, it'll take a little while, but the handwriting is there on the wall for all to see.
The EU continues to survive, wheezing and groaning, in spite of itself, not because of it. And given the current divsions that are highlighting fizzures, fractures and splits that always existed but were thrust into the closet to impress the company, it shouldn't be too long before we see that frail entity go on life support.
You think this is a great job? I'll give my take on this. This current President, the illegitimite one who stooped to stealing an election, who is probably the most mentally incompetent man to ever sit in the Oval Office, who has no initiatives of his own, who relies on his daddy too much, who finds himself in a constant state of "eyes wide shut", knows exactly what he is doing. Like Secret Agent Maxwell Smart, he gives every impression (to the untrained eye) of beng an incompetent in way over his head, but by the end of the show we'll see he's turned out to be smarter than everyone else.
You just wait and see.
CA....
Well yes, but keep in mind that they too were French, so it should not count against them! ;-)
The big question is whether North Korea or Iran is next.
And I would add that those who are with us on this will see their fortunes improved. This anti-war move by the democrats will turn out to be the biggest disaster-gamble a political party has ever taken.
Bush did not take on this war without provocation, we were attacked. what is newly realligned is a world wide movement of the "non-country" international terrorists and their supporting nations (like Iraq). so it looks like we are going to war against a country, when actually we are going to war against terrorism.
Bush was the first president to be in a position to do something about this. (With 9-11 and majorities in both houses.) Of course Cllinton also had a chance to take on this role, but he had Monica to deal with and perhaps like his party, he had a willingness to lend aid and comfort to the terrorist supporting dictators of the world.
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.