The game of leader:
Q- What do you think about USA? What are they doing right and what are they doing wrong ?
Q- What do you think about Europe? What Europe is doing right and what is doing wrong?
Q- Are they (USA and EU) doing a kind of "cold" war for leadership?
Q-Is the battle of Dollar and Euro the latest version of economic confrontation between these two superpowers and how will it effect the whole world?
Q- Does America want to monopolize the World or is Europe on its way to do so?
Q- And finally, what is England doing right and what is doing wrong in relation to this issue? What are your opinions about Euro?

Q- What do you think about USA? What are they doing right and what are they doing wrong ?

They should stay in their own country and sort out their own problems - such as why they DIDN'T elect Bush the chimp (http://www.bushorchimp.com/). The are not the world's policemen - that's why we have the UN Peacekeepers. 70% of the US public believe Saddam Hussein was personally involved in '9/11'. They should spend time educating their ignorant people.

No WMDs have been found - almost two years on after the original search. If they want to find something they should send in the judges from the "European Capital of Culture" because if they can find culture in Liverpool they can find anything!

Q- Are they (USA and EU) doing a kind of "cold" war for leadership?

I wouldn't say so. Europe is about unification between countires, US is about world domination.

Q- Does America want to monopolize the World or is Europe on its way to do so?

See above.

Q- And finally, what is England doing right and what is doing wrong in relation to this issue? What are your opinions about Euro?

Definetly wrong. By siding with the US Blair has alienated the British public, made our name mud throughout Europe when we should be leading Europe and has made us a bigger target for terrorists. This is a war we cannot win against an enemy we cannot see.

I personally am in favour of the Euro. A friend of mine has a business in Ireland and it is good for him, but inflation has gone up. It is cheaper for them to come to the UK and shop, whereas it was the other way before the Euro.

Originally posted by alchresearch
70% of the US public believe Saddam Hussein was personally involved in '9/11'. They should spend time educating their ignorant people.
It isn't the peoples fault what they see and hear over on the TV and the papers. Also I think YOUR judgement might be a little tainted and clouded had YOUR (and mine) country had been rocked to it's core by a terrorist act of this magnitude.

OK The USA may bring problems on itself sometimes, but you can’t stand here with your moral high ground and say they aren't the worlds policemen. Let me tell you something, the USA have serving military in active duty in many many countries over the world as we speak. Why? Because these countries requested there help. Fact is that without America intervening in some of the worlds problems (and in doing so make them the worlds enemy's) the world would be ripping itself apart. With wars everywhere. For a start North and South Korea would be killing each other.

OK UN forces play their role.. but not even anywhere near the scale that America does. OK America may have vested interests in some of these policing zones. But so what? Oil? Big deal if Iraq was about oil. You and I both know Saddam was killing his own people. He was a little Hitler.. no two ways about it. OK if he had actually had these WMD like Blurgg and Bush said, I have NO DOUBT that he would have been plotting to either use them himself... or sell em to some terrorists to use against the world.
And America and the UK stepped in to a) stop Saddam killing his own people and stop a potential world threat. b) well if I was risking more terrorist action against my country, I'd want something to show for it. Oil!

I may not like Blair and his tax the nation regime, but I wouldn't back Europe over the states ever. The USA are out allies and friends. France and Germany don't give a toss about the UK and never have. The French government are a bunch of sit on their back side wimps who are too gutless to see a problem before it happens and deal with it.

I wouldn't say so. Europe is about unification between countries, US is about world domination.
The US couldn't give a monkeys about dominating the world. If they did I'm sure they would have kicked most of Europe’s bums by now. Because lets face it. They could if they wanted to.

By siding with the US Blair has alienated the British public, made our name mud throughout Europe when we should be leading Europe and has made us a bigger target for terrorists. This is a war we cannot win against an enemy we cannot see.
As above. The French and Germans have never been bothered over the UK anyway. even after we stepped in... oh and the USA stepped in to save their ungrateful sods bums from the Nazis.
The French are a bunch of little boys trying to play little boy games in a big boy world. As are Germany. Although I have a lot of respect for the Germans for the most part.
And about terrorists. Why is this a war we cannot win? Because we cannot see em. Oh ok. Lets just give up then. Let the terrorists win? Screw that. They wanna hide in the dark and be cowardly when they bomb innocent people. I'm not rolling over for them or anyone else. We have military intelligence that can track these losers where ever they go. We may have become a bigger target for terrorists, but why should you, I or anyone else be submitted into livin in fear of these parasites? That's all they are, a cancer on humanity! Every disease has its cure!

Originally posted by DaBouncer
And about terrorists. Why is this a war we cannot win? Because we cannot see em. Oh ok. Lets just give up then. Let the terrorists win? Screw that. They wanna hide in the dark and be cowardly when they bomb innocent people. I'm not rolling over for them or anyone else. We have military intelligence that can track these losers where ever they go. We may have become a bigger target for terrorists, but why should you, I or anyone else be submitted into livin in fear of these parasites? That's all they are, a cancer on humanity! Every disease has its cure!

If you have mice, you don't start tearing down a house to get them (unless it is the film Mousehunt).

Terrorists are akin to cancer and the military operation in Afghanistan and Iraq has hardly been a surgical operation.

This 'military intelligence' has so far failed to find Hussein or Bin Laden.

Some links here on US world domination:

http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/blueprint.html



http://www.sundayherald.com/print27735 (http://www.sundayherald.com/print27735)


http://www.itv.com/news/119348.html (http://www.itv.com/news/119348.html)

There are loads more too.

So it's posted in the tabloids. OK that's real. :o :roll:

If the US were hellbent on world domination. I dont see invasion forces tearing new bum holes in the worlds superpower (which I might add they easily could do).

You know that dossier on Iraq's WMD was'real' also, just like the 'blueprint for US world domination' is also real.

Crikey have you been reading the National Enquirer? You know Elvis lives happily on the moon too.

The US public may be a little under educated in world affiars. The American public may believe so much in the Stars and Stripes that they feel there own country can do no wrong in the world and shut their eyes to everything else. Is that there fault or the fault of the people hiding stuff from them?

If the UK is was the point at which all of the worlds fingers were blaming for the worlds problems. I'd probably shut my eyes too and give a nice big FU sign back.

I've lived and worked in the states and found the people there to be forth coming, welcoming and pleasant. They dont like war anymore than anyone else, but the fact is; America is THE only country to take an interest in stopping the world from going nuts. As I've said before they take a lot of flack and terrorist activity because of it. And due to this fact I would want omething in return. If oil is that return for the states. So what!

I see you neglected to pickup on my other points at how the states are THE only country in the world do something about these other countries waring with each other. And being the only other country to take heed on what 'could have been' in the future, a very serious problem from Saddam (whether directly or indirectly)!

OK it wasn't the greatest of procedures bombing iraq and afghanistan. But it got the job done in the most part. Completely knackered the taliban and Saddam regime. OK they haven't found Bin Laden. It's a big world out there with lots of little people. Have you ever stop to think he may be dead?

But you can't fight terrorism with armies. You only have to look at Northern Ireland to see that.

Originally posted by alchresearch
But you can't fight terrorism with armies. You only have to look at Northern Ireland to see that.

But that isn't what you said first.

Originally posted by alchresearch
This is a war we cannot win against an enemy we cannot see.

You were talking as if we have to just roll over and take it. No chance. Not for me.

And you can fight with armies. You just need to re-evaluate your tactics and procedures. Fight smarter. Fight fire with fire. Swordfish has got the right idea (even if it is just a film).

Originally posted by DaBouncer
But that isn't what you said first.


You were talking as if we have to just roll over and take it. No chance. Not for me.

And you can fight with armies. You just need to re-evaluate your tactics and procedures. Fight smarter. Fight fire with fire. Swordfish has got the right idea (even if it is just a film).

So was the James Bond film I just watched......

I know many people don't like the politics but I would like to have everybody's opinion. Sometimes I don't like the idea of the inferiority about what's happening to our country and around us.
The first thing, if we have to refer to the USA, we have to refer the present polity of Bush. If it was for the past, I've had a lot of respect for Clinton and the way he was leading the USA. But, what's happening with USA now?
To be honest I don't like the way Bush is leading and the way he is doing things. It looks like he suffers from egoism. Egoism itself it's not part of democracy. It means that he is rushing in a different way of democracy, called dictation. " What I'm doing is right and the future will judge it" it's not an expression for nowdays, it was used once upon a time from Hitler.
The second thing, if we have to refer to Europe, we have to refer to all Europe and not only to a particular state, otherwise our opinion will be influenced by other historic issues or general opinions about that country.

Da Bouncer, I salute you - you make some good points.

There are many things I want to address on what a number of you have said, but I do not know how to do 'multiple quotes'.

But.

Don't be naive, and think that criticism by France and Germany of US and UK is fair criticism, as it is not. Remember that these two countries have had delusions of grandeur, and wanted to be top dog for so long now. It is less than 60 years since Germany made its last try at domination of Europe, and while I do not advocate holding that against them for ever, we must look to history to stop the same things happening ad infinitum. And my friend France? Well, at that same time of huge conflict, the French couldn't wait to get into fast retreat mode. At that time, the UK could only manage an Expeditionary Force as the do-gooders and the save-money-ers combined to reduce the size of our armed forces, exactly the same as some would do right now.

And, by the way, the cynic in me points out that the Very Fast Train from Northern France to the South is purely so that, in the future, they can retreat faster.

In WW11, the UK held it all together, with some long range help from US(remember that to the US, WW11 is listed as 1942/45), yet at that time no one said that we were looking for world domination.

A number of news items, or news comments, have been shown as 'evidence' on this subject. Written by journalists. Now there is another beef of mine. Journalism now is global, and journalists, as a 'professional' group, have not the same respect that they had. Articles and comment are written to instruction from big business, and are terribly biased.

Most of the 'true' criticism can and must be levelled at George Dubbya Bush; in fact I think that this is the most telling criticism which can be laid at the door of the US voter - they actually voted the idiot into office.

America is probably the most misunderstood country in the World, their good intentions have always been deliberately misconstrued by trouble causing factions who revel in War and bloodshed.

The U.S.A. has always been on the side of right and opposed the wrongdoer, now, when they have been attacked by the Al-Quaida terrorists who slaughtered over three thousand of innocent civilians without any justification, they are still being condemned,why?

Bush has declared War on terrorism, in order to protect his own people and who can blame him? he has decided to take the War to the terrorists instead of waiting till they attack again, whether you like Bush or not, he is the American President and the buck stops at him.

I lived through the last War and if the world had not resisted the Nazi killers and terrorists, we would not even be discussing this subject today, get real and stop bellyaching, Do not beleive everything you read that is printed by idiot journalists, who most of the time don't check the facts before publishing.

LONG LIVE AMERICA!!!

Originally posted by halevan
I lived through the last War and if the world had not resisted the Nazi killers and terrorists, we would not even be discussing this subject today, get real and stop bellyaching, Do not beleive everything you read that is printed by idiot journalists, who most of the time don't check the facts before publishing.

LONG LIVE AMERICA!!!

Hal, what do you think of US policy in Central America? Do you remember the US Army and CIA backed Guatemalan Military being responsible for in the region of 200,000 civilian deaths?

We won't mention Chile, Nicaragua, Colombia or Ecuador - although there were horrendous casualties in all these US sponsored conflicts, no president has ever apologised for them.

But Clinton did actually apologise for the Guatemalan genocide. The US record of intervention in South America speaks for itself.

Being convinced you are on the side of 'right' rather than 'wrong' as a nation is a very dangerous thing IMO, because you can give yourself dispensation for the ends justifying means very easily.

The fact that we have both Russia and the USA to thank for not being under the Reich today (which is a questionable thesis IMO) is totally irrelevant other than as historical context.

Actions of a nation 50 years ago do not automatically confer rights to undertake highly speculative pre-emptive strikes, even if they were the 'Good Guys'.

The way America is currently behaving is outside international law. The end does not necessarily justify the means. You cannot insist that everyone else live by rules you have helped to set, and then utterly disregard them when it suits you.

I am ashamed that our own 'leader' has allowed us to be allied to the flagrant breaches of human rights currently being committed by America (ie Guantanamo Bay, their behaviour in Iraq).

9/11 was a terrible event. But it does not excuse America's (or our) behaviour ever since.

When I was growing up in the states I remember one memorable lesson by a history teacher. He told us that America was the only free country in the world. One of his examples of what a dreadful, repressed place the rest of the world was...was that people were constantly being kidnapped off the street in all other countries by government regimes in tanks, many never to be heard of again (I was put in detention for arguing against this - long live freedom of speech).
I find it really ironic that America now feels that it is within it's rights to do the same thing to 'Al Q_ suspects', AND submit them to kangaroo courts without a hope of a fair trial.
It's hypocrisy of the worst kind. And it makes me view my ex-country with utter shame and contempt...sickening.

They reckon they are the policeman of the world. I would suggest that the worst kind of policeman is a right-wing, self-righteous one seeking revenge for a wrong, running a vendetta against anyone not sharing the same religious beliefs, and who is allowed to work outside of the judicial system to bring any punishment to anyone they fancy, proven guilty or not.

Here's an extract from Michael Moore's new book which may, or may not, add something to this thread:

Questions for George W Bush (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1056628,00.html)

How do you distinguish between a terrorist group and a legitimate group that both use violence?

Well in my book terrorists use violence against innocent people in order to gain political advantage. They just decide who they're gonna kill and go out and do it.

A legitimate group has to go to the bother of getting their actions reviewed by a representative body, or a constitutionally established judiciary, and has conventions (i.e. geneva etc) that it has to follow. Even fighting against Hitler it wouldn't have been ok (for example) to kidnap loads of german and japanease kids and torture them live on radio to try and get the nazi's to surrender. But a terrorist group would do anything they could if they thought that it would get them an advantage.

This is known as the ends justifying the means.

It doesn't matter how much of an a***hole saddam was - he may well have been one of the worst dictators around but that doen't mean that the UK and US should have bombed him out.

Basically it boils down to what exactly are we defending against terrorism anyway? The right to live our lives without random nasty things done by to us by other people. And we can't defend our right to do that if we go round doing random nasty things to other humans.

Originally posted by max
Here's an extract from Michael Moore's new book which may, or may not, add something to this thread:

Questions for George W Bush (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1056628,00.html)

he's a brilliant polemicist on the left, but whilst I enjoyed reading Stupid White Men enormously, it was rather lacking in th efact checking department.

but most of the questions he poses here are vaid...

I must admit though.. even though I am a pro-american Britton, I do not like George Bush and what he stands for while in office. He IS guilty of going outside of international law, and even though the states does a lot of good in the world (which people don't like to admit) it doesn't excuse the fact that he isn't the best example of a good president.

I agree that Clinton was a better president (even given his monica lewinsky faults) and i respect him for what he did with American politics in the world.

I can appreciate that the CIA and America have over time done wrong things but I would say the good they have done (and still do) far outways the worngs. America and americans are not bad people. They sometimes just have bad leaders. As do a lot of countries. The Germans aren't bad people... they just have bad governments (as do we).

If it came down to a vote between ties with Europe and ties with America... my vote would be America hands down.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
I agree that Clinton was a better president (even given his monica lewinsky faults) and i respect him for what he did with American politics in the world.

He also did a lot to get the different factions in Northern Ireland talking.

Originally posted by cosywolf
I am ashamed that our own 'leader' has allowed us to be allied to the flagrant breaches of human rights currently being committed by America (ie Guantanamo Bay


With reference to Guantanamo. Yes, people have and are being detained there, but the circumstance of their being there is extraordinary in itself. I would be worried if they were shipping all Muslim prisoners there, but as the Richard Reid trial proved, the U.S. Justice system is being applied whenever appropriate. It is one of those examples of where the winner has written the rules to suit himself. Personally, I support what they (the U.S. government) have done in relation to this and I suggest that you should look at this countries history in regard to internment without trial and removal of peoples rights before you start slinging stones at the U.S.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but I'd be more entertaining of proposals to humanitise Guantanamo, if they were coupled with similar proposals for the UK legal system and constitution.