2004 Election : what now ?

jhuskey

No offence JHuskey meant - in my using the term Yank.
Should have used ther term, American.[/QUOTE]


None taken! Just my attempt at humor.

__________________
Whenever I can't get excited about riding I just fantasize about someone else's bike.

Carrera

The way things stand I think we'll see a real divide between Europe and the U.S. now Bush has been elected. I think there may have been some basic divisions even if John Kerry had got into office - simply because the U.S. has swung way to the Right over the last decade, while Europe has adopted more of a socialist political bent.
I think Tony Blair will do his best to try and unify the E.U. and the Bush Administration but don't rate his chances very highly. There is basicallly no way France or Germany will find any common ground with Bush - even if they want to.
However, I think Europe needs to get its act together. Europe is now the strongest economic power on the globe but needs to follow through the idea of a European intelligence network and organised military to rival NATO.
I also reckon that no matter how much you dislike Bush Junior, Europe still owes a kind of historical debt to the U.S. for investing billions of dollars on European defence during the Cold War. The Europeans were too lazy to invest money in their own defence and simply allowed America and Russia to build up their arms. They became mere pawns in the process so that only France is a nuclear power today (while all the other European countries are paper weights). If not for the U.S.A. we'd possibly all be communist dictatorships, of course.
But, at present, I think Europe will go in a different direction. And Bush won't take enough notice of the E.U. until we can pack a big enough puch to send troops out into trouble spots as well.
Good post Limerickman.

limerickman

Carrera,

You raise some very interesting observations here.

Europe owes an historical debt to the USA, I agree - but not Bush junior though.

I would like to see the EU work closely with the USA but I think that it is impossible to work with a US govermentthat which acts unilaterally and on the basis of doctored evidence and lies (ie Iraq).
And we both agree that neither Germany/France and the majority of the EU could tolerate working with such a goverment and this is only right.

I'd like to see a EU military force as you point out - to counterbalance NATO and I would also like to see our intelligence agency here in Europe (the skeleton is in place with Interpol - just need to embellish it).

The EU is the major econoomic power in the world and we need to build on that power and to act as a trading block.
I'd like to see more engagement with China and other countries like India and to move.

Thanks for the reply, Carrera.

Carrera

Europe owes a debt to the U.S. I confess.
We basically sponged off America for years which is something that irritates then now we seem to be so critical.
It's important to remember that Americans had to tighten their belts to be able to afford the arms build up they needed to secure to protect Berlin, France and Britain during the Cold War. Most of the burden fell on the American taxpayer's wallet but Europe should have invested in arms too. Then, there wouldn't have been a problem of unilateralism.
My ex-girlfriend is from L.A. (originally from Connecticut (did I spell it right) and I think she dislikes Junior as much as I do (or maybe as much). Last I heard she was voting for Bob Dole or someone or other.

Ssushi

Concerning Berlin; that was the US commander in Europes fault for not following orders and moving on Berlin when Monty was supposed to. The following sequence of events and delays allowed the USSR to grap the east side of Berlin. I'm not having a go but think this is an important point, bearing in mind the recent topics on US military etc... the point is, if you ended up having to stay in Europe longer - you brought it on yourselves.

PS When does 'our dept' end? What about your dept to us for dropping you off in the land of hope and glory in the firest place? You dont hear us wittering on about that do you?

jhuskey

[.

PS When does 'our dept' end? What about your dept to us for dropping you off in the land of hope and glory in the firest place? You dont hear us wittering on about that do you?[/QUOTE]

Being part Cherokee (Native American) you really don't want me to answer that. I could go on for days about debt owed. So tis probably best to move to problems at hand take from the past but not dwell on it.
Just one crazy (part indian's) opinion.

__________________
Whenever I can't get excited about riding I just fantasize about someone else's bike.

szbert

"Dropping us off.??" So that's what you call the British slave trade that put my ancestors here? You're in denial buddy.

America beats the hell out of any country in Africa - but I don't think it's something you limeys should be bragging about.
"Hey, we bought a bunch of africans, chained them up, put them in slavery for generations in our Carribean plantations . . . for their own good!"

mjw_byrne

I believe I was civil - I have accused people of being hateful and aggressive because that's how they have acted, but I said what I had to say in a civilised manner - just stating facts. I'm not trying to offend anyone, merely point out that some posters here need to learn some manners.

p38lightning

It was a good friend from the U.K. who years ago taught me to appreciate the rambling of political pundits, and the "post sphincter smoke screens" of the spin doctor toadies, of U.S. political parties. The U.S.government will never be so precarious as to be in jeopardy, because of the comments of such individuals, on the night of an election. If as a people we are so susceptible, it should be nothing but welcome news to many of you, as this is most assuredly a sign of weakness, and vulnerability on our part.

As to moving away from us,or standing by our side, do what ever you think best, most profitable, most expedient. What we count on as a people, is not being able to count on you........Never have, Never will!

While it is perfectly true that as a nation we are motivated by our own power ,and self interest, so WERE most European nations when they had power to pursue self interest. (Even the most superficial understanding of European Colonialism amply illustrates this.) In the end however,what I suspect you find most irritating, is that you'd all be speaking German or Russian now were it not for our commitment as a nation to defend your way of life in WW2, and the Cold War. Were I in your place I would also find this a "bitter pill to swallow."

limerickman

Indeed.
That's why Blair is being asked to send more troops to Iraq - because your
doesn't rely on any one else, so.





Called imperialism - granted.
Does the USA support Imperialism ?
I suggest that it does and is.




What's wrong with speaking German ?
All Europe is German - from the Her Majesty and her family (real name Sax-Coberg, not Windsor) to the Saxony-Celtic dynasty.
We're all nasty Germans !

limerickman

Here is an editorial from Europe on Bush's win : worth reading.


The manner of George Bush's capture of the White House in November 2000 cast a long shadow of dubious legitimacy over the politics of his entire first term. That shadow was further clouded by the increasingly partisan manner in which, after a deceptive few weeks, Mr Bush chose to govern his divided nation. It was then darkened still further by the increasingly calamitous "war presidency" that America's leader proclaimed after the brutal attack of September 11, 2001. So in some quarters the reflex response to the presidential election of November 2004 has been to emphasise how little has changed. Another even more bitter contest, costing millions more dollars, has produced another knife-edge electoral college result, excepting 2000 the closest since 1916. Is this not proof that the United States is as much at war with itself in the aftermath of the second Bush victory as it was after the first?

Up to a point. But there is a very big difference - and it matters. In 2000, half a million more Americans voted for Al Gore than for George Bush. This week, on a radically increased turnout, some three and a half million more voted for Bush than for John Kerry. Here's another difference: in 2000, Mr Bush took Florida (and thus the presidency) by only 537 highly contested votes, a margin of a mere hundredth of a percentage point. Yesterday, Mr Bush captured the sunshine state by more than 360,000 votes, a clear majority of five full points. And here's a third difference: four years ago, Ralph Nader, the third party candidate, took enough votes to hand the White House to Mr Bush. Yesterday, the Nader effect faded into insignificance.

Mr Bush, in other words, has a mandate of the kind he did not have before. Yes, it was a narrow win (unusual for presidents seeking re-election), but it was a considerably larger one, in popular vote terms, than Kennedy in 1960, Nixon in 1968 and Carter in 1976. It was also a decisive one, made sweeter for the Republicans by their strengthened control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. We may not like it. In fact, to tell the truth, we don't like it one bit. But if it isn't a mandate, then the word has no meaning. Mr Bush has won fair (so far as we can see) and square. He and his country - and the rest of the world - now have to deal with it.

Mr Bush faces a clear choice at home. He can treat his mandate as a blank cheque to govern in the interests of the conservative (and for conservative read, in many cases, anti-black) voters who backed him in such numbers - shaping a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, waging war on legal abortion, amending the constitution to prevent gay marriage, unpicking affirmative action, limiting and marginalising dissent still further, flirting with the notion of declaring the USA an explicitly Christian, English-speaking nation, seeking in all things to construct the conservative Republican hegemony for which Karl Rove has long dreamed and schemed. Or he can recognise the greater wisdom and the greater long-term security that mutual respect and bipartisan reconciliation will provide to a United States, and to a wider world, in which the belief in America's manifest destiny is not shared with such fervour as it is among evangelical conservatives - or even shared at all. We have few illusions about the course he will take. Yet both America and the world need a handshake right now, not a clenched fist of defiance. In an interconnected world, such choices matter and shape all our uncertain futures.

jhuskey

My point is that your statement "make the US fall in line" is offensive to me and you probably don't want to compare track records on aggressive behavior. The UK controlled a great part of the world at one time and didn't do it by unilateral land grants and none of us are completely innocent, but yes people are offensive and full of spite here in this forum so let's move on I may learn something and that is why I originally came here to this forum,to learn.

__________________
Whenever I can't get excited about riding I just fantasize about someone else's bike.

mjw_byrne

I don't want to "compare track records" because the track record of a country means a lot less than the track record of a person. Holding England's behaviour in Imperial times against it is pointless because the people who did that stuff are dead now, so it's not relevant to the people you're talking to. It's a bit like having something against modern Jews because their ilk nailed Jesus up two millennia ago.

As for making the US "fall into line", you have to admit that the US is currently out of line. It regularly refuses to cooperate with other nations on global issues. It causes vast amounts of deaths overseas for highly questionable reasons. It has even started removing the rights of its own people. It's not a question of attacking or being insulting, it's just stating the way things are.

jhuskey

NO!!!!! I don't have to admit anything and that is the point I was trying to make.
You cannot debate successfully if you immediately put a person on the defensive. You can't shove a opinion down someone throat.
You are stating the way that you see things and not necessarily the way things are. If you stereotype,generalize or state absolutes you are probably not open to different perspectives
PS: I am one one those people that you say have had rights compromised ;therefore am a better judge of that, but I do fully agree that individuals need to take more personal responsibility. Not one or two but all.

If you do not see the point I am trying to make, I am at a loss but be prepared to be met with the same hostility and polarization that you were criticizing.

__________________
Whenever I can't get excited about riding I just fantasize about someone else's bike.