PDA

View Full Version : bush and europe



dead666
11-09-2004, 01:20 PM
i'm european
and I will explain you our opinion on bush in Europe

all the European do not like bush
same the English people do not like bush and also they do not love its minister to tony blair because of his support has bush, has the next election to tony blair will never be elected.
English says that to tony blair is the dog of bush


reasons:
because bush is regarded as a stupid man who acts by violence instead of acting by intelligence, it is a liar, capitalist and anti ecologist.

now the terrorists have even more hatred towards America than before.
now with Iraq there are new terrorists.
important: front, with September 11, everyone had sympathy with the amerique(with the Moslem countries)
now bush has destroy this sympathy to change it of hatred.

FoodForThought
11-09-2004, 03:56 PM
well suck it up cause we have him for another 4 years.

SicN Twisted
11-09-2004, 10:02 PM
Europeans do hate Bush. Most of them probably would also hate you.

Vera
11-10-2004, 11:58 AM
There are (shockingly enough) people in Europe who do support him (some truly ignorant fuckwits think that it's cool that he's killing the "fuckin' Arab terrorists"), but yes, the general opinion of him is negative.

cartmaan
11-10-2004, 12:40 PM
Bush is the dummest person ive ever haerd speak and i no alot of dumb ppl. But hopefully he'll dye choking on a pretzil within a 2 years

RXP
11-10-2004, 01:24 PM
(some truly ignorant fuckwits think that it's cool that he's killing the "fuckin' Arab terrorists"),.

It's funny how the hip anti war people think they're always right and act all mighty.

War is the way of the world. Short term pain for long term gain. And yes I'd be willing to die for a country I've never set foot in so eat a dick.

Vera
11-10-2004, 01:30 PM
They're not "wow, war is cool, man". They certainly wouldn't like war to happen in their own country. They think people in Iraq and Afganistan don't fucking matter. They think those civilians don't matter. They're not pro-war, they're just fucking racist.

You could call war the way of the world, you could call diseases the way of the world, you could call starvation the way of the world, those things have always existed, more or less, but does it make them right? Does it make them something we should encourage? No, it most certainly doesn't.

Vera
11-10-2004, 01:36 PM
And feel free to explain how WW2 fits the idea of "short term pain, long term gain". Vietnam? Don't make me mention Hiroshima & Nagasaki...

wheelchairman
11-10-2004, 02:00 PM
"War is the way of the world."

Come on man, that's an argument really only used by Nazis (if I'm understanding what you mean by it right.)

But then again I don't think you are serious. However with you, I have no idea anymore.

RXP
11-10-2004, 02:01 PM
You tripped up on the last two.

The Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombs have kept the peace between super powers. If the world hadn't known the devestation that the bomb could do then maybe the higher yield Nukes would have been used. The cold war would have been warm. And terrorism would be insignificant because whole countries would be fighting each other.

Also Vietnam was a messy war. There have been many papers written and books published at how the war could have been won by the yanks if the brass in Washington didn't micromanage the war. It would have been short term pain for long term gain. But no no the public opnion changed. Americans came home in body bags. It does that to you.

What I'm saying is I don't like most european countries cause they never wanna fight for anything. When Milosvich (sp) was ethnically cleansing villages it was the US and UK who bomed without approval. What I LIKE about Bush is he went into Iraq, got rid of a dictator on false pretences (the way of the world is money, oil, and empire's abusing their power, you don't like it so be it) but he got rid of him. And sure a lot of people died. But if they stay in there and sort it out right then it's all good for the future.

In the end though, the only way to truly help out countries is boost their economy. And I hate the way the Europen Union's CAP and other tarrif policies cut off 3rd world countries as do America's.

So to summerise, all western countries are dicks. Empires abuse their power. The US has abused it's power, granted. But it's the best superpower we have. And it's kept the world from killing itself for the last 60 years.

EAD.

RXP
11-10-2004, 02:06 PM
Also I was reading this really good book recently about the two superpowers. The US and "world public opinion" I strongly believe all you anti American people need to keep speaking up cause it keeps the States in line and not abusing their power too much.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I'm not naive enough to believe in world peace, to believe in no war. I believe in power. The strong will rule the weak. I believe in social darwinism. On an international scale, however. Therefore, it's best that we try and keep them in check but in the end we can only make the best of a bad situation. The world is a messed up place with messed up people.

It's really hard to transcribe my views in my head. By I truly believe in what i say. Maybe some day I'll write a book or something cause I know I have a lot of strange views but I belive they're right.

wheelchairman
11-10-2004, 02:07 PM
1.The Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombs have kept the peace between super powers. If the world hadn't known the devestation that the bomb could do then maybe the higher yield Nukes would have been used. The cold war would have been warm. And terrorism would be insignificant because whole countries would be fighting each other.

2. What I'm saying is I don't like most european countries cause they never wanna fight for anything. When Milosvich (sp) was ethnically cleansing villages it was the US and UK who bomed without approval. What I LIKE about Bush is he went into Iraq, got rid of a dictator on false pretences (the way of the world is money, oil, and empire's abusing their power, you don't like it so be it) but he got rid of him. And sure a lot of people died. But if they stay in there and sort it out right then it's all good for the future.

3. In the end though, the only way to truly help out countries is boost their economy. And I hate the way the Europen Union's CAP and other tarrif policies cut off 3rd world countries as do America's.

4. So to summerise, all western countries are dicks. Empires abuse their power. The US has abused it's power, granted. But it's the best superpower we have. And it's kept the world from killing itself for the last 60 years.



1. Incorrect, Vera was most certainly right. Japan was on the verge of surrender.
2. Yes Europeans don't like interfering in countries without a legal basis, and even then chosing to go to war is not a decision taken lightly. Which makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. As for Iraq, Iraq is doomed, it will be worse off than it was under Saddam, the US can't pacify the situation, you'd think that was obvious by now.
3. Agreed.
4. This justifies nothing except that you justify right with might.

RXP
11-10-2004, 02:25 PM
1. Incorrect, Vera was most certainly right. Japan was on the verge of surrender.


That has nothing to do with anything. I said that the devestation caused in Japan made countries, those in power realise holy shit this is insane power we can't use it. And HAS KEPT the world safe from another world war. The nuclear deterent. Mutually assured destruction. That's why I laugh at all these people who say "who invented such killing machines as nuclear bombs". They've saved more lives then they've killed.

Let us take a what if. When America got the bomb and Russia didn't have it early on in the cold war. America used a higher yield, a much higher yield bomb than those in Japan. More people would have died.

The nuclear threat has kept the world safe. I stand by my statement short term pain, for long term gain. Millions dying (was it millions?) saved the world from nuclear holocost. Sure you could have said without the bombs being dropped we could have still known the shere power of these weapons. But would it be in the back of the leaders minds in the cuban missile crisis? Millions of dead bodies in their heads?


4. This justifies nothing except that you justify right with might.

That's my whole point. Power doesn't need justification. It's just there and it's abused. We're never gonna reach a state where everything is fair and just. The world is a fucked up place. It doesn't need justification. But as I said the anti war/anti US movement is needed to act as a second superpower to the US. To keep the US on the fringe of her boundaries (note not inline, it's unlikey to do that).

RXP
11-10-2004, 02:28 PM
However with you, I have no idea anymore.

That's cause I don't know myself. One day I think one thing. The next day I think another. One day I hate life, one day I love life. One day I think Bush is evil, the next I think he's a necesssary evil. I'm a complex person who doesn't have any solid views bar accepting the world for the place that it is.

wheelchairman
11-10-2004, 02:40 PM
1.That has nothing to do with anything. I said that the devestation caused in Japan made countries, those in power realise holy shit this is insane power we can't use it. And HAS KEPT the world safe from another world war. The nuclear deterent. Mutually assured destruction. That's why I laugh at all these people who say "who invented such killing machines as nuclear bombs". They've saved more lives then they've killed.




2.That's my whole point. Power doesn't need justification. It's just there and it's abused. We're never gonna reach a state where everything is fair and just. The world is a fucked up place. It doesn't need justification. But as I said the anti war/anti US movement is needed to act as a second superpower to the US. To keep the US on the fringe of her boundaries (note not inline, it's unlikey to do that).

1. You must know how weak a foundation that theory lies on. There is no real practical evidence, it is merely subjective thought that says this. One could also as easily argue that it was the UN which prevented another WW3.

2. I had written that before I had seen what you posted.

Betty
11-10-2004, 03:10 PM
RXP, it makes me so excited that some other people agree with me regarding the "ways of the world"!!!

Social darwinism all the way!

However, I think we disagree on... determinism... and I don't think we've ever fully had that argument.

RXP
11-10-2004, 07:04 PM
1. You must know how weak a foundation that theory lies on. There is no real practical evidence, it is merely subjective thought that says this. One could also as easily argue that it was the UN which prevented another WW3.



Are you serious? You don't agree that MAD (mutually assured distruction) the nuclear deterent hasn't stopped a WW3? This isn't my subjective view. This is what stopped the cold war from getting hot. I can't see how you can argue against it. I simply can't. There's no evidence? Many people smarter than I have said the nuclear deterent has kept the world a safe place. The evidence is the fact that Kruschef and Kennedy didn't go postal over Cuba because of the distruction it would have caused. I can't see the UN stopping WW3. I really can't. Of course European union/community integration was a factor as was the UN but they pale in comparason to the nuclear deterent. We'll have to agree to disagree

And Betty, whenever the theory of everything gets solved it will prove the whole determinlistic universe. I just can't see past it. I had this epic discussion with my house mates about it. We came to the conclusion that the concept of "human free will" was valid, but the concept of true free will wasn't. With true free being the abilty to go against physics (the particles interacting with each other that the determinlistic theory rests on, cause and effect?). But the debate's gone on and on and on. It won't be proven until the physists unite the 4 forces of the universe. But then again soon as that's solved people say another thing will come along, reductionalist indeed.

And people who don't believe in social darwinism are deluded!

Redman
11-10-2004, 07:12 PM
and also they do not love its minister to tony blair because of his support has bush, has the next election to tony blair will never be elected.
English says that to tony blair is the dog of bush

There is not a chance that Blair won't win the general election.

RXP
11-11-2004, 12:34 AM
Blair rocks. PM questions is awesome. I'd vote for him just cause he's so awesome on that. Entertaining.

Betty
11-11-2004, 07:40 AM
Well, there's always the loophole... good old Heisenberg uncertainly principle... although I feel a bit sketchy using it since I don't like the way that it is interpreted.

But I'll work on solving the laws of the universe for you.

I think it's true that we can't say for sure one way or another since we don't know the absolute laws yet. But I think it's a super fun thing to debate, and I just like my position and think there are tons of arguments for it. I could easily argue the other way, but hell, I don't want to give up free will. I decided that to explain it, it comes down to a mind-body connection that is more than what we currently understand, but that is NOT something supernatural, and that could in theory be explained scientifically. Or that we, as humans, will never understand scientifically because it's beyond our range of comprehension.

wheelchairman
11-11-2004, 08:04 AM
1.Are you serious?2. You don't agree that MAD (mutually assured distruction) the nuclear deterent hasn't stopped a WW3? This isn't my subjective view. 3.This is what stopped the cold war from getting hot. I can't see how you can argue against it. I simply can't. There's no evidence? 4. Many people smarter than I have said the nuclear deterent has kept the world a safe place. 5.The evidence is the fact that Kruschef and Kennedy didn't go postal over Cuba because of the distruction it would have caused. I can't see the UN stopping WW3. I really can't. Of course European union/community integration was a factor as was the UN but they pale in comparason to the nuclear deterent. We'll have to agree to disagree


1. Yes
2. Nope don't agree. My actual opinion though is that they did play a part in preventing it. But I mean, there were dozens of military conflicts after world war 2, over 50 on the US side alone. And they had been planning on using the A-Bomb in Korea for example. So it's most certainly not the only reason. I do think several other things played a part. An important and vital part.
3. Again no proof.
4. You expect this to convince me?
5. For the entire length of Khruschev's career he had been arguing against confrontation with the west and for disarmament. He merely was following what he's always done. And through the Cuba case he was able to get missiles off Turkey as well.

offspringueuse
11-11-2004, 08:12 AM
I'm french! but alot od french don't like bush, because now alot of american don't like the french because of him!!!!! fuck off bush!!!!

RXP
11-11-2004, 08:36 AM
I'll agree to disagree.

wheelchairman
11-11-2004, 08:40 AM
Agreed.

Characters.

RXP
11-11-2004, 08:49 AM
Hahaha characters.