Town Square

Post a New Topic

European trends

Original post made by Gary, Downtown North, on Apr 14, 2008

First Merkel (Germany), then Sarkozy (France), now Berlusconi (Italy). All of them replaced anti-American leaders, who led the charge against George W Bush.

I am not one to care about Europe's attitudes, however there are many American hatriots who love to ape Europeans, as long as they are hating on Bush. I just wonder how they digest the recent electoral trends in Europe. Seems very bully for GWB. At least some European sanity is emerging.

Will GWB be seen, by history, as a great world leader?

Comments (58)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by A Boomer
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 14, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Gary,

Shrub is a laughingstock around the world. He is viewed as a dim witted lightweight, and is not taken seriously. Look at what he has accomplished on his recent excursions to global meetings--nothing.

European countries elect their leaders largely the same way we do in the US, that is, based on domestic issues and to express dissatisfaction with how the incumbents are doing. Tip O'Neill's maxim applies equally to democracies worldwide: all politics is local. Shrub's being President and the point of view politicians express around him is a secondary consideration for these electorates. It is both disingenuous and a decidedly naive American trait to think that countries elect their leaders in order to please whoever the President of the United States is.

BTW, these people largely got voted into office to serve terms that overlap only a bit with Shrub. You also discredit these voters by suggesting that their choice of national leaders is largely driven by their desire to support a lame duck who will spend little time interacting with those those have elected--it will be his successor.

I also would like to know your point of view on the recent elections in Taiwan and South Korea. How do those elections fit into your world view and of how Shrub is regarded?

Most countries like America and like Americans. This affection has withstood the swagger and jingoism of Mr. Shrub, and speaks more about this country than what any administration of either party can do to affect this perception.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by hate chicken hawks
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Apr 14, 2008 at 8:27 pm

didn't spain vote out of office a supposed "pro-bush" leader? I agree with A Boomer's analysis. Typical of a chicken hawk like Gary to think that the world revolves around GWB. I guess that makes me a " hatriot".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by OhlonePar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 14, 2008 at 11:53 pm

Not to mention, of course, Bush is a lame-duck president and everyone knows it. He's irrelevant. None of the remaining candidates wants to follow his policies.

The one situation where an alliance with Bush had an impact was in Britain. Bush and Iraq destroyed Tony Blair. His own party forced him out because of it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ol' lady
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 15, 2008 at 7:05 am

Try as you will, you cannot deny that Europe is finally seeing the light. Don't forget Norway, Gary. And, of course, all 10 of the new EU countries. England is having a momentary hissy fit, being held at the neck by its BBC, but it will soon turn back as it sees what Brown is doing.

Gary, you are right, history will praise Bush 2, ( not 1), for real leadership and for bringing the right to vote to 50 million more oppressed people ( never forget, half of them female), for bringing this country prosperity in the wake of the Clinton recession and 9/11, and for keeping this country safe in the wake of 9/11.

I have my arguments with the guy, not the least of which is the (&^% border with Mexico, Social Security and Medicare, but I am very, very grateful he was the one at the helm during the last 7 years.

I am proud to have been on the correct side in this one, unlike in my youth when I was brainwashed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 15, 2008 at 11:20 am

Boomer,

I actually agree with you to a degree...most politics is local. However, you lefties were not saying this when pro-Bush governments were tossed out of office (e.g. Britain, Spain).

The three European politicians I mentioned were openly pro USA. If there was so much resentment against the USA, as the hatriots insist, then it is curious to me why these were able to achieve their victories, despite local issues. Maybe the Europeans are realizing that their future is more than just potholes and global warming...perhaps a strong alliance with the U.S. is important to them? With alliances come responsibilities, and the adults in Europe seem to be making that case.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hate chicken hawks
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Apr 15, 2008 at 12:13 pm

It is nice for the chicken hawks to think that the world revolves around GWB--however the reality, as others pointed out, is that elections are "local". i imagine very few went went to the polls in Italy thinking " I need to vote for the person that will support GWB the most".

Web Link

From the above article:


"Berlusconi capitalized on discontent over the nation's stagnating economy and the unpopularity of Prodi's government.

"I think it was a vote against the performance of the Prodi government in the last two years," said Franco Pavoncello, a political science professor at Rome's John Cabot University. "Berlusconi won because he has a strong coalition and because people feel that on the other side, the government is going to take them nowhere.""

It's the economy!!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ol' lady
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 15, 2008 at 1:23 pm

You are missing the point, Hate, ( appropriately named)..it isn' "pro-Bush" or "pro-America", but pro-captialism, pro-freedom, pro-free market, pro-security that these guys are voting for..yes, it is local, but guess what? It is also what Bush and the last 7 years of America represent.

THAT is what it all means. In spite of all the "hate America" rhetoric of the Left here and of the Left overseas, the bottom line is that the Republican-Bush way is what is selling, just under different names.
Too bad I am too mature to sign my name in like manner.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ol' lady
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 15, 2008 at 1:25 pm

If we get Clinton or, even worse, Obama, you will see a return to the right VERY quickly in 4 years, just like you are seeing in Europe. Nothin' like a little reality bitin' a country in the butt to wake it up.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hate chicken hawks
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Apr 15, 2008 at 1:38 pm

I love the way the right try to spin every event so it seems that the world revolves around GWB. Also another cute tactic is to paint everyone who does not agree completely with the Bush agenda as being a "hatriot"
spewing "hate america rhetoric".
Kind of amazing that over 70& of the citizens in the US are hatriots, since GWB's approval ratings are hovering below 30%.
Never let reality get in the way of right wing double speak


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 15, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Hate,

I reserve the use of the word "hatriot" for those who would rather see America go down, if the alternative was that Bush (or any other polictician they oppose) might go up, with America. Although I only picked up on the term within the past year, and it is not original to me, it is a very rich and descriptive term for the haters. Such haters were there, while Ronald Reagan was winning the Cold War. They are now on the ash heap of history. Nothing much has changed.

These hatriots are a small percentage of the general population, but they tend to show up on blogs like this one.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 15, 2008 at 2:46 pm

These countries are neither stupid nor insane. I doubt they gave their leaders mandates to suck up to an inept clown who's not only hugely unpopular at home, but is losing two rather small wars at once.

Or is Gary suggesting Americans should now take their clues from "Old Europe"? Is the Bush crowd, what's left of it, getting that desperate?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 15, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Hey, Hates, how do you explain me? Why do you oppose civilian control of the military? And why are you concerned about the opinion of Western Europeans? They have lost it to the dole and the foreign workers. Give us the Non-Islamic Asia and kiss the rest goodbye. The worst is behind China and ahead of Europe.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 15, 2008 at 4:49 pm

What's this GWB business? All presidents familiarly referred to by their initials: FDR, HST, JFK, LBJ, to date have been Democrats.* Are the Bushies so frantic to boost their hero's corroded image that they now try to turn his red coat to blue?

It's not altogether a new thing - Condi likes to call him the new FDR. I can't fault the Bushies, desperate times beget desperate measures, but let's be up front about this, kids.

*To illustrate - see how quick you can fill in the last initial for these: RW_, GR_, DD_, RM_, GHW_. Hint: all were reds.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sue
a resident of Ohlone School
on Apr 15, 2008 at 4:53 pm



Here is our new commander in chief.

The look of him will put terror into the heart of our enemies dont you think? see Web Link



 +   Like this comment
Posted by 2bad
a resident of Community Center
on Apr 15, 2008 at 4:58 pm

"Too bad I am too mature to sign my name in like manner."
Too bad, indeed, 'ol lady Gary.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 15, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Paul,

Was "TR" a dem?

You are now wallowing in the pit of ignorance. How about some rational thought?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 15, 2008 at 6:24 pm

TR, as in Teddy Roosevelt, cousin of FDR? C'mon. Everybody calls him Teddy.

But to answer your question: He might as well have been a dem, being somewhat leftward of most contemporary bluecoats, what with all that conservation stuff (early environmental extremism, you know).

Then there was that night he had Booker T. Washington over to dinner in the White House. The repubs of his day kicked him out of the party, hence his Bull Moose run. As with Lincoln, true latter-day redcoats would rather forget about him.

His cousin FDR got the hint and put on a blue coat, starting the string of liberal dem TLA monnikers that some people are now trying to graft Bush onto.

"You are now wallowing in the pit of ignorance. How about some rational thought?" Privately, I love it when you talk right wing. But be careful or you'll get this thread shut down. This is private property, after all.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 15, 2008 at 8:04 pm

don't feel bad, Paul-Gary also accused me of being in a " pit of ignorance" because I do not worship at the George bush altar. I consider it a badge of pride to be considered a hatriot by Gary. Free speech is a terrible thing for Gary if you use that right to criticize anything that bush said or did.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 15, 2008 at 8:28 pm

Nobody needs to worship GWB. I don't. However, I do recognize those that hate him above any sense of reason (hatriots). Marvin and Paul, you both fit the bill. Now, if you want to get rational, you should just make rational arguments. This irrational hate leads nowhere...except to the ash heap. I am sure that you both feel better about yourselves, privately, than what you expose publicly.

Marvin, one more time: Is GWB different than Pol Pot? You seem to have a constipation over that one. Just give a straight-forward answer. If you did, that might put you on the path of rationality.

You guys are making this much harder than necessary. Rational thought is not hard, in fact, it is much easier than delusional thought. Just try it. You will feel better.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 15, 2008 at 10:21 pm

These forums really need a bozo filter. It used to be Hitler, now it's Pol Pot.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 16, 2008 at 7:00 am

There you go again with the Bush/Pol Pot red herring--into how many threads are you going to carry that non-issue???
Disagreeing with Bush about how Iraq was handled, about the use of torture, about how are soldiers were equipped to fight the war, about the lies during the run up to the war, about how his inner circle bungled the war in Iraq is considered by you to be "hate above any sense of reason (hatriots)"???
It is really called democracy, Gary.
Your constant labeling of those that disagree with the Bush Doctrine as "hatriots" has already consigned you to the ash heap of minority Bush worshipers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 16, 2008 at 9:47 am

"Rational thought is not hard, in fact, it is much easier than delusional thought."

I know that, Gary. Tell it to the Rummy/Cheney/Bush/Condi/Feith/Wolfowitz/Podhoretz crowd.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter S
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 16, 2008 at 9:53 am




Paul- what do you have against the Israeli lobby?

They are just following their self interest in lobbying for us to invade Iraq and next Iran.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by ol' lady
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 16, 2008 at 10:36 am

There we go...Hitler and Jews have entered the thread..time to lock it down.

BTW to the one who thinks Pol Pot is just being thrown around like Hitler..it is in response to a hatriot who compared Bush to Pol Pot and Gary has been trying to get him/her to denounce that comparison as a sign that rational thought returning.

Kind of fun to watch.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter S
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 16, 2008 at 10:39 am




The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.

"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 16, 2008 at 10:53 am

'ol lady--perhaps you need to go back and read some of the threads to get your facts straight. I believe I am the "hatriot" you are referring to (btw--gary-like personal insults will get you nowhere).
Gary introduced the Pol Pot/Bush red herring into a discussion about a Khmer rouge survivor who compared waterboarding to torture (those of us familiar with Gary's rhetoric will not be surprised by this tactic--he uses it often to muddy the waters). I refused to answer his question. I guess you have proven that if you repeat a falsehood often enough people believe it is true.
Please get your facts straight before you make false accusations or claim that someone said something
BTW--you do not fool me, Gary, posting as your alter ego, ol lady


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 16, 2008 at 12:41 pm

The so-called Israeli lobby has a constitutional right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

OK by you, Peter?

However, the Government has a concomitant obligation to listen critically and make intelligent decisions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter S
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 16, 2008 at 1:17 pm



I do not believe the constitution supports the rights of alien nations.

Civil rights only apply to US citizens IMHO.

Meanwhile--Obama is, in his own words, something of a Rorschach test.

In his latest book, "The Audacity of Hope," he writes, "I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."

That has been confirmed thus far during this campaign, and come November, Americans will have to decide if they want a Rorschach test for president.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 16, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Do you really think there are no American citizens lobbying on behalf of Israel, Peter? That would mean the pro-Israel Bush administration has been taking its clues entirely from foreigners, right?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter S
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 16, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Paul here is some hopeful news that will change the conversation.



New Jewish-American lobby wants to be alternative to AIPACWeb Link


During its formative stage, the heads of the J Street Project were reluctant to show publicly their opposition to the strongest and most established Jewish lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

But in yesterday's conversation, this was made officially clear. "I'm not with AIPAC; I do not support AIPAC," Kovner said. The new organization will try to erode AIPAC's strength and restrain what they see as its identification with the American and the Israeli right.






 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 16, 2008 at 1:48 pm

You have a perceptible grasp of the obvious, Peter. Don't skip the meds.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ol' lady
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 16, 2008 at 2:07 pm

wow, what a shock, you mean that in America people aren't obliged to act and vote as a group? Each person can act as an individual? There isn't the "Jewish Block" and the "Black Block" and the "Woman Block" etc?

Does that mean I am free to think for myself after all?

I am shocked.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter S
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 16, 2008 at 2:12 pm





The J Street Project has a new website here Web Link


They will have a real challenge being heard over AIPACs screaming


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 16, 2008 at 2:48 pm

'ol lady,

Marvin, and perhaps others, would prefer to think that you and I are the same person. It probably shocks them that there could be more than one rational person in town. I have never met you, at least as far as I know. However, I do welcome your rational voice on this blog.

The hatriots like to use the usual leftist tactics of moral conflation. I, and others, I think, have used the old fable about moral equivalence: The thug pushes the little old lady in front of cars, as he steals her purse. A Boy Scout (be prepared, and do a good turn daily) pushes the old lady out of harms way, and gets killed by the onrushing traffic. The NY Times announces, in a small article, "Two men were reported to police for pushing an old lady around. One of them was found dead at the scene".

When Marvin conflates Khmer Rouge attrocities with CIA interoogation methods, including waterboarding, a rational person would ask him:

Marvin, are you equating GWB and Pol Pot?

Simple question.

So far, no answer from Marvin. Hatriots do not like to answer such questions, because it would cause them to use rational thought, give up arguments to moral equivalence (Reductio ad absurdum), and have their underlying assumptions destroyed. Nothing new here. I just called him on it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 16, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Gary--once again you are playing with the facts and muddying the waters--I did not "conflates Khmer Rouge atrocities with CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding".
I posted a story from CNN concerning a highly respected Khmer artist who was a survivor of the notorious S21 torture center in Phnom Penh during the Khmer Rouge days. He personally witnessed the Khmer rouge version of waterboarding and in his opinion, it was torture.
I posted the story so that people could read a story from an eyewitness to waterboarding and hear his opinion on it. I gave my opinion in the title for the initial posting.
A rational person would read the story and draw whatever conclusion they chose to draw from it ( I personally do not care what opinion Gary has about the story). A rational person would not introduce the Pol Pot/Bush red herring and then constantly bring it up, as if it really had anything to do with the issue at hand.
Your question concerning had no relevance and you "called me" on nothing. Clearly you have decided to harp on a non-issue, rather then addressing the real matter of torture by the government.

Fortunately the story is still on the CNN website. everyone is welcome to read it:

Web Link

Also anyone who is interested can read through the original thread and see how Gary likes to introduce non-issues into discussion that he has no real answer to:

Web Link

Also, Gary likes to use personal insults when dealing with those that disagree with his philosophy. "hatriot" is one of his favorite terms.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mike w b
a resident of Ohlone School
on Apr 16, 2008 at 4:17 pm



James Boswell wrote:

Patriotism having become one of our topicks, Johnson suddenly uttered, in a strong determined tone, an apophthegm, at which many will start: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered, that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak for self-interest.

Last October a contemporary figure, Barack Obama of Chicago, likewise disparaged false patriotism:

"The truth is that right after 9/11 I had [an American flag lapel] pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. . . ."

When Obama got into trouble because of the anti-American lunacy of his so-called spiritual mentor Obama made his "race" speech flanked by eight--count 'em--full-size American flags.

Obama appeared at a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania yesterday ,April 15, wearing a flag lapel pin--a symbol, according to Obama himself, of false patriotism






 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 16, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Yeah. I heard Ronald Reagan did the flagpin flip flop too. (Possibly 41 too.) You can find out anything you want if you look and listen carefully enough.

I wonder what Reagan would think about our "patriots" sporting their little flagpins from (Red) China, supporting a communist regime and calling it patriotism.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ol' lady
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 17, 2008 at 9:24 am

Yes, Gary, I am getting a laugh out of the belief that there can only be ONE right wing nut around here, so the different names are one poster. Classic leftist tool...state that a belief is in the small minority so that sheep will follow the "majority".

I used to call myself "perspective", btw, till someone else took that name. So, mea culpa from necessity, I am using a different name now. I will try using my original name in a while after I don't see the usurper in a good while.

I like that Marvin is still busy revealing how s/he thinks, in being unable to understand the reasoning for why you asked if Bush and Pol Pot are equally morally compromised.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 17, 2008 at 9:40 am

ol' lady--excuse me for thinking you were Gray--your writing style was so similar and you like to harp on the same non-issue. I am sure any rational person would have mistaken you for the same person.

BTW, I am not trying to hide how I think--it is no secret.
However you should go back to some of Gary's original posts introducing the Bush/Pol Pot red herring--you will find that the issue of moral compromise was never raised. The question that Gary asked was "That George Bush is Pol Pot?".
But it is good to see that even strident right wingers, like yourself, do see Bush as morally compromised (based on your writing above).
Just to enlighten me, why don;t you explain to everyone what is the reasoning behind Gary's Bush/Pol Pot question? The person(s) you should take issue with if you are unhappy with the CNN story I posted are the writer of the story and the Khmer Rouge survivor, since they introduced the issue of waterboarding as being torture.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by joel
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 17, 2008 at 10:03 am



Marvin- Gary sure got your goat with the pol pot/bush matter.

I fear thou do protest too much

Why are so defensive? cant you read between the lines?



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Marvin
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 17, 2008 at 10:14 am

Joel--I would be more than happy to drop the Bush/Pol Pot issue, however it seems that Gary is intent on beating that dead horse some more. It is constantly brought up by him as the proverbial "red herring". He has carried it over now into at least 3 threads and his compatriot ol lady also seems to have jumped on that band wagon, as well.

When you cannot address the issues at hand, you resort to red herrings, muddied waters, personal insults and name calling--that is what Gary is good at.

What lines am I supposed to red between?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 17, 2008 at 10:46 am

Back to basics, people. The topic of this thread is Gary thinks we should all love Bush (aka GWB, a la FDR) because that's what Gary thinks Europe is doing.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter S
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 17, 2008 at 10:56 am



Europe is waking up to its looming demographic crisis, the failure of the welfare/ nanny state and threat of islamic terrorists from
WITHIN its borders.

Traditionally the European left looked with fond eye towards communism but that God is dead.

Smart Europeans are looking to the USA for economic and social solutions. They prefer GWB and the values he represents to those of China and Iran



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 17, 2008 at 11:18 am

Is that why they sent all those troops to Iraq?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter S
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 17, 2008 at 11:33 am




Well many of them did particularly the UK.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of European troops are social workers with guns.

They are pretty hopeless and even a liability in real combat, remember the French in Rwanda and the rest in the Balkans?.

They would get in the way of US warriors, they could maybe operate as a peace keeping force, but in Iraq there was no peace to keep and when the time came they were too scared after UN official was murdered.

The Brits did their part as our traditional allies but in reality the US war fighting capability is now so advanced for the sharp edge conflict that no one could keep up with us.

The best role for the UN types is as systems administrators, this is a very different role from warrior.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 17, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Quoting Gary's kickoff posting: "First Merkel (Germany), then Sarkozy (France)"

So how many German and French troops have poured into Iraq since these worthies took office? Number, please.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter S
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 17, 2008 at 12:36 pm




If you talk to the military they will tell you they do not want German of French troops in Iraq at this point for the reason I give in my prior post.

They would get in the way and we would end up having to protect them, as they are not combat troops.


Also because France has been marginal in NATO for so long their comm3

systems are not compatible with ours.





 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 17, 2008 at 12:55 pm

"So how many German and French troops have poured into Iraq since these worthies took office? Number, please."

Paul,

Your question, though rhetorical, is a fair one. It is something that I have often cticized, namely that Europe thinks it has distilled itself beyond war. Remember when the Dutch troops were supposed to keep the peace in the Balkans, but shrank from their duty, while ethnic murder was rampant? They refused to fire a shot, becasue they had been trained as a social instrument, not a military one. However, they were still pround of themselves, becasue they openly welcomed homosexuals into their ranks (ask, tell, but don't shoot).

Peter S. has it about right. In fact, Europe is a disappearing society, as we have known it for centuries. If current trends continue, it will be an Islamist state withing 2-3 generations, and its woment will wear the burkha. Germany is currently paying its citizens to emigrate, in order to lower its own high unemployment rate, despite its below-replacemnt birth rate. Yes, it is that bad.

Yet, we have those on this blog who complain that GWB and the USA in unpopular in Europe. I ask you, or anybody else: Who really cares what the European left thinks? They have been on the ash heap for some time now, and they won't come back. Dead as a Dodo bird. Yet, they cling to their suicidal ideologies.

There is a sliver of hope in the recent elections of pro-USA political leaders, however it would need to be followed up with a general acceptance that the left is dead in Europe...that will not happen for a long time, IMO.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 17, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Very well, Peter. I doubt you have ever phoned Petraeus yourself, but it was Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush who've been touting the ever-shrinking Coalition of the Willing, and Cheney/Bush are still on their knees begging NATO for troops in Afghanistan. You believe in Cheney and Bush, don't you? Then take your clues from them.

Gary: My point is that "Old Europe" has very evidently not decided to support Bush and his war in any meaningful way. It has certainly not capitulated and come crawling to Bush. So your attempt to boost Bush by linking him with Old Europe politics is at once a feeble and spectacular failure.

I see your view of European history and society closely follows Karl Marx and Lenin. We have seen what prescient prophets they were.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 17, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Paul,

I don't think I mentioned "Old Europe". I find the Europe of the last several decades bad enough (they are the New Europe). Unfortunately, they are a socialist Europe. They would willingly convert to any given "ism" in order to have state-sponsored perks. In more recent times, this theme is called the "Social Contract" (or words to that effect).

Neither the "Old" nor the "New" Europe will fight to liberate anybody, including itself...it might take away from its 'free' health care system. Europe, today, is like an old heroin addict, on its knees, and willing to do anything to get the next fix.

There are still some adults in Europe, but the juveniles will rebel, as soon as they are requested to grow up. Europe is pathetic. The hatriots in the USA ape them. Go figure....

Give me GWB, over that crowd, anyday.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 17, 2008 at 2:20 pm

"Old Europe" was Don Rumsfeld's characterization of Merkle's and Sarkozy's bailiwicks, which you brought up at the beginning of this thread. I assumed you'd be familiar with the term. Maybe you aren't the Bushie I thought you were.

And there you go again with that Marxist-Leninist cant about class revolution remaking Europe. Yesterday's discarded liberalism recycled.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 17, 2008 at 3:03 pm

" "Old Europe" was Don Rumsfeld's characterization of Merkle's and Sarkozy's bailiwicks"

Paul,

Perhaps you could educate me on that one. I think Rumsfeld was referring to a new hope for Europe, respresentd by Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. Merkle and Sarkozy, along with Blair and the newly emerged Eastern European democratic states are examples of such new hope.

Unfortunately, the hatriots in this country, and their comrades in Europe, continue to worship the "Old Europe" of socialist suicide.

Rumsfeld got it right.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2008 at 10:59 am

On second thought, maybe you got something here, Gary. The older European generation remembers how it got badly burned experimenting with right wing utopianism: Soviets, Nazis, Fascists, and Phalangists. They haven't cared to repeat the disaster. But their young people may have to learn firsthand again.

We've been lucky on this side of the pond. So far America has gotten off lightly. Our rightist experience, while weakening and certainly deeply embarrassing the US, has come to a far less painful end than Germany's.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2008 at 11:58 am

Paul,

It is a bit hard to follow your definitions, but if by "rightist experience" you mean Ronald Reagan...forward through George Bush, then your argument fails.

Ronald Reagan won the cold war, and defeated the Soviet Union. George W Bush toppled Saddam, another totalitarian dictator. GWB is also fighting extremely reactionary religious fanaticism (jihad).

Who is embarrassed? You? Your leftie friends here? Your comarades in Europe? Your dog? I am confused by your embarrassment. Please explain.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Ronald Reagan was certainly much chummier with the leader of the Evil Empire than his predecessors, all of whom did their parts to contain and weaken it, but his kindness wasn't what killed it. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, well into Bush 41's term. As a stagnant rightist dictatorship for over 60 years, it had been dying from its internal contradictions for many decades.

Why did you leave out commie fighter Richard Nixon? Because he quit under liberal fire?

Yep, even the dog.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 18, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Paul,

Revisionist history is always,in the end, judged by its internal contradictions.

Reagan was a firm anti-communist from his early days in Hollywood, as presdient of the Scrren Actors Guild (SAG). Every post-WWII president, until Reagan, wanted to co-exist with the Soviet Union. Reagan wanted to destroy it, based on its essential evil of collectivism. Even Reagan's own inner circle told him this was not possible. He said it was. They now admit they were wrong.

Reagan re-armed America, took the ideological fight to the world, inspired millions enslaved by socialism, aligned with Thatcher and the Pope. His major weapon was SDI, which the Soviets feared immensely...they knew they could not possibly keep up with the free nations' technologies. Reagan also used other strategies, such as talking down the price of oil, in order to deprive the SU of cash to buy western technology. Gorbachev tried to resist for a time, but he finally threw in the towel.

Reagan, always the gentleman, agreed to meet Gorby, and get to a heart-to-heart (from a position of strength). Reagan was castigated by the left in the country (the hatriots of their time). Today (and going forward), Reagan is seen as a great world leader. His detractors, like yourself, are just ignored (ash heap).

Must be pretty lonely, Paul.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ol' lady
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2008 at 6:08 pm

oh, forgot about S. Korea..just elected an America lovin' president also..gosh, could it be that people are wakin' up?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 21, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Still looking to foreigners for affirmation, eh, Gary. America lovin' is good news - it means they don't like Bush either. So the South Koreans agree with 72% of Americans, OK, but I think we will make up our own minds without clues from Old Europe or Korea or anybody else.

You missed some Reagan points. First, Star Wars went flat nowhere. Some people confuse it with the antimissile system developed by Clinton, but they are very different technologies. The Russkies yelped, but so what? They griped about everything US.

But Ronnie did chum it up with Gorby, like Bush 43 and his soul buddy Putin the KGB man, and Nancy and Raisa went along because Nancy's astrologer blessed it all. It still didn't work, though, the Soviets threw in the towel when Bush 41 was in the ring.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

To Cambodia With Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 3,468 views

Early Campaign Notes: City Council
By Douglas Moran | 18 comments | 2,074 views

Life in fast forward
By Jessica T | 3 comments | 1,693 views

Medical
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,669 views

Vikram Chandra's "Geek Sublime" and 10/3 event at Kepler's
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 646 views