Either in your travels you made a concious effort to avoid western Europe, Australasia and much of the far East or you managed to travel and not take anything in. Either way your comment is pretty ignorant.
And they wonder why no-one trusts the US with the current administration in power. Basically Wolfowitz suggested using the US military to prevent competition.
How oes this fit with their current view on free trade? Oh, hang on, I remember - it means no tariffs to harm the US and no subsidies for foreign companies, but steel tariffs on imports to the US and subsidies to US airlines...
Although, I doubt at this point that we can find anyting considering we gave _months_ notice to Saddam about our intent to invade
So, unlike all military dictators in history this one destroys his most potent weapons just as he is about to be invaded? Let's think about this - he knows he will loose, he doesn't care what happens to his people (as proved many times) and he always wanted to go down in history as a great Arab hero by hurting the US. So why would he destroy his WMD? He doesn't care about retaliation by the US on his people and he could still hide whilst they nuke Baghdad. It makes no sense whatsoever.
By now, he's probably either destroyed it, hidden it hella good, or just given it to his buds the Syrians.
His good buds the Syrians? How do you work this one out? Assad has publicly attacked Hussein on many occasions. Admitedly both countries have a Ba'ath party, but saying they are same organisation is the same as claiming that the Democrats in the US are the same party as the Democrats in Germany.
Maybe it'll be the government of Germany. We put'em there, about 50 years ago, and it begins to look as though they've gone sour.
Oh, the arrogance and nationalism of America - Germany did not back your war on Iraq for very good reasons as we are now finding out. The amount of vitriol aimed at Germany and France since then has been unbelievable - the way the American press and public portray them you might think that they were more responsible than the US for the humanitarian abuses in Iraq.
Seriously, I'd push for Syria, since we're on a roll in the region,
As for Syria? Assad was the favourite of the West until the invasion of Iraq. He has been trying to implement reform (as have the secular government in Iran) which is not helped by the ridiculous behaviour of the US administration and Rumsfeld in particular.
Tough man - I can see you subscribe to the Bush view on politics of do what we want, when we want or we'll threaten you combined with the patronising arrogance that you so often claim is a European problem.
Just to point out a couple of things - it was not "Europeans" as a whole that elected Hitler or Mussolini, most of us were on the opposing side, fighting him whilst Shrub's grandpa was busy making money with the Nazi party. If it had been all of Europe that was bent on world domination under one leader there wouldn't be a US today. The Royal Navy would have ruled the North Atlantic, the German and Britsh air forces would have ruled the skies, and the German and Russian tanks would have blitzkrieged their way through the mid-west in no time at all.
It's sad that the world is changing so that we all have to start spending a fortune on arms rather than living together in peace.
that all we really want is for you to Buy Our Stuff, sell us your stuff at a fair price, don't blow up our tourists when they go over there, don't abuse each other so badly that we can't eat dinner while watching the evening news, and otherwise leave us the crap alone.
That would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that you want us to buy your stuff when your government flouts WTO rules by subsidising your industry and erects trade barriers and tariffs to prevent us selling stuff over there. And as for blowing up your tourists - which Europeans are you referring to? I don't know of any that aim for Americans. Maybe the IRA - sponsored by years by Americans? As for leaving you alone - well if the US wants to retreat into isolationism then it can, but it can't f*ck with other countries whilst claiming to want to be left alone - i.e. no attempting coups in South America, no aid for Isreal, no fighting communism in Asia, no invasions to secure oil supplies.
I think more than anything you have shown yourself to a ignorant idiot repeating the kind of demagogue so beloved of Rush Limbaugh and his lunatic fringe.
Saying that your country is behaving in an Imperialistic manner does not mean people hate you - it is simply a statement of opinion that many people believe describes the US's current foreign policy. The honest truth is that virtually all Europeans are afraid of what the US will do next - we all thought that post cold war we had moved into a world where nations solved their problems through diplomacy and co-oporation, we did not expect the US to start threatening other countries to protect it's own interests. What we are all wondering is who will be next and when will it be our turn if our interests do not coincide with the US's.
Ah, blaming people for the crimes of their ancestors - nice to see how we have moved on.
I personally hate the Italians as they invaded my country in 300 BC. I also hate the Normans, the Angles, the Saxons and anyone else who oppressed the brave Celts. I would take it out on their descendants and hate them - if only I could work out who they were...
maybe all of the snotty Europeans posting about how we deserved the WTC attack? Or the ones who feel the need to remind us about American imperialism in every other thread (conveniently ignoring the far worse effects of European imperialism)?
I'd challenge you to find any normal European who said that the US deserved 11/9. I'd also challenge you to find a European who would justify historic European imperialism and who would support it now. The fact that most Brits were not behind their own government in it's recent actions supporting imperialism would indicate the opposite.
Unlike, say, the Germans, who just re-elected Schroeder.
A leader who stands up for the views of his people and has (as far as I know) not ever invaded another country based on fabricated evidence.
Perhaps if you spent less time patronizing us you'd make a better impression.
Of course no American is guilty of that - especially not that arrogant piece of sh*t Rumsfeld who began the attempt at diplomacy by insulting most European leaders?
In the best British tradition the probe will lay out a tea set and some cucumber sandwiches to attract alien lifeforms.
Actually in the best British tradition, the probe will be wearing an England/Millwall/Arsenal shirt, will be p*ssed out of it's mind and will start broadcasting threatening messages to any lifeform it detects for "looking at it funny".
We are not going to Mars just to find life but to kick the living daylights out of it...
Re:The only problem is
on
PeltierBeer
·
· Score: 1
Maybe you should point that out to the chaps at the Guiness brewery in Dublin - it's cold out of the taps there...
They are not entitled to Geneva Convention protection, because they are not uniformed soldiers, they are terrorists.
Not quite true - they are referred to as illegal combatants because they were soldiers in an army that represented a country not recognised by the US,i.e. many of them are just Taliban soldiers, including some teenage boys (i.e. 13, 14 years old).
They are NOT political prisoners, they are violent terrorists who have threatened guards on several occasions and attempted escape often.
As I understand it, during war it is a soldier's duty to attempt escape, even if it means (gasp) threatening military personel. Once the war is ended the soldiers must be repatriated.
Here's the next day's headline: China declares it will annex Taiwan. Reminds U.S. of its lunar mass driver capability and warns U.S. not to interfere in issues of Chinese sovereignty
Can I rephrase this?
Here's the next day's headline: The US declares it will restructure Iraq's government. Reminds Iran/Syria of its military capability and warns Iran/Syria not to interfere in issues of Iraq sovereignty.
All China has to do is be able to drop rocks on American cities. The threat will make us dance with them.
How is your concern any diferent to that of anyone else in the world whilst there is the current American administration with a view that the US can do what it wants, when it wants, to whomever it wants through the threat of military force?
Shouldn't we all be dancing together anyway? What has happened to diplomacy and negotiation in an attempt to improve everybody's lot?
Re:takes a written plan to beat procrastination
on
Teleworking in the UK?
·
· Score: 0, Funny
I sure the URLs will be really useful - I'll look at them later once Neighbours has finished...
I've never had a cube or a office - it makes it really dificult to surf the internet rather than work:(...
You are very right about the communication though, we all sit here chatting about work over our monitors. Although having a CEO without an office is a bit dodgy - how do they have discussions about financials, redundancies and all those other things that need to done in private? At most companies anyone involved in finance or HR has to have privacy, the former so that general employees cannot be accused of insider trading, leak news to the press etc. and the latter so they can slag everyone off, plan how they will fire everyone and generally be really nasty without people knowing about it.
I have worked for several consultancies, including big 5, who all allowed home working, mainly due to the fact that they never had enough hot desks in the offices.
Whilst for some tasks it works really well, e.g. reading documentation, writing presentations etc., for most work I find that it inhibits communication between colleagues. Communication (or lack of) is one the biggest issues that companies face. Many companies spend a fortune implementing all kinds of systems and processes to improve communication, but often the most efficient and cheapest way is to have the entire project sitting at adjacent desks. People then just tend to chat about problems, solutions etc.
Personally though my biggest problem was sitting at home by myself for an entire day with no-one to talk to. I also found it much harder to motivate myself and would often just put things off while I watched day time TV. Maybe I'm just a lazy b*stard but I don't think I'm that unusual.
Hans Blix et al. discovered a whole load of WMDs etc. and had them destroyed.
The US has had 100 times as many people working on this with no Iraqi interference, i.e. about 2880 (20 inspectors for 12 years) man months for Blix and his team and 4000 man months for the US forces (2000 inspectors for two months). Therefore Blix got greater results with less effort whilst suffering more Iraqi interference. Ergo, either Blix's team were far more talented at finding WMDs or there were none before the invasion, as many had said all along...
A barb? Generally a barb is a witty repost not a juvenile bit of swearing.
You can tell you're a liberal because you can dish it but you can't eat it, and you refuse to be swayed by facts.
Spare me the cr*p. If you has facts that contradiced my viewpoint then I would be swayed, but you don't, you just spout more conservative demagogue. Interesting that you see a liberal as someone who would not be swayed by fact rather than prejudice - perhaps you should find out what the meaning of the word liberal is?
Arafat is a terrorist. That's not name calling, it's what he is. It's how he got started,
You are correct in that is how he got started, although some might call him a freedom fighter - it all depends whose side you are on. Another example of this would be Nelson Mandela who also started as a terrorist but is now seen as the father of a nation by almost all (excluding some white extremists) South Africans. People can change with the situation. At least one Isreali prime minister has been considered as a terrorist by the British in the past for planning and executing attacks against British citizens.
However, since Arafat had a promise of those lands from Barak and not only turned it down
Read the detail of the deal and you will see that although Barak claimed to have offered (and the Palestinians deny the deal was ever offered) 97% of the land that they had already agreed to give up (not all they had agreed in Oslo) the land was divided into a large number of small cantons, divided by Isreali controlled land. This would have prevented the Palestinians from having any control over their own destiny as the IDF could close them down at any time it wanted to by preventing Palestinians from leaving their cantons. If someone agrees to a deal and then completely changes their side of the deal should you have to agree to it? If the Oslo accord had been adhered to by BOTH sides then Isreal and Palestine would not be in the mess they are in now. BOTH sides f**ked it up.
OK, nice to see how you finish with a couple of insults.
Actually Hamas makes this very argument.
Are you suggesting that this is a valid argument then? If it is valid to base arguments on the fact that Palestine did not exist as a country 60 years ago then surely the equivalent argumment is valid for Hamas.
war (each Arab conflict with Israel has result in Israeli land gains) or fleeing under false preconceptions (that the Arab countries would fight a war and win the land back).
I wouldn't call these particularly valid reasons for people to loose their land and homes. You should of course add to this continuing building of settlements in the Gaza strip and the West Bank which is illegal under international law and even continued whilst the Oslo accord was being negotiated.
I don't think anyone is supporting Isreal returning to anything less than the 1967 borders, however what was offered post Oslo accord has been a joke based on small cantons of Palestinian land divided by Isreali owned and controlled roads - ghettoes if you will - containing people who would not have a basic right to travel to other parts of their own state.
Israel has constantly sought to improve the lot of Palestinians, building power generation, introducing modern farming, etc
Really? At the same time as cutting off water supplies, closing businesses, universities and schools and generally preventing Palestinians from working, getting health care or having an education?
This is similar to Schroeder being re-elected on an anti-US platform and I don't see you criticizing him about that, do you?
This makes no sense whatsoever as a comparison. The Whitehouse has stated that it wants to sideline Schroeder even though by refusing to support the war he was simply stating the will of his people. Strangely enough disagreeing with a war that is undertaken based on weak evidence and outright lies is not the same as anti-Americanism. Loose the paranoia.
Currently, Russia and France and Germany make more in arms sales than in other sales to Palestine, Syria and Iran.
I would be interested to see the numbers backing this up and then compare them with the aid provided by the US to Isreal that is then spent on the IDF. Isreal spends far more on their military than anyone else in the middle east.
Why do you think there have been over 70 resolutions condemning Israel by the UN but NO resolutions condemning Palestinian terrorism?
I don't think any western countries or the UN has done anything but condemn terrorism in Isreal, however as you well know the UN can only create resolutions against a state, and as we all know there is no state of Palestine. The US has made an effort to block every single resolution and any criticism of Isreal even when the IDF fired missiles at an appartment block last year (logically very similar to the bomb in the bus station last month - the IDF killed women and children and justified it by saying they were after a legitimate target i.e. a terrorist, the terrorists justified it by saying they were after the soldiers returning home after a weekend off).
Of course the Isrealis are so interested in peace that they even shot at a Swiss diplomats car yesterday to prevent a meeting with the Palestinians, the have shot journalists investigating conditions in the West Bank and have prevented western peace activists from receiving medical treatment.
Read the Oslo accord, look at how both sides failed to implement it and you should realise that both sides are equally at fault.
My source of information on Americans? People like you on chat boards (/., Slate etc.) showing incredible racism, the views of your government, CNN, Yahoo.com and frequent visits to the US for both business and to meet friends and family.
I have nothing against Americans, most are fine, intelligent folks. Unfortunately there are a vocal minority of idiots and racists who seem to fill these boards with prejudice driven by paranoia. Read to posts I respond to and you will see my point...
And the same could be said about the behaviour of the religious right and the Bible. All that eye for eye revenge stuff on the death penalty doesn't fit well with turning the other cheek does it?
I would be interested to know how many Muslims you know - I know quite a few and have never seen any of them rape or pillage.
Slashdot Mirror
Either in your travels you made a concious effort to avoid western Europe, Australasia and much of the far East or you managed to travel and not take anything in. Either way your comment is pretty ignorant.
Since when has blatant bigotry and nationalism with no basis on fact been informative?
Read through the history of the UN and see how many times France has opposed the US.
And they wonder why no-one trusts the US with the current administration in power. Basically Wolfowitz suggested using the US military to prevent competition.
How oes this fit with their current view on free trade? Oh, hang on, I remember - it means no tariffs to harm the US and no subsidies for foreign companies, but steel tariffs on imports to the US and subsidies to US airlines...
Two major problems with your post:
Although, I doubt at this point that we can find anyting considering we gave _months_ notice to Saddam about our intent to invade
So, unlike all military dictators in history this one destroys his most potent weapons just as he is about to be invaded? Let's think about this - he knows he will loose, he doesn't care what happens to his people (as proved many times) and he always wanted to go down in history as a great Arab hero by hurting the US. So why would he destroy his WMD? He doesn't care about retaliation by the US on his people and he could still hide whilst they nuke Baghdad. It makes no sense whatsoever.
By now, he's probably either destroyed it, hidden it hella good, or just given it to his buds the Syrians.
His good buds the Syrians? How do you work this one out? Assad has publicly attacked Hussein on many occasions. Admitedly both countries have a Ba'ath party, but saying they are same organisation is the same as claiming that the Democrats in the US are the same party as the Democrats in Germany.
Maybe it'll be the government of Germany. We put'em there, about 50 years ago, and it begins to look as though they've gone sour.
Oh, the arrogance and nationalism of America - Germany did not back your war on Iraq for very good reasons as we are now finding out. The amount of vitriol aimed at Germany and France since then has been unbelievable - the way the American press and public portray them you might think that they were more responsible than the US for the humanitarian abuses in Iraq.
Seriously, I'd push for Syria, since we're on a roll in the region,
As for Syria? Assad was the favourite of the West until the invasion of Iraq. He has been trying to implement reform (as have the secular government in Iran) which is not helped by the ridiculous behaviour of the US administration and Rumsfeld in particular.
Tough man - I can see you subscribe to the Bush view on politics of do what we want, when we want or we'll threaten you combined with the patronising arrogance that you so often claim is a European problem.
Just to point out a couple of things - it was not "Europeans" as a whole that elected Hitler or Mussolini, most of us were on the opposing side, fighting him whilst Shrub's grandpa was busy making money with the Nazi party. If it had been all of Europe that was bent on world domination under one leader there wouldn't be a US today. The Royal Navy would have ruled the North Atlantic, the German and Britsh air forces would have ruled the skies, and the German and Russian tanks would have blitzkrieged their way through the mid-west in no time at all.
It's sad that the world is changing so that we all have to start spending a fortune on arms rather than living together in peace.
that all we really want is for you to Buy Our Stuff, sell us your stuff at a fair price, don't blow up our tourists when they go over there, don't abuse each other so badly that we can't eat dinner while watching the evening news, and otherwise leave us the crap alone.
That would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that you want us to buy your stuff when your government flouts WTO rules by subsidising your industry and erects trade barriers and tariffs to prevent us selling stuff over there. And as for blowing up your tourists - which Europeans are you referring to? I don't know of any that aim for Americans. Maybe the IRA - sponsored by years by Americans? As for leaving you alone - well if the US wants to retreat into isolationism then it can, but it can't f*ck with other countries whilst claiming to want to be left alone - i.e. no attempting coups in South America, no aid for Isreal, no fighting communism in Asia, no invasions to secure oil supplies.
I think more than anything you have shown yourself to a ignorant idiot repeating the kind of demagogue so beloved of Rush Limbaugh and his lunatic fringe.
Saying that your country is behaving in an Imperialistic manner does not mean people hate you - it is simply a statement of opinion that many people believe describes the US's current foreign policy. The honest truth is that virtually all Europeans are afraid of what the US will do next - we all thought that post cold war we had moved into a world where nations solved their problems through diplomacy and co-oporation, we did not expect the US to start threatening other countries to protect it's own interests. What we are all wondering is who will be next and when will it be our turn if our interests do not coincide with the US's.
Ah, blaming people for the crimes of their ancestors - nice to see how we have moved on.
I personally hate the Italians as they invaded my country in 300 BC. I also hate the Normans, the Angles, the Saxons and anyone else who oppressed the brave Celts. I would take it out on their descendants and hate them - if only I could work out who they were...
maybe all of the snotty Europeans posting about how we deserved the WTC attack? Or the ones who feel the need to remind us about American imperialism in every other thread (conveniently ignoring the far worse effects of European imperialism)?
I'd challenge you to find any normal European who said that the US deserved 11/9. I'd also challenge you to find a European who would justify historic European imperialism and who would support it now. The fact that most Brits were not behind their own government in it's recent actions supporting imperialism would indicate the opposite.
Unlike, say, the Germans, who just re-elected Schroeder.
A leader who stands up for the views of his people and has (as far as I know) not ever invaded another country based on fabricated evidence.
Perhaps if you spent less time patronizing us you'd make a better impression.
Of course no American is guilty of that - especially not that arrogant piece of sh*t Rumsfeld who began the attempt at diplomacy by insulting most European leaders?
Would be more appropriate for it to be chanting either:
Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough, or
Engerlund, engerlund...
In the best British tradition the probe will lay out a tea set and some cucumber sandwiches to attract alien lifeforms.
Actually in the best British tradition, the probe will be wearing an England/Millwall/Arsenal shirt, will be p*ssed out of it's mind and will start broadcasting threatening messages to any lifeform it detects for "looking at it funny".
We are not going to Mars just to find life but to kick the living daylights out of it...
Maybe you should point that out to the chaps at the Guiness brewery in Dublin - it's cold out of the taps there...
They are not entitled to Geneva Convention protection, because they are not uniformed soldiers, they are terrorists.
Not quite true - they are referred to as illegal combatants because they were soldiers in an army that represented a country not recognised by the US,i.e. many of them are just Taliban soldiers, including some teenage boys (i.e. 13, 14 years old).
They are NOT political prisoners, they are violent terrorists who have threatened guards on several occasions and attempted escape often.
As I understand it, during war it is a soldier's duty to attempt escape, even if it means (gasp) threatening military personel. Once the war is ended the soldiers must be repatriated.
Here's the next day's headline: China declares it will annex Taiwan. Reminds U.S. of its lunar mass driver capability and warns U.S. not to interfere in issues of Chinese sovereignty
Can I rephrase this?
Here's the next day's headline: The US declares it will restructure Iraq's government. Reminds Iran/Syria of its military capability and warns Iran/Syria not to interfere in issues of Iraq sovereignty.
All China has to do is be able to drop rocks on American cities. The threat will make us dance with them.
How is your concern any diferent to that of anyone else in the world whilst there is the current American administration with a view that the US can do what it wants, when it wants, to whomever it wants through the threat of military force?
Shouldn't we all be dancing together anyway? What has happened to diplomacy and negotiation in an attempt to improve everybody's lot?
I sure the URLs will be really useful - I'll look at them later once Neighbours has finished...
I've never had a cube or a office - it makes it really dificult to surf the internet rather than work :(...
You are very right about the communication though, we all sit here chatting about work over our monitors. Although having a CEO without an office is a bit dodgy - how do they have discussions about financials, redundancies and all those other things that need to done in private? At most companies anyone involved in finance or HR has to have privacy, the former so that general employees cannot be accused of insider trading, leak news to the press etc. and the latter so they can slag everyone off, plan how they will fire everyone and generally be really nasty without people knowing about it.
I have worked for several consultancies, including big 5, who all allowed home working, mainly due to the fact that they never had enough hot desks in the offices.
Whilst for some tasks it works really well, e.g. reading documentation, writing presentations etc., for most work I find that it inhibits communication between colleagues. Communication (or lack of) is one the biggest issues that companies face. Many companies spend a fortune implementing all kinds of systems and processes to improve communication, but often the most efficient and cheapest way is to have the entire project sitting at adjacent desks. People then just tend to chat about problems, solutions etc.
Personally though my biggest problem was sitting at home by myself for an entire day with no-one to talk to. I also found it much harder to motivate myself and would often just put things off while I watched day time TV. Maybe I'm just a lazy b*stard but I don't think I'm that unusual.
Hans Blix et al. discovered a whole load of WMDs etc. and had them destroyed.
The US has had 100 times as many people working on this with no Iraqi interference, i.e. about 2880 (20 inspectors for 12 years) man months for Blix and his team and 4000 man months for the US forces (2000 inspectors for two months). Therefore Blix got greater results with less effort whilst suffering more Iraqi interference. Ergo, either Blix's team were far more talented at finding WMDs or there were none before the invasion, as many had said all along...
Eh, fucktard?
A barb? Generally a barb is a witty repost not a juvenile bit of swearing.
You can tell you're a liberal because you can dish it but you can't eat it, and you refuse to be swayed by facts.
Spare me the cr*p. If you has facts that contradiced my viewpoint then I would be swayed, but you don't, you just spout more conservative demagogue. Interesting that you see a liberal as someone who would not be swayed by fact rather than prejudice - perhaps you should find out what the meaning of the word liberal is?
Arafat is a terrorist. That's not name calling, it's what he is. It's how he got started,
You are correct in that is how he got started, although some might call him a freedom fighter - it all depends whose side you are on. Another example of this would be Nelson Mandela who also started as a terrorist but is now seen as the father of a nation by almost all (excluding some white extremists) South Africans. People can change with the situation. At least one Isreali prime minister has been considered as a terrorist by the British in the past for planning and executing attacks against British citizens.
However, since Arafat had a promise of those lands from Barak and not only turned it down
Read the detail of the deal and you will see that although Barak claimed to have offered (and the Palestinians deny the deal was ever offered) 97% of the land that they had already agreed to give up (not all they had agreed in Oslo) the land was divided into a large number of small cantons, divided by Isreali controlled land. This would have prevented the Palestinians from having any control over their own destiny as the IDF could close them down at any time it wanted to by preventing Palestinians from leaving their cantons. If someone agrees to a deal and then completely changes their side of the deal should you have to agree to it? If the Oslo accord had been adhered to by BOTH sides then Isreal and Palestine would not be in the mess they are in now. BOTH sides f**ked it up.
OK, nice to see how you finish with a couple of insults.
Actually Hamas makes this very argument.
Are you suggesting that this is a valid argument then? If it is valid to base arguments on the fact that Palestine did not exist as a country 60 years ago then surely the equivalent argumment is valid for Hamas.
war (each Arab conflict with Israel has result in Israeli land gains) or fleeing under false preconceptions (that the Arab countries would fight a war and win the land back).
I wouldn't call these particularly valid reasons for people to loose their land and homes. You should of course add to this continuing building of settlements in the Gaza strip and the West Bank which is illegal under international law and even continued whilst the Oslo accord was being negotiated.
I don't think anyone is supporting Isreal returning to anything less than the 1967 borders, however what was offered post Oslo accord has been a joke based on small cantons of Palestinian land divided by Isreali owned and controlled roads - ghettoes if you will - containing people who would not have a basic right to travel to other parts of their own state.
Israel has constantly sought to improve the lot of Palestinians, building power generation, introducing modern farming, etc
Really? At the same time as cutting off water supplies, closing businesses, universities and schools and generally preventing Palestinians from working, getting health care or having an education?
This is similar to Schroeder being re-elected on an anti-US platform and I don't see you criticizing him about that, do you?
This makes no sense whatsoever as a comparison. The Whitehouse has stated that it wants to sideline Schroeder even though by refusing to support the war he was simply stating the will of his people. Strangely enough disagreeing with a war that is undertaken based on weak evidence and outright lies is not the same as anti-Americanism. Loose the paranoia.
Currently, Russia and France and Germany make more in arms sales than in other sales to Palestine, Syria and Iran.
I would be interested to see the numbers backing this up and then compare them with the aid provided by the US to Isreal that is then spent on the IDF. Isreal spends far more on their military than anyone else in the middle east.
Why do you think there have been over 70 resolutions condemning Israel by the UN but NO resolutions condemning Palestinian terrorism?
I don't think any western countries or the UN has done anything but condemn terrorism in Isreal, however as you well know the UN can only create resolutions against a state, and as we all know there is no state of Palestine. The US has made an effort to block every single resolution and any criticism of Isreal even when the IDF fired missiles at an appartment block last year (logically very similar to the bomb in the bus station last month - the IDF killed women and children and justified it by saying they were after a legitimate target i.e. a terrorist, the terrorists justified it by saying they were after the soldiers returning home after a weekend off).
Of course the Isrealis are so interested in peace that they even shot at a Swiss diplomats car yesterday to prevent a meeting with the Palestinians, the have shot journalists investigating conditions in the West Bank and have prevented western peace activists from receiving medical treatment.
Read the Oslo accord, look at how both sides failed to implement it and you should realise that both sides are equally at fault.
They are working on it and you are living there...
My source of information on Americans? People like you on chat boards (/., Slate etc.) showing incredible racism, the views of your government, CNN, Yahoo.com and frequent visits to the US for both business and to meet friends and family.
I have nothing against Americans, most are fine, intelligent folks. Unfortunately there are a vocal minority of idiots and racists who seem to fill these boards with prejudice driven by paranoia. Read to posts I respond to and you will see my point...
And the same could be said about the behaviour of the religious right and the Bible. All that eye for eye revenge stuff on the death penalty doesn't fit well with turning the other cheek does it?
I would be interested to know how many Muslims you know - I know quite a few and have never seen any of them rape or pillage.
That is not quite true is it - the French objected to any invasion of Iraq without further inspections.
Incidently this resolution was proposed a long time after Elf won the contract which was through the UN not direct with Iraq.
Let's not let facts get in the way of a bit French bashing though shall we...