Who said that George Bush Jr. is unpopular all over the world? He has friends in all the unlikely places (http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=7&aid=D85QPCG81_story). The head of Iran's security council, Hasan Rowhani, said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.
(...)
Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.

"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Democratic Sen. John Kerry against Bush.

The Bush campaign said no thanks.

"It's not an endorsement we'll be accepting anytime soon," Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said.
(...)
Iranian political analyst Mohsen Mofidi said ousting the Taliban and Saddam was the "biggest service any administration could have done for Iran."

And Bush, he said, has learned from his mistakes.

"The experience of two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the responsibility Bush had, will make it a very remote possibility for him to risk attacking a much bigger and more powerful country like Iran," he said.

Mofidi added that "Democrats usually insist on human rights and they will have more excuses to pressure Iran."Well, that concurs with Gen. Odom's view (http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=7006) that the war on Iraq didn't serve US strategic interests -- but Bin Laden's and Iran's.
And, it underlines my thesis that Bush Jr., by implementing the neo-con strategy of pre-emption -- resulting in the unprecedented blundering in Iraq -- has rendered the US impotent to continue it, rendering deterrence through pre-emption incredible, rendering it ineffective.

And Bush, he said, has learned from his mistakes.
If Bush has learned from his mistakes, it implies that he would admit his mistakes. If this sentence is true, it is the biggest news in the entire article.

I read in a newspaper a few days ago that an international survey about Bush vs. Kerry has been conducted in 10 major world countries. Israel was the only country where the majority of the population wanted to see Bush re-elected... Good on ya, George!

Too bad the very last thing that Bush gives a dying rat's ass about is world opinion. :(

Even worse: This attitude of Bush is known to all. Yet there are countries whose governments will support this man. I mean, how much closer can one come to what must be called a veritable vassal?

You're right, we should all get behind Schroeder and Chirac and cruise to European bankruptcy. :rolleyes:

Excuse me?
Are trying to tell me something? For I fail to see the relevance of your people's minority complex for this topic.
If it suits the Netherlands any better you can also rally behind Russia or China.

Pac Man, Europe aint more on a road to bankruptcy than the US. The US deficiency is a looming threat on the entire worlds economy.

If it's all the same to you, i'd rather not rally behind anyone, not China, not Russia, and especially not behind Germany with their crumbling economy, matter of fact, if it was up to me, we'd step out of the sinking ship called EU, and follow our own path. And what do you mean with minority complex ? I don't think we have any complexes whatsoever, on the contrary. It actually feels quite good that we're still part of the coalition.

step out of the sinking ship called EU, and follow our own path. It's completly off-topic, but I feel like it.

1. The own path is very, very, very, very expensive. You'd find that out as soon everyone is going abroad to shop, because everything costs half or a quarter in the European trade zone. That's because your not inside and importing stuff is quite a fuss.

2. Waves of Germans are flooding your country no matter what member of what organization you are. They're push factors are so huge, particularly in the east.

3. The Dutch economy would drown like ours does. It is so hard to have the same status as Belarussia in trade matters, I tell you. But Heineken could care less, they wouldn't mind to move away from the Netherlands anyway and do it faster as you can snip with your finger.

4. You'd still be bordering sad, sad Central-Europe and be tangented by its mess.

Ah well, the EU won't last anyway, i give it another 3 years and then we'll all go our seperate ways. Europeans aren't meant to be united in the first place.

Don't be so synical... I'm sure we can find a way to come together in unity and... oh what the hell of cause its all gonna fall apart. The UK couldn't even be bothered to get in there let alone sustain it, so why the helll should the rest of Europe wait while the rest of the sideliners faf around trying to decide wether or not its a good enough time for thier country to join?

I'm not trying to be cynical, i simply don't see a future for a united Europe. Why ? Because basically noone likes eachother very much. Keeping up appearances will work for a short while, but eventually old pains will take the upperhand again. Besides, everyone wants to be in charge, and none of us is willing to follow the other.

It's good to see all of you discussing on-topic. NOT. So stop doing it already and open a new thread if you want to discuss doom scenarios for the EU; they have no place whosoever in this thread.

OK, back to it then, Bush and Kerry. Is Bush just in this for a world wide popularity contest or does he really care about what he constantly goes on about? I need to know this as I am not part of the US and ferel that we are just getting CNN/Al Jazera left overs that are just filling us with this so called 'nightmare' media of terrorism, and it seems to be a huge leverage point for the campaign for that seat at the white house.

I'd say Bush cares ONLY for American interrests, which is really not that odd for an American president. Bush is obviously not searching for global popularity, otherwise he would be sucking up with the Europeans and Asians. Bush takes care of his own, like anyone else in his right mind would.

But i'm not saying Kerry isn't fit for the job, noone can until he's proven himself wrong. I don't think he'll get that chance however.

I'd say Bush cares ONLY for American interrests, which is really not that odd for an American president. If this was not supposed to be a serious thread I would fall over from laughing so hard. That is so, so, not true. In fact, America has had some good presidents. The rap on George Sr. was that he was too much of an "internationalist." He built a legitmate coalition to deal with Iraq; even Richard Nixon had a diplomatic breakthorough with "Red" China and ended the Vietnam War. Not a bad record for an avowed "anti-Communist." Bill Clinton was another Prez who thought it was in the US interest to understand that other countries have interests also, and to find a place where diplomacy could have a chance to find allies and friends through mutual interests.

This is called "statesmanship." Every once in while we really do have a prez who at least understands that it is something worthwhile. They may fall a bit short in their efforts, but at least they understand its value. Bill Clinton tried, but came up a little bit short, yet as I mentioned, not for a lack of trying. As an example he made a really good try at peace in the Middle East, but Arafat did him in at the last moment. He did make a few inroads in Ireland, for which he is still very proud and mentions often in his accomplishments. I'm sure his detractors will attack every effort he made to achieve peace and prosperity where ever he saw a chance. But that is more partisanship than it is a real concern towards an effort for world peace. We all know that "war" and "sacrifice" is the real worthwile effort these days.

[ October 21, 2004, 08:57: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Good to see that Bush's policies have been good for SOMEONE outside of the corporate world, even if it is one of the so-called "Axis Of Evil" countries.

Chandos, you misunderstood my post. I wasn't implying that the US only had selfcentered presidents in the past, all i was saying that it's not that strange that an American president looks after American interrests first, before listening to anyone else. I didn't say that all American presidents were like this.

Yes look after your own country first and foremost but not at the expense of others.

it's not that strange that an American president looks after American interrests first, before listening to anyone else I think it goes way beyond "not being strange", it's an essential job requirement. It is the duty of the president to look after American interests first. If he looked after another nation before looking at America, he would be failing in his duties. Come to think of it, I can't envision a scenario where ANY leader of ANY country would look after another country at the expense of his/her own.

Well... Blair is doing a good job of turning the UK into Bush's little lap dog. Forget our interests.... :rolleyes:

Well, sorry, Pac Man that I misunderstood what you were saying. But something is certainly wrong when almost all the rest of the world wants to see the leader of your country gone.

Of course Bush is looking out for US interests. He'd be even more derelict in his duties if he didn't. The issue I see here is one of general hypocrisy, and it applies to pretty much every developed nation. We claim to have moral authority and condemn those who act in an unethical (to us) manner. Yet we can always find a reason not to do something that wouldn't be in our interest, despite it being the "right thing" to do. No developed country is exempt from that criticism, no matter how sanctimonious they want to be.

If you don't believe me, then consider these:

1. Why, if we know that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were of Saudi descent, didn't the Bush administration lean on Saudi Arabia for an explanation?

2. Why, if we knew where the train lines to Dachau, Auschwitz and Birkenau were, and what they were being used for, did the Allies not bomb the bejesus out of them once a week or twice a month from 1944 onward after air superiority had been achieved and the tracks were within range?

3. Why did it take Australia 30 years to pluck up enough courage to oppose Indonesia on the annexation (and independence) of East Timor, given that most developed nations condemned Indonesia's actions while we endorsed it?

Maybe I'm just too jaded, but the only case I can think of where the West hasn't had some sort of ulterior motive for intervention was Kosovo... and even that's open to conjecture. Yes, we pump out billions in foreign aid - much of which then gets distributed by the corrupt governments and officials that are running developing countries into the ground. In the end, it's a palliative for our consciences, especially when you look at trade. A policy of self-interest is not only based on precedent, it's quite defensible; that is, until you decide that you have the moral ascendancy and become a hypocrite.

Sorry, got a bit off-topic there...

Well... Blair is doing a good job of turning the UK into Bush's little lap dog. Forget our interests.... Same thing here with John Howard and the Liberal Party. I can't remember any other (nominal) Head of State being called what Latham called Howard a couple of years back.