divebomber
Heliman
Location: California
| Well, well. Looks like all of the regular Bush-bashers are out again! Using the same old "oh, no, the rest of the world hates us!" line. Wake up, guys. The 'rest of the world' hated us a long time before RunRyder was online. It ain't new, and it ain't going away. Get used to it.
We finally have someone who's not concerned about the opinion of focus groups and the impotent UN. I may not agree with everything GWB does, but at least he's a man of his word, and a man of action. And despite what you heard from Katie Kouric and the like, the rest of the world respects that more than they ever respected Mr. Clinton or Mr. Carter.
As for the question asked earlier about why so many of us are negative about the French, and not the Germans, I'll answer it from my point of view.
The French helped the US win its independence from England. Not that it thought that a Republic was a good idea; King Louis just loved irritating King George III and also sought the lucrative American trade. Nonetheless, we still owed a significant debt to the French... which was paid in blood during WWI when a fresh infusion of US Army and Marines pushed forward an otherwise stagnant war to its completion. (Not to mention saving France from a humiliating mutiny that almost cost them the war).
Then came WWII where a superior force (the French with British help) was swept aside like yesterday's trash by a smaller, more mobile force; the German Army. The French were rolled up by the thousands, cutting and running while leaving the British to try an orderly retreat. Again, we rode to the rescue, and with British and Canadian forces, we liberated France again at a very high cost in American lives.
So, when we are attacked by an enemy force, and the world applauds the intent of stopping terrorism and the countries that give aid to terrorist, one would think that we'd all get together on this. But then the French and Germans block action against Iraq (even though they had voted for action previously).
It stings a bit more in the case of France, since they owe us one. But it stung a little more when we find out that the real reason they vetoed an attack on Iraq was not based on some high principle, but on the fact that they had multi-million dollar oil deals with Saddam. Illeagal multi-million dollar deals, might I add. But as Sec. Rumsfeld said, "going to war without the French is like going duckhunting without your accordian". At least the Germans put up a fight.
As for not having the UN's approval, basically, the UN has turned into a festering hole of corruption where the rest of the world milks off of the US. Mr. Anon speaks ill of the very country that funds his pulpit, while all along, Kofe Anon is making money off of the oil-for-food program at the UN. No wonder Bush got disgusted with them and blew them off. The fact is, that given the same inside information and circumstances, most of you would have also.
And that's the biggest problem Bush has; he's too honest. He's not an amoral opportunist that can switch positions whenever some poll says he should. ("I voted for the bill before I voted against it". - Sen. John Kerry). And that ticks off some very powerful people, especially in the media. Most of those people sold their souls a long time ago and can't stand people who didn't.
In the end, it will come down to who can get their voters to the polls in November. So the choice becomes; someone who you may not completely agree with, but who is honest and will hold to his word, or someone who is a demonstrated "wealth redistribution" liberal who will do and say whatever it takes to get you to vote for him.
As Jagboy69 says, "Do your part. Vote for Bush" I'll add: "Your pocketbook depends on it." |
