View Full Version : A question for Americans everywhere...

02-Jun-03, 19:19
Okay... a quick question for all you Americans out there...

Don't you find George W. a tad embarrassing?

Before anybody flames me, can I just explain where I’m coming from?

Bush is in Evian, France, for the G8 summit. He is a world leader, surrounded by world leaders – a meeting of the powerful, if you like.

How does he choose to mark this occasion??? Well, like any good guest, he thanks his host… or rather he tries to.

In front of the world’s press he opens his mouth and thanks ‘Jack’ Chirac!!!

Now, I know that there are differences between English and American English. You say tomato, I say …. (bear with me, this may not work when written down) …. tomato. But this isn’t a question of which side of the pond you happen to have learned to talk on.

The man’s name is Jacques. He has never, I would imagine, climbed a beanstalk. Nor does he distil whiskey in Tennessee. And I’m willing to bet that if you wind his handle he doesn’t pop up out of his box wearing a funny hat.

I know that Bush is your ‘elected’ representative to the world, but every time he gets let out on a day trip he seems to be suffering from some form of verbal diarrhoea (there are even books devoted entirely to his funny little phrases).

Still… not to worry… he’s safely on his way to a meeting with the leaders of the Arab world. What’s the worst that could happen????

02-Jun-03, 19:51


All the problems in this workd and you are talking semantics????????????????

02-Jun-03, 22:17
Seriously... it's okay.

Between G8 and his little trip to Egypt, Bush has pretty much got the world's problems wrapped up... it's all sorted.... :eek:

02-Jun-03, 22:23
Och phew

i feel so much better for knowing that sweetie

02-Jun-03, 22:56
George Bush is doing a very good job of alienating himself and his country from the rest of the super powers. I notice he is leaving these meetings rather quickly saying he has to be here and there, when as a matter of fact nobody is really interested in him.
Unless he can prove that there were weapons of mass destruction, then I am afraid he will have lost the confidence of the super powers. I myself don't believe there were WOMD. The Yanks are nothing but war mongers and if they can find an excuse to go to war they will do it. Lets hope that when it is proved there were no WOMD the U.K. will think twice about getting involved with the Yanks again.

03-Jun-03, 07:21
other super powers? who are they then?

As the America is now the "Enemy" of the world, I would like to share with you an article printed in the Daily Mirror that bastion of left wing Britain, written by Tony Parsons:

London Daily Mirror
Tony Parsons

September 11, 2002

One year ago, the world witnessed a unique kind of broadcasting - the mass urder of thousands, live on television. As a lesson in the pitiless cruelty of the human race, September 11 was up there with Pol Pot's Mountain of Skulls in Cambodia, or the skeletal bodies stacked like garbage in the Nazi concentration camps. An unspeakable act so cruel, so calculated and so utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on one thing - nobody deserves this fate. Surely there could be consensus: The victims were truly innocent, the perpetrators truly evil. But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is increasingly seen as America's comeuppance. Incredibly, anti-Americanism has increased over the last year.
There has always been a simmering resentment to the USA in this country; too loud, too rich, too full of themselves, and so much happier than Europeans - but it has become an epidemic. And it seems incredible to me. More than that, it turns my stomach. America is this country's greatest friend and our staunchest ally. We are bonded to the US by culture, language and blood. A little over half a century ago, around half a million Americans died for our freedoms, as well as their own. Have we forgotten so soon? And exactly a year ago, thousands of ordinary men, women and children - not just Americans, but from dozens of countries, were butchered by a small group of religious fanatics. Are we so quick to betray them?

What touched the heart about those who died in the Twin Towers and on the planes, was that we recognized them. Young fathers and mothers, somebody's son and somebody's daughter, husbands, wives, and children, some unborn. And these people brought it on themselves? Their nation is to blame for their meticulously planned slaughter?

These days you don't have to be some dust-encrusted nut job in Kabul or Karachi or Finsbury Park to see America as the Great Satan. The anti-American alliance is made up of self-loathing liberals who blame the Americans for every ill in the Third World, and conservatives suffering from power-envy, bitter that the world's only superpower can do what it likes without having to ask permission. The truth is that America has behaved with enormous restraint since September 11.

Remember, remember - Remember the gut-wrenching tapes of weeping men phoning their wives to say, "I love you," before they were burned alive.

Remember those people leaping to their deaths from the top of burning skyscrapers. Remember the hundreds of firemen buried alive.

Remember the smiling face of that beautiful little girl who was on one of the planes with her mum. Remember, remember - And realize that America has never retaliated for 9/11 in anything like the way it could have.

So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked without a trial in Camp X-ray? Pass the Kleenex... So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up after they merrily fired their semi-automatics in a sky full of American planes? A shame, but maybe next time they should stick to confetti.

AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of the world into a parking lot. That it didn't is a sign of strength. American voices are already being raised against attacking Iraq - that's what a democracy is for. How many in the Islamic world will have a minute's silence for the slaughtered innocents of 9/11? How many Islamic leaders will have the guts to say that the mass murder of 9/11 was an abomination?

When the news of 9/11 broke on the West Bank, those freedom-loving Palestinians were dancing in the street. America watched all of that - and didn't push the button. We should thank the stars that America is the most powerful nation in the world. I still find it incredible that 9/11 did not provoke all-out war. Not a "war on terrorism." A real war. The fundamentalist dudes are talking about "opening the gates of hell," if America attacks Iraq. Well, America could have opened the gates of hell like you wouldn't believe. The US is the most militarily powerful nation that ever strode the face of the earth. The campaign in Afghanistan may have been less than perfect and the planned war on Iraq may be misconceived. But don't blame America for not bringing peace and light to these wretched countries. How many democracies are there in the Middle East, or in the Muslim world? You can count them on the fingers of one hand - assuming you haven't had any chopped off for minor shoplifting.

I love America, yet America is hated. I guess that makes me Bush's poodle. But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in Riyadh. Above all, America is hated because it is what every country wants to be - rich, free, strong, open, optimistic. Not ground down by the past, or religion, or some caste system. America is the best friend this country ever had and we should start remembering that. Or do you really think the USA is the root of all evil? Tell it to the loved ones of the men and women who leaped to their death from the burning towers. Tell it to the nursing mothers whose husbands died on one of the hijacked planes, or were ripped apart in a collapsing skyscraper. And tell it to the hundreds of young widows whose husbands worked for the New York Fire Department.
To our shame, George Bush gets a worse press than Saddam Hussein. Once we were told that Saddam gassed the Kurds, tortured his own people and set up rape-camps in Kuwait. Now we are told he likes Quality Street. Save me the orange center, Oh Mighty One!

03-Jun-03, 14:45
It is with a heavy heart that I turn to the keyboard to correct the preceding correspondent
What a farrago of emotion! What a tear -drenched, resentful, self pitying diatribe. What a grotesque caricature of the anti-war movement!
And what a logical disconnect!
What did the attack on the World Trade Centre have to do with Sadam? The answer is a big fat zero.
Sadam was a creation of the USA courtesy of the CIA. He was the CIA's man against the Mullahs of Iran. This was one rogue state created by the USA.
Let us pass over in silence the issue of non-existant mass weapons of destruction.
Let us even pass over the absence of cheering millions of Iraquis welcoming their liberators.
Instead let us focus on the manipulation of the emotions caused by the Wrold Trade Tower attack by Rumsted et al. Let us admire the consimmate skill with which a cartoon image of Europe was created. One wonders if some clandestine department of psychiatric warfare was not employed to create the image of the resentful, envious, ingrates of Europe. An image that the preceding correspondent swallows holus bolus.
We have had a completely useless war with untold and uncounted slaughter.
There was a better way of getting rid of Sadam and the UN was on the right track.
But the USA of Bush will not be governed by world opinion or by the UN.
With the trigger happy maniacs currently in control of the US one fears for the future.

03-Jun-03, 15:06
This just in from today's New York Times:

Standard Operating Procedure

The mystery of Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction has become a lot less mysterious. Recent reports in major British newspapers and three major American news magazines, based on leaks from angry intelligence officials, back up the sources who told my colleague Nicholas Kristof that the Bush administration "grossly manipulated intelligence" about W.M.D.'s.

And anyone who talks about an "intelligence failure" is missing the point. The problem lay not with intelligence professionals, but with the Bush and Blair administrations. They wanted a war, so they demanded reports supporting their case, while dismissing contrary evidence.

In Britain, the news media have not been shy about drawing the obvious implications, and the outrage has not been limited to war opponents. The Times of London was ardently pro-war; nonetheless, it ran an analysis under the headline "Lie Another Day." The paper drew parallels between the selling of the war and other misleading claims: "The government is seen as having `spun' the threat from Saddam's weapons just as it spins everything else."

Yet few have made the same argument in this country, even though "spin" is far too mild a word for what the Bush administration does, all the time. Suggestions that the public was manipulated into supporting an Iraq war gain credibility from the fact that misrepresentation and deception are standard operating procedure for this administration, which — to an extent never before seen in U.S. history — systematically and brazenly distorts the facts.

Am I exaggerating? Even as George Bush stunned reporters by declaring that we have "found the weapons of mass destruction," the Republican National Committee declared that the latest tax cut benefits "everyone who pays taxes." That is simply a lie. You've heard about those eight million children denied any tax break by a last-minute switcheroo. In total, 50 million American households — including a majority of those with members over 65 — get nothing; another 20 million receive less than $100 each. And a great majority of those left behind do pay taxes.

And the bald-faced misrepresentation of an elitist tax cut offering little or nothing to most Americans is only the latest in a long string of blatant misstatements. Misleading the public has been a consistent strategy for the Bush team on issues ranging from tax policy and Social Security reform to energy and the environment. So why should we give the administration the benefit of the doubt on foreign policy?

It's long past time for this administration to be held accountable. Over the last two years we've become accustomed to the pattern. Each time the administration comes up with another whopper, partisan supporters — a group that includes a large segment of the news media — obediently insist that black is white and up is down. Meanwhile the "liberal" media report only that some people say that black is black and up is up. And some Democratic politicians offer the administration invaluable cover by making excuses and playing down the extent of the lies.

If this same lack of accountability extends to matters of war and peace, we're in very deep trouble. The British seem to understand this: Max Hastings, the veteran war correspondent — who supported Britain's participation in the war — writes that "the prime minister committed British troops and sacrificed British lives on the basis of a deceit, and it stinks."

It's no answer to say that Saddam was a murderous tyrant. I could point out that many of the neoconservatives who fomented this war were nonchalant, or worse, about mass murders by Central American death squads in the 1980's. But the important point is that this isn't about Saddam: it's about us. The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history — worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra. Indeed, the idea that we were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility.

But here's the thought that should make those commentators really uncomfortable. Suppose that this administration did con us into war. And suppose that it is not held accountable for its deceptions, so Mr. Bush can fight what Mr. Hastings calls a "khaki election" next year. In that case, our political system has become utterly, and perhaps irrevocably, corrupted.

03-Jun-03, 16:09
The thread started by asking a questionof Americans if they find their president emabarasing - why was it not asking the British if they find their Prime Minister embarassing? Nowhere was the war on Iraq linked with the World Trade centre - the article was written by Tony Parsons, and you know what I agree with him - if you actually read the last paragraph or so it says that the war on Iraq was ill conceived. But the anti-American bile that is spouted is way out of order.

03-Jun-03, 17:15
and before you come back on the anti-war tirade agian Rich, I was AGAINST the war. I also actually live in the Middle East so am far more likely to be effected by the fall-out as well, strange how the bombing of innocent people while they slept in compouds in Riyadh was blamed on frustration and anger agianst America for its action agianst Iraq - why then did these brave people bomb innocent people in their beds, when they could have gone a few miles up the road and had a real toe to toe. I never here condemnation of terrorist attrocities from the anti-war brigade, the victims always had it coming.

03-Jun-03, 17:29
Sorry everyone... didn't mean for this to go back to the anti-war topic (had enough of that before). I was asking a genuine question... I am embarrassed by Bush and I'm not even American.

However, in answer to KW14... no, I don't find Blair embarrassing (he is intelligent and elequent) - I find him insulting and vaguely dictatorial, but that’s a different subject.

I was just amused by the whole ‘Jack’ thing…

03-Jun-03, 17:40
Tony Parsons says:To our shame, George Bush gets a worse press than Saddam Hussein

That's an outright lie. I read (or skim) a dozen newspapers a day in the course of my job and haven't come across one where Bush got a worse press.

I presume by posting this Parsons stuff you must agree with him. So let's have some examples to back up this unsubstantiated smear of European and North American media.

03-Jun-03, 17:52
So you read (or skin ) a dozen or so papers a day then Rich - well I hope you do a better job than when reading (sorry skimming the posts) - the Parsons article was posted on Sept 11 2002, maybe you missed that. I also stated (youy must have missed that in the skimming as well) that I do agree with the sentiments in his post, and I am sure if you contact him he will be more than willing to justify his article.
I assume that your skimming of papers actually has something to do with your work, which makes it even more strange that you associate someone having "BAD PRESS" with only the written word :confused Surely someone in PR or whatever form of employ you are involved can appreciate that press covers all media (or should I say mediums?).

I am no George Bush fan, but I still think America is a far better country than most.

03-Jun-03, 18:06
JJC did you find Boris Yeltsin a tad embarassing when he was Russian President? Do you not find Prince Phillip totally embarassing? Are we really meant to take Silvio Berlisconi seriously?

What about Robert Mugabe? more disgusting than embarrassing
Idi Amin, wasn't he a cracker?(wasn't he the last King of Scotland? Self proclaimed of course) more than embarassing? yeah different kind of thing.
Saddam Hussain?

I reckon a society that can feel embarassed by its leader is okay, its the alternatives that scare me.

03-Jun-03, 19:05
KW14, I did find Boris Yeltsin embarrassing when he was the Russian President, but then I was too young to have much of an opinion at the time. Prince Phillip embarrassing? No, I find him hysterical…. The list could indeed go on and on and on….

The difference between Bush and everybody else is, I think, obvious. Bush is the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. Should it not be expected that he have at least some grasp of world affairs? After all, with Blair hanging onto his coat tails like a lost puppy it strikes me that in the eyes of many he represents the whole of western society and not just the USA.

03-Jun-03, 19:07
K. I cited newspapers because one can go back and check them looking for "anti-Bush" smears.
As far as tv is concerned it was the shameful perfomance by CNN that stood out - virtually no criticism at all of the Allies! So we couldn't go looking there for anti-US smears. The CBC did good, thoughtful coverage but I couldn't see any smears. And what constitutes a smear?
It seems to me that apologists for the Bush agenda are altogether too quick to pre-empt intelligent discussion with the cry that they are being smeared.
Now if you want a really good smear, the Parsons column is a beaut but he's smearing the "left." So-called left.
And why the need to rally round the US and say "it's not the worst country in the world."
Well, who's saying it is?
OK Noam Chomsky on an off-day. Robert Fisk? I think not. he's careful to distnguish between US foreign policy and the US people. Alexander Cockburn? Not really. - But look at all the names I'm giving you. Go and do some reading. And while you're reading check out Niall Ferguson who says the USA is an imperial power and doing a botched up job of it. Is that a smear? Colin Powell asked him to dinner. Ferguson turned him down. Is that a smear?
Can we please put an end to these sly innuendos and focus on policy?

04-Jun-03, 04:57
Rich if I have used sly ineundo it was not intentional (not sure if that makes sense) - I actually agree with everything (almost everything) in your last post, I dont think Parsons was getting at the left, I actually think he was just giving his own opinion, something that I really wish others would do.
I dont reallt care what a lot of commentators say or think, and tend to base my views on experience, there is a lot that I do not like about America, its foreign policy (particulary its intransigence over environmental issues) but it is still a great country.
I can assure you I get a very broad view of the media from this particular part of the world from Al Jazeera to CNN, actually Robert Fisk is the darling of the middle east and is often printed in the local press.

JJC - do you think Bush does not have a grasp of world affairs because he pronounces Jacque as Jack? I'll tell you a wee story, I work with a wee guy from Texas and I was talking to him the other day as he was preparing to fly back to Houston (thats how I pronounced it, like the surname) - he corrected me and sad no, it is HYOOSTON. It isn't even semantics it is dialect. FOr the record, I think that America would have been a lot better off if Al Gore had "won" (sic) the Presiency.

04-Jun-03, 09:34
Doesnt need to be America where they proouce Hyooston as hooston.

Ask anyone in Wick what eh name of the chippy is on the corner opposite the post office and thy will tell you it is


when it quite clearly is Hyoostons


George Brims
04-Jun-03, 21:31
It's often callled Hoostyins in Week too. I think that's closer to the pronunciation of the Gaelic root name, which I can't spell but is the Gaelic version of Hugh.

08-Jun-03, 04:32

Once again taking the opportunity to bash America & Bush! I live in the US, have dual citizenship and I am 100% beheind Bush, as are the majority of Americans. He has an overall approval rating of 69%, which makes him one of the most popular presidents of all times. He may not pronounce everything correctly and perhaps is not eloquent as Tony Blair is, but people here find him sincere and honest, no matter what your opinions are!

Part of his appeal here is the fact that he is not sophisticated, and as many Americans are not exactly what you would call cultured or worldly (as many Scots are not, either!), many people identify with him.

I might also point out that although they may not have found any WMD, most Americans indicate (via large online polls) that they are not terribly concerned with whether or not any are found. Most feel satisfied that the removal of Saddam Hussein's Regime has improved the plight of Iraqis and that the world is a better place overall, now that he has gone. His neighbors don't seem to miss him!

Besides, Jaques is the French version of Jack and as Bush was speaking to Jaques Chiraq in English, was it really incorrect? Perhaps you forget that Jacques Chirac both lived & studied in the US in his youth (at Yale University, was it) and he worked at a Brewery (if my memory serves me correctly). I am sure that he has been called Jack many times- you seem far more offended than he probably was.

If Jaques Chirac pronounces George Bush's name as Jorrrrrges Bush, rather than George (as he likely does, being French) then why aren't you asking the French is they are embarassed, as he would obviously be using the French pronounciation of George, instead of the English?!

The truth is that a majority of Americans see George W. Bush as a hero. Perhaps you jjc, aren't happy since you were so against the war, and it wasn't the "next Vietnam" that all of you anti-war protesters predicted. You may have noticed that you seem to hold many of the views that the left wing Democrats here in the US do- they are actually more the minority in America, rather than the majority. They also are furious that Bush is so popular and they can't stand the fact that he is so strongly supported here by most people. In recent days, many Democrats have publically stated that they will not run against President Bush as they have little chance of winning against someone who has such high approval ratings.

One indicator is the popularity of the Fox news channel here (and MSNBC, also). Fox news tends to be more conservative, leaning more towards the Right & the Republican (and conservative) point of view (although they do show both sides more equally than CNN). The the fact that Fox news has leaped far beyond CNN (liberal slant to the news- staffed mostly by Democratic & Leftist liberals) in the TV rankings is an indicator that the majority of Americans do support Bush, as Fox news is strongly pro-Bush. If you are getting any other message, then perhaps it would benefit you to get your news from other than Leftist, anti-American sources!!!! And make no mistake that there are plenty of Americans who are Anti-American.

And to address the tax issue that one of the previous postings mentioned:

Tax returns and rebates in America are for TAXPAYERS- those who actually pay taxes. America is not a Socialist economy & giving money to those who don't work, or who have not paid into the sytem is not supported here. For those of you in Britain who are not aware of this, the wealthiest 10% of Americans pay 90% of the taxes here. Why wouldn't they deserve a tax break, since the wealthiest are those that create the most jobs and employ the most people, giving others work, in addition to paying the highest percentage of their income for taxes.

Today, an ammedment to the tax bill was passed (thanks to a few Democratic Senators) so, those earning the minumum wage will be given a rebate also, which will essentially be welfare payments, since those making minimum wage actually pay the smallest percentage of their income towards taxes, compared to those in higher tax brackets and really don't even come close to paying enough in to justify a rebate (as they already benefit from tax credits and rebates that reduce the amount of tax they pay to almost nothing). If mimum wage workers want to be paid more, they should seek to better educate themselves, which in turn will bring more money. In America, there are unlimited opportunities to acquire an education and the government provides grants and low interest loans to anyone seeking an education, including those who earn the least, or earn nothing at all & collect welfare. Those below the poverty level even qualify for financial grants to pay their living costs (The Pell Grant is $5,000 per semester for FREE, to pay living expenses, courtesy of the US government, and is also available to non-citizen legal resident aliens, with a green card and students that are self-supporting).

So, JJC, the answer to your Question is NO- Americans are not embarassed that George Bush is our President. Americans are very Patriotic and believe in supporting their president, and they approve greatly of both him and his decisions. All- except for certain people in the Democratic party, green with envy that he is so popular.

This forum seems to be just another oppotunity for YOU to push YOUR views on an unsuspecting audience! Like it or not, Americans are extremely pro-Bush (and pro-Blair, by the way).

There is a reason that so many people want to come to America- it is a great country and every year, countless countries come to the US, asking for help: military, financial & political, etc. Americans send their troops and their dollars to help other nations and American Taxpayers foot the bill. What other country in the world provides as much help and support to other nations, and provides as many personal freedoms and opportunities for a better life, if one is willing to work hard?

JJC, no offense, but you seem to be a very negative person, always spewing venom against America & Bush. Perhaps both you and Rich should consider putting your time & energy towards something positive that will benefit you or others, rather than obsessing about how much you both hate America and President Bush. You can't change the behavior or actions of others, you can only change yourself!


Fiona Rich

08-Jun-03, 12:40
when it quite clearly is Hyoostons

Is Hyoostons the same a Hyjoes in Thursa or should that be High Joes


08-Jun-03, 13:16
Okay… can I just say that I posted this thread with the intention that it be a light-hearted observation rather than some kind of attack on all Americans. I have nothing against Americans in general. If I really thought all Americans were like Bush I wouldn’t have bothered asking the question in the first place…

Fionarich, I’m sorry that you think I am a very negative person. If we had ever met I hope that you would hold a different view. I am, I think, one of the most optimistic people I know, which explains why I think it is worth voicing my opinions... hey, I’m optimistic enough to think that there is somebody out there listening who has enough ‘power’ to do something about it. If that isn’t blind hope in the face of overwhelming dismissal then I don’t know what is.

I’m not going to bang on with the whole ‘was the war right’ thing again (God knows, we’ve already been over that one). Frankly, I’m glad that it wasn’t the ‘next Vietnam’ (although that is something the papers accused anti-war protesters of saying and not something that I ever heard anybody actually say).

Just one question though. You say that most American’s don’t care whether WOMD are ever found… looking back over the statements Bush made, doesn’t it bother you that he may have lied to you? Doesn’t that warrant a closer look? I’m certainly concerned that Blair may have lied to me… and I would be whether I was behind the war or not because it is a distinct and important point. This isn’t a case of the ends justifying the means, it is a case of government being held accountable for its statements, whatever the circumstances.

08-Jun-03, 19:21

You are claiming that Bush lied- there has been no evidence to date of any lies and that will be a matter of opinion to many people here, also. Could there have been exaggeration? Possibly, but I am guessing that many people will be of the opinon that it is better to be safe than sorry.

Unless there is very clear and undeniable evidence of a conspiracy, people here would likely think that Bush and Blair had good intentions, that they believed that SH had chemical or nuclear weapons and that they believed in good faith that they were reducing/eliminating a threat to both their countries and the world. Intelligence can help a great deal, but no intelligence gathering is ever 100% and in a secretive & paranoid regime like Sadaam Hussein's, things can and often change in an instant without the outside world knowing what has or has not just occured. In the end, many Americans will likely consider that the ends has justified the means.

Am I convinced that Saddam Hussein had a documented stockpile of weapons that were/are considered very dangerous? Absolutely. Even the French and Germans said that they believed that he possesed such weapons, and was hiding them. There is documentation of him receiving or producing an extensive arsenal of chemical and biological agents, and no proof of him destroying any of it.

At some point, we may get some information from the Iraqi scientists that were captured, but until Saddam Hussein & his sons are caught, they may never talk. Let's face it, we gave Saddam Hussein plenty of warning that we were coming, so he had plenty of time to hide or destroy them, if he did have any. Iraq is a very large country- he could have buried them, hidden them in caves, or destroyed them in the days right before the coalition troops moved in etc. There have been reports that there are were high levels of numerous illegal chemical agents found in the water of the Tigris River, when it was tested after the fall of the regime.

If Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons, why did coalition troops find so much chemical protective gear (both masks & suits) in places that had been used to house their military (hospitals, schools, etc). The Iraqis would know that neither the British or the Americans use chemical weapons in warfare. Why coalition troops carry protective gear is obvious. No-one knows if chemical weapons weren't used because they were none, if they had been previously hidden or if the Baath party leaders decided not to, once they heard of the possible consequences (along with the lack of military leadership).

It is possible that Saddam Hussein knew that if any were found, that the whole world would turn against him. For all we know, he may have hidden them for any number of reasons: sympathy from the world community, plans to return one day and regain his dicatorship, etc. The point is that we just don't know.

One thing is clear- that political opponents of both Bush and Blair are pushing the whole theory of lies because it would benefit them the most in the next elections, to discredit the current leadership. The media loves it because the story sells newspapers and provides a reason for people to watch the news, not to mention that most media oulets are managed and staffed by those with Liberal/Leftist beliefs. In the end, a handful of world leaders make decisions for the majority and control many things. Many times there is information that we, as the public are not privvy to. Most Americans will trust that the person that they elected (Bush) and his advisors are working towards what is in the best interest of the American in the long run.
Make fun of Bush all you want, but his advisors are recognized to be a very competent and capable group of men and women. Dick Cheney, the Vice President is said to be a driving force and he has the utmost respect from people, as does Clin Powell, Condaleeza Ricer & many others. I am speculating here, but I suspect that leaders of the Arab world repect Bush a great deal more than any recent past President, because Bush has taken decisive action and struck back with military force (and won). It is common knowledge that the US was considered weak by not only Usama Bin Laden, but many others in that part of the world, because the US had not retaliated after so many terrorist incidents around the world, in which US embassies and military facilities were bombed and military personnel were killed (bombing of the USS Cole, bombing at CoBar towers, Boming of US embassies in African & other countries, etc, etc). Many people believe that he is much smarter than he has been given credit for.

Additionally, if you read many articles about Bush, he is liked by other world leaders as he is said to have a very warm and likeable personality. He is said to be humble and a sincere person, as well as having very strong religious beliefs and values, as many Americans also do.

He may be not be extremely cultured, but he is a man of convictions and actions. He is very much supported here and if you have seen any of the media coverage of him greeting crowds or militray personnel, he gets the same reaction as any big name pop star, and people here are very happy with the job that he is doing.

Clinton tried for years to broker the Mid-East Peace Talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians- with no success, much to his disappointment as he was hoping to be remembered for doing so. Bush has already had more success and has taken the talks further than Clinton ever did. His success in this matter is just one more reason for the Democrats/Liberals to hate him!

I might also point out that for all of these people that are screaming about risking "OUR" troops lives", the overwhelming majority of those troops serving (Both British & American) will tell you that they support the Iraq War and that they belive that it was the right thing to do, to remove such a destabalizing and oppressive regime. As the miliary is non-political, I assure you that if they believed that it was the wrong thing to do, they would be the 1st to say so and that they would not have done such a remarkable job. Be glad that there are people that are willing to risk their lives to make the world a better place.

JJC, glad to hear that you are not such a negative person! [lol]

Fiona Rich

08-Jun-03, 20:23

You are claiming that Bush lied- there has been no evidence.

If Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons, why did coalition troops find so much chemical protective gear (both masks & suits)

1:- Where is the evidence?

2:- I was a member of HM Forces and I had a respirator & suit as standard issue and as far as I was and am led to believe the Brit Government has got rid of WMD or Chemical weapons, so my equipment was for purely protection against an agressor not for me to wear against anyone else. So Saddam was only protecting his troops from a known country who uses chemical warfare ,the US of A, remember "Agent Orange" in Vietnam, so how does that make Bush innocent?
And while I am on my high horse Why wont the US sign up to the agreement NOT to use and manufacture and sell Land mines as most Nato countries have.

08-Jun-03, 21:25

Most feel satisfied that the removal of Saddam Hussein's Regime has improved the plight of Iraqis and that the world is a better place overall, now that he has gone. His neighbors don't seem to miss him!

Then why are the Iraqi's still fighting the Americans now?

09-Jun-03, 02:57
Golach wrote:

"a known country who uses chemical warfare ,the US of A, remember "Agent Orange"
in Vietnam, so how does that make Bush innocent?"

To you Golach, I will point out that the Vietnam War was about 30 years ago- how that is related the current Iraqi conflict, I can't imagine. I don't see how Agent Orange being used years ago by a past president makes Bush guilty of anything- he would have been just a child at the time, and the US stopped using that sort of weapon decades ago.

It is well known world-wide that neither the US nor Britain currently use chemical weapons as part of their arsenal of weapons- Saddam Hussein would know this. You seem to not know this, however.

He has, however been known to use chemical weapons to attack his neighbors, as well as his own people. The BBC reported today that another mass grave has been found in Iraq- full of Iraqis killed after the conflict began. Perhaps you would like to petition to allow him and his family to request asylum in Britain and invite him to move in next door to you and your family. Perhaps you could swap gardening tips over a friendly cup of tea!

Saddam Hussein, on the other hand is well known to have posessed chemical weapons as it was documented by the UN. He gassed a village of 5,000 Kurds a few years ago, just to test out some gas- and he videotaped the act, complete with people dying as it was being used. He has provided some of the truth himself by recording it.

It was common knowledge during the Perisan Gulf War in 1991, that he had stockpiles of VX Nerve Agent and other toxins, as well as having Anthrax (the eqivalent of 5 million teaspoons), at one time. He made no secret of having such weapons and within days of Baghdad falling, there were containers found that are used to attach chemical agents to missles. If he didn't have any plans to use those containers to deliver chemical weapons at some point, (as he has in the past), then why would he keep them? For nostalgic reasons? I think not.

Oh and just FYI, I have a gas mask as well as a MOPP (chemical) suit- both are current issue, just as I had the last version issued during the 1st Gulf War. As for the Vietnam War, I was born about that time, so I really have no personal experience as to that conflict.

And Deacon Blue,

I hardly think that a tiny minority of Baath party loyalists that are attacking coalition forces, located mostly in Falusia, (the region that Saddam Hussein is from, where he spent a great deal of money and has a great deal of family) consitute the entire country. Most Iraqis are happy to be free from the oppressive regime, and will be even more so once the situation there has stabalized and there is a government in place, which will happen but will take time.

Be realistic- in a country where anti-American and anti-Western sentiment was taught as part of the normal school curriculum, and former Iraqi soldiers are angry that their threats of violence havn't resulted in them continuing to be paid, are you that surprised that SH continues to have some supporters?

Saddam Hussein and his sons continue to be at large and there is likely a small minority that believes or at least hopes that that he will regain power. For all we know, it may be SH & his sons that are organizing the attacks on coalition troops.

As for why the US does not sign up to the agreement NOT to use and manufacture and sell Land mines as most Nato countries have, how should I know? The only mines that I know the US to currently use are small (approx 5"x7" in size) above ground mines that are detonanted by running a wire from them, and detonated by hand- they are not buried or left behind to maim anyone and even so, they are rarely even used at all, compared to conventional weapons. They have no ability to self-detonate. I have no knowlege of the US using land mines in any recent years.

I see that some people are upset because I state the fact that Americans are mostly in support of Bush.


Fiona Rich

09-Jun-03, 14:31
Fiona, I am married to an American.

09-Jun-03, 17:34
wondered why you were called Rich rahter than Dick :roll: sorry that was a cheap jibe :~(
On the subject of the Baath Party when did they become enemies anyway? The Baath party can also be found in Syria and Lybia, it is meant to be a socialist style organization, non denominational.
Fiona whilst I started off a fair bit of this in my response, it was agianst American bashing per se and not pro-Bush. As someone who lives and works in the Middle East I can assure you that I have yet to meet a single Arab who thinks what America and the UK did was justified. They agree to a man that Sadam was a devil, but they see Bush as similar - whether that is right or wrong I am not commenting on, but that is how he is perceived.

10-Jun-03, 17:17
My apologies KW14...,

I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the Baath party members in Iraq that enjoyed the benefits of being supporters of Saddam Hussein.

I was replying to JJC's initial question- that Bush is supported mostly, here in the US, and that the majority of the population thinks that he is doing a good job and not an embarassment. I think that in light of the terrorist attacks, people seem to be glad that at least he is doing something that is seen as procative, rather than reactive. I am not trying to spark a debate as to whether it was the right decision or not- I think that that remains to be seen, and that only time will tell.


Being married to an American certainly has not stopped you from being vehemently anti-American and believeing in all sorts of conspiracy theories, or from being extremely negative about Americans- you sound rather like a fanatic!! :(


Fiona Rich

10-Jun-03, 18:41
Fiona, I will strive to mend my ways!

10-Jun-03, 21:40
Fiona, I will strive to mend my ways!

Please dont Rich, just when your beginning to win me over.

As a matter of interest Fiona, Rich has never appeared anti American to me. He was always anti American government, and in light of recent events i can see why.
On the other hand your blind support of President Bush and his cronies is much more frightening to me than Richs thought provoking and humerous posts. It wasnt until you suggested that the Fox news crowd were representative of the American people that i realised your right wing veiws were a throwback to the 80s and the worst ofThatcherism over here.
I watched with disgust during the conflict as those so called news presenters of Fox News presented something akin to Nazi propaganda reports from various parts of the world. If anything, they were instrumental in turning me against the Bush Blair campaign.
I dont believe they were representative of the majority of American people and if they were my heart despairs for the future of our world.
It would be interesting to hear from other Americans who use this site to see if your extreme right wing veiws are shared by others.

11-Jun-03, 15:40
Things I like about the United States:
My wife.
The Carnegie Delicatessen.
L.L. Bean
Jogging in Central Park.
The Marx Brothers.
The Wire
All of my friends and colleagues in the medical writing biz.
Attending huge medical meetings in the Shoreham/Sheraton hotel complex in Washington DC.
The Air and Space Museum in Washington.
The trolley car from San Diego to Tijuana
Riding cable cars in San Francisco and visitng Alcatraz.
The Grand Canyon.
The New Yorker.
The New York Review of Books.
Crime writer Elmore Leonard.
Vermont in springtime.
Chestnuts roasting.
Jambalaya in New Orleans and a bar there with a collie dog.
The Vampire Lestat
Cephas and Wiggins (blues band)
All of my many. many friends in the United States.
I could go on....

11-Jun-03, 17:41
and the things you like about Iraq? :roll:

George Brims
11-Jun-03, 18:59
A few randomly selected points:

It is becoming more clear as time goes on that the US administration at least (don't know if the British one was in cahoots or deceived) not only mis-stated the facts about WMDs in Iraq, but KNEW it was mis-stating the facts. John Dean, who was involved in Watergate, recently wrote a piece (see http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/06/11/dean_wmds/index.html ) maintaining that this should lead to Bush being impeached.

Things I like about the USA:
Living in it
Da Blooz, especially at BB King's Club in LA.
Big giant pancakes with maple syrup.
The freedom to speak your mind (unless you're a country singer apparently)

Things I don't like about the USA:
A certain few of the people I share it with, most are fine.
Corporate news media especially Fox - those people are just plain rude and intolerant of anyone who doesn't share their world view. How long would the BBC or ITV keep a chat show host who yells "Shut up" when losing an argument?
Crappy drivers.

Things I like about Iraq:
It''s not close to where I am.
It's really really far away.
It's not next door.

As for Bush: When the aliens land, I'll be embarrassed he's from the same SPECIES.

11-Jun-03, 21:09
What I like about Iraq is my friend Haike who I met at a party in Dundee years ago when he was at the Dundee Tech and I was writing balloons for DC Thomson. Our friendship continues as he is my neighbour in Toronto.
I enjoy his sophistication, his wit, the extraordinarlily bad poetry that he writes and his endless complications with women. He also dances the tango very badly.
Like many Iraquis life for Haike and his family has been extremely difficult.
Haike is a liberal in plitics and no supporter of Sadam. His mother - in her late 70s - is living in Baghdad with one of his sisters and everyone is worried about her welfare.
Haike is is glad to see the end of Sadam and would like the Americans to leave now or as soon as possible.
He says that the current administration in the US is naive in the extreme.
Fiona, I have been observing him closely for signs of fanaticism, for an indication that he is getting hot under the collar. He seems fine so far.
I'll keep you posted....

12-Jun-03, 18:18
Rich, of course you are right. I have travelled all over and have only ever met 2 types of people, they are either good or bad. I currently live in Saudi Arabia and have to say that the hospitality and welcome I recieve is incredible.

12-Jun-03, 20:08
I currently live in Saudi Arabia and have to say that the hospitality and welcome I recieve is incredible.
kw14 You should get a job with Blair & Bush Liars Inc. your spin puts even them to shame, The hospitality and welcome you receive from the Saudi's dont make me laugh, you must be wanting your next entry visa to come through or something to that effect I have lots of relations and friends working in Saudi just now and the only thing that keeps them there is the money they are being paid by American & Brit companys who are making mega bucks. Not one person I know has ever said they have been shown any hospitaliy by any Saudi either on the road in the Market or even on a plane.
My Cousin was flying home from Riyahd recently by her self and her seat was the seat at the window she was settled down when a Saudi male kicked up such a stink with the cabin crew because he had to sit with a european woman she refused to move so they upgraded him to business class, call that hospitality and by the way she is from Scrabster so I beleive her

George Brims
12-Jun-03, 22:03
There are only two types of people in the world: those that divide the world into two types of people, and those that don't.

13-Jun-03, 10:11
Golach, I work for a Saudi company, I work with Saudis, I have a multi-entry/exit visa and I can leave when ever I like. I am telling you first hand that these people are very hospitable, if you care not to believe me fair enough - I am talking from first hand experience.

13-Jun-03, 10:30
Actually just read your post agian Golach - hope you aint calling me a LIAR mate [disgust]

13-Jun-03, 10:45
Hi KW14, I wondered, seeing as you find the Suadis so hospitible, do women have equal rights over there?

13-Jun-03, 11:38
Gleeber, nowhere did I say that the society was perfect (far from it), all I said was that people are VERY hospitable.
As for equal rights for women, the answer is NO, just as equal rights for religions does not happen, and there is positive racial discrimination.
By the way do women have equal rihgts in the UK :roll:

13-Jun-03, 13:11
Sounds like a rather oppressive system KW14; why do you support it with your expertise and labour? Perhaps you think its ok for a man to expect a woman to move her seat so as he can show us how wonderfully hospitible he really is.

13-Jun-03, 14:51
I see Gleeber, so one persons experience on a flight (which you heard 3rd hand) is the yardstick by which you jusge hositality is it - seems to me rather narrow minded.

My reasons for working here anre many and varied and I am comfortable with them.

Of course I do not agree with everything that happens in this country, but I dont agree with a lot of things.

Notice you never answered the question about equal rights for women in the UK, but that's nothing knew with you Gleeber, avoiding the issue,changing the subject and trying to score petty points.

13-Jun-03, 20:00
Actually just read your post agian Golach - hope you aint calling me a LIAR mate [disgust]
I never suggested you were a liar kw14ultra, just that your spin about the "wonderful & so hospitable " Saudi's made you eligable to be a member of the lying bedfellows Bush & Blair Liars Inc. The nonsense that comes from those two is as unbelievable as me ever meeting a hospitable Saudi.
Any way we seem to have detracted from the original topic "What do Yanks think of Bush?"
p.s. Gleeber Im with you

13-Jun-03, 20:10
Ill not bother to answer your accusations about my motives for posting here KW14 because im pretty sure you find the regime you work for as abhorrent as I do.
To use your own quote I think ypu paint a shortbread tin view to colour the severity of the regime you serve. Im sure the Saudis are friendly and hospitable but below the surface theres a collection of force fed cultural and religious differences that go directly against my own world view. Thats one of the reasons for the original content of this thread.
The fact that I dislike any form of discrimination maybe makes me just like them and the funny thing is I can be hospitipal too.

13-Jun-03, 20:15
Right Golach we'll get him next time hhe has a dram in. ;)

Wouldnt it be wonderful if everyone in the world was just like us? What a pefect world it would be lol

13-Jun-03, 21:38
Notice you never answered the question about equal rights for women in the UK,

He didnt Kw but guess what ... I am going to ...now dont all roll your eyes... all you men cant be expected to answer this
What was the original question?

By the way do women have equal rights in the UK

There are two answers to this - yes we have equal rights and no we dont.

Legally we have equal rights... It is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sex. There is no grey area here that is what the law says. Women therefore have equal rights within law as men. They cannot be paid less, be denied opportunities or treated differently than their male counterparts.

So why do we still not feel as if we have equal rights. Society still has some way to catch up with the law. Some men still feel that women should "know their place". There is still a tendency by some men to try to get out of their legal obligations by placing women in an inferior and subjugated role. Some men feel threatened by powerful, educated and assertive women. This is simply because society has not kept up with the law and it is a reflection of the length of time it takes for attitudes to change. Time will make a difference. My boys and the children of women my age and younger will not have the attitude that women "have their place". They are being brought up to see women as equals and therefore the distance between the law and the practice will reduce.

The question about equal rights was however asked in he context of the UK compared to Saudi Arabia. I dont think this is a question so much of equal rights as of freedoms. The freedom for a woman to choose to live how she wants to live.

Kw14 we have those freedoms as women living in a free and open society here in the UK.
Because we have those freedoms the social changes which i mentioned above will happen. Introduce an Equal Opportunities law in Saudi and women would still not be free to choose and therefore changes would neverhappen.

The whole subject is complicated and varies across the different areas of society. The bottom line is that here in the UK we have the framework in place which allows equality of opportunity across the sexes - they dont even begin to have that in Saudi.

14-Jun-03, 02:32
More power till your elbow squidge I agree whole heartedly with your comments posted above.
I am not anti Arab nor pro any left wing faction. BUT and there always is a but.
kw14ultra and his love of the Saudi regime leaves me noplussed, give me an exampile of the Saudi "Hospitality" and I will change my views I am very Liberal at heart though I did not vote for them.
All responses I have had from "Brits" living in "Compounds" is that the Saudi's have not wish to be incontact with any non Saudi and if a non Saudi does not conform then" Hell mend them",
I was in Saudi a long time ago myself and the corruption that goes on there is unbelieveable.
The corruption comes down from the so called "Royal Family" of Saudi Arabia who in my opinion are a bunch of despots but I am a small voice in the Wilderness
there I have ot that off my chest

14-Jun-03, 05:00
Nowhere did I say I loved the Saudi regime, the fact that the Brits you know who live in their compounds do not wish to talk meet or socialize with locals says more about them than the locals. These will be the same individuals who tell you they make "megabucks" but need to supplement their income by making home made alcohol and selling it, these are the same individuals who see no problem with breaking laws in someone else's country but are the first to complain when those immigrants dont conform in the UK.
My original point was that people are friendly and hospitable - it has been turned into me being a supported of the regime, get a grip. Just because people do not fit in with your paradigm of being hospitable and friendy you have a go at me - I suggest you are bigots, fuelled by ignorance.
You dont know what hospitality is Golach :eek: Being asked to share their food, being invited to have a cup of tea, not allowing you to pay for food etc when dining out, being made to feel welcome, asking about the health of your family, takinig an interest in your well being ......... I could go on and on.These may seem like small things, but the general feeling of openness and friendship displayed by those I have come into contact with is not that perceived in the minds of those of you who appear to disagree with me.
Squidge, of course I was being flippant about my question relating to Womens rights, I just find it amusing that men seemed to be prepared to shout about the rights of women in a foreign country but not their own. To be honest the rights of women in Saudi are much as the rights of men, apart from the fact that they are not allowed to drive.(for those who wish to disagree with my point here -I will spell it out, rights for all individuals are limited whether men or women, I do NOT agree with this but that is the way it is).
As for all those who complain whilst working here - let me ask you what does that make them? Of course they are normal :eyes

14-Jun-03, 12:01
Sandstorms in Iraq

I am sure that all of you heard about the sandstorm in Iraq in May (the worst in 100 years, some say) and the drenching rain that followed the next day. "Our" troops were bogged down and couldn't move effectively.

Arab TV claimed that this was God's judgment on U.S. actions. The media was already wondering if the troops were in a "quagmire" and dire predictions of gloom &doom came from some media.

What they didn't report was that the day after the weather had cleared, the Marine group that was mired the worst looked out at the plain they were just about to cross. What did they see? Hundreds if not thousands of anti-tank and anti-personnel mines had been uncovered by the wind, and then washed off by the rain.

If they had proceeded as planned, many lives would have undoubtedly been lost. As it was, they simply drove around them and let the demolition teams destroy them.

Thank God, for protecting our young men!

One person once asked George Washington if he thought God was on his side. His reply is reported to be, "It is not that God should be on our side, but that we be on His."


14-Jun-03, 12:12
With all the sadness and trauma going on in the world at the moment, it is
worth reflecting on the death of a very important person
which went unnoticed.

Larry La Prise, the man who wrote "The Hokey Pokey" died peacefully at
the age of 93.

The most traumatic part for his family was getting him into his coffin.
They put his left leg in. and then the trouble began...............................

14-Jun-03, 12:16
Powell Quote

When in Europe at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the heads of state if plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough land to bury those that did not return."

It became rather quiet in the room.................

15-Jun-03, 12:26
Our Father
Who art rather
selective with thine deeds
Hallowed be thy name
You shoulder no blame
For meeting the Iraqis needs
Thy will be done
It is no fun
When you turn your back on the rest
On earth as in heaven
You allow your coven
To think they are the best
Thy kingdom come
With bomb and gun
And earthquake storms and pain
Give us this day our daily bread
To give us the strength to bury our dead
And overcome your love and strain
Forever and ever
I will never
Allow you to be
Responsible for me

15-Jun-03, 13:51

22-Jun-03, 04:51
Lets hope that when it is proved there were no WOMD the U.K. will think twice about getting involved with the Yanks again.

The Yanks saved your tail during WW2.

22-Jun-03, 09:16
wasn't it just John Wayne? were there others involved?

22-Jun-03, 11:16
As they NEVER tire of telling us Marion!

22-Jun-03, 16:13
As they NEVER tire of telling us Marion!

I take that to mean you wish we had never been there. I served 36 months fighting part of the enemy (Japan) in the Pacific theate. Many of my friends died fighting the other part of the enemy in Europe. I guess I join with you and with many of my fellow countrymen by declaring that I don't ever want my country to help ingrates ever again.

Wasn't it just John Wayne? were there others involved?

John Wayne never served his country in the military during WW2. If you read true history instead of history written by revisionists, you would know the truth.

22-Jun-03, 16:44
Go Marion, Go Marion, Go Marion......

Could it be that we have the REAL John Wayne here :eek:

ThAnk you for correcting me on my revisionist history, I'll need to go back and tell them John Wayne never won WW2


From the Halls of Montezuma
To the Shores of Tripoli;
We fight our country's battles
In the air, on land and sea;
First to fight for right and freedom
And to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to claim the title of
United States Marine.
Our flag's unfurled to every breeze
From dawn to setting sun;
We have fought in every clime and place
Where we could take a gun;
In the snow of far off northern lands
And in sunny tropic scenes;
You will find us always on the job --
United States Marines.
Here's health to you and to our Corps
Which we are proud to serve;
In many a strife we've fought for life
And never lost our nerve;
If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven's scenes,
They will find the streets are guarded by
United States Marines!!! OOOHrah.''

22-Jun-03, 18:03
I never said I was ungrateful. However you did not win the war alone.

22-Jun-03, 18:06
The irony of our latest serial posters flippancy seems lost for the moment with his ever increasing need to have the last word. ;)

It took 2 years and 3 months before the USA entered WW2 and then only after a dasterdly attack by the Japenese at Pearl Harbour.
The British people had survived blitz bombings, and battles on land sea and air in the preceding 2years and 3 months and although it was a welcome relief when the USA entered WW2 it can never be said that without them we would have lost.
It was a collective effort to defeat evil and if any questions should be asked it would be why did it take Pearl Harbour for the American government to fight the tyrany of National Socialism?

22-Jun-03, 19:10
at least there was proof that they ha weapons of mass destruction that time :roll: Sorry that me being flippant and trying to get the last word agian - although I doubt very much if it will be the last word.
Who cares Gleeber? Do you think you will get your answer from Marion? I am just glad they did......think of how any movies it spawned, I mean think of the relief those poor native American Indians must have felt when they got a temporary stay of execution from being the bad guys, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave......indeed.

22-Jun-03, 21:55
I really dont like the way this is going folks.

A little decorum wouldnt be amiss. Marion deserves some respect here i think and i would like to see him get it. We may not agree with the politics within the USA, we may not agree with the actions the USA takes on various fronts, we may also feel they left it a little too long to assist during the second world war but assist the did and marion is right to point that out

Marion says

I served 36 months fighting part of the enemy (Japan) in the Pacific theate. Many of my friends died fighting the other part of the enemy in Europe.

For Marion and ex soldiers like him very often the pain of loss does not go away. Those 36 months must be as clear to him as to the many british and american soldiers who fought in Europe.You would all do well to remember how difficult it is to convey meaning in a short message and that the things we type in here can be occasionally taken as personal attacks or as belittling the achievements of people like Marion. Despite all the pompous mutterings of kw1 gleeber and luckyone you lot were not around and cannot share Marions memories, pain or his pride and i think you would all do well to change your tone.

22-Jun-03, 21:59
I never said I was ungrateful. However you did not win the war alone.

You are correct. We had the help of your countrymen whom we are thankful and much appreciated. Again, they helped in this latest endeavor.

22-Jun-03, 22:21
Lets hope that when it is proved there were no WOMD the U.K. will think twice about getting involved with the Yanks again.

The Yanks saved your tail during WW2.

Squidge, pompous perhaps, disrespectful........never

22-Jun-03, 22:29
Lets hope that when it is proved there were no WOMD the U.K. will think twice about getting involved with the Yanks again.

The Yanks saved your tail during WW2.

Squidge, pompous perhaps, disrespectful........never

My apologies then gleeber..........................

24-Jun-03, 00:59
ahem, back to the original question.

Yes, I am embarrassed for Bush, he is ineloquent. I was embarrassed for Clinton as well, he was a bare faced liar. I don't pretend to understand politics, therefore my logic is very simplistic. I always try to vote for the honest man. The trouble is this: I think politicians are selfserving egomaniacs. Politicians say whatever they think the public wants to hear, they say whatever it takes to win votes, and the minute they get into office they do as they please. We try to choose the lesser of two evils.

The leader of any country is a figurehead, the face presented to the world, however leaders cannot be a true representation of all the people. They represent themselves.

24-Jun-03, 04:54
You are correct. We had the help of your countrymen whom we are thankful and much appreciated. Again, they helped in this latest endeavor.

So there you have it non-revisionist history the USA with the help of others won WW2 ;)

With every respect Marion it is this attitude that makes the USA a target for scorn.

Can I ask a personal question? Do you have any links to Caithness? Family or were you based at NAVCOMSTA?

24-Jun-03, 08:04
Well done very well put, in a language I understood and very concise and so true

24-Jun-03, 08:08
aye but who do you vote for Sassy? Dont reckon there is an honest one amongst them.

24-Jun-03, 10:07
So there you have it non-revisionist history the USA with the help of others won WW2 ;)

With every respect Marion it is this attitude that makes the USA a target for scorn.

Agree with you entirely there kw14.

24-Jun-03, 11:32
Back in February Marion said that he did ‘not feel that any one owes the US a debt of gratitude’ and now we have ‘The Yanks saved your tail during WW2’. Is this just another example of beliefs on American supremacy polarising into two distinct camps with no room left for the middle ground???

I agree with KW14 on this one – Marion, this is the kind of statement that earns the US the ‘arrogant’ tag.

What do you want us to do? Turn a blind eye to whatever the American administration does simply because you believe we owe you some kind of eternal allegiance for a war in which both of my grandfathers fought? Would you rather that nobody questions the illegal imprisonment of minors by US forces at Camp ‘Iguana’? Would you rather that nobody shows any concern when there is now a possibility that the US military has bombed Syria (killing at least five Syrian border guards)? Would you rather that we turn a blind eye to the US administration forcing GM technology on the world without proper testing? The continued use of land mines in the face of overwhelming world condemnation? Shall I go on?????

I think that anybody who has been following the events in Iraq/Syria/Iran/Israel/Brussels(GM)/North Korea/Camps ‘X-Ray’ and ‘Iguana’ will have to agree that their opinions have become more intense (on both sides of the debate) over the past few months – I only hope that this doesn’t continue until opinions on the American administration spill over and become opinions of the American people. After all, the American population represents only 4% of the world population… will it really take an overwhelming majority voicing concern before somebody in the US government stops and notices they have been alienating the world??????? :(

24-Jun-03, 20:08
In reply to several posters... Yes, it took the USA 2 yrs & 3 mos to enter WW2 & that was after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. USA citizens were a peaceful nation and did not want to go to war. After the attack, they awakened to the threat (as never before) and massed by the hundred thousands to aid our allied nations. I remember the suffering of the British people during that time and my heart went out to them. I am proud of my fellow countrymen who served with their British compatriots. Whether the USA was of help or not is a matter of conjecture with some of the posters. I recognize their right for opinion.

In response to the question "why did it take Pearl Harbor for the American government to fight the tyrany of National Socialism?" The answer is: the American people were not ready for war at that time, but when they were ready, they poured all their resources into the effort. Remember this, President Roosevelt (over the objections of some) did his best to get neccesary supplies shipped for the European conflict. We lost many ships, lives, etc., to acomplish this. I recognize that many British ships, lives, etc., were also lost.

As for the poor native American Indians, they joined in with their efforts. We had native American Navaho nation who trained as Code Talkers for communications. Their code language was never broken and they made a great difference in our Pacific War. They are finally being recognized for their efforts in winning the Pacific war. There were also Native American Commanche Code Talkers who gave their support during the European War.

Regards "the Yanks saved your tails during WW2" was a poor choice of words on my part. I apologize. I should have replied "we joined in the fracas to help all our allies including the British." Just as we did in this latest fracas when we allied with the British against an Iraq government who subjected their citizens to horrendous suffering,. Many of their citizens wound up here in Tucson (plus many other major cities) where they sought refuge from tyrany. I was too old at 78 years to help, but younger generations picked up the slack..

In spite of "gleeber" not wanting to get involved with the Yanks again, I believe he is a minority and would be happy for any assist as his fore fathers received during WW1 & WW2 if the occasion occured.

KW14 Ultra... my quote "on your countrymen helping my countrymen in this latest endeavor" got his response "this attitude makes the USA a target for scorn." I don't understand his reasoning. I always believed our nations were in this together. In answer to his question, my links to Caithness was NAVCOMSTA. While there, I found the Scottish people very open and friendly. I never regretted my time there. In fact many years later I toured England & Scotland with my family to expose them to the friendly people there... in particular Thurso where I spent a lot of time.

JJC... as previously stated, I apologize for the words "the Yanks saved your tails during WW2." It does read arrogant. I responded with those words because I detected hostility against my country for getting involved. As for Iraq, Syria, Iran, Israel, North Korea, etc., school is still out and all free nations may be affected by events caused by these nations. Time will tell.

24-Jun-03, 20:55

In spite of "gleeber" not wanting to get involved with the Yanks again, I believe he is a minority and would be happy for any assist as his fore fathers received during WW1 & WW2 if the occasion occured.

Your honours intact Marion, I plead for mine.

25-Jun-03, 04:43
Marion, good response and post. It was not the section of the post which you quoted that would bae a target for scorn but in response to WW2 where it was stated you never did it alone you responded
We had the help of your countrymen whom we are thankful the way it was written was that the USA took the lead and others helped - however I think your latest post has clarified your position, which I wholeheartedly agree with.

28-Jun-03, 12:08

28-Jun-03, 16:23
We would not have been pondering entry into the Euro zone anyway :roll: