<font color='white'>Show me 5 posts from a non-american that talks about Chiracs blunders. CNN is an american net work, that leans to the left, what did you see that relates to this subject?</font>[/QUOTE]Just look for some of me, and you'll find what you're looking for. :D

Btw, what exactly did Rumsfeld say ?

Yep. No one. Not once. At all. Not ever has anyone mentioned a problem in a country besides the US on this board. Ergo we are picking on you because you are American. I see your logic.

Answer me this. You seem to think that we are all anti-american in some way, does that mean that our objections to the US have just been made up? We don't really want to stop the war, we're just picking a stance against the US. Is that it? You do realise that that is more than a little bit patronising - to state that if someone doesn't agree with you its because they are lying. Thats effectively what you are doing by putting down any criticsms to being anti-American.

Oh we talk about other people's blunders alright. But, if American blunders recieve more attention it is mainly due to their elevated power, fame and status.
More power = more damage done when you screw up.
More fame = scandal becomes 'juicier' so to speak.
More status = tall-poppy syndrome. Everyone wants a piece of the pie and likes to take pot-shots at the top dog.

Don't take it so hard Iron_Ranger. Be secure in your self-esteem.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color='white'> No worries Hierophant [img]smile.gif[/img] . I dont take it hard, just a bit annoying when your country is constantly getting bashed. </font>

<font color='white'> Maybe I am mis reading your post...But if he took it back (wow that sounds 3rd gradish) whats the big deal? </font>

<font color='white'>LOL, true enough Johnny. Thanks for the support, it doesnt come very often. </font>

<font color='white'>What? Thats not what I said. Well, maybe I used the wrong wording, its just the way I phrase things. I certiantly in no way called you a liar. But while you brought the subject up, take a look at the signs next time you see an american protest. Most of them say 'Bush=Hitler' or some non-sence. Hardly any of them say anything about the war. Alot of them just dont like Bush. </font>

Back on topic:

I think that the US would be doing a lot better in regards to getting support for this War if Rumsfeld was gagged. He seems to go out of his way to turn up the rhetoric and seems to undo all the work that Powell is doing.

I don't know where he gets the notion that his brand of diplomacy is useful.

Mark

Rumsfeld is a idiot. Not only as he insulted about everyone around the globe he has even insulted American's. He implied that people in the Armed forces in the past that were drafted were not worthy of getting compared to someone who enlist's the normal way. He insulted every drafte who died in every major war including the living vietnam drafte vet's. He did apoligize for it. He seem's to have to do that a lot eh? Guy is not half as smart as he tries to be.

I wish we had someone who was not half as pompous and rude.

This was a story from Times Online February 28, 2003:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...594124,00.html

Looks like José María Aznar, the Spanish Prime Minister, feels Rumsfeld should be quieted down.

Mark

Does anyone have a link to the remark? I saw a brief snip on the news yesterday where he said the UK may not be able to participate militarily without another UN resolution. What I saw wasn't insulting, but I didn't see the entire thing.

I heard a snippet from his speech on the radio this morning Ronn - let's just say it didn't sound like he was trying to encourage the British to hang in there as allies.

As much as I agree with prosecuting the cause against Saddam, I think the Bush administration has mishandled the affair and lost a huge amount of world wide support as a result. I lay most of the blame for these blunders at the feet of Senor Rumsfeld. He seems to be straight from the Eric Cartman (ie "screw you guys, I'm going home") school of diplomacy. If I was GW, I would be searching through the available talent for a half decent replacement - I have to believe there are others in the party who could do a better job.

Read what was said in the original post. Donald Rumsfeld was criticised not your country. Work through your paranoia, try to find what the idiot said, try to see how this would disturb the British and then comment on the issue at hand.

Like the new location Donut... ;)

Iron Ranger, the thing is that you are calling us Anti-american. Therefore we protest against this war not because we dislike the idea of the war, or because its not the best course of action, but because we don't like the US. Or because we don't like Bush, to be specific and reference your very last post on the subject. You are accusing the people who go on the demonstrations of doing so because they don't like Bush, not because they are actually against the war. Now, try and follow me on the next point, I understand its tricky:

These people say they are going on the demos, and that they oppose the war, for other reasons. They do not say it is because of the US or because of George Bush.

What I was basically driving at is that a lot of people on this board, and in general that I've talked to about this, seem incapable of understanding opposition to the war unless they explain it in terms of being anti-american. Calling someone like myself anti-american *is* calling them a liar, it is saying that their reasons for opposing the war are due to irrational dislike of a country and its leader, whilst they claim that they have other reasons - like the deaths of lots of people for example. So basically I'll ask you a question to clarify whether or not you actually are accusing the people on this board of lying or not. The question is this:

Why do we oppose the war? Is it because we have an actual, legitimate, objection to that war that you personally disagree with? Or is it because we have an irrational dislike of America and its leaders?

And please bear in mind that distinction when dismissing people as anti-american in future. Its not an especially nice thing to call someone, and frankly its quite patronising. Either we have legitimate opinions or we don't.

[ 03-12-2003, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]