Bush or Kerry or ???
- Thread starter lisan
- Start date
Interesting how a conservative flames a liberal/liberalism, then calls him/herself a person open to different ideas.
Clinton, as you know, was in office during a time which republicans had the majority in the legislative branch.
Anyway, the flaming's going good, as less'go said. At least you haven't gone down to calling each other Nazis or some variation of homosexual...unless you have.
Clinton, as you know, was in office during a time which republicans had the majority in the legislative branch.
Anyway, the flaming's going good, as less'go said. At least you haven't gone down to calling each other Nazis or some variation of homosexual...unless you have.
If you have any eidence to contradict the following assertions,
as I have said already, please feel free to publish them.
Bush falsely accussed Hussein of having nuclear weapons
Bush falsely accused Hussein of having biological weapons
Bush falsely accussed Hussein of supporting Al Qaeda
Bush falsely accussed Hussein of suporting Sept 11th
Bush and his goverment doctored intelligence reports and presented doctored information to the UN in February 2003 to try to falsely convince the international community of the threat posed by Iraq.
These conspiracy theories issued by the Bush goverment were the basis for your country going to war in Iraq.
Originally posted by keydates
No. You didn't call me a Nazi, you genocide-loving skinhead .
Genocide loving??? It’s coward like you who sit back and complain, criticize, and pull a “Neville Chamberlain” when it come time to taking action against genocidal tyrants.
Then once the decision is made to go in you stop at nothing to sabotage the liberators by calling them “baby killers” and staging protests. If people like you were truly concerned about human rights, I would have seen massive protests against the Sadamm regime, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, but the left falls silent because it’s so pathetically ineffectual and pusillanimous to do anything other than feed the negative rumor mill.
As for skinheads, I don’t associate with un-educated white trash, who have no understanding of history or genetics (racial purity is equal to making the claim that inbreeding produces a master race).
The insult was not personal, just intended to produce the results needed to limit my boredom (slow day at work).
nor was mine. Hence, the smilie. Sorry if you took it as such.
And besides, not all the left is critical of whatever the US does. Many acknowledge that Saddam is/was a bad man; however, they opposed war, believing that there was a better way to remove/deal with him. In those other cases, people on the left were vocal about the problems going on. Some called for intervention, others didn't.
And besides, not all the left is critical of whatever the US does. Many acknowledge that Saddam is/was a bad man; however, they opposed war, believing that there was a better way to remove/deal with him. In those other cases, people on the left were vocal about the problems going on. Some called for intervention, others didn't.
Therein lies the problem...for more than 12 YEARS we tried the OTHER way...when is enough.. enough? You know if Clinton were still President, Ted "hiccup" Kennedy would be leading the charge to war. Just how hypocritical the left always is... If you refer to the middle-left I agree with you. However, the growing movement within the D party is radical left complete with screeches from dean and gore. A bunch of pathetic, submissive pacifists who will let these radical religious zealots carry out their work and kiss their **** while allowing it!
Also, you can't have it both ways... those people who in one breath say "I support the troops" then in the other breath lump all of our service men and women with those watching over abugrabe.....or "Sadaam was a despicable human being but we only attempted for 12 years to rein him in..We should keep negotiating with him while he takes pot shots at our pilots, starves, rapes and murders his people"
GET OFF THE FENCE PEOPLE!!!
I say that with sincerity and do not mean to offend....
Espada,
Good luck dealing with this guy Limerickman... At first I thought he was ok..then he started getting unstable on me...Just to give you a quick bio on this stooge numeral uno... You can't trust his references...we've been at it for awhile. Everytime he makes reference to something, you go and check his facts and either he has taken his information from some liberal rag, tabloid or it is outdated or out of context. He gets his world news from a financial source.
My impression is that he can't comprehend what he reads for he doesn't know my gender even though he looked through all my posts to find the one time I stated that I was a 41 year old male...with a wife and child, and repeated this information back to me in a previous post. (he did this to prove he was younger than me...by 3 yrs I think...)
He likes to keep score. One time he called be disengenuous referring to post times and dates and the like. Accused me of trying to "score points on him unfairly"... What???
So, he takes his opinion very seriously. I think he is delusional as he thinks that he is either a Secret operative or Clark Kent, and his opinion is entirely formed by the media.
He still can't quote properly in this forum although he has received instructions from the administrator (three times) and directly from me (the mature student from Virginia) in an earlier post. Somehow he still managed to dork it all up.
He believes that the UNITED STATES is a continent not a country.
He thinks that he can type slower (when he is trying to make a point) "I type this slowly so you can understand" and some how the reader is supposed to be aware that he has done so.
He will never admit that he is wrong for he is as you put it..a self proclaimed "know it all"
He is not original as he borrowed the pavlov reference from another poster and like a "dog on a bone" keeps repeating it... He sorta gets onto a letter and tends to stick with it. Like I've said before I believe his thesarus pages must have stuck together and I don't want to know why...
Well those are his good points...hehe...
So, now you know who you are dealing with here...So I wouldn't take anything he says very seriously....
Originally posted by zapper
Espada,
Good luck dealing with this guy Limerickman... At first I thought he was ok..then he started getting unstable on me...Just to give you a quick bio on this stooge numeral uno... You can't trust his references...we've been at it for awhile. Everytime he makes reference to something, you go and check his facts and either he has taken his information from some liberal rag, tabloid or it is outdated or out of context. He gets his world news from a financial source.
My impression is that he can't comprehend what he reads for he doesn't know my gender even though he looked through all my posts to find the one time I stated that I was a 41 year old male...with a wife and child, and repeated this information back to me in a previous post. (he did this to prove he was younger than me...by 3 yrs I think...)
He likes to keep score. One time he called be disengenuous referring to post times and dates and the like. Accused me of trying to "score points on him unfairly"... What???
So, he takes his opinion very seriously. I think he is delusional as he thinks that he is either a Secret operative or Clark Kent, and his opinion is entirely formed by the media.
He still can't quote properly in this forum although he has received instructions from the administrator (three times) and directly from me (the mature student from Virginia) in an earlier post. Somehow he still managed to dork it all up.
He believes that the UNITED STATES is a continent not a country.
He thinks that he can type slower (when he is trying to make a point) "I type this slowly so you can understand" and some how the reader is supposed to be aware that he has done so.
He will never admit that he is wrong for he is as you put it..a self proclaimed "know it all"
He is not original as he borrowed the pavlov reference from another poster and like a "dog on a bone" keeps repeating it... He sorta gets onto a letter and tends to stick with it. Like I've said before I believe his thesarus pages must have stuck together and I don't want to know why...
Well those are his good points...hehe...
So, now you know who you are dealing with here...So I wouldn't take anything he says very seriously....
Where do I begin ?
Throughout our entire exchange of views, I have tried to be as polite as possible during my discussion with you.
I had assumed that I was dealing with someone who would listen and think about views expressed and then try to, cogently, put their side of the case.
In all of the media references that I have posted to rebutt your opinion, I have provided you with the name, time and date of the article that directly contradicts the opinions which you post.
I did this initially on the basis that perhaps you might take the time to read the content of the references and that hopefully you would decide to respond with information to support your view.
However it became evident that your view, was informed not by factual information but by your prejudices and your jaundiced view of those who do not share your political viewpoint.
You quickly disparaged those who disagree with you – you insist on responding to each and every post that disagrees with your view.
You dismiss all articles and media coverage that oppose your political view, as being “from some liberal rag, tabloid or it is outdated or out of context”
You continue to attempt to falsely label people throughout your responses.
Your defensiveness when under attack from me and other posters, leads me to believe that you are in complete and utter denial.
Thus, I do believe that you are utterly disingenuous.
Espada :
In response to the specific accusations that Zapper’s made here, Espada, twice I have stated that when he tried to compare the economic output of the USA to Germany, I responded to say that “in economic terms the USA is a continent”
and that comparing a continent (USA) to a country (germany) is like comparing apples with oranges.
As for Zappers contention that he (Zapper) doesn’t take my view seriously, you only have to look at the amount of times that Zapper has responded directly to my mails throughout a number of threads.
For someone who doesn’t take my view seriously Zapper, you sure post a lot of replies to my replies, don’t you ?
This only goes to prove that your statement to Espada
“I wouldn't take anything he (Limerickman) says very seriously…” is yet another example of just how far in denial you really are.
Checkmate Zapper !
Limerickman
You were polite until I proved your were full of "hot air". I dismiss what you say for when I actually took the time to look up your references (liberal media sources) you facts were incorrect. For example you claimed that our unemployment was 6.1% when in was indeed 5.6%. You got your information from a some thirdparty financial webpage, I got my info from the U.S. Dept. of Labor.
Well...there you go again....
Moe, there is a difference between taking one seriously, and responding to some crazy hypocrit who is trying to tarnish the image of My country, My military and My fellow americans with Lies, half truths and leftest propoganda.
So, I don't take you very seriously for I know that you are indeed in need of a life.
Here you go again, my point there clark kent...keeping score again are we? You lack both the intelect and the testosterone to emerge the winner in any contest with me...But ding ding...this isn't a game, Moe...Just a forum where people voice their opinions. Just so happens that your opinon is always the exact opposite of mine. No matter...its not that we always disagree, its just when we do, you some how feel that you are always right. or you have scored more points in some imaginary game you are playing with yourself...
So, no I don't take you serously..But I take what you attempt to do with your "misinformation" seriously. Expect that when you attempt to attack MY country, MY military or My fellow americans, I won't let you get away with it.
So, go huddle up with the rest of your team and try to come up with something good this time...You are so predictable dude...
Financial Times 3rd June 2004:
US Jobs data continues to disappoint
The dollar vacillated wildly in early afternoon trade on Friday as the market attempted to size up May's US non-farm payrolls data.
The world's largest economy created 248,000 jobs in May, better than last week's consensus forecast of 225,000, but disappointing those who had revised their expectations up towards 300,000 in the light of recent strong survey data and encouraging weekly initial jobless claims numbers.
However the totals for March and April were revised up by a combined 74,000, meaning the US has created almost 950,000 jobs in the last three months, although unemployment remained constant at 6.1 per cent.
With the market divided as to how bullish the numbers were, the dollar initially swung wildly in both directions. However with the bears eventually appearing to gain the upper hand, the dollar fell around half a cent against both the euro and sterling to $1.2257 and $1.8432 respectively and slipped around Y0.6 againat the yen to Y110.62.
Elsewhere the Australian and New Zealand dollars regained some lost ground in London afternoon trade. The Aussie dollar has been under the cosh in recent days amid a growing expectation that Australia's growth and monetary tightening cycles have peaked.
But Friday's bounce was sparked by Ian MacFarlane, the governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, who said the markets had "overreacted" to this week's first quarter GDP data, which showed quarterly growth dipping to 0.2 per cent, from 1.3 per cent at the end of 2003.
He added that the "normal" range for Australian interest rates was 5.25 to 6.25 per cent, suggesting potential upside from the current 5.25 per cent at some point.
"The comments have seemingly rekindled the faint prospects that the Australian rate cycle may not necessarily have peaked after all," said Simon Derrick at Bank of New York.
This enabled the Aussie dollar to rise against the US dollar to $0.6914 and firm 2 cents versus sterling at A$2.6575. The New Zealand dollar rose in sympathy, to $0.6224 versus its US namesake.
US Jobs data continues to disappoint
The dollar vacillated wildly in early afternoon trade on Friday as the market attempted to size up May's US non-farm payrolls data.
The world's largest economy created 248,000 jobs in May, better than last week's consensus forecast of 225,000, but disappointing those who had revised their expectations up towards 300,000 in the light of recent strong survey data and encouraging weekly initial jobless claims numbers.
However the totals for March and April were revised up by a combined 74,000, meaning the US has created almost 950,000 jobs in the last three months, although unemployment remained constant at 6.1 per cent.
With the market divided as to how bullish the numbers were, the dollar initially swung wildly in both directions. However with the bears eventually appearing to gain the upper hand, the dollar fell around half a cent against both the euro and sterling to $1.2257 and $1.8432 respectively and slipped around Y0.6 againat the yen to Y110.62.
Elsewhere the Australian and New Zealand dollars regained some lost ground in London afternoon trade. The Aussie dollar has been under the cosh in recent days amid a growing expectation that Australia's growth and monetary tightening cycles have peaked.
But Friday's bounce was sparked by Ian MacFarlane, the governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, who said the markets had "overreacted" to this week's first quarter GDP data, which showed quarterly growth dipping to 0.2 per cent, from 1.3 per cent at the end of 2003.
He added that the "normal" range for Australian interest rates was 5.25 to 6.25 per cent, suggesting potential upside from the current 5.25 per cent at some point.
"The comments have seemingly rekindled the faint prospects that the Australian rate cycle may not necessarily have peaked after all," said Simon Derrick at Bank of New York.
This enabled the Aussie dollar to rise against the US dollar to $0.6914 and firm 2 cents versus sterling at A$2.6575. The New Zealand dollar rose in sympathy, to $0.6224 versus its US namesake.
Financial Times : 1st June 2004
By Steve Johnson in London
Published: June 1 2004 11:33 | Last Updated: June 1 2004 11:33
The US dollar continued its downward spiral in London morning trade on Tuesday as weekend violence in Saudi Arabia precipitated a fresh bout of oil price strength.
Brent crude rose more than a dollar, re-igniting fears that high oil prices could slow recovery in the US, the world's largest importer and consumer, as well as widening the already vast current account deficit.
The dollar was also held back by jitters ahead of the release of US manufacturing data later on Tuesday, with the institute of Supply Management index expected to decline modestly from April's 62.4 headline figure.
As such, the dollar weakened to $1.8391 against sterling, Y109.47 against the yen and SFr1.2469 versus the Swiss franc, all a touch off recent multi-week lows.
However the euro led the way against the greenback, rising a cent to $1.2251 as eurozone manufacturing data outstripped expectations. May's purchasing managers' index came in at a near-four-year high of 54.7, from 54 in April, a number the market had expected to see repeated.
The improvement appeared to be largely export-led however, with the eurozone employment component coming in only marginally higher at 48.7, below the breakeven 50-mark.
"The report does not indicate that the market needs to revise its 'no change' view for this Thursday's European Central Bank meeting," said James Knightley at ING Financial Markets. "However, inflation is likely to be mentioned at the ECB press conference."
This allowed the euro to spike up to £0.6669 against sterling, despite UK manufacturing data also beating expectations.
The Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply/Reuters purchasing managers' index rose to 55.6 May, compared to consensus forecasts of 55.3 and a figure of 55.2 in April.
In particular the employment component pushed to its highest level since June 1997 and there were clear signs of inflationary pressure mounting, with input prices at their highest level since July 1995 and output prices growing at their fastest rate since this measure was first recorded in November 1999.
"This report does increase the chances of a rate hike next week," added Mr Knightley. "However, given the wide divergence between the survey evidence and the official output data, we narrowly favour the Bank of England waiting until July."
Sterling also drew strength from a CBI survey showing 65 per cent of retailers reported rising sales in May, way ahead of expectations. This data, released at 1000 GMT, allowed sterling to trim its losses against the euro at £0.6658.
By Steve Johnson in London
Published: June 1 2004 11:33 | Last Updated: June 1 2004 11:33
The US dollar continued its downward spiral in London morning trade on Tuesday as weekend violence in Saudi Arabia precipitated a fresh bout of oil price strength.
Brent crude rose more than a dollar, re-igniting fears that high oil prices could slow recovery in the US, the world's largest importer and consumer, as well as widening the already vast current account deficit.
The dollar was also held back by jitters ahead of the release of US manufacturing data later on Tuesday, with the institute of Supply Management index expected to decline modestly from April's 62.4 headline figure.
As such, the dollar weakened to $1.8391 against sterling, Y109.47 against the yen and SFr1.2469 versus the Swiss franc, all a touch off recent multi-week lows.
However the euro led the way against the greenback, rising a cent to $1.2251 as eurozone manufacturing data outstripped expectations. May's purchasing managers' index came in at a near-four-year high of 54.7, from 54 in April, a number the market had expected to see repeated.
The improvement appeared to be largely export-led however, with the eurozone employment component coming in only marginally higher at 48.7, below the breakeven 50-mark.
"The report does not indicate that the market needs to revise its 'no change' view for this Thursday's European Central Bank meeting," said James Knightley at ING Financial Markets. "However, inflation is likely to be mentioned at the ECB press conference."
This allowed the euro to spike up to £0.6669 against sterling, despite UK manufacturing data also beating expectations.
The Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply/Reuters purchasing managers' index rose to 55.6 May, compared to consensus forecasts of 55.3 and a figure of 55.2 in April.
In particular the employment component pushed to its highest level since June 1997 and there were clear signs of inflationary pressure mounting, with input prices at their highest level since July 1995 and output prices growing at their fastest rate since this measure was first recorded in November 1999.
"This report does increase the chances of a rate hike next week," added Mr Knightley. "However, given the wide divergence between the survey evidence and the official output data, we narrowly favour the Bank of England waiting until July."
Sterling also drew strength from a CBI survey showing 65 per cent of retailers reported rising sales in May, way ahead of expectations. This data, released at 1000 GMT, allowed sterling to trim its losses against the euro at £0.6658.
Financial Times :
Published: May 30 2004 18:49 | Last Updated: May 30 2004 18:49
Diasterous US invasion of Iraq.
We have reached a turning-point in international politics as well as in Iraq.
President George W. Bush is widely seen to have gambled on Iraq and lost.
The impact of that loss goes well beyond Iraq. The US has not been defeated in battle and is unlikely to be so but it can no longer impose its will on Iraq because it lacks the moral authority to do so.
The "resistance" in any of its many guises is too divided to win and half- decent outcomes may yet emerge. The point is only that the future of Iraq increasingly depends on the variable quality of local leaders in the country, their ability to understand the consequences of allowing violence to become the first arbiter of their differences, the role that the United Nations chooses to play in helping to secure a transition from coalition occupation - and the readiness of the Americans to accept that they have lost the initiative. If he is to have any chance of success, Ayad Allawi, would-be prime minister, will need to demonstrate his distance from the coalition.
This was not inevitable. The arrogance and hubris with which the Bush administration embarked on this war in the first place used up much moral capital. Nonetheless this might have been replenished by the overthrow of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which could have been presented as a noble cause.
The negative views of carping members of the UN Security Council would have counted for little if the US-led coalition had established that it was truly the liberator, acting on behalf of the Iraqi people.
Unfortunately, while much of the opprobrium heaped upon the Bush administration in the past was unfair, it now seems to be well deserved.
Policy since April 2003 has been crudely and inconsistently improvised and troops have behaved as occupiers. They have insisted on taking on local militias and then been obliged to draw back.
The alienation of US-led forces from the Iraqi people, starkly illustrated by the pictures of US personnel abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, began almost from the moment of Saddam Hussein's overthrow and then gathered pace until it reached crisis point in April.
The chaos and violence unfolding in Iraq have consequences that are beginning to affect the entire international position of the US. Its friends are dumbfounded and its enemies almost overwhelmed by the propaganda bounty that has been handed to them.
Consider the two remaining members of the original "axis of evil" introduced by Mr Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address: Iran and North Korea.
Both are more advanced in their nuclear programmes than Iraq was. Any claims made by US officials are now almost certain to be disbelieved - even if they are true - and Washington's ability to maintain pressure on these regimes to comply with their treaty obligations has been eroded.
With "pre-emption fatigue" setting in, US military threats can be more easily discounted. China is now crucial in managing the capricious North Koreans, while the Americans are currently contemplating moving troops away from the Korean peninsula in order to fill gaps in Iraq.
Because the US has long refused to establish economic or diplomatic ties with Iran, only the Europeans seem to have any sort of leverage over Tehran. The British are determined to draw in the Iranians as a potentially calming influence on the Shia Muslim population in southern Iraq.
American objections, quite strong in the past, are growing fainter.
Support for Ariel Sharon has backfired as it has associated the US more than ever with ruthless Israeli policies while turning out to be insufficient to secure him backing from his Likud party for a modest withdrawal plan; and as he blusters about, clueless in Gaza, Washington seems to have nothing useful to say.
As evidence of how bad things have become for the image of the Bush administration, note that even Michael Howard, leader of the British Conservative party, can see political advantage in chiding Tony Blair for not disagreeing more openly with Washington. Already in Spain and potentially soon in Australia and Italy, as well as Britain, guilt by association with US policy has become a real electoral liability. With the potential members of "coalitions of the willing" in decline, the Americans must return to the multilateral institutions they once scorned, where they find that past behaviour continues to undermine their influence.
So a vacuum has opened up at the heart of world politics where US leadership ought to be found. It would be nice to think it could be filled by an assertion of European power but that is unlikely. There is not only a lack of common purpose in Europe but also an absence of real clout. The current uncertainties over the future of the European Union's constitution and the European Commission highlight the problem. Relations are still fragile between Britain and France, the two countries that, if they worked together, might be able to lead.
European leaders know that in many areas little can be achieved internationally without US support and that as the risk of a robust American imperialism declines, that of an introverted isolationism grows.
They can draw comfort from the thought that multilateralism is back in vogue and that the disclosure and investigation of the Abu Ghraib scandal demonstrate the vitality of US democracy.
It is by no means clear, however, that the extent of the problem is fully appreciated within the US.
Until recently there was reason to suppose that, with a fresh team, Mr Bush might be able to regain some of the moral authority he had lost. No longer. John Kerry has identified what he calls a "powerful yearning around the world for an America that listens and leads again - an America that is respected, and not just feared". Neither the power of that yearning nor the difficulty of regaining respect should be underestimated.
Lawrence Freedman is professor of war studies and vice-principal (research) at King's College London
Published: May 30 2004 18:49 | Last Updated: May 30 2004 18:49
Diasterous US invasion of Iraq.
We have reached a turning-point in international politics as well as in Iraq.
President George W. Bush is widely seen to have gambled on Iraq and lost.
The impact of that loss goes well beyond Iraq. The US has not been defeated in battle and is unlikely to be so but it can no longer impose its will on Iraq because it lacks the moral authority to do so.
The "resistance" in any of its many guises is too divided to win and half- decent outcomes may yet emerge. The point is only that the future of Iraq increasingly depends on the variable quality of local leaders in the country, their ability to understand the consequences of allowing violence to become the first arbiter of their differences, the role that the United Nations chooses to play in helping to secure a transition from coalition occupation - and the readiness of the Americans to accept that they have lost the initiative. If he is to have any chance of success, Ayad Allawi, would-be prime minister, will need to demonstrate his distance from the coalition.
This was not inevitable. The arrogance and hubris with which the Bush administration embarked on this war in the first place used up much moral capital. Nonetheless this might have been replenished by the overthrow of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which could have been presented as a noble cause.
The negative views of carping members of the UN Security Council would have counted for little if the US-led coalition had established that it was truly the liberator, acting on behalf of the Iraqi people.
Unfortunately, while much of the opprobrium heaped upon the Bush administration in the past was unfair, it now seems to be well deserved.
Policy since April 2003 has been crudely and inconsistently improvised and troops have behaved as occupiers. They have insisted on taking on local militias and then been obliged to draw back.
The alienation of US-led forces from the Iraqi people, starkly illustrated by the pictures of US personnel abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, began almost from the moment of Saddam Hussein's overthrow and then gathered pace until it reached crisis point in April.
The chaos and violence unfolding in Iraq have consequences that are beginning to affect the entire international position of the US. Its friends are dumbfounded and its enemies almost overwhelmed by the propaganda bounty that has been handed to them.
Consider the two remaining members of the original "axis of evil" introduced by Mr Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address: Iran and North Korea.
Both are more advanced in their nuclear programmes than Iraq was. Any claims made by US officials are now almost certain to be disbelieved - even if they are true - and Washington's ability to maintain pressure on these regimes to comply with their treaty obligations has been eroded.
With "pre-emption fatigue" setting in, US military threats can be more easily discounted. China is now crucial in managing the capricious North Koreans, while the Americans are currently contemplating moving troops away from the Korean peninsula in order to fill gaps in Iraq.
Because the US has long refused to establish economic or diplomatic ties with Iran, only the Europeans seem to have any sort of leverage over Tehran. The British are determined to draw in the Iranians as a potentially calming influence on the Shia Muslim population in southern Iraq.
American objections, quite strong in the past, are growing fainter.
Support for Ariel Sharon has backfired as it has associated the US more than ever with ruthless Israeli policies while turning out to be insufficient to secure him backing from his Likud party for a modest withdrawal plan; and as he blusters about, clueless in Gaza, Washington seems to have nothing useful to say.
As evidence of how bad things have become for the image of the Bush administration, note that even Michael Howard, leader of the British Conservative party, can see political advantage in chiding Tony Blair for not disagreeing more openly with Washington. Already in Spain and potentially soon in Australia and Italy, as well as Britain, guilt by association with US policy has become a real electoral liability. With the potential members of "coalitions of the willing" in decline, the Americans must return to the multilateral institutions they once scorned, where they find that past behaviour continues to undermine their influence.
So a vacuum has opened up at the heart of world politics where US leadership ought to be found. It would be nice to think it could be filled by an assertion of European power but that is unlikely. There is not only a lack of common purpose in Europe but also an absence of real clout. The current uncertainties over the future of the European Union's constitution and the European Commission highlight the problem. Relations are still fragile between Britain and France, the two countries that, if they worked together, might be able to lead.
European leaders know that in many areas little can be achieved internationally without US support and that as the risk of a robust American imperialism declines, that of an introverted isolationism grows.
They can draw comfort from the thought that multilateralism is back in vogue and that the disclosure and investigation of the Abu Ghraib scandal demonstrate the vitality of US democracy.
It is by no means clear, however, that the extent of the problem is fully appreciated within the US.
Until recently there was reason to suppose that, with a fresh team, Mr Bush might be able to regain some of the moral authority he had lost. No longer. John Kerry has identified what he calls a "powerful yearning around the world for an America that listens and leads again - an America that is respected, and not just feared". Neither the power of that yearning nor the difficulty of regaining respect should be underestimated.
Lawrence Freedman is professor of war studies and vice-principal (research) at King's College London
Financial Times :
Published: May 30 2004 18:49 | Last Updated: May 30 2004 18:49
Diasterous US invasion of Iraq.
We have reached a turning-point in international politics as well as in Iraq.
President George W. Bush is widely seen to have gambled on Iraq and lost.
The impact of that loss goes well beyond Iraq. The US has not been defeated in battle and is unlikely to be so but it can no longer impose its will on Iraq because it lacks the moral authority to do so.
The "resistance" in any of its many guises is too divided to win and half- decent outcomes may yet emerge. The point is only that the future of Iraq increasingly depends on the variable quality of local leaders in the country, their ability to understand the consequences of allowing violence to become the first arbiter of their differences, the role that the United Nations chooses to play in helping to secure a transition from coalition occupation - and the readiness of the Americans to accept that they have lost the initiative. If he is to have any chance of success, Ayad Allawi, would-be prime minister, will need to demonstrate his distance from the coalition.
This was not inevitable. The arrogance and hubris with which the Bush administration embarked on this war in the first place used up much moral capital. Nonetheless this might have been replenished by the overthrow of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which could have been presented as a noble cause.
The negative views of carping members of the UN Security Council would have counted for little if the US-led coalition had established that it was truly the liberator, acting on behalf of the Iraqi people.
Unfortunately, while much of the opprobrium heaped upon the Bush administration in the past was unfair, it now seems to be well deserved.
Policy since April 2003 has been crudely and inconsistently improvised and troops have behaved as occupiers. They have insisted on taking on local militias and then been obliged to draw back.
The alienation of US-led forces from the Iraqi people, starkly illustrated by the pictures of US personnel abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, began almost from the moment of Saddam Hussein's overthrow and then gathered pace until it reached crisis point in April.
The chaos and violence unfolding in Iraq have consequences that are beginning to affect the entire international position of the US. Its friends are dumbfounded and its enemies almost overwhelmed by the propaganda bounty that has been handed to them.
Consider the two remaining members of the original "axis of evil" introduced by Mr Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address: Iran and North Korea.
Both are more advanced in their nuclear programmes than Iraq was. Any claims made by US officials are now almost certain to be disbelieved - even if they are true - and Washington's ability to maintain pressure on these regimes to comply with their treaty obligations has been eroded.
With "pre-emption fatigue" setting in, US military threats can be more easily discounted. China is now crucial in managing the capricious North Koreans, while the Americans are currently contemplating moving troops away from the Korean peninsula in order to fill gaps in Iraq.
Because the US has long refused to establish economic or diplomatic ties with Iran, only the Europeans seem to have any sort of leverage over Tehran. The British are determined to draw in the Iranians as a potentially calming influence on the Shia Muslim population in southern Iraq.
American objections, quite strong in the past, are growing fainter.
Support for Ariel Sharon has backfired as it has associated the US more than ever with ruthless Israeli policies while turning out to be insufficient to secure him backing from his Likud party for a modest withdrawal plan; and as he blusters about, clueless in Gaza, Washington seems to have nothing useful to say.
As evidence of how bad things have become for the image of the Bush administration, note that even Michael Howard, leader of the British Conservative party, can see political advantage in chiding Tony Blair for not disagreeing more openly with Washington. Already in Spain and potentially soon in Australia and Italy, as well as Britain, guilt by association with US policy has become a real electoral liability. With the potential members of "coalitions of the willing" in decline, the Americans must return to the multilateral institutions they once scorned, where they find that past behaviour continues to undermine their influence.
So a vacuum has opened up at the heart of world politics where US leadership ought to be found. It would be nice to think it could be filled by an assertion of European power but that is unlikely. There is not only a lack of common purpose in Europe but also an absence of real clout. The current uncertainties over the future of the European Union's constitution and the European Commission highlight the problem. Relations are still fragile between Britain and France, the two countries that, if they worked together, might be able to lead.
European leaders know that in many areas little can be achieved internationally without US support and that as the risk of a robust American imperialism declines, that of an introverted isolationism grows.
They can draw comfort from the thought that multilateralism is back in vogue and that the disclosure and investigation of the Abu Ghraib scandal demonstrate the vitality of US democracy.
It is by no means clear, however, that the extent of the problem is fully appreciated within the US.
Until recently there was reason to suppose that, with a fresh team, Mr Bush might be able to regain some of the moral authority he had lost. No longer. John Kerry has identified what he calls a "powerful yearning around the world for an America that listens and leads again - an America that is respected, and not just feared". Neither the power of that yearning nor the difficulty of regaining respect should be underestimated.
Lawrence Freedman is professor of war studies and vice-principal (research) at King's College London
Published: May 30 2004 18:49 | Last Updated: May 30 2004 18:49
Diasterous US invasion of Iraq.
We have reached a turning-point in international politics as well as in Iraq.
President George W. Bush is widely seen to have gambled on Iraq and lost.
The impact of that loss goes well beyond Iraq. The US has not been defeated in battle and is unlikely to be so but it can no longer impose its will on Iraq because it lacks the moral authority to do so.
The "resistance" in any of its many guises is too divided to win and half- decent outcomes may yet emerge. The point is only that the future of Iraq increasingly depends on the variable quality of local leaders in the country, their ability to understand the consequences of allowing violence to become the first arbiter of their differences, the role that the United Nations chooses to play in helping to secure a transition from coalition occupation - and the readiness of the Americans to accept that they have lost the initiative. If he is to have any chance of success, Ayad Allawi, would-be prime minister, will need to demonstrate his distance from the coalition.
This was not inevitable. The arrogance and hubris with which the Bush administration embarked on this war in the first place used up much moral capital. Nonetheless this might have been replenished by the overthrow of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which could have been presented as a noble cause.
The negative views of carping members of the UN Security Council would have counted for little if the US-led coalition had established that it was truly the liberator, acting on behalf of the Iraqi people.
Unfortunately, while much of the opprobrium heaped upon the Bush administration in the past was unfair, it now seems to be well deserved.
Policy since April 2003 has been crudely and inconsistently improvised and troops have behaved as occupiers. They have insisted on taking on local militias and then been obliged to draw back.
The alienation of US-led forces from the Iraqi people, starkly illustrated by the pictures of US personnel abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, began almost from the moment of Saddam Hussein's overthrow and then gathered pace until it reached crisis point in April.
The chaos and violence unfolding in Iraq have consequences that are beginning to affect the entire international position of the US. Its friends are dumbfounded and its enemies almost overwhelmed by the propaganda bounty that has been handed to them.
Consider the two remaining members of the original "axis of evil" introduced by Mr Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address: Iran and North Korea.
Both are more advanced in their nuclear programmes than Iraq was. Any claims made by US officials are now almost certain to be disbelieved - even if they are true - and Washington's ability to maintain pressure on these regimes to comply with their treaty obligations has been eroded.
With "pre-emption fatigue" setting in, US military threats can be more easily discounted. China is now crucial in managing the capricious North Koreans, while the Americans are currently contemplating moving troops away from the Korean peninsula in order to fill gaps in Iraq.
Because the US has long refused to establish economic or diplomatic ties with Iran, only the Europeans seem to have any sort of leverage over Tehran. The British are determined to draw in the Iranians as a potentially calming influence on the Shia Muslim population in southern Iraq.
American objections, quite strong in the past, are growing fainter.
Support for Ariel Sharon has backfired as it has associated the US more than ever with ruthless Israeli policies while turning out to be insufficient to secure him backing from his Likud party for a modest withdrawal plan; and as he blusters about, clueless in Gaza, Washington seems to have nothing useful to say.
As evidence of how bad things have become for the image of the Bush administration, note that even Michael Howard, leader of the British Conservative party, can see political advantage in chiding Tony Blair for not disagreeing more openly with Washington. Already in Spain and potentially soon in Australia and Italy, as well as Britain, guilt by association with US policy has become a real electoral liability. With the potential members of "coalitions of the willing" in decline, the Americans must return to the multilateral institutions they once scorned, where they find that past behaviour continues to undermine their influence.
So a vacuum has opened up at the heart of world politics where US leadership ought to be found. It would be nice to think it could be filled by an assertion of European power but that is unlikely. There is not only a lack of common purpose in Europe but also an absence of real clout. The current uncertainties over the future of the European Union's constitution and the European Commission highlight the problem. Relations are still fragile between Britain and France, the two countries that, if they worked together, might be able to lead.
European leaders know that in many areas little can be achieved internationally without US support and that as the risk of a robust American imperialism declines, that of an introverted isolationism grows.
They can draw comfort from the thought that multilateralism is back in vogue and that the disclosure and investigation of the Abu Ghraib scandal demonstrate the vitality of US democracy.
It is by no means clear, however, that the extent of the problem is fully appreciated within the US.
Until recently there was reason to suppose that, with a fresh team, Mr Bush might be able to regain some of the moral authority he had lost. No longer. John Kerry has identified what he calls a "powerful yearning around the world for an America that listens and leads again - an America that is respected, and not just feared". Neither the power of that yearning nor the difficulty of regaining respect should be underestimated.
Lawrence Freedman is professor of war studies and vice-principal (research) at King's College London
Hey Moe, you need to fire your interns...They keep feeding you this B.S. that makes you look like an idiot...Sorry hope I didn't offend you...Just giving you some advice on your hired help......
5.6% not 6.1 c'mon, you crunch numbers for a living, can't you figure it out?
Plus you still jumble your responses in with your quotes...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahah......(falling off chair AGAIN).........
Hey and next time just give us a link instead of wasting all of this bandwidth on Lord whatsy hoozy whatever his name is...
At least you do seem to have the "cut and paste" thing worked out...
Write to the Financial Times at www.ft.com.
And explain to them that you think your country's unemployment rate is 5.6% !
