Italian judge issues EU arrest warrants for 22 CIA agents [article]

Manic Moran

How many anti-Arab resolutions were vetoed by the USSR, out of interest?

Also, what's the deal with the Palestinian Solidarity day the UN had in November, with the big map of the Eastern Med with Israel not on the map?

NTM

lazydaisy

billy the squid wrote:

I think there is a difference here in that more than likely your ansestors were the ones who colonized the US where as mine are native to this country. Unless of course you are native american, american Indian?.

How is that more than likely? How is that relevent?

billy the squid wrote:

the financial incentives have been posted by me earlier in this thread. they even have a fancy name for it, Aliyah.

What's Aliyah?

Laguna

lazydaisy wrote:

What's Aliyah?

A pop singer who tragically died in an airplane crash seemingly..

billy the squid

Laguna wrote:

A pop singer who tragically died in an airplane crash seemingly..

not quite the same thing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah the pop singer has two A's at the start of her name.

Laguna

billy the squid wrote:

not quite the same thing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah the pop singer has two A's at the start of her name.

Ah come on, lighten up a bit man!

billy the squid

Laguna wrote:

Ah come on, lighten up a bit man!

i know, i know.

Hobbes

Nox wrote:

Almost true. These people are transported to their country of origin for interrogation where folks assume they are tortured.

Do you have any facts to back that up. I have seen nothing to date that shows that Renditions are sent to thier home countries.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4505886.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4504292.stm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/rend-d02.shtml

That was just a few seconds in google.

they get blamed for a lot which is totally bogus.

They also get blamed for a lot which is not totally bogus and they are responsible for. Of course if you want the list create a new thread as I'd prefer we stay on topic and not give you something to go off about.

Well ... if it's irreparably damaged ... then it's a waste of time for us to do anything about it. Why bother?

Well you could change the administration no?

Hobbes

lazydaisy wrote:

Hobbes - there is plenty there for you to read. But get your credit card out. You have to pay for most of it. Ive supplied a lot so you can gather your own opinion and pick which articles you want to read.

What you have done is basically done a search and not read anything in LeMonde, correct?

I had a look at the links of the searches and the text that is shown for free. Don't see anything that is Anti-American unless you define any critism as Anti-American. I have even done some searches on the ones that might be questionable so that I could read them for free. Again nothing.

I also googled "le monde anti-american" to see if I could find links to le monde stories. I certainly got some however none of which gave links to the stories and doing a search for the stories they quoted found nothing with that name. However I was able to find articles similar headings (which are free btw) but again nothing "Anti-American".

If you can tell me the article/s in question you read I can certainly get it and read it. I'll even try to link them here for you if there is a particular one you haven't read but think is Anti-American.

Laguna

Hobbes wrote:

What you have done is basically done a search and not read anything in LeMonde, correct?

I had a look at the links of the searches and the text that is shown for free. Don't see anything that is Anti-American unless you define any critism as Anti-American. I have even done some searches on the ones that might be questionable so that I could read them for free. Again nothing.

Come on Hobbes!, surely you know the old "You're either with us or against us" rigmarole by now!?. If you say anything that isn't 100% praise for an American policy as an American, you're "Unpatriotic", if you voice dissent as a European at American policy, you're dismissed as a "Euro"!.

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

Also, what's the deal with the Palestinian Solidarity day the UN had in November, with the big map of the Eastern Med with Israel not on the map?

I had a look to see what was being implied and couldn't find it at all (you think at least one newspaper would report such a terrible thing). All I could find was this...
http://www.eyeontheun.org/view.asp?l=21&p=142

Somewhat questionable site to begin with but the map is somewhat fuzzy and impossible to make out if it is true or not.

Hobbes

Well I could class them as Anti-American if all thier stories were critical of America but they aren't.

lazydaisy

Hobbes, you're digressing.

But its clear you only looked at the English ones.

Obviously if you google le monde anti-american you're not going to get the French articles because you googled in English. You should try googling in French.

For the sake of topic keeping, that is the last I'll say on it.

Hobbes

lazydaisy wrote:

Hobbes, you're digressing.

But its clear you only looked at the English ones.

Obviously if you google le monde anti-american you're not going to get the French articles because you googled in English. You should try googling in French.

For the sake of topic keeping, that is the last I'll say on it.

I could type in google "Europe anti-american" and claim that is proof that europe is anti-american, but without actually reading the linked articles and cross-reference it is all conjecture.

What I did was look at sites (english ones) using the google search which would be like minded to yourself and try to give me more links to stories which I could then go look for. I didn't google to search Le Monde directly.

So how about you just point me to the stories in question that you claim are anti-American. The French ones even seeing as you are claiming they exist. You can't because you haven't even read the articles as far as I can see.

Calina

lazydaisy wrote:

On racism and americans:

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/recherche_resultats/1,13-0,1-0,0.html?query=les+americains+racisme&query2=&booleen=et&num_page=2&auteur=&dans=dansarticle&periode=dateprecise&ordre=pertinence&G_NBARCHIVES=895921&nbpages=50&artparpage=10&nb_art=500&debutjour=11&debutmois=09&debutannee=2000&finjour=26&finmois=12&finannee=2005

The English version with far less entries:
http://mondediplo.com/search?s=racist+americans&Submit.x=10&Submit.y=13


On Islam
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/recherche_resultats/1,13-0,1-0,0.html

In English - with far less entries again.
http://mondediplo.com/search?s=islam&Submit.x=12&Submit.y=7

On American education:

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/recherche_resultats/1,13-0,1-0,0.html

In English:
http://mondediplo.com/search?s=american+education&Submit.x=13&Submit.y=8

Hobbes - there is plenty there for you to read. But get your credit card out. You have to pay for most of it. Ive supplied a lot so you can gather your own opinion and pick which articles you want to read.

lazydaisy,

point of information: Le Monde and Le Monde Diplomatique are two different publications. And the latter is also published in French.

Zombrex

Nox wrote:

These people are transported to their country of origin for interrogation where folks assume they are tortured.

If you assume that Eygpt, a country that has routinely used torture in the past, didn't in fact tortured him you have to assume he was lying and making stuff up on an emergency telephone call to his wife that he wasn't aware was being intercepted.

Which is more likely?

Nox wrote:

The CIA is not perfect ... however ... they get blamed for a lot which is totally bogus. A prime example ... The CIA created HIV.

How about we just stick to the horrendious things the CIA did actually do, because there is enough to go around.

Nox wrote:

Yet again ... almost true. I still question the facts as presented because both sides agree the shooting was accidental.

It most likely was, the point wasn't that the shooting was accidental, the point was that the shooting high lights how totally incompatient the US military are at dealing with peace keeping in Iraq, high lighting how damaging the whole fire first ask questions later policy the US military has in Iraq truely is.

The Americans say the car did not signal and was heading to them at high speed, in other words it looked like a suicide bomb run, in which case they would be justified in opening fire. The Italians say this is nonsense, that car was traveling at less than 30 miles an hour and had signalled to the US check point. The US army shot anyway, which seems to be the policy to shoot at anything moving. US check points have killed untold number of Iraqi civilians that possed no threat to them with this shot fire policy. The US have refused to allow investigaters to examine the car to confirm the speed.

Zombrex

Nox wrote:

And and as far as a "silly rant" ... post it.

"Hmmm ... Abu Ghraib. Military members have faced Courts Martial. Seems to me that you Euro's don't seem to get it. WMD's - 24/7 Predator aircraft moniter a portion of the Syrian Desert. Another fact you Euro's forget. Ever wonder why the expenditure of resources? Calipari - If this is the Italian Commie journalist who claims the US tried to assasinate her ... there was a Joint Italian American commission on that. Guess you folks don't care about that either. etc - I would make no difference what I would respond to ... your mind is made up ... I won't confuse you with the facts. But, it appears that your major point is US credibility. None of your points go to credibility. All of your points are Euro-hype generated to demean the US and then you turn right around as an excuse why the US isn't credible."

Well I'm convinced, the US hasn't in fact lost any credability on the international stage through its threatment of the Iraq war and other foreign policy issues ... its all clear now, its just the "Euros" being mean to the American and not giving the American military a chance when they torture Iraqi prisioners and shot Italian secret service agents.

The Corinthian

lazydaisy wrote:

It depends on the context. If the Italian authorites had enough evidence to suspect that this guy was a threat to their nation or even to another nation,or had crucial info regarding an immediate threat but had no clout with the NYPD, or didn't have the time to go through the NYC judicial process, but perhaps tipped off someone higher up - then no I wouldn;t have a problem with it. I wouldnt object to a US citizen being grabbed either, if for the same reasons.

It would not bother you that that your nations sovernty had been ignored? Or that perhaps the NYPD had also wanted to question the individual in question, as he is also a threat to the US? Or the Italian authorities hadn’t bothered to share the evidence? Or that the entire process ignores a number of fundamental international laws?

And incidentally, the bone of contention is very much that no one was tipped off.

I find it difficult to believe that all this would be perfectly acceptable by you. At least you have the courage to respond though; I’ll give you that.

Oh and BTS - I too live in a country that was colonised by the British.

What’s the relevance of this?

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Well I'm convinced, the US hasn't in fact lost any credability on the international stage through its threatment of the Iraq war and other foreign policy issues ... its all clear now, its just the "Euros" being mean to the American and not giving the American military a chance when they torture Iraqi prisioners and shot Italian secret service agents.

Watch yourself - if your arguments become too difficult to respond to, you may be accused of being uncivil.

Zombrex

Lazydaisy, if Cuban secret service snuck into Florida to kidnap Elian Gonzalez and force his return to Cuba without in forming the US police they were doing that would you think that was prefectly fine? (he was after all a Cuban citizen and the law was on the side of the Cuban government)

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

Hobbes, you're digressing.

But its clear you only looked at the English ones.

Obviously if you google le monde anti-american you're not going to get the French articles because you googled in English. You should try googling in French.

For the sake of topic keeping, that is the last I'll say on it.

I read both the French and the English versions, I have institutional access and I speak both languages - I can't see much in the way of opinion or information on what youre saying - one is actually giving out about anti-americanism.

Could you show me the information in either article that you feel is relative to this discussion?

It really does look like you just ran a search and picked a couple of hits without looking at the content.

GuanYin

Nox wrote:

Well ... if it's irreparably damaged ... then it's a waste of time for us to do anything about it. Why bother?

Nox

It depends on your point of view.

If the US people and adminstration want to be seen as the beacon of democracy and freedom in the world - effectively the good guys, then the onus is on the them, the people through lobbying/replacing their government and the government by righting their wrongs and reflecting the will of the people, to work to get their credability back and mend the relations they strained with former allies.

If on the other hand the US people and administration are content to be seen as an expanding dictating empire with no regard for democracy, civil rights, human rights, other countries or international law, a big brother style ruler, xenophobic, in effect the bad guys, then they don't bother.

It reminds me of people who say stuff like:

"I work with horrible people - they all hate me".

They never seem to think that their may be a legitimate reason noone like them.

Nox

Wicknight wrote:

If you assume that Eygpt, a country that has routinely used torture in the past, didn't in fact tortured him you have to assume he was lying and making stuff up on an emergency telephone call to his wife that he wasn't aware was being intercepted.

Which is more likely?

I guess I'll provide you another opportunity to accuse me of a "silly rant" since I will explain my answer ...

As far as Egypt and torture ... Yes, I do believe that the Egyptians do it. And guess what ... it is probably true that they did a number on the cleric as well. Here's the rub ... No proof ... only a third hand allegation.

What I find interesting is that you and the rest of the Euro crowd DEMAND proof whenever it comes to the US ... and are completely at ease with assumptions everywhere else.

But then I have failed to answer your question directly ... it is my ASSUMPTION that the cleric was tortured ... which makes YOUR point more likely.

Wicknight wrote:

How about we just stick to the horrendious things the CIA did actually do, because there is enough to go around.

Yes and no. Yes, The CIA has done plenty wrong ... hmmm, didn't I already say that ... NO, I will NOT carte blanche dump on the CIA at every allegation any more than I will jump on the Brits for the alleged Greek episode. That episode may turn out to be true ... but until then ... it remains an allegation.

Wicknight wrote:

It most likely was, the point wasn't that the shooting was accidental, the point was that the shooting high lights how totally incompatient the US military are at dealing with peace keeping in Iraq

wow ... your opinion is now a fact.

I don't see it that way at all. But then I'm just a biased American while you are a totally objective Euro.

Wicknight wrote:

high lighting how damaging the whole fire first ask questions later policy the US military has in Iraq truely is.

A very, very easy statement for an armchair General to make.

That policy is written in the blood shed by those who waited. But then those were only Americans who shed it (for the US policy) so it doesn't matter. But wait a minute ... didn't some coalition folks pay the same price? Isn't the coalition policy the same? Hmmm ...

Wicknight wrote:

The Americans say the car did not signal and was heading to them at high speed, in other words it looked like a suicide bomb run, in which case they would be justified in opening fire. The Italians say this is nonsense, that car was traveling at less than 30 miles an hour and had signalled to the US check point.

Yep.

And only the folks there will ever know the truth as to whether signals were exchanged.

Wicknight wrote:

The US army shot anyway, which seems to be the policy to shoot at anything moving.

This is cheap. If I had been that soldier and signaled the car to stop (which I truly believe happened) then that car had better stop. Otherwise, I would have done the same thing. Now the world has a great case of 20/20 hindsight and we know the car did not have a bomb or terrorists ... which means that you Euro's can get all uppitty about shooting a vehicle which didn't stop and get away with making a cheap, smug comment about shooting at anything moving. I say to the soldier ... BRAVO. I say the driver ... see what happens when you don't stop.

Wicknight wrote:

US check points have killed untold number of Iraqi civilians that possed no threat to them with this shot fire policy.

Yep. When signalled to stop ... STOP. A US serviceman was killed by a pregnant "Iraqi civilian" who "possed no threat".

O well ... it was only an American.

Wicknight wrote:

The US have refused to allow investigaters to examine the car to confirm the speed.

I don't like this either. I wonder what the rest of the story is here about this. Seems to me that the Italians would not have conceded that the shooting was accidental if there was a lot more to the story.

Well ... there you have it ... Another "silly rant" from Nox. It's my opinion ... I don't care if you don't like it.

Nox

Nox

Wicknight wrote:

Well I'm convinced, the US hasn't in fact lost any credability on the international stage through its threatment of the Iraq war and other foreign policy issues ... its all clear now, its just the "Euros" being mean to the American and not giving the American military a chance when they torture Iraqi prisioners and shot Italian secret service agents.

Well ... if you are "convinced" ... then how was that a "silly rant".

Let's face it ... there is not one thing that I say that will change your mind about anything. The purpose of this board (I hope) is to allow everyone to state an opinion ... which in turn should allow others to understand why they have that opinion.

As far as the "torture" at Abu ... I cringe at the thought of having underpants pulled over my head. I would much prefer an acid bath or having my tongue pulled out while I watched my daughters being raped.

On the Italian agents ... see the above post.

Nox

Nox

Hobbes wrote:

I had a look to see what was being implied and couldn't find it at all (you think at least one newspaper would report such a terrible thing). All I could find was this...
http://www.eyeontheun.org/view.asp?l=21&p=142

Somewhat questionable site to begin with but the map is somewhat fuzzy and impossible to make out if it is true or not.

I too looked at the site. I accept your assessment of the site (today was the first I knew it existed) ... but I did find the captions with the pictures to be troubling. Like you, I could not see the map clearly ... but the caption was clear.

As far as a newspaper being critical of the UN ... maybe in YOUR country, certainly not in mine.

Nox

The Corinthian

Nox wrote:

Seems to me that the Italians would not have conceded that the shooting was accidental if there was a lot more to the story.

No one, including the Italians have ever disputed that the shooting was anything other than accidental. No one, with the exception of the rescued reporter, has ever suggested that it was premeditated.

However, whether that accident was as a result of incompetence on the part of the checkpoint personnel has been the point of contention from the onset. To begin with the Italian government was denied access to examine the vehicle during the joint investigation. Additionally, testimony (from another secret service personal in the car, and not the rescued reporter) directly contradicts the US account of events.

Given these circumstances it would be irresponsible for the Italian government to blindly accept the results of such a questionable joint investigation.

Of course, for you this is simply the product of the fantasies of a bunch of Euros - a new derisory term I’d not come across until today. Yet you are so convinced of the righteousness that you will not even entertain any other possibility and have done little other than counter the facts presented to you with little more than your own opinion for the Italians’ motivations.

Well ... there you have it ... Another "silly rant" from Nox. It's my opinion ... I don't care if you don't like it.

I’m sure that would make him uncivil.

Hobbes

Nox wrote:

but I did find the captions with the pictures to be troubling. Like you, I could not see the map clearly ... but the caption was clear.

Which means nothing as the site is hardly what I would call balanced in this regard.

TBH what I think is that Palistine is basically contested area. I went looking for a map of palistine and I found numerous different kinds from different times. If I was to guess is they just didn't add the borders because it would end up offending someone, either Israel would disagree with what was there or the palistinians would be upset that they were giving away too much land publically.

Least thats my take on it. UN is hardly built on malice and more on trying to ensure everyone doesn't get upset.

As far as a newspaper being critical of the UN ... maybe in YOUR country, certainly not in mine.

I'm guessing you live in the US according to the location.. Have a read of this.

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=united+nations&x=0&y=0

Nox

psi wrote:

It depends on your point of view.

Not really. My response was in terms of "irreparably damaged" ... an absolute.

psi wrote:

If the US people and adminstration want to be seen as the beacon of democracy and freedom in the world - effectively the good guys, then the onus is on the them, the people through lobbying/replacing their government and the government by righting their wrongs and reflecting the will of the people, to work to get their credability back and mend the relations they strained with former allies.

I really do like this.

This goes right to what I see as the crux of the current problem between the US and Europe.

Under Bubba ... the US did very little without first contacting the Europeans. When George came in, on his first trip to Europe, he made a statement that US policy was going to be what was good for the US. At that moment ... the Europeans became anti-Bush which later transmuted into anti-American. During the 04 election campaign ... the Euro's were estatic about the thought of the war criminal Kerry taking control and even on this side of the pond we could hear the sound of the Euro alligator tears smacking the pavement when he lost. Kerry would have done the same as Bubba ... find out what the Euro's wanted and adjust US policy accordingly.

When it came to Iraq ... the balking at the UN over enforcement of 1441 by the Europeans signaled that something was wrong. The oil contracts and the Oil for Food program hit US public opinion about the Europeans right between the eyes. For years the Europeans had been wanting the US military out of Europe ... now when they started to get their way ... and bases were going to be closed ... more alligator tears. Revelations about OFF bribes didn't help. Even minor items like Chirac's attempted involvement in the upcoming DaVinci Code movie show the extent of corruption.

So when the Euros start talking about mending fences in terms of strained relations, many Americans aren't interested. In fact, the Euros backing Kerry really caused a lot of angst here.

psi wrote:

If on the other hand the US people and administration are content to be seen as an expanding dictating empire with no regard for democracy, civil rights, human rights, other countries or international law, a big brother style ruler, xenophobic, in effect the bad guys, then they don't bother.

And here is a huge difference of opinion. We Americans do indeed see ourselves as expanding democracy. You Euros see, as you describe, "an expanding dictating empire". That's why, every time we hear something about the great and wonderful EU ... some of us laugh. I even laugh about the claim that European is and ethnicity ... but that's just me.

For the life of me ... I still don't understand how Ireland could be happy about being in the EU. But then, I guess I don't need to.

psi wrote:

It reminds me of people who say stuff like:

"I work with horrible people - they all hate me".

They never seem to think that their may be a legitimate reason noone like them.

I agree. And this goes right back to your opening statement.

Nox

Zombrex

Nox wrote:

As far as Egypt and torture ... Yes, I do believe that the Egyptians do it. And guess what ... it is probably true that they did a number on the cleric as well. Here's the rub ... No proof ... only a third hand allegation.

Only the person himself ringing up his wife and saying "I have been tortured"

If you went into a police station and said "I have just been kidnapped and tortured" would you expect the police to go "We will start investigating straight away", or would you expect them to go "Well where is your proof? You expect us to just believe you, don't be silly"

Nox wrote:

What I find interesting is that you and the rest of the Euro crowd DEMAND proof whenever it comes to the US ... and are completely at ease with assumptions everywhere else.

Example?

Or do you mean the whole WMD thing ... yeah you are right, it was a bit unreasonable for us Euros to expect proof for the justification for invading an entire country ... cause thats the same thing ..

Nox wrote:

But then I have failed to answer your question directly ... it is my ASSUMPTION that the cleric was tortured ... which makes YOUR point more likely.

No, what makes my point more likely is the fact that it is more likely ... maybe you want to deal with that point, rather than attempts at deflection.

If you think it is more likely that the Eygptians didn't torture the cleric, and that he was lying on the phone to his wife, please put forward an argument to back up that position up.

At the moment you seem to be saying "My position is as valid as yours, even though I have not put forward any arguments as to why, and if challange me on that you are simply being anti-American"

Nox wrote:

Yes and no. Yes, The CIA has done plenty wrong ... hmmm, didn't I already say that ...

Actually you said the CIA have been blamed for a lot they didn't do, such as starting HIV (never heard that myself, but I will take your word on it). Why you mentioned this I am not quite sure, except it seems that again you are attempting to deflect from the issue again.

If you have an argument as to why the CIA didn't do the kidnapping please present that instead of simply saying some people some where at one time said the CIA did something they didn't, because that has very little bearing on this particular case.

Nox wrote:

NO, I will NOT carte blanche dump on the CIA at every allegation.

More deflection :rolleyes:

No one here is carte blanche dumping on the CIA. Carte blanche "dumping" on the CIA would imply that it is done with no evidence or argument to back it up.

It seems quite likely the CIA did what is claimed they did in this case. Do you have any actual reason to believe they didn't do what is being claimed they did? Or are you just going to carte blanche assume the Italians are lying cause they are Euros?

Nox wrote:

wow ... your opinion is now a fact.

Are you saying the US military has not in fact shot a large number of civilians at road blocks, Iraqi's and the unfortunate Italians.

Are you saying the US military did not in fact have a shoot first policy in Iraq?

Nox wrote:

That policy is written in the blood shed by those who waited.

So it is more important that the US soldiers (who volunteered for this risk and who put themselves in harms way) are not put at risk, than it is for Iraqi civilians (who had no choice in the matter and who are not professional soldiers)

Nox wrote:

But then those were only Americans who shed it (for the US policy) so it doesn't matter.

Actually the American's aren't sheding it, the Iraqi civilians are, hence my inital point :rolleyes:

Nox wrote:

But wait a minute ... didn't some coalition folks pay the same price? Isn't the coalition policy the same? Hmmm ...

Er, not really seeing your point ... am I being a massive hypocrate, is Ireland part of the coalition? Does our military do the same thing when on UN peace keeping (in case you don't know, the answer is no to all of those questions)

Nox wrote:

And only the folks there will ever know the truth as to whether signals were exchanged.

You mean since Italian investigators have been turned away from examine the evidence ... convenient isn't it.

Nox wrote:

I say to the soldier ... BRAVO. I say the driver ... see what happens when you don't stop.

That would be great if the warning shot tactic actually worked. It doesn't. These Iraqi civilians are not continuing on because they want to die, they are continuing on because they either do not notice the initial shot, or because the inital shot never actually comes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2904911.stm
http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-huggler100803.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1882607,00.html

Nox wrote:

Yep. When signalled to stop ... STOP.

When you don't notice the warning signal in the first place ... PRAY

Nox wrote:

I don't like this either. I wonder what the rest of the story is here about this. Seems to me that the Italians would not have conceded that the shooting was accidental if there was a lot more to the story.

Seems the US military would not have refused to allow them access if there was not a lot more to the story.

Nox

Hobbes wrote:

Which means nothing as the site is hardly what I would call balanced in this regard.

Again, I know nothing of this site other than its existance (now). Are you claiming that the pictures and the captions are false?

Hobbes wrote:

I went looking for a map of palistine and I found numerous different kinds from different times. If I was to guess is they just didn't add the borders because it would end up offending someone, either Israel would disagree with what was there or the palistinians would be upset that they were giving away too much land publically.

The whole question of that part of the ME only makes me shake my head. I understand all of the questions of legitimacy, but I have trouble understanding why the UN won't acknowledge the existing geo-political borders, when it acknowledges the existence of the governments of same.

Hobbes wrote:

UN is hardly built on malice and more on trying to ensure everyone doesn't get upset.

True about how it was built. Untrue about the upset. The UN is a self-perpetuating bureauacracy.

Hobbes wrote:

I'm guessing you live in the US according to the location.

True.

Hobbes wrote:

Have a read of this.

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=united+nations&x=0&y=0

I've seen this.

I love it ... you Euros use phrases like Fox News and O Rielly to describe how we get our biased news. Then you counter with this as what appears to be your source of news.

I'll tell you what ... we ain't never gonna agree on anything except what day it is, and even then we won't agree for 24 hours.

Nox

GuanYin

Nox wrote:

Under Bubba ... the US did very little without first contacting the Europeans. When George came in, on his first trip to Europe, he made a statement that US policy was going to be what was good for the US. At that moment ... the Europeans became anti-Bush which later transmuted into anti-American.

I'd disagree based on my experience in Europe.

Europeans(at least those au fait with world politics) disliked Bush and his policies before he won the election.

His statements were good for many (not all US citizens) but thats aside from the point.

During the 04 election campaign ... the Euro's were estatic about the thought of the war criminal Kerry taking control

Can you show me any conviction record or legal data that sets this aside from you commiting slander?

and even on this side of the pond we could hear the sound of the Euro alligator tears smacking the pavement when he lost. Kerry would have done the same as Bubba ... find out what the Euro's wanted and adjust US policy accordingly.

Yup, by and large republicans and democrats differ little in the lives of the majority of US citizens.

When it came to Iraq ... the balking at the UN over enforcement of 1441 by the Europeans signaled that something was wrong. The oil contracts and the Oil for Food program hit US public opinion about the Europeans right between the eyes. For years the Europeans had been wanting the US military out of Europe ... now when they started to get their way ... and bases were going to be closed ... more alligator tears. Revelations about OFF bribes didn't help. Even minor items like Chirac's attempted involvement in the upcoming DaVinci Code movie show the extent of corruption.

In your opinion.

Remember, if youre gonna play tha "allegation card" (which I agree with) for america, then you have to do the same in the case of your own opinions or assumptions. Otherwise you may be thought of as an insular hypocrite.

So when the Euros start talking about mending fences in terms of strained relations, many Americans aren't interested. In fact, the Euros backing Kerry really caused a lot of angst here.

Among conservatives and republicans..... you left that bit out.

And here is a huge difference of opinion. We Americans do indeed see ourselves as expanding democracy. You Euros see, as you describe, "an expanding dictating empire".

I disagree, I don't think that we americans see ourselves as expanding democracy. I think some of us do, but I think some of us don't see past our own borders. I do think many of us see ourselves as expanding an empire. Which while a view shared with many europeans, does not make it a european view.

That's why, every time we hear something about the great and wonderful EU ... some of us laugh. I even laugh about the claim that European is and ethnicity ... but that's just me.

Well you may just be easily amused. I agree though, seeing as most of the powers that be in american are just resettled europeans anyway.

For the life of me ... I still don't understand how Ireland could be happy about being in the EU. But then, I guess I don't need to.

You should have seen it before the EU funding for infrastructure.


EDIT:

My heart isn't really in this post. I've no real interest in debating american politics with people who (A) believe they speak for the nation when its obvious that they don't, (B) resort to using terminology with the intent of being slyly offensive and most importantly (C) have no interest other than throwing propaganda about as if its fact (which many on the flip side of the debate do too - so don't worry I'm not being discriminatory).