Bush and Europe: moving apart?

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Sun Jun 02, 2002 2:38 pm

Originally posted by Lazarus

Hmmm ... should one of us be re-thinking our stance?

I was here first.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Jun 02, 2002 7:13 pm

Originally posted by Robnark
very little to do with outward actions and appearances.

to believe/claim to be a member of a religion while not acting along the very principles espoused by the religion is frankly manipulative vote-gathering.
more importantly, a disagreement over steel import tarifs has little to do with bush's religion, and the objections raised by europe have little todo with religion either. as such, i don't think religious discussions are entirely relevant to a bush-europe discussion

True, they aren't, but only if there *isn't* a derogatory European view of Bush based on his religious views. Eminem maintains there is, and he has a right to state his opinion upon this subject. @Eminem, I'm sure you didn't just pull this out of thin air. Can you offer us some evidence to back these views?

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Sun Jun 02, 2002 10:09 pm

Originally posted by Robnark
very little to do with outward actions and appearances.

to believe/claim to be a member of a religion while not acting along the very principles espoused by the religion is frankly manipulative vote-gathering.

It's also possible to live according to the principles of your religion, but out of impure motives and insincere. This is where the word "hypocrisy" originated.

In any case, it "could" be construed as manipulative vote-gathering, but that wasn't my point at all. My point, in response to Mr. Fable's question, was that's it is totally possible to become an elected leader without losing your religion, or compromising your faith. Witness, for example, Attorney General John Ashcroft.

@fable. Do I have evidence to back up my opinion? Of course not. That's why it's just my opinion, extrapolated no doubt from all relevant books, newspaper and magazine articles I've read in the past, coupled with personal observations and biases. Take it or leave it. It really makes no difference to me.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Jun 02, 2002 10:14 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM
Do I have evidence to back up my opinion? Of course not. That's why it's just my opinion, extrapolated no doubt from all relevant books, newspaper and magazine articles I've read in the past...

That's what I meant by evidence. Not factual evidence, but the kind of circumstantial evidence that leads a person to conclusions. I'd appreciate hearing yours, in this instance.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Sun Jun 02, 2002 11:51 pm

@Fable-If you feel this is too off-topic/have a problem with it feel free to delete.

Originally posted by EMINEM

I think the vast majority of Europeans are honest, well-adjusted, hard-working, decent people. I think the growing antagonism between Bush and "the Europeans" doesn't refer to these people, but rather to the continental horde of irreligious left-wing bureaucrats, journalists, literati, and activists who can't accept the fact that the leader of the free world, and Commander-in-Chief of the only superpower on the planet, is - "gasp" - a full-blooded Bible-believing Christian fundamentalist who proudly and unambiguously allows his faith to influence his politics.

And here was I thinking that the separation of Church and State was one of the concepts vital to maintaining fair and equitable democracy.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Jun 03, 2002 6:20 am

Re: @Fable-If you feel this is too off-topic/have a problem with it feel free to delete.

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
And here was I thinking that the separation of Church and State was one of the concepts vital to maintaining fair and equitable democracy.

I defense of Dubya (I can't believe I'm doing this!), no person can operate or govern without taking into consideration their background, and that includes their religious views. Just because Dubya is a born-again Christian doesn't necessarily mean that he's going to act in a discriminatory manner against people of other religions and denominations.

The government in the United States has long been less about ideology than it is about money. As long as the conservative Christians raise lots of money, the Republicans will pander to them, just as the Democrats pander to the Jews. Each group gets to push their agenda because they vote as a bloc and they have lots of cash.

I think that Dubya's unilateral approach to foreign policy has the potential to do a lot of long-term damage to US-European relations, but I think it is more a product of him being a bull-headed SOB than of him being a fundamentalist Christian.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Mon Jun 03, 2002 6:30 am

Re: Re: @Fable-If you feel this is too off-topic/have a problem with it feel free to delete.

Originally posted by HighLordDave

I defense of Dubya (I can't believe I'm doing this!), no person can operate or govern without taking into consideration their background, and that includes their religious views. Just because Dubya is a born-again Christian doesn't necessarily mean that he's going to act in a discriminatory manner against people of other religions and denominations.

The government in the United States has long been less about ideology than it is about money. As long as the conservative Christians raise lots of money, the Republicans will pander to them, just as the Democrats pander to the Jews. Each group gets to push their agenda because they vote as a bloc and they have lots of cash.

I think that Dubya's unilateral approach to foreign policy has the potential to do a lot of long-term damage to US-European relations, but I think it is more a product of him being a bull-headed SOB than of him being a fundamentalist Christian.

True, however IMHO a leader should do as much as they possibly can to avoid letting their personal life, including religious beliefs, from influencing their decisions as the leader of a nation. I have strong beliefs, and I know myself well enough to be able to admit that I could not rule without using the position to advance what I believe to be worthy causes/ make changes I view as being the 'correct' choice. That is one of the many reasons I have no intention of running for a position of power, as I have no right to force my own beliefs upon others.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Mon Jun 03, 2002 2:44 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I think that Dubya is convinced that the United States can make a policy and that the rest of the world will blindly follow behind us. And for the most part, he's been right (so far). At some point, though, western European nations are not going to fall into line on some issue and he don't know what to do.

I think him saying "You're either with us or against us" is one of the reasons why.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jun 03, 2002 3:59 pm

Originally posted by Gaxx_Firkraag
I think him saying "You're either with us or against us" is one of the reasons why.

Unfortunately, the oft-quoted Bush comment above seems to relate only to his agenda, not to any other agendas of those that used to consider themselves the US' valued "friends." This gets back to the internal arguments between multilateralists and unilateralists. The unilateralists will eventually go down in flames, as they periodically do in most nations (including the US), when their policies eventually display diastrous consequences, IMO. I'm just hoping the fallout isn't that horrific before this event occurs.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jun 04, 2002 8:37 am

I just heard on Deutsche Welle that the Kyoto Protocol looks attainable. Canada and Australia had started waffling on it after Bush backed off, but now Russia has announced it will sign. That puts the agreement on the edge of the necessary number of signatories (based on the amount of pollution generated worldwide). As the story pointed out, though, falling behind in achieving a goal merely means that the nation responsible has a higher goal for a coming year, and there are no penalties attached for failure.

Which leads me to wonder why Bush even bothered saying no--since the agreement is effectively no more than a wish list without teeth. Unless, of course, this was done for home consumption, and to warn foreign neighbors that the US was no longer a team player. Views?

Ode to a Grasshopper · Tue Jun 04, 2002 8:42 am

Typical Australian government: the American government makes another bad call and we immediately follow suit.
Lousy country.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jun 04, 2002 2:57 pm

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
Typical Australian government: the American government makes another bad call and we immediately follow suit.
Lousy country.

Does Australian politics have a leftwing? My impression was that its basically two-party system condemned it, like the US, to a kind of moderately conservative or extremely conservative mindset.

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Tue Jun 04, 2002 5:27 pm

IMO, the kyoto accord is a reasonable, well intentioned idea but is inheriently flawed. The tiny requirements placed upon each countries Green house gas production would merely take us back to 1998 levels. Not to mention the going nowhereness of this, the cost is astronomic.
If I recall correctly, it is estimated that it will cost $17 BILLION dollars worldwide to meet the first standards.
My first opposition to this, is that it could be spent better elsewhere, like providing clean drinking water to the world, or AIDS research, or research into alt. energy supplies etc....

And secondly, that cost means no one is going to buy into it. What self respecting capitalist nation would lose their %2 annual growth for such a useless cause as saving the planet? Big business, which controls politics in the US (the worlds largest polluter) will never, ever sign on. Unless it is more economical for them to make changes than it is too keep polluting, they will never stop.

There are no teeth to the protocol, and a nation can sign on for bragging rights only because no one will enforce it.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jun 04, 2002 7:28 pm

There are no teeth to the protocol, and a nation can sign on for bragging rights only because no one will enforce it.

Then why has Bush refused to sign it, when he could do, smile for the photo op, and ignore it, in your opinion?

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Tue Jun 04, 2002 7:42 pm

@Fable, from what I have seen/heard the "plan" (kyoto accord) would only cause a drop of 1/4 degree in temperture, and it would take 50 years to reach even this.

(I believe it was a study out of ? Georgia) (This is from what I remember...and it is most likely off)

There was a claim the computer models were prone to ramdom numbers.

(My outlook.....Knowing both sides will do their best to make the other side look bad.)

Ode to a Grasshopper · Tue Jun 04, 2002 11:46 pm

Originally posted by fable

Does Australian politics have a leftwing? My impression was that its basically two-party system condemned it, like the US, to a kind of moderately conservative or extremely conservative mindset.

I'm afraid you've got it pretty much exactly. The two-party system has condemned Australian politics to pointless bickering between two parties who are fundamentally the same.

I used to like following national politics, but these days I just keep a loose eye on the international scene.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Jun 05, 2002 9:31 am

From what I have seen/heard the "plan" (kyoto accord) would only cause a drop of 1/4 degree in temperture, and it would take 50 years to reach even this.

The protocol itself seems to have taken on the shadow of a much greater issue. I suspect it has become the flash point representing a group of international treaties and agreements which the Bush administration has withdrawn from during its short tenure in office. I don't really see much *direct* fallout in the shortterm from kind of behavior, since the 500 pound gorilla always gets to sit at dinner wherever it wants to. (The old joke: Where does a 500 pound gorilla sit at dinner? Wherever it wants to. In international economic and military terms, the US is currently the 500 pound gorilla.) But the tarriffs on European steel may just come back to bite the Bush team on the rump--probably not in time for the fall US elections, but certainly before the next presidential ones. I suspect it depends upon how stringent the trade sanctions are that Europe imposes on the US...and this is where European attitude towards Bush's unilateralism may figure into the mix.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Wed Jun 05, 2002 3:06 pm

I'm personally think that the Kyoto accord is a waste of time, although I would agree to it (it reduces pollution, right?). IIRC, the main cause of global warming is methane. And where does that methane come from? C0ckroaches.

Also, the earth is coming out of an ice age, which could explain the rising temperatures.

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Wed Jun 05, 2002 3:28 pm

@ Gaxx. If the earth is coming out of an ice age, why aren't we all beneath tons of ice. The industrial revolution. The ghg gases produced have counteracted the effects of the ice age. That means we will be entering an age of very high temperatures.

btw, the cheif form of methane comes from cow farts basically. However, this is still our fault due to the massive amount of cows we own.

The kyoto protocol has become the flashpoint because it is such an international agreement. the MAD treaty is between super powers alone, arch nemesis too, kyoto involves the whole world, and by refusing to follow it, the US has basically said to hell with all of you.

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Wed Jun 05, 2002 6:09 pm

Heading off topic once again ....

*dives right in*

@Obsidian: That really made no sense whatsoever. Gaxx is quite right, we are leaving an ice age, it takes a couple millenia to do that.

I have yet to see one substantial piece of evidence supporting the global warming theories. The truth is we don't know. As it stands, temperature increases/decreases have been well aligned with the sun's activity.

The environmental response of the last 30 or so years is one of complete overreaction and underreaction at the same time. Are humans harmful? Yes. Is it as bad as people make it seem? No.

Look at forest fires. They were considered bad, very bad for decades. One fire spreads through a national forest and all of a sudden tons of new life emerges. Change isn't always a bad thing.