If being "just a regular guy" is enough to qualify that means that any common person would be good enough to be president if it were up to you. But we are talking about international and national politics here! These people need to see to it that your country works, and is widely respected and praised, so that you as a people and as an economy are safe for the future! No ordinary man can do that, some have the qualities and those should be the leaders.
Well said young man. A leader is not an average chap, or an every day guy. If a leader turns up to a meeting of heads of states in a t Shirt and Jeans then other leaders will not take notice. In the same way if most of us who say I could do a better job were to be a world leader then most other world leaders would ridicule us into the ground. Yes, a leader has to be approachable (an in that sense normal) but he/she has to be sufficiently switched on to be able to debate. Taking Tony Blair and George W, well they have IMHO screwed up but Bush runs away from debate where Blair has sufficient skill to debate and get away with it. Personally I don't like either leader but I can see that Blair is the better of the 2 by far.
At no point did I say that Mr. Bush actually *was* what you have termed "an average chap". I said that his occasional slips made him seem more like one to me, in the sense that he did not hold himself above others. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion of both Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, just as I am entitled to disagree with you. Although I will admit that I don't know enough about Mr. Blair to form a definite opinion about him.
However, to make him seem like one of us a simple 'sorry I Sr**ed up can the rest of the world help' would be nice, 'rather than look what we have done now you do your bit.' IMHO (George W Bashing, But not americans on the whole)
He's not likely to say that. I can't say that he's right or wrong to be that way, but I will say that the rest of the world might have gotten such a response if they hadn't called him a war monger and just about everything else in the book in loud, shrill and often hysterical tones. The way things are now, he can't, from his point of view, appear to be backing down or caving in to such a response.
Perhaps. But I seem to recall the UN and especially the Europeans demanding that Mr. Bush do everything *their* way when all this was getting started.
I believe you are right, in regards to that debate club called the UN, however I have yet to see Mr. Bush make a clear decision that seems to take in all the facts. When one goes to war there are two clear options: 1). Conquer and make the defeated nation pay in some way or 2). Also have a plan to win the peace, like the Marshall plan. Now that plan was absolutely briiliant in its concept. I just saw on the CNN news that the USA is redeploying its armed forces from Europe to other locations. If I were Iran or Syria I would be very, very careful! Could this be Bush, if he wins, taking a crack at Cuba?
I agree the plan was brilliant, but we (Europe) had to beg for it to happen. I think I'm right that it was 2 years (which included the 2 harshest winters on record!) before it began to start... The best example is the case of Japan. Now that was a heck of a good job on America's part. Why have they been unable to re-create it since?
The American people haven't been hurt and shocked enough to justify a tough but fair policy. During WW2 the war affected every home, town and city in the States, but this war is far away. The Americans can't afford to be cruel even if it's needed, because of the loss of face.
Would you feel that way if terrorists had killed 3,000 of your people in one blow, Roel? Trust me, most people in America were very badly hurt by what happened on September 11th. Inside, where the scars don't show but nevertheless run very deep.
Yup, and because of that murderous day the USA found out what much of the Mid East has gone through for many many decades with those godless acts. 150,000 air travellers landed in Canada and were put up in Hotels, motels, for free for a week. In fact many were taken to Canadian homes and shown the friendship and concearn for what happened. Question. I know of the air traffic being grounded in Canada, USA, and Mexico. What happened further south of Mexico?
I probably would because I don't care much for the average Dutchman. I wasn't brought up a patriot, and I see no reason to become one. However, my point was that the loss of over a million soldiers during WW2 really affected everyone in the country directly; not just in shock, but in grief and loss. This hasn't happened on 11th September 2001 (I don't like this event to be referred to as 9-11 or September 11th, because this would mean every sept. 11 in history*), so I assumed that the public emotion it evoked was not strong enough to allow the US a free hand in its action after it. It's not inaction, but not total public agreement in revenge policies either. * On September 11th 1944 the first Allied troops set foot in Germany itself, temporarily, at the border with Luxembourg. This is just one of those september 11ths.
I think the factor is that until 11th September American thought of itself as untouchable, that international terrorism was something that happened elsewhere. I know there was the Oklahoma bombing and the earlier World Trade Centre attack but these were different. Oklahoma was caused by internal crazies and the first world trade attack didn't cause many deaths. Many European countries have experenced terrorist attacks, granted no single attack has been anything like the scale of the 11th Sept attacks (although the troubles in Northern Ireland have gone through over 3500 people in 25 years) they did wake people up to the possiblity. This was a wake up call the Americans never really received. The attack shattered or at least severly altered America's world view. It should be viewed as extremely human that in the aftermath of the attack America has lashed out at enemies both real and perceived. Perhaps this brings us to why America and Europe have so severly disagreed post 9/11. Europe sees the attacks as merely a particularly savage terrorist attack America saw it as a world altering event. This is just my opinion from a view point on the far side of the Atlantic.
On a slightly seperate note the leader of the of the British Conservative party has managed to fall out with Bush. See attached link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3608006.stm Suddenly the British Tory party is looking a bit more attractive!