Europe's largest paper (Bild) endorses Pres. Bush

[RonOnGuitar]

Interesting. The largest newspaper in Europe, Germany's "Bild", even gives a "Top Ten" list of reasons to re-elect President Bush:



Warum George W. Bush der bessere Präsident ist (in German)



1. Bush has clear priorities.



2. Bush has learned that military strength is the only answer to fanatics.



3. Under Bush, the US will continue to bear the financial, military and casualty burden in the fight against terrorism.



4. Bush will do everything he can to prevent nuclear proliferation.



5. Bush has learned that America can defeat every country in war, but needs allies in peace. Thus, his second term will be characterized by cooperation with international partners.



6. Bush knows Europe is militarily weak, so he won't ask them for help.



7. Under Bush, America will remain a strong partner for Israel in its fight for survival.



8. Republicans have always been stronger supporters of free trade than Democrats.



9. Every new American administration makes mistakes. Bush has already made his.



10. With Bush, we know what to expect. With Kerry, we don't.

[Galmin]

Bild has a documented history in making grave mistakes.



Ever read Heinrich Böll (Die verlorene Ehre der Katharina Blum)?

[RonOnGuitar]

Oh, I wouldn't make any more of the endorsement other than just for what it is: endorsements don't usually mean much to people anyway, especially ones in foreign papers.



I did think this point was interesting though -

"Under Bush, the US will continue to bear the financial, military and casualty burden in the fight against terrorism."



A President Kerry would likely pressure EU leaders and others to carry some of the weight - e.g. commitment of money and/or troops to Iraq. Bush is more the "we'll do it alone if we have to" tyoe.



But whoever wins will have a full plate to handle and should have the support of the American public. I hope, no matter if it's Bush or Kerry, that the win is by at least a 3 percent point spread (public vote) to augment a solid win of the electoral college.



As for Boll (how to umlaut the o escapes me just now - only ä comes to mind - alt 132) - I saw "Katrina Blum" as a film some time ago. I think in the context you have in mind a comparable US film would be the classic "Citizen Kane", Orsen Well's thinly disguised and very critical look at a then influentional newpaper publisher, William Randolph Hearst.

[Galmin]

Well, as "Citizen Kane" is a great movie, you cannot really compare it to "Katharina Blum". The only parrallel is a newspaper.



In KB, the "Newspaper" (in the german original by Böll written "die Zeitung" with capital letters, thus making it obvious that he meant "die Bild-Zeitung") is driving a campaign against Blum, leaving civil law, journalists ethics and common sense behind to follow a political agenda. Fed on lies from the state police, the machinata destructo rolls on in the name of yellow press and the hunt for the RAF (Red Army Fraction, known terrorists).



I can hardly imagine that Böll (Nobel Prize 1972) and this particular piece of litterature would be appreciated somewhere where anyone can be held and kept indefinately on suspicion alone. Katharina Blum, had she lived in these times in the wrong country, would probably be in custody without lawyer and without any knowledge of the charges or when these charges are going to be brought forward in a court of law.





CK is the story about the sad life of a successful newspaper tycoon incapable of love.

[questionnaire]

[quote=Rononguitar]I did think this point was interesting though -

"Under Bush, the US will continue to bear the financial, military and casualty burden in the fight against terrorism."



A President Kerry would likely pressure EU leaders and others to carry some of the weight - e.g. commitment of money and/or troops to Iraq. Bush is more the "we'll do it alone if we have to" tyoe.[/quote]



Will you please stop disseminating lies by conflating the 'war on terrorism' with the illegal invasion of Iraq. There is absolutely no connection between the two.



I have come to believe that you are driven by pure ignorance and supremacism, or 'exceptionalism' to use the euphemism of today's liberal commentators. I prefer to call a spade a spade: supremacism is still supremacism in my book.

[DreamTone7]

q - "There is absolutely no connection between the two."



This IS a lie. While there where no serious ties with Osama & Co. (though there were reports that this was in the works), terrorism is not by any means confined to what bin Laden has been up to. Right now there are terrorists operating inside Iraq against the new Iraqi government...or don't they count with you, Steve.



People need to reaize that terrorism is terrorism...not just that which is aimed at the US...though there are many (including bin Laden and now many Europeans) who would like others to make such a correlation.

[questionnaire]

"Right now there are terrorists operating inside Iraq against the new Iraqi government"



There is no 'new Iraqi government'. There has been no election.



Yes, of course factions amongst the Iraqi opposition have resorted to terrorism, but following 9/11 the connection between Saddam and Al Queda was made [/b]BEFORE[/b] the invasion as one of the [/b]REASONS[/b] for the invasion.



It's what's called a self-fulfilling prophecy - a standard political tactic for fooling a stupid electorate.



Jeeeeeeez......

[DreamTone7]

Actually, there were some connections made prior to the invasion of Iraq...though not large ones, and certainly not well publicized ones.



But...the point I was making is that there currently exists a condition in Iraq involving terrorists. Steve, read your post again concerning Rons original post and you'll see, maybe, why I make this point.

[questionnaire]

[quote="Dreamtone7"] ..... the point I was making is that there currently exists a condition in Iraq involving terrorists"[/quote]



Yes, we all know that, this usually happens when you invade someone else's country and murder their citizens, you bloody idiot. In fact, before you invade, or even threaten to invade, it would be safer to regard this as kind of inevitable, really.



YOUR GOVERNMENT and its 20th century foreign policy is the root cause of today's terrorism, and the more you continue with that policy the worse things will get.



Are you actually stupid enough to believe that all this is the reult of the free-willed action of 'evil terrorists' and that it is your Christian duty to fight this evil?