Monday, April 5. 2010
President Obama thus far has failed to strengthen relationships with historic allies, focusing instead on a fruitless search for improved relations with adversaries, writes Robert Kagan in the Washington Post (via Atlantic Community):
Before you dismiss these observation because the author is a neocon, check out the Roger Cohen's NY Times article, which describes Obama's disconnect with traditional allies in much stronger words:
No, the Obama presidency was not shock to Europe. Moreover, modern Atlanticism has to be firmly based on common interests and values rather than on feelings. References to Normandy are not enough to promote transatlantic cooperation at this day and age.
Obama is a pragmatist and does not need to be personally friends with European leaders to get things done, especially since his counterparts like Chancellor Merkel are pragmatists as well and not keen on buddy relationships like George W. Bush, Gerhard Schroeder, Helmut Kohl. When an urgent need for transatlantic cooperation materializes in the next crisis, then American and European governments will do business. Recently both sides were pre-occupied with health care and the eurozone crisis, therefore the introverted focus on domestic issues.
But: I do believe that President Obama has been disappointed by Europe and he does not expect much support from Europe for his policies. He came to that conclusion before assuming the presidency. As Senator has not convened a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he was chairman: Barack Obama's Lack of Real Interest in Transatlantic Cooperation That is unfortunate, but that is reality and fair enough, since Europe does not provide that much support for US policies. Every leader is acting on his and/or his country's self interest.
Some international observers even think that Germany might be allowed to put the national interest first, as Philip Stephans points out in the Financial Times:
ENDNOTE: Spiegel (via Atlantic Community) adds that Sarkozy has tried to position himself as Obama's biggest fan for a long time. "During group photos he always squeezes his way in next to the American, and he has tried to secure for France the special relationship that Britain has traditionally had with Washington. (.) But Obama hasn't seemed to take Sarkozy seriously. When he has, he has often reacted with irritation towards the French president's brisk leadership style."
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Joe Noory - #1 - 2010-04-06 17:46 -
Putting the thrust of the piece aside, I have to wonder about the ubiquitous use of teh word "international" friends, as though ther are these poly-national beings from another planet that any individual government or culture needs to be servile to, walk before their glow to extend greetings, etc. It's part of the European self-regarded delusion that there is something inherently "pan-global" about themselves that sets them aside from the rest of the world. It's quite elitist, and not that different from the prior notion of having some kind of inherent superiority. What it boils down to, is that it encourages looking at the world with a lack of clarity and humility, with no detailed understanding of how people commonly live and thrive in their own cultures world-wide. Take for example, the idea that rural Americans and Canadaians are "uncultured" without having any understanding of their coloquial lives, for somehow not being as good at being British, or French, or German, or Italian, or Spanish, as the British, French, German, Italian, Spanish, etc., etc. So it's a case of pathetic bickering over whether or not non-europeans have too many luxuries, or too few, and think it to have some meaning. It's a sad reaction by many to their idea of where they fall into the world.
Marie Claude - #2 - 2010-04-07 02:46 -
"Spiegel (via Atlantic Community) adds that Sarkozy has tried to position himself as Obama's biggest fan for a long time. "During group photos he always squeezes his way in next to the American, and he has tried to secure for France the special relationship that Britain has traditionally had with Washington. (.) But Obama hasn't seemed to take Sarkozy seriously. When he has, he has often reacted with irritation towards the French president's brisk leadership style" uh, is Spiegel a serious paper ? http://twitter.com/SPIEGEL_English given the articles it edits, I doubt so ! now, Sarkozy is a bling bling president who love s being in the medias first page, especially that his wife Carla pulls all the existing cabbages leaves paparrazi, we all know that, but in the occurence, he was looking for a air change in Washington after his party bad scores for the "Regionales" and, in the meanwhile, arguing for Eads, didn't remember that Germans were pleased that the project had been passed under the bus, as they are also a part of the Eads enterprise, can't see Merkel making some charm dance to Obama to reverse the pentagonal decision ! It was much in the sarkozys' strings doing that instead of !
Pat Patterson - #2.1 - 2010-04-07 03:53 -
Joerg-Cohen as a neo-con? Hardly since he's too young, wasn't a red diaper baby and didn't go to CCNY during the 30's. He opposed the how the Iraq War was being fought and was against the surge. Plus he has argued often that Jews in Iran were being treated well and that any kind of attack against that country would be a mistake. As usual MC sees plots where there are none. It was the GAO that ultimately pulled the plug on the Airbus bid not the USAF or the Pentagon who were getting increasingly desperate to get the project moving. And much of the GAO's criticism, most assuredly from pressure in Congress, was mainly in that EADS tried to hide the subsidies that not only built the spec tanker but also setting up the lines to build the rest of the fleet. The GAO and Boeing correctly pointed out then that more subsidies from the European governments would be neccesary to continue production and made delivery unreliable. France will not leave the EU because consideration of its own long range interests are better served by remaining in rather than going it alone. The only way France might leave the EU would be to model its 'departure' just as it did of NATO. Where for all intents and purposes, and numerous secret agreements with NATO, they remained firmly within the anti-Soviet bloc.
Marie Claude - #2.1.1 - 2010-04-07 04:36 -
did I mention once that name J C ? now, my comment was on the insertion of "Spiegel, and as usual your twisting the sense of it, you're the conspiracy master ! "EADS tried to hide the subsidies" don't make me laugh, how is Boeing subsidied ? by army commands ! and the money don't come from Uranus, but from your taxes You would be surprised that more french voice for quitting EU, didn't we vote no in 2005 ? Sure wome ties would remain active, especially those with Eads, and alike enterprises, some common defence agreements... but we do not need these selfserving clerics of Brussels, nor a Merkel ora Ashton to dictate our rules !
Pat Patterson - #126.96.36.199 - 2010-04-07 04:49 -
That's why my comment of the first paragraph was directed at Joerg. Didn't the WTO just rule against EADS for receiving subsidies. And this is an old tired argument Boeing gets no subsidies but rather to attract or keep them in a geographic location they will get tax breaks or loans from the local municipal or state governments, and the latter have to be repaid. Also the US Army has nothing to do with the tanker contract but rather the GAO and the USAF. If Germany and France want to subsidize armament sales from your tax dollars then complain to them. But be aware that the WTO looks very unkindly on such subsidies.
Marie Claude - #188.8.131.52.1 - 2010-04-07 18:02 -
hmm I still remember articles when the market was alloted to Eads in the former administration, some military responsible were saying that they had enough of paying Boeing such high prices for a equal or superior marchandise the could get abroad for a lesser price or equivalent but much more convenient for what they were looking for. Anyway, we all know that Boeing will still get the marcket at the end, especially in a money and employment crisis,and it's a question of prestige, but don't forget that almost of all Boeing accessories, and motors, are made in Europe, so, you'll have the signature "made in America", with european stuffs ! State sponsoring for Eads isn't superior as your state trough the army sponsoring ! one knows that the kind of material has always been a state decision first, anyway private investments are majoritary!
Pat Patterson - #184.108.40.206.1.1 - 2010-04-07 19:26 -
Do you just make stuff up to suit yourself. Subsidies, which the WTO is punishing EADS for are not the same as tax incentive or loans which are still paid. Most of the parts for Boeing are made and assembled in the US, the 787 for example, is primarily made and assembled in Kansas and Seattle with some major parts coming from Japan and Australia. The engines, being the first major passenger plane built that can mount different ones, are mostly from General Electric and with some from Rolls Royce depending on the customer. The major contribution of an European company is the design software provided by Dassault which has speeded the ease of construction and hopefully maintenance. But the bulk of this plane and others in the Boeing lineup or primarily American sourced with few major bits from overseas. The rest of your comment concerning troughs and majority are simply incomprehensible. BTW, one of the reasons that the GAO recommended a new bidding round was that the consortium of EADS/Northrop didn't have the money to widen the canal into Huntsville and Alabama refused to spend the money to help that one company.
Marie Claude - #220.127.116.11.1.1.1 - 2010-04-07 20:16 -
"Do you just make stuff up to suit yourself", no, I have been following the deal when it occured on a american military site ! but do you inflate your ego ? and do you know, in my city there is an enterprise which make the calculs for all the planes windscreens, be them Boeing, Airbus... anotherone make the scales for accessing to th planes, for all sort of planes... So, before saying BS, you should investigate a bit more !
Pat Patterson - #18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124 - 2010-04-08 00:00 -
I'm certainly not arguing, as I pointed at with Dassault, that Boeing has not outsourced some parts to Europe but merely countering your fabricated claim that "...don't forget that almost of all Boeing accessories, and motors, are made in Europe, so, you'll have the signature "made in America", with european stuffs !" Which at the very least with over 85% of the new engines being supplied by GE is just simple nonsense. Maybe you should actually go and read the original bid offer, the one later modified to allow EADS a better chance and then the GAO report which points out that while neither were perfect the bid offer was changed to make EADS tanker more competitve in regards to range, tonnage allowed and length of maintenance contracts. And as I have mentioned several times I don't really care who gets the contract but to claim some form of America First is nonsense when even the Northrop/EADS bid would have much of the plane built in the US. BTW, what American military site are you referring too?
Kevin Sampson - #126.96.36.199.1.2 - 2010-04-08 01:06 -
The A400M, all by itself, provides plenty of reasons for excluding EADS from the bidding.
Pat Patterson - #188.8.131.52.1.2.1 - 2010-04-08 01:35 -
It's the Chileans fault for cancelling their three planes.
Marie Claude - #184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11 - 2010-04-08 09:37 -
"ethnocentrism and partisanship " your chilean complex
Marie Claude - #18.104.22.168.1.2.2 - 2010-04-08 09:36 -
"The Airbus aircraft is superior, period. Boeing is playing to your ethnocentrism and partisanship and men and women in uniform don't have time for this nonsense. Boeing is simply a sore loser. We've been arguing over this new tanker for the last 15 years all the while the existing tankers are harder and harder to maintain and fly. Please let the Air Force decide who to buy our new tanker from and leave the partisanship at the front gate." AirForce Tanker http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0608/GAO_upends_Air_Force_tanker_award_.html#comments
Kevin Sampson - #22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199 - 2010-04-08 18:54 -
Which completely fails to address my point that that the A400M has been an acquisitions disaster of the first magnitude. It took EADS 27 YEARS (OMFG!) to get the first one off the ground, and the thing is 55% over budget. Nobody in their right mind would buy anything from EADS.
Marie Claude - #188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206.1 - 2010-04-09 19:03 -
laugh as much you can, sure Boeing will not have extra cost........... woarf how to win an argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEr9mYSZfAA
Kevin Sampson - #220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168.1.1 - 2010-04-11 01:09 -
WTF?? At last I understand why Jerry Lewis was so popular in France. Compared to your home-grown comedians, he was hilarity incarnate.
Marie Claude - #22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199.1.1.1 - 2010-04-11 07:40 -
see my reply to your inspired con patriot
Marie Claude - #3 - 2010-04-07 02:52 -
As far as american's friendship, I couldn't care less since all the tricks came from their side in the last decades. Time to navigate by our own, even if the price is to leave the fantomatic EU union !
Joe Noory - #3.1 - 2010-04-08 16:34 -
And yet Americans should buy the EADS tankers, even if it's sold to them by countries that practice non-tariff trade barriers on military equipment, and your argument is entirely founded on the idea that sales ARE a subsidy. he differnce is that the US manufacturers actually have to take risks and are real businesses. Airbus can borrow funds without having to pay back one centime until the make a profit, and that all of this must simply be accepted to make whoever Marie-Clause is to feel satisfied. The real point of this blog is that the idea that the White House finds no real reason to deal with the EU, but rather needs to deal with entities in the world that have a real, contentious need to deal with diplomatically [i]actually[/i] means that it "has no friends in the world". That is the most arrogant thing I've ever heard. The Europeans are not the world, and dealing with the EU is chaotic. Moreover, pissing away diplomatic capital and time to play dress-up so that the EU can feel important is ridiculous when the US has real issues to address with China, Russia, the near East, and Asia-Pacific. That's [b]real.[/b] Your idea that "only the Americans play trick" and thinking that those dastardly Americans are hiding under your bed, [b]is not.[/b] Instead, we have to listen to you banging your spoon on your highchair, and of your obsession with selling subsidized aircraft, or peddling any other similar trash, when you can't seem to realize that the purpose of pushing the aircraft was to try to find a way for the European militaries to afford replacing some of their own aircraft. The irony is that if the contract DID go through, you would probably be mad about Eurozone taxpayers fotting the bill in some small way, for that "evil American war machine".
Marie Claude - #3.1.1 - 2010-04-08 19:05 -
ah, tiens, v'la le Joe qui rajoute sa couche LMAO "And yet Americans should buy the EADS tankers" Rectification: the American Army, not the popole like you ! "he differnce is that the US manufacturers actually have to take risks and are real businesses" yeah, but the american army responsibles had enough to sponsorise Boeing in paying a too much high price for a merchandise that they could find abroad with a superior quality and size, like they were defined in their objectives the rest, is your usual blah, blah, therefore good for the trashbin !
Joe Noory - #188.8.131.52 - 2010-04-08 19:22 -
Actually, you moron, it's the Air Force, and they are buying things with the public's money, but since you're so deeply steeped in the nationalistic simplisme of culture = nation = government, you probably aren't able to identify a genuinely broad ranging and broadminded group of people anyway. So the "you" mart of me isn't actually paying for these aircraft, except when tyou say that "I" asked for them: [i]you are the one that switched on to Eads[/i] No. It all starts with comment no. 2, by Marie-Claude. As for this articulate opus: [i]"yeah, but the american army responsibles had enough to sponsorise Boeing in paying a too much high price for a merchandise that they could find abroad with a superior quality and size, like they were defined in their objectives"[/i] Like the "some say" stuff about Chicago, these inferences are like any others you feel some desperate urge to blast out: factless, clueless, and childishly limited to saying anything you think will defend the economic interests of your culture - at the expense of the world, and your fellow European citizens. You are completely linear. I really wish the message that comes out when one pulls the ring on your back would alternate, or offer some variety.
Marie Claude - #184.108.40.206.1 - 2010-04-08 20:16 -
paroles paroles paroles, Joe, since anti-french rants are your speciality, I'll get to the toilet and pull the flush button !
Marie Claude - #4 - 2010-04-08 09:46 -
Marie Claude - #5 - 2010-04-08 09:50 -
"Air Force Buys French Tanker" I like that : "French Tanker", booooh where is the german part ? http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/02/air_force_buys_french_tanker.asp
Marie Claude - #6 - 2010-04-08 09:59 -
For work/money staying in the US - Boeing waving the American flag on the subject has worked well, but ignores that the prime on this contract is Northrop, not EADS Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/02/the-40-billion/#ixzz0kUeZiVlI
Marie Claude - #7 - 2010-04-08 10:14 -
Marie Claude - #8 - 2010-04-08 10:18 -
http://air-attack.com/page/83/KC-30-MRTT.html Does the fact that Boeing is situated in Chicgo had some importance ? some say that the Boeing unions gave some substantific founds to Obama's campain !!!!
Pat Patterson - #8.1 - 2010-04-08 13:49 -
That is an impressive amount of links and a cut and paste narrative but simply not germane to the points raised. Also quoting from anonymous comments is fun but still dangerously irrelevant. The basic fact remains that the contract, actually the second one, was deemed flawed in that two different companies couldn't even match the same capabilities demanded so pursued two different design solutions. The EADS design, actually the Northrop design as EADS first attempt was rejected immediately, had some very serious flaws and essentially most of the legitimate criticism came over two points. The original group of tankers were to be assembled in Huntsville from EADS supplied fabrications and there was no guarantee that after these were assembled that the line would continue. And that this contract would benefit a Republican held state vs two Democratic held states in a period that ultimately, Obama wasn't the nominee yet, would see a heavily union sympathetic administration. The other in that the few tankers that EADS had built had terrible reputations and very poor sales. Also that in spite of what was claimed in the offer the tanker had a shorter range and most importantly needed much longer runways. Runways that in some parts of the world don't exist. Though I liked the suspiciously odd comment from Air Force Tanker who implores that the USAF be allowed to chose its own tanker. Well, it did in 2002 but complaints and cost caused support to evaporate in Congress. I don't really see any American military sites among the list offered. Try Janes, Defence Weekly, etc as far more reliable than comments in opinion sites. The reference to Chile was concerning the fact that Chile had agreed to buy 3 A400s but backed out when the P&W engines were replaced and many quality problems were found on the few that had been assembled.
Marie Claude - #9 - 2010-04-08 18:53 -
Marie Claude - #9.1 - 2010-04-08 18:55 -
"unfortunately the comments section of this site are not visible" the comments section of thisera, 2008, isn't visible anymore
Pat Patterson - #9.2 - 2010-04-08 19:38 -
The original contract, cancelled in 2002, also included a bid by EADS. It was judged insufficient and then EADS decided to partner with Northrop. But again who cares, for want of citation what is in the comments section? It's opinion and argument not fact. Most of the lobbying took place between the states involved. The French involvement was a peripheral concern and as the French are viewed with suspicion in the US then that obviously was some part of the rejection. But two populous Democratic states, Washington and Illinois, versus one Republican state (of doubtful manufacturing capabilities) was truly no contest.
Marie Claude - #9.2.1 - 2010-04-08 20:22 -
" The French involvement was a peripheral concern and as the French are viewed with suspicion in the US then that obviously was some part of the rejection. " it rather shows how Americans are uninformed, or rather that they have an insulate view of the world, so far Eads, is european, UK, Germany,Spain, Italy, France, and.... you wouldn't believe it, Israel, have some significative interest in the business too !
Pat Patterson - #220.127.116.11 - 2010-04-09 00:42 -
You can describe EADS anyway you want but the contract was lost, the second one, because two larger states simply ganged up on a smaller. The fact that the French were involved simply made it easier to stereotype as a bad business decision.
Pat Patterson - #18.104.22.168.1 - 2010-04-09 00:48 -
Israel has business with BAE not EADS. Israel desires to profit from its arm sales not have to subsidize them at a loss.
Marie Claude - #22.214.171.124.2 - 2010-04-09 19:11 -
the fact is, Boeing won with a Chigago gangsta process ! Israel is collaborating with EADS for arms development, ie drones... as well Boeing
Pat Patterson - #126.96.36.199.2.1 - 2010-04-09 20:00 -
EADS is buying the technology from Israel but Israel is cooperating with BAE. Big difference. What proof can you offer about Chicago since Obama was not even the nominee at the time of the GAO report and as of yet the contract still has not be awarded. Can I say that all French love Jerry Lewis simply because "everyone" says so?
Marie Claude - #188.8.131.52.2.1.1 - 2010-04-11 07:36 -
On 29 February 2008, the United States Air Force awarded a $35 billion contract for aerial refueling tankers (the KC-45) to Northrop Grumman, with EADS as a major subcontractor. The contract, one of the largest created by the Department of Defense, is initially valued at $35 billion but has the potential to grow to $100 billion. It is also a sign of the growing influence of foreign suppliers within the Pentagon and breaks a relationship that has lasted decades with Boeing, which had built the bulk of the existing tanker fleet and had fought hard to land the new contract. Under the contract, Northrop Grumman and EADS would build a fleet of 179 planes, based on the existing Airbus 330, to provide in-air refueling to military aircraft, from fighter jets to cargo planes. While final assembly of the craft would take place at an Airbus plant near Mobile, Alabama, parts would come from suppliers across the globe. However, the award was protested by Boeing, the other bidder on the project, which was upheld by the GAO. The Air Force announced a partial reopening of the bid, focusing on the eight (of nearly 110) areas where Boeing's protests were upheld, with a final decision due by the end of 2008. The Brits sold out BAE to Eads in 2006 "EADS is buying the technology from Israel but Israel is cooperating with BAE." NOt quite, Israeli do work for Thales and vice-versa, which is a branch of Eads Jerry Lewis is American, I know that when you don't worship one of your citizens, then you say he is loved by the French, idem for Obama, he is copying the French socialism LMAO keep your pinheads and the pigs will be happy !
Pat Patterson - #184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11 - 2010-04-11 08:06 -
More than slightly mistaken as BAE forced EADS and AirBus to buy back its 20% ownership of the conglomerate. No, again as its quite clear that the Israelis are in the process of selling technology and modifying it to Thales specifications. This in itself is hardly unusual as Israel has a history of buying the heavily modifying armaments with the proceeds from selling proprietary information to other defense companies. The Patriot serves a test bed for the Arrow and then the Arrow is sold throughout the world. That hardly makes eithe Ebit or Israel partners with Raytheon. But another example also serves as a warning of why quite a few countries are leery of involvement with EADS. The contract to build the new Queen Elizabeth class carriers originally went to BAE and a host of other British companies. But new taxing rules made that arrangement impossible so it was cheaper to go with EADS/Thales in spite of French foot dragging on putting up its share for a third carrier to be built. The French navy is still trying to convince the Royal Navy to partner with them to build the third or loan one of the two ships to France. 'Please Dad can I borrow the Brits air craft carrier to go bomb those perfidious Rwandans. I promise to fill it up and get it back by ten pm.'
Marie Claude - #18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124.1 - 2010-04-11 09:47 -
beware of your mental desorder, your imagination is incredible !
Pat Patterson - #126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.1.1 - 2010-04-11 11:01 -
What facts do you dispute? I've noticed that whenever your position becomes untenable as to its reliability the less likely any fact is offered in rebuttal.
Marie Claude - #184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11.1.1.1 - 2010-04-11 19:28 -
would you consider that I get sometimes tired to enter into your "chicanerie" contest
Kevin Sampson - #18.104.22.168.2.2 - 2010-04-11 01:01 -
Marie Claude - #22.214.171.124.2.2.1 - 2010-04-11 07:43 -
the reason is elsewhere, you do make PROTECTIONISM Hope the Europeans understood this last lesson and will think twice before buying american made !
Pat Patterson - #126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52 - 2010-04-11 08:19 -
And how much armament has France bought from the US lately or even for the last few decades. They would rather waste money on the Rafael or the LeClerc than admit that the F-22 or even the F-16 and the Abrams might be superior. Or if not a Abrams or Centurion how many Merkavas has France bought since of course they only buy the best and are absolutely not concerned with protecting their own defense industries.
Marie Claude - #184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11.1 - 2010-04-11 09:52 -
why should we specifically buy these 2 planes that we don't need, cuz Raphael has a much more beautiful image, LMAO but you do force Nato countries to buy them, hmm, and some pretend that only USSR, (or Russia) makes finlandization !
Pat Patterson - #9.3 - 2010-04-09 08:00 -
As compared to a recycled design from 1987? And which as the Royal Air Force is finding out are expensive to fly and can't land on some air fields, either described as of problematic length or surface, as specified in the contract. It's not to say that EADS/Airbus couldn't design a good tanker but the one they choose to design was with an eye to keep the sticky fingers of EADS owners out of trouble with the local unions.
Joe Noory - #10 - 2010-04-08 19:45 -
Actually the title is all wrong. Given the treatment that the EU recieves, the EU is in need to "friends in the world" and, to be frank, legitimacy. Which, of the 27+2 entities that may or may not appear at -yet another- "historic summit of teh week" is unclear. What there is to discuss with them when genuinely meaningful issues NEED to be discussed with Russia, China, Brazil, the Near East nations, those in south and east Asia, etal. It's not the confusion over whether one needs to call the 27 phone numbers or the one phone number (which is actually THREE phone numbers), but whether there is anyone, (or anyone serious) on the other end. The US has friends, adversaries, and relations. As far as I can tell, an conglomeration of European states has a thing going on with Russia that the Germans started, not to mention the post-colonial relationships that teh French, British, and Portuguese have, and relations with diplomats who shake hands out of protocol. Globally, I simply can't tell what the EU needs to be taken seriously for. In any real terms that one would need to rely on as a broker, mediator, or guaruntor, they seem irrelevant and prone to abandonment. i.e.: they are about as meaningful as furniture in south Lebanon; they have abandoned election observation in Darfur without a response of any sort, they cannot figure out who NOT fund in Gaza, etc., etc. In fact they are a shambles - not just benign, but harmful. They have given the Iranians YEARS of diplomatic cover which will guarantee that they will be a nuclear armed power, and will likely at some point have more warheads stockpiled than the UK or France. With little interest in the consequences to a nacent reasonable Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc., on they went, even while all but Europe's fringes are in missile range. And yet it's the US, we are told "who have no friends", are awkward in gov't to gov't dealings, etc., etc., etc. The same profunctory repetition that I've heard my entire life.
Marie Claude - #10.1 - 2010-04-08 20:29 -
" they are about as meaningful as furniture in south Lebanon; they have abandoned election observation in Darfur without a response of any sort, they cannot figure out who NOT fund in Gaza, etc., etc." sure, Chouchou, since you see any of the european interventions with the hidden agenda of prolongating "colonialism", uh, not the saint americans, they bring "democracy", and you wouldn't believe it "peace" ! woaff woaff Juanita Bananaaa!!!
Pat Patterson - #10.1.1 - 2010-04-09 00:56 -
"It's Chiquita Banana and she's come to say People need to check their quotes in a serious way When it's Marie-Claude we know that won't happen today When she starts woofing and growling in the strangest way." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A834CwzNHI
Marie Claude - #10.1.1.1 - 2010-04-09 19:00 -
Pat Patterson - #10.1.1.1.1 - 2010-04-09 19:04 -
Pretty funny except you were referring to the brand name as a identifier for the US in Latin America. Not even an A for effort.
Marie Claude - #10.1.1.1.1.1 - 2010-04-09 19:14 -
more simple than that, it just ment "p*ss off"
Google the Site