The most dangerous thing Americans do while on vacation is drive on US highways. The possibility of any terrorist danger anywhere in the world is infinitessimely small. Except in Oklahoma City, then it rises.

Truthfully, I know you will be safer in Paris than here in the US! :)

Or something simian, :(l) or 8-l)

8 - l)

<b>Vote against the <i>jihadists</i></b>

In Spain, the terrorists wanted to oust the government that supported the Iraq war, so they blew up commuter trains just before the election, and the incumbent was voted out.

Therefore, it follows that if they want Bush out, they will attack before the election. If this happens, we should all, regardless of party affiliation or personal preference, vote for Bush.

If they do <u>not</u> want Bush out, they will <u>not</u> attack, which is our cue to vote for Kerry.

I personally don't care who wins the election. I don't think either candidate has the qualities that I would look for in an executive I was hiring - and that's what we're doing, after all.

&gt;I think France is probably safer than the U.K. because of their respective stands on the invasion of Iraq.&lt;

&gt;But if the jihadista are going to blow up something in Europe to &quot;make a statement&quot; (as they did in Spain), they are much more likely to do so in a country allied with the U.S. than one that opposes its policies.&lt;

&gt;In Spain, the terrorists wanted to oust the government that supported the Iraq war, so they blew up commuter trains just before the election, and the incumbent was voted out.&lt;

trying to follow your logic here.... so, if it's safer to be in france, and now spain too, doesn't that mean that those governments are more in line with the way terrorists want them to behave?

I agree that there are many people who are better qualified who I would rather have as our president.The problem is if the only other choice is a man like Kerry I don't see how anyone could vote for him.He is the most wishy-washy opportunist to come down the pike in my memory.

Is this about travel?

Mgmargate you are the best! Good work, guy. Dick says the opening at Haliburton's yours for the asking. Karl asks how's it hanging, Karen blows a kiss.

Dear uuhhh:

Yes. See, that wasn't hard to follow at all, now was it?

BS: WHAT?

&gt;See, that wasn't hard to follow at all, now was it?&lt;

no, not at all, Robespierre. wonder why so many others have a problem with it........

Which others?

right again, Robespierre... i guess i'm a little naive in thinking that, given their stated objectives, one should rather not behave in the manner desired by terrorists.

Exactimundo. That's why I said to vote <i><b>against</b></i> the terrorists.

Or did you miss that part?

Here is a different reaction to the opening question: When I read an inquiry about the wisdom of travel to Paris &quot;right before the election&quot; I thought -- &quot;But surely there's no election in France&quot;.

Bottom line: The rest of the world does not necessarily even notice, far less organize itself around, what is happening in the US.

That comment is not meant dismissively -- but I was in France last week and saw not a word about the US election, nor did I think of it myself.......

Au contraire, the whole world is watching what is going on during the U.S. election, because whoever is in the White House will have an effect on the whole world.

Without pushing one candidate or the other in this venue, I think Robespierre has it exactly backward.

Al Quaeda is not naive. They fully understand that when attacked, the US will rally around its leadership. They can also read the polls that say that the majority of the voters think (rightly or wrongly) that Bush will be stronger against terrorists.

Therefore, if they attack in the US before the election, they will do so with the clear intention of re-electing Bush.

The above reasoning was also expressed in a letter I wrote to Newsweek magazine, which they printed in the August 30, 2004 issue.

Spain reacted differently, as the vast majority of the Spanish public opposed Spain's involvement with the war in Iraq, and the government initially tried to mislead them as to who was responsible for the attacks.

Tedgale, I didn't get the same impression as you on my trip to France a few weeks ago. Everyone I met wanted to talk about the US election, although they approached the topic carefully. An exception to that careful approach was a man I spoke with in a bar, missing his two front teeth, who immediately asked me whom I'd be voting for in November, and spoke knowledgeably about both the candidates and the significant issues.

My impression is that people in the rest of the world know one heck of a lot more about what is going on in the US than people in the US know about the rest of the world. Copies of <i>Le Monde</i> and <i>Le Figaro</i> that I brought back from two random days both have half-page articles about the election in the US, although to be fair, I should note that both the articles are on page 4, and the article in <i>Le Figaro</i> focuses on a French angle - Bush bashing France to discredit Kerry.

- Larry

uh, I miss your point. Are you pro-Bush?