So Popular and So Spineless

[Laworkerbee]

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: July 16, 2008

Much ink has been spilled lately decrying the decline in American popularity around the world under President Bush. Polls tell us how China is now more popular in Asia than America and how few Europeans say they identify with the United States. I am sure there is truth to these polls. We should have done better in Iraq. An America that presides over Abu Ghraib, torture and Guantánamo Bay deserves a thumbs-down.

But America is not and never has been just about those things, which is why I also find some of these poll results self-indulgent, knee-jerk and borderline silly. Friday’s vote at the U.N. on Zimbabwe reminded me why.

Maybe Asians, Europeans, Latin Americans and Africans don’t like a world of too much American power — “Mr. Big” got a little too big for them. But how would they like a world of too little American power? With America’s overextended military and overextended banks, that is the world into which we may be heading.

Welcome to a world of too much Russian and Chinese power.

I am neither a Russia-basher nor a China-basher. But there was something truly filthy about Russia’s and China’s vetoes of the American-led U.N. Security Council effort to impose targeted sanctions on Robert Mugabe’s ruling clique in Zimbabwe.

The U.S. put forward a simple Security Council resolution, calling for an arms embargo on Zimbabwe, the appointment of a U.N. mediator, plus travel and financial restrictions on the dictator Mugabe and 13 top military and government officials for stealing the Zimbabwe election and essentially mugging an entire country in broad daylight.

In the first round of Zimbabwe’s elections, on March 29, the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, won nearly 48 percent of the vote compared with 42 percent for Mugabe. This prompted Mugabe and his henchmen to begin a campaign of killing and intimidation against Tsvangirai supporters that eventually forced the opposition to pull out of the second-round runoff vote just to stay alive.

Even before the runoff, Mugabe declared that he would disregard the results if his ZANU-PF party lost. Or as he put it: “We are not going to give up our country because of a mere X” on some paper ballot.

And so, of course, Mugabe “won” in one of the most blatantly stolen elections ever — in a country already mired in misrule, unemployment, hunger and inflation. Some 25 percent of Zimbabwe’s people have now taken refuge in neighboring states. (I have close friends from Zimbabwe, and one of my daughters worked there in an H.I.V.-AIDS community center in January.) The Associated Press reported in May from Zimbabwe “that annual inflation rose this month to 1,063,572 percent, based on prices of a basket of basic foodstuffs.” Zimbabwe’s currency has become so devalued, the A.P. explained, that “a loaf of bread now costs what 12 new cars did a decade ago.”

No matter. Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s U.N. ambassador, argued that the targeted sanctions that the U.S. and others wanted to impose on Mugabe’s clique exceeded the Security Council’s mandate. “We believe such practices to be illegitimate and dangerous,” he said, describing the resolution as one more obvious “attempt to take the Council beyond its charter prerogatives.” Veto!

Mugabe’s campaign of murder and intimidation didn’t strike Churkin as “illegitimate and dangerous” — only the U.N. resolution to bring a halt to it was “illegitimate and dangerous.” Shameful. Meanwhile, China is hosting the Olympics, a celebration of the human spirit, while defending Mugabe’s right to crush his own people’s spirit.

But when it comes to pure, rancid moral corruption, no one can top South Africa’s president, Thabo Mbeki, and his stooge at the U.N., Dumisani Kumalo. They have done everything they can to prevent any meaningful U.N. pressure on the Mugabe dictatorship.

As The Times reported, America’s U.N. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, “accused South Africa of protecting the ‘horrible regime in Zimbabwe,’ ” calling this particularly disturbing given that it was precisely international economic sanctions that brought down South Africa’s apartheid government, which had long oppressed that country’s blacks.

So let us now coin the Mbeki Rule: When whites persecute blacks, no amount of U.N. sanctions is too much. And when blacks persecute blacks, any amount of U.N. sanctions is too much.

Which brings me back to America. Perfect we are not, but America still has some moral backbone. There are travesties we will not tolerate. The U.N. vote on Zimbabwe demonstrates that this is not true for these “popular” countries — called Russia or China or South Africa — that have no problem siding with a man who is pulverizing his own people.

So, yes, we’re not so popular in Europe and Asia anymore. I guess they would prefer a world in which America was weaker, where leaders with the values of Vladimir Putin and Thabo Mbeki had a greater say, and where the desperate voices for change in Zimbabwe would, well, just shut up.

[gaijinsamurai]

Good essay, LAWB.
Thomas Friedman is one of my favorites.

Thanks!

[Weasel]

What´s the purpose of this article? Is it just a whining about the unpopularity? I don´t understand. :|

[Gfunk]

An obvious fan of Pax Americana.

[Laworkerbee]

It is not an article, but an opinion piece, it has nothing to do with whining about being unpopular.

You're smart enough to grasp this.

[Krikke.D]

Perfect we(America) are not, but America still has some moral backbone
Quoted for truth

I find it sad how many European despise American(USA) foreign policy yet are completely blind when it comes to russian and chinese policital actions.

[gilgoul]

Well, Friedman makes a serious point, I may not always agree with him, and almost never when it comes to his great solutions for my country, but at least here is what you can call a real columnist, bringing on a relevant issue that seems to haunt so much the election season in the USA.

[Weasel]

Quoted for truth

I find it sad how many European despise American(USA) foreign policy yet are completely blind when it comes to russian and chinese policital actions.

Sad if you compare american political actions with russian or chinese political actions. And any comparison or even the mentioning of Mugabe is totally hilarious because there are no similarities!

[helomech]

That was a good article,and hit the nail on the head:


But when it comes to pure, rancid moral corruption, no one can top South Africa’s president, Thabo Mbeki, and his stooge at the U.N., Dumisani Kumalo. They have done everything they can to prevent any meaningful U.N. pressure on the Mugabe dictatorship.

Mbeki just sits back does nothing and smiles for the camera anytime this issue of enforcing any type of rule needs to be put against Mugabe;the African continent continues to spiral downward because of this and the failure to act by it's individual nations

[Laworkerbee]

Sad if you compare american political actions with russian or chinese political actions. And any comparison or even the mentioning of Mugabe is totally hilarious because there are no similarities!

Please tell me why you disagree with these voted down sanctions, I'm really curious to see your take on it.

The U.S. put forward a simple Security Council resolution, calling for an arms embargo on Zimbabwe, the appointment of a U.N. mediator, plus travel and financial restrictions on the dictator Mugabe and 13 top military and government officials for stealing the Zimbabwe election and essentially mugging an entire country in broad daylight.

[Weasel]

Please tell me why you disagree with these voted down sanctions, I'm really curious to see your take on it.

The U.S. put forward a simple Security Council resolution, calling for an arms embargo on Zimbabwe, the appointment of a U.N. mediator, plus travel and financial restrictions on the dictator Mugabe and 13 top military and government officials for stealing the Zimbabwe election and essentially mugging an entire country in broad daylight.

I don´t disagree with the voted down sanctions. I disagree the the article/opinion above. Trying to upvalue the USA by trying to argue that others are worse is completely useless and unnecessary. Or do you convince your boss that you are the best by showing that your colleagues are worse?

[SBL]

I don´t disagree with the voted down sanctions. I disagree the the article/opinion above. Trying to upvalue the USA by trying to argue that others are worse is completely useless and unnecessary. Or do you convince your boss that you are the best by showing that your colleagues are worse?

The point of the piece is to draw attention to the fact that for all the belly-aching some people do, they tend to ignore the fact that the benefits they enjoy was, and continue to be, the results the result of American power.

[Laworkerbee]

I see what you're saying now and agree with you to an extent.

I do however believe there is a moral vacuum in the world and I don't see any state or statesmen trying to fill that void, I think the world is worse because of it.

[Weasel]

The point of the piece is to draw attention to the fact that for all the belly-aching some people do, they tend to ignore the fact that the benefits they enjoy was, and continue to be, the results the result of American power.

The US did something good for the world and especially for Europe....especially for my country. Does it mean we need to follow the US blindly, always and forever? We are not allowed to diasgree with the US?

[Laworkerbee]

The US did something good for the world and especially for Europe....especially for my country. Does it mean we need to follow the US blindly, always and forever? We are not allowed to diasgree with the US?

I don't see anyone or anything calling for that, that would be quite unhealthy for our relationship.

[California Joe]

Weasel, quit being a **** just for the sake of being one.

[Weasel]

I don't see anyone or anything calling for that, that would be quite unhealthy for our relationship.

How do you interpret this passage?

So, yes, we’re not so popular in Europe and Asia anymore. I guess they would prefer a world in which America was weaker, where leaders with the values of Vladimir Putin and Thabo Mbeki had a greater say, and where the desperate voices for change in Zimbabwe would, well, just shut up.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Or do you convince your boss that you are the best by showing that your colleagues are worse?

Well, er, yeah, that's exactly how you'd do it. What else/who else is a worker to be compared to? A refrigerator? Workers at another company? You go in and prove that you're better than you're co-workers, then you get a raise. Therefore the reasonable observer compares America not to a non-existent, theoretical perfect nation - but against the other nations that do exist.

[SBL]

The US did something good for the world and especially for Europe....especially for my country. Does it mean we need to follow the US blindly, always and forever? We are not allowed to diasgree with the US?
Of course not, but in order for the benefits to continue, there has to be a certain amount of 'getting with the program' on the part of subscribing nations. I.E. better the devil you know than one you don't.

[Laworkerbee]

How do you interpret this passage?

So, yes, we’re not so popular in Europe and Asia anymore. I guess they would prefer a world in which America was weaker, where leaders with the values of Vladimir Putin and Thabo Mbeki had a greater say, and where the desperate voices for change in Zimbabwe would, well, just shut up.

I interpret that passage as Friedman throwing his hands up in the air and asking "what the hell?"

[Thom]

It seems strange to me that he watered down his argument with what equates to "well okay so we've done bad stuff, but we're not as bad as these guys!". It seems fairly unrelated to the main thrust of the article. It causes a kind of polarising situation in the "you're either with us or against us" theme, there's no middle ground and when you say 'hey now you did some good here, but I disagree with this' then suddenly you've become someone who hates America and supports terrorists.

[Weasel]

Well, er, yeah, that's exactly how you'd do it. What else/who else is a worker to be compared to? A refrigerator? Workers at another company? You go in and prove that you're better than you're co-workers, then you get a raise. Therefore the reasonable observer compares America not to a non-existent, theoretical perfect nation - but against the other nations that do exist.

Right you are. You will show him that you are better. But you won´t show him that your colleagues are worse. Do you see the difference?

[Solomin]

Right you are. You will show him that you are better. But you won´t show him that your colleagues are worse. Do you see the difference?

Ok, fine. We're kick ass because we put forward a UNSCR that showed we have moral backbone. My perspective and others here in the US is not that we're perfect or we don't make mistakes, but that every frickin' time we try to do something half the world gets whether it's good or bad, effective policy or ineffective. It seems to me that no matter what we do some people always get pissed off. So Friedman is saying, "Hey chill the **** out for once, settle down a little, because for god sakes you could be controlled China and the more you oppose us, the stronger these other not so nice guys get, and when they do control you, you will be sorry as hell"

[budgie]

I have to agree with Friedman's thesis - that the world is better off with a stronger America than without. However not his methodology. This opinion piece falls into the trap so common to the 'with us or against us' mindset: he's pulled an argument out of is ass just to refute it.

While Europeans might be disenchanted with America these days under Bush, it doesn't mean they'd like a weaker America. This may be true of those powers competing for prestige, or dictatorships who want to be left to their nasty little ways, but the world as a whole isn't complaining that America is too strong, only that she sometimes oversteps her power.

This is something we all have to live with but I get a feel for the hidden suggestion in friedman's piece that we should shut up and take it, because we'd be worse off without America. I take the position that there's nothing wrong with telling your friends when they've gone too far. And friedman must recognise too that when the administration changes America's popularity might climb as well. So he needs to ask himself is it really America people are angry at?

[TR1]

I bet the "voices" Zimbabwe are so very sad that these sanctions didn't pass.:roll:


They would feel the pain, not Mugabe.

A world of too much Russian and Chinese power? give me a break.

[Laworkerbee]

I bet the "voices" Zimbabwe are so very sad that these sanctions didn't pass.:roll:


They would feel the pain, not Mugabe.

A world of too much Russian and Chinese power? give me a break.

You're wrong tovarich.

The U.S. put forward a simple Security Council resolution, calling for an arms embargo on Zimbabwe, the appointment of a U.N. mediator, plus travel and financial restrictions on the dictator Mugabe and 13 top military and government officials for stealing the Zimbabwe election and essentially mugging an entire country in broad daylight.

If these were general sanctions like those imposed on Iraq in the 1990's I would have been opposed to them as I consider them close to a crime against humanity as those types of sanctions only affect the weak and powerless, never the strong in the targeted society.

[budgie]

A world of too much Russian and Chinese power? give me a break.

I have to agree here with TR. Russia and China have always held veto power on the UNSC. A temporary decline in American popularity has not given rise to any sudden new power for these countries. Moreover they've always supported little dictatorships and petty tyrants around the world and there's no sudden swing toward their camps: Mugabe, Kim, the Mullahs and whoever, it's the usual suspects.

[TR1]

In that case I am curious as to why Russia decided to go against the resolution, its not like Zimbabwe is a profitable arms (or anything for that matter) market for Russia.

[Jobu]

While Europeans might be disenchanted with America these days under Bush, it doesn't mean they'd like a weaker America. This may be true of those powers competing for prestige, or dictatorships who want to be left to their nasty little ways, but the world as a whole isn't complaining that America is too strong, only that she sometimes oversteps her power.





That's a bunch of baloney. Many, many people certainly do want a weaker America and it has nothing to do with Bush. It would be the same no matter who our President was.

Chirac's talk a few years back about his desire for a multi-polar world was not only about Bush or America overstepping. It was about wanting a world where America was weaker. Not a world where America and Europe form a common center of power but a world where there are rival centers of power.

[Jobu]

In that case I am curious as to why Russia decided to go against the resolution, its not like Zimbabwe is a profitable arms (or anything for that matter) market for Russia.

Because Tsvangirai may have been too close to the West for Russia's liking.

If Putin needs to keep Mugabe and his thugs in power in order to deny a new ally for the West, it's a small price to pay. It keeps the West's circle of influence from expanding.

[akd]

The US did something good for the world and especially for Europe....especially for my country. Does it mean we need to follow the US blindly, always and forever? We are not allowed to diasgree with the US?

Because the US does nothing good now? I think the piece is more about perceptions than actually trying to place nations on a morality scale. Friedman's point is that some of the perceived goodness of Russian and China has nothing to do with those countries' actual policies or actions, but arises simply from the fact that they are not the United States.

[Ironsight06]

In that case I am curious as to why Russia decided to go against the resolution, its not like Zimbabwe is a profitable arms (or anything for that matter) market for Russia.
Natural resources.

[TR1]

Because the US does nothing good now? I think the piece is more about perceptions than actually trying to place nations on a morality scale. Friedman's point is that some of the perceived goodness of Russian and China has nothing to do with those countries' actual policies or actions, but arises simply from the fact that they are not the United States.
Really don't see any truth to that, hell, perceiving Russia negatively (and 90% of the time incorrectly) seems to be a fad in the western press.

[Thor]

In that case I am curious as to why Russia decided to go against the resolution, its not like Zimbabwe is a profitable arms (or anything for that matter) market for Russia.
Russia and China has an outspoken goal of creating a multipolar world, and especially China has a strong interest in Africa.


On a sidenote, you Russian-Americans don't to seem to be a very patriotic bunch.

[TR1]

I'd rather not be blindly patriotic, be it in regards to Russia or the US.

[Laworkerbee]

On a sidenote, you Russian-Americans don't to seem to be a very patriotic bunch.

I don't consider them unpatriotic at all.

[budgie]

In that case I am curious as to why Russia decided to go against the resolution, its not like Zimbabwe is a profitable arms (or anything for that matter) market for Russia.

Traditional policy of non-interference in 'domestic' affairs. Putin might want to starve out some rebellious Caucuses province one day so it would look hypocritical to berate Mugabe for something similar.


That's a bunch of baloney. Many, many people certainly do want a weaker America and it has nothing to do with Bush. It would be the same no matter who our President was.

Chirac's talk a few years back about his desire for a multi-polar world was not only about Bush or America overstepping. It was about wanting a world where America was weaker. Not a world where America and Europe form a common center of power but a world where there are rival centers of power.

Oh yeah the French conspriracy (of common-sense) against the Iraq invasion. Five years on and the Right never gets tired of spouting that one...

[Thor]

The US did something good for the world and especially for Europe....especially for my country. Does it mean we need to follow the US blindly, always and forever? We are not allowed to diasgree with the US?
That is not a viable explanation. Truth is that Europe was pacified after WWII and this is mainly why we have this kind of situation today with left-wingers running the show.

[Thor]

I don't consider them unpatriotic at all.
In WWII Italian-Americans went to war against Italy, and German-Americans went to war against Germany. Would this be the case with Russian-Americans as well? My experience on this forum leaves me with some doubt, but maybe things are not what they seem to be.

[Jobu]

Oh yeah the French conspriracy (of common-sense) against the Iraq invasion. Five years on and the Right never gets tired of spouting that one...



I mentioned Chirac's expressed desire for a multipolar world, not his opposition to the Iraq invasion.

Reading comprehension.

[TR1]

In WWII American-Italians went to war against Italy, and German-Americans went to war against Germany. Would that be the case with American-Russians as well? My experience on this forum leaves me with some doubt, but maybe things are not what they seem to be.
No one gives a **** about your opinion regarding our patriotism, to be honest Thor.

In your example, I would dig myself a bomb shelter, thanks.

[Thor]

No one gives a **** about your opinion regarding our patriotism, to be honest Thor.

In your example, I would dig myself a bomb shelter, thanks.
But when you're done digging and you get your draft order, would you go to war against Russia?

[TR1]

Seeing as that has nothing to do with this thread, PM me if you really want to discuss it.

and no, I would sit in my bunker, only to emerge 30 years later Fallout style.

[Laworkerbee]

and no, I would sit in my bunker, only to emerge 30 years later Fallout style.

Pfft! I've flush you out with water, Commie p-)

[mas-36]

I mentioned Chirac's expressed desire for a multipolar world, not his opposition to the Iraq invasion.

Reading comprehension.


..and how does this mean that Chirac wanted a weaker USA? His "Multi-polar" statement had everything to do about being treated like an equal. Had nothing to do about "weakening" America.

[TR1]

Pfft! I've flush you out with water, Commie p-)
nah You'd beg to join me. however i would only have space for one more, so you and STIG would have to fight to the death.

[Solomin]

..and how does this mean that Chirac wanted a weaker USA? His "Multi-polar" statement had everything to do about being treated like an equal. Had nothing to do about "weakening" America.

You need to look up the definition of multi-polar.

And if you need another example about France trying to weaken American hegemony, go back and read up about Bretton Woods.

[Laworkerbee]

nah You'd beg to join me. however i would only have space for one more, so you and STIG would have to fight to the death.

The Indian wouldn't stand a chance.

[Jobu]

..and how does this mean that Chirac wanted a weaker USA? His "Multi-polar" statement had everything to do about being treated like an equal. Had nothing to do about "weakening" America.



Sarkozy may believe this but Chirac certainly did not.

He made it very clear he wanted a multipolar world and specifically for Europe to be a counterweight to the USA. Not a partner but a force to hold us down.

[TR1]

The Indian wouldn't stand a chance.
Yeah I figured that before the end of the day, STIGs remains would be cooking in the over. Would go well with curry.

btw, I must warn you, the bomb shelter will also contain no less than 23 cats.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Right you are. You will show him that you are better. But you won´t show him that your colleagues are worse. Do you see the difference?

The only difference lies in the choice and the order of words used. Functionally...in terms of meaning, there's no difference within the comparative context of the statements. I'm better than them=they're worse than me.

Back to the UN - hey, people vote their interests, unless compelled to do otherwise. All politicians are interested in solidifying power, and it's not like the citizenry of Russia or China will rise up against their governments over an issue like Mugabe.

[Thor]

Seeing as that has nothing to do with this thread, PM me if you really want to discuss it.

and no, I would sit in my bunker, only to emerge 30 years later Fallout style.
Nope. Just found it noteworthy.

[mas-36]

You need to look up the definition of multi-polar.

And if you need another example about France trying to weaken American hegemony, go back and read up about Bretton Woods.

I am familiar with the Bretton Woods conference, and I find your reference to it absolutely laughable in context to the so-called "threats" to "American hegemony". If we in the US suddenly find ourselves in the weaker position economically, politically and worldly credibility, it's because we put ourselves there, not because of the French or anyone else. How can we blame other nations for secretly wanting to undermine us on the world stage when our own government has it's head shove so far up it's *ss in regards to those very issues we take on?



Sarkozy may believe this but Chirac certainly did not.

He made it very clear he wanted a multipolar world and specifically for Europe to be a counterweight to the USA. Not a partner but a force to hold us down.

Really? Did you ask Chirac himself, or Sarko for that matter?? Maybe you should familiarize yourself with Sarko a little more. His foreign policies are not all that different from Chirac's, especially in light of Sarko's and Bush's last meeting in Japan, in which Sarko shouted down to Bush in a private meeting between the two. If you think Sarko is going to kow-tow to our wishes simply because he like certain aspects of American culture, you're going to be sorely dissapointed. Besides, given what I've read from your other post under other various topics, you're something of a schizo-Francophobe anyway, right?

[brainplay]

Chirac's talk a few years back about his desire for a multi-polar world was not only about Bush or America overstepping. It was about wanting a world where America was weaker. Not a world where America and Europe form a common center of power but a world where there are rival centers of power.

And how is that beneficial to anyone? Europe will never be like that until the become the United States of Europe or at least a solidified EU. Too many different opinions and too many interests and too little action.

Exactly what kind of benefit would europeans get out of being a counterbalance? Counter-balances are used in opposition of each other. Something the EU doesn't want except of economic issues.

[filochard]

He made it very clear he wanted a multipolar world and specifically for Europe to be a counterweight to the USA. Not a partner but a force to hold us down.

Hi,
Europe and USA are partners but competitors too. Don't think the US aren't b@stard too when they have to defend there interest. The big one will always fock the weaker, that's why having a kind of balance of power between partners is good for the weak side (France/Europe). I think that's what Chirac meant and he was right. I'm all for good relations with the US but good relations with Russia too. When the US tried to submit France about Iraq Germany and Russia were with us, that's not forgotten.

[DaveDash]

It disgusts me when my Australian workmates pass around snide remarks in the office about their disdain for this and that American, with their self assured Australian arrogance (whilst completely unaware that they are probably one of the most hated anglo nation next to America in the world).

I almost spat out my coffee the other day when they were talking about how racist Americans were referring to a top gear episode that aired a while back. Australians, talking about how racist Americans were, was absolutely priceless. Completely unaware of their own reputation, with their eagerness to dish out their ignorance about the United States and paint a country - which is more like many individual countries joined together - with the same ignorant broad brush. Someone from Texas is a lot different from someone from New York, but their ignorance has no bounds.

It saddens me to see so much negative attention directed towards a country that saved the ass of many places in the pacific not too long ago, and when resources such as water, oil, or whatever start to run low, will probably be there to save their ass again. Australia after all is rich in natural resources, and low in protection. Oh when resources start getting tight in the region and nations start flexing their muscles, you'll be loved again, no doubt.

But in the mean time, I find is extremely dangerous that so many voting westerners spend so much of their time and effort directing meaningless hate towards a nation that has far more in common with them than any other, while many other nations around the world are having blind eyes turned towards their cloak and dagger foreign policy and less-than-moral-behavior, because we seemed so focused on the "Great Satan" that is the U.S.

It disgusts me, and I honestly wouldn't blame the U.S. to give a big F.U. to many of its so called "friends and allies" when the sh*t hits the fan in the next few years.

To the US posters here. If only you knew how people here talked about you behind your backs. Stand aside Nazi Germany, apparently according to most people here you're worse than them. It's not much different back in NZ, or in Canada, the UK, or any other of your two faced disgusting so called "friends" in this world.

[akd]

I almost spat out my coffee the other day when they were talking about how racist Americans were referring to a top gear episode that aired a while back. Australians, talking about how racist Americans were, was absolutely priceless. Completely unaware of their own reputation, with their eagerness to dish out their ignorance about the United States and paint a country - which is more like many individual countries joined together - with the same ignorant broad brush. Someone from Texas is a lot different from someone from New York, but their ignorance has no bounds.

Hate to ask after your passionate statement against hypocrisy, but just how is someone from Texas so different?

[RSone]

How do you think this "mistrust"of Ol' Uncle Sam came to be huh? It is because of mistakes made by the Bush administration. Not only in the areas of foreign and military policies(which lately are often largely intertwined or even the same thing under this administration, Gates even warns us about it) but also domestic(katrina)

The US is faced with a Europe that is regaining confidence, and Europe is faced with a US that, in "their" opinion(s) refuses to listen, far too often. As pointed out this leads to mistrust on both sides of the pond.For example: US politicians in an outrage because the DOD is buying "european", thus "outsourcing" the military, or the EU feeling they are being treated like Uncle Sam's retarded brother. Now I ask you, does the USA have any allies,save maybe Israel, that have been more loyal over the years than the EU members? The answer should be no. The EU countries have bled and died together with the USA for the better part of 50-60 years.

If politicians on BOTH sides of the pond don't try to create a bigger rift in relations, a strong, independant EU is indeed what this world needs. A unified centre of power, yes, but not a US-centric centre of power. Europe sees itself as a voice of reason and diplomacy in a world of increasing militarism(which the USA is not short on) and so refuses to be treated like a little kid any longer. In "our" eyes the US "kid" has grown into a sort of neighbourhood vigilante. Good to have around, but dangerous at the same time.

In a perfect world, a US-EU combination would entail the EU being good cop, and the US being bad cop. The EU will attempt diplomacy, but you better cooperate, else the US military get sicced on you.

[wilhelm]

Is it possible that inaction due to fear of being called racist by a black government (Zimbabwe) is actually racist in itself? p-):)

On a more serious note, when is this guy going to drop dead? And then, who behind will/is wielding the actual power? It could get quite sticky if there is follow-on competition.

This is why the world needs to be very firm in this case.... Imagine adding civil war to the present day stone-age economy.:-(

[Rictor]

"I'm a better person" is not a valid arguement for possessing more power.

Remember, all power corrupts. There is nothing about American power that makes it innately good or benevolent. Even if it was, people do not like to be lorded over.

[Laworkerbee]

Hate to ask after your passionate statement against hypocrisy, but just how is someone from Texas so different?

Texas is in a different universe from California.

I always said that if I were to be born in any other state I would have chosen Texas, to be born in a different country I'd want to be an Aussie. I love the spirit of the people from both places.

[SBL]

^Yeah, loud and obnoxious. p-)

[Mastermind]

In most of her time, Rome was hated by those she had subdued. Then with her passing, non so mourned her as the critic nations who had come to rely on Roam stability and security...they had never known such before she came to them.

When she passed, so came the dark ages.

And so it is today with The United States. When her detractors get their wish, they will look around and tremble..."Now what?"

[Rictor]

In most of her time, Rome was hated by those she had subdued. Then with her passing, non so mourned her as the critic nations who had come to rely on Roam stability and security...they had never known such before she came to them.

When she passed, so came the dark ages.

And so it is today with The United States. When her detractors get their wish, they will look around and tremble..."Now what?"

Sorry, but that's an oversimplification of history. Rome was, internally as well as externally, ruthless, violent and repressive. The "civilization" that you speak of was almost entirely technical: architecture, administration, agriculture, military, the arts and so on. It was not moral civilization, the kind that advances concepts of equality and so on. Its great achievements, the aqueducts, roads and palaces, were built on the backs of slave labour and the subjugation of foreign tribes.

And the Dark Ages were hardly an era of endless suffering and misery. I find it impossible that over a period of 1000 years and spanning an entire continent, there were no positive developments. For an average person, one was probably no better or worse than the other.

Rome is a ****ty example to look up to, for the simple fact that is was an empire. As you may be aware, America was founded on a policy of anti-imperialism with national sovereignty strictly enshrined and defended.

I can assure you that no appreciable percentage of the world's population is in love with the idea of having an American Big Brother watching over them.

[Laworkerbee]

I can assure you that no appreciable percentage of the world's population is in love with the idea of having an American Big Brother watching over them.

And I can assure you that no appreciable percentage of Americans want anything to do with being Big Brother.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

To the US posters here. If only you knew how people here talked about you behind your backs. Stand aside Nazi Germany, apparently according to most people here you're worse than them. It's not much different back in NZ, or in Canada, the UK, or any other of your two faced disgusting so called "friends" in this world.I do, as I spend much of my time incognito and am often the unidentified American in conversations among Europeans, Russians or Asians.

I can fully understand criticism of American politics, particularly but not exclusively in the Bush era. What irks me the most is some of the blind, illogical and unfounded hatred of America, Americans and things perceived American. For many, everything and anything "bad" is somehow America's fault.

A lot of it is a direct result of Bush and Bush politics. He was the catalyst of this hatred, which has since developed a life of its own. This hatred is especially prevalent among the male youth of the world who have little connection to the era of American positivity. They are growing up thinking that America is the Great Satan and even while they enjoy the benefits of a world shaped by American influence, will carry this hatred (and at the very least extreme distrust) of America into adulthood.

Superpowers are doomed to unpopularity by their very nature and popularity is not a pre-requisite for a nation's success, however feeding a burgeoning culture of hatred as America under Bush has done is detrimental to American efforts to achieve it's goals.

[Jobu]

How do you think this "mistrust"of Ol' Uncle Sam came to be huh? It is because of mistakes made by the Bush administration.



That's such baloney.
"Mistrust" has always existed. It existed before Bush and it will exist after Bush.

[budgie]

This is true - it's probably the tall-poppy syndrome. There's no doubt smaller countries can feel a little jealous and overwhelmed. But there have been low-points in the disillusionment with America: Vietnam, Iraq, and the Iran-Contra scandal being good examples. It's only when we see an American leadership being particularly stupid that we get really bitter.

[Jobu]

This is true - it's probably the tall-poppy syndrome. There's no doubt smaller countries can feel a little jealous and overwhelmed. But there have been low-points in the disillusionment with America: Vietnam, Iraq, and the Iran-Contra scandal being good examples. It's only when we see an American leadership being particularly stupid that we get really bitter.

Nah.

History has shown that leftists are always bitter no matter what the American leadership do.

[RSone]

That's such baloney.
"Mistrust" has always existed. It existed before Bush and it will exist after Bush.

I meant the recent dip in transatlantic relations. Previous presidents(even Bush.Sr. IIRC) did a much better job at it.

[ren0312]

Sorry, but that's an oversimplification of history. Rome was, internally as well as externally, ruthless, violent and repressive. The "civilization" that you speak of was almost entirely technical: architecture, administration, agriculture, military, the arts and so on. It was not moral civilization, the kind that advances concepts of equality and so on. Its great achievements, the aqueducts, roads and palaces, were built on the backs of slave labour and the subjugation of foreign tribes.

And the Dark Ages were hardly an era of endless suffering and misery. I find it impossible that over a period of 1000 years and spanning an entire continent, there were no positive developments. For an average person, one was probably no better or worse than the other.

Rome is a ****ty example to look up to, for the simple fact that is was an empire. As you may be aware, America was founded on a policy of anti-imperialism with national sovereignty strictly enshrined and defended.

I can assure you that no appreciable percentage of the world's population is in love with the idea of having an American Big Brother watching over them.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7

You may find the topics that deal with Roman history to be quite interesting, and informative too.

[El Diablo Rojo]

Nah.

History has shown that leftists are always bitter no matter what the American leadership do.
x2 I see this every day. Just ask one.

[BugHunt]

Nah.

History has shown that leftists are always bitter no matter what the American leadership do.

Wow then bush has done the amazing job of turning the majority of the world "Leftist" in 8 long years.....



Before Iraq if a president had asked the UK to go to war "for a grave threat" - and had actually made a intelligent case AND compotent plan of action (as opposed to insulting our collective intelligence and scibbling on the back of a napkin), I and most of the UK populace wouldve been behind even a unilateral course of action....


Now you'd find extreme resistance on anything American lead.


Trust, integrity, ethical leadership - at one point you were rightfully the leaders of the western world. Nowadays id prefer we kept you and your policies at arms length.


That right wingers and neocnts cant comprehend theres been such a polar shift in attitudes across the board is staggering. But then denial of reality has always been a trade mark of political extremists.

Hey even mainstream UK people dislike or even hate you - "meh well theyve always done that!" is your trite patronising argument.

A bit like, hey were getting bombs and planes rammed into our buildings - "meh theyve always been like that!".

Genocide and massacres around the world. The western world impotent due to your nations incompotent campaigns "Meh those wogs have always been killing themselves"...

Hey they criticise us now on torture and abductions! "Meh at least were better then China or Russian".....


As though apathetic "worldy" cynicism makes flushing your nations intergrity down the drain just A-OK.

[CMNot]

A lot of it is a direct result of Bush and Bush politics. He was the catalyst of this hatred, which has since developed a life of its own. This hatred is especially prevalent among the male youth of the world who have little connection to the era of American positivity. They are growing up thinking that America is the Great Satan and even while they enjoy the benefits of a world shaped by American influence, will carry this hatred (and at the very least extreme distrust) of America into adulthood.

As far as I can speak for the UK, this is an astute assessment.

I am currently at university, where my peers are on average 18-19 years old. They were 11 on 9/11. I was 21. All they have known in their adult life is Bush Jr. era US politics. Not a very good example.

Whereas I first noticed politics and the US in a time of the cold war. My first real memorable aspect of global politics and the US was Desert Storm and Bush Snr. Although seperated by only a few years, we are lifetimes apart on political consciousness. I imagine post-November, irrelevant of who gets in, we will see the dawn of a new global American-consciousness. Neo-conservatism was a fairly new ideology, and gain exposure at the highest level sooner than most. It has been proven as an unconditional failure, it will be interesting what will fill its place. My hopes are on good, old-fashioned liberal democracy - this gives America a huge soft-power base as people globally aspire towards its post-Enlightenment ideals.

Like I tell these guys and girls in my classes, better the devil you know. And better that that devil trumpet political values that are superior to your own.

[LRPV]

^Yeah, loud and obnoxious. p-)

Settle down you obnoxious yank twit...



NB: Can some yank tell me if I spelt that right?p-)

[LRPV]

In most of her time, Rome was hated by those she had subdued. Then with her passing, non so mourned her as the critic nations who had come to rely on Roam stability and security...they had never known such before she came to them.

When she passed, so came the dark ages.

And so it is today with The United States. When her detractors get their wish, they will look around and tremble..."Now what?"


Are you effing serious? Are you going for the MP.net Arrogance of the Year Award?


The world can live without the US. I have friends that live in a country so fvcked up by trying to abide by US policy that their lives are endangered.
I yearn for the day a certain country grows balls and tells the US to piss off and that the US returns to Isolationism.

[CMNot]

I yearn for the day a certain country grows balls and tells the US to piss off and that the US returns to Isolationism.

What will fill that void? Because something will.

And it might just be the chinks.

[SBL]

Settle down you obnoxious yank twit...



NB: Can some yank tell me if I spelt that right?p-)

I'm Brazilian.

[Rostov]

Right you are. You will show him that you are better. But you won´t show him that your colleagues are worse. Do you see the difference?

Its not even like that. Your original point sounded like this: your boss said that you are a bad worker, and you in defense reply saying that other coworkers are even worse, so your the one who should be praised.

as SnakeBite said: "choosing the lesser evil of the two". yea, ok, lol.

[Jobu]

Those of us who are old enough remember all the anti-US nonsense in the past.
Are you old enough to remember the uproar about Reagan over the Pershing missiles?
Are you old enough to remember the riots in Greece when Clinton visited?
Are you old enough to remember the Suez crisis? (I'm not but it's still a good example.)
etc.

It's the same old story. There is nothing new about anti-Americanism. You're still gonna cry to the heavens about how you hate America's government and Hollywood's imperialism as you stand in line to see the new Batman movie. You're still going to complain about how all those cowboys in the US do this or that but you're still going to buy the new Windows OS. You're still going to complain when the US military is sent in to solve a problem and complain when they are not sent in to solve a problem you think is more important.

The bottom line is, we didn't get to be #1 by listening to you. We got here by doing it our way. You can blame Bush or Clinton or Reagan or Eisenhower for everything bad in your lives if it makes you feel better. We know that kind of animosity comes with being at the top and we intend to stay here so we expect you'll keep up your end of the bargain as well.

[SBL]

Its not even like that. Your original point sounded like this: your boss said that you are a bad worker, and you in defense reply saying that other coworkers are even worse, so your the one who should be praised.

as SnakeBite said: "choosing the lesser evil of the two". yea, ok, lol.

I'm having a hard time deciphering the thrust of your statement here.

[Rostov]

I'm having a hard time deciphering the thrust of your statement here.

the thrust of my statement? english please.

[SBL]

the thrust of my statement? english please.
I.E. the point you're trying to convey.

[Rostov]

I.E. the point you're trying to convey.

i agree with weasel's original point, from which he seemed to sidetrack later, i just pointed it out.

[SBL]

i agree with weasel's original point, from which he seemed to sidetrack later, i just pointed it out.
Thanks for the clarification. And for the record, the phrase I used was 'better the devil you know than the one you don't'- which has a slightly different connotation.

[Rostov]

Thanks for the clarification. And for the record, the phrase I used was 'better the devil you know than the one you don't'- which has a slightly different connotation.

k i misquoted you.

[Niels]

It's the same old story. There is nothing new about anti-Americanism. You're still gonna cry to the heavens about how you hate America's government and Hollywood's imperialism as you stand in line to see the new Batman movie. You're still going to complain about how all those cowboys in the US do this or that but you're still going to buy the new Windows OS. You're still going to complain when the US military is sent in to solve a problem and complain when they are not sent in to solve a problem you think is more important.

The bottom line is, we didn't get to be #1 by listening to you. We got here by doing it our way. You can blame Bush or Clinton or Reagan or Eisenhower for everything bad in your lives if it makes you feel better. We know that kind of animosity comes with being at the top and we intend to stay here so we expect you'll keep up your end of the bargain as well.
Who's "you" here?

[filochard]

Are you old enough to remember the Suez crisis? (I'm not but it's still a good example.)
etc.


LOL. yeah a good example of conflicting interest. We just got stollen OUR canal because of our allie. Nice backstabbing but but yeah, it's the US the victim right ?
ho well everybody plays for it's own interest, it's not US fault if we were too weak to resist (well the english in this case)
It's just that it pisses me off when some always put some moral everywhere when it's just business.

[BugHunt]

Those of us who are old enough remember all the anti-US nonsense in the past.
Are you old enough to remember the uproar about Reagan over the Pershing missiles?
Are you old enough to remember the riots in Greece when Clinton visited?
Are you old enough to remember the Suez crisis? (I'm not but it's still a good example.)
etc.

It's the same old story. There is nothing new about anti-Americanism. You're still gonna cry to the heavens about how you hate America's government and Hollywood's imperialism as you stand in line to see the new Batman movie. You're still going to complain about how all those cowboys in the US do this or that but you're still going to buy the new Windows OS. You're still going to complain when the US military is sent in to solve a problem and complain when they are not sent in to solve a problem you think is more important.

The bottom line is, we didn't get to be #1 by listening to you. We got here by doing it our way. You can blame Bush or Clinton or Reagan or Eisenhower for everything bad in your lives if it makes you feel better. We know that kind of animosity comes with being at the top and we intend to stay here so we expect you'll keep up your end of the bargain as well.

LOL then hey dont worry about anything then bud - its all "history"!

Dont worry that numbers of those who think ill of your country has changed from a minority to majority (in practically ANY country worldwide). Dont worry at all bud ;)

The peasents out there will always look up and hate on big beautiful America STRONGGG!!1!

LOL - one might feel insulted by that analogy considering were an supposed ally but then again it IS a truer reflection of many of your countrymens attitudes to the rest of the world.


Of course a ardent student of history will remeber all superpowers eventually dim and fade. Usually with alot of diversionary wars and internal economic stress.

Thats despite most of the populace basking in overweening hubris, feeling invincible, and having astonishing arrogance...

Ring any bells?

[Jobu]

LOL then hey dont worry about anything then bud - its all "history"!

...
Ring any bells?



I've been hearing that same nonsense my entire life.

Rumors of our impending demise have been greatly exaggerated. :)

[Mastermind]

Sorry, but that's an oversimplification of history. Rome was, internally as well as externally, ruthless, violent and repressive. The "civilization" that you speak of was almost entirely technical: architecture, administration, agriculture, military, the arts and so on. It was not moral civilization, the kind that advances concepts of equality and so on. Its great achievements, the aqueducts, roads and palaces, were built on the backs of slave labour and the subjugation of foreign tribes.

And the Dark Ages were hardly an era of endless suffering and misery. I find it impossible that over a period of 1000 years and spanning an entire continent, there were no positive developments. For an average person, one was probably no better or worse than the other.

Rome is a ****ty example to look up to, for the simple fact that is was an empire. As you may be aware, America was founded on a policy of anti-imperialism with national sovereignty strictly enshrined and defended.

I can assure you that no appreciable percentage of the world's population is in love with the idea of having an American Big Brother watching over them.

Nonsense...Rome is an excellent example, since morality is a highly subjective criteria. You can hardly say Rome was a sterile, imoral society any more than you could say that about Germany of 1914 or even Russia of 1954. Rome went through several stages of civil intercourse throughout her history. If murder in the arena makes you squeemish, you could also equate that with movie audiences glorifying bloody murder plots and video games. It is all a matter of perception and interpretation.

As for the Dark Ages, I will agree, there may have been isolated ponds of enlightenment...but as a whole, Europe was plunged into a time of barbaric existance that was certainly no picnic for the vast majority of people alive to experience it. You may suggest there was no difference between the individual acts of barbarism then and the state sponsored acts of barbarism Rome visited upon her competitors. We will argue that point endlessly since that too is a matter of opinion. By those standards you could say dropping a misguided bomb on a mistakenly identified "Wedding Party" is morally the same as slowly sawing an innocent person's head off on public television to demonstrate a point.

I would argue the tension created between two diametrically opposed but equally powerful states, such as we experienced between the USSR and the United States created an overall age of enlightenment as each power vied to impress and outplay the other. Now, wihout that tension we have begun a back slide into a less enlightened age of barbarism and imorality (by subjective intrepretation, of course).

We have begun, like Rome in her zenith, to turn inward and are experiencing a decay of self realization as our people seek individual pleaures and distractions and lose interest in solidifying the entity of the state that protects them. Our own people seem to find some sort of self satisfaction in joining outsider in criticising and cursing our country, losing respect for our heritage and history. Foreigners and enemies feel empowered by our weakness and lack of national discipline as our friends feel less secure in their long term relationships with us. As we have grown prosperous and enjoy the luxuries afforded by our preivious industrious enterprises, we now grow lazy and self indulged, shunning the very work that made us great, leaving it to masses of industrious and ambitious invaders who continually dilute or political will...very much as happened to Rome in her last centuries.

Left to fester in the decaying posture, such a state can not continue to exist in a hungry, competitive world. Rome experienced several states of decline and was saved in all but the last by outside and overreaching aggressors. As she grew complacent by acts of her own successes, Romans were re-invigorated by serious threats to their very survival. It seems that every generation has to learn vital lessons of surval first hand. Now, the United States has given seven generations to a lasting term of peace and prosperity. It may be, these present generations who have never known war or deprivation are incapable of resisting the competitors on the world stage. In fact, it seems to me, the present generations in power are bored of their existence and seek distraction by their own demise. They have grown not only complacent...but absolutely careless in concerns for meeting the world challenges they must face and win over to go on surviving as a nation. They seem unwilling to sacrifice anything to guarantee their contiuned existence. They are weak minded selfish people. Very much as the last Romans had become.

This then, is why I must go on suggesting Rome and her glorious and sad experience is an excellent example.

[seathru]

Except Islamic extremists, nobody in his right mind will hate the American people, culture, technologies or society. What they hate is the foreign policies of the current Bush administration. Instead of taking a deeper look at his own government's behavior, Mr. Fridmen blamed the rest of the world for "hating America."

I guess riding the moral high horse makes one feel good. But not when you have no pants on - the current administration has lost all its credibility over the Iraq WMD issue.

By constantly poking the Bear, the Bush administration has had way too much fun than they deserve. Now they ask why Russia vetoed the U.N. resolution, or why Russia signed oil contract with Iran, forcing them to make a U turn on Iran policy.

[California Joe]

I would most definitely man a fortified position with Mastermind and a few of the ladies working the strip. :)

[CMNot]

What he said.

Interesting post Mastermind.

[INAT]

Nonsense...Rome is an excellent example, since morality is a highly subjective criteria. You can hardly say Rome was a sterile, imoral society any more than you could say that about Germany of 1914 or even Russia of 1954. Rome went through several stages of civil intercourse throughout her history. If murder in the arena makes you squeemish, you could also equate that with movie audiences glorifying bloody murder plots and video games. It is all a matter of perception and interpretation.

As for the Dark Ages, I will agree, there may have been isolated ponds of enlightenment...but as a whole, Europe was plunged into a time of barbaric existance that was certainly no picnic for the vast majority of people alive to experience it. You may suggest there was no difference between the individual acts of barbarism then and the state sponsored acts of barbarism Rome visited upon her competitors. We will argue that point endlessly since that too is a matter of opinion. By those standards you could say dropping a misguided bomb on a mistakenly identified "Wedding Party" is morally the same as slowly sawing an innocent person's head off on public television to demonstrate a point.

I would argue the tension created between two diametrically opposed but equally powerful states, such as we experienced between the USSR and the United States created an overall age of enlightenment as each power vied to impress and outplay the other. Now, wihout that tension we have begun a back slide into a less enlightened age of barbarism and imorality (by subjective intrepretation, of course).

We have begun, like Rome in her zenith, to turn inward and are experiencing a decay of self realization as our people seek individual pleaures and distractions and lose interest in solidifying the entity of the state that protects them. Our own people seem to find some sort of self satisfaction in joining outsider in criticising and cursing our country, losing respect for our heritage and history. Foreigners and enemies feel empowered by our weakness and lack of national discipline as our friends feel less secure in their long term relationships with us. As we have grown prosperous and enjoy the luxuries afforded by our preivious industrious enterprises, we now grow lazy and self indulged, shunning the very work that made us great, leaving it to masses of industrious and ambitious invaders who continually dilute or political will...very much as happened to Rome in her last centuries.

Left to fester in the decaying posture, such a state can not continue to exist in a hungry, competitive world. Rome experienced several states of decline and was saved in all but the last by outside and overreaching aggressors. As she grew complacent by acts of her own successes, Romans were re-invigorated by serious threats to their very survival. It seems that every generation has to learn vital lessons of surval first hand. Now, the United States has given seven generations to a lasting term of peace and prosperity. It may be, these present generations who have never known war or deprivation are incapable of resisting the competitors on the world stage. In fact, it seems to me, the present generations in power are bored of their existence and seek distraction by their own demise. They have grown not only complacent...but absolutely careless in concerns for meeting the world challenges they must face and win over to go on surviving as a nation. They seem unwilling to sacrifice anything to guarantee their contiuned existence. They are weak minded selfish people. Very much as the last Romans had become.

This then, is why I must go on suggesting Rome and her glorious and sad experience is an excellent example.


Speaking of Rome and of weak people.Here is a quote.

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the
citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged
sword. It both
emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of
war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the
mind has
closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry.
Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will
offer up all of
their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what
I have done. And I am Caesar." (Julius Caesar)

[Ought Six]

INAT:
"Speaking of Rome and of weak people.Here is a quote."A popular false quote; something that Julius Caesar never actually said or wrote.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/caesar.asp

[brainplay]

- the current administration has lost all its credibility over the Iraq WMD issue.

By constantly poking the Bear, the Bush administration has had way too much fun than they deserve. Now they ask why Russia vetoed the U.N. resolution, or why Russia signed oil contract with Iran, forcing them to make a U turn on Iran policy.

Sorry but..what? Please keep dreaming.

There's no excuse to be had there and I'm still waiting to hear why the heck it was vetoed. If it was for pure economic reasons then pony up please. Poking the bear? How so? The US has been pushing for trade with Russia for a while now. It wasn't till after certain shady issues started happening with Putin that the WORLD not just the US started to back off a bit. But only a bit. I mean if the Russians vetoed the UN thing because of the "In Soviet Russia,..." jokes then I could understand that too.

[seathru]

Please keep dreaming.Dreaming? It already happened: Russia signed oil contract with Iran. Bush administration made U turn, because they realized Russia could no longer be counted on.

Latest poking action: during the G8, against Medvedev's opposition, Bush sent Rice to Hungary to finalize the missile defense deal. Fun, yes. Smart? don't think so.

[Mastermind]

^To emphasise, there seems to be a redifinition of the word and meaning of patriotism. Patriotism merely means loving ones ouw country and being loyal to the institutions that nation represents. I am patriotic to my family...my faith and my homeland...to include the meanings of the Declaration of Indepencance and the Constitution which define that nation. I am also faithful to preserving our prosperity our security and our heritage. Our way of life is constantly changing and I see change as a pathway to improving all those things I am patriotic to and also as a pathway to destruction for all those things. It is the duty of every person who wishes to preserve this nation and way of life to fight like hell to prevent change from becoming destructive to those loved institutions. Likewise, we "Patriots" should fight like hell to preserve and reinforce those institutions.

I am not easily led to war by any zealot wrapped in a flag. I critisize and scrutinize anyone who seems eager for war and chaos. I judge the risk to our nation against every other possible option. But, when I faithfully come to believe every option has been exhausted and that timely action of war is the best way to preserve our nation, then I am more than willing to support that action. And, once the path to war is open, I detest any American that finds fault with the President, the men leading the war, the men fighting the war or the general public who stands with our troops and President. Victory, for our democracy, is not an option...it is an absolute necessity. For to accept defeat, we must compromise all those things we hold worthy of fighting and dying for.

To be a patriot, is not to be a social outcast. Patriotism to our nation and way of life should be honored. That it has become a social blight is a visible sore that loudly warns us of the hidden cancer we now are suffering as a nation and as a people.

[kamaz]

rying to upvalue the USA by trying to argue that others are worse is completely useless and unnecessary.


why is it useless and unnecessary? Sounds like someone hit a raw nerve.

[SBL]

^To emphasise, there seems to be a redifinition of the word and meaning of patriotism. Patriotism merely means loving ones ouw country and being loyal to the institutions that nation represents. I am patriotic to my family...my faith and my homeland...to include the meanings of the Declaration of Indepencance and the Constitution which define that nation. I am also faithful to preserving our prosperity our security and our heritage. Our way of life is constantly changing and I see change as a pathway to improving all those things I am patriotic to and also as a pathway to destruction for all those things. It is the duty of every person who wishes to preserve this nation and way of life to fight like hell to prevent change from becoming destructive to those loved institutions. Likewise, we "Patriots" should fight like hell to preserve and reinforce those institutions.

I am not easily led to war by any zealot wrapped in a flag. I critisize and scrutinize anyone who seems eager for war and chaos. I judge the risk to our nation against every other possible option. But, when I faithfully come to believe every option has been exhausted and that timely action of war is the best way to preserve our nation, then I am more than willing to support that action. And, once the path to war is open, I detest any American that finds fault with the President, the men leading the war, the men fighting the war or the general public who stands with our troops and President. Victory, for our democracy, is not an option...it is an absolute necessity. For to accept defeat, we must compromise all those things we hold worthy of fighting and dying for.

To be a patriot, is not to be a social outcast. Patriotism to our nation and way of life should be honored. That it has become a social blight is a visible sore that loudly warns us of the hidden cancer we now are suffering as a nation and as a people.

Spot on, MM. Great couple of posts.

[Mastermind]

Thanks...I'm honored.

[budgie]

And, once the path to war is open, I detest any American that finds fault with the President, the men leading the war, the men fighting the war or the general public who stands with our troops and President. Victory, for our democracy, is not an option...it is an absolute necessity. For to accept defeat, we must compromise all those things we hold worthy of fighting and dying for.


As much as you may 'detest' these Americans who find fault (particularly in the case of Iraq which was started on false pretenses in their opinion) are not necessarily unpatriotic are they?

[Mastermind]

Really, in my personal view, yes. Why? Because once the hammer is down, you stand behind your country. And secondly, what difference does it make why we went? The important thing is what we knew at the time and if you think all the "Lies" thing were deliberate, look where they came from? The State Dep and a really totally ass wipe CIA...and don't forget, All of Europ were getting the same info...now, suddenly, the propaganda machines are rolling out "Bush Lied" and our fair weather patriots all run for cover.

Nope, we are right in the middle of the terrorists asses...which is right where we need to be. 9/11 shocked the western world, and the iraqi and Afghanistan invasions rocked the Mulsim terrorists world x 10. Just think how rocked they would be if we had the ability to stand as one behind our actions and spit right in their eye? But, all this mewling and hand wringing..."Oh, my? did we do the right thing? What if we were wrong? What if we made a mistake?"

In my book, we have stood up to the bastids, sent them scurrying, and if we had just kicked over their little play forts and left, I think we would have served a much better thing. Where we have gone wrong, if anywhere, is we are being overlyu nice in trying to rebuild their nations. In my opinion, we should have busted 'em up and sent them to their little dust bowls with bloody noses...and then sent the message to everyone else in the ME..."Mess with us, you have really screwed up."

But, once in for a penny might as well be in for a pound, as the old saying goes...It's my nation, my soldeirs, my President...and by God, I'll support them come hell or high water.

[Bia]

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: July 16, 2008

...Which brings me back to America. Perfect we are not, but America still has some moral backbone. There are travesties we will not tolerate....


;)

Southpark put it well too, a while back.
The US power... can be the bullys and dictate world policy while we... teh people, can protest and make sure as a whole the USA isnt percieved "so bad" :P

[budgie]

But, once in for a penny might as well be in for a pound, as the old saying goes...It's my nation, my soldeirs, my President...and by God, I'll support them come hell or high water.


Unfortunately many Americans feel that the president let them down on this and doesn't deserve their support. furthermore 'supporting the troops' shouldn't necessarily mean keeping them in a quagmire until they 'win', when pulling them out might save more American lives.

[DaveDash]

Unfortunately many Americans feel that the president let them down on this and doesn't deserve their support. furthermore 'supporting the troops' shouldn't necessarily mean keeping them in a quagmire until they 'win', when pulling them out might save more American lives.

Many Americans did not like the fact they perceived the President stole the election off them, and it allll went down hill from there.

BTW which do you think is more of a "quagmire" right now, Afghanistan or Iraq?

[ramthor]

BTW which do you think is more of a "quagmire" right now, Afghanistan or Iraq?

History bite:

In 1842, the British sent 4,500 troops into Kabul in the First Afghan War.
(the first of three Afghan wars the British would lose)

Exactly one Tommy got out alive.

The Soviet 40th Army spent an ocean of blood and treasure there, and got slaughtered.

Even Alexander the Great failed in A-stan... Alex got an arrow in the lung
for his troubles and never came back.

Herodotus called them the "warlike Paktuike" -- the 3rd Century BC version of the Mujahadeen.

[Abaddon]

Unfortunately many Americans feel that the president let them down on this and doesn't deserve their support. furthermore 'supporting the troops' shouldn't necessarily mean keeping them in a quagmire until they 'win', when pulling them out might save more American lives.

Hardly, Americans are anti-war because seeing the war on the news is a 'downer' and distracts them from Brittany Spears' latest antics and who is winning American Idol.

The American people don't give a **** about the soldiers or their lives but they do their best to pretend they do, during commercials, so they can feel better about themselves.

[ramthor]

Hardly, Americans are anti-war because ...

Politicians always insist "The American People want X ...", or
"The American People demand..."

The most careless examination will prove in a moment
that "The American People" cannot agree that today is Monday!

As a commited USian, I'm proud of that fact. We'll work it out: trust me.

I don't know where you're from, but I suspect it's a similar environment.

.

[Mastermind]

^ Great post!

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Really, in my personal view, yes. Why? Because once the hammer is down, you stand behind your country. And secondly, what difference does it make why we went? The important thing is what we knew at the time and if you think all the "Lies" thing were deliberate, look where they came from? The State Dep and a really totally ass wipe CIA...and don't forget, All of Europ were getting the same info...now, suddenly, the propaganda machines are rolling out "Bush Lied" and our fair weather patriots all run for cover.
It is not unpatriotic to protest. One of the reasons Bush and friends had such an easy run of it after 9-11 was because anybody who questioned the gov't was automatically considered unpatriotic. Those who questioned the cleverness or validity of an Iraq war (partiuclarly the press, the Dems and especially the ill-informed American public) really dropped the ball here.

As for Europe, the vast majority of the EU's citizens were against the invasion of Iraq. Somehow their view of what would happen was much more realistic than America's.

Bush did lie... or was an idiot. You choose.

And for argument's sake I'm ex-Army and support our soldiers, hoping they win every "engagement" they are sent to. I just wish they were more effectively used.

[Mastermind]

Valid points...and protest in proper contest is valid. But, My god, people just need to use a bit of common sense. They need to understand proportion and sense of responsibility. They need to get an understanding that words have consequinces and playing to the enemie's tune will prolong the struggle and directly cost troops lives. Protest is not unpatriotic. Supporting the enemy is treason. People say, "Oh, I support the troops."..easy to say. then they get on the idiotic band wagon..."Oh, bush lied." "Oh, the poor jihadis in Guantanimo...they are so abused." "Oh, we shouldn't be there." "I's a war for oil only." Mouthing off the propaganda issues like well trained parrots. The enemy listens, and prys open those little weak spots and our idiotic press, magnifys them...and our idiotic senators, like Murtha and Kennedy and Kerrry and Clinton play the feife and drum for the enemy, sensely accusing our troops, openly calling our President names like Hitler and liar...what the hell? And then political pundits captialize on this chaos....encouraging the enemy to kill more of our troops as they present a false image of weakness and indecision here at home.

Yeah, they just love the hell out of our troops. They shoot their mouths off, repeating all this enemy encouraging bull s4it......and then go off to the mall. And then the news report six more dead American soldiers.

Then folks spout off..."Gee, I wish our guys were more effectively used." My God....

[CMNot]

I wouldn't say that Bush is per se a particular brand of idiot, anymore than most politicians are. It is a sad truism that most of our great minds stream into academia and business, whilst the real hair-pulling bitches end up in politics it would seem.

[martinexsquaddie]

America is better than the Chinese tyrants or the would be czar in Russia not exactly going for high standards are we?

gitmo is a disaster bin ladens driver an international terrorist ? give me a break half the inmates have been let out with out a trial.
hmm lock me up torture me for 3 years I'd think about growing a beard and looking for payback:(
next time but be worth listening to the UN they were right about iraq

[Jobu]

America is better than the Chinese tyrants or the would be czar in Russia not exactly going for high standards are we?

Going for realistic standards. Measure the US in comparison to other powerful countries, not in comparison to some idealistic level of perfection.


gitmo is a disaster bin ladens driver an international terrorist ? give me a break half the inmates have been let out with out a trial.

They're not common civilian criminals who are owed a quick trial and all the protections of someone who got a speeding ticket. We're at war with these people.


hmm lock me up torture me for 3 years I'd think about growing a beard and looking for payback:(

Who says you'd ever be let out? No release = no payback.


next time but be worth listening to the UN they were right about iraq

Saddam's gone. A friendlier government is in place and is assuming control of the country province by province. We definitely know they don't have anymore WMD's now, something that could never have been accomplished with any certainty by toothless UN inspections. We took all their uranium and shipped it to Canada, etc. If things keep improving as they have been over the last year or so, I'd say it's been a successful mission.

[Mastermind]

Highly successful....and I am predicting, on a fairly sure bet, that within three years of the U.S. pull out, Iraq becomes another wholly owned Mulsim state...aka Iran lite. And, it will be scrounging around for Uranium enrichment equipment.

[RSone]

Highly successful....and I am predicting, on a fairly sure bet, that within three years of the U.S. pull out, Iraq becomes another wholly owned Mulsim state...aka Iran lite. And, it will be scrounging around for Uranium enrichment equipment.


So you're implying that the US needs to stay there indefinitely? That'll sell well with the general public p-) Not to mention it is unsustainable militarily, politically(for the above reason) and economically. This administration seems to have dug a hole future administrations are bound to fall into again, down the road, if your prediction comes true.

With the perceived Irani threat, staying in Iraq/Afghanistan in the current form, and having enough military power as a contingency for Iran, in the event of anything more than a limited strike, is not possible, or highly unlikely. Hence, the Iran issue cannot be resolved by military means alone. In any event a political solution is the most preferable, but seems unlikely for the time being....
A controversial solution would be to decapacitate the islamist elements in Iraq, but they are somewhat of a Hydra, cut off just one head, the beast survives. This would mean a lot of "headcutting" by the "Coalition" Forces. Which is politically probably not acceptable.


A lack of foresight in the US State department?

[SBL]

So you're implying that the US needs to stay there indefinitely? That'll sell well with the general public p-) Not to mention it is unsustainable militarily, politically(for the above reason) and economically.
Why not? We have permanent bases all over the place.

[CMNot]

Why not? We have permanent bases all over the place.

I think this is almost the best strategic plan for Iranian containment personally.

The only superior strategic plan would be to base out of Afghanistan. Not sure what effect it would have on troop morale - garrison troops are particularly fond of pussy and beer.

Politically, tres difficult.

[RSone]

I think this is almost the best strategic plan for Iranian containment personally.

The only superior strategic plan would be to base out of Afghanistan. Not sure what effect it would have on troop morale - garrison troops are particularly fond of pussy and beer.

Politically, tres difficult.

One would need a way of keeping Iraq/Afghanistan "under control", whilst one would "deal" with Iran. Not an easy task, if all the "garrison troops" are in Iran.

[SBL]

One would need a way of keeping Iraq/Afghanistan "under control", whilst one would "deal" with Iran. Not an easy task, if all the "garrison troops" are in Iran.

Why would the garrison troops be in Iran?

What's required is that the problem elements be pacified to a manageable degree. This way, the lion's-share of security work can be handled by the locals. I believe that's the driving objective of operations now.

[RSone]

A controversial solution would be to decapacitate the islamist elements in Iraq, but they are somewhat of a Hydra, cut off just one head, the beast survives. This would mean a lot of "headcutting" by the "Coalition" Forces. Which is politically probably not acceptable.


A lack of foresight in the US State department?


Why would the garrison troops be in Iran?

What's required is that the problem elements be pacified to a manageable degree. This way, the lion's-share of security work can be handled by the locals. I believe that's the driving objective of operations now.


I just had to quote myself to make my point clear. The American presence is the main reason for the existence of so many islamist elements in Iraq/Afghanistan(excluding parties such as AQ and the Taliban, ofcourse)
As long as there is a foreign presence in those countries, there will be a extremist Islamist nutjobs who will wage a terror campaign.
The US has to leave in order to minimise casualties and damage to the US economy(the only sector that seems to be doing good is the Arms sector) but it cannot leave, because then, the "occupied" countries will fall into the hands of those same extremists. It's a vicious circle.

[CMNot]

One would need a way of keeping Iraq/Afghanistan "under control", whilst one would "deal" with Iran. Not an easy task, if all the "garrison troops" are in Iran.

No, what I mean is garrison troops not being stationed in Iran, but Iraq or A'stan.

I suggested A'stan as superior merely as there is next to bugger all between Herat/Farah provinces and Tehran - any Mechanized or Armoured General would fap for months at the thought. Staging from Iraq gives you some pretty grizzly elevation headaches, but does allow for a second front.

Either way, all very hypothetical.

[SBL]

I just had to quote myself to make my point clear. The American presence is the main reason for the existence of so many islamist elements in Iraq/Afghanistan(excluding parties such as AQ and the Taliban, ofcourse)
As long as there is a foreign presence in those countries, there will be a extremist Islamist nutjobs who will wage a terror campaign.
The US has to leave in order to minimise casualties and damage to the US economy(the only sector that seems to be doing good is the Arms sector) but it cannot leave, because then, the "occupied" countries will fall into the hands

Again, the threat doesn't have to be eliminated 100%- it simply has to be reduced to the point where it's manageable by local security. There are all sorts of low-intensity conflicts simmering across the globe. Naturally, success is dependent on a number of factors, but I don't think it's the impossible scenario that you seem to think it is.

[budgie]

Have to agree with Sankebite here. It is possible to reduce violence to manageable levels - even in Iraq. This in my view makes talk of 'victory' however misleading. Such words being bandied about by politicians are too loaded to be accurate for such scenarios.

[RSone]

Again, the threat doesn't have to be eliminated 100%- it simply has to be reduced to the point where it's manageable by local security. There are all sorts of low-intensity conflicts simmering across the globe. Naturally, success is dependent on a number of factors, but I don't think it's the impossible scenario that you seem to think it is.

It is not impossible to break out of the circle, just hard.
First, you need a somewhat stable government and a democratic system in place. While both countries are not yet there, Iraq has advanced more than Afghanistan in this area.

Second, you need to make sure those countries' democratically elected governments can fend for themselves.Again, this process has yet to be completed in both countries.

Third: In concert with native forces, there needs to be a large scale military operation acted out in concert/simultaneously in both countries, which eliminates the Islamist mid- to high level leadership, after which NATO/US forces must withdraw.

This will not rid the world of Islamic terrorism for good,as that problem is not contained in these two countries alone, but it will offer the Western Allies some respite to deal with Iran and co. Preferably not by force, as this will start a new circle.

IF the plan as i have put it, is enacted succesfully, it will allow the US/NATO to save some political/military face, which will show the world/ Islamist elements, that Uncle Sam is still somewhat on top and still someone you don't want crashing your party.
Obviously it is a extremely simplified version of said hypothetical plan, as it would require many more prequisites to be succesfull, but it could work.

[SBL]

^Well shucks, if it's hard we might as well not even try. It's not like we're already in it up to our necks or anything.:roll:

Nobody here said it was going to be easy: the past 5/7 years have provided plenty evidence of that. But right now appears to be the best opportunity we've had to implement things our way. I say full steam ahead.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Supporting the enemy is treason. People say, "Oh, I support the troops."..easy to say. then they get on the idiotic band wagon..."Oh, bush lied." "Oh, the poor jihadis in Guantanimo...they are so abused." "Oh, we shouldn't be there." "I's a war for oil only." Mouthing off the propaganda issues like well trained parrots. The enemy listens, and prys open those little weak spots and our idiotic press, magnifys them...Agree with you here.

Protest is one thing, but supporting the enemy is another. Some people can't seem to make that distinction.

Associating protest directly with those Americans who are AGAINST our soldiers or the US in general really isn't fair however. It's like saying all Republicans are fascists. That's simply not true. Most of my friends are against the war, but are very much pro-America and pro-military. Being pro-America and against the war are not mutually exclusive.

A little common sense on both sides of the coin would be prudent, after all it is OUR country sticking it's neck out and whether or not the war is supported or not, we are in it together.

I also have a beef with those who supported the war and are now upset that people are getting killed, civilian or otherwise.

War gets innocent people killed, period. When we as a nation decide to go to war, we must be prepared to deal with the consequences.

[Mastermind]

War gets innocent people killed, period. When we as a nation decide to go to war, we must be prepared to deal with the consequences.
I'm saving that quote...thanks.

[ramthor]

I'm saving that quote...thanks.

:) ..........................rofl