NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to know what others (People out side the states, but inside is ok too) think of the US and Bush's attemps at Foreign interactions.

This needs to be moved to general

i think that America should become a British colony again and then we would be the super power (again) and then half the world problems would be over;) :p

I would like to know what others (People out side the states, but inside is ok too) think of the US and Bush's attemps at Foreign interactions.

I live in the UK and from here the Media says that the US's Foreign Polices is the Worst since the days of the South-East-Asian intervention.

Personally I'm surprised that he was not voted out in your General Election after the Second Gulf War and the many broken alliances with Europe such as France, Germany and Russia.

i think that America should become a British colony again and then we would be the super power (again) and then half the world problems would be over;) :p

:eek:

I think that goes a little to far!

Personally I'm surprised that he was not voted out in your General Election after the Second Gulf War and the many broken alliances with Europe such as France, Germany and Russia.
But that is the remarkable thing about USians: We don't fucking care about Europe.
No, really, as amazing as you all are, we really don't care what you think/feel/believe. We have better things to do, like invade randomly selected countries in the 3rd world. Then we're going to export all those things about the US that you hate (McDonalds, Hollywood, etc.) to your backyards, and the filthy commoners around you are going to love it.
And do you know why our shit is so goddamned popular? We are a country of the lowest common denominator. Sometime a century or so ago, the US realized that we need to compete globally, and that we'd never be respected as a center of high culture. So, instead of building up, we went to ground like a wounded falcon.
Don't think, though, that we're going to stay at the lowest point. No, we're going to make the rest of the world into shoddy, second rate knock-offs. Disney World Paris, cut-rate Chinese manufacturing, all just prototypes in the great fight to supplant the rest of the world with clones of us.
And when that fight is won, the US will still be in the mud, but the rest of the world will be buried under it.

I would like to know what others (People out side the states, but inside is ok too) think of the US and Bush's attemps at Foreign interactions.
The world is actually running the US into the ground. Frankly we're kind of tired of it. Everybody's got their hand out, everybody wants us to abide by free trade laws that don't suit us, everybody tries to hamstring our efforts to impose order through military power. What's the use of being the world's only superpower if the world just gets to nag us all the time?

I would like to know what others (People out side the states, but inside is ok too) think of the US and Bush's attemps at Foreign interactions.

No more and probably less than Europe did from colonizing half the world.

I would like to know what others (People out side the states, but inside is ok too) think of the US and Bush's attemps at Foreign interactions.

helping Iraq and Afghanistan move to (hopefully) stable democratic states?

fighting terrorism?

fine with me.

I am secretly sighing with relief that it appears we're going to just "do our part" with Iran... and not take the bull by the horns on this one.

But that is the remarkable thing about USians: We don't fucking care about Europe.
We've noticed. This is why we find it offensive when you start throwing tantrums if European countries refuse to fight your wars for you.

We've noticed. This is why we find it offensive when you start throwing tantrums if European countries refuse to fight your wars for you.
The World Wars shouldn't have been our wars. The only reason they got over here was our dumb-ass leaders feeling sorry for you and shipping aid to the Allies (clearly violating any illusions of neutrality).

The World Wars shouldn't have been our wars. The only reason they got over here was our dumb-ass leaders feeling sorry for you and shipping aid to the Allies (clearly violating any illusions of neutrality).
And there was me thinking it had something to do with Pearl Harbour.

We've noticed. This is why we find it offensive when you start throwing tantrums if European countries refuse to fight your wars for you.

We only throw a tantrum when you guys refuse to let us fight our own wars because you're afraid you'll lose out on the money the government we plan on taking out owes you.

Honestly, there has never been a country that has been more willing to offer foreign aid and assistance with no strings attached than the United States. We step in and help when many other nations in their own regions don't. We do this because it is in our best interests to do so, but I can't help but point out the hypocrisy of Europe when this happens - we send in troops and help deal with the Balkan crisis, which is arguably a European problem which should be solved by Europe, yet when we believe that our own national security is threatened and want to act, we have to jump through three dozen hoops before most of Europe agrees to get out of the way.

I just wish the international community would quit being schizophrenic when it comes to the United States - if you want our aid and our support, we're more than willing to give it to you. But don't be surprised if we get angry when you bash us to drum up political support in your local elections.

The US spent trillions protecting Europe during the Cold War. I don't think that it is too much to ask for Europe to let give us the benefit of the doubt when we're trying to protect our national security - it doesn't matter if you think we're threatened or not. That's a question that can only be answered by us.

The world has been going to hell ever since the Christians and the Muslims decided that they hated eachother for some reason. Add in years of Soviet hostilities, European colonialism, two world wars, nuclear weapons getting in the hands of the Soviets, a severe population explosion, ignorance of nature and how the physical world works, and lots of crap that led to the Christians vs. Muslims thing and you'll see that the United States is not the place you should blame. The world has always been in its current freefall. Why can't the US be in on all the fun? Why make Americans the scapegoat? The world has always been in its freefall. Well, not always. It used to be just going downhill. I blame Europe. No Europe would have equaled no US if you know your history. How do you explain that?

The world has been going to hell ever since the Christians and the Muslims decided that they hated eachother for some reason. Add in years of Soviet hostilities, European colonialism, two world wars, nuclear weapons getting in the hands of the Soviets, a severe population explosion, ignorance of nature and how the physical world works, and lots of crap that led to the Christians vs. Muslims thing and you'll see that the United States is not the place you should blame. The world has always been in its current freefall. Why can't the US be in on all the fun? Why make Americans the scapegoat? The world has always been in its freefall. Well, not always. It used to be just going downhill. I blame Europe. No Europe would have equaled no US if you know your history. How do you explain that?
The Christian/Muslim thing has been going on since the 1300's or earlier.

And there was me thinking it had something to do with Pearl Harbour.
Pearl Harbour was the result of FDR forcing the hand of the Japanese through embargoes. If we had been willing to do business fairly with them, they would almost certainly have left us alone.

Just as life is the number one cause of death, people are the number one cause of violence, and governments are the number one cause of wars.

Everyone does it - not just the Americans. In history, virtually every country has washed its hands in blood.

We only throw a tantrum when you guys refuse to let us fight our own wars because you're afraid you'll lose out on the money the government we plan on taking out owes you.

Honestly, there has never been a country that has been more willing to offer foreign aid and assistance with no strings attached than the United States. We step in and help when many other nations in their own regions don't. We do this because it is in our best interests to do so, but I can't help but point out the hypocrisy of Europe when this happens - we send in troops and help deal with the Balkan crisis, which is arguably a European problem which should be solved by Europe, yet when we believe that our own national security is threatened and want to act, we have to jump through three dozen hoops before most of Europe agrees to get out of the way.

I just wish the international community would quit being schizophrenic when it comes to the United States - if you want our aid and our support, we're more than willing to give it to you. But don't be surprised if we get angry when you bash us to drum up political support in your local elections.

The US spent trillions protecting Europe during the Cold War. I don't think that it is too much to ask for Europe to let give us the benefit of the doubt when we're trying to protect our national security - it doesn't matter if you think we're threatened or not. That's a question that can only be answered by us.
I was thinking more of the outbreak of rabid France bashing after they refused to provide you with any troops to invade Iraq (it's news to me that European naysayers stopped that happening, btw).
The Balkan problem was down to the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was (as you point out) a result of America spending fifty years systematically bankrupting most of Eastern Europe. Not solely a European problem when seen in that light.

I was thinking more of the outbreak of rabid France bashing after they refused to provide you with any troops to invade Iraq (it's news to me that European naysayers stopped that happening, btw)

That's not what the French bashing was about. The French bashing was about the moves that the French, Germans and Russians made in the UN Security Council to try and stop the US from obtaining a unanimous approval by that body for forcing Iraq to comply with the international community's desire for them to fully disclose their WMD programs. What should have been an easy process dragged on for months, which gave Saddam ample opportunity to get rid of whatever weapons he may have possessed before we went in to find nothing

France and the others did everything they could to delay and force our hand. That enflamed already poor opinions that many Americans have about France and have had for quite a while. It had nothing to do with their unwillingness to provide troops.

We wouldn't want French troops anyway - they're only good for getting in the way.

The Balkan problem was down to the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was (as you point out) a result of America spending fifty years systematically bankrupting most of Eastern Europe. Not solely a European problem when seen in that light.

The Cold War had been over for five years by the time this thing had cropped up. The EU didn't lift a finger to deal with the crisis, while Milosevic and others were continuing their "ethnic cleansing". Europe doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to dealing with people trying to commit genocide, so you'd think they'd have tried to take an active role because of that. But apparently the track record is in no danger of breaking. In any event, it wasn't something that the US should have been expected to clean up. But we did. As usual.

Honestly, I don't think we care if you support what we do. We would just appreciate it if you got out of our way while we do it.

We wouldn't want French troops anyway - they're only good for getting in the way.

:p :D

But that is the remarkable thing about USians: We don't fucking care about Europe.
No, really, as amazing as you all are, we really don't care what you think/feel/believe. We have better things to do, like invade randomly selected countries in the 3rd world. Then we're going to export all those things about the US that you hate (McDonalds, Hollywood, etc.) to your backyards, and the filthy commoners around you are going to love it.
And do you know why our shit is so goddamned popular? We are a country of the lowest common denominator. Sometime a century or so ago, the US realized that we need to compete globally, and that we'd never be respected as a center of high culture. So, instead of building up, we went to ground like a wounded falcon.
Don't think, though, that we're going to stay at the lowest point. No, we're going to make the rest of the world into shoddy, second rate knock-offs. Disney World Paris, cut-rate Chinese manufacturing, all just prototypes in the great fight to supplant the rest of the world with clones of us.
And when that fight is won, the US will still be in the mud, but the rest of the world will be buried under it.

YAY! :D

Poor, poor Europe. The mean ole US wanted to invade a nation that broke numerous treaties and international laws, but that nation owes Europe money. Who cares if the leader was homocidal? Who cares if most Iraqi cassualties were caused by Islamo-terrorists and not the US? Who cares if most of the world's problems were the result of a chain reaction caused by Europe centuries ago? Who cares if the US is more willing to do good than Europe? The US is evil, because homocidal dictators, brainwashed masses(especially in North Korea), and Europe said so.

I think that the US has been a force for good most of the time. The only problems is when they make an error and by the time they know what happened half of the world knows the "Media's story"!

With the USA producing 25% of global greenhouse gases, they sure are. If we have any ground to live on which isn't getting flooded by rising sea levels.

The US is merely going through its moment as a superpower now - like we did before them, and probably China will after the US. They're not doing any better or worse than we did. At least Britain has stood beside the US, rightly or wrongly.

Oh, and Fiddlebottoms - if you hadn't have gotten involved back in '41, Britain would have eventually fallen, as would Russia. Nazi Germany would reign supreme throughout Europe. Fast forward a decade or so and the US, isolated from the rest of the world and with no allies in sight, would most likely have been invaded via Latin America by Nazi Forces - that or nuked into the stone age.

It was for the best that you got involved in '41, whether you like it or not. Nazism was an evil that had to be defeated - or would you rather Hitler had controlled an entire continent and massacred millions more than he did?

Can't you guys just feel the love??? :fluffle:

No, "the US" is not running the world into the ground. Washington, maybe. The whole damn country, no.

It's not my fault that Washington does stupid things. (And no I did NOT vote for him.) I refuse to take any blame for my nation's actions prior to 1992, when I became old enough to vote, and only 1/300 millionth part of blame thereafter.

I write my congressmen. I've never received more than a form letter in response. I vote. Elections rarely go my way. I served my country. Nobody cares except on Veteran's Day. So goes it in a nation this size.

It's so amusing to see people here attack each other for the actions of a handful of politicians who spend most of their time squirreled away where we can't get to them.

"The US" is not the problem. "The US" is a huge nation, and a great nation, by and large made up of honest, hard-working citizens who just want to get by. Just like everyone else.

Abuse of power by greedy men is the problem. That happens everywhere. There just happens to be a lot more power up for grabs in Washington than in other places.

It's so amusing to see people here attack each other for the actions of a handful of politicians who spend most of their time squirreled away where we can't get to them.

Glad that Some of you see that!

Poor, poor Europe. The mean ole US wanted to invade a nation that broke numerous treaties and international laws, but that nation owes Europe money. Who cares if the leader was homocidal? Who cares if most Iraqi cassualties were caused by Islamo-terrorists and not the US? Who cares if most of the world's problems were the result of a chain reaction caused by Europe centuries ago? Who cares if the US is more willing to do good than Europe? The US is evil, because homocidal dictators, brainwashed masses(especially in North Korea), and Europe said so.

Actually the middle east has few large messes with America writ large upon them. And most Iraqi casualties were caused by the aerial bombardment at the start of the war. Unless a load of suicide bombers hired a parachute clubs planes for a few weeks but declined the parachutes, I think you'll find that was a US operation with the odd bit of help from the Brits.


The French bashing was about the moves that the French, Germans and Russians made in the UN Security Council to try and stop the US from obtaining a unanimous approval by that body for forcing Iraq to comply with the international community's desire for them to fully disclose their WMD programs. What should have been an easy process dragged on for months, which gave Saddam ample opportunity to get rid of whatever weapons he may have possessed before we went in to find nothing.

According to the American Iraq Survey Group, the UN, the Brits and the IAEA there were no weapons after the mid 90's, and none therefore were destroyed or moved in the lead up to the war. If you know different, please tell us, and then tell Charles Dueffler, who will want to rack your prodigous intellect to see where he and his hundreds of staff, over a years work and millions of dollars went wrong.


Secondly why had Dubya decided to go to war no matter what the UN decided in July of 2002? Is it because he knew damn rightly they'd find nothing and he was just working up an excuse?

"IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY"
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

And why was this discussed with T Blair on 31st Jan 2003?
"The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661

Surely a man so loaded with weapons as Saddam wouldnt have to be lured into doing such a thing? And according to many bush supporters Saddam was already in breach...it'd make some people wonder, wouldn't it?

No, it's not doing that. However, if the US fails to recognize that the future lies in economic globalization, internationalism, and free trade along with open markets, we will run ourselves in to the ground. The last thing we need is to retreat in to protectionism and isolationism; at the same time, however, we must also avoid attempting to build or maintain an "empire" of interests that is at odds with the rest of the world.

According to the American Iraq Survey Group, the UN, the Brits and the IAEA there were no weapons after the mid 90's, and none therefore were destroyed or moved in the lead up to the war. If you know different, please tell us, and then tell Charles Dueffler, who will want to rack your prodigous intellect to see where he and his hundreds of staff, over a years work and millions of dollars went wrong.

Or he could just go and talk to Saddam's #1 and #2 air force generals, who claim that the WMDs were sent to Syria before the war started. I put about as much faith in what they have to say as I do the AISG, the UN, the Brits and the IAEA.

But if Dueffler wants to talk to me, he should be able to find my office. We own the building Fox News is in. He's been here a few times.

Secondly why had Dubya decided to go to war no matter what the UN decided in July of 2002? Is it because he knew damn rightly they'd find nothing and he was just working up an excuse?

"IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY"
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

And why was this discussed with T Blair on 31st Jan 2003?
"The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661

Surely a man so loaded with weapons as Saddam wouldnt have to be lured into doing such a thing? And according to many bush supporters Saddam was already in breach...it'd make some people wonder, wouldn't it?

Not really. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing all of these ridiculous tin-foil-hat theories as to why we went to war in Iraq trotted about. Bush believed Iraq was a threat to our national security. That's all he has to say. No one has the right to tell us we can't defend ourselves if we believe our national security is threatened. In any event, it's over. We went in. All the conspiracy theories in the world won't undo what's been done.

i think that America should become a British colony again and then we would be the super power (again) and then half the world problems would be over;) :pThere are certain parts I'd be quite willing to give you. How about Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas for a start?

Can't you guys just feel the love??? :fluffle:

No, "the US" is not running the world into the ground. Washington, maybe. The whole damn country, no.

It's not my fault that Washington does stupid things. (And no I did NOT vote for him.) I refuse to take any blame for my nation's actions prior to 1992, when I became old enough to vote, and only 1/300 millionth part of blame thereafter.

I write my congressmen. I've never received more than a form letter in response. I vote. Elections rarely go my way. I served my country. Nobody cares except on Veteran's Day. So goes it in a nation this size.

It's so amusing to see people here attack each other for the actions of a handful of politicians who spend most of their time squirreled away where we can't get to them.

"The US" is not the problem. "The US" is a huge nation, and a great nation, by and large made up of honest, hard-working citizens who just want to get by. Just like everyone else.

Abuse of power by greedy men is the problem. That happens everywhere. There just happens to be a lot more power up for grabs in Washington than in other places.
Here, here!

What bothers me is the way, rather than really think about what we're doing, we just sink into these arguments over whether party A has the wrong attitude towards party B. I wish people around the world could just get the hell over themselves already.

The US is not running the world into the ground -- just itself.

Personally, I have nothing against the US as a country. I mean, it's just another culture. I could go kick at the Japanese for opening Sushi bars if I had something major against them. It's your bloody leaders I've got something against. Their whole politics system. THEN, the fact that the Bush administration got through another term just bugs me. Happily, I'm glad you've got rules that say Bush can't sit another four years.

But then, just the other day I heard Bush speak about increased funding for projects about renewable energy sources. That's good. That's jolly good. I can come to... uhm... oversee the mistakes that I believe Afghanistan and Iraq were, come if the US will have more energy-efficient and enviromental focusing.

Then simply the fact that US, among others, are the ones that want to stop Iran from having nuclear developement is just plain silly. I blame UK, EU and every other bloody country who've opposed Iran in this. Why should they have such technology and not Iran? I think it is just right of Iran to do what they do.

But right now - the US don't rule the world. They just think they do.

Personally, I have nothing against the US as a country. I mean, it's just another culture. I could go kick at the Japanese for opening Sushi bars if I had something major against them. It's your bloody leaders I've got something against. Their whole politics system. THEN, the fact that the Bush administration got through another term just bugs me. Happily, I'm glad you've got rules that say Bush can't sit another four years.

But then, just the other day I heard Bush speak about increased funding for projects about renewable energy sources. That's good. That's jolly good. I can come to... uhm... oversee the mistakes that I believe Afghanistan and Iraq were, come if the US will have more energy-efficient and enviromental focusing.

Then simply the fact that US, among others, are the ones that want to stop Iran from having nuclear developement is just plain silly. I blame UK, EU and every other bloody country who've opposed Iran in this. Why should they have such technology and not Iran? I think it is just right of Iran to do what they do.

But right now - the US don't rule the world. They just think they do.
On the one hand, I have to say I think you'd be foolish to trust Iran on anything.

But on the other hand, welcome to the club! Nearly half of Americans detest Bush, too, and firmly believe he wouldn't have sat two terms if he hadn't stolen two elections.

By the way, you'd be as foolish to trust Bush as to trust Iran until you see actual results from them. Actions speak louder than words. There will be no alternative fuel development in the US as long as anyone associated with Dick Cheney retains power in our government. Don't look to us for that part of the future.

EDIT: PS: Who says he can't sit three terms -- in spirit, at least? I've already heard casual talk on US television about Jeb Bush, his brother, being a likely pick for Vice President in 2008.

Then simply the fact that US, among others, are the ones that want to stop Iran from having nuclear developement is just plain silly. I blame UK, EU and every other bloody country who've opposed Iran in this. Why should they have such technology and not Iran? I think it is just right of Iran to do what they do.

Um, maybe because the leader of Iran is a muslim extreamist zealot who declared publicly that Israel needs to be "wiped off the face of the earth"??

But right now - the US don't rule the world. They just think they do.

Thats just what your governments tell you. ;)

America
\/
The world

On the one hand, I have to say I think you'd be foolish to trust Iran on anything.

But on the other hand, welcome to the club! Nearly half of Americans detest Bush, too, and firmly believe he wouldn't have sat two terms if he hadn't stolen two elections.

This is part of the problem that I have with people. People can't seem to seperate the man from the policy. You guys "detest Bush" because you don't like his policies and because you don't like his policies, you think he's a moron, he's X, he's Y, whatever. It's ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as the Republicans who disliked Clinton's policies and because of that, thought he was the antichrist come again, and pulled out the draft dodging, womanizing.

It lowers the debate to the most partisan, useless levels where everything is just mudslinging and worthless.

Bush didn't steal the 2000 election. Bush didn't steal the 2004 election. He won both fair and square.

By the way, you'd be as foolish to trust Bush as to trust Iran until you see actual results from them. Actions speak louder than words. There will be no alternative fuel development in the US as long as anyone associated with Dick Cheney retains power in our government. Don't look to us for that part of the future.

That's an unrealistic thing to say, considering the fact that the energy companies themselves are leading the research and development into the alternative fuels. Why? Because they recognize that if they want to remain profitable after we've sucked every drop of oil out of the ground, they've got to be the ones that make alternative fuels profitable. These people aren't stupid - they have to have a long term view.

As for Dick Cheney and the rest, it's typical outside-the-beltway thinking that anyone at that level in the government is in it for greed or trying to pad their own pockets. That's completely absurd. People who come to Washington in an elected capacity aren't doing it for the money. They make peanuts compared to what they could make. Many of them are already rich. What do they want? To be more rich? When was the last time you did a favor for a friend because you thought it would help them make more money and there was nothing in it for you? I can't think if I have ever done that.

EDIT: PS: Who says he can't sit three terms -- in spirit, at least? I've already heard casual talk on US television about Jeb Bush, his brother, being a likely pick for Vice President in 2008.

Jeb's about as likely a Vice Presidential pick as I am. The guy doesn't want to be President, and he's not about to take a back seat when he could arguably run himself. Casual talk on television is casual talk. It means nothing.

Bush is not even close to being the worst President we've ever had in any kind of objective analysis.

I think it's pathetic that Americans can't have a debate about politics without it turning into muckraking and conspiracy theories. No wonder most people don't vote.

The world was always heading for disaster. They just blew up the rudder before America took captain of the metephorical ship. I blame ancient/ medieval Europe. It set a chain reaction that led to the current world situation. Can't blame America since it was something caused by said chain reaction.

This is part of the problem that I have with people. People can't seem to seperate the man from the policy. You guys "detest Bush" because you don't like his policies and because you don't like his policies, you think he's a moron, he's X, he's Y, whatever. It's ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as the Republicans who disliked Clinton's policies and because of that, thought he was the antichrist come again, and pulled out the draft dodging, womanizing.

[1.] It lowers the debate to the most partisan, useless levels where everything is just mudslinging and worthless.

[2.] Bush didn't steal the 2000 election. Bush didn't steal the 2004 election. He won both fair and square.



[3.] That's an unrealistic thing to say, considering the fact that the energy companies themselves are leading the research and development into the alternative fuels. Why? Because they recognize that if they want to remain profitable after we've sucked every drop of oil out of the ground, they've got to be the ones that make alternative fuels profitable. These people aren't stupid - they have to have a long term view.

As for Dick Cheney and the rest, it's typical [4.] outside-the-beltway thinking that anyone at that level in the government is in it for greed or trying to pad their own pockets. That's completely absurd. People who come to Washington in an elected capacity aren't doing it for the money. They make peanuts compared to what they could make. Many of them are already rich. What do they want? To be more rich? When was the last time you did a favor for a friend because you thought it would help them make more money and there was nothing in it for you? I can't think if I have ever done that.



[5.] Jeb's about as likely a Vice Presidential pick as I am. The guy doesn't want to be President, and he's not about to take a back seat when he could arguably run himself. Casual talk on television is casual talk. It means nothing.

[6.] Bush is not even close to being the worst President we've ever had in any kind of objective analysis.

I think it's pathetic that Americans can't have a debate about politics without it turning into muckraking and conspiracy theories. No wonder most people don't vote.
1. You would know. Your post, as usual, is a masterful display of what to do with partisan talking points.

2. Sez you. I say different. So what? It hasn't made any difference to Bush one way or the other, has it?

3. No kidding, the oil giants are looking to the future. They know the limitations of their own business and want to survive. But that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about US governmental policy. Neocons like Cheney are not interested in fuel; they're interested in an energy-based power structure that they can't see is already becoming obsolete. America will miss the boat on this if we let them keep making the decisions.

4. Is there any other kind of thinking? :p

5. Everyone knows the neocons would like Jeb to run. It's just a matter of whether he'll choose to or not. He's not the dumb one in the family, after all. I only mentioned it as a small snidery about whether the Bushes will try to keep hold of the White House or not.

6. Hey, man, nobody used those words here before you did. Protesting a bit much?

The world was always heading for disaster. They just blew up the rudder before America took captain of the metephorical ship. I blame ancient/ medieval Europe. It set a chain reaction that led to the current world situation. Can't blame America since it was something caused by said chain reaction.

Actually, the world is more peaceful now than it has been in a long time, if not before the dawn of civilization. If anything, we're advancing ourselves faster than ever before.

"The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."


You have to admit that shows a certain amount of style :P


There is nothing wrong with the states on average. Just a slightly iffy political system and a bit too much apathy. And a lack of subtlety on the part of the government.

Nice food though.

Not really. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing all of these ridiculous tin-foil-hat theories as to why we went to war in Iraq trotted about. Bush believed Iraq was a threat to our national security. That's all he has to say. No one has the right to tell us we can't defend ourselves if we believe our national security is threatened. In any event, it's over. We went in. All the conspiracy theories in the world won't undo what's been done.

Well they are cabinet level memos from the British government..verified etc...and as they did support Bush the memos they produce could be considered a a bit "tinfoil hattish" in that sense, though "poodle-ish" would be more accurate. But you work away and dismiss them. That way you can still do the whole "Mom and Apple pie" thing with a clear conscience and unfurrowed brow.

As to why Bush went to war I haven't offered an opinion here by the way, just illustrating the very large question marks that have emerged over the lead up to the war.

In regard to national security, I was under the distinct impression there had to be a clear one...not something that necessitated threatening, cajoling and buying sovereign governments for support and trying to get a third world country to take pot shots at an a airplane to try to get a resolution passed.


People can't seem to seperate the man from the policy. You guys "detest Bush" because you don't like his policies and because you don't like his policies, you think he's a moron, he's X, he's Y, whatever..

"Bush" just flies off the fingers while "Neo-conservative cabal" doesn't. My view is that of a monkey and a number of organ grinders, but I accept I fall into the "Bush" personification trap myself.

We've noticed. This is why we find it offensive when you start throwing tantrums if European countries refuse to fight your wars for you.

Hey..remember that thing called the "Cold War"? Think Communism would have stopped on the other side of the Berlin wall if not for us? Think again. What about WWII? Let's discuss that. Let's discuss how the ONLY country left fighting in Europe was England, and the only reason THEY were fighting was because they were an island. Then, let's discuss who bailed out a certain country's rail lines in europe...anyone remember that? WAIT WAIT..let's also talk about how ANY TIME a country in Europe needs help, we are there as fast as we can be with everything, including the shirts off our back for you. Still want to talk about offensive?

So we come to Europe and what do we meet? France saying "We need more proof." Well, to quote David Letterman, "The last time France needed more proof, it marched into Paris under a Nazi flag." Now France is having issues with Mulsim extremists. Still want more proof?

At anyrate, at least England stood buy as and Portugal. Spain can get bent. If there is one thing this Iraq war showed us, it's who our friends are. Yeah, we got in a little over our heads. We could have dug our way out, taken longer, and lost more lives, but in very non-typical American fashion we asked for help. Certain countries responded. Then, the going gets tough, and who are we left with? England, Portugal, Australia, and Japan. Japan even went so far as to tell two citizens held hostage in Iraq "We told you not to go. We aren't pulling our military out to save your lives." So yeah, as far as I'm concerned, those are the only countries the US should even bother giving aide to in the future.

1. You would know. Your post, as usual, is a masterful display of what to do with partisan talking points.

Well, considering that I write them...

Look, the fact is, I'm about as bi-partisan as you're going to find in this town. But I have my own personal viewpoints and those trend Republican. But that doesn't mean that I hate the Democrats, want them to die in a fire, or think they're retarded and can't run the country. They just don't happen to agree with me.

2. Sez you. I say different. So what? It hasn't made any difference to Bush one way or the other, has it?

The difference is, and I say this in all seriousness, is that I am right and you are not. If Bush hasn't won those elections, he wouldn't be President. We have a rule of law in this country and that's why Bush won in 2000. In 2004, he was elected fair and square with a majority. Saying things like he "stole" the elections debases our political process.

3. No kidding, the oil giants are looking to the future. They know the limitations of their own business and want to survive. But that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about US governmental policy. Neocons like Cheney are not interested in fuel; they're interested in an energy-based power structure that they can't see is already becoming obsolete. America will miss the boat on this if we let them keep making the decisions.

You keep harping on the "neo-cons" like they actually exist outside of the left's PNAC fueled conspiracy theories. They don't. Almost no one on the Republican side calls themselves a "neo-con", and no one talks about the "energy-based power structure". There's no such thing.

Everyone, at all levels of the government, recognize that the petroleum based economy is killing this country. We wouldn't have to get involved in wars in Iraq and draw the ire and emnity of the extremists in that region if we didn't have to be there. So reducing our dependence on middle eastern oil is critical, both in terms of our economic and national security. Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the administration recognize that fact. Does that mean that they're going to have the government lead the charge? No way - that's not government's responsibility from their political perspective. Government can provide incentives to do that, but its up to the energy companies themselves to innovate and survive on their own.

4. Is there any other kind of thinking? :p

I get accused of inside-the-beltway thinking all the time. :)

Sometimes outside-the-beltway thinking is a good thing, especially when you're trying to figure out what the average American cares or thinks about. But when it comes to attributing motives to governmental officials, people who don't live in this town and don't interact with these people on a daily basis seem to think that we're either all crooks, all incompetent, or all part of some kind of vast left/right wing conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

It's really not like that. Most of Washington are just people trying to do what's best for the country. The issues are in determining just what's best.

5. Everyone knows the neocons would like Jeb to run. It's just a matter of whether he'll choose to or not. He's not the dumb one in the family, after all. I only mentioned it as a small snidery about whether the Bushes will try to keep hold of the White House or not.

The "neo-cons" don't run the Republican party, and God knows they don't control the American public. The Republicans will nominate whomever they believe has a better chance of beating Hillary, and all I can say is that I hope to God its not John McCain.

I don't think the Bushes will try and keep hold of the White House. We need at least one Presidential election in this half of a century without a Nixon/Dole/Bush on the ticket.

6. Hey, man, nobody used those words here before you did. Protesting a bit much?

Naw, just thought I stick that in there for fun.

Essentially, yes, it has demonstrated itself to be irresponsible in conducting its pre-eminence to an extent the "evil" colonial empires were signally not.

And when that fight is won, the US will still be in the mud, but the rest of the world will be buried under it.
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Sigged!!!

I would like to know what others (People out side the states, but inside is ok too) think of the US and Bush's attemps at Foreign interactions.

"Interactions," huh! *Shakes Head* What interactions. As for running the world into the ground, everyone does that in their own special way. We just help some along, that's all. We're the helping hand of the world. We even help you when you beg us to leave you alone.

Well, considering that I write them...<snipped for lenght>
Having a predominantly one-sided point of view does not make you bipartisan. Oh, and btw, I'm not a Democrat, either.

As to the elections, the fact of the matter is, and I say this in all seriousness, competent legal experts still argue over those elections. Their legality or lack thereof is not proven either way. There can never be a definitive answer to this unless it is pronounced in a court of competent jurisdiction, which is never going to happen. Therefore, this can only be discussed as opinion, because we will never have enough facts to tell the story without filling in the gaps with interpretations and assumptions. Therefore, neither of us will ever change the other's mind on this.

By "energy-based power structure" I meant the old oil-giant system and the politics that went with it for most of the 20th century. That is changing, but US policy is not changing with it as yet, and I don't believe it will with the current crew in charge.

And frankly, I don't care if neo-cons have decided to stop calling themselves that. They are a discrete political faction. They could have started their own party if they'd liked, but instead, they decided to hijack the Republican party. They are not Republicans. They are not Conservatives. Therefore, for the sake of Republicans and Conservatives, I will continue to call them by the name they created -- neo-con. I like to be accurate.

"Is the US running the world into the ground?"

Of for God's sake! Not MORE of this shit! Jeeze! Get a frakkin' LIFE or something! :mad:

You keep harping on the "neo-cons" like they actually exist outside of the left's PNAC fueled conspiracy theories. They don't. Almost no one on the Republican side calls themselves a "neo-con", and no one talks about the "energy-based power structure". There's no such thing.
Have you ever actually bothered to look at PNAC's website (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)? Seen who signed their statement of intent?

It is this administration, no doubt about it.

I live in the UK and from here the Media says that the US's Foreign Polices is the Worst since the days of the South-East-Asian intervention.

Personally I'm surprised that he was not voted out in your General Election after the Second Gulf War and the many broken alliances with Europe such as France, Germany and Russia.

Look up diebold and e-voting

I believe America is really the Western British Empire, see my blog davidshenfield.blogspot.com for my rationale for this belief.

i think that America should become a British colony again and then we would be the super power (again) and then half the world problems would be over;) :p

I would like to know what others (People out side the states, but inside is ok too) think of the US and Bush's attemps at Foreign interactions.
I'm from in the states, and I didn't vote for him, that's for sure. He doesn't seem to know what he's doing; he's pissing off a ton of other nations, not to mention over half if his own. I am still unsure of how we got from hunting terrorists in Afghanistan all the way over to Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction, and then reforming their government. I mean, was it like a "Well, while we're here, we might as well..." type of thing?

The world is actually running the US into the ground. Frankly we're kind of tired of it. Everybody's got their hand out, everybody wants us to abide by free trade laws that don't suit us, everybody tries to hamstring our efforts to impose order through military power. What's the use of being the world's only superpower if the world just gets to nag us all the time?
So true

Having a predominantly one-sided point of view does not make you bipartisan. Oh, and btw, I'm not a Democrat, either.

I don't have a predominately one-sided point of view. In terms of foreign policy, I agree with most of the President's actions. In terms of his domestic policies, I disagree with many of them.

What makes me bipartisan is my willingness to work with people on both sides of the aisle, to respect their opinions and to not belittle their point of view because I don't always happen to believe in it.

As to the elections, the fact of the matter is, and I say this in all seriousness, competent legal experts still argue over those elections. Their legality or lack thereof is not proven either way. There can never be a definitive answer to this unless it is pronounced in a court of competent jurisdiction, which is never going to happen. Therefore, this can only be discussed as opinion, because we will never have enough facts to tell the story without filling in the gaps with interpretations and assumptions. Therefore, neither of us will ever change the other's mind on this.

I agree, but as a matter of practical fact and practical law, George W. Bush is the legitimately twice elected President of the United States, no matter what anyone's opinion on the legality of said elections may be.

Again, saying that he stole the elections is, in my opinion, inappropriate, because it adds absolutely no substantive value to the debate.

By "energy-based power structure" I meant the old oil-giant system and the politics that went with it for most of the 20th century. That is changing, but US policy is not changing with it as yet, and I don't believe it will with the current crew in charge.

It's already changing. Look at the Energy Bill that passed last year. There were so many changes that promote ethanol, other renewable fuel technoligies, clean coal and other fossil fuel resources and programs that big oil had to recognize that their days were numbered. Hell, the only provision off the top of my head that I know they really wanted was opening ANWR and they didn't even get that.

Policy is changing despite or inspite of whatever Cheney may be trying to do.

And frankly, I don't care if neo-cons have decided to stop calling themselves that. They are a discrete political faction. They could have started their own party if they'd liked, but instead, they decided to hijack the Republican party. They are not Republicans. They are not Conservatives. Therefore, for the sake of Republicans and Conservatives, I will continue to call them by the name they created -- neo-con. I like to be accurate.

If you like to be accurate, you should quit bringing them up at all, because outside of the left's blogosphere and the rhetoric of anti-Administration partisans, they don't exist. There are no "neo-con" conventions. No "neo-con" meetings. They don't hold party caucuses. There is no "neo-con" PAC. No one calls themselves a neo-con. They don't plan anything. There's no centralization.

This is a small town, and if there were anything like that happening, by virtue of what I do and the circles that I run in, I'd have heard about it. Outside the beltway, its easy to think that a cabal of crazy conservatives is running around whispering in people's ears that we've got to spread American democracy by the sword across the globe. Inside the beltway, we don't have time for that kind of nonsense. There's actual work to be done here.

Then again, I could be just writing all this out because I'm the communications director for the vast right wing conspiracy too, but you'd never know that, would you? ;)

Then again, I could be just writing all this out because I'm the communications director for the vast right wing conspiracy too, but you'd never know that, would you? ;)

Not enough mentions of "freedom" and "democracy" with complete lack of any sense of irony.

If there is no such thing as a neo-con, then why are they in Bush's cabinet?

Not enough mentions of "freedom" and "democracy" with complete lack of any sense of irony.

If there is no such thing as a neo-con, then why are they in Bush's cabinet?

Assuming that the PNAC's statement of principles list is the official list of the uber "neo-cons", the only cabinet member that's on that list is Donald Rumsfeld.

But again, outside the blogosphere and the tin-foil-hat crowd, there's no neo-con movement running things in Washington.

Democracy and freedom are great. So are freedom and Democracy. Two great tastes that taste great together. Go freedom and democracy.

How's that? Do I need pom poms?

Assuming that the PNAC's statement of principles list is the official list of the uber "neo-cons", the only cabinet member that's on that list is Donald Rumsfeld.
Being pedantic, are we?

Elliott Abrams - Gary Bauer - William J. Bennett - Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney - Eliot A. Cohen - Midge Decter - Paula Dobriansky - Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg - Francis Fukuyama - Frank Gaffney - Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan - Zalmay Khalilzad - I. Lewis Libby - Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle - Peter W. Rodman - Stephen P. Rosen - Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld - Vin Weber - George Weigel - Paul Wolfowitz

Being pedantic, are we?

I was just trying to be "accurate". :)

I was just trying to be "accurate". :)
Pedantry is frequently mistaken for accuracy in some circles.

I was just trying to be "accurate". :)


Actually, given the way you talk about "inside the Beltway" and "outside the Beltway" and the way that you know those "Washington folk" because of your great job, who, according to you, just want to get on and do some good (for us great unwashed, I presume), I was under the impression you were being trite, smug, boastful and rather condascending. And evasive. Very evasive.

"Is the US running the world into the ground?"

You're damn right!

If we are going down; we are taking all you bastards with us!

It's had a lot of practice at screwing democracy up, and so now it's shoving it onto volitile Middle Eastern states so it just develops into anarchy.

No, it's not doing that. However, if the US fails to recognize that the future lies in economic globalization, internationalism, and free trade along with open markets, we will run ourselves in to the ground. The last thing we need is to retreat in to protectionism and isolationism; at the same time, however, we must also avoid attempting to build or maintain an "empire" of interests that is at odds with the rest of the world.

Like the other guy said, "It's the politicians". Representational government get less effective the larger it grows. You want globalization and internationalism? To put all our eggs in one basket? Why so we can have a majority rule with 51% or less, and disinfranchise 3 billion people at once?

The world has been going to hell ever since the Christians and the Muslims decided that they hated eachother for some reason. Add in years of Soviet hostilities, European colonialism, two world wars, nuclear weapons getting in the hands of the Soviets, a severe population explosion, ignorance of nature and how the physical world works, and lots of crap that led to the Christians vs. Muslims thing and you'll see that the United States is not the place you should blame. The world has always been in its current freefall. Why can't the US be in on all the fun? Why make Americans the scapegoat? The world has always been in its freefall. Well, not always. It used to be just going downhill. I blame Europe. No Europe would have equaled no US if you know your history. How do you explain that?


firstly, nuclear weapons in anyone's hands are a problem.
secondly, north america would technically still exist if the europeans hadnt arrived. why do people always ignore the native people?

firstly, nuclear weapons in anyone's hands are a problem.
secondly, north america would technically still exist if the europeans hadnt arrived. why do people always ignore the native people?

From what I gather, they usually only start ignoring them after they've finished with them, if you get me.

The world has been going to hell ever since the Christians and the Muslims decided that they hated eachother for some reason. Add in years of Soviet hostilities, European colonialism, two world wars, nuclear weapons getting in the hands of the Soviets, a severe population explosion, ignorance of nature and how the physical world works, and lots of crap that led to the Christians vs. Muslims thing and you'll see that the United States is not the place you should blame. The world has always been in its current freefall. Why can't the US be in on all the fun? Why make Americans the scapegoat? The world has always been in its freefall. Well, not always. It used to be just going downhill. I blame Europe. No Europe would have equaled no US if you know your history. How do you explain that?
Yep, and of course the Middle East is completely free of all blame. The Saracens and Turks never threatened the Byzantine Empire, one of the most vibrant western nations at the time. We initiated all conflict. Its all Europe's fault. Right. Turkey, Japan and the Arab nations were also completely free of any nationalist tendencies and had no part in creating any conflict. :rolleyes: Now, I would mention the USSR, but that is a part of Europe. Give the USA 3000 years or so to catch up with Europe, and we'll see how far it goes.