NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20071116/COLUMNIST13/711160427/10

Last week's Reaganesque speech by French President Nicolas Sarkozy was amazing. He was more admiring of our country than are many of our politicians. This demonstrates the reality of the strength and virtue of American world leadership under President Bush.

The 1990s witnessed the rise of Islamic terror, the flailing of Russia, the empowering of anti-U.S. leaders, and the bribing of many Europeans through United Nations corruption by tyrants. All is changed for the better. Under Bush the world is shifting decisively in line with U.S. interests.

The establishment last month of AFRICOM, the new U.S. military command focused on Africa, culminates a long effort. Africa was full of terrible conflict through the 1990s. Bush refined efforts to end war and build democratic societies. The results are good with AFRICOM allies in Morocco, Mali, Djibouti, Tanzania, Kenya, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia and Sao Tome & Principe all seeking U.S. bases. CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden's visits to Morocco have found strong efforts against terror in the Arab Maghreb Union, with hope growing to end suffering in Sudan and Chad.

Libya is now our ally, while most wars have ended in Africa. Liberia's impressive leader, Africa's first female president, thanked Bush's "strong resolve" and "the artful diplomacy of the United States that was central to ending our long conflict."

Then she declared, "We will strive to be America's success story in Africa, demonstrating the potential in the transformation from war to peace; demonstrating the will to join in the global fight against terrorism; demonstrating that democracy can prevail."

Even U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, facing last week's trouble in Somalia, declined a peacekeeping mission, saying he'd rather see a U.S.- like "coalition of the willing."

In Asia, independent-minded Japan is remaining a strong ally, leading the advocacy for our National Missile Defense program. An alliance between us, Japan and Australia is forming with profound implications for regional peace and stability. Bush's approach to India is vital because a pro-U.S. shift in alignment will be profound in preventing war.

Bush has advanced a Responsible Stakeholder focus for Chinese foreign policy. We have also encircled China with what can be a future containment strategy. Our military performs many different missions in Asia, such as humanitarian operations in Cambodia.

Europe's pro-U.S. shift is stunning. Not only are Britain, Germany and France moving our way, but so are the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and all of Central Europe. Finland and Sweden are advancing toward NATO membership.

Bush presided over NATO's largest expansion into the defunct Warsaw Pact in 2004, and now our National Missile Defense program is being sought by Poland, Romania and the Czech Republic. This enables vast advances in wartime missions, with the CIA conducting 100,000 operations a year and more than 1,200 rendition flights over Europe alone.

Colombia was about to fall to narco-terrorism in 2000, but is today stabilizing. Bush has built strong relationships with Brazil, Chile, Peru and Uruguay. The anti-U.S. Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, is thereby isolated.

Canada and Mexico have elected strong U.S.-allied conservative leaders. Though this gets lost in the immigration debate, President Felipe Calderon is fighting hard against drug cartels in Mexico. This is important.

Our military carries out missions in more than 120 countries, and Americans give to charities far more than anyone else. Bush builds on this and has achieved great success in bringing much of the world in line with U.S. interests. The challenge of the rise of Germany, Russia, Turkey, China and India are all complex, but under Bush these are handled maturely and wisely. He also is maintaining our military lead in aircraft and in space.

American world leadership under Bush is effective, strong and virtuous.

Some very valid points contained. These are the facts the despisers don't want to consider or even discuss. Go ahead - illustrate your hate and ignorance - or... are you an independent enough thinker that you can break from the crowd, confront your own cognitive dissonance and recognize facts which don't comply with your preconceptions?

Blah! That article is a steaming pile of horse manure! It's drowning in rhetoric and is completely biased. I would say the article makes a valid point if it wasn't riddled with overtones of brown-nosing.

Blah! That article is a steaming pile of horse manure! It's drowning in rhetoric and is completely biased. I would say the article makes a valid point if it wasn't riddled with overtones of brown-nosing.

ahhh the irony....

Haha

What a load of nonsense. No wonder Americans are so culturally unaware if this is the only crap they get to read. Did the Republican party write this themselves?

ahhh the irony....

Got a chuckle from me, too.

Don't leave out the fact that Syria has backed off of it's control of Lebanon. That's directly due to our involvement in Iraq, as was the Libyan 'surrender'.

Outside and apart from the murders of United States soldiers and Marines in Iraq, the world is becoming a more friendly place.

What a load of nonsense. No wonder Americans are so culturally unaware if this is the only crap they get to read. Did the Republican party write this themselves?
No, silly. This is who did: Joe Roche, a sergeant in the U.S. Army, served in Iraq from May 2003 to August 2004 as a combat engineer and in technical rescue. Later, he served in Washington, D.C., with the elite Rescue to Protect National Command Authority. He earned a bachelors degree in history from the University of Minnesota in 1998.

No, silly. This is who did: Joe Roche, a sergeant in the U.S. Army, served in Iraq from May 2003 to August 2004 as a combat engineer and in technical rescue. Later, he served in Washington, D.C., with the elite Rescue to Protect National Command Authority. He earned a bachelors degree in history from the University of Minnesota in 1998.

Right... I didn't think they allowed male fellators into their army, but I guess they do.

ahhh the irony....

I said that if the article wasn't drowning in rhetoric, it would have made a valid point but because of the obvious bias...

Bush's Republican presidency symbolises a lot of what those of us at ground-level perceive as the flaws of authoritarian diplomacy. To many, however, it also symbolises the benefits of authoritarian diplomacy.

What his term has done is radicalise these opposing stances, such that those who see the charismatic and resolute style of leadership as a good thing have been enamoured by him to a greater degree than previous such instances, while those who see it as a potentially dangerous approach have been repulsed by him to a greater degree than others who use the same style of leadership.

The coin still has two sides, and they're still in the same ratio. The coin's just a lot bigger.

Right... I didn't think they allowed male fellators into their army, but I guess they do.

It all depends on who it is they fellate.

Blah! That article is a steaming pile of horse manure! It's drowning in rhetoric and is completely biased. I would say the article makes a valid point if it wasn't riddled with overtones of brown-nosing.

That's funny. Under Bush America's reputation hit the floor so fast that it bounced, and Bush takes the credit for the bounce. These guys are shameless.

That's funny. Under Bush America's reputation hit the floor so fast that it bounced, and Bush takes the credit for the bounce. These guys are shameless.

What a load of nonsense. No wonder Americans are so culturally unaware if this is the only crap they get to read. Did the Republican party write this themselves?

Right... I didn't think they allowed male fellators into their army, but I guess they do.

I said that if the article wasn't drowning in rhetoric, it would have made a valid point but because of the obvious bias...

Cognitive... dissonance... too strong.. must... call names... need... moveon.org... can't.... think for self... have... no facts... Spock!!! need help!

i wouldn't doubt if the cia was still doing the democratic act of subverting other people's elections as they have done so many times before. well documented, including in congressional inquiries in the 70s
also "gladio" sound familiar to anyone?

Cognitive... dissonance... too strong.. must... call names... need... moveon.org... can't.... think for self... have... no facts... Spock!!! need help!

Oh come, now, it can't be that hard to fire back a less than witty retort. :)

Europe's pro-U.S. shift is stunning. Not only are Britain, Germany and France moving our way
What? How can anyone say the UK is getting more 'proamerican'?

Some very valid points contained. These are the facts the despisers don't want to consider or even discuss. Go ahead - illustrate your hate and ignorance - or... are you an independent enough thinker that you can break from the crowd, confront your own cognitive dissonance and recognize facts which don't comply with your preconceptions?

Of course. If I disagree with you, I'm not an independent thinker.

ahhh the irony....

Took the words right out of my mouth.

The article's excerpt that you've posted pretty much says, "America leads the world, Bush is in charge of America at the moment, and some decent things are happening."

So complete American autocracy is a good thing? No. That's the same philosophy that was plastered all over "Hero." "Invasion must be good, 'cause if I rule everywhere, there's nobody else to attack us."

Plus, plenty of the things involved in your article have pretty much nothing to do with America.

Europe's pro-U.S. shift is stunning. Not only are Britain, Germany and France moving our way, but so are the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and all of Central Europe. Finland and Sweden are advancing toward NATO membership.

Our way? Be a little more specific instead of covering your tracks with informal vagueness. What about things that HAVE got things to do with America?

Liberia's impressive leader, Africa's first female president, thanked Bush's "strong resolve" and "the artful diplomacy of the United States that was central to ending our long conflict."

Then she declared, "We will strive to be America's success story in Africa, demonstrating the potential in the transformation from war to peace; demonstrating the will to join in the global fight against terrorism; demonstrating that democracy can prevail."

/fellatio. Seriously now, this is a great example of countries wanting to tie themselves in with America. Look at Beijing's 2008 Olympics ad, full of Chinese kids with American basketball jerseys on. Currently, the U.S. is being an imperialistic invading force, both physically and culturally, the U.S. is the biggest consuming country per capita in the world, and people want to brown-nose them. Understandable - doesn't mean Bush rules OK.

The whole article gives example of the U.S. being an invading world force. The fact that their gung-ho motivation is better than the UN's rather ineffective peacekeeping mission says nothing about what's better, it only describes the lesser of two evils being required. If you want to bone the idea of a "coalition of the willing," please stand in central Baghdad and do so.

Plus, the idea that the world is filled with similarly twattish leaders and they're all ganging on Bush's side does not mean Bush is a great guy.

This enables vast advances in wartime missions, with the CIA conducting 100,000 operations a year and more than 1,200 rendition flights over Europe alone.

That sentence disturbs me in more ways than I can describe.

Charity? America gives, afaik, the least to charity in comparison to the percentage of wealth in the nation compared to the rest of the country. Saying that Alexantis gives $30,000 out of it's, let's say $200,000 possible spendable money to charity whilst the U.S. gives $3,000,000 out of it's possible... I don't know what is possible for the US, they're spending around $1 and a bit trillion on the "war" in Iraq already, so it must be fucking massive - it doesn't mean the U.S. is a better country. Just means they're rich.

American world leadership under Bush is effective, strong and virtuous.

Able, powerful, potent, impressive, dynamic, stable... yes, I can use a Thesaurus too.

Look, here's the biggest argument agains the U.S. Look the fuck around you. You're posting this biased and brown-nosed article because a world of intelligent, articulate and fair humans are dissenting. Practice what you preach, open your fucking mind and listen to both parties.

I think alcohol may be involved. Anyone willing to test this hypothesis?

Hmmm... anyone got a Breathalyser? :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm

What can't come down anymore, has to go up.

What? How can anyone say the UK is getting more 'proamerican'?

I think alcohol may be involved. Anyone willing to test this hypothesis?

Some very valid points contained. These are the facts the despisers don't want to consider or even discuss.

Go ahead - illustrate your hate and ignorance - or... are you an independent enough thinker that you can break from the crowd, confront your own cognitive dissonance and recognize facts which don't comply with your preconceptions?

Gee, so I either have to be a "despiser" who is "hateful and ignorant," or I'm an "independent enough thinker," by which you mean I agree with your "facts," by which you mean article.

Shit, why bother posting at all - clearly you've got this whole thing pre-cogitated and don't need fulfilling circumstances.

Or maybe, perhaps your bullshit attempt at pre-emptive pop-psychoanalyzing anyone who might respond to your thread doesn't have validity. Whichever!

Last week's Reaganesque speech by French President Nicolas Sarkozy was amazing. He was more admiring of our country than are many of our politicians. This demonstrates the reality of the strength and virtue of American world leadership under President Bush.

A French President does not "American world leadership" make. If this "demonstration" is the "fact" that I'm supposed to have "cognitive dissonance" about, I'm sorely unimpressed.

The 1990s witnessed the rise of Islamic terror, the flailing of Russia, the empowering of anti-U.S. leaders, and the bribing of many Europeans through United Nations corruption by tyrants. All is changed for the better.

LOL.

LOL.

Sorry, was I supposed to take this ridiculous conclusion seriously?

Bribery still exists, corruption still exists, Islamic terrorism still exists, and Russia is arguably descending towards fascism. And since the 90's we've had little things like September 11th. You cannot expect anyone in a sober state of mind to believe the world situation is "all better."

Under Bush the world is shifting decisively in line with U.S. interests.

Oh, I see your mistake. You think "in line with US interests" translates to "all better."

And you also seem to think places like Venezuela don't exist. It's the only way you can possibly believe this - you honestly forgot they existed.

The establishment last month of AFRICOM, the new U.S. military command focused on Africa, culminates a long effort. Africa was full of terrible conflict through the 1990s. Bush refined efforts to end war and build democratic societies. The results are good with AFRICOM allies in Morocco, Mali, Djibouti, Tanzania, Kenya, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia and Sao Tome & Principe all seeking U.S. bases. CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden's visits to Morocco have found strong efforts against terror in the Arab Maghreb Union, with hope growing to end suffering in Sudan and Chad.

"WE MADE AFRICA BETTER. ALL SOLVED!"

Africa is still full of terrible conflict and will continue to be so.

Libya is now our ally, while most wars have ended in Africa. Liberia's impressive leader, Africa's first female president, thanked Bush's "strong resolve" and "the artful diplomacy of the United States that was central to ending our long conflict."

See above.

Then she declared, "We will strive to be America's success story in Africa, demonstrating the potential in the transformation from war to peace; demonstrating the will to join in the global fight against terrorism; demonstrating that democracy can prevail."

They *will* try to be "America's success story." Does not translate to they *are.*

Even U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, facing last week's trouble in Somalia, declined a peacekeeping mission, saying he'd rather see a U.S.- like "coalition of the willing."

Wait, so he used a phrase coined by Bush. This means US has world leadership AND that this is a good thing?

If that was any more of a stretch I think spacetime itself would rupture.

In Asia, independent-minded Japan is remaining a strong ally, leading the advocacy for our National Missile Defense program. An alliance between us, Japan and Australia is forming with profound implications for regional peace and stability.

None of this supports the concept that the US "world leadership" exists to the extent the article claims or that it is a good thing.

Bush's approach to India is vital because a pro-U.S. shift in alignment will be profound in preventing war.

Unsupported statements.

Bush has advanced a Responsible Stakeholder focus for Chinese foreign policy.

Nice of him. Irrelevant to the argument.

We have also encircled China with what can be a future containment strategy.

Unsupported and irrelevant. US having troops near China does not "contain" China, and the fact that the article has to even think about "containing" China is demonstration that China's billions are not "decisively in line with US interests."

At this point the article has blurted out all the irrelevant nonsense and contradictory bullshit necessary for rational dismissal. Perhaps you can ad hom and say I'm just experiencing "cognitive dissonance" because the "facts" so cudgel my poor ignorant hateful self.


Europe's pro-U.S. shift is stunning. Not only are Britain, Germany and France moving our way, but so are the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and all of Central Europe.

The Klingons are going to attack.

(I figured this was "make unsupported statements" hour and felt like joining in!)

Finland and Sweden are advancing toward NATO membership.

...and?

Bush presided over NATO's largest expansion into the defunct Warsaw Pact in 2004, and now our National Missile Defense program is being sought by Poland, Romania and the Czech Republic.

Oh, I get it. Anything to do with NATO is credited to Bush. This is sort of like blaming Bush for Katrina, only done by Bush's supporters instead of Bush's detractors.

This enables vast advances in wartime missions, with the CIA conducting 100,000 operations a year and more than 1,200 rendition flights over Europe alone.

Does the number of CIA operations have anything to do with American "world leadership" being a positive thing?

No.

This entire article is made up of strung-together propaganda or irrelevant statements. Apparently the only one expecting it to be an actual argument is me.

Colombia was about to fall to narco-terrorism in 2000, but is today stabilizing.

Like this one. No cause or effect has been even paid lip service to. Apparently, I'm just supposed to imply that this is because of Bush's superpowers.

Bush has built strong relationships with Brazil, Chile, Peru and Uruguay. The anti-U.S. Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, is thereby isolated.

Those relationships were pre-existing and do not translate to acceptance of US benign global leadership. The article is apparently claiming that unless you're outspokenly anti-US like Chavez, you are "decisively in line with US interests." A false dichotomy, of course.

Canada and Mexico have elected strong U.S.-allied conservative leaders. Though this gets lost in the immigration debate, President Felipe Calderon is fighting hard against drug cartels in Mexico. This is important.

And now we get to the real meat of the article. A strong "conservative" leadership. The article isn't about "LOL The world is ruled by the US!" it's about "LOL libz suck!"

Our military carries out missions in more than 120 countries, and Americans give to charities far more than anyone else.

I noticed that the only numbers given by this article are: number of CIA operations conducted, number of countries with US military personnel in them.

And neither one supports the article's theses. Ironic.

Bush builds on this and has achieved great success in bringing much of the world in line with U.S. interests. The challenge of the rise of Germany, Russia, Turkey, China and India are all complex, but under Bush these are handled maturely and wisely. He also is maintaining our military lead in aircraft and in space.

This is nothing more than continuing the "Bush is responsible for everything" meme.

Whether blaming or blessing Bush, you people give him far too much credit. You honestly seem to think if it's a good thing, Bush is responsible for it.

That is no different from people who think that if it's a bad thing, Bush is responsible for it.

Only just a tad less supportable, as evidenced by this completely-without-substance article.

Hmm, it does raise some interesting points, and yes, US foreign policy has not entierly been for the worse, though I fear in some cases the WAY the ends were achieved may cause problems later down the road. However, at the risk of causing you some cognitive dissonance, I must point out some distinct issues with this article (barring the horrifically biased language, which is kinda a put-off).




The 1990s witnessed the rise of Islamic terror, the flailing of Russia, the empowering of anti-U.S. leaders, and the bribing of many Europeans through United Nations corruption by tyrants. All is changed for the better. Under Bush the world is shifting decisively in line with U.S. interests.

Not necessarily a good thing. I'm not saying "<i>all US interests = bad</i>" but ultimately they are selfish. They have to be, they're <b>US</b> interests. And ultimately they may not be best for the citizens of the countries involved.

The establishment last month of AFRICOM, the new U.S. military command focused on Africa, culminates a long effort. Africa was full of terrible conflict through the 1990s. Bush refined efforts to end war and build democratic societies. The results are good with AFRICOM allies in Morocco, Mali, Djibouti, Tanzania, Kenya, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia and Sao Tome & Principe all seeking U.S. bases. CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden's visits to Morocco have found strong efforts against terror in the Arab Maghreb Union, with hope growing to end suffering in Sudan and Chad.

Yes, the US has done good work in Africa BUT so has the UN and EU, certain EU nations have be extensively involved in peace-keeping operations in this area of the world. America has not done this on their own, not should they. Emphasising the international nature of any intervention is vital, lest it be seen (as it is by many) that one nation is imposing it's policies on the world.

Also important to note that I do believe terrorism has been on the increase in Morroco in recent years.

Even U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, facing last week's trouble in Somalia, declined a peacekeeping mission, saying he'd rather see a U.S.- like "coalition of the willing."

Which I personally find slightly worrying (and would like to see a source on please), unless they manage to get more willing than last time, see point above about international co-operation.

In Asia, independent-minded Japan is remaining a strong ally, leading the advocacy for our National Missile Defense program. An alliance between us, Japan and Australia is forming with profound implications for regional peace and stability. Bush's approach to India is vital because a pro-U.S. shift in alignment will be profound in preventing war.

Bush has advanced a Responsible Stakeholder focus for Chinese foreign policy. We have also encircled China with what can be a future containment strategy. Our military performs many different missions in Asia, such as humanitarian operations in Cambodia.

Hmm, keep in mind allies in that area are probably in part so because they're worried about China too (and N. Korea), let's remeber international relations are liable to have mulitiple cause not all of which can be thanked (or indeed blamed as 'my side' so often do) on a single individual or policy. Though good job on humanitarian efforts, these can only be applauded.

Europe's pro-U.S. shift is stunning. Not only are Britain, Germany and France moving our way, but so are the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and all of Central Europe. Finland and Sweden are advancing toward NATO membership.

a) there are many nations in NATO other than US, again, I wouldn't try and pin it all on Bush and b) the UK has distinctly cooled towards the US and Sarkozy's pro-US moves aren't making him the most popular back home. Of course Europe does share many of the same values as the US, so generally will agree on many points, and just because we disagree doesn't mean we hate you :P

This enables vast advances in wartime missions, with the CIA conducting 100,000 operations a year and more than 1,200 rendition flights over Europe alone.

You see, THIS worries us. The CIA don't exactly have a record of acting in the best interests of other nations. I'm not saying they necessarily should, they are a US intelligence agency (I expect MI6 to act in UK best interests too), just don't be suprised it other nations get a tad pissed off about it. And the rendition flights which are ILLEGAL in most of the countries they're happening in (we in the UK were more than a little miffed when we found out they were stopping over in Glasgow I must say).

Our military carries out missions in more than 120 countries, and Americans give to charities far more than anyone else. Bush builds on this and has achieved great success in bringing much of the world in line with U.S. interests. The challenge of the rise of Germany, Russia, Turkey, China and India are all complex, but under Bush these are handled maturely and wisely. He also is maintaining our military lead in aircraft and in space.

Yes, your military carries out operations in 120 countries... again, don't be suprised if this may piss some of the locals off if you're not invited as peace-keepers (see Iraq, not Afganistan, keep up the good work in Afganistan and try not to forget it in the mess that is Iraq). I'd love to see some figures about giving to charities, preferably in per-capita as opposed to absolute totals (you guys do have quite a bit population) and I do remeber reading a while back (it may have changed) that your foreign aide budget is comparitavely quite low.

And 'rise of Germany', Germany's been an economic power-house for years, and most of it happened under Clinton and has probably more to do with the EU than the US.


So yes... some valid points, but also some highly biased ones, a bit of critical appraisal never goes amiss (yes, show me a highly biased left-wing piece and I'll happily deconstruct it in the same way).

Charity? America gives, afaik, the least to charity in comparison to the percentage of wealth in the nation compared to the rest of the country. Saying that Alexantis gives $30,000 out of it's, let's say $200,000 possible spendable money to charity whilst the U.S. gives $3,000,000 out of it's possible... I don't know what is possible for the US, they're spending around $1 and a bit trillion on the "war" in Iraq already, so it must be fucking massive - it doesn't mean the U.S. is a better country. Just means they're rich.



I really don't need to respont to your entire rant because ther is not any valid content contained within. If you want to argue facts them you will have to do better than you did above - ie - making them up.

I am a kind post author so I will guid you towards the truth that you so thoroughly lack on this particular topic - but you're on your own for the rest. http://www.cafonline.org/pdf/International%20Comparisons%20of%20Charitable%20Giving.pdf
Now you can decided for yourself - get back in line with your fellows or stand independent....



Look, here's the biggest argument agains the U.S. Look the fuck around you. You're posting this biased and brown-nosed article because a world of intelligent, articulate and fair humans are dissenting. Practice what you preach, open your fucking mind and listen to both parties.

ad hominem.. certainly the tool of choice for intelligent, articulate and fair humans...

Gee, (snip)

that's quite some rant - feel better now that it is out of your system?

I first started reading the article without looking at the link. When I did go up to the link, I was really quite surprised it wasn't from Fox.

snip.

there is no point in deconstructing your post point by point - unles my goal is to bore you into submission.

Your points all have a degree of validity but not relevance. For example - a shift of the world inline with US interests is certainly not bad - from a US perspective. Since this is an article for US readers then any discussion about these interests not all being congruent with other nations self interests is really irrelevant.

Even if it were - US interests tend to be among the most generous in the world. Rebuilding Europe and Japan was certainly in US interests - but it was certainly not incongruent with their own interests. As evidenced by much of the European media - many things which the US could have been established in Europe which may have better served US interests at the expense of Europeans were not implimented...


uh-oh -- gotta go - thanksgiving company just arrived. Time to start eating!

Have a happy thanksgiving everyone.

Some very valid points contained. These are the facts the despisers don't want to consider or even discuss. Go ahead - illustrate your hate and ignorance - or... are you an independent enough thinker that you can break from the crowd, confront your own cognitive dissonance and recognize facts which don't comply with your preconceptions?So basically, if you recognize this partisan article to be a one-sided praise for the Bush administration, you're ignorant, and if you fail to see through that, you're an indipentent thinker?

I like how they aren't mentioning all the international and domestic pressure that's forcing the US to give up its blockade of combating Climate Change.

No, silly. This is who did: Joe Roche, a sergeant in the U.S. Army, served in Iraq from May 2003 to August 2004 as a combat engineer and in technical rescue. Later, he served in Washington, D.C., with the elite Rescue to Protect National Command Authority. He earned a bachelors degree in history from the University of Minnesota in 1998.

So let me guess, if you make claims against the article, you obviously don't support the troops and hate America.

In Asia, independent-minded Japan is remaining a strong ally, leading the advocacy for our National Missile Defense program. An alliance between us, Japan and Australia is forming with profound implications for regional peace and stability. Bush's approach to India is vital because a pro-U.S. shift in alignment will be profound in preventing war.Which wars? Were we planning on invading India?

Bush has advanced a Responsible Stakeholder focus for Chinese foreign policy. We have also encircled China with what can be a future containment strategy. Our military performs many different missions in Asia, such as humanitarian operations in Cambodia.Ahahahahahahaha! Such delusions are comedic gold! Meanwhile China owns a shitload of American national debt...

Canada and Mexico have elected strong U.S.-allied conservative leaders. Though this gets lost in the immigration debate, President Felipe Calderon is fighting hard against drug cartels in Mexico. This is important.Doesn't Canada have a minority government? How is that strong?

there is no point in deconstructing your post point by point - unles my goal is to bore you into submission.

Your points all have a degree of validity but not relevance. For example - a shift of the world inline with US interests is certainly not bad - from a US perspective. Since this is an article for US readers then any discussion about these interests not all being congruent with other nations self interests is really irrelevant.

I disagree. The entire article was to point out that the US has done good things on an international front and that other nations thus like you. This surely must then also take into account that US interests don't equate to other nations interests as this is part of the reason a lot of nations don't necessarily like you.

Even if it were - US interests tend to be among the most generous in the world. Rebuilding Europe and Japan was certainly in US interests - but it was certainly not incongruent with their own interests. As evidenced by much of the European media - many things which the US could have been established in Europe which may have better served US interests at the expense of Europeans were not implimented...

Hmm... yes, some actions have been, fortuitously, congruent to both parties. This is not always the case, and to assume it is is part of the reason that international opinion is not always that favourable. This has particularly been the case in developing countries where US interests have kept dictators in power and the expense of the ordinary citizens. And I would disagree with US interests necessarily being the most generous in the world (we're not talking about generosity of ordinary citizens here, thank you for that link, but that of the government, which is a very different thing).

So let me guess, if you make claims against the article, you obviously don't support the troops and hate America. I wouldn't know,but it certainly seems that way.

EDIT: Somebody asked who wrote it, I answered, cos I live to serve.

After reading the article I felt I needed a shower, so I couldn't bring up the parts that felt a bit off in the article sooner. Here goes:
1) One European and an African leader say nice thing about the US means Bush is doing a great job. Okay. I thought it was customary to be polite when speaking in the congress or in a function celebrating the birth of a new organization.

2) Europe has moved closer to the US. I don't know what the author of the article means precisely, but I'm afraid he counts the countries that have elected more conservative-minded coalitions to govern themselves as somehow 'pro-US'.

3) Finland and Sweden are advancing toward NATO membership. I really don't think so.

4) The challenge of the rise of Germany, Russia, Turkey, China and India are all complex, but under Bush these are handled maturely and wisely. HUH?!?

I am a kind post author so I will guid you towards the truth that you so thoroughly lack on this particular topic - but you're on your own for the rest. http://www.cafonline.org/pdf/International%20Comparisons%20of%20Charitable%20Giving.pdf
Now you can decided for yourself - get back in line with your fellows or stand independent....


Interesting. Though one thing I did note is that much (but not all) of the EU data was based of self-reports and often telephone surveys (face-to-face even in the UK) which are profoundly self-selective and biased, whereas in the US it was based of tax-returns. I suspect US do give more to charity over-all (due to a myriad of factors, including tax-rates and government welfare) but I doubt the difference is as high as the study suggests. Of course, this is completely different from foreign aide, which is what I believe the previous poster was referring to.

Outside and apart from the murders of United States soldiers and Marines in Iraq, the world is becoming a more friendly place.Not if you live in this world...

you know I don't really remember the strong hatred of the US that I see know oddly enough it all went wrong with Bush hmmm...

as a citizen of one of those nations that is supposedly falling in line I can honestly and truthfully say that the US is looked upon badly

edit: also the source given on how the US provides more using GDP is misleading, the idea that the UK is giving roughly one third is proof of that, CGD shows other wise:

http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/files/2006_CGD.gif

that's quite some rant - feel better now that it is out of your system?

That wasn't a "rant," that was a legitimate response to your post. Which I see you would rather ignore.

Probably because of the cognitive dissonance my thorough WTFPWNAGE causes you.

Concession.... accepted.

that's quite some rant - feel better now that it is out of your system?

Here's a helpful hint if you don't mind? Attacking others for not having a basis for their argument and then dismissing an argument by calling it a rant is not an intelligent debate tactic. Further, providing anecdotal evidence from someone who most likely has a pro USA bias also doesn't really bode well for your argument. You then go on to ridicule people with your (cognitive dissonance) posts. Actually, you should review your understanding of cognitive dissonance as I think there are some aspects you may have missed. Finally, another poster provided a link from the BBC showing global attitudes to be quite contrary to your (the author of the article's actually) thesis. This bears repeating so I'll say it again. One article from a US soldier does not a positive shift in world approval for America make. Spock would be proud of that logic don't you think?

Outside and apart from the murders of United States soldiers and Marines in Iraq, the world is becoming a more friendly place.

"Murder"? I think not.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20071116/COLUMNIST13/711160427/10

Last week's Reaganesque speech by French President Nicolas Sarkozy was amazing. He was more admiring of our country than are many of our politicians. This demonstrates the reality of the strength and virtue of American world leadership under President Bush.

The 1990s witnessed the rise of Islamic terror, the flailing of Russia, the empowering of anti-U.S. leaders, and the bribing of many Europeans through United Nations corruption by tyrants. All is changed for the better. Under Bush the world is shifting decisively in line with U.S. interests.

The establishment last month of AFRICOM, the new U.S. military command focused on Africa, culminates a long effort. Africa was full of terrible conflict through the 1990s. Bush refined efforts to end war and build democratic societies. The results are good with AFRICOM allies in Morocco, Mali, Djibouti, Tanzania, Kenya, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia and Sao Tome & Principe all seeking U.S. bases. CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden's visits to Morocco have found strong efforts against terror in the Arab Maghreb Union, with hope growing to end suffering in Sudan and Chad.

Libya is now our ally, while most wars have ended in Africa. Liberia's impressive leader, Africa's first female president, thanked Bush's "strong resolve" and "the artful diplomacy of the United States that was central to ending our long conflict."

Then she declared, "We will strive to be America's success story in Africa, demonstrating the potential in the transformation from war to peace; demonstrating the will to join in the global fight against terrorism; demonstrating that democracy can prevail."

Even U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, facing last week's trouble in Somalia, declined a peacekeeping mission, saying he'd rather see a U.S.- like "coalition of the willing."

In Asia, independent-minded Japan is remaining a strong ally, leading the advocacy for our National Missile Defense program. An alliance between us, Japan and Australia is forming with profound implications for regional peace and stability. Bush's approach to India is vital because a pro-U.S. shift in alignment will be profound in preventing war.

Bush has advanced a Responsible Stakeholder focus for Chinese foreign policy. We have also encircled China with what can be a future containment strategy. Our military performs many different missions in Asia, such as humanitarian operations in Cambodia.

Europe's pro-U.S. shift is stunning. Not only are Britain, Germany and France moving our way, but so are the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and all of Central Europe. Finland and Sweden are advancing toward NATO membership.

Bush presided over NATO's largest expansion into the defunct Warsaw Pact in 2004, and now our National Missile Defense program is being sought by Poland, Romania and the Czech Republic. This enables vast advances in wartime missions, with the CIA conducting 100,000 operations a year and more than 1,200 rendition flights over Europe alone.

Colombia was about to fall to narco-terrorism in 2000, but is today stabilizing. Bush has built strong relationships with Brazil, Chile, Peru and Uruguay. The anti-U.S. Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, is thereby isolated.

Canada and Mexico have elected strong U.S.-allied conservative leaders. Though this gets lost in the immigration debate, President Felipe Calderon is fighting hard against drug cartels in Mexico. This is important.

Our military carries out missions in more than 120 countries, and Americans give to charities far more than anyone else. Bush builds on this and has achieved great success in bringing much of the world in line with U.S. interests. The challenge of the rise of Germany, Russia, Turkey, China and India are all complex, but under Bush these are handled maturely and wisely. He also is maintaining our military lead in aircraft and in space.

American world leadership under Bush is effective, strong and virtuous.

Some very valid points contained. These are the facts the despisers don't want to consider or even discuss. Go ahead - illustrate your hate and ignorance - or... are you an independent enough thinker that you can break from the crowd, confront your own cognitive dissonance and recognize facts which don't comply with your preconceptions?
WAVE THE FLAG....STRIKE UP THE BAND!!!! NOT!!

Anti-U.S. Sentiment Marks U.N. Gathering (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/22/AR2006092201203.html)

Global Unease With Major World Powers (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=256)

Anti-U.S. Sentiment Grows in Lebanon (http://www.jbs.org/node/681)

There is lots more......

shorter op:

"bush didn't cause a global thermonuclear war - go america!"

WAVE THE FLAG....STRIKE UP THE BAND!!!! NOT!!

Anti-U.S. Sentiment Marks U.N. Gathering (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/22/AR2006092201203.html)

Global Unease With Major World Powers (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=256)

Anti-U.S. Sentiment Grows in Lebanon (http://www.jbs.org/node/681)

There is lots more......Let's not let reality's "liberal bias" get in the way...

Of coarse the rest of the world hates us. We are not appeasers of terrorists, and as of yet have not become socialist communists. As soon as we do both, the world will love us.

The world always hates the big boy on the block, if that were say, canada (however unlikely that may be) everyone would hate them.

"bush didn't cause a global thermonuclear war - go america!"

Yay! *waves flag*
LOL

I don't speak for all the other countries of the world, but the only reason Canadians elected a conservative leader was because we still remembered the fuck-ups of the Liberals and the NDP. Let me assure you that even the people who did vote conservative were strongly uneasy about how close Harper would want to get to Bush.

It's true that things are looking up in Iraq *knocks on wood* and that there have been multiple successes including Libya, Lebanon/Syria and in Africa, but the Euros are still gonna be pissy for a good while, I suspect. :p Of course, the world is more than Old Europe. ;)

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20071116/COLUMNIST13/711160427/10

Last week's Reaganesque speech by French President Nicolas Sarkozy was amazing. He was more admiring of our country than are many of our politicians. This demonstrates the reality of the strength and virtue of American world leadership under President Bush.

The 1990s witnessed the rise of Islamic terror, the flailing of Russia, the empowering of anti-U.S. leaders, and the bribing of many Europeans through United Nations corruption by tyrants. All is changed for the better. Under Bush the world is shifting decisively in line with U.S. interests.

The establishment last month of AFRICOM, the new U.S. military command focused on Africa, culminates a long effort. Africa was full of terrible conflict through the 1990s. Bush refined efforts to end war and build democratic societies. The results are good with AFRICOM allies in Morocco, Mali, Djibouti, Tanzania, Kenya, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia and Sao Tome & Principe all seeking U.S. bases. CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden's visits to Morocco have found strong efforts against terror in the Arab Maghreb Union, with hope growing to end suffering in Sudan and Chad.

Libya is now our ally, while most wars have ended in Africa. Liberia's impressive leader, Africa's first female president, thanked Bush's "strong resolve" and "the artful diplomacy of the United States that was central to ending our long conflict."

Then she declared, "We will strive to be America's success story in Africa, demonstrating the potential in the transformation from war to peace; demonstrating the will to join in the global fight against terrorism; demonstrating that democracy can prevail."

Even U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, facing last week's trouble in Somalia, declined a peacekeeping mission, saying he'd rather see a U.S.- like "coalition of the willing."

In Asia, independent-minded Japan is remaining a strong ally, leading the advocacy for our National Missile Defense program. An alliance between us, Japan and Australia is forming with profound implications for regional peace and stability. Bush's approach to India is vital because a pro-U.S. shift in alignment will be profound in preventing war.

Bush has advanced a Responsible Stakeholder focus for Chinese foreign policy. We have also encircled China with what can be a future containment strategy. Our military performs many different missions in Asia, such as humanitarian operations in Cambodia.

Europe's pro-U.S. shift is stunning. Not only are Britain, Germany and France moving our way, but so are the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and all of Central Europe. Finland and Sweden are advancing toward NATO membership.

Bush presided over NATO's largest expansion into the defunct Warsaw Pact in 2004, and now our National Missile Defense program is being sought by Poland, Romania and the Czech Republic. This enables vast advances in wartime missions, with the CIA conducting 100,000 operations a year and more than 1,200 rendition flights over Europe alone.

Colombia was about to fall to narco-terrorism in 2000, but is today stabilizing. Bush has built strong relationships with Brazil, Chile, Peru and Uruguay. The anti-U.S. Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, is thereby isolated.

Canada and Mexico have elected strong U.S.-allied conservative leaders. Though this gets lost in the immigration debate, President Felipe Calderon is fighting hard against drug cartels in Mexico. This is important.

Our military carries out missions in more than 120 countries, and Americans give to charities far more than anyone else. Bush builds on this and has achieved great success in bringing much of the world in line with U.S. interests. The challenge of the rise of Germany, Russia, Turkey, China and India are all complex, but under Bush these are handled maturely and wisely. He also is maintaining our military lead in aircraft and in space.

American world leadership under Bush is effective, strong and virtuous.

Some very valid points contained. These are the facts the despisers don't want to consider or even discuss. Go ahead - illustrate your hate and ignorance - or... are you an independent enough thinker that you can break from the crowd, confront your own cognitive dissonance and recognize facts which don't comply with your preconceptions?

I'm sorry, but the tone of that article seems a bit heavy on the arschlecking.

That article was so full of shit, the author should be featured on Dirty Jobs.

shorter op:

"bush didn't cause a global thermonuclear war - go america!"

Give him time. There is still one more year! :p

Give him time. There is still one more year! :pYeah, he'll want to leave office with a bang! :D

I don't speak for all the other countries of the world, but the only reason Canadians elected a conservative leader was because we still remembered the fuck-ups of the Liberals and the NDP. Let me assure you that even the people who did vote conservative were strongly uneasy about how close Harper would want to get to Bush.

I think it was just a move to punish the modern Liberal government because Martin was the Finance Minister during the Sponsorship Scandal. And even though Gomery exonerated Martin of any wrong doing, the voters wanted to punish the Liberals anyway. The Conservatives are going to feel the burn next round, especially from voters in the larger cities that desperately need cash.

No wonder Americans are so culturally unaware if this is the only crap they get to read.

Indeed. That was... stunning. Talk about bare propaganda.

The most obvious counterpoint to the article, of course, is that the positions of countries' leaders do not equate with those of countries' peoples. Worldwide public opinion has shifted massively against Bush, by a huge margin. If Bush has done one thing, it's unite the whole world against him.

All is changed for the better. Under Bush the world is shifting decisively in line with U.S. interests.

Those two sentences put together are mind-boggling. Who actually reads that newspaper?

Africa was full of terrible conflict through the 1990s. Bush refined efforts to end war and build democratic societies. The results are good with AFRICOM allies in Morocco, Mali, Djibouti, Tanzania, Kenya, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia and Sao Tome & Principe all seeking U.S. bases.

Oh right, because asking for US bases makes you democratic. That must mean that South Korea in the 1960s was a model democracy, rather than the brutal dictatorship we all thought it was. Also: Equatorial Guinea, democratic? The hell?

CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden's visits to Morocco have found strong efforts against terror in the Arab Maghreb Union

Is this idiot seriously implying that this has anything to do with the US?

Libya is now our ally

Ah yes, America's proud tradition of allying with repressive dictatorships. What was that again about "build[ing] democratic societies" in Africa?

We have also encircled China with what can be a future containment strategy.

I suppose that's for ignorant readers who still think "Oh, noes! Red China! Nasty, danger, COMMIES!". The US and China have hands deep in one another's economic pockets.

Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, is thereby isolated.

What, you mean apart from his close buddies in Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Iran and elsewhere? (Also, that first comma shouldn't be there.)

Canada and Mexico have elected strong U.S.-allied conservative leaders.

Ah. Why am I not surprised? Conservatives = good. Many lies in this article also good. Readers dumb, like good lies. Readers frightened of liberals and commies. Readers like be told everybody love US. That doubleplusgood.

The challenge of the rise of Germany, Russia, Turkey, China and India are all complex, but under Bush these are handled maturely and wisely.

Bush is "handling the challenge of the rise of Germany", is he? What is this, an appeal to grossly stupid readers who think Germany is still some kind of "threat"? We know such people do exist; there have been some in NSG saying America should stay out of the next European war "next time Germany invades everyone".

American world leadership under Bush is effective, strong and virtuous.

Now that is just hilarious. It almost makes me wonder whether the article was written as parody. Sadly, I imagine it wasn't.

A lot less funny is the fact that whoever wrote that article actually got paid to do so.

Of coarse the rest of the world hates us. We are not appeasers of terrorists, and as of yet have not become socialist communists. As soon as we do both, the world will love us.

You just keep on telling yourself that, kiddo. Deluding yourself is so much more soothing than facing the hurts and bruises of reality. The fact that you need to violate your own intelligence with such nonsense and delusions should tell you something, though.

Oh, and the world doesn't "hate the US". A vast majority of the world's public opinion expresses legitimite opposition to the US President. The fact that you are unwilling (or unable) to understand the difference is of no consequence. Your limitations don't somehow alter the truth.

The world always hates the big boy on the block, if that were say, canada (however unlikely that may be) everyone would hate them.

Nope, because

a) People don't hate the United States, they oppose the actions (and rhetoric) of its government.

b) The Canadian government doesn't go around invading other countries, or detaining people without laying charges, without trial, and torturing them.

c) The Canadian government, as far as I know, doesn't try to brainwash its citizens with nationalistic garbage, encouraging them to be ignorant and smothering them with lies and propaganda.

d) Canada hasn't got a history of overthrowing foreign democratic governments, and installing, propping up, funding and arming foreign dictatorships while proclaiming that it is a worldwide "defender of freedom".

e) The Canadian government doesn't claim to be the world's greatest bastion of freedom while executing its own citizens, reducing their civil rights, and restricting their freedom of movement (why the fuck aren't you allowed to go to Cuba?). The so-called "greatest country in the world" has lower life expectancies than most Western nations, higher rates of homicide and violent crime, and the lowest level of press freedom of any Western country (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19388).

I'm so sorry reality has to interfere with your delusions.

No, wait. I'm not sorry at all.

I think it was just a move to punish the modern Liberal government because Martin was the Finance Minister during the Sponsorship Scandal. And even though Gomery exonerated Martin of any wrong doing, the voters wanted to punish the Liberals anyway. The Conservatives are going to feel the burn next round, especially from voters in the larger cities that desperately need cash.

Exactly!

What a piece of right-wing crap...

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20071116/COLUMNIST13/711160427/10
My Lord, what a pile of utter Bullshit!

I believe what's needed to be said is said by others - biased Propaganda and a rather slutty approach where facts are concerned. Let me just point out somethings:


The 1990s witnessed the rise of Islamic terror,
Are you kidding? And you're a history bachellor?? I guess groups like Black September, PLO and Hezbollah doesn't count. I guess the Lockerbie bombing never happened either - or if it did, was something brand new and unheard of?

and the bribing of many Europeans through United Nations corruption by tyrants.
No American could or would ever be bribed or corrupted by tyrants.

All is changed for the better. Under Bush the world is shifting decisively in line with U.S. interests.
Experts seem to disagree with you. This is the first article ever that I can recall where I've seen this claim.

Libya is now our ally,
Are you kidding, or do you have an incredibly wide definition of the term "ally"?

Liberia's impressive leader, Africa's first female president, thanked Bush's "strong resolve" and "the artful diplomacy of the United States that was central to ending our long conflict."
Why don't you credit the UNMIL operation? I mean, you later imply that UN peacekeeping operations are just silly.

And she did:
Johnson-Sirleaf ... said that Washington's intervention "paved the way for a United Nations force that secured our peace and guaranteed free and fair elections".
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_1898982,00.html

Even U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, facing last week's trouble in Somalia, declined a peacekeeping mission, saying he'd rather see a U.S.- like "coalition of the willing."
Because of the situation on the ground in Somalia, not because the so-called "Coalition of the willing" was such a jolly good idea.

American world leadership under Bush is effective, strong and virtuous.
Unproven accusation.


Some very valid points contained. These are the facts the despisers don't want to consider or even discuss. Go ahead - illustrate your hate and ignorance - or... are you an independent enough thinker that you can break from the crowd, confront your own cognitive dissonance and recognize facts which don't comply with your preconceptions?
With this OP, you kinda demonstrated which one you are...

and it's not the last one

Libya is hardly an ally of the US, and neither is anyone else, all that holds the US interest up these days is an uber literal interpretation of realpolitik, the US has no moral high ground.

b) The Canadian government doesn't go around invading other countries, or detaining people without laying charges, without trial, and torturing them.

c) The Canadian government, as far as I know, doesn't try to brainwash its citizens with nationalistic garbage, encouraging them to be ignorant and smothering them with lies and propaganda.

d) Canada hasn't got a history of overthrowing foreign democratic governments, and installing, propping up, funding and arming foreign dictatorships while proclaiming that it is a worldwide "defender of freedom".

e) The Canadian government doesn't claim to be the world's greatest bastion of freedom while executing its own citizens, reducing their civil rights, and restricting their freedom of movement (why the fuck aren't you allowed to go to Cuba?). The so-called "greatest country in the world" has lower life expectancies than most Western nations, higher rates of homicide and violent crime, and the lowest level of press freedom of any Western country (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19388).

I'm so sorry reality has to interfere with your delusions.

No, wait. I'm not sorry at all.
But who really cares about Canada? Seriously, who thinks of Canada as a world power, let alone a dominant world power?

But who really cares about Canada? Seriously, who thinks of Canada as a world power, let alone a dominant world power?

It could be if the Conservatives got kicked out of office. They're too busy being the Bush admin's new lapdog.

It could be if the Conservatives got kicked out of office. They're too busy being the Bush admin's new lapdog.
Nah, your government is too bogged down in paying for all your entitlements. You couldn't manage the foreign aid programs on top of all the welfare that is paid to the citizens.

Of course, most don't realize that Canada is just the The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, so to speak. All we have to do is realize that we're repeating your government's mistakes to the point where we'll have to make hard choices about whether or not we want to remain a real world power.

That's the problem with people who hate Bush all they know of him is what he did wrong. Don't just focus on the wrong focus on what he did that helped us and others. What you people are doing now is what i did with Bill Clinton all I knew of him was what he did wrong not what he did right.


For all those people out there who hate America :upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours: you know where to stick it

Outside and apart from the murders of United States soldiers and Marines in Iraq, the world is becoming a more friendly place.

Keep telling yourself that Myrmi. I'm sure Disney news is your favorite news source.

Please. Friendlier? The world has been the same scumhole it's been ever since people figured out pointy sticks could hurt others. And one incompetent monkey of a president is going to change all that?

That's just laughable.

that's quite some rant - feel better now that it is out of your system?

Translated


I am incapable of holding an argument because I am incapable of conceiving inconvenient facts. Only propaganda.

Goebbels is that you?

The world always hates the big boy on the block, if that were say, canada (however unlikely that may be) everyone would hate them.

Because more often than not, the big boy is often the bully. Take a good long hard look at all the places America has gone too in the past 30 years or so. Longer actually.

Kidnappings, wholesale slaughter of civilians, blatant chemical weapons use, destabilizing nations, supporting terrorist groups, fueling proxy wars and more.

Of course you'd rather not see it. Because then you'd have to admit to just how stained your hands are. Better to hide behind those rosy goggles and pretend to false innocence.

But who really cares about Canada? Seriously, who thinks of Canada as a world power, let alone a dominant world power?

Nah, your government is too bogged down in paying for all your entitlements. You couldn't manage the foreign aid programs on top of all the welfare that is paid to the citizens.

Of course, most don't realize that Canada is just the The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, so to speak. All we have to do is realize that we're repeating your government's mistakes to the point where we'll have to make hard choices about whether or not we want to remain a real world power.

Wow, Myrmi...great job on showing just how uneducated you are, especially with the idea of Canada being a "Ghost of Christmas to come" for the U.S. They've made mistakes, and they treat their First Nationers very poorly, but they're far better than we are at this point.

Further, this idea that Canada has no military power is ludicrous. Sure, they don't have all that LARGE of a military now, mainly because--guess what--they don't need it! Their only border with another country is with one of their closest allies who also happens to have the most powerful military in the world, and thus they rely upon the U.S. for protection.

BUT

When that WASN'T the case, you damn well better believe Canada had a powerful military. Canada was not just a bit player in World War II...they were right in the thick of it the whole time.

And they're most certainly a world leader in their own way, when it comes to sensible domestic and foreign policies. Sure, they're not a superpower, but they never claimed to be one and probably don't want to be one.

"Canada and Mexico have elected strong U.S.-allied conservative leaders."

This pretty much discredited the rest of the article for me. Electing Harper had nothing, absolutely *nothing* to do with Bush; in fact, cow-towing to American interests is widely seen as a negative in Canadian politics.

That the writer of this article would take something utterly unrelated and try to twist it to support his viewpoint, thereby giving the impression that an entire country of people support a man that they by and large do not, makes it impossible for me to take the rest of the piece seriously. Sure, I could read it over and fact-check every statement he makes.. but I have better things to do with the next hour and a half. If someone writes an article and wants it to be honestly considered, it's their job to make it presentable and unbiased, not mine.

That the writer of this article would take something utterly unrelated and try to twist it to support his viewpoint

I can't help but look at the creationism thread and see the similarities in argument style by the creationism proponents and the Op. Did you notice it too?

that's quite some rant - feel better now that it is out of your system?

Can we all please stop responding to the troll?

Some trolls have talent and make it sound like they've got a position, but this one isn't worth it.

Wow, Myrmi...great job on showing just how uneducated you are, especially with the idea of Canada being a "Ghost of Christmas to come" for the U.S. They've made mistakes, and they treat their First Nationers very poorly, but they're far better than we are at this point.

Further, this idea that Canada has no military power is ludicrous. Sure, they don't have all that LARGE of a military now, mainly because--guess what--they don't need it! Their only border with another country is with one of their closest allies who also happens to have the most powerful military in the world, and thus they rely upon the U.S. for protection.

BUT

When that WASN'T the case, you damn well better believe Canada had a powerful military. Canada was not just a bit player in World War II...they were right in the thick of it the whole time.

And they're most certainly a world leader in their own way, when it comes to sensible domestic and foreign policies. Sure, they're not a superpower, but they never claimed to be one and probably don't want to be one.
They don't need a large military force because they don't have any reason to back up a foreign policy. Name a major foreign policy initiated by Canadians in the last five years. You agree with everything I said. Canada is not a world power. In fact, they drain our resources because we provide military protection for no real compensation.

Further, a nation can't have much military on 1 percent of it's GDP.

Most of what you say is correct, though. Canada _was_ a major world power. Now, it's a has-been. That's the penalty for universal welfare.

They don't need a large military force because they don't have any reason to back up a foreign policy. Name a major foreign policy initiated by Canadians in the last five years.

Pfft, if your idea of major foreign policy is "go and invade some other nation" or "militarily contain some other nation" it's a good thing you're not in politics.


In fact, they drain our resources because we provide military protection for no real compensation.


Pfft, you mean like Japanese "compensation" by paying to provide their own water, land and electricity to American bases on their soil?

They don't need a large military force because they don't have any reason to back up a foreign policy. Name a major foreign policy initiated by Canadians in the last five years. You agree with everything I said. Canada is not a world power. In fact, they drain our resources because we provide military protection for no real compensation.

Further, a nation can't have much military on 1 percent of it's GDP.

Most of what you say is correct, though. Canada _was_ a major world power. Now, it's a has-been. That's the penalty for universal welfare.

No, it's the penalty for allowing the "Common Sense Revolution" take hold. It's the repercussions of tax cuts while not properly planning finances for vital services. For downloading services that were typically in provincial jurisdictions onto municipalities, leaving them cash strapped and having to beg the provincial and federal governments for a cut of the GST, which instead was used to make a a tax cut that looks good for the short term but in the long term affects the nation's spending power.

They don't need a large military force because they don't have any reason to back up a foreign policy. Name a major foreign policy initiated by Canadians in the last five years. You agree with everything I said. Canada is not a world power. In fact, they drain our resources because we provide military protection for no real compensation.

Further, a nation can't have much military on 1 percent of it's GDP.

Most of what you say is correct, though. Canada _was_ a major world power. Now, it's a has-been. That's the penalty for universal welfare.

I love how you don't listen. I didn't agree with your point and the conclusion you drew, which was the main heart of what we're talking about. You've failed to show anything to prove what you're saying. Why would Canada have to institute major foreign policy, and how the HELL does universal "welfare" (Say what? Since when does Canada give out free money to people for no reason?) somehow prevent them from being able to be a "world power"?

Once again, as we both agreed, the only really important foreign policy bit that would require a military is already fulfilled by the most powerful nation in the world(fulfilled not for no reason mind, but for a large number of strategic reasons when it comes to homeland defense). The only other thing they do is trade, which they're able to do so without a hugely powerful military. Canada is doing fantastically well for itself all things considered. (You know what's funny? Despite all of the extra stuff the government pays for, they actually have a smaller average income tax level than we do! :D)

Now, I'm a republican, but I have to say, this article is BS. All he's done is screw up the worlds perception of the US and turn alot of republicans away from the party.

That's the problem with people who hate Bush all they know of him is what he did wrong. Don't just focus on the wrong focus on what he did that helped us and others. What you people are doing now is what i did with Bill Clinton all I knew of him was what he did wrong not what he did right.Clinton had sex :fluffle: with Lewinsky, why is that so bad?

besides the fact that she is ugly.
Yes he was married, but lots of people do have extramarital sex these days..
http://www.nycdiet.com/nycdiet/images/monicalewinskyfat.jpg

Ladies and Gentlemen, it's the return of FreedomAndGlory.

They don't need a large military force because they don't have any reason to back up a foreign policy. Name a major foreign policy initiated by Canadians in the last five years. You agree with everything I said. Canada is not a world power.
Wait, I thought we were on some sort of UN council that was pretty important, aren't we?

In fact, they drain our resources because we provide military protection for no real compensation.
1. bullshit
2. yes, having a major trading partner safe isn't compensation.

Further, a nation can't have much military on 1 percent of it's GDP.
When you don't pretend to be the world police, you don't need a huge military. Also, we have some idea of priorities, for instance, our government provides universal health care instead of an unnecessarily large military.

Most of what you say is correct, though. Canada _was_ a major world power. Now, it's a has-been. That's the penalty for universal welfare.
While it may have been a while since I've taken Canadian history, if I recall, the only time we were more of a world power than we are now is when we were still British. Canada's doing just fine and we'd be doing better if our neighbours weren't jerks who keep ripping us off in trade agreements when it's inconvenient for them.

Outside and apart from the murders of United States soldiers and Marines in Iraq, the world is becoming a more friendly place.
I can't figure out if you are just out of touch with reality or just a bloody troll.

Perhaps both? :eek:

Normally as me being a republican, this is crap......some of it is true, but most is just dispicable even to the party's standards. Well, you cant always blame everything on the president like the democrats do every so often......come to think of it, they do it all the time! And I haven't seen them do any thing right for the past decade or two. I guess somethings go down so low that they unusually rise back up. And I salute all the French people and there snails for supporting the U.S. like the used to. And personally, Bush would beat *shudder shudder* Hilary Clinton (thunder and scary music) any day in the oval office

So now, to praise how screwed up the U.S.A. is, I will do a short on things found only in America....

Things Found Only In America:

1. Only in America......can a pizza get to your house faster than an ambulance.

2. Only in America......are there handicap parking places in front of a skating rink.

3. Only in America......do drugstores make the sick walk all the way to the back of the store to get their prescriptions while healthy people can buy cigarettes at the front.

4. Only in America......do people buy diet beverages when the only change in the drink is the label.

5. Only in America......do banks leave both doors to the vault open and then chain the pens to the counters.

6. Only in America......do we leave cars worth thousands of dollars in the driveway and put our useless junk in the garage.

7. Only in America......do we use answering machines to screen calls and then have call waiting so we won't miss a call from someone we didn't want to talk to in the first place.

8. Only in America......do we buy hot dogs in packages of ten and the buns in packages of eight.

9. Only in America......do we use the word "politics" to describe the process so well: "poli" in Latin meaning "many" and "tics" meaning "bloodsucking creatures."

10. Only in America......do they have drive-up ATM machines with Braille lettering.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it's the return of FreedomAndGlory.
Ya think so?

Ya think so?

Pretentious account name (Although less pretentious than before), a post that's an unabashed cult-like worship of George W. Bush and either associates unrelated events as success on his part or brings up mostly unproven hyperbole about how he is improving the world. Not to mention try and pre-emptively dismiss any criticism or critique as cognitive dissonance or outright treason.

It just makes the old spider senses tingle in a familiar way.

Further, a nation can't have much military on 1 percent of it's GDP.

Most of what you say is correct, though. Canada _was_ a major world power. Now, it's a has-been. That's the penalty for universal welfare.


So what, social welfare and universal healthcare means you can't pay for a military? Strange, I was under the impression that the second biggest military spender in the world was the UK, the third of course being France, neither of which have any for of social welfare of course (yes, that was sarcasm).

Also, recent OCED statistics indicate that the Canadian government gives a higher percentage of it's GNP to foreign aide that the US, actually most developed countries do. The US manages .17%, Canada .3%, the most is Sweden with 1.03% (the UK, btw is nice and middling with .53%).

Pretentious account name (Although less pretentious than before), a post that's an unabashed cult-like worship of George W. Bush and either associates unrelated events as success on his part or brings up mostly unproven hyperbole about how he is improving the world. Not to mention try and pre-emptively dismiss any criticism or critique as cognitive dissonance or outright treason.

It just makes the old spider senses tingle in a familiar way.

Sorry, but Mystic Skeptic was around before FreedomAndGlory vanished.

Try again.

WAVE THE FLAG....STRIKE UP THE BAND!!!! NOT!!

Anti-U.S. Sentiment Marks U.N. Gathering (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/22/AR2006092201203.html)

Global Unease With Major World Powers (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=256)

Anti-U.S. Sentiment Grows in Lebanon (http://www.jbs.org/node/681)

There is lots more......

CH, CH...how dare you bring facts into the discussion! :mad:








:p

This thread's a joke, right?

Nah, your government is too bogged down in paying for all your entitlements. You couldn't manage the foreign aid programs on top of all the welfare that is paid to the citizens.



Canada donate more of their GDP than the US, O spouter of shite. I suggest redressing your ignorance and apologising.

lord shrubery the simple has presided of bullying the rest of the world into kissing america's ass. how long will his successors be able to continue to make that stick? even with the most powerful military on the planet? and how long will, or even can that last?

i don't claim to know how long anything will, but i can say, even a giant can get in trouble if it makes enough little guys pissed. and it isn't just the littlest of nations that are growing vocally and visably weary of this callus disreguard for not only their own soverignty, but that of all humanity, and of the very web of life, upon which all life, human and otherwise, utterly depends.

=^^=
.../\...

The rest of the world is just getting ready for a new and improved US president.

Seeing as how our democracies take several years to get ready, we need an early start.

It has very little to do with Bush and everything to do with his successor.

This thread's a joke, right?

Yes.

Oh, wait, you mean an intentional joke? No.

Last week's Reaganesque speech by French President Nicolas Sarkozy was amazing. He was more admiring of our country than are many of our politicians. This demonstrates the reality of the strength and virtue of American world leadership under President Bush.And Sarkozy praising the US to get the French economy some juicy contracts from formerly-hesistant American 'Patriots' without spending a single cent - yet alone the life of a soldier - on Iraq (Admittedly, they are, and have taken losses, in Afghanistan, but this was, amazingly, before Sarkozy was elected) beats France jumping immediately to aid in Iraq round one, how exactly?

Besides, Sarkozy wasn't elected for his pro-US stance. He was elected because France needs internal change (Whether he'll change it for the better is up to debate).

The 1990s witnessed the rise of Islamic terrorI figure the seventies and eighties never happened?

the empowering of anti-U.S. leadersThat thing that's happened since the US were founded? Nothing new there.

and the bribing of many Europeans through United Nations corruption by tyrants. All is changed for the better.The same article then counting Libya (Not only Libya, mind. But we'll come to that in a bit) as an 'Ally' just causes laughter.

Though admittedly, Europe is happily fellating Ghaddafi, too (Much to my annoyance), so I suppose it's fair to say that entities on both sides of the atlantic are wankers.

Still, forgetting the not inconsiderable number of tyrants the US has backed - regardless of which party was in control - is kinda sad...

Africa was full of terrible conflict through the 1990s.And the eighties. And the seventies. And the sixties. The fifties, too. Not to mention the 2000s... And the country that probably did most to end it (Again, success is debatable) was...

... France.

The results are good with AFRICOM allies in Morocco, Mali, Djibouti, Tanzania, Kenya, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia and Sao Tome & Principe all seeking U.S. bases.Yes... And mentioning all these after bitching a few paragraphs earlier about Europe spporting tyrants is, once again, hilarious in the extreme.

Might be worth looking up these countries, really.

Even U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, facing last week's trouble in Somalia, declined a peacekeeping mission, saying he'd rather see a U.S.- like "coalition of the willing."Well, yeah. Peacekeeping missions only work when both sides want peace but simply don't trust each other, which isn't the case in Somalia. To win a war, a central will and the application of force are necessary. Sadly, this is the only point I'm agreeing with so far, and also the only one that could be considered vaguely sane.

In Asia, independent-minded Japan is remaining a strong ally, leading the advocacy for our National Missile Defense program.... so? Japan sits rather close to North Korea. They aren't advocating the program because they love the US, they're advocating it because they want to get cheap defence - US-paid, of course.

Europe's pro-U.S. shift is stunning. Not only are Britain, Germany and France moving our way, but so are the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and all of Central Europe.We'll for now ignore public opinion (That one can be changed relatively easily, anyway), and observe:

Britain pulled out of Iraq
All the central/ eastern europeans pulled out of Iraq
None of the nations who weren't in the thing in the first place are moving into Iraq
Germany doesn't like the US, it's simply desiring to keep its economy up (Which is difficult when the US is pissed), and Merkel fellates Bush for a permanent UN-security council seat, while swallowing (Hee!) her anger about the CIA happily abducting German citizens and keeping them for years. And then declaring the whole matter 'Relevant for national security' and refusing a trial of those responsible (Admittedly, such a trial should see a handful of Germans being tried, too).

Bush presided over NATO's largest expansion into the defunct Warsaw Pact in 2004, and now our National Missile Defense program is being sought by Poland, Romania and the Czech Republic.Which was organised and prepared under Clinton. These aren't Bush's laurals, sorry.

He also is maintaining our military lead in aircraft and in space.Since all newly developed kit procured in the 2000's was developed in the eighties and nineties, any such edge was achieved during the presidencies of Reagan, Bush Sr. (Infinitely preferable to Bush Jr., I might add), and Clinton. Whether Bush Jr. helped any with this, we'll see in ten, twenty years.

Glad the article's author is proving his ignorance on such matters, though.

American world leadership under Bush is effectiveSo, the Bush administration successfully prevented the death of a few thousand American citizens through having planes fall out of the sky, then successfully catched the ringleader of this devillish plot, successfully stabilised the two countries the Administration decided to invade, turning them into fledging and working democracies and good allies, got the entirety of NATO to pull this very feat off without issues...

A very impressive feat indeed. And quite different to Clinton's results - who failed to get NATO to participate in the Kosovo conflict, and turned Serbia into a breeding ground for terrorists & insurgents killing American soldiers on a daily basis.

Oh, wait...

(On a related note, I like how the American conservatives are always bitching about the 'Cowardly' democrats. Given that it's usually the Democrats who win their wars, and the Conservatives who abandon them)

strongCertainly strong enough to get kicked in the balls by a bunch of goatfuckers who have troubles reading their Qu'ran. Fantastic! Maybe you'll soon be strong enough to steal a lolli from a toddler :-)

and virtuousYes. Using torture for fun, indefinitely detaining innocents (Oh, and torturing them, too) - knowing that they're innocent, no less -, happily allying with every tinpot dictator shooting protesters so long as they support the 'War on Terror', completely ignoring the warnings of about half the military when staging its invasions - thus sacrificing natives as well as American soldiers once things ceased to go as planned -, nevermind lying to its own people about the reasons for the war (Fabricating 'Evidence', among other things), totally virtuous, that.

Some very valid points contained. These are the facts the despisers don't want to consider or even discuss. Go ahead - illustrate your hate and ignorance - or... are you an independent enough thinker that you can break from the crowd, confront your own cognitive dissonance and recognize facts which don't comply with your preconceptions?That's what I'd like to ask you, really.

That's the problem with people who hate Bush all they know of him is what he did wrong. Don't just focus on the wrong focus on what he did that helped us and others. What you people are doing now is what i did with Bill Clinton all I knew of him was what he did wrong not what he did right. Things Bush did right: Instead of playing the typical American "Ah, yeah, well fuck you!" after the Western powers were referred to as stingy in response to the Tsunami relief, he increased aid. I applaud him for that. By no means will that nor his timely response to the fires in California absolve him of fucking up Iraq, fucking up Federal response during Katrina, nor his isolation of America from traditional allies.

I can't help but look at the creationism thread and see the similarities in argument style by the creationism proponents and the Op. Did you notice it too?

Well, they are creationists. It's no surprise that they would "Intelligently Design" their facts.

Things Bush did right: Instead of playing the typical American "Ah, yeah, well fuck you!" after the Western powers were referred to as stingy in response to the Tsunami relief, he increased aid. I applaud him for that. By no means will that nor his timely response to the fires in California absolve him of fucking up Iraq, fucking up Federal response during Katrina, nor his isolation of America from traditional allies.

True, any terrible or "evil" leader can do some good. But the fact remains that their few good contributions are mired by all the shit they've done to fuck over the world.

Pretentious account name (Although less pretentious than before), a post that's an unabashed cult-like worship of George W. Bush and either associates unrelated events as success on his part or brings up mostly unproven hyperbole about how he is improving the world. Not to mention try and pre-emptively dismiss any criticism or critique as cognitive dissonance or outright treason.

It just makes the old spider senses tingle in a familiar way.
Well, MTAE recently posted here at NSG, so perhaps you are correct.

Actually, isn't Australia about to join Britain in an anti-US shift?

Actually, isn't Australia about to join Britain in an anti-US shift?

Well they're actually doing something about global warming, or claiming that they will. The US still refuses to believe that it's happening.

CH, CH...how dare you bring facts into the discussion! :mad:








:p
It is called balancing the BS ledger!! :D

Well they're actually doing something about global warming, or claiming that they will. The US still refuses to believe that it's happening.Oh, that's not true. The Federal Government just isn't interested in any committments, possibly because it doesn't feel like doing anything about it. Bush has signed plenty of things that admit there is Global Warming, the most recent I can think of being the Gleneagles Summit's ending declaration.

Can we all please stop responding to the troll?

Some trolls have talent and make it sound like they've got a position, but this one isn't worth it.

LOL - let me translate - "OMG my simple little construct of the world can't handle this cognitive dissonance!!! My mind eez fracturing!!! Must be the work of a troll!!!!"


Please - everyone keep on posting - the hypocracy and sheer hysteria of these posts is amusing. I find it funny how making the statement that good things have happened as a reult of Bush an/or the United States can create such a gripe-fest - full of rseponses which are far more empty than the ones they proclaim to be hollow.

It is this sort of hysteria which will likely lead to the dems, once again, walking away without the presidency. It is always emotion over substance. The whole world , as was discussed in the OP, is now getting wise to this. Liberals will need to find a new substance other than Bush and America are eeevil if they ever want to regain credibility. (which so far accounts for 90% of the content of every liberal message)

Now - please continue with the show.

Well they're actually doing something about global warming, or claiming that they will. The US still refuses to believe that it's happening.

read - "You're either with the environmentalists or you're against them"...

Well, they are creationists. It's no surprise that they would "Intelligently Design" their facts.

Maybe so, but this one isn't arguing creationism here. However, there is a common link between creationists argument methodology and neo-conservative spin method. Coincidence? Or maybe not.

Actually, the continuation of the Op's avoidance of anything even resembling an argument (plugging one's ears and going "Nananana! You're wrong!" is not an argument) and inflammatory comments is more indicative of troll work than anything else.

And if you disagree Mystic Skeptics, you're an intellectually void carrot who must construct vague accusations and wild conspiracies in order to soothe whatever scraps of an ego you can scrape together to fulfill your utter lack of personal worth.

I can do sweeping statements too.

Actually, the continuation of the Op's avoidance of anything even resembling an argument (plugging one's ears and going "Nananana! You're wrong!" is not an argument) and inflammatory comments is more indicative of troll work than anything else.

And if you disagree Mystic Skeptics, you're an intellectually void carrot who must construct vague accusations and wild conspiracies in order to soothe whatever scraps of an ego you can scrape together to fulfill your utter lack of personal worth.

I can do sweeping statements too.

That's right - you are the pinnacle of thoughtful arguments and never utter inflammatory comments, as illustrated by your first post in this thread;

Keep telling yourself that Myrmi. I'm sure Disney news is your favorite news source.

Please. Friendlier? The world has been the same scumhole it's been ever since people figured out pointy sticks could hurt others. And one incompetent monkey of a president is going to change all that?

That's just laughable.

ROFLMAO!

I enjoy poking fun at liberals as much as the next guy, but starting a thread for the apparent purpose of baiting and trolling is still against the rules.

So knock it off.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia