Next US government faces the world's opinion on the USA

[XT]

Before I get into this at all, let me just make a quick comment to Aldebaran. Its fairly obvious that you are not a native english speaker. Myself, I can sympathize with that, as I am not either, though I am a US citizen and I think my english is quite good now. I still have problems with spelling and syntax and such, so I can certainly understand your position.

For the US’ers wh are a bit hurt in their patriotistic feelings by the nice black/white shades of my points:

Maybe you don’t realize just how inflamatory your remarks truely are. The people sniping at you aren’t all flag wavers…a number of them are very much so against the war, or neutral about it (such as I).

However your remarks are so clearly over the top that you are getting no hearing for any valid point you may make. Let me give you an example: If I started a debate saying that you, Aldebaran, fornicated with goats. And then, having made that outrageous statement, went on to ask questions like, is it right for you to fornicate with those goats? Isn’t it cruel that you put them through that? Shouldn’t something be done? I’m asking leading questions based on an inflamatory position. Do you understand at all what I’m getting at? I’m trying to HELP you here, for your future posts.

From Aldebaran

Yet the problem is what I describe as the reputation of the USA being lower then zero. Allies have seen how they were treated and how childish and over-reacting this was on top of it.

This is a good example IMO. Here you are saying that the USA’s reputation in the world is lower than zero (at least I THINK thats what you are saying…its unclear). However, you’ve made this statement several times so I think this is what you are getting at. However, its unclear to me that this is the case. I’m not going to say that people in the rest of the world are happy with the USA (especially atm), but its a long stretch to say that we have zero credibility with the world. If thats the case, why is the US being dragged into such issues at Liberia and NK? They aren’t in OUR back yards after all, and the American people as a whole don’t have a dog in those fights at all (no oil there after all). Yet we are being asked to help…ask yourself why, then re-examine your premise that the US has zero credibility with the world. Then ask yourself this: If there were a disaster in the world, millions hurt or starving or dieing, which country would you EXPECT to help? Many countries would help of course, but there is one country, if you are being honest with yourself, that you would EXPECT to help out. Which country is that, Aldebaran? Now re-examine your premise of zero credibility again.
From Aldebaran

2. How in your view this can be resolved by an eventual other president and government/administration

I think that time will be the deciding factor more so than a new administration. Eventually our relationships with the other countries of the world (if not with their populations, perhaps) will fully normalize again, until the next clash over national wills. The other countries understand what you appearently don’t…that ANY sovereign nation has to act in its best interests sometimes (or what it percieves to be its best interest), but that you can’t let differences like that stand in the way of realpolitic issues like trade and commerce. The other thing that most of the countries out there understand is that the world NEEDS America. I know it grates to some people, and especially to some countries, but its plain truth.

I’m not sure what Gore’s actions would have been given the events of 9/11, but I KNOW he would have been forced to do SOMETHING. And doing something, he also would have pissed off a certain percentage of the worlds population, especially in the Middle East, as thats most likely WHERE he would have been doing it. I doubt whether he would have pissed off such a large percentage, as I doubt whether we would have dealt with Iraq at all (though there always the possibility it would have mearly been Iran instead…and wouldn’t THAT have been a barrel of laughs). However, you are fooling yourself if you think that any other administration would have sat on its hands after 9/11. The people DEMANDED action, and whoever was at the helm would have had to do something.

From Aldebaran

3. What the result of re-election of Mr. Bush shall be when it comes to this today almost non existing reputation of the USA.

What result will the re-election of Bush have? Well, we’ll get more of the same as we’ve been getting I suppose. Overall, I doubt it will have any additional negative effects (worldwide that is), as it seems to me at least, relationships with the other NATIONS are already beginning the process of normalizing. I’d say the biggest tradegy of Bush getting re-elected (god forbid) is to ourselves, and will be more internally oriented (i.e. the economy, environmental issues, etc). No matter who is elected at this point, the US will continue to occupy Iraq and Afganistan. It will contiune to cost money and lives. In the end it will work out (IMO), but it will be VERY costly for the US. The next Adminstration will still have to deal with this, and all the negative effects we’ve already incurred (political, economic, diplomatic, etc).

I guess, reading between the lines, what you are asking is if we think Bush will go off on some rampage and attack some other countries unless he’s voted out of office. I’m sure you aren’t alone wondering this, but I doubt it. I think militarily we shot our bolt. I know America LOOKS all powerful, but we are strapped atm and doubt we could possibly throw another conventional war without stripping everything out of Iraq…which would kind of defeat the purpose. In addition, from non military reasons, I doubt we could justify another war unless we are deliberately attacked by some other country (which I don’t see happening…say what you will, but Afganistan/Iraq had the very real effect of causing several of the more odious countries to keep their heads down). I think the reason Iraq was picked was because it put itself in a very special circumstance which ALLOWED us to attack it (I know many of you don’t agree with this). I have no doubt that the real reasons for attacking were NOT those used, but the truth of the matter was that SH helped us to do it. I’m sure he doesn’t see it that way though.
-XT

p.s. Friendly advice: In future, try and be a bit more level headed and less inflamatory with your OPs, Aldebaran, and you will get a much better response on this board. No country is without sins, the US is no exception. However, try not to demonize and conflate things more than they are. Try for less retorical and inflamatory language, and you will get more of the response you are looking for. Several of the folks that flamed you in this thread actually SUPPORT some of your positions, but you state them so over the top that they can’t look beyond that.

[sickboy51]

*Originally posted by Mehitabel *
**Sickboy, didn’t you grow up under a facist government? Americans have forgiven Spaniards for allowing Franco to spend most of the century ruling over them, don’t worry. I think you compare our current government to the terrible situation you endured growing up–but even Bush’s harhest critics wouldn’t concede that. Worst comes to worst, he’ll be out of office by 2008, and rest assured the world will still be spinning. **

No, because when I was born, Franca had already died and the constitution was approved.
Explaining the civil war and how Franco was ruling the country would take me too long. If you have interest in learning more I would suggest to read these books:
The Spanish Republic and the Civil War (1931-1939) by Gabriel Jackson
and ** Modern Spain 1875-1980** by Raymond Carr
Anyway I would point out a couple of facts.
Franco received aid (weapons, supplies) from Germany and Italy, while the republican band received none.
After the war the country was crushed, most people only wanted to live in peace so they just had to accept the regime.
After WWII USA aided greatly Franco´s regime (remmember plan Marshall?) because Franco was anti-communist. USA has the rigth to use now some military bases and facilities here in Spain which, by the way, are of vital importance for your operations in the middle west (the Eisenhower carrier pays a visit once in a while, and not just to say “hi”).
So what forgiveness are you talking about?
Anyway I wasn´t comparing both situations and, honestly I don´t know what point you wanna make here. Maybe you just want to show me that my country is way too far to have a “perfect” history. I know, and how do I know. Your goovernment manipulates (or at least try) you as mine does with us. Every single government tries to manipulte people more or less, no one is innocent. Let´s just say that USA´s reasons to attack Iraq are more than suspicious to me. I didn´t beleive Bush and anything good to Iraqi people coming from the war is yet to show. We´ll see.
And as it seems that nobody understand what is, after all, my point, I will say it in a single sentence.
we are your allies, respect us and we´ll respect you, support us and we´ll support you. I think that is pretty clear, fair and reasonable.

[GoHeels]

I often wonder what the America-bashers would do if their dreams of less American influence in the world were actually fulfilled.

• Exhibit A: South Korea. I’ve been reading with interest how rich, spoiled, South Korean college kids, who have grown up in prosperity made possible because of an American security umbrella, are now burning American flags and calling the U.S. forces stationed there “imperialists.” :rolleyes: (note to S.K. moron college students - yeah, we Americans just love using our troops as sacrificial lambs to make sure your country isn’t run over by the “Dear Leader.” Also, please let me know how you intend to defend yourself without the U.S. security umbrella while not spending your country broke and maintaining your “independence.” Can’t wait to hear your plan.)

Let’s just see what happens without those bastard Americans to protect you. I hear gulags in Seoul are lovely this time of year.

[Rashak_Mani]

Some of the responses and comments here seem to infer that we Bush haters are silly because we hate a man… and he doesnt represent the US.

Now there is something being taken lightly here… and its the fact that Bush did change how the US is governed and how it relates to other countries. So when we say “Bush” we mean Bush and Rummy and Powell and Rice… and every other aspect of his govt. If you guys think its the same as before or 9/11 prompted these negative necessities that is not true. Even before 9/11 Bush and the changes made were seen as a major backward step.

As for hating America because we dont like Bush... I agree... we might take too strong a language or position... but what happens when Bush gets reelected ? Then maybe we have the right to complain about America itself.... ?

GoHeels… so South Koreans have to drool and bow everytime they have to speak about the US ? Dont they have the right to be critical of the current admin or how its handling North Korea ? I agree they take it too far thou…

Mehibatel… its not only about wealth or well to do Brazilians being tourists… its about the “biggest” country in the world closing itself… trying to get into its protective shell. The US isnt only and economic and military might… it used to be a moral leader too… that leadership status was wounded… maybe definetly. That I remember the Cold war wasnt only about setting petty dictators… it was about presenting a better model. Now everytime we enter this board we hear about “the land of the free” or “democracies last bastion”… silly. It seems to be going the opposite direction now.

[Mehitabel]

Wait a minute–America is being imperialist AND closing itself off? I don’t get it.

As for Bush changing things, well, that’s what Presidents DO, no matter who they are. They make their mark. If their own personalities are low-key, like Jimmy Carter’s, then that’s how things are around the world. Of course, the geniality and consensus-building attitude of Carter didn’t stop the Iranians from taking our embassy employees hostage, against all national law, so I don’t think that whoever’s in the White House will stop fanactics of any stripe from doing what they want.

[Mehitabel]

Won’t stop the fanatics either. Sheesh.

Rashak, your English is pretty good; what sorts of American media do you read? Things here are much more nuanced than you’re depicting them.

[notquitekarpov]

John Mace - my advice to you is just travel the world (not suggesting you do not or are not well travelled) and engage with ordinary people. I have been doing so pretty much regularly for the past twenty years. Hell, I was working twenty miles for the border when Ronnie Reagan did this stuff on Tripoli back in the mid-80’s, and honestly I have never seen so much contempt and, frankly, fear of what craziness the current US government has done thus far and might do in the future if the public agenda holds it’s course.

Honestly, this is not a rant or a fantasy - it is really out there and the US would be very best advised to try and deal with it. Not re-electing Bush (just a friendly suggestion!) would be a start - consigning the NeoCon agenda better but somehow it needs a "new deal’ for the American people to give them a real choice IMHO. As other posters have correctly stated the Democrats might not have been too far behind Bush - at least on Afghanistan anyway.

Eventually, just maybe, the views of “we the people” in the rest of the world might just have some influence on things… (I live in hope - what else can you do?)

[Aldebaran]

*Originally posted by xtisme *
If I started a debate saying that you, Aldebaran, fornicated with goats. And then, having made that outrageous statement, went on to ask questions like, is it right for you to fornicate with those goats? Isn’t it cruel that you put them through that? Shouldn’t something be done? I’m asking leading questions based on an inflamatory position. Do you understand at all what I’m getting at? I’m trying to HELP you here, for your future posts.

You made me smile here.
I don’t see any relation between what I posted and what you make of it. May I ask you to read my OP again?

This is a good example IMO. Here you are saying that the USA’s reputation in the world is lower than zero (at least I THINK thats what you are saying…its unclear). However, you’ve made this statement several times so I think this is what you are getting at. However, its unclear to me that this is the case.

That is obvious.

I’m not going to say that people in the rest of the world are happy with the USA (especially atm), but its a long stretch to say that we have zero credibility with the world. If thats the case, why is the US being dragged into such issues at Liberia and NK? They aren’t in OUR back yards after all, and the American people as a whole don’t have a dog in those fights at all (no oil there after all). Yet we are being asked to help…ask yourself why, then re-examine your premise that the US has zero credibility with the world. Then ask yourself this: If there were a disaster in the world, millions hurt or starving or dieing, which country would you EXPECT to help? Many countries would help of course, but there is one country, if you are being honest with yourself, that you would EXPECT to help out. Which country is that, Aldebaran? Now re-examine your premise of zero credibility again.

Read my next posts also please.
I said that it I offer -for free- an intellectual challenge to my readers to paint the shades of grey and eventually bright colours to my posts. Especially those who only serve as background for following questions. Grammar and spelling corrections are also welcomed.

I think that time will be the deciding factor more so than a new administration. Eventually our relationships with the other countries of the world (if not with their populations, perhaps) will fully normalize again, until the next clash over national wills. The other countries understand what you appearently don’t…that ANY sovereign nation has to act in its best interests sometimes (or what it percieves to be its best interest), but that you can’t let differences like that stand in the way of realpolitic issues like trade and commerce. The other thing that most of the countries out there understand is that the world NEEDS America. I know it grates to some people, and especially to some countries, but its plain truth.

I think you are a little bit underestimating me.
But what you maybe don’t understand, is that the interests of other nations aren’t automatically in line with the interests of the USA. And as much as you think the world needs the USA, the USA needs the world. Without the constant influx of the worlds best minds, for example, the USA would be nowhere. Without the work of non US’ers in the USA, their contribution to its economy and development in a variety of field, the USA wouldn’t be what it is today. Without the consumers of US made products worldwide, the USA economy would be nowhere. Without import of basic products (oil for example) from the outside, the USA would be nowhere.
We live in a world where no nation can survive without others. Therefore exaggerated patriotism and arrogance is contraproductive for every nation.

I’m not sure what Gore’s actions would have been given the events of 9/11, but I KNOW he would have been forced to do SOMETHING. And doing something, he also would have pissed off a certain percentage of the worlds population, especially in the Middle East, as thats most likely WHERE he would have been doing it. I doubt whether he would have pissed off such a large percentage, as I doubt whether we would have dealt with Iraq at all (though there always the possibility it would have mearly been Iran instead…and wouldn’t THAT have been a barrel of laughs). However, you are fooling yourself if you think that any other administration would have sat on its hands after 9/11. The people DEMANDED action, and whoever was at the helm would have had to do something.

I’m sorry, but you mix up two issues here. After 9/11 the solidarity and emphaty with what happened in the USA was enormous, world wide.
Mr. Bush and his crew however managed to turn this 180 degrees in no time.
That is the issue of my topic here.

What result will the re-election of Bush have? Well, we’ll get more of the same as we’ve been getting I suppose. Overall, I doubt it will have any additional negative effects (worldwide that is), as it seems to me at least, relationships with the other NATIONS are already beginning the process of normalizing.

I should say that is a bit over-optimistic.

I’d say the biggest tradegy of Bush getting re-elected (god forbid) is to ourselves, and will be more internally oriented (i.e. the economy, environmental issues, etc). No matter who is elected at this point, the US will continue to occupy Iraq and Afganistan. It will contiune to cost money and lives. In the end it will work out (IMO), but it will be VERY costly for the US. The next Adminstration will still have to deal with this, and all the negative effects we’ve already incurred (political, economic, diplomatic, etc).

Well my question is: how do you think they are going to deal with this.

I guess, reading between the lines, what you are asking is if we think Bush will go off on some rampage and attack some other countries unless he’s voted out of office.

No, that is not at all the question.

say what you will, but Afganistan/Iraq had the very real effect of causing several of the more odious countries to keep their heads down).

I think you are once again more then a bit over-optimistic.

I think the reason Iraq was picked was because it put itself in a very special circumstance which ALLOWED us to attack it (I know many of you don’t agree with this).

I can’t follow this part of your answer.

I have no doubt that the real reasons for attacking were NOT those used, but the truth of the matter was that SH helped us to do it. I’m sure he doesn’t see it that way though.

I don’t think Hussein “helped” in any way. The plan for this invasion was written long ago.

p.s. Friendly advice…

Read for this again my other posts here. Thank you.

Salaam. A

[XT]

From notquitekarpov

Honestly, this is not a rant or a fantasy - it is really out there and the US would be very best advised to try and deal with it. Not re-electing Bush (just a friendly suggestion!) would be a start - consigning the NeoCon agenda better but somehow it needs a "new deal’ for the American people to give them a real choice IMHO. As other posters have correctly stated the Democrats might not have been too far behind Bush - at least on Afghanistan anyway.

People in the world don’t like the US? Well, this isn’t news to any citizen of this country who has traveled abroad. Its also nothing new, but seems to rise and fall but maintain a certain background noise all the time. I think thats part and parcel of being a superpower. When the British Empire was supreme they weren’t exactly well loved either but the peoples of the world. Same with France…Spain…Rome…etc etc. Its just our turn to draw the ire of the world is all…

Are you saying here that it was wrong of the US to invade Afghanistan also? I won’t get into the whole Iraq mess, but are you saying that the US was evil or wrong in what they did in Afghanistan? If so, what do you propose the US SHOULD have done? What would the UK have done if someone would have killed over a thousand CIVILIANS in, say, London? I know that the British people have always been a model of restraint snort when it comes to such things. What do you suppose the French would have done had it been in, say, Paris? I’m sure they would have given peace a chance, as per their illustrius history of restraint also clearly shows double snort. Now, if it had of been Brazil, I’m sure they would have turned the other cheek. I’m sure in Egypt (or where-ever Aldebaran is actually from), they would have burried their dead and forgiven their enemies if it had of been Cairo that had of been attacked, killing thousands of innocent civilians for no appearent reason. Its just us evil Americans, blood thirsty and bent on revenge, who would ever do such things in this world of model countries full of restraint…

Or something like that.

From notquitekarpov

Eventually, just maybe, the views of “we the people” in the rest of the world might just have some influence on things… (I live in hope - what else can you do?)

Are you saying that America should let itself be influenced by the views and opinions of the ‘rest of the world’ (assuming there was some kind of global consensus besides America sucks, that is)? If so, which parts should we be influenced by? Europe? Asia? Africa? The Middle East? Or should we go with specific countries? France? UK? China? Russia? Egypt? Israel? Which should we pick? Also, should THEY be under similar controls then? Should Britan respect whatever the people of France thinks is best for them? Should Germany go along with what the people of Canada think is best? Should France be influenced by what the citizens of the US think they should do? Should the people of Egypt go along with the consensus of Russia?

Its been a common thread in my postings, but you non Americans should maybe think about it from our perspective, and put yourself in our place. I seriously doubt whether the people of England give two hoots as to what the people of France think they should or should not do…and vice versa. The same goes for all the other countries out there. Every country has its own national interests to protect and serve, their own agenda, their own concerns and they have to please THEIR people first. When national interests are in opposition, then in many cases there is war.

-XT

[Aldebaran]

*Originally posted by Brutus *
**Citizens of the United States of America are referred to as ‘Americans’. Even Canadians and Mexicans refer to us as ‘Americans’.

But I will go along with “US’ers”, if I can start calling you a EU-nik. Deal? **

No, because that isn’t correct. Half-EU-nik would be OK to me.

But I have a question: If I have to write everytime A m e r i c a n… Do you know how many characters can change place in my dyslexic mind? Tme and time again, with no structure at all…And how many people would then feel teh need to correct me? Time
and time again…

Salaam. A

[Mehitabel]

Exactly! We get input from so many different countries, with so many different governments and philosophies–how do we pick and choose which ones to listen to? Should we “listen” to China because it’s so populous and ignore the fact that they’re a Communist dictatorship? Does Egypt speak for the Arab world for the same reason, or does Saudi Arabia, as the most prosperous and religiously important country in the region? How about Europe? Denmark or France? The UK or Sweden? Spain or Russia? Old Europe or Eastern Europe?

“The voice of the rest of the world”, folks, is seldom a voice. It’s a din, and THEY’RE ALL YELLING DIRECTLY AT US ALL THE TIME NO MATTER WHAT WE DO OR SAY!!

[Grey]

Spell check is your friend.

[Aldebaran]

*Originally posted by Mehitabel *
Does Egypt speak for the Arab world for the same reason, or does Saudi Arabia, as the most prosperous and religiously important country in the region?

Sorry???
Since when is Egypt a “communist dictatorship”? I must have missed that most recent evolution. (As for your claim it is the “most populous”… Well I’m a bit too lazy to actually goo looking for figures)

And since when is Qaudi Arabia “the religiously most important country in the region”?

Really. You must live on an other planet earth then I do.

Salaam.
Aldebaran The Mystery Man

[Aldebaran]

Oh forgot: as for being “the most prosperous”… If you mean that the Hause of Saud … You eventually can be close to it.

Salaam.
Aldebaran the Not-European-Resident-Man

[Aldebaran]

Grey,

If that is a hint for me… Yesss… I know… Problem is that I’m

1. A bit much lazy
2. This provokes me to post without cut and past to and from Word
3. Even spell check isn’t enough since not every word I invent is recognized as even remotely existent.

Thus I work furhter on my New Aldebaran English Dictionary.

Salaam. A

[XT]

From Aldebaran

But what you maybe don’t understand, is that the interests of other nations aren’t automatically in line with the interests of the USA. And as much as you think the world needs the USA, the USA needs the world. Without the constant influx of the worlds best minds, for example, the USA would be nowhere. Without the work of non US’ers in the USA, their contribution to its economy and development in a variety of field, the USA wouldn’t be what it is today. Without the consumers of US made products worldwide, the USA economy would be nowhere. Without import of basic products (oil for example) from the outside, the USA would be nowhere.

There must be some disconnect here. I never said that other nations have interests always in line with America…quite the contrary. I EXPECT other nations to to have their OWN issues and interests. Why would you expect America to be different? They do what they think is best for them, we do what we think is best for us. Sometimes our desires and goals mesh for a time, other times they don’t. Thats the world we live in.

I’d say that it goes both ways. The world needs America, America is part of the world and needs them just as strongly. I never said differently. Again, must be some kind of disconnect between us. As for the rest of what you say, its off topic, and if you want to start a thread about the comparitive economics of the world, I’ll join in and contribute what I can. Suffice it to say that, again, it goes both ways…America consumes, it produces. It uses foriegn labor and ideas, and produces innovative ideas and products on its own. Its not some leech out there stealing the worlds life blood and its labor…its a give and take relationship. I will go out on a limb here and say that, America, more so that any other nation, is absolutely vital to the worlds economy and peace. You will think it misplaced patriotism, I’m sure, but name me any other country that, if it vanished tomorrow, would so effect the world and America would today. Without America, the world economy would collapse completely. No other country I can think of (with the possible exception of Saudi) would cause such havoc if it disappeared tomorrow. Without Americas military to back it, the UN would have no teeth at all, and all the other nations of the world would be forced to have large standing militaries of their own.

From Aldebaran

You made me smile here.
I don’t see any relation between what I posted and what you make of it. May I ask you to read my OP again?

Again, the disconnect between us is appearently too great. What you appearently see as a reasonable OP is unbelievably over the top (something I’d expect from Reeder to be honest). It is full of inflamitory statements without a shred of anything to back them up but conjecture. My goats analogy appearently didn’t help at all either, as you didnt’ get it. I think maybe its a language thing, and will leave it at that.

From Aldebaran

I said that it I offer -for free- an intellectual challenge to my readers to paint the shades of grey and eventually bright colours to my posts. Especially those who only serve as background for following questions. Grammar and spelling corrections are also welcomed.

No idea what you are saying here. I was asking you to follow a logic path and to re-examine your statement reguarding the zero credibility angle you proposed.
My quote

What result will the re-election of Bush have? Well, we’ll get more of the same as we’ve been getting I suppose. Overall, I doubt it will have any additional negative effects (worldwide that is), as it seems to me at least, relationships with the other NATIONS are already beginning the process of normalizing.

To which you replied:

From Aldebaran

I should say that is a bit over-optimistic.

Why is that over-optimistic? Could you explain this further as I’m interested in what you have to say for this. It is appearently whats actually happening, so how is it OVER-optimistic that this trend will contiune? Again, I’m talking about NATIONS here, not the man in the street in Paris or where ever. Maybe you are equating a certain amount of bad feelings toward America by the PEOPLE with the relations of their GOVERNMENT to America?

From Aldebaran

Well my question is: how do you think they are going to deal with this.

How will a theoretical next administration deal with the situation we are in? If the Democrats win next year, I’d say that, broad policy wise, there will be very little external changes. Internally there will be some, but you don’t care about that. My guess is, there will be further re-approachments to the governments we pissed off (e.g. France, Germany, Russia, etc) with some behind the scenes deals and back rubbing going on, and maybe some couched appologies (though I doubt this). Other than that, its possible the over all focus externally will change, with some new anti-terrorist treaties going into place, etc. However, in broad strokes we’ll STILL be in Iraq, and STILL be in Afghanistan, and our soldiers will STILL be occationally being killed there. We’ll STILL be footing the majority of the costs for this adventure, though with a new adminstration we might get more nations on board to defray the costs somewhat.

From me

say what you will, but Afganistan/Iraq had the very real effect of causing several of the more odious countries to keep their heads down).

Your reply:

From Aldebaran

I think you are once again more then a bit over-optimistic

Again, do you want to give somemore details on your thoughts? I’d say you are letting your bias against America influence you here, again. No sane country is going to go head to head with America atm…not with Mad Bush™ at the helm. Most of the other countries that are in direct opposition (not talking about France and co here, but the Syria’s of the world) to America are pretty much keeping a low profile or even taking steps to ensure that the wraith of America doesn’t fall on them. Do you see it differently? The only example I can think of myself that doesnt’ fit this mold is possibly North Korea…and even they conceeded to have multilateral talks, which is in direct conflict with their earlier stated position of only bilateral talks with the US. Maybe you could give some examples of countries deliberately baiting the US since Iraq?

From Aldebaran

I don’t think Hussein “helped” in any way. The plan for this invasion was written long ago.

Obviously I disagree. For myself, I have increasingly felt that it was a bad move on the US’s part to do the whole Iraq adventure (for various reasons I won’t get into here). However, this doesn’t lets ole SH off the hook. He gets to take a lions share of the blame too. There were MANY things he could have done to avoid what happened, had he chosen to do so. By no means was this invasion written long ago, unless you mean that because of his earlier invasion of Kuait and the on going clash of wills with the US over the terms of his conditional surrender in the first gulf war gave the US the excuse it needed to invade…if thats what you are saying I’ll agree with you on that much. However that doesn’t mean that Saddam didn’t miscalculate and play right into Bush and co’s hands. I won’t get into all this, as I’ve read your various posts on the relavent threads dealing with the whole Iraq issue and this isnt’ the place or time to get into that can of worms again.

Well, my friendly advice wasn’t understood appearently, so I won’t bother you again with it. Its been a nice discussion though. Hopefully you’ll learn to tone it down in your future ops, but I’m not holding out a great deal of hope there.

-XT

[Monty]

Aldebaran: Mehitabel did not say Egypt was a communist dictatorship and you know damn well he didn’t

[notquitekarpov]

Xtisme - in response to yours quoting my first contribution:

1. Yes I believe the action in Afghanistan was wrong and foolish to do what it did (lets avoid emotive terms like “evil”). What it should have done was to bring those responsible to justice - and not bomb a whole country for the alleged wrongs of a few. And kills thousands of totally innocent Afghan civilians (those same civilians you spell in CAPITALS when they are American) not to mention many other innocent Taliban solders doing their national service. Not, note, the same as al qhaida members.

What would the UK have done? Well I think you have an insight with Northern Ireland if you are familiar with the thirty years of conflict with the INLA and IRA. Yes the British record is dirty, ex-judicial killings on occasion, the Bloody Sunday murders, but I think as a general overall theme I think you could conceed that bringing the guilty to justice is a fair reflection of the action taken overall.

What the UK did NOT do was trace the funding of the IRA and INLA straight back to majority US private donations and legal public fundraising (fact), identify some wanted men whom the US courts would or could not extradite (fact), and then launch a mass bombing or sea-launched missile attack on New York or Bostont make us feel better!!

We realise the actions of a few in other countries does not compute to the guilty of the majority. That might is not right?

2. It is so obvious that the US needs to listen to the viewpoints of the rest of the world that I am surprised you take issue with me here. Power (superpower) without such responsibility turns to moral corruption without such humility.

But perhaps you misunderstood my point. I was not asking for a vote or that some sort of global consensus should rule US policy, but just that the US would be very best advised to think and talk more and act less quickly and with more support. At the very least the rest of the world can make their views felt by requiring their elected governments to take a very different stance in co-operating with the US. Ultimately without international support everything the US tries to do will come to nothing.

[Rashak_Mani]

*Originally posted by Mehitabel *
** Rashak, your English is pretty good; what sorts of American media do you read? Things here are much more nuanced than you’re depicting them. **

I subscribe to Newsweek Intl. magazine, I read on the internet CNN & BBC sites. Whenever I can manage I try to get my hands on "The Economist" magazine. The SDMB is good for me to practice english too.

In fact feel free to correct my written english... it sure needs some polishing. I teach english to adults here ... but its almost all conversation skills. I lived abroad for 14 years... and I travel to other countries whenever I have money enough too.

[Mehitabel]

That’s a good start, although sometimes I find the BBC site to be a little too pessimistic. The New York Times and Washington Post sites (www.nytimes.com, registration required and www.washingtonpost.com, simple registration) are also pretty vital.

Unlike another certain poster I get the feeling you’re listening to and learning from us. That’s great. All I can say is that there’s indeed a lot of discussion and reflection going on in America, constantly, about zillions of issues, that doesn’t make its way into the popular media.