An Easy Way to expose concealed Anti-Americanism

There are two superpowers in the world today.  The United States of America, and anti-Americanism.  Anti-Americanism is very powerful, as it is the sordid glue that holds the UN, fifth-column Americans, Euro-socialists, the world's fashion elite, and terrorists together.  It is the invisible force that forces the US to withstand massive double standards that have been there for so long that they are taken for granted.

Interestingly, with the exception of terrorists, such individuals go to great lengths to conceal their anti-Americanism, pretending to stand for 'nonviolence', 'peace', 'equality', the 'world community', etc.  This begs the question of why they don't feel comfortable with declaring their dislike for the US.  Maybe it is due to the guilt of knowing they are being unfair, or guilt that they are opposing a force of liberty and prosperity in the quest to be fashionable.  Maybe it is all this plus juvenile envy of success and power.  In any case, having a strong dislike for America, yet not having the integrity to be honest about one's true feelings, makes such a person easy to defeat through skillful debate.

There are many ways to do this.  Two examples are below.

Option 1 :

While many who say this are merely fashion-parroting sheep rather than committed anti-Americans, if someone you believe to be a genuine anti-American says they oppose the Iraq War because "there were no WMDs" or "Bush lied about WMDs", then you can merely ask :

"So if WMDs were found, would you support the war?"

They can either answer "no", to which you can say "So why do you present the absense of WMDs as your primary objection to the war, if you still would have opposed it anyway?  That appears rather phony on your part."

Or they can answer "yes", to which you can ask them "But Iran and North Korea are openly admitting to the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and are threatening to use them.  By your logic, invading them is fully justified, is it not?" 

They have thus revealed that they merely avoid taking difficult decisions, in order to criticize from hindsight and mask their anti-Americanism in pseudowisdom.  Either way, they are trapped.  This is so simple, yet very effective.  In reality, they oppose any action by the US because they oppose the very ideals of the US.  Yet, they are too ashamed to admit it, and so hide behind phony guises. 

Option 2 :

If you are the one who wants to initiate the debate, you can openly declare that "I feel that America, despite many flaws, has done more to benefit humanity than any other nation existing in the world today."   If your opponent is a secretive anti-American, they may react with sputtering outrage (blowing their cover).  They will point out various acts of evil that America has done (some true, some imagined), but it will become apparent that they are judging America to some utopian standard, rather than in relation to other countries existing in the world today.  To this you can merely reply :

"Which country do you feel has done more for humanity than the US?"

or

"If an Asteroid were on a collision course with the Earth (never mind which country's instruments detected the asteroid), which country would be expected to take the lead in an effort to destroy or deflect the asteroid?"

In either case, the anti-American will be cornered, and seek to change the subject, or become visibly annoyed. 

Expose their anti-Americanism, and you will gain a greater understanding of this shadowy second superpower. 

Prediction : Anti-Americanism will become more pervasive and tightly unified, with many Western anti-Americans moving from merely condoning the activities terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, to engaging in covert yet active support of such groups. 

Update : Read the comments section.  Many fashion-parroting anti-Americans have come by, have been posed simple questions about their principles, and have fled without answering, for fear of revealing their anti-Americanism.  It is quite entertaining. 

Comments

[GK]

Pieter,

I see that you cannot answer simple questions about your opposition to the Iraq War. These really were very simple, polite questions. So much for your claim of 'logic' and 'facts'.

Readers, yet another anti-American, this time a European, merely spews his illogical venom, but retreats when faced with the simplest of questions. Their envy of America's ability to project strength and righteousness across the world without the permission of a corrupt UN and weak, decadent EU leads to blind anti-Americanism.

Since their opinions are formed by no more than watching 10 minutes of anti-US news a day, they lack the depth to support their opinions beyond the first sentence, as demonstrated above. Asking a few questions on their principles leads to immediate defeat.

[monkeydarts]

Probably not a 2 way street, as in: American/ Anti-American. A better fit might be 3 distinct groups:
1. Totalitarians/Terrorists
2. Pacifists/ Appeasers
3. Western Exceptionalists (Liberty/Freedom/Democracy)

Western elites in group 2 will appease dictators as long as they feel protected and safe from harm. This construction makes more sense to me than Left/ Right since you can find L/R people traveling together on some issues such as Iraq War.

[grilledsardine]

i lived in europe and had a hard time dealing with the anti-americanism. most of it was based erroneously on movies and tv and indeed fashionable. but to write off any criticism of the u.s. as trendy is a bit simple. some people have some legitimate criticism and it might serve you and your readers to actually counter them.

this argument that people who aren't conservative are anti-american is really tiresome.

[GK]

grilledsardine,

Who said that anyone who is not conservative is anti-American. I said the fifth column is 8-10% of the population. Certainly, the remaining 90-92% are not all conservative. There are many patriotic liberals too.

Read this :
http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/03/does_the_world_.html

hmm, I believe I may fit your category of an "Anti-American", but this is a misnomer. In truth, I am more of an American than any sheep could ever be. To hold America to the fire until every impurity is burned away in the crucible is the ultimate goal. And if you believe that America is destined to be imperfect, then I ask you who is more anti-American.

[Sean]

(forgot to put my name in my last post)

I'd like to point out the selective generalizations of arguments on both sides. When a particular group acts poorly and is said to be generally bad, this is a generalization. Then either side could pick up and say "HA, you just got (random decent person who also fits the description).

And one more thing to clarify: pure left wing is anarchy. pure right wing is fascism. these are the definitions.

My beliefs are that America should be more on the left because of what we call ourselves: does "The land of the free" ring a bell for anybody? As such, my "anti-americanism" is based domestically. as for Iraq, I was opposed with or without WMDs, because of the unwillingness to use them because of mutually assured destruction.

As for benefiting humanity, this is very complex. the citizens act as seperate entitites from the government, so we must look at each separately. for the sake of argument, I'll just consider the left/right benefits as equal to humanity and only consider government. Acting on our own, we've helped people after disasters. we've also caused a lot of distruction. most of that from war, and most of the reconstruction from war. natural disasters are also a big thing, but then we must consider percentages. if a country donates 100% of it's net surplus to humanitarian aid, isn't this a good example?

[Robb]

ANTI-AMERICAN?

Well, I think the most UNAMERICAN thing you can do is stand by a "leader" as they drag this country through the dirt.

[GK]

Robb,

Please communicate intelligently. The majority of Americans voted for Bush, so they don't think supporting him is 'Un-American'.

Why don't you try to answer the questions in the article :

1) What is the main reason you oppose the war in Iraq?

2) Who is more evil, the US military or Al-Qaeda?

Answer these simple questions, if you have the courage.

[AngelHeart]

GK
Three simple questions if you have the courage to answer them:

1) Who is a better person, George W. or Jesus?

2) Which was a more justified war, Korea or Vietnam?

3) Would Jesus be more outraged by the burning of a cross or the torture of another human being?

Yeah, yadda, yadda, yadda, I'm an Anti-American because I obviously don't agree with you. If I can't answer your litmus test to your satisfaction then clearly I am anti-American. How fun for you to play arbiter in this way.
I suppose this is just a hit and run, because I don't think I'll be back to visit such hatemongering again, but you did provide me with an evening of entertainment while I wait for news of my brother who is currently stationed in Baghdad.
Which brings me to one more question - When is your deployment date?

[GK]

AngelHeart,

BTW, I am not a Christian, so I don't know that much about Jesus.

1) Probably Jesus, but don't know much about his personality.

2) Korea.

3) Probably the torture of another human being, as any sane person would be (I note that anti-Americans are more bothered by an American putting underwear on a prisoner's head than terrorists beheading an innocent on videotape).

Now YOU answer 2 simple questions.

1) What is the main reason you oppose the war in Iraq?

2) Who is more evil, the US military or Al-Qaeda?

Disagreeing with me does not make a person anti-American. I never said that, and you know it. But always making excuses for terrorists, while offering no ideas on how to defeat terrorism in a manner better than what is being done now, is pretty solid evidence of anti-Americanism.

So answer the two simple questions, if you can. It will tell us whether you are simple a patriot who disagrees, or if you are an anti-American. Failure to answer will mean the latter.

[Fritzworth]

I had a similar discussion with a good and thoughtful friend of mine some 25-30 years ago. He had been attending a rather liberal university and had absorbed a lot of the "moral equivalency" arguments regarding the US and the USSR.

I proposed to him a simple thought experiment:

-- First, imagine a world in which the US exists but the USSR does not.

-- Next, imagine a world in which the USSR exists but the US does not.

Now, which world would you want to live in?

To his credit, he got my point immediately, and we both agreed that we'd prefer the former. So much for moral equivalency. ..fritz..

[JH]

Is it possible to be both anti-American and also to love this country?

I ask because I'm pretty sure you would find me to be the worst sort of anti-American (well, maybe not the worst, but at least a "solid" anti-American), but at the same time I do love my country, and I think I've even had a moment or two of teary-eyed nationalism (9/11 comes to mind).

Also, just to let you know, there is no way that the brand of anti-Americanism that I guess I subscribe to according to you would ever lead me to support Al Qaeda in any way whatsoever, EVER. Maybe there are more types of anti-Americanism than you're aware of?

[GK]

AngleHeart,

No answer? Entirely predictable.

Readers, note how AngelHeart started off with an attack that assumes only Christians could possibly be pro-America. When I answered his questions and posed two simple questions to him, he ran away.

Mere disagreement is not anti-Americanism, but a refusal to answer whether US troops are any less evil than Al-Qaeda is a pretty clear sign of anti-Americanism, period. AngelHeart retreated just like many others before him in this chain, when posed with these questions.

[Aaron Schulz]

I find this whole posting and thread sureal.

It's tennants explain why there are so many anti-American's in the first place.

I'm not going to labour over refruting all points - the first will do as an example.

'"So if WMDs were found, would you support the war?"

They can either answer "no", to which you can say "So why do you obsess over WMDs if you still would have opposed it anyway? That appears rather phony on your part."'

Isn't this rather obvious? WMD's were used as the reason for invading a sovereign, independent country. The retort provided does nothing to answer the original concern, which is "why was Iraq invaded in the first place".

This posting (and the follow up responses) are full of such rubbish.

For example, can you not see that asking which is more evil - The US Miltary or Al Qaeda - proves nothing. Most (although perhaps not Iraqis) would answer "Al Qaeda". But this says nothing about whether the US Military is evil or not. Surely the US Military sets better standards for itself than just being less evil than Al Qaeda, for this is essentially the goalpost you are setting for it!

[GK]

Aaron Schulz,

You have missed the main point, which is that when anti-Americans are asked questions that would reveal details about a person's principles, they often retreat, for fear of being exposed.

So you think Iraq was a sovereign, independent country, that the US had no right to invade?

Then answer two simple questions :

1) Do you also oppose Clinton's military actions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia? Those were sovereign nations, that certainly had not threatened the US or even their neighbors.

2) Iran is a sovereign nation. It openly says it is pursuing nuclear weapons, and is threatening to use them. What is your solution to dealing with Iran?

Let's see if you can muster the courage to answer them, unlike many of the others on this thread, that retreated without answering.

[Aaron Schulz]

Perhaps so, but my point was the posting (and much of the discussion) makes no logical sense.

In relation to your questions:

1) Do you also oppose Clinton's military actions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia? Those were sovereign nations, that certainly had not threatened the US or even their neighbors.

These were UN sanctioned incursions. This is important, as it means the vast majority of the world agreed that these incursions were necessary. In this regard it could be said that a democratic vote was taken among the countries of the world, who found that action was necessary.
This was not the case in Iraq, invasion was a unilateral (bilateral if you include Britain) decision.

2) Iran is a sovereign nation. It openly says it is pursuing nuclear weapons, and is threatening to use them. What is your solution to dealing with Iran?

Especially as a nuclear power itself, I don't see the United States has the right to enforce non-nuclear proliferation on other countries. Having said that I would hate to see Iran get 'the bomb' and so I agree that some action is necessary to prevent this. But it should not be US led action.
I don't know which I would be more uncomfortable with to be honest.
Believe me I understand the international politics is always in shades of gray! There is no 'good' solution for this problem.

[GK]

Aaron Shulz,

1) Wrong. The Kosovo and Bosnia campaigns were not UN sanctioned. Those were merely US attempts to stop genocide and remove an evil dictator, Slobodon Milosevic. Check you facts.

Plus, Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions, and the UN sanctioned military action against Iraq in 1998. (Operation Desert Fox). About 1000 Iraqis died.

The 2003 invasion was just the continuation of the low-intensity warfare that was already going on since 1998. The only reason the corrupt UN opposed in 2003 what they supported in 1998 was the money they were making in the Oil for Food scandal.

Not to mention that we have about 40 countries in our coalition in Iraq, not just Britain.

2) You seem to believe the UN is the ultimate standard of what is moral and just. Ever heard of the Oil for Food scandal? Why is the UN doing nothing to stop genocide in Darfur TODAY?

Now, I'll concede that you may not be anti-American, but you certainly are anti-Bush to the extent of selectively ignoring many facts. So, let me ask you :

1) Why is the UN not doing anything to stop Genocide in Darfur? This is Kofi's own continent, you know.

2) Do you feel the UN, with many non-democratic states as members, should always have the authority to decide when the US can use force, and when it cannot?

3) Do you believe that democratic countries like India should be more deserving of nuclear weapons than non-Democratic, terror-sponsoring states like Pakistan or Iran? Or should both deserve them equally?

[Aaron Schulz]

I am actually not anti-Bush. I think domestically he has been an excellent president for you. However I think your foreign policy makes you one of the most dangerous countries on the face of the planet.

I do not think the UN is the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong. I actually disapprove of much of what the UN does and think much of it's structure is fundamentally flawed (starting with the Security Council). However, like democracy itself, while flawed it is the best mechanism we have currently available to us.

Any country that acts unilateraly to interfere in another country's internal affairs is irresponsible and dangerous. I'm sorry but this clasifies the US as irresponsible and dangerous, an attitude I would be correct in asserting the vast majority of the world's population would hold.

Personally I believe no country should hold nuclear weapons - democratic or otherwise. Democracy does not automatically qualify a country to the responsibility of nuclear weapons. History is littered with corrupt democracy's.

If you think the UN concurred to the US invading Iraq you have got to be joking. The US never had a cassus belli for invasion.

Say what on Bosnia/Kosovo??? Check your history mate - don't question mine.
http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb050102.htm
You tell me from Nato's own site what action was taken that wasn't OK'ed by the UN?

[GK]

Aaron Schulz,

Wrong again. Some very big countries are strongly pro-America and pro-Bush. Continental Europe is just not as important in the world as it once was.

Furthermore, equating the UN to 'flawed but good' democracy is a fallacy, as more than half of the UN member states are not democracies themselves, thus it is silly that they should have a say in what democratic nations can and cannot do.

And the UN Resolution 1441 (among others) did authorize prevention of Saddam's WMD programs by force. That is why Clinton conducted Operation Desert Fox in 1998, killing over 1000 Iraqi soldiers. Why are you ignoring this military action by Clinton, with UN approval?

Bosnia and Kosovo were certainly not with UN approval, your NATO link only goes up to 1995. Many new military actions by Clinton were after that. And why was the UN doing nothing about genocide there, until the US (under Clinton) intervened? A pattern of UN (and European) apathy to genocide is palpable.

Now answer the questions that you didn't answer before :

1) Why is the UN not doing anything to stop Genocide in Darfur? This is Kofi's own continent, you know.

2) You object to the US interfering in another country's 'internal affairs', but then what do you say about Syria's occupation of Lebanon? Or Iran's funding of Hamas that kills Israelis? How do you propose stopping them? Through the wonderful United Nations?

3) Do you believe that democratic countries like India should be more deserving of nuclear weapons than non-Democratic, terror-sponsoring states like Pakistan or Iran? Or should both deserve them equally?

[chum]

Interesting read! I am responding drunk on Bavarian beer; real Bavarian beer right here in Germany. I'm an American, and it's amazing to think that Germans started WWII and carried out the holocaust considering how wonderful the German culture and the people are (in general). It's also amazing to see how much the war and holocaust remains on the "surface" here; cities still bear the scars years later, the shame of patriotism is embedded within the culture (there is no independence day; no "pledge of allegiance"; no "Lee Greenwood"-type songs), unexploded WWII bombs still surface in the middle of cities, etc, etc, etc. Living in this atmosphere alongside Turks, Muslims, blacks, Christians, browns, Frenchies, Dutch, British, Hindus, hippies, Germans, Australians, Catholics, Venezuelans, Canadians, Americans, Spanish, whites, Irish, Jews, Indians, Russians, Baptists, Koreans, Belgians, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Greeks, and atheists, it's both lovely and frightening to see my beloved homeland from this side of the looking glass. I appreciate so much about America, but one can't help but have a sneaking suspicion that zealous patriotism, fear, and righteousness could have disastrous consequences given certain circumstances. I am not comparing us to a pre-WWII Germany but rather suggesting that great powers can make grave mistakes. Please stay vigilent but thoughtful. Ask lots of questions: of others and of yourselves. ttfn... and try some German beer sometime...

[Aaron Schulz]

"Wrong again. Some very big countries are strongly pro-America and pro-Bush."

Since you prefer to offer no names (since facts tend to get in the way of your arguments) I will presume you refer to Britain. A poll of this question among the British would be very interesting indeed.

" Continental Europe is just not as important in the world as it once was."

Who referred to Continental Europe. Certainly not me. Did you assume I am writing from continental Europse? I was actually referring to the global population.

"Furthermore, equating the UN to 'flawed but good' democracy is a fallacy, as more than half of the UN member states are not democracies themselves, thus it is silly that they should have a say in what democratic nations can and cannot do."

Why? I think you will find that many cultures (such as you are now finding in Iraq) will not function properly under democracy. Why then should any country that is not a democracy not have a say in global affairs?
Democracy is not some great global panacea that will cure the world's ills, and the American failure to realise this is probably your greatest problem.

"And the UN Resolution 1441 (among others) did authorize prevention of Saddam's WMD programs by force."

Which UN resolution permitted the invasion of Iraq?
Of course there was none, and if you cannot agree with me on such a plain fact then there is little point in continuing this discussion. Such a stand on your part would place you along side the foolish holocaust denouncers.

"Bosnia and Kosovo were certainly not with UN approval, your NATO link only goes up to 1995. Many new military actions by Clinton were after that."

I have provided proof to you - solid proof - that the incursions into Bosnia and Kosovo were UN sanctioned. This was despite you quite bluntly telling me to 'check your facts' when it is evident it is you who have not done so.
You provide ME with proof that the incursions weren't UN backed. I think you'll find that facts are harder to provide than opinions.

"1) Why is the UN not doing anything to stop Genocide in Darfur? This is Kofi's own continent, you know."

How is this relevant? It has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq, but I might put it down to a reluctance on the part of sane countries to interfere in each other's sovereign affairs.

"2) ...but then what do you say about Syria's occupation of Lebanon? Or Iran's funding of Hamas that kills Israelis? How do you propose stopping them? Through the wonderful United Nations?"

Certainly the UN is no friend of Israel, and it's record on Middle Eastern affairs is shameful. The Israeli's do a very good job of looking after themselves though don't you think? As I have said to you before I by no means support the assertion that the UN is "wonderful".
Whether the UN is wonderful or not, the US has no right to invade other countries. The US has a long history of interfering in other countries affairs, perhaps not solely, but certainly primarily in their own interest. This naturally creates mistrust in the rest of the world, which you label anti-Americanism.

3) Do you believe that democratic countries like India should be more deserving of nuclear weapons than non-Democratic, terror-sponsoring states like Pakistan or Iran? Or should both deserve them equally?

I answered this in my last post.
My personal belief is that no country should have nuclear weapons, democracy or not.

[GK]

Aaron Schulz,

No, READ THE LINK PROVIDED. India is a very pro-US country, and is much larger than all of Europe is. Russia, too, is pro-US. Read the link, you might learn something about the real world.

Secondly, I provided a link, TWICE, about Operation Desert Fox, which was the UN sanctioned bombing of Iraq, by Clinton, in 1998. That appears to be too inconvenient of a fact for you.

You say some cultures cannot adopt to Democracy. Well, Germany and Japan did. To suggest that Muslims in Iraq are somehow an exception to basic human desires of freedom and democracy is somewhat bigoted, I must say.

Lastly, you appear to excuse many criminal acts of the UN, such as the oil-for-food scandal, and also their apathy towards preventing genocide in Darfur, etc., only because you see the UN as a possible counterweight, even though most of its members are despotic, to the powerful, yet benevolent, USA. That you hold the US and the UN to very different standards of conduct is revealing, to be sure. And to say that the US is wrong to act in its own interest (even though every other country does) is also revealing.

So, tell me :

1) Are you just as annoyed about China's invasion (and genocide) in Tibet? About Syria's occupation of Lebanon? Whagt about France's invasion of Ivory Coast? Or is your outrage only for when the US invades other countries (with a large coalition, I might add)?

2) You dodged my question 3) with a theoretical statement of 'no country should have nuclear weapons'. Well, this is the real world, and the technology exists. Should states with terrorist histories like Iran and Pakistan be subjected to the same standards as benign democracies like India? Give me a real-world answer.

[Aaron Schulz]

This will be my last post on this thread. I will not be subjected to abuse, especially from someone who eschews facts in favour of opinions.

"And to say that the US is wrong to act in its own interest (even though every other country does) is also revealing."

The difference is most countries don't invade and otherwise meddle in the internal affairs of other countries. The US does.

Of course I object to the Chinese occupation of Tibet.

As for Lebanon I'll leave the Arabs to sort that one out for themselves (although they seem to take more interest in perceived external injustices on them than internal ones).

And as for your lecture on the state of the nuclear world, I totally reject it. How can you have any objection, coming from a country that not only rejects nuclear non-proliferation but is actively involved in developing new nuclear weapons.

I am a New Zealander, a country that was cut off by the United States for it's stand on nuclear weapons (we wouldn't allow any nuclear ships into our ports). Our country's continued and unwavering support for global nuclear non-proliferation has cost us not only allies, but billions and billions of dollars in lost trade.
Yet for my country the act of making that stand is more important than the GDP and security costs we have made. I think any decent person has to believe that a non-nuclear world is possible - or do you think that we can carry on in perpetuity with no-one ever letting off the bomb?

I shall leave you to your ignorance.

[Aaron Schulz]

I forgot to add.

Your stance on the oil-for-food program is hypocritical in the extreme.

This program was instituted largely at the behest of the US.

Considering if left to their own devices the US would have left the place to rot, you've got a cheek to raise this as a UN evil.

Or are you saying that the US would have been happy for Sadaam to sell his oil on the world market, using the proceeds to rebuild his military?

You seem to think I'm some UN lover. Far from it. I just think the US is worse, that's all.

[George]

Oh for crying out loud !!!

This so-called 'International Community' nonsense about how the UN is somehow this benign chaperone that the US must somehow answer to is merely juvenile envy of the USA, nothing more.

NEVER in the history of humanity has a country with so much power trod so gently on the rest of the world as the US does.

Wait till China rises in power. Then these idiots will realize how good they had it with the USA. Ungrateful brats, these countries are......

[GK]

Aaron Schulz,

First, I thought you were something better than a blindly biased anti-American. Unfortunately, that is what you have proven to be :

1) You are much more bothered by US invasion of Iraq, despite the participation of many countries (including your neighbor, Australia) and a continuation of 1998 UN resolutions, than you are bothered by ANY other occupation, whether Syria's invasion of Lebanon, France's invasion of Ivory Coast, etc.

2) The UN is entirely uninterested in stopping genocide, and elevates the likes of Sudan and Syria to 'Human Rights' commissions. Yet you say the US is worse? For bringing democracy to many nations?

3) On one hand, you say the US would have left Iraq to rot, yet you oppose Bush's actions to create a stable Democracy there now. What is the logic there? It is obvious you are merely interesting in criticizing America, no matter what. Why should the American people give any importance to your hugely biased opinions?

4) You still have not commented on the link about the UN authorization of force against Iraq by Clinton (Operation Desert Fox), or that India is a very pro-US country. These facts really bother you, I can tell.

5) By the way, which country has done more to benefit humanity than the USA? Name one, if you can.

I suppose you feel the dangerous, uncontrollable US will even invade New Zealand? Well, I understand your frustration that your whole country's economy is dependent on the US public buying tickets to Peter Jackson's films or India playing a cricket game against you, but at least recognize your shameful double standard here.

And you ARE retreating in defeat, having been exposed as criticizing the US unfairly while excusing the UN of much worse crimes. That is anti-Americanism expose, as the original article intended.

[Aaron Schulz]

I can't resist one more reply!

You are the one blinded by bias - and unfortunately you have no sense of history beyond the 20th century.

"5) By the way, which country has done more to benefit humanity than the USA? Name one, if you can."

Yep. Iraq. Look it up. Writing, mathematics. We owe the building blocks of our civilisation to Iraq. Nothing the States has done or ever could do would benefit humanity as much as that.

And by the way you obviously don't read my post. I am also concerned over the other invasions you mentioned, but none of the other invading countries have any desire for proxy domination of the globe.

You go on and on about a 1998 UN resolution which in no way absolves the US for the responsibilty of invading Iraq. It was 5 years before, and doesn't mention invasion!
It's funny if it met it's resolutions that the UN should condemn it as illegal.

I suggest you look at the map at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governments'_pre-war_positions_on_invasion_of_Iraq

That will make clear for you the support for your invasion. I note your 'friends' India and Russia (Russia your friend - I mean come on) did not support you.

The US MUST answer to the UN - because they will not answer to anyone else. The UN, while flawed - as I have repeatedly stated, but you seem to ignore - forms the global community.

Whether all it's members are democracy's or not is completely irrelevant. Democracy does not hold a mortgage on being the only correct way to govern a country.

And as for you "bringing democracy to Germany", have you never heard of the Weimer Republic?

Most of the Western world has a history of democracy far better than the US. I don't think you are in a position to lecture us on it.

As for the New Zealand economy (a slightly different tangent). We are a horticultural economy, and probably the most open economy in the wolrd. US federal artificial support of your agricultural sector hurts us far more than the fact that King Kong flopped!
Perhaps in the land of the free trade is exempt from this label?

[ATS]

Aaron,

Iraq has done more good for the world than the US? Did you mean to be taken seriously, or is this just more childish emoting from a frustrated left-winger?

I don't recall the Babylonians fighting costly wars to liberate others from oppression and persecution as America has. Writing and math were developed by many cultures independent of Mesopotamia, including China, India, the Mayans, Egypt and others. You'll have to do much better to convince rational people that America is no good for the world.

And Europe having a better record on democracy than America? Are you insane? Starting two world wars and conducting nearly 2000 years of persecution against Jews is not most people's idea of "democracy". (Surely that's quite a ways back, but it was you who compared America to the "Iraq" of 4000 years ago.) Spain wasn't a democracy until the 1980s. The Weimar republic was a failure and German democracy required a protracted US-led war and billions of dollars of US taxpayers' money (e.g., the Marshall Plan) to remain permanent.

Many European countries have long histories of empire-building (Britain, Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Germany, Austria-Hungary, etc.) and persecution of minorities. And yet, the period from 1945 until the present -- the era of American military support for democracy in Europe and US vigilance against Soviet-backed commie bosses in the East -- has been THE LONGEST PERIOD OF PEACE IN WESTERN EUROPE SINCE THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, all thanks to the American soldier and taxpayer. Europe was quite happy to sit by and allow the Serbs to conduct genocide against Croats and Muslims, and again it was only American leadership that extinguished yet another reign of European evil.

Don't you feel even a little ridiculous exposing your hatred of America and democracy by making such a ludicrous claim about Europe?

Clearly you live in a different universe than the sane people of the world. As even the most patriotic American will say, the US has definitely made mistakes such as tolerating slavery for 87 years (compared to the thousands of years of slavery and serfdom that existed in IRAQ, Asia, and EUROPE, which spread it throughout the New World). In retrospect, certainly another mistake was arming Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's. However, America always corrects its mistakes at tremendous cost to itself, as it did in the US Civil War and now through the liberation of Iraq. This is much more than can be said of any other nation on earth.

No country has done more to advance freedom and human rights, and sacrificed more of its own flesh and blood for the good of others, than the US. The fact that a committed anti-American like you can't seriously name a single country that has done more good for humanity than America proves this quite clearly.

Or perhaps you have been misunderstood.

If so, please tell us, if New Zealand were to become friendly with the 'evil' and 'oppressive' US -- as are Australia and Britain -- would you actually flee to, say, Iran, North Korea, or China -- their repressive fascist and communist systems being no better or worse than America's democracy, as you yourself said -- or are you much more secure spouting your views under the guarantee of free speech that exists only in democracies like New Zealand and America?

[Aaron Schulz]

"You'll have to do much better to convince rational people that America is no good for the world."

This is your typical response. I challenged your assertion that the US has done more for the world than anyone else. I did not say America is no good for the world.

"The Weimar republic was a failure "

So was the US one, or have you not heard of the US Civil War?

As for the US history of democracy. When did you get universal sufferage? When did the last of the blacks get the vote? I do believe it was as late as the 1960's?
You history as a democracy is chequered at best, and in fact continues to be. What other political system in the world is so dominated by the support of corporations?

"American leadership that extinguished yet another reign of European evil. "

UN leadership - read my previous posts. I'm not going to reiterate our previous discussions.

"Don't you feel even a little ridiculous exposing your hatred of America and democracy by making such a ludicrous claim about Europe?"

I didn't mention Europe. I was actually thinking of my own country, where Maori have had the vote since 1840, and there has been Universal Sufferage since 1897. This is a record on democracy you will find unmatched.

"No country has done more to advance freedom and human rights"

I think this is probably correct - I have never debated this point. You asked of a country which has done more for the world - this is not the same thing. The blinkers you have over your eyes prevent you from seeing any further back than the 20th century. Are you seriously suggesting that the US has done more for the globe in it's 300 year history than other country's which have made cultural and scientific contribtions for up to 10000 years?

"their repressive fascist and communist systems being no better or worse than America's democracy, as you yourself said"

You are putting words in my mouth again - as you do in every post. I have never said those systems are no better or worse than democracy. In fact - if you look back through my posts - I said that democracy, while flawed, is the best system we have got. This is the opposite of what you claim.
What I did say was that just because we are democracies, it does not give us the right to enforce democracy on those countries that are not. Those people need to decide and work it out for themselves. Trying to force democracy on a country will only lead to a mess, such as the self-destruction that now exists in Iraq.
Trying to force democracy on an independent people is not freedom - it is coercion.
For example, if I was to tell you that your two-party democracy is dysfunctional because it does not give sufficient voice to minorities - you'd rightly tell me to take a jump - because it's not my business. Supposing my country was exponentially more powerful than yours, and exerted pressure to the point of invasion and occupation to change your electoral system - I would have a right old mess on my hands. The American people would not put up with it and revolt.

Now admittedly the situation in Iraq is not so cut and dried. I think most Iraqis are very pleased to be rid of their erstwhile leader. But I also think most Iraqis are more upset about being occupied by a foreign power, than they are pleased to be rid of Sadaam. On top of this the authoriterean natue of Sadaam's rule kept secretarian tension under control. With a power void now in Iraq those tensions have boiled over - to the point where we now have a civil war in Iraq.

[ATS]

Aaron,

Check my signature, I am not the same person you were talking with earlier.

You said:

"..have you not heard of the US Civil War?"

I was the one who first mentioned it, not you. The US Civil War was a war over the immorality slavery which ended in its complete abolition throughtout a vast and growing country, as well as full constitutional rights for all former slaves. Explain to us, exactly how is that undemocratic?

"When did the last of the blacks get the vote? I do believe it was as late as the 1960's?"

You speak ignorantly and then ask if you're correct? Get your facts straight. The Civil War which ended in 1865 resulted in constitutional amemdments that granted full citizenship to blacks and guaranteed all citizens regardless of ancestry or former condition of servitude the right to vote and all other basic human rights. Further legislation in the 1960's gave additional protections against discrimination and, since the 70's, blacks have enjoyed an easy life in America with affirmative action and federal welfare.

"I didn't mention Europe."

That is a lie. You're evading and fleeing from your own statement where you said, "Most of the Western world has a history of democracy far better than the US." Now you say: "I was actually thinking of my own country,..." So, you claim that your tiny island constitutes "most of the Western World"? And you accuse America of arrogance.

By all means, continue to run away when confronted with your own falsehoods, and when forced to face the true oppressive and bellicose history of Europe -- which really is "most of the Western World" -- before American intervention and liberation. In doing so you're only admitting that your statement that America is worse democratically than the rest of the West is complete nonsense.

You agreed with my point that "No country has done more to advance freedom and human rights than America" yet you said that the US is "far worse" than the UN which permitted genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda, and now in Sudan, and even whose highest officials were involved in the greatest theft in human history, i.e., the UN Oil for Food Scandal. But such confusion and inability to form a coherent thought is unsurprising coming from an leftist America-hater.

"...where Maori have had the vote since 1840, and there has been Universal Sufferage since 1897. This is a record on democracy you will find unmatched."

Spare us your silly pissing contest between America and your little island. Blacks could vote in America starting in the 1860's, so Americans beat you New Zealanders to the punch by over a generation. And, you're obviously admitting that the Maori were oppressed and mistreated by New Zealanders for a period at least before 1840. Exactly how does that make your country morally superior to America or anyone else?

"Trying to force democracy on an independent people is not freedom - it is coercion."

Your words are music to the ears of every Hitler, Hirohito, Stalin, Iranian Ayatollah, Saddam Hussein, Castro, Che Cuevera, Mugabe, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung and every other evil totalitarian monster that ever lived and currently exists. Appeasers of despots like you are frustrated by the reality that those nations liberated and permitted democracy by American actions -- Japan, South Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, all of Eastern Europe, etc. etc. -- are among America's closest friends and are thankful that we don't listen to effeminite fools who oppose efforts to rid nations of oppressive regimes.

Your most pathetic statement is:

"Are you seriously suggesting that the US has done more for the globe in it's 300 year history than other country's which have made cultural and scientific contribtions for up to 10000 years?"

If you're so greatly impressed by the wheel, plow, hammer and sickle, they are childsplay compared to the advances in medicine, manufacturing, telecommunications, travel, and space exploration that America has given humanity and for which lazy, hateful and unskilled people the world over despise and envy America. I wouldn't expect an America-hater to know, let alone admit, that the Internet your now using first came into existence in the 1960's as a US military communications system, and was thereafter developed for civilian use by a few major American universities.

And New Zealand's history is even SHORTER than Americas, you know. So by your measure, are you saying New Zealand is one of the least impressive countries in the world?

You were challenged to name JUST ONE country that has done more good for the world than America, AND YOU CAN'T DO IT. All you offer are falsehoods and distortions. Admit what's ovbious to everyone, you haven't one sane or convincing argument to support your rabid hatred of America.

[GK]

Aaron Schulz,

You don't even realize that you are talking to two different people. I'll try to keep it simple this time so that you don't get bewildered.

Your claim that the US didn't allow blacks to vote until the 1960s is an outright falsehood. Claiming that the US didn't have a full democracy but Germany did, even though the Weimar Republic was replaced by a dictatorship, is also 100% false. The US had elected governments for all of its 230 years to date.

But since facts don't matter to fanatical anti-Americans, we will just have to see your principles.

1) Are you glad that Soviet Union disintegrated and the US emerged as the sole superpower, or are you unhappy. Would you prefer it if the USSR was the only superpower?

2) You say the US should be answerable to the UN. But now Iran is defying the UN, and not stopping its nuclear program. Why do you not object to that? If you feel the UN should serve only to oppose the US and excuse every other horror (including genocide) in the world, why do you hesitate to state your true opinion?

3) Why has your (far wealthier) neighbor Australia not only stood right beside America in Iraq, but also voted in a very Bush-like leader in John Howard? Why?

I mean, I understand how frustrating it must be to be part of a country so small that the whole economy depends on Americans watching Peter Jackson's films and India occasionally playing cricket against you, but come on. Your anti-Americanism is nothing short of fanatical.

If your ideology is unconditional anti-Americanism, why do you attempt to conceal it? Shouldn't you be proud of your ideology? That you seek to conceal it could only mean that even you secretly know it is an evil position to take, and that you are secretly ashamed of yourself.

[ATS]

Aaron,

Are you going to defend your anti-Americanism or sulk away with your tail between your legs?

Answer the questions respectfully posed to you by GK and myself.

[Aaron Schulz]

"The US Civil War was a war over the immorality slavery which ended in its complete abolition throughtout a vast and growing country, as well as full constitutional rights for all former slaves. Explain to us, exactly how is that undemocratic?"

I'm sorry but any democracy that collapses into civil war has failed. At that time it its history the US democracy failed.

"The Civil War which ended in 1865 resulted in constitutional amemdments that granted full citizenship to blacks and guaranteed all citizens regardless of ancestry or former condition of servitude the right to vote and all other basic human rights."

What you say is partially true, but ignores the practical situation as it was. What about literacy qualifications, property ownership qualifications and the like? States all over the south used clauses like this as loopholes in the 15th amendment.

"Blacks could vote in America starting in the 1860's, so Americans beat you New Zealanders to the punch by over a generation."
Really? I'm talking about universal sufferage. When was the first time EVERY adult was allowed to vote in a federal election? What about State elections?

"And, you're obviously admitting that the Maori were oppressed and mistreated by New Zealanders for a period at least before 1840. Exactly how does that make your country morally superior to America or anyone else?"

Because our country was formed in 1840. I fail to see how anyone could vote in elections in a country that didn't exist.

"Most of the Western world"

You are the one who mentioned Europe. The western world is made up of more than just Europe and the US. As an example, if you look at the countries that make up OPEC, would you place the US in the top half in terms of its historical democratic record?
Not too many countries in OPEC have a history of collapsing into civil war and disenfranchising large swathes of its population.

"UN Oil for Food Scandal." You don't reply to my previous post on this I see. The US instigated Oil For Food program.

"Iraq, Afghanistan" If these guys are among your "closest friends" perhaps you would like to go for a walk in their capitals and see just how friendly the local populations are? Forcefully changing regime does not make you friends with the people! In most cases it will do the opposite.

Failure to recognise that forcing democracy on an independent people is coercion demonstrates in full measure the problem your country has in geo-politics today. To the rest of the world this is wrong, and obviously so. To the US it seems it is justifiable.

"If you're so greatly impressed by the wheel, plow, hammer and sickle, they are childsplay compared to the advances in medicine, manufacturing, telecommunications, travel, and space exploration that America has given humanity and for which lazy, hateful and unskilled people the world over despise and envy America."

Every single advance that America has made on behalf of humanity has been based on the advances of 10000+ years by other people.
On the one hand you criticise me for crediting Iraq with formulating writing and mathematics when nations like China and Egypt also developed systems, and then on the other you congratulate yourself on advances that other countries were also working on at the time.
Certainly the Apollo Program was a magnificent achievement, but one that was all but matched by the Russian space program, who certainly could have gone on to achieve the same things the Apollo Program did.

"And New Zealand's history is even SHORTER than Americas, you know. So by your measure, are you saying New Zealand is one of the least impressive countries in the world? "

Of course it is. It has neither the population or history to contribute anything but a small part of humanity's achievements (although I will say it was a Kiwi who first split the atom!). The fact of the matter is that the US has just not had the time to overhaul other powers achievements. The Greeks! The Romans! Their civilisations form the whole bedrock of modern civilisation - I doubt whether they can ever be surpassed, because we'd probably still be in the Bronze Age without them.

"You were challenged to name JUST ONE country that has done more good for the world than America, AND YOU CAN'T DO IT."

You're obviously reading a different page than me. I have offered plenty of examples. The US would make it into my top 10, probably close to 5, but certainly nowhere near the greatest contributor to humanity.
Your fault is that you judge all of history by the last 100 years. If you were to ask which country had contributed most to humanity in the last 100 years, then undoubtedly it would be the US.

[Aaron Schulz]

"You don't even realize that you are talking to two different people. I'll try to keep it simple this time so that you don't get bewildered."

Golly - that must be because you sound like your the same person.

"Your claim that the US didn't allow blacks to vote until the 1960s is an outright falsehood."

See my previous post on this. Blacks were still disenfranchised.

"Claiming that the US didn't have a full democracy but Germany did, even though the Weimar Republic was replaced by a dictatorship"

Just because a democracy falls over, it doesn't mean it wasn't a democracy. Any democracy can fall over if a crazed nutter like Hitler gets into power and the people don't do enough to get rid of him. It could potentially happen to any democracy.

"fanatical anti-Americans". That's rubbish - I'm no such thing. I'm just vehmenatly opposed to the self-serving US foreign policy.
If we divorce foreign policy from internal conditions I think the US would be one of the better countries in the world to live in.
My stating that other people have contributed more to humanity than America in no way makes me "fanatically anti-American".

More of your largely irrelevant questions I see. You seem happy to pose your own but ignore more relevant points and questions of my own.

"Are you glad that Soviet Union disintegrated and the US emerged as the sole superpower, or are you unhappy. Would you prefer it if the USSR was the only superpower?"
On the balance no, I think communism (and especially Soviet communism) is far worse than democracy. Again I repeat however, democracy and capitilism is far from perfect, and could stand to incorporate an idea or two from communist ideas (eg. the individual is not all important).

"If you feel the UN should serve only to oppose the US" what??? when did I say that? You really enjoy making things up because they sound good don't you, you one-eyed bigot.
"and excuse every other horror (including genocide) in the world, why do you hesitate to state your true opinion?"

I already answered this. I am undecided on Iran (gray geo-politics - remember?).
Given my stated opposition to any country having nucelar weapons, of course I am opposed to Iran obtaining them. To reiterate, the US (as a nucelar power itself who continues to develop nucelar weapons) has no place insisting some other country doesn't do the very things it is doing so. To do so is the height of hypocrisy.

"3) Why has your (far wealthier) neighbor Australia not only stood right beside America in Iraq, but also voted in a very Bush-like leader in John Howard? Why?"

I have to say - I did have a good laugh at this one. Once more the unfaultable US sense of history.
Unless you are talking about the first Bush I think you might say the US elected a Howard-like leader, given that Howard was first elected during the first Clinton presidency (1996).
If you want to know why you'll need to ask the Australians. Perhaps you could start with their FTA negotiators.

"If your ideology is unconditional anti-Americanism, why do you attempt to conceal it? Shouldn't you be proud of your ideology? That you seek to conceal it could only mean that even you secretly know it is an evil position to take, and that you are secretly ashamed of yourself. "

I have nothing to conceal. I am fanatically anti-American in your eyes because your eyes are not open. Have you read my posts? I have nothing against America - I have repeated numerous times that it has done a lot of good - but it's foreign policy makes it possibly the most dangerous entity on the planet today. That's being opposed to your administrations foreign policy - not your country per-se.

[Joe Katzman]

Great post. I will give a different answer to one of your questions, though.

In answer to the question "Which country has done more for humanity than the USA?" I would reply: Britain.

Starting with the fact that the American system is strongly grounded in British political and societal traditions of freedom (albeit with some brilliant twists) - no them, no you.

Now throw in the role they played in ending the slave trade (far larger than America's, though America contributed), countering the excesses of the French Revolution, and being an immensely civilizing influence on much of the world. Among others.

No country is perfect. Britian is not perfect, and the USA has a history to be proud of, but you'll need at least another century before you can stand with Britain as an equal in full historical terms.

I hope you do, when all is said and done.

[rosignol]

China can't even recapture Taiwan. How many Chinese movies or songs have you paid to experience in the last 3 years? Name five Chinese billionaires.

Actually, there are 8.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/Citizenship_3.html

China's got a long, long way to go before it becomes a superpower, but they are moving in that direction.

Once they figured out that communism was bunk, things started to fall into place.

[GK]

Joe,

I almost agree. A large part of what made America great were religious and cultural influences originating from Britain.

The one thing that made me hesitate to grant Britain the number one spot was that in both WW2, and certainly the Cold War, Britain may not have survived without US support/defence. Thus, America's role in preserving Britain, even though American institutions originated from Britain, during this period also counts in what America has done to benefit humanity.

But a communist/anti-American would never answer "Britain" the way you did, however, as that would be an admission that Protestant, Anglo-Saxon work ethics and values have been what has moved the world forward, whether manifested in Britain or the US. If there is one thing leftists hate more than the US, it is the notion that Protestant Anglo-Saxon culture has contributed more to the world than other cultures.

Hmm...that may be an even more effective approach in debating leftists.

[David Emami]

Some of the folks (Aaron Schulz specifically, but I think others brought it up) here opposed to the Iraq war have made much that we were "invading a sovereign, independent country." Countries, as such, have no rights. The people living there do. I have no more qualms about violating the "sovereignty" of a dictatorship than I would worry about trespassing on my neighbor's property if I saw him herd his family out onto the front lawn and start shooting them. I might hesitate to intervene out of fear if he was armed and I wasn't, but not out of any moral consideration.

Nation-states are not equal. The likes of Saddam-era Iraq, North Korea, Libya, and Taliban-era Afghanistan are in a totally-separate category from the US, Canada, Japan, France, India, Israel, and so forth. Angela Merkel and Romano Prodi have the authority to exercise the sovereignty of Germany and Italy by virtue of being freely chosen by the Germans and the Italians; Bashar Assad was freely chosen by no one (except his dad), and so anything he claims to say on behalf of Syria is nonsense. Any dictatorship is subject to being overthrown by any free or even semi-free democracy, at any time, period, just for being a dictatorship -- if, say, South Africa decides to invade Zimbabwe and put Robert Mugabe's head on a pike, or Mexico wants to land troops in Havana to dangle Castro from a lamp-post, good for them. Any additional reasons are merely icing on the cake. It may or may not be prudent at a given point in time to try, and if you want to argue on that basis, fine. But the "sovereignty" of a non-free government is zero in any moral calculation.

Pardon the rant, and I realize it's something of a tangent to the main topic, but this sort of thing really gets under my skin sometimes.

[GK]

David Emami,

Very well said, and welcome to this blog. I hope read more of your comments in the future.

[ATS]

Aaron,

You wrote:

"What you say is partially true, but ignores the practical situation as it was."

Your original claim that blacks could not vote in America before the 1960’s was proven false and off by a century. But rather than admit your blunder and falsehood you simply pick up another argument with the consistent theme of condemning America.

"Because our country was formed in 1840. I fail to see how anyone could vote in elections in a country that didn't exist."

So, now you revert to your 'voting' issue to protect your country’s image. In your evasive way, at least you admit that New Zealanders truly did exploit the Maori during an earlier period in your history. So clearly, New Zealand is hardly better than America and most other countries initially settled by Europeans.

"You are the one who mentioned Europe. The western world is made up of more than just Europe and the US. As an example, if you look at the countries that make up OPEC, would you place the US in the top half in terms of its historical democratic record? Not too many countries in OPEC have a history of collapsing into civil war and disenfranchising large swathes of its population."

So, now you were *really* talking about OPEC when you claimed that the "western world" has a better democratic record than the US. The notion that OPEC nations -- Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia included -- are part of the "western world" and have a better record of democracy than the US shows the depth of lunacy your hatred of America has taken you.

"UN Oil for Food Scandal ... The US instigated Oil For Food program."

What is your point? The US sought to contain Saddam while not punishing his victims. UN officials were the ones pocketing Saddam’s money –- in addition to UN Secretary General Kofi Anan’s own son –- and perpetuating Saddam’s starvation and oppression of his people. The chief opponents of the liberation of Iraq -– France, Germany, Russia, and China, three of which have absolute veto power on the UN Security Council and were poised to use it –- have each been proven to have secretly made oil deals with Saddam and didn't want the butcher of Baghdad deposed. Why do you defend the UN’s complicity in Saddam’s crimes against humanity?

"The US would make it into my top 10, probably close to 5, but certainly nowhere near the greatest contributor to humanity."

Then YOU STILL HAVEN’T TOLD US, what is that country which has done more good for humanity than the US? Specifically, which country has fought more wars to liberate oppressed people and sacrificed more of its fortune and blood for the good of others outside its borders? Which country has given the world more inventions and innovations in common use by people the world over -– including those that hate us like Iran, as well as at least one leftist anti-American in New Zealand -- than the US? Since you’re clearly acknowledging that one country has indeed done more for humanity than the others, why can’t you simply name it?

Responding to GK’s remark of "Claiming that the US didn't have a full democracy but Germany did, even though the Weimar Republic was replaced by a dictatorship...", you retort:

"Just because a democracy falls over, it doesn't mean it wasn't a democracy."

Earlier you claimed that the US Civil War -– fought entirely over the moral issue of slavery -- was a failure of American democracy, but now you say the rise of Nazism over democracy was not a failure of German democracy. It seems you couldn’t get your own story straight -- let alone the facts straight -- to save your life. Fanatical hatred of America has been known to do that to people and you’ve proven a classic specimen.

[ATS]

Note to readers:

See how Aaron, a fanatical America-hater, when asked repeatedly to name JUST ONE SINGLE COUNTRY that has done more, created more, and sacrificed more for the good of humanity than the US, first tries to escape by changing the subject, but then cowers away to recharge his hatred and recover from the pain of being confronted with the irrationality and deceitfulness of his arguments.

This is a common pattern of behavior which the fanatic cannot break, since anti-Americanism is a fundamentalist belief system which, like all fundamentalisms, shuts off the mind and when faced with inconvenient facts.

[Conrad]

The biggest fallacy of this post is that the opposite of anti-Americanism is "pro-Americanism", and that by opposing anti-Americanism, one is being "pro-American". This is simply false. The arguments against anti-Americanism I've read here are truly idiotic, and should be called anti-anti-Americanism, not to be confused with a pro-American agenda. Anti-Americanism is a form of idiocy, in my view, and anti-anti-Americanism is idiocy squared. Can any intelligent person actually accept the truly idiotic "talking points" advised in this post as counters to ant-Americanism? I certainly can't sign onto a single one of them. There were and are damned good reasons to oppose the Iraq war, and they don't all depend on anti-Americanism. I wrestled with the issue at the time, and argued against the anti-Americanism of some of the anti-war protestors. However, I had to admit to myself that the war was not fought over WMDs as stated, but was only using that issue as a ruse for an attempt to change the geopolitical character of the middle east - a goal I approved of, but not by this particular method. In any case, the counter-arguments presented here even more idiotic than the anti-american arguments I've heard from the usual suspects, which tells me that these people are using even less of their brains than the anti-American idiots. THese people will not get things straight until they stop reacting in such a juvenile manner to anti-Americanism, and simply look at things squarely. I don't expect this to happen, however, because such people need anti-Americanims as much as anti-Americans need America. It's a sick an twisted little relationship they have with one another. Hope some of you out there can see through it.

[Al]

Well, while in 2003 I wasn't sure if the US could fight two wars at once, I'm pretty sure that there will be much trouble for the Iraqi people if the Coalition Forces pull out prematurely.

So uh, what was one good reason to oppose the Iraq War back in 2003, before we had 20/20 hindsight?

[Al]

BTW Conrad, the test for "anti-Americanism" is not designed to prove all doubters of Bush as supporters of terrorists. Rather, the test is designed to identify those who try to take a moralistic stance on world issues, yet do not hold solid beliefs about the United States' role in the world. When reading the comments under this article, I'm somehow sure that someone who doesn't believe Americans are perfect could answer the questions quite decisively, without being humiliated

Believe it or not, pro-American conservatives believe the way they do for very concrete reasons. A good way to understand how conservatives tick is to read web blogs, a lot of different ones.

Oh, and another question:
So if you believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a mistake, what do you suppose we should do now? We can't change course if we don't know what we want to do in the first place right?

[GK]

AI,

You are absolutely correct. Another question to ask them is what is their plan to deal with Iran. Iran is openly pursuing WMDs and threatening to 'blast Israel off the map'.

The anti-American's main opposition to the Iraq War is 'no WMDs'. Well, Iran says they have WMDs. What do they say should be done now?

[DaveR]

I have developed the thesis that one segment of the anti-American crowd is motivated by a "strong is wrong" world view. These are basically decent people who grew up being taught that the underdog is always right and the strong are always wrong.

They aren't too fond of logic, so I doubt they would (or could) respond to your questions. They have no problem with the idea that hindsight is the greatest "wisdom", and hoping for a miracle the most prudent "action".

They have also never had the misfortune of personally needing the services of those "rough men" who allow them to sleep soundly at night, and thus have come to believe that they are unnecessary. They are unmugged liberals.

So I don't think they are as much anti-American as they are anti-reality, and American power vs. tyranny just happens to be the reality in today's world.

Mind you, there are real anti-Americans out there with motives that are quite a bit less childish, plenty of them.

[Al]

Well, I don't know if Conrad's going to come back to respond. I'm not a very confrontational guy so I was worried that I was going to do this excercise alone.

In the meantime, GK, I was wondering if you could question me, while I try to bring up a possible non-conservative response to this style of questioning. My curiosity was piqued because of seemingly everyone's inability to pass this test.

I was a freshman in High School when 9/11 happened. In 2003 I opposed the invasion of Iraq. Over time, I gradually changed my beliefs from libertarian to neo-conservative. Mil-blogs have also facilitated this paradigm shift.

So I was wondering if I could try do debate a "moderate" point of view.

Ok, so let's say that I oppose the 2003 invasion of Iraq because I was concerned that a 2 front war would shift focus and manpower away from the Afghanistan war. I also believe that the UN negotiations about forming the Iraq war coalition should have stretched on a little longer, as "pre-mature" action pissed off France. Yet I support the Patriot Act, because it has been an effective measure without compromising the rights of anyone I know personally. I do not hold a stance towards Iran, because I am sincerely hoping that the rioting right now will challenge the legitimacy of the current regime without American involvement.

Are there any holes in this argument that can be intercepted with simple questions?

Thanks for your cooperation in advance, since I like to debate this issues, but I often find myself out of concrete facts and examples to assist my point.

[Al]

DaveR, I agree that it is possible that the "anti-reality" crowd simply does not understand the concept of the "rough man".

Personally, if it wasn't for authority figures, my childhood would have been much more nasty than it already was. It was painful being the non-aggressive type, and I really appreciate some of the really combative types who came to my aid once in awhile.

[DaveR]

Al, you said: "I do not hold a stance towards Iran, because I am sincerely hoping that the rioting right now will challenge the legitimacy of the current regime without American involvement."

You have accidently given a fine example of what I was talking about when I mentioned "...hoping for a miracle (as) the most prudent 'action'". You are saying openly that you don't have a stance on Iran because you hope it just goes away. At least you are honest about it, but many are not - they instead try to pretend that the problem is overblown by those who are truly concerned.

What if you did not have the option to just hope? Unlike you and I, there are elected leaders who do not have the luxury of just hoping it will just go away... for example, the President of the United States. As Commander in Chief of the very strongest and most skilled of those "rough men", he may be the only person on Earth with the actual means to confront dangers like Iran. Should he hope, or should he act? If not act, then for how long? I don't think many of us really can understand what an awful responsibility that is.

But I know that many of the anti-reality crowd could never understand the need for such a decision, much less make it.

[Al]

Wow, nice catch DaveR.

You see, I'm actually pretty confident about the USA current situation. To my knowledge, the economy is stable, I have this impression that the Coalition is winning both Iraq and Afghanistan wars from mil-blogs, and foriegn relations aren't that terrible (considering the hectic climate).

But it's this Iran issue that makes me worry now.

For example, I don't think a dedicated invasion is a good idea considering the strain on troop density. And while it is true that Americans are lending more and more responsibility to NATO for Afghanistan, I believe that Americans knew how to fight the Taliban, and that NATO peacekeepers do not have the will or training for harsh combat. Invading Iran would put those transferred American troops in danger, while NATO holes up in their forward bases being seiged by the Taliban.

Another example, I don't think an operation like Operation Desert Fox will work because Iran would just get pissed off, and potentially unleash some nasty I-don't-know what.

And impose sanctions on Iran? The UN is not doing a thing, because the Chinese for some reason have the Sun Tzu powers to make Iran think it's a friend (while I believe that China has a few nuclear warheads aimed at Iran just in case). Money flows blocked the political action.

So here I am not knowing what to do. Even though I will claim that I do not either hate or like Bush (great cabinet but fumbling speaker), I really respect Bush for making massive decision without things going excessively arwy (things are a little wierd right now, but that's life). I don't even want to think of the horrors of being in his position (not because he screwed up in any way, but that it's a hard life to lead).

But yeah, I really do want some kind of miracle in regards to Iran. That would be absolutely effing great.

Posted by: Al at May 31, 2006 4:39:32 PM

[Conrad]

Thanks for the replies. I'll keep replying as long as necessary, but I may not be as fast as you all are at posting.

First, let me remind you that I didn't oppose the Afghanistan war, but I did share one poster's concerns that invading Iraq would distract our forces from fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which turns out to have been true. And in point of fact, I didn't even oppose the Iraq war. My position at the time, not speaking in hindsight, was that it was completely unnecessary and unwise to attack Iraq when we did. It should have been clear to any idiot at the time that Saddam did not pose any serious immediate threat to either the US or to its neighbors. Saddam was an evil pig who was robbing his country blind and making their lives miserable, but it is not our job to save the world, even one country at a time, from its own mistakes. US policy is about what is best for the US, so removing Saddam only makes sense if it results in an improved US position. At the time of the war I thought a far better strategy would have been to delay any invasion for at least six months to a year, during which time we could have worked to create a truly effective coalition and collective resolve in the world community to remove Saddam and bring democracy to Iraq – or, if that didn't work, simply continue a policy of active containment of Saddam, including the UN WMD monitoring program that was working very well under Hans Blix, along with our military domination of Iraq through no-fly zones, etc. Containment worked very well to destroy the Soviet Union, much better than an invasion of Russia would have, and the same results would have eventually led to a transition in Iraq some day also. The risks involved in an outright invasion that was opposed by so many in the world, especially those in the Middle East itself, simply made the equation for war lopsided against us.

Nevertheless, when the war became inevitable I supported it anyway, knowing full well that Bush was lying about the WMD's, that his real rationale was geopolitical remaking of the Middle East, and I hoped he would succeed. I actually expected that these people were smart enough to know that this was their one chance at getting things right, and that they would have to throw all the resources at the task to ensure its success. In that, I was dead wrong. I completely overestimated the competence of Bush's people. I knew Bush was something of a moron with decent instincts, but I didn't expect his people to be such idiots. They never put the forces into play that were necessary to secure Iraq and make for a peaceful transition to democracy. And they never will. When you guys talk about victory in Iraq in 2008, I think you have to be dreaming. I have no faith in Bush or his people to ever get this war right. The only hope for success in Iraq will come if McCain or Hillary gets elected and they decide to put the resources into Iraq that are needed. Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney never will.

If you ask me what I would do if I were President, I first say there are only two sensible options. One is to pull out as quickly as we can and leave Iraq to the Iraqis. The other is to double (at least) the forces in Iraq and truly make it a safe place. Democracy can only be established on a safe and secure foundation. If we don't create that foundation, everything else we do there is moot. It's not as if we aren't doing good things in Iraq, but because we are not even trying to create safety and security there, we are just throwing away our efforts. To create security there, we actually need lots of troops, and hopefully troops form around the world. Unfortunately, Bush has pushed everything in the opposite direction, such that no other countries in the world want to help him succeed anymore. This is his fault entirely, I would say. If he had played things differently, rather than doing the macho go-it-alone invasion method, we could be in an entirely different environment. And a new President would have an excellent chance of reversing the huge ant-American sentiment that Bush has provoked and fed, because much of that is really just anti-Bushism. Most of the world actually loves and admires the US, they just can't stand some of the leaders we have, like Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld. When I think of the good will Bush squandered after 9/11 through all his silly over-aggressiveness, it makes me dream of impeachment, but even that would solve nothing.
The best thing to do is not to cut and run, but to truly put into Iraq what is needed to secure the country. It's similar to Vietnam. If you are willing to do what is necessary to win a war, don't fight it in the first place. Use diplomacy and containment. Which is what I would recommend in Iran as well. These crazy tin-pot dictators should not be taken so seriously as real threats to the US. We have the means to contain them indefinitely until they collapse of their own internal contradictions, as happened in the Soviet Union. And collapse they will, because their internal contradictions are immense and insupportable. Iran's middle class wants no part of these nutty dictators and mullahs, and they will have their way eventually. We just need to be patient and strong in our own convictions. War is very unlikely to be necessary in Iran, just as it wasn't necessary in Iraq, and in both cases involved far more risk than we need to take on.

Does that answer your questions? Am I now a confirmed anti-American?

[GK]

Conrad,

1) You claim that you 'knew Bush was lying about WMDs'. That is a laugh. So even though Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Vladimir Putin, and 77 out of 100 US Senators thought Iraq had WMDs, you, an omniscient being, 'knew Bush was lying'?

Never mind that Saddam actually used WMDs many times before.

2) Your facts are wrong. We do have a coalition of 40 countries helping us in Iraq, including Britain, Australia, Poland, Italy, Japan, and South Korea. That is a pretty good coalition. The whole world doesn't revolve around France, you know.

3) Did you actually read the Brookings Report Data from Iraq? You seem convinced that Iraq is a failure (despite 72% of Iraqi turning out to vote and under 2000 US hostile casualties in 3+ years). Why don't you address the Brookings data?

4) Saddam was already paying $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, sent Ramsey Yousuf to bomb the WTC in 1993 (which failed), and tried to assassinate a US President. That is already grounds for war by itself.

You are not an anti-American, but you are pretty close to what DaveR describes.

[Conrad]

Great, so I'm “pretty close” to being anti-American. If that's so, then I'm sure a majority of Americans are actually anti-American by your standards. What does that make you? Uber-American? You types are so sadly incapable of facing up to your errors in judgement, and instead fall back on accusing everyone of being anti-American who has the balls to point them out.

About your points:

1) Yes, I openly claimed that Bush was lying about the WMDs before the war started, and I STILL supported the war. For what its worth, it's also true that Blair, Putin, and Clinton were lying as well (funny how Clinton suddenly becomes a beacon of truthfulness when it suits the right-wingers). All that means is that I must be smarter than most people, including, just maybe, you, if you actually fell for that whole song-and-dance Bush was doing back then. I mean, come on, did anyone with any brains seriously think to themselves that Saddam actually had an attack capability to inflict WMD damages on the US or any of our foreign bases? Of course Blair knew Saddam couldn't strike London with WMDs. These are the lies people tell when they want to go to war. The whole reason for the “rush to war” on Bush's part was he was afraid that Blix's inspection regime was going to expose the fact that Saddam didn't have any serious WMD capability. I can't say I knew for certain that Saddam didn't have a stash of nerve gas somewhere, or a warehouse with anthrax in it, but not to any degree that actually represented a threat to us, much less any kind of delivery system for such things. It was certain he had no nukes or anything remotely near to a nuclear capability. And yes, I knew this, as did anyone who did any dispassionate research on the matter. You could have known it too, if you hadn't been blinded by propaganda. And again, I tried not to be moralistic about that, I just thought that if the war didn't go well, and no WMD's were found, he was going to be in big trouble.

The reason Bush pushed the WMD thing – and again, this was obvious to me at the time, if not to you – was that he thought it was the only rationale that would gather sufficient popular support for the war. He thought it would sell. And it did. It wasn't a bad strategy in the narrow sense of things, in that it worked. But in the larger sphere of things it was disastrously stupid.

2) Yes, we had a coalition of 40 “supporters”, but please, get real, it was us and Britain going it alone for the most part. It wasn't anything like the Desert Storm war. We paid a huge diplomatic cost for rushing into the war as we did, and we are still paying the price. We also spent a huge amount of political capital “persuading” those 40 countries to lend us support, and that capital isn't coming back any time soon. In essence we squandered not only our credibility but out loyalties around the world. When we really need these counties again, they aren't going to be so eager to help out. This was not in America's best interest as far as I can see. It was the result of pig-headed incompetence and arrogance.

3) I didn't read the Brookings report, but no, I don't yet regard Iraq as a total failure. It's far, far, from being a success, however, and we are closer to failure than success, that's for sure. Elections don't make democracies, and if you think they do you are simply deluded and drinking right-wing kool-aid. Elections are the end result of democracy, not the source. The source of democracy is a civil society that has agreed to solve differences non-violently. If elections created democracy, then the violence in Iraq would have ended right after the elections were held. Instead, the violence in Iraq has only gotten worse. It is, essentially, a civil war. By focusing on feel-good moments like elections, you ignore what actually needs to happen in Iraq.

4) Saddam was an evil pig. Yes, he supported the PLO and their suicide bombers, as did and do most people in the Middle East, and most of the governments, including our good friends the Saudis. Saddam did not send Yousef to in 1993, that was Osama's deal. Yes, Saddam tried to have Bush I assassinated, but the absolute incompetence of Iraq's intelligence agency made it a total farce. It never got anywhere, and never could have. Anyone with any brains and diligence knew that Saddam simply could not mount any kind of serous threat, terrorist or military, against us. Yes, technically speaking even conspiring to assassinate a US President, current or former, is an act of war, but there's no law that requires us to treat it as such. You could come up with all kinds of lame excuses for attacking almost anyone, but one only does such things when it's in our interest to do so. I have no argument, in principle, against invading Iraq, my argument is that it was not in our best interests to do so, certainly not in the way the Bush did it. To make the invasion a good policy choice for the US it would have to have been organized, thought through, and carried out very differently.

I don't know if you will really address these issues, because it sounds like you think anyone who brings up inconvenient realities about this war must be “one of those people”. Funny how it's the uber-Americans who make such a mess of this country and then try to blame everyone else for the mess they made.

[Conrad]

Al wrote: “BTW Conrad, the test for "anti-Americanism" is not designed to prove all doubters of Bush as supporters of terrorists. Rather, the test is designed to identify those who try to take a moralistic stance on world issues, yet do not hold solid beliefs about the United States' role in the world. When reading the comments under this article, I'm somehow sure that someone who doesn't believe Americans are perfect could answer the questions quite decisively, without being humiliated”

The point I'd make about these “talking points” is that they aren't aimed at serous discussion, they are aimed at trying to create an infallible logic trap that can be sprung on people you disagree with, and then shout “gotcha”, as if that proves anything at all. You have presumed these unnamed “people” to be incapable of serious discussion, but in doing so, you have constructed a format for discussion that makes serious discussion impossible. This is basically a form of projection. You really ought to examine the way in which you are making serious discussion impossible, and not worry so much about trapping other people.

If you are against those who take “moralistic stances” on world issues, how can you possibly support Bush, who is the most moralistic foreign policy President we've had in, well, maybe ever? I can't think of anyone who takes moralistic stances on world issues who doesn't have solid beliefs about the US's role in the world, so that's a non-sequitar. All you are really saying is that people who think differently than you do, who have different moral views, who see the US differently than you do, are “un-American”. This is itself a hugely moralistic stance. Personally, I distrust everyone who makes moralistic declarations about other people. I see morality in politics as Nietzsche did, as a symptom of a rather diseased mind that seeks redemption through the exercise of “the will to power” - that morality is simply a power play by those who lack the ability to win by other means, meaning they lack the intelligence to argue effectively, and so resort to moralistic forms of persuasion. It's generally true of moralistic anti-Americans, and it's generally true of moralistic “uber-Americans”. This particular discussion of anti-Americanism reeks of moralistic posing on a grand scale. If you would scrap your moralistic stances and simply look at the issues as they are in reality, you might actually learn something new. You might have to let go of certain precious beliefs, however, and that may not suit you well.

[GK]

Conrad,

Nothing you have brought up is either a reality or inconvenient.

1) So you admit that Blair, Putin, and Clinton all thought Saddam had active WMDs, yet you think all of them lied, and claim you knew better from the beginning?

And surely you are capable of realizing that Saddam's anthrax and botulinum could be spread by suitcases and flasks. Surely you remember the anthrax deaths by mail in late 2001.

2) You denigrate the support of Poland, Italy, Australia, Japan, Korea, etc. It is amazing that you think France has so much more legitimacy than any of the above nations.

France and Germany support our pressure on Iran, and would even support a war. What do you say to that?

3) Your facts are wrong. Osama was not even plotting against America in 1993. Ramsey Yousuf was an official in Saddam's government, and tried to topple both WTC towers in 1993.

4) If you think Iraq is in a civil war, you are insane. The murder rate there is no more per capita than in places like South Central LA or Miami. What percentage of a population have to die per year for a nation to be in a civil war?

Then again, anti-Americans think a war in which 2000 US troops die in 3 years is a total failure and a quagmire. WW2 crossed that number in the first month, you know.

5) Why don't you read the Brookings Data? It is a liberal think tank. Surely you actually want Iraq to succeed, so this would make you feel good, wouldn't it?

6) Another anti-American myth is that the world hates America. Wrong again. We are liked by the countries that are actually worth being liked by.

[Conrad]

GK,

1) you have it backwards. My view is that Bush, Blair, Putin, and Clinton all knew that Saddam didn't have any serious WMD capability to harm us, but lied by pretending he did. I'm not saying Saddam never had any WMD such as nerve gas or anthrax. But the capability to actually strike us with such things was way beyond him. As for sending suitcases and flasks of such things to the US to be used by terrorists, that's something that anyone could do, such as Osama and others, and we are supposed to be defending against that. Invading Iraq to prevent the possibility of a flask of anthrax getting through our borders is a pretty stupid form of national defense. The FBI feels certain that the anthrax attacks we suffered in 2001 were of domestic origin. Should we invade the US to prevent this?

2) I don't denigrate the support of Poland and others (look the word up in a dictionary to see what it means), but I do dismiss it as symbolic rather than militarily meaningful. And the Poles and others are gone now. You bring up France, which I did not, as a cheap way of trying to score some kind of stereotype points against me, but all that does is tell everyone how desperate you are, and devoid of real argument. The French played things badly also, as far as I am concerned, but I don't get to vote in France. I expect my President to have some knowledge of how to conduct diplomacy, which Bush simply does not. All that macho posturing back in 2002-3 looks pretty stupid now. Want some Freedom Fries?

3) I could be wrong, but I believe Osama was indeed behind the 1993 WTC attack, and that's why he was on the government's shitlist for all those years. Do you have a source for your claim that Yousef was working under the direction of Saddam? Even if that were the case, however, it's not a reason to invade Saddam ten years later. Again, none of that corresponds to a serous threat capability against the US.

4) I don't know what the murder rate in Iraq is, but I do know that there weren't 50 multi-death bombings in any of our inner cities last month. You are insane if you think Iraq is a safe and secure country. Last time I drove to the airport I wasn't attacked by IED's, but the road to the Bhagdad airport STILL isn't safe 3 years after the invasion, and most of Bhagdad has simply been abandoned by us. I don't know what you drink in order to feel good about the situation in Iraq, but it must be some pretty strong stuff.

5) I'll read the Brookings data and get back to you.

6) if you actually read my post, rather than just assume I say the things you wish I would say so you could dismiss me more easily as “anti-American”, you'd know that I made exactly this point, that most of the world loves and admires America. The problem is, leaders like Bush give us a bad name, and his poor reception can't simply be blamed on “anti-Americanism”. It's Bush they hate, not America per se. Most of them loved Clinton, and last time I checked he was an American too. He was known to lie as well, but he managed to keep our diplomatic relations on solid ground most everywhere. And we aren't just liked by the “countries worth being liked by”, we are liked by most everyone, France included. The French love American culture, regardless of what Rush tells you to think. So do most of the Arabs. It takes a miracle of idiocy on Bush's part to turn that affection into hatred, but he's done it. It's not an unfixable problem, just not fixable by Bush.

[GK]

Conrad,

1) You are being silly. If Saddam once had Anthrax, and was paying families Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 each, AND had ties to Ramsi Yusuf, you stills say that letting him continue as he was would be no threat to the US? And you are also saying that Blair, Putin, Clinton, and Bush all coordinated a multinational effort to mislead people that Saddam had WMDs (which he used before)? Yet YOU knew better?

Ha ha ha ha ha

Plus, you also say sanctions and diplomacy will work with Iran, even though they openly are threatening to pursue and use nuclear weapons against Israel, so even the presence of WMDs makes you unwilling to have America use our unique and awesome military might.

2) We have many large and important countries on our side. The heavy lifting was always going to be done by the US, just as in the first Gulf War in 1991. The coalition of 2003 differs from that of 1991 only by the lack of France and Germany. If you still claim the 2003 coalition is far weaker, it does imply you think that France, Germany, and the UN are the only things that make a coalition legitimate.

3) Yes. We should have invaded Saddam in 1991. Or in 1993 (after the WTC bombing), or 1998 (when Operation Desert Fox already started up against him). At least Bush II had the courage to take on a difficult job that both Bush I and Clinton knew needed to be done, but did not want to politically risk but rather just pass the buck to the next President. Thank god we have someone who will tackle unanimously necessary, yet tough issues.

4) Read this, the death rate per capita in Iraq is less than in leftist paradises like Venezuela, and also New Orleans and Washington D.C.
500 people dying a month in a country of 25 million is lower, per capita, than the places above.

Plus, the killing is being done by Al-Qaeda and Baathist remnants. All the more reason for us to stay there and slowly eliminate these enemies of the Iraqi people. Withdrawal would get MORE Iraqis killed, not less. Leftists screwing up the VietNam War are the reason 2 million Cambodians and South Vietnamese were killed.

6) You didn't read the link I posted. Bush is loved in some large, democratic countries with more people than Europe and the Middle East put together. There are also pro-US countries, as per the first link. India matters more than Europe and the Middle East combined.

I'll let you get over the depression of learning that India, the land of Gandhi and Mother Teresa, is the most pro-Bush country in the world. Then again, all three saved many lives, and Gandhi (like Bush) recognized that some violence is needed to prevent much greater violence, so India's position is consistent with its history.

[Al]

Looking good so far Conrad. Lets see if you can keep it up.

Me, I do believe in the lower death rates in Iraq, but I also think that the way that people are dieing (explosions, executions) can rattle anybody's sense of security.

"most of Bhagdad has simply been abandoned by us"
Well, this action sort of corresponds with one strategy for withdrawing and letting the Iraqis settle things. However, I would sure hate to be the Iraqi policemen in those districts, unless I was corraborating with militiamen. I don't think an American presence in those parts of the city would help though, that would lead to firefights and pissed off residents.

" It takes a miracle of idiocy on Bush's part to turn that affection into hatred, but he's done it."
The important thing to note is that a some important countries don't hate Bush. Russians for example, sympathize with the American war on terror, due to their experiences with Chechnya.

And I don't how the hell India is pro-American, but if they are, I find it wierd. Nice to know that a lot of people think that India can become a world superpower if they fix a few things with civil unrest.

And the Chinese as always have this zen neutrality as they watch the Iraq war. Hu Jintao is still quite fixated on good relations with the USA, through trade and diplomacy. But as always, China adopts a very Sun Tzu like attitude, and have the capability to turn on any country, USA and Iran included.

France has sided with the USA specifically on the Iran nuclear issue. It's not like we forced France to join the Coalition, so that means they don't have so much reason to hate hate Bush....?

Also, I have trouble believing that American soldiers are pessimistic about Iraq. From reading blogs from Michael Yon, OPFOR, and Counter-Terrorism Blog, I think that the journalists picked up a hopeful vibe from a lot of soldiers. I bet that overall, military life is pretty harsh, but that our set of warriors don't want pity on their behalf for deaths and mutilations. But I have heard that the Afghanistan Coalition would really really appreciate some reinforcements, especially for those yearly Taliban Spring Offensives. (Probably my reason for my questioning of the Iraq invasion)

BTW, ever heard for President Walken, Independent for 2008? When I vote, I'm going to fall back on this guy if I'm disappointed with the nominations for either main party. I recommend looking at this guy's campaign platform out of curiosity.
http://www.walkenforpres.com/

Yes, yes, I know, vote in another actor for president. But the world seems to like some American movies right?

[Conrad]

Reply to GK,

You're being crazily and willfully absurd in your claims about Iraq's security. There are sunni and shiite death squads roaming the streets at will, killing whomever they want, for whatever offenses they deem punishable, such as wearing shorts. I say you should move to Iraq and walk down those safe and secure streets on a daily basis if you think its comparable to most US cities. Our dialog would end very quickly, I think, with a bullet to your head. But your type are all talk and no action.

1) Yes, the threat Saddam represented was militarily inconsequential to us. Israel is not a part of the US last I knew. Mounting a 400 billion dollar war costing 2-3000 lives is not the proper response to the kind of “threat” Saddam represented. What threat he did represent could have been contained indefinitely through far less costly means. The invasion was a huge gamble by a reckless reformed alcoholic blinded by religious fundamentalism. It was not directed by sound and sane principles of diplomacy and warfare. What was right about it has been nearly overshadowed by all that was done wrong. It is not irreparable, and I am in favor of repairing it, not abandoning it, but I have zero faith that Bush can do the job. I see now that he was never up to the job, and never will be. I'm hoping that McCain can win and set things right over there, but it may be too late. I am not optimistic about the trends there as you are. Your comment (I think it was you) that insurgencies that don't gain strength tend to fail doesn't take into account the fact that foreign wars that aren't won quickly tend not to be won at all, unless the whole country is utterly committed to the war. The insurgency doesn't have to win quickly, they just have to outlast us, and it's their country, not ours, so their staying power is greater. Unless we move quickly to stamp them out, which we are not doing, they will win over time.

And yes, of course Putin lied. Virtually everything that petty KGB dictator says is a lie. He's more than happy to lie for Bush if it gives him a free hand to crush Chechnya underfoot. Funny how your sympathies are for the KGB forces in Russia rather than the democratic forces that Putin is crushing on a daily basis throughout the country. And Clinton? He's just trying to appear macho and tough on Saddam. But in the end even he feels the invasion wasn't the right way to handle the situation.

2) we squandered our huge popularity and worldwide sympathy, for nothing. Yes, we still have friends, but our leverage is severely reduced. It's good that India is with us, but Bush's popularity has to do with Bush approving of their having the bomb and violating the NPT, a policy which makes our position on Iran's nuclear program a little less principled than we would like to represent ourselves as. He general point is that the Iraq war hurt us diplomatically, even with those countries who supported us, because now they feel like idiots for having done so. England will never again automatically join us in any foreign wars, they feel they have been played for complete suckers. And yes, Germany and France do matter, and Europe still matters more than India, and China has no love for us whatsoever, and is daily undermining things with Iran, who they helped for years in all kinds of ways. And even the UN matters. Sure, if the Iraq war really had been necessary, it would have been worth the diplomatic price we paid, but it simply wasn't. You haven't in any way described how a containment policy wasn't workable. The fact is that our standing in the world is severely reduced since the Iraq war, not enlarged. This is not good for American interests.

3,4) I'm in favor of staying and doing the job right, which means putting more troops in and getting international support, all of which have been undermined by Bush, not be peaceniks. As in Vietnam, the damage has been done by idiot hawks who don't know what they are doing, not the peacenik protestors. Nixon and Kissinger are the guys who invaded Cambodia and widened the war causing milions of additional deaths there, not the peaceniks. You are letting your emotional attachments guide your thinking, because you simply can't cope with being wrong. The problem is the same in the White House. They can't admit they made huge mistakes, and they can't correct those mistakes because it would mean admitting they made them. So they just squander our country's will and resources and men for the sake of stupid ego, and pretend they've been undermined by someone other than themselves. If Bush really was the kind of guy who will tackle the tough issues, I'd sing his praises. But he won't do what needs to be done, he doesn't even know how, he's just a schoolboy dreaming of being a modern prophet, he's unfit for duty. A lot of conservatives seem to agree these days. You are sitting on a pretty isolated platform now.

6) Comparing Bush to Gandhi is the funniest thing you've said yet. But why stop there? Why not compare him to Jesus Christ? After all, Jesus was just a wimp who said turn the other cheek, Bush has the balls to ram electrodes up your ass and turn on the juice. And he's truly infallible to boot. In his world it's heaven every day, everything is going smoothly in Iraq, the insurgency is in its death throes, and they are welcoming us with flowers and candy. It couldn't get any better!

[Conrad]

AI,

The point about security in Iraq is that it's not at the level at which a democracy can function and grow. We can have all the elections we want, but we won't have democracy until there's an end to political violence. It's hard enough when there's ordinary crime around, but political violence makes it impossible, and we've done nothing to secure the country against violence. When we were rebuilding Germany from an even more brutal and destructive totalitarian system, we had millions of troops there. We clamped down hard on Germany, and made the country secure. We didn't allow an insurgency to grow, which certainly would have happened if we and the Russians had tried to fight on the cheap and not put all our resources into the battle and occupation. There may be places where American troops would now be resented, but tough shit, these guys don't get to run their death squads on our watch. It would all have been so much easier if we'd planned this right and devoted the troops the military wanted to put into action, but that's why Rumsfeld should be fired and Bush should resign.

India is emerging from a socialist nightmare, and they have always hated Moslems, and have their own problem with muslim terrorists in Kashmir, so they love that America is now fighting muslims also. And, Bush just let India off the hook for violating the NPT. As for becoming a superpower, don't hold your breath. India barely governs itself, and has a long way to go. They have potential, to be sure, but that's all.

You're right about China playing the art of war against all comers. We mean nothing to them but a paycheck. They are simply trying to maneuver themselves into the sole Asian superpower. They will fund Iran's nuclear program one day and blow us kisses the next.

I don't think our troops are pessimistic, but they can't let themselves be. They have to believe in what they are doing to get through the day, and the army training requires a kind of tunnel vision of simply doing the job in front of you without looking at the bigger picture. But looking at the bigger picture it's hard not to notice the huge problems there that simply don't go away and aren't solved by merely slogging through one more day on patrol. I'm glad the troops are hopeful, because if they weren't that would just mean its over, plain and simple. But hopefulness isn't enough, we need real results. And we are not devoting enough troops and enough of our resources to obtain those results.

I'd vote for Chris Walken any day for President. He and Bush could play Russian roulette and get this whole bloody thing over with in one night.

[GK]

Conrad,

1) It is still funny how you insist that there ws a concerted effort between Bush, Clinton, Blair, Putin, and 77 US Senators to lie about the threat posed by Saddam, yet YOU knew it was a lie in the beginning.

That is just too funny. Too bad someone so omniscient won't answer other questions.

So you think Iran is not a threat even WITH their nuclear weapons and open threats to destroy Israel and unleash 40,000 suicide bombers onto the US?
Anwyay, your type is all whining an no action, so I don't expect any answer that protects US interests.

2) Typical Eurocentric leftism. You think Europe matters more than India? Apparently you don't know that India has 3 times the people of Europe and an economy that gorws at 8% rather than Europe's 2%. Try to treat non-white people as equals someday.

Plus, we DO have European allies like Poland, Britain, and Italy.

You keep dodging the fact that we have every ally we did in Gulf War I except France and Germany. This PROVES that you only think a coalition is legitimate with France and Germany.

Your point of squandered goodwill is ignorant, as France and Germany are with us on the Iran issue. It seems goodwill towards the US has increased, eh?

3) You contradict your own point, saying that waiting to remove Saddam for so many years after the 1993 WTC attacks is wrong, but Bush finally doing something about it is also wrong.

You also say we should 'finish the job' by putting more troops. There, I agree, but I thought you said democracy can't be exported. Wouldn't this be more forcible?

Most Americans agree that anti-war activists are merely hypocritical fifth column anti-Americans. The irony is that they push more moderates into Bush's camp, which is why he won the election.

4) You didn't read the link about how Iraq's death rate is lower than some dangerous neighborhoods in the US, as well as leftist paradises like Venezuela Too bad you flee from facts.

Plus, you didn't answer the question - what percentage of a population has to die per year for a nation to be in a civil war? I know leftists avoid numbers because it disproves their slogans, but try this time.

6) You obviously don't know anything about Gandhi. If you did, you would know why India is pro-Bush. Anyway, I can see you are still greatly bothered that India, a nation with more people than Europe and the Middle East combined, is pro-Bush. And they were pro-Bush long before the nuclear deal, as the date of the article will clearly prove.

Quit dodging questions and contradicting yourself, and offer solutions to future problems like Iran, if you ever want to be taken seriously by the mainstream.

[GK]

Conrad,

You said India hates Muslims? Apparently you don't know that India has a Muslim President (the second in its history), and that many top movie stars and sports figures are Muslims, in India.

India's problems with Pakistan are not only abotu Islam, as India has more Muslims (14% of India's pop) than Pakistan's entire population.

Again, no knowledge whatsoever about the world's most populous democracy.

[Conrad]

GK,

1) you're being a willful idiot here. You're the one who's talking about some silly conspiracy between Bush, Blair, Clinton, 77 senators, and Putin, not me. I just said they all lied, nothing about a conspiracy between them. Such things almost never have to reach the level of an actual conspiracy. Politicians lie when their interests favor a lie, they sign onto other people's lies when it is in their interest, this is how politics gets so fucked up. And then there's people like you who believe the lies when it helps you overcome all that cognitive dissonance of having believed the last set of lies. Most of what politicians tell you is a lie, if you believe it on face value, you are just setting yourself up as a chump. Apparently that's what you like being, but I don't. It's not that I'm a genius, far from it. Seeing that Bush, Blair, and Clinton were lying takes the brains of a grade-schooler. What takes real brains is convincing yourself and others that they are not lying, and coming up with reasons to believe them. You must be exhausted from all this excuse-making.

As for questions unanswered, I've tried to answer them all. It's you who have avoided every single serious point I've made.

2) Iran is NOT a serious threat right now, that's obvious to anyone. Will they become a serious threat? Remains to be seen. So far its all hot air and bloviating on their Prez's part, mostly for domestic consumption to try to build a rep as a certified heel-nipper for the anti-American crowd over there – always a sure-fire winning formula in Iranian politics. I'm so terrified of their 40,000 suicide bombers, I can't even get out of bed. Just how exactly are they going to get over here, dress like a Persian carpet and stowaway in a freight container? I know you can't sleep at night worrying about these things, but us grown ups have more serious issues to deal with. And his threats against Israel? You think that's anything other than more hot air? The only thing more popular than America-bashing over there is Israel-bashing. But actually nuking Israel, well, good luck. I think the Israels know how to deal with that sort of threat. If it really gets down to that, let them fight their own battles. But it won't because all this is just posturing.

2) Of course Europe matters more than India. Europe's GDP is what, ten times India's at least? Not saying India doesn't matter, but Europe is still hugely important to us. That may change someday, but the reality today is that Europe still has plenty of clout and pull. This has nothing to do with what you imagine to be eurocentric leftism. It's simple realism, something you think doesn't matter, because you get to “make your own reality”.

And no, we didn't have every ally as in Gulf I except France and Germany. In Gulf One over half the troops were from outside the US, and many from Arab nations. We did not provoke huge demonstrations worldwide against our action, and we didn't alienate our partners in the process, and we retained our credibility (though we lost some by betraying the Kurds later on). There's simply no comparison between the two instances in terms of international cooperation and diplomatic credibility. You are looking for data to hide the obvious behind, and there just isn't anything there to work with. Good luck trying to find it.

As for Iran, it's not like France and Germany are going to go against their own interests just to spite us. Of course they are trying to stop Iran's nuclear program. Why wouldn't they? But will they support a US invasion? Of course not, not after Iraq. If Iraq had been done differently however, with real intelligence, planning, diplomatic agreements, extra time, then yes, it could be a whole different story. And of course that was the overall Bush plan, to do Iraq first, then go after Iran. That was the general neocon plan. But they fucked up Iraq so badly in every way its now nearly impossible to use that threat against Iran. Hopefully we won't need to. But it still puts us at a serious disadvantage. If you can't see that, then you simply don't care about America's real interests, but are more interested in protecting your delusions.

3) My point is that if it wasn't worth going after Saddam in 1993 following the WTC attack, it sure makes no sense to go after him 10 years later for that reason.

I never said democracy can't be exported. We did pretty well in Germany, Japan, and Italy after WWII. That we are doing so badly in Iraq is due to the failures of our leaders. You must be confusing me with another poster, or just that generic “anti-American” fifth column you have roaming around in your imagination. I am also not opposed to the use of force to achieve our ends. I am opposed to the misuse of force that thwarts the achievement of our ends. The Iraq war goes under that category thus far, as does Vietnam.

I don't know where these “most Americans” of yours come from. At this point a clear majority of Americans are against the war in Iraq and disapprove of Bush's handling of it. This fifth column must be huge! But they are not the creation of a conspiracy of anti-Americans (somehow you laugh at the notion of four world leaders conspiring to tell lies, but 25-30,000,000 Americans (your 8-10%) engaging in a massive conspiracy to destroy our country, that you have no problem with!)

4) I'm not sure how to interpret the death rate stats, but I think they are wildly misleading. For one, the deaths are concentrated in areas where power is concentrated. We are not talking about random crime here, we are talking about political murder. It's bad enough that all of Iraq averages out to a dangerous inner-city hell-hole, it means that the bad places are incredibly bad. Plus the violence is directed at political targets, and random terror, not against simple criminal targets. Iraq's political culture is a culture of death right now, not peaceful democratic processes. You are in deep denial of this, pretending that it's some kind of ordinary crime wave sweeping the country. If the average US crime rate were that of an inner city ghetto, we'd have one helluva revolution here I can guarantee that.

5) your stupid question “what percentage of the population has to die every year for it to be a civil war” has no answer, other than stupid ones. Civil wars aren't defined by statistics like that. A civil war is when two or more political factions in a country have decided to solve their differences by violent means rather than by a peaceful political process. Right now that's what's going on. Pretending otherwise based on abstractions of death rates is idiotic. Democracy is a political process whereby violence is forsworn and differences are settled by peaceful means. Period. That is not what is going on in Iraq. What is going on is civil war. There's hope that the violence will abate, but it's still just in the hopeful stage.

6) you are projecting. I am not bothered that India is pro-Bush. I'm happy. Let him go to India and be their leader! If you read my other posts, you'd know I explained that India is pro-US, and pro-Bush, not just because of the NPT stuff, but because we are at war with Muslims, and Hindu India hates Muslims, and has been fighting Muslim terrorists for decades in Kashmir. They are very happy because now the US is on their side against the Muslims in Kashmir, rather than taking the Pakistani/Muslim side, and because we are forced to pay attention to their whole problem with Pakistan, and exerting pressure on Pakistan to end its support of muslim terrorists in Kashmir, and generally trying to abate the conflicts with Pakistan. I don't have a problem with Bush's policy towards India, but that has nothing to do with the issues we were debating, which is the effect the Iraq war has had on our position in the world. In sum, it hasn't helped our relation with India at all, what has helped us there is very much unrelated to Iraq.

As for contradicting myself, you haven't pointed to one serious contradiction in my arguments. I've pointed out tons of contradictions in your arguments, and you have failed to answer any of them. You seem to live in a world of your own reality, cut off from rational thought, simply emoting from one position to the next, incapable of self-criticism or learning anything new. Is that satisfying to you somehow?

[Conrad]

GK,

Yeah, India loves Muslims. That's why they murdered so many of them in the aftermath of the last muslim terror attack on India's parliament. Not to mention the millions of Muslims killed by Hindus during the war of Independence (and vice-versa). Do all Hindus hate all muslims? No. But there's still huge hatred of muslims, of Pakistan in particular, through much of India. And yes, it stretches way back, to the days of the Mogul invasion and slaughter of Hindus by Muslims. A few pretty movie stars and a figurehead President don't mean much. You know nothing of India's real politics.

[Al]

Uh, well... Conrad, if it's any importance to you, I'm going to admit that your points and beliefs are likely to be more solid than mine. I hope you will take it as a compliment if I now withdraw from the debate and observe you and GK.

Oh and GK, I'd hate to cut and run like a political coward (no really, I suck), but my beliefs are mainly grounded on the support of American war-fighters. I really lack the political wisdom to understand the complexities of the world.

So I'll just take my leave, and see if I learn something from this debate. Just want to comment about a few things though:

"I say you should move to Iraq and walk down those safe and secure streets on a daily basis"
To be fair, I would be scared to walk on the streets of New Orleans. I much prefer the safety of predominately white Coloradan suburbs, even as an Taiwanese-American.

"Israel is not a part of the US last I knew."
A certain family member of mine blames the Jewish-American population for America's defense of Israel. Just a 3rd-hand observation.

"The insurgency doesn't have to win quickly, they just have to outlast us, and it's their country, not ours"
Well, to my impression, Iraqis hate the insurgents, and are sometimes willing to store away weapons in order to lauch some counter-attacks. But civil war is always bad.

"Funny how your sympathies are for the KGB forces in Russia rather than the democratic forces that Putin is crushing on a daily basis throughout the country."
I read somewhere that Putin has a phenomenal approval rating. I guess this means a lot of Russians value security over pure democracy of passing power between political parties.

"China has no love for us whatsoever, and is daily undermining things with Iran, who they helped for years in all kinds of ways"
To my personal experience, culturally the Chinese have no love for anyone except of other Han-dominant-Chinese. Nothing personal, but politically the Chinese have the inability to form attachments with any alliance with the Iranians any more than the USA. As soon as the Iranians become a liability to the Chinese rather than a business ally, supports going to evaporate, or even worse a lot of people are going get vaporized.

Uh, so I'm visiting Taiwan this summer for student reasons, and I sure hope Chinese military leaders won't get some funny ideas.
(^_^);;

"even the UN matters"
It's not a good idea to piss off a lot of countries, but I also think that the UN has never really accomplished anything when it comes to decisive issues.

"we won't have democracy until there's an end to political violence"
Ah, right, that's a good point. I don't think anyone has been stabbed in New Orleans for being a Libertarian, Independent, ect.

"As for [India] becoming a superpower, don't hold your breath. India barely governs itself, and has a long way to go. They have potential, to be sure, but that's all."
Personally I don't think India can become a superpower. I believe China can, but I guess that's just my racial bias talking.

"You're right about China playing the art of war against all comers. We mean nothing to them but a paycheck."
As I said, ditto for the Iranians.

"I'm glad the troops are hopeful, because if they weren't that would just mean its over, plain and simple"
Lol, you are absolutely right, just look at the conscripts for the Vietnam War. But I really do think that troop morale for the Iraq War is at least much much better than that of the Vietnam War.

"I'd vote for Chris Walken any day for President. He and Bush could play Russian roulette and get this whole bloody thing over with in one night."
Whoa, I definitely don't understand. You suggest that you like Walken more than President Bush. Why then do you advocate that the regime change be determined by a game of chance? Why not something more skill based like swordfighting, gun dueling, or even hot potato with a grenade? Anything but Russian Roulette!

So yeah, here I go crawling back into my cave. Don't take it personally guys.
;P

[Al]

" I know you can't sleep at night worrying about these things"

Oh burn dude. My parents have been trying all this stuff in order to relieve my inability to sleep with a regular curfew. (2AM is a typical sleeping time no matter the time zone)

Naw, just kidding. It's just sad and true.
(T.T)

[GK]

Conrad,

1) You suggest that Bush, Blair, Putin, and Clinton all collectively lied, yet it was NOT coordinated? That is was by coincidence? Yet YOU, oh omniscient one, knew about it.

Again, ha ha ha ha ha ha

This alone proves how detached you are from reality. Try telling people that you knew all 4 were collectively lying, independent of corroborating with each other, because it was in their collective interest to lie. See what people in the real world say.

2) So you feel Iran is not a threat right now, despite threatening to blast Israel off the Earth and attack America? They are openly pursuing WMDs, but somehow that issue is not important to you (even if it was for Iraq).

Consider the two-step concept that Iran could pass nuclear weapons to Hamas, just like Saddam could have passed Anthrax to Ramzi Yusuf or Zarqawi. Think about this two-fold concept..

3) Wait, so GDP matters in alliances? I thought you cared about numbers of troops contributed? In which case what India could potentially contribute would dwarf France and Germany's by what, 10 times?

Plus, now that you claim that GDP matters in alliances, we do have Japan (2nd largest economy), Italy, Britain, and South Korea in our coalition. Adding this to the US, and we see that over HALF the world's GDP is in the coalition of the willing! You have defeated your own point.

Really shot yourself there, eh?

4) "My point is that if it wasn't worth going after Saddam in 1993 following the WTC attack, it sure makes no sense to go after him 10 years later for that reason."

Bush II wasn't President in 1993. Clinton should have gone after Saddam in 1993. Or in 1998 after Operation Desert Fox. Better yet, Bush I should have finished it in 1991. But since neither 41 nor 42 had the balls to undertake such a difficult task, thank god 43 decided to put and end to it and not pass the buck.

Are you saying the next President, coming in in 2009, should not continue to pursue Osama, Zawahiri, and Zarqawi if they are not yet found by then?

By your logic, it also means Bush should not bother trying to reform social security, because the problem originated in the days of FDR. It makes no sense to solve a problem 70 years later, as per your logic.

Don't you see how you are not distinguishing between hindsight and foresight?

5) Your statement of calling Iraq a civil war is what is stupid. 500 people dying a month in a nation of 25 million is NOT a civil war. Show me one civil war in history with this low of a per capita death rate. It is 'unrest', nothing more. The numbers DO matter (as leftists are certan of when speaking of total Iraqi civilian collateral damage). Your avoidance of any quantitative analysis of this point makes your opinion worthless.

It is sad that you actually want Iraq to be a civil war, just so you can blame Bush for it.

6) I, GK, am an Indian, you fool. This is apparent from even a quick glance at this blog. You are telling me that you know about India and I don't? Typical leftist arrogance.

And you claim Hindus in India 'murder' Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims have risen to the top of so many fields in India, like film, sports, music, and politics? This shows how tolerant Hindus are of Muslims. When Muslims kill, say, schoolchildren in Russia, do you also call it 'murder' then?

Name ANY non-Muslims, in a Muslim-majority country like Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, etc., that are at the top of ANY field. Guess what, you can't.

[Conrad]

AI,

Sorry to see you go. But thanks for the compliments

“Well, to my impression, Iraqis hate the insurgents, and are sometimes willing to store away weapons in order to lauch some counter-attacks. But civil war is always bad.”

The Iraqis hated Saddam also, but that didn't stop him from dominating the country for 30 years. And he had 99.9% approval ratings.

“I read somewhere that Putin has a phenomenal approval rating. I guess this means a lot of Russians value security over pure democracy of passing power between political parties.”

Stalin had a high approval rating also. Russians love the strong man.

“Personally I don't think India can become a superpower. I believe China can, but I guess that's just my racial bias talking.”

I tend to agree. Trying to organize Indians is a thankless task. It's one of the reasons I love the country, but they just don't seem cut out for superpower status. Must be their good karma. The Chinese love to organize and stay in line. Watch out for those fuckers. But I agree with the blog that they won't surpass the US. They have too many internal contradictions and simply can't make friends like we do, in spite of our aggressive bomblings.
“Lol, you are absolutely right, just look at the conscripts for the Vietnam War. But I really do think that troop morale for the Iraq War is at least much much better than that of the Vietnam War.”

It is for now, but I wonder how much longer that can go on without serious progress.

“Whoa, I definitely don't understand. You suggest that you like Walken more than President Bush. Why then do you advocate that the regime change be determined by a game of chance? Why not something more skill based like swordfighting, gun dueling, or even hot potato with a grenade? Anything but Russian Roulette!”

Clearly you haven't seen The Deer Hunter, Walken's first big role (he won an acadamy award for it). Rent it and you'll understand.

“So yeah, here I go crawling back into my cave. Don't take it personally guys.”

Well, see you again on groundhog day. :\-))

[Al]

Call me crazy, but while it is apparent that Conrad is "anti-Bush", I think he actually passed the "anti-Americanism test", meaning that Conrad's a normal American that simply disagrees with the current US administration.

Disambiguation: I don't think Conrad is Anti-American. Well Done.

Unlike the previous people who wouldn't even admit that Bin Laden was evil, or would hold the USA to a false ultra utopian Britain, Conrad comes up with "satisfactory", if oppositional, answers.

I think the point of contention with this argument is with the opinions about the facts. You two look at the data provided, and then disagree about what it means in the big picture.

For example, we all disagree about how honest politicians can be. Conrad argues that world leaders of the Coalition performed a unified international public relations rush to invade Iraq. I believe that the politicians merely took Bush's Iraq accusations at face value, without offering opposition or investigation. GK, from his viewpoint, believes there is no possibility that the international politicians secretly agreed to lie. I say that this is a point of opinion, because conspiracies have been observed in the past, like with the imperialism of Africa. We personally do not know what happened in the politicians' minds, regardless of our theories of what was possible.

Another item that is being debated is the relative importance of Europe vs India. In one view, GDP rules. In the other, potential of growth and population are more important. The relative strengths of either power block can be interpreted either way due to personal views of what a power block needs.

As for how dangerous Iran is, the craziness of their supreme leader is good debating fuel for whether they are dangerious or not. I'm personally scared of these guys, but I can believe that others are not worried at all.

While I believe that the Iraq war is being poorly reported on, I understand that the current military situation is up for interpretation. GK believes in a quick victory in 2008, Conrad believes that the war effort is staggering due to in-ept top leadership, and I believe that the troops are kicking so much deserved ass while but believe that the war will realistically last longer than 2008.

As for discussing the current situation in India, can we please not be mean? I would be extremely sad if you two started rapping on Taiwanese human-rights abuses and economic/political stagnation. It's true, but it sucks to have outsiders point it out sharply.
Waaah. (T.T)

I say that a native's desciption of his land is often personal and realistic. And that an outsider's view of that same land is broadly insightful, but not deeply understanding.

So I think that neither of you are losers or winners in this debate. You simply don't agree.
I can live with that. =3

I'm just satified about knowing what's on Conrad's mind. (^_^)

What I learned from this test is that you can easily trap a dogmatic 4th column anti-american with simple questioning. But then again, a unquestionably patriotic individual like me can have troubles coming up with the right questions responses, as I often believe only what my government tells me, while not comprehending the world view of non-Western forces. And perhaps a very well-schooled intellectual like GK has trouble believing that non-conservatives have the correct knowledge needed to pass the questioning. And maybe Conrad would find it impossible to believe that guys like me sees Bush as a nice guy who has a cool attitude, who waves friendily to the Marines that protect his back, and who genuinly worries about the situation Coalition troops need to deal with.

So I think the high emotions show a clash of personalities, rather than who a definite winner/loser. We got the Anti-Bush citizen, the Conservative Intellectual, and the Patriots-have-more-fun Asian-American.

Feel free to call me a little crazy, or even outright disagree.
=P

[scott]

You are patently mistaken. First, you basically say that anybody who does not think we should be in Iraq is anti-American. That would cover about 55% of the U.S., according to the most recent polls. Second, being critical of America does not amount to hatred at all. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said "I criticize America because I love her, and want her to be the moral guide for the world." Do you believe that MLK hated America, and showed his hatred by wanting racial justice in the South in the 60's? I hope you don't think so. Third, I oppose the war because Iraq was not a threat to us and was not responsible for 9-11, and our chest beating in Iraq, in addition to killing 2,500 of our own kids, has caused a huge spike in hatred of the U.S. Think about the roots of terrorism. As much as you would like to think that it is purely evil despots and terrorists that "hate our freedom," the truth is that they hate our presence in the middle east. Invading Afghanistan was justified, and the world rightfully was on our side. Iraq is not, and that has been proven. You call me anti-American because I will not ignore these factors and yell "go team!" when we need a huge change of course. I call myself a patriot for wanting the best for America and speaking my mind about it. I stand with MLK would said we needed change.

[John Boyle]

I have not read all of these comments, so others may have directed readers to info on Gramsci and the long term campaign by Marxists to conquer the West. See
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/06/political-correctness-revenge-of.html

What you describe so well as "anti-Americanism" is actually the now matured outcome of a deliberate strategy that has worked. The only question now is, what can we do about it? Is it too late? A significant part of our native population, and a very influential part it is, is now on the side of the destruction of America.

[GK]

Scott,

Don't mispresent what is said in the article. No where did I say opposition to the Iraq War is anti-American. But LYING about the real reason for one's opposition certainly can be.

The statements in your post are entirely ignorant. You claim that 'they hate us' because of our presence in the Middle East. So how do you explain the terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, Beslan, Delhi, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, and Morocco? Are all of those because AMERICA had a presence in the Middle East.

Also, you claim Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaeda. Have you ever heard of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

You, sir, are too uninformed to be commenting on this subject.

[Chris Miller]

Hello all. This is a really great blog. There are some smart people on here so I am surprised no one recognized that the book "Nately's Old Man" was excerpting was Catch-22. What a great book that really makes you think.

Anyway, I sent this site to my "Fashionable" America Hating friend from El Salvador. I wander if he'll have the balls to comment or if he will just stay silent. Funny thing is I actually posed many of these questions to him before i ever found this site and he wouldn't answer my questions when I asked them so let's see if he has any comments now. Are you there Roberto:)

[GK]

Chris Miller,

Welcome! I hope you stay to read the other articles, and new ones as they arrive.

In particular, check out 'Why the US will still be the only SuperPower in 2030' and 'Who Hates America' under the 'politics' section. These are very useful during rapid debates with others.

[gwsucks]

spare me all of your b.s.You are the same idiots that love to knock our last President with glee! You talk about phonies, well you have to be one to know one don't you! I love America for it's ideals and what the Founding Fathers have put in place for us, the fact that I don't agree with Dubya doesn't make me and the rest of the World phonies and anarchist,it just means point blankly we don't like him. Oh and I feel for the troops,but don't give me that well if you don't like him how can you like them b.s. either, buzz off! You know I love this country, but it and it's politics, which most of the rest of the World doesn't like, isn't perfect, get real! The Right- Wing is the most corrupt and phony side of the whole thing, buzz off

[gwsucks]

OH, and by the way ins't it strange that the Bush Family has ties with the Bin Laden Family and that "Dick" Cheney's former company Haliburton was the sole and only company awarded the Iraq contract when in the past companies had to bid for this! Oh and who created Al-Quaida and The Taliban, who guys, you know the answer the US

[GK]

gwsucks,

Your juvenile rant does not even address the simple questions of the article. Answer those simple questions, or shut up.

Readers, this 'gwsucks' character reveals his anti-Americanism without me uttering a single word. He first says that he 'loves the ideals of America' and then in his second post states that Al-Qaeda was 'created by the US'. All this before I said a single word. Sometimes anti-Americans even defeat themselves automatically.

[gwsucks]

typical, I have old glory waving on my front lawn as we speak, I especially was excited about getting a flagpole when we bought our home to have Old Glory waving in the wind, does this sound anti- American, dumb ass! I don't like the President and his policies that doesn't make me Anti-American you idiot
Like I said before you guys who loved to make fun of then President Bill Clinton had no problem doing so, but no it seems if we make fun of the President or don't like him we're traitors, you're a jerk and a hypecrite Long live America and it's founding fathers ideals, not the changed ones of this President.

[GK]

gwsucks,

I see you still could not answer the simple questions in the article. Answer the simple questions, or shut up.

You said the US created Al-Qaeda. That makes you anti-American, you disease-laden vermin.

[Chris Miller]

gwsucks

Stop telling lies about your patriotism!

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that the republicans, who are elected democratically, are responsible for creating Al Quaeda and therefore responsible for terrorism. (Interesting that bin Laden made this same statement). You cannot stand there and hold republicans responsible for wars around the world as you are trying to do and then claim that you love this country. If you honestly believe that the republicans and the republican voters are the axis of evil, which makes this country the axis of evil, then what is it you love about this country? I would not love a country if i believed that the country was causing pain and death all around the world. So you are confusing me - are you saying you love this country and you believe that this country causes death and pain around the world because you are some sort of sadist?

You stand there and vilify the republicans and the US and sympathize with terrorist. It is truly pathetic. You honestly believe that if we are nicer to the terrorist they will go away. You just don't get it. They have been wanting to kill the infidels since they were children - it is their dictators who brainwashed them into believing that it was the West, not their dictator, that is responsible for their hardships.

You are a liar and a cheat. You live in this country and enjoy our prosperity while you are secretly resenting our prosperity and our power. You want nothing more then for this country to be conquered. And I don't believe you have EVER put an American flag in front of your house. You say that you love this country for our forefathers ideals when I doubt you know the ideals of our forefathers. If you did, you would not object to anything this administration is trying to accomplish. You are mad because you know that - even though you may have an American ID card - you are truly not good enough to be American. You don't have the will or the ability to survive in this country as well as other people. Before you came to this country you believed that everyone in America had everything handed to them on a silver plater and that anyone could make it here - now you realize that you are not good enough for us so that is why you hate us. I doubt you earned the money to buy your house - maybe got it through a lawsuit with a former employer - I don't know, but you didn't earn it.

tell us gwsucks - where are you from? How much money do you make? What is your excuse to your friends and family? You have to blame others and hate the success of others because you are jealous - even when you are in our country you are still not good enough to be an American. Don't give us your BS about old glory waving in front of your house. I have heard you fakes talk about your patriotism before. It is a lie and you know it is. You are a failure in this system and that is why you hate the system and want to disrupt it. You should go back to whatever socialist hellhole you crawled out of before you came here to undermine our country. You are wasting your time trying to disrupt this system - you are just not smart enough or strong enough to compete with us.

[Aaron Schulz]

Sorry to pull this (dormant) thread back so long. I lost the thread in May, and just happened upon it again.
When referring to the relative merits of different countries impact on humanity, I got my acronym wrong.
I of course meant to refer to the OECD, not OPEC.

I see reading through the posts that the rabidly "pro"-American posters still prefer to write off anyone who opposes American policy as anti-American, barely better than terrorist scum.

That's a shame, especially given polling that shows the majority of Americans now agree with those of us who opposed the war in Iraq.

I also followed the thread about the situation in Iraq with interest.
Given that the unrest in Ireland in the 1980's (and back) was classified as a civil war, when they had probably about 1 bombing a month, I fail to see how the situation in Iraq cannot be one, when they have several (and innumerable shootings) a day.

[Siber]

You have built a good websiteF

[Martin]

I like it and the background and colors make it easy to readt

[G]

My Lord, people...reading all of this makes me glad that I moved from the US to Canada. I love America but I was glad to leave all this insanity behind. In Canada we talk about how great it is to live in a progressive, relatively peaceful society blessed with many natural resources...even though most people don't know we exist! It's tough being American-people automatically will get a hate-on for you...but they are also probably jealous. America is great but it needs a lot of work to raise the standard of living to the level we enjoy in Canada.

[SesGyday]

http://dressesusa.verhalen.nl/222923/Internet+cafes+to+take+the+second+generation+ID+card+.html>http://dressesusa.verhalen.nl/222923/Internet+cafes+to+take+the+second+generation+ID+card+.html for less
7 in addition to Developed Safe appealing wedding party table flower 7 and also Developed Safe appealing marriage ceremony table flower 80 "hide" them all quietly to acquire engaged Automobiles to be able to how, put on a large marriage ceremony, to be able to outlive other people the particular toasted breads eating dining tables... just 80 standpoint, wedding ceremony program not only frustrating but in addition costly. Nowadays, many more younger households recommending ease, soon after obtaining a partnership enable, simply request many family along with their peers to be able to dinner released this particular information related to romantic relationship, the actual quiet connection loved ones. Noiseless connection family to protect their very own relationship placement "hidden partnership members of the family, they're going to obtain a partnership the required permits punctually to be able to fellow workers in addition to their peers presented their very own engaged an email, just quietly engaged "way to be able to avoid the real complex kind of big event. Inside Huizhou with regard to three years, Mister. Zhang mentioned they excellent partner obtain a romantic relationship qualification after a month or two, simply to return home to be able to every parents satisfy to. Mister. Zhang mentioned, excellent partner before the connection register decided marriage ceremony cost for each brain home every single keep your re-do inside Huizhou, three times a relationship leads to numerous million, these folks really feel uneconomical established and also made a decision to accreditation tend not to execute marriages. Mister. Change mentioned amusingly: "There are generally not million, enough first year house loan. in . 80 revolutionary personalized wedding party You could be even so ready to historical along with traditional big event? Personality from your 80 not necessarily limited to the conventional and also complicated marriage ceremony, at this time gradually concentrate on design personality, social, Do you want to set up the kind of to wedding party? Enable Xiaobian allow you to certainly check out the guru connected with personalized wedding party! Structured the particular white gift wrapping inside the lawn related to yard Wedding party Réunion, back garden flowers. Guests possess time for you to maintain attached with eat, the specific couple of within the sun marriage ceremony. Developed personal marriage ceremony this specific prior appears inside the display gradually showed up towards the real homes connected with typical people. Lawn marriage ceremony nowadays many more teens various: Get pleasure from the exterior out of control, crazy, in addition to members of the family inside the places are generally environmentally friendly as well as the excellent azure environment assured forever commitment.
80 design experience good images wedding party photos Design and even previous beliefs, choice test vil performance, photos wedding party, there's always review. Nevertheless for kids who else more want to talk about good is in fact their very own nearly all preferred look. Through every thing together with your closest lover to speak about pleasure!
80 design wedding party increase the personal directory Marriages and also adore inside close to contact just about all companions require wedding party to keep the great storage. Comfy blooms, good smooches, spectacular gem stones... additionally when compared with these kinds of personal? Increase the personal marriage ceremony through the list via just about all tasks of wedding ceremony areas, marriage ceremony details, marriage ceremony tracks, this specific special day become the particular amazing achievements romantic wedding party! one particular Keep in mind that the particular colors in the marriage ceremony. In order to produce a personal atmosphere from the fairytale, consider utilizing numerous red-colored, white, sterling silver, and may acquire very good results. And even including pink, lighting effects red-colored in addition to pink elevated. If you need a appealing, personal surroundings, and after that select the passionate red-colored style through the entire marriage ceremony image. 2 lighting to make the particular stage a lot more romantic feeling. Special lighting for your marriage ceremony to generate a particular temperature ranges, on the ground you may design your personal companions headline mixes connected with styles, or simply the actual symbol style; You may even make use of lighting effects and flexible to all or any tasks of the exact wedding party, such as the appear in the brand new bride-to-be include plenty of wistful lighting effects and also lights collected inside the gemstone inside the 2nd the exact change related to companies.
80 wedding ceremony port offered methods entertaining full-enlist
Blend previously (dates) Perfectly -- to be able to link the particular match indebted moments, hovering inside the moving water space for storage pan. The particular red-colored selection centre bar the particular lit smoke cigarettes, two acknowledged with the completely new chew up both equally an individual in the again, and also communicate correspond the entire container smoking lit. In order to safe your own inhaling and exhaling, along with be successful using a powerful "teeth-eye ability. Many individuals ready to get married to immediately after 80, Weifang Independence Globally an individual pay for a whole completely new marriage ceremony position offered, in this year's very amusing! one because grown ups -- examination connected with current co-ordination connected with tacit understanding, to obtain the reason behind red-colored thread, the newest oral cavity each and every Diao the actual, the particular lit smoke cigarettes down the middle of the specific department, put on the specific table together with directly suits (which may be positioned inside the fruit on) and after that the exact couple of are unable to palms to help, equally firm lit the particular match generally. Suggestion: needs to be limited thread eye concentrating on. Looking after cup -- to think about the identical cup, filling your own wines in just a cup related to oral cavity safeguarded together with plastic-type protect, and after that in order to locking mechanism the exact cup oral cavity progressively in the film, to be able to need completely new people who are unable to total seatbelt belt buckle together with two servings connected with wine beverages with one another, are unable to splilling aside. Suggestion: house cup slightly push, in addition to somebody else merely difficult eat this particular.
80 non-mainstream wedding party produce part of your personal personality 80 considering non-mainstream, they will assume non-mainstream character, choice, non-popular, 80 completely new visitors to make sure that many people aspect through the traditional marriage ceremony is not really interested, they could be desired 80 non-mainstream wedding party. 80 non-mainstream wedding party has changed into a a fact inclination. 80 non-mainstream wedding party ways to figure out the particular non-mainstream? Non-mainstream character, choice, absolutely no -- a fact, tend not to blindly the particular propensity from your general public nowadays, concentrate on comply with the specific Mind's clothing, dress, conditions in addition to activities. Non-mainstream is often an come across, a lot of a conference will probably get to be the a sense thinking about and also behaviors from your celebrities. 80 concerning 80 non-mainstream kind of relationship fanatics desire due to the fact fire to be able to particular elements, you'll have marriage ceremony to determine the human relationships concerning the two sides, nonetheless anytime ann arbor marriage ceremony digital photography, these were performing not require to be able to catch forefathers Hey We all conventional relationship, nevertheless ready to consider utilizing a quality solid kind of relationship. Amusing style, amusing the design of illustration each other along with giggle within the style, on location, furthermore ready to travel the particular non-traditional in regards towards the location, really a unique on location. Using this relationship, we've been with each other called the exact "80 non-mainstream relationship. | eveningmahuafu