Who Hates America?

An interesting survey by the PewResearchCenter, cited in The Economist, asks the citizens of several countries for their opinion of the United States.  Comparing this to the socioeconomic history and current characteristics of each of these nations allows some corelations to present themselves.

In the US itself, 17% view their country negatively.  I have claimed earlier that 8-10% of the US population comprises of active or semi-active fifth-columnists, who seek to undermine American strength and security, yet cannot bring themselves to openly admit this deeply held belief, nor move to another country.  This survey appears to offer further evidence of this fifth column. 

Next comes the big surprise.  Most Americans are entirely unaware that the most pro-US foreign country in the world is India.  It is also one of the only countries where George W. Bush is more highly regarded than in the US.  The reason for this is that during the period of Indian socialism and economic isolation (1947-91), Indians were fed a constant diet of anti-American, anti-capitalism propaganda. The utter failure of India's socialist policies, combined with the emergence of the Indian-American community as the wealthiest ethnic group in the US, led to a deep appreciation for a socioeconomic system proven to empower Indians.  As a democracy, Indians could understand America more readily than the Chinese or Arabs could.  All this has led to a nation with 3 times the population of Europe trending towards becoming one of America's closest economic, political, ideological, and military allies. 

Other pro-America nations such as Poland and Russia have also made the assumption that anti-American, socialist practices failed to deliver economic benefits for decades, so the opposite approach must be more beneficial. 

Anti-Americanism does dominate among many non-English-speaking European countries.  Americans may be saddened by this, considering how American sacrifices in troops and resources have saved Europe twice in the last 65 years.  Most of these countries have declining populations and a shortage of children being produced.  It is ironic that people such as the French and Germans, who consider their societies to be so great, have little desire to continue it through producing another generation of French and German people.  Their crushing entitlement programs and demographic time bomb have doomed their societies, and the unwillingness of America to follow them down this path has caused great envy towards America among 55-70% of the population in some European countries.  Read this article from Germany's Der Spiegel, authored by a rare European with a sense of historical context. 

Lastly, the most staunch anti-Americanism is present among undemocratic Islamic societies.  This is not a surprise.  However, not included in this survey are Afghanistan and Iraq, where pro-American sentiments are slightly dominant. 

The next time a fashion-parroting ignoramus or fifth-columnist informs you of how 'the rest of the world hates America', forward them this article, and remind them that India has more people than Europe and the Middle East put together.  The delusions of fifth-columnists represent merely their fanatical hatred of a society that celebrates meritocracy, strong families, a powerful and proud military, and a great thirst for achievement. 

Also refer them to this superb article by Victor Davis Hanson on how America can judge itself on the character of societies that exhibit anti-Americanism, and how most of their rhetoric masks a deep shame at being dependent on America.  He states :

When Europe orders all American troops out; when Japan claims our textbooks whitewash the Japanese forced internment or Hiroshima; when China cites unfair trade with the United States; when South Korea says get the hell off our DMZ; when India complains that we are dumping outsourced jobs on them; when Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians refuse cash aid; when Canada complains that we are not carrying our weight in collective North American defense; when the United Nations moves to Damascus; when the Arab Street seethes that we are pushing theocrats and autocrats down its throat; when Mexico builds a fence to keep us out; when Latin America proclaims a boycott of the culturally imperialistic Major Leagues; and when the world ignores American books, films, and popular culture, then perhaps we should be worried. But something tells me none of that is going to happen in this lifetime.

Nicely put.  Also read why America will still be the only superpower by 2030. 

Update : Some anti-Americans have exhibited racism towards Indians in the comments section, frustrated that a group of dark-skinned people can be economically successful and pro-American.  They have also said that the survey has been rigged to falsely show that some countries are pro-US, but simultaneously claim that the same survey has not been rigged in countries that turned out to be anti-US.  These anti-Americans, as usual, cannot answer simple questions posed to them.  Read all about it in the comments section. 

Comments

[usnjay]

Excellent post. One of the primary reasons for anti-Americanism is the resentment of a dependent group on their provider. Europe depends on America for military protection, without which they would have to provide for their own military. They can’t do this without giving up their socialized medicine, so the resentment builds.

[GK]

usnjay,

Thanks. You are correct, it appears that Europe feels secret embarrassment at being dependent on America for defense, when America itself proves that European notions of how society should be organized are not optimal.

That being said, rural Europeans are probably the pro-American 30-40% of France, Germany, etc. It is just the elites of Paris, Munich, Milan, Madrid, etc. that pursue the 'fashion' of anti-Americanism.

[Kosha]

Yes, and in my experience this stems primarily from "culture"-based arguments, like how we eat processed cheese whereas they (french) know their cheese, etc.

The Germans aren't as hoity-toity as the French, so their resentment arguments are generally based on "American stupidity" based on examples they experience on a day-to-day level when dealing with the dumb person in the toll-booth or the cashier at the grocery store checkout, etc.

Again, these are all based on my anecdotal experiences with German and French friends. But hey, the plural of 'anecdote' is 'data' :)

[usnjay]

GK,
Concur, and that minority you describe should determine the policy of conservatives/libertarians towards Europeans. The goal should not be to promote conflict or say “I told you so” each time the European socialist model takes a hit. That will promote more anti-Americanism and make the job of conservative Europeans more difficult.

The goal should be increasing the power of conservatives and libertarians in Europe through reason and honest debate.

In short there is no competition between Europe and America, only between socialism and freedom (i.e. capitalism).

[jeffolie]

This is off topic but interesting.

Bringing The Jobs Homes

By Anne Fisher, FORTUNE senior writer
March 14, 2006: 11:49 AM EST

(FORTUNE Magazine) - What does Michael Fields know that other software CEOs haven't figured out?

The number of jobs offshored from the U.S. to India and elsewhere has tripled since 2003, to a projected total of one million in 2006, with roughly a quarter of them in high tech. Yet Fields, a former president of Oracle USA who now runs $60-million-a-year software maker KANA, is bringing his company's programming jobs home to Menlo Park, Calif. He calls it "backshoring" and predicts that once they start doing the math, other software makers will follow suit.

"For companies our size, sending jobs to India just doesn't make economic sense," says Fields. Since KANA and its confreres aren't big enough to open their own overseas facilities (like Oracle (Research) and Microsoft (Research)), they end up entrusting the work to outside contractors. That means KANA's intellectual property is in the hands of nonemployees over whom it has little control--especially scary now that, as even far bigger companies are finding, turnover among engineers in India is rapid, loyalty is nil, and poaching and piracy are rampant.

And that's not all. Fields notes that software development is a collaborative process that works best when everybody involved--designers, programmers, project managers--is together under one roof. "If your team isn't closely bonded, you'll see more rewrites, more performance issues, and more delays," he says. "For us, having the designers and architects in California and the programmers in India has actually meant longer delivery times and higher costs."

Fields expects that having everyone side by side will raise productivity to the point where KANA can deliver a better product with about a fourth as many engineers. "Our industry went through a period when money was free," Fields says. "Now that it isn't, software companies have to run like real businesses, so we'll see more of them taking a close look at their end-to-end costs." If he's right, backshoring could become the next Silicon Valley buzzword.

From the March 20, 2006 issue

[Jason]

I find it interesting that Israel is not on this list. I suspect that their favorable impression of the United States would be right up there with India.

Israel likes us because they hate the Palestinians. Likewise, India likes us because they hate Pakistan, and Pakistan hates us. It's a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

The companion chart from Pew that was not included on this site shows that in every single case, the favorability of George W. Bush around the world lags the favoribility of the Unites States itself by a large margin. Even in India, where 71 percent have a favorable view of the United States, only 54 percent approve of Bush.

So, the more clear and dramatic conclusion from this poll is that George W. Bush's administration is a giant drain on the positive perception of America around the world. The Bush administrations actions fuel worldwide anti-American sentiment, which in turn makes us all less safe.

In the two decades before Bush took office, we lent military support to Europe, and yet usnjay's pyscho-analytic rationale that countries "hate those whom they are dependent on" did not hold true -- the favorable impression of the U.S. was sky high, often as high as 90 percent.

The very simple explanation is that Bush's foreign policy has been devastating for our reputation around the world. The most damning elements of this foreign policy have been calling the U.N. "obsolete," holding prisoners without trial at Guantanamo Bay, and lying about pre-war intelligence in Iraq.

It's a pretty straightforward conclusion.

[GK]

jeffolie,

That could happen in certain cases. The Indian developers would be advantageous for some tasks, but disadvantageous for others.

However, overall, I think the WW growth in demand for engineers will be so large, that there will be shortages in both the US and India. Neither will be able to produce enough people capable of doing the work needed.

[ATS]

Jason wrote:

"The Bush administrations actions fuel worldwide anti-American sentiment, which in turn makes us all less safe."

Four and a half years since 9/11, there have been no successful Islamic attacks on US soil (e.g., the 1993 WTC attack) including any US embassy abroad (e.g., Kenya and Tanzania in 1998) and all US military outside of warzone (e.g., Khobar Towers in 1996, the USS Cole in 2000, etc.). Thanks to Bush we still have the Patriot Act and the War on Terrorism which has stopped most of the operational leaders of Al Qaeda and neutralized or destroyed state sponsors of terrorism including the Taliban, Saddam and Khadafi.

So, can you please explain how America is "less safe" simply because anti-Western Muslims and jealous leftists in Europe share your frustration that under Bush's leadership America projects strength and confidence in the face of Islamofascists who wish to convert or murder you and your fellow citizens?

Also:

"In the two decades before Bush took office, we lent military support to Europe, and yet usnjay's pyscho-analytic rationale that countries 'hate those whom they are dependent on' did not hold true -- the favorable impression of the U.S. was sky high, often as high as 90 percent."

That was back when Europeans were never asked to do or contribute anything to deserve continued US protection. Years of American paternalism allowed Western Europe to believe it could afford the socialist welfare state without needing to sacrifice anything for its own defense (let alone that of others). The EU has over 130 million more people than the US, yet all of Europe contributes only 6000 troops in Afghanistan compared to America's 18,000. Socialism, made possible by 60 years of US protection courtesy of the US taxpayer, has spoiled Europeans with a sense of entitlement that has bred indolence and cowardice.

If Europeans suddenly feel like hating America because of Bush's War on Islamofascism, it's a stunning commentary on Europe's stupidity and how undeserving it is of US soldiers who protect it from its own blunders and barbarity.

[ATS]

More doublespeak and numerical ineptitude offered by a liberal:

"...the favorability of George W. Bush around the world lags the favoribility of the Unites States itself by a large margin. Even in India, where 71 percent have a favorable view of the United States, only 54 percent approve of Bush. So, the more clear and dramatic conclusion from this poll is that George W. Bush's administration is a giant drain on the positive perception of America around the world. "

So blinded by hatred for Bush your brain can't process simple concepts. First you said that perceptions of America are much higher than and therefore independent of perceptions of Bush. Next you say the "clear and dramitic conclusion" of that is that Bush is the reason that world opinion of America is down.

Is there a liberal, anywhere, who can make any sense of what Jason is trying to say, and translate it for the rest of us who don't smoke weed?

[David]

"Is there a liberal, anywhere, who can make any sense of what Jason is trying to say, and translate it for the rest of us"

Sure. Bush is not US personified. Maybe that is difficult for the partisan brain to distinguish, but it is true. However, Bush's actions and policies do have a detrimental effect on perceptions of the US, i.e. an illegal war and it's false justifiations, it's attendant carnage, torture/extraordinary rendition, etc. Your conflating Iraq with Al Qaeda, while not new, is still nonsensical. Even the President has been stripped of that excuse.

As far as European military spending goes, if someone else seems more than willing to bankrupt for the same purpose, why would any rational person or country wish to duplicate that?
And in re the less safe/safer argument, why has the number of terrorist attacks worldwide gone up? The fact that we have not been hit again is wonderful, but to claim it as some confirmation of current foreign policy is specious, at best. Why strike us here, when the Administration is so dead set on us being there, permanently it would seem (enduring bases, anyone?), and has provided so many nearby targets?

Does your hatred of liberals preclude you from processing concepts, leaving you with only ad hominem attacks to hurl at people you disagree with?

[ATS]

David said:

"As far as European military spending goes, if someone else seems more than willing to bankrupt for the same purpose, why would any rational person or country wish to duplicate that?"

Europe started two world wars and even 50 years after democratization could not fix the Balkan mess in its own backyard. Do you agree that Europe is undeservedly getting a free ride and should sacrifice its expensive social engineering projects and defend itself from the next Hitler or Milosevic it produces?

"...why has the number of terrorist attacks worldwide gone up? The fact that we have not been hit again is wonderful, but to claim it as some confirmation of current foreign policy is specious, at best."

So for you the Bush Administration is the reason attacks in foreign countries have gone up while dumb luck is the reason attacks remain nonexistent here in the terrorist's #1 target, even now in the fifth year since 9/11. Then please explain how the massive post-9/11 attacks in Russia, Bali, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, India, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and many other countries OPPOSED to Bush's policy on Iraq are all Bush's fault.

Saddam sponsored terrorism against Israel (paying $25,000 to familiar of suicide murderers), tried to assassinate a former US president, and planned to attack the US with chemical and biological weapons through third party terrorist groups (as Saddam himself lays out in detail in the tapes released last month and aired on ABC's "Nightline"). Saddam attacked Kuwait, Israel and Iran and trained terrorists to hijack ariplanes at Salman Pak south of Baghdad. Why should any sane person take your defense of Saddam seriously?

"...illegal war..."

This is one of the most ridiculous epithets concocted by liberals for the liberation of Iraq. Congress approved of regime change in Iraq in 1998 and again in 2002. Tell us exactly which "law" was broken when Bush removed Saddam?

Was Clinton's attack on Serbia -- which also had no UN support and a much smaller coalition behind it -- also an "illegal" war? Or does your anger at losing two elections to Bush justify your hypocrisy?

[GK]

David,

Answer two simple questions, if you are so sure your position is logical :

You insist that the Iraq War was illegal, so :

1) Why did it pass in the Senate 78-22, with Kerrry, Kennedy, Clinton, etc. voting for it? When the Senate passes something, is it not legal?

2) Saddam Hussein was in violation of UN resolutions. Was he not doing something illegal? Or do you condone his behaviour only because he was anti-US?

Answer these two simple questions. I doubt you can, as logic and leftism don't mix.

[ATS]

For David, Jason, and all the other self-loathing anti-Bush liberals out there who claim that Saddam and Al Qaeda weren't working together:

________________________________

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

March 16, 2006 — Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries of four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's government, which were released by the U.S. government Wednesday.

The documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.

The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office Web site: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm.

Note: Document titles were added by ABC News.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"OSAMA BIN LADEN AND THE TALIBAN"

Document dated Sept. 15, 2001

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:

* That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.

* That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.

* That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.

* That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.
______________________________

[ziply]

Let me guess: you haven't talked to many Indians lately, have you, Futurist? (Perhaps you mean to do it in the future?) If you were to bother, you'd find India's approval of Bush closely tracks the number of U.S. jobs outsourced there in recent years. Bush is a folk hero among some sectors of the Indian population because Indians have benefitted so handsomely while we've ended up flipping burgers. But there's a silver lining: outsourcing so many of our middle-wage jobs overseas and dropping us closer to rock-bottom wages IS starving the U.S. government of the revenue it requires to meddle in our lives. I guess that should make everyone here pretty happy, shouldn't it? You might also want to look more closely at the myth of "democracy" in India -- ah, but that might mess up your happy happy joy joy assertions. Never let data mess up a tidy theory, I always say.

[GK]

Ziply,

Er.. I, The Futurist, am an Indian, you idiot. This is apparent all over this blog. I know about 500 Indian people, and have lived there for many years.

And your brain-dead parroting of illogical 'outsourcing' bile merely masks your left-wing racism towards Indians. So 'India likes Bush because Bush benefits them'...*gasp*!!! How dare these third world people reject the role leftists have assigned to them and embrace capitalism that makes them prosperous !!!

Plus, the US unemployment rate is only 4.8%, and the job market is booming. Only people with no understanding of how wealth is created would insist that the economy is doing badly. But I digress...

Face it, a large group of dark-skinned people is not only wealthy, but also Conservative. This will make you miserable for decades to come.

And you are actually ignorant enough to claim that India is not a democracy? Ha ha.. no wonder Indians dislike patronizing, racist leftists. The Indian political lobby has not even begun to influence US politics, and the left does not even know that they have created a group of very powerful, numerous opponents for the 21st century.

[Nordic]

Wow.

I'll bet a week's paycheck that most of the people posting here have never spent any time out of the country.

Yet they're happy to talk about how hoity-toity the Germans are toward the Americans?

Have you ever even lived in Germany? I have.

You people are a sad bunch ....

[GK]

Nordic,

Apparently, you didn't comprehend the article. The whole point is, India is pro-US, and that Europeans are not because they are self-indulgent and lazy. Germany is not an important country anymore..

Who said Germany was pro-US? Read the article. It is simple enough for even a low-IQ leftist to understand.

[Baaz]

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The pew survey quoted above had 2000 respondents from urban areas. 2000 out of a country of 1 billion. And based on that we decided that more Indians like Bush than Americans. I think most Indians don't have any interest in America. That is more than half of the 1 billion, and not more than half respondents of a silly survey. This probably goes for more than half the population of any country, where the vast majority of people care more about their local affairs than anything outside their sphere of influence.

This is why the opinion of people feeling the pinch of outsourcing matters more, because it is more from the heart.

And the flip side of that is, 70% of the 2000 'respondents' said they like America. So only about 2000 cared enough about the issue one way or the other to respond, and out of that 1400 responded favorably. While Pew took the efforts to highlight that info, you ignored the fine print. Are you in sales or marketing by any chance? Probably not sales, because you appear to have a knack to alienate your respondents ... Maybe we should do a survey on that!

[GK]

Baaz,

The survey took the same methodology and sample sizes in all countries, and was credible enought for The Economist (a left-wing British magazine) to publish an article on it. The disparity among countries is proof enough that the survey was not rigged to make Indians falsibly appear favored to America. By your logic, the suggestion that France or Pakistan is anti-US is also not valid, due to the small sample size of the Pew survey.

More likely, you are someone who hates America (probably because you want a pat on the head from white liberals, by parroting what they tell you to think). India is hugely pro-America, and why would it not be? There are many, many areas of common interest between the two countries.

Plus, in addition to the Pew Survey, there is a link to the Christian Science Monitor that found similar results in their survey. Two surveys proving this, and none contradicting it. You can't handle the truth, eh?

Answer TWO simple questions :

1) Which countries in the world is pro-US, according to you? Name just one, if you can.

2) Are you claiming that the Pew survey is wrong only in the case of countries like India that are shown as pro-US, or is it also wrong even in showing those like Pakistan, France, Germany, etc. that are anti-US?

[Julian]

Well, France doesn't look as bad as I thought it was. Considering that France's population is at least 10% Muslim and most muslims hold the US in a negative light. If you eliminate that particular bias, we might even be above 50% approval among non-Muslim frenchmen. Who knew?

[sri]

Im an american from india. and most "upper caste" indians inthe US are conservative bigots. They look down on average income Americans because they consider themselves upper class. They only identify with rich white americans. I know these people, they are in my extended family. They dont love America, dont be so flattered, they look up to only rich Americans. They were skin color caste conscious bigots in India, and now just richers ones. Empire whores, if Germany won in WW2, they`d love Germany. Don`t flatter yourselves, they will kiss the ass with more money.

[sri]

ofcourse im generalizing.
read Being Indian and you will understand the always opportunistic amoral indian mind. Well written book, its not negative book, just tells it like it is.

[GK]

Sri,

I'll correct you on one thing. The rich Indians over here that worship whites usually vote DEMOCRAT, because they want to gain the approval of white liberals.

White conservatives tend to be much less racist, and reserved about their political views, so Indians mistake vocal white liberals as being who they should seek a pat on the head from.

[Trained Auditor]

Futurist, aside from the content, with which I agree (fifth columnists indeed), I want to compliment you on your writing ability: Poised, fluent, and lyrical. I wish I always took the time and effort to write so well.

[GK]

Trained Auditor,

Thanks for your encouragement, on both content and style. Makes me wish I started 2 years ago.

[bryan]

I would like to see if a similar survey was done in the days immediately following 9/11, when "we (were) all Americans" (headline of a French daily) and people were holding candlelight vigils in Tehran to mourn the victims of 9/11. Or a survey done at the time military action was being taken in Afghanistan, which was supported virtually worldwide, even in Islamic-majority countries.

I'd also love to see a similar survey taken while Bill Clinton, who was/is beloved worldwide and was/is greeted like a rockstar whenever he travels around the world, was president. As opposed to the current occupant of the White House, who is reviled world-wide.

I would also like to know, regarding the survey on which you base this posting: were the survey participants asked for their personal opinion of America, or of America's current (mis)administration? And no, they are not one and the same - American culture, and American people, are loved world-wide, even in countries who despise our foreign policy. Iran is a nation with a HUGE population percentage under age 30, and American culture is very popular among these young people. The criminal thugs who make up the Bush Admin.: not so much.

This posting of yours is some rather specious bullshit, really.

And one last thing: we Americans who criticize the failures of the Bush Administration, and who acknowledge past mistakes made by this great nation, aren't "fifth columnists." We are American citizens who love this country, who are mature enough to recognize its faults, and who love it so much that we want it to be better. In order to form a more perfect union - perhaps that rings a bell?

People like you, who brook no criticism or dissent, are more like four-year-olds in your so-called "patriotism." You actually do America a major disservice with your behavior. I would say that it's more likely that YOU are the "fifth columnist," but I'm actually mature enough to accept the fact that people will differ in their opinions, so I won't say that.

But as for this calling me and those like me a "traitor" - dude, you really need to STFU. And yeah, I'm just immature enough to want to S you TFU if you don't do it on your own, you cowardly little punk.

[GK]

Bryan,

You are ignorant about the world. Bush is not reviled worldwide.

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

Only people who suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome are obsessed with believing that he is. The link above debunks your typical left-wing ignorance.

Not all people who criticize Bush are fifth-columnists, but some certainly are. They are 8-10% of the US population.

Let's see if you can answer three simple questions :

1) What is the reason the US was attacked on 9/11? Also note that attacks occured in London, Madrid, Bali, Beslan, Egypt, Jordan, and New Delhi after 9/11. Why?

2) What is your plan for keeping America safe from terrorists? Do you approve of the Patriot Act? What else should we be doing?

3) Who is more evil, George Bush or Saddam Hussein?

Let's see if you can answer these three simple questions, seeing as how you claim to be 'mature' and all. Prove that you are anything other than a coward, and an anti-American who is too ashamed to admit it...

[Pablo]

News flash for sri: The American spirit is not about looking up to poor people. There isn't a thing wrong with looking for successful people to emulate.

America particularly welcomes people who want and hope to better themselves. I like it.

America is not a perfect country and never will be. But, it is currently the best hope in this world for extending freedom and democracy to those who don't have it.

President Bush certainly has many faults. But, he is the democratically elected leader of our country and has shown himself to be a patriot and a sincere defender of freedom and democracy. Most Bush haters that I know have become that way because they have chosen to believe the wealth of negative propaganda being spun by powerful Bush-hating pundits in our society rather than seeking out the facts and maintaining an open mind.

The truth is that President Bush is a strong-willed, God-fearing man who truly believes that what he is doing is right. He is quite transparent, since he usually does exactly what he says he will. He has made mistakes and will probably make a few more before he is done. But, the best leaders are usually individuals with firm convictions who aren't jerked around by every new poll that surfaces: individuals who rise above their mistakes and make the world a better place in spite of them.

What America is attempting to do in Iraq is a good thing and a worthy example of furthering the concepts of freedom and democracy that America was founded on. America will only fail, if Americans fail to stay the course. If Americans lose sight of the fact that freedom cannot be preserved by allowing Islamic Fascism to gain a stronghold in the world, they will face a future where our cherished freedoms are threatened with extinction.

There was a time in this country where Americans of all political persuasions could debate the issues without stooping to hate-speech and name-calling. Perhaps it's time for us all to take a step back and return our society to one of calm respect and civility.

[nuclearphysicist]

The above comment is mine. I guess I took so long composing it, that my name was somehow left off.

[Rich Casebolt]

We are American citizens who love this country, who are mature enough to recognize its faults ...

But you don't, Bryan ...

... or the first statement you would be making is that our neglect, over the last 40 years, to decisively and resolutely confront enemies of civilization like the Iranian mullahs, Saddam & Sons, and Al Quada, is in large part responsible for the difficulties we face at present.

A neglect PROMOTED by the same people ... within America, within the UN, and within the chattering classes of the "international community" ... who now criticize the President for dealing with these difficulties in the only practical way available, given the way the OBVIOUS enemies above have exploited our openness and good will in past years.

It is that promotion that not only kept thugs in place ... but made them both stronger and bolder.

It is that promotion that, instead of calling for the destruction of these perpetrators of evil as soon as they appeared, told us to do nothing ... and left us with two choices: just "take it", or work around you through proxy warfare and "calibrated responses" that did not solve these problems.

Because you and your ilk feared American error more than thug intent ... or, shredded paper more than shredded people ... we now have a bigger and more costly (in both blood and treasure) mess to clean up.

People like you, who brook no criticism or dissent, are more like four-year-olds in your so-called "patriotism."

Wrong. We did listen to your criticism and dissent ... for decades.

You just don't like it because we have determined that it is UNJUSTIFIED, and are willing to not only say so in public, but to act upon that knowledge.

Just saying you want peace, doesn't make it happen ... too often in history, that lead to the peace of the graveyard, or the gulag.

You have to defend it ... sometimes, when you face a brutal enemy who will exploit your good will to gain lethal advantage over you, with lethal force of your own.

Mature, reasoned people understand this ... problem is, we have had too many self-doubting relativists whose minds are so open, their brains have leaked out, in positions of influence -- and they drowned out the mature and reasoned with their siren song of "peace through impotence".

Now, America has learned, through a very hard lesson, just how off-key this song was.

We won't be fooled again ...

[GK]

N. Physicist and Rich,

Yes, you are right. A mere look at the various anti-American comments on this thread merely proves that the far-left has mutated into an active fifth-column. Yet, they are ashamed to openly declare their true intentions.

[bob]

Futurist, you've got a nice website with nice traffic. You've really got to try to be a little more responsible.

It's a bit hypocritical to carry on about 'Bush Derangement Syndrome', while at the same time continuing to advance paranoid nonsense about 'a fifth column' comprised of 1 in 10 Americans who hate America. I have trouble discerning disimilarity between angry, erratic, pointless paranoia on either side of the partisan spectrum. It's equally crap, both ways.

It's also particularly odd that you'd agree with a subcontinental Indian's comment about Indians demurring to Anglo-authority... The Indian doctors and techies I know are also reluctant to spew critical rhetoric about a nation to which they consider themselves indebted--as reluctant as you are.

Three years after Cheney announced that American forces would be greeted as liberators, three years after Wolfowitz predicted the Iraqis would hasten to erect a statue of GW, two Americans are dying in Iraq every day. There are bound to be some indignant people out there, and it's hard for me to sympathize with those who persist in refusing to call the inveterate bluff.

[Rich Casebolt]

Bob ...

The opposition to this President told us for 40 years that, if we did everything but decisively confront totalitarian evil, we would have peace.

Instead, we got thugs who were stronger and bolder ... except in those cases when we DID confront totalitarian rule ... the Soviet Union, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lybia all come to mind.

Maybe it is the critics who need to be more "responsible", before their irrresponsible rhetoric makes this conflict even longer and harder than their previous errors already have.

[GK]

bob,

Thanks about the site.

I disagree with you on the rest. When a sizable block of the population (8-10%) opposes the Patriot Act but offers no alternative suggestions on how to fight terror, acts as though Bush's invasion of Iraq is the single biggest crime against humanity ever done (and hence the frequent 'Bush = Hitler' squealing), opposes even the war in Afghanistan, and say that those who worked in the WTC are 'little Eichmanns' without explaining why there were also terror attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, Beslan, New Delhi, Amman, Egypt, Morrocco, and Turkey, then yes, it is safe to say that such people are not on America's side.

The survey above states that 17% of Americans don't think highly of America. What is YOUR explanation for why that may be the case?

And as for your comment about Indians, your logic is upside down. I am the one writing pro-America articles (like the one above). Only multiculturalists are bothered that an Indian would do this. You call this 'critical rhetoric about America'? No wonder Indians have become pro-Bush.

[The Editor]

GK,
Just as there are self-hating Jews, there are self-hating Americans. Self-hatred can manifest itself in different ways so you have both the citizens of the world secular leftists like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein on one hand and the Iranian Mullah worhshipping religious obscurantists of Neturei Karta on the other. American nutcases on the right and on the left hate this country. I'm sure there are self-hating Indians of various kinds as well.

[GK]

The Editor,

Self-hatred is a natural condition that affects some percentage of people, no matter what their ethnicity. Perhaps, since the human species no longer has predators to prey upon it, it is nature's way of weeding out genetic waste matter from the evolutionary process, and such people have been programed to act as vehicles of disposal. Who knows? Left and Right don't apply here, as neither philosophy is compatible with self-elimination.

In the US we see them take actions that lead to self-destruction, or increase the probability that they themselves may be killed. Self-hatred in other parts of the world could be what makes some people ready to be suicide-bombers.

[The Editor]

BTW GK,
Among other things, I publish some automotive web sites. Partially inspired by one of your posts few months ago about India I decided to start Auto Report India. I'm based in the Detroit area, where most of our target readers are, but I spend a couple hours a day at Indian web sites, including the major news and financial publications. I started the site based on the premise that India would quickly leapfrog China as a quality manufacturer and have cars available for sale in North America within a decade. I also believe that India will be the economic power, along with the US, of the 21st century. Every day when I read the Indian sites I am more and more convinced that will be so.

The most basic need for any business is a fair legal system that will enforce contracts. Without that, you cannot have business. In China, where your partner, your competitor, your vendors, and many of your institutional customers are various national, army, or provincial gov't agencies, how can you get a fair hearing in a court to get a contract enforced?

GK, check out the web site and let me know what you think?

[GK]

The Editor,

It's a good site, and you seem to have put a lot of content together in a very short time.

Not only will the number of cars sold in India rise greatly in the next 15 years (and it will also be at the forefront of energy innovation), but the number of Internet users in India is still only 40 million (of which only 3 million have access to it in their homes, at respectable bandwidths). You are at the intersection of two trends that are guaranteed to grow greatly in the next several years.

Try to get more Indians in the US to become regular visitors to your site.

http://www.tie.org/

When I eventually have a blogroll list on here, I'll link to it.

India's legal system, while functional, is still very corrupt and slow.

[James Stephenson]

Ziply said "But there's a silver lining: outsourcing so many of our middle-wage jobs overseas and dropping us closer to rock-bottom wages IS starving the U.S. government of the revenue it requires to meddle in our lives."

That is the left in a nutshell. The US Revenue office states that Tax Revenue is up for the first quarter over last year and yet somehow Ziply says the money is falling. That is idiocy personified right there.

I do not expect Ziply to come back, read and respond to this post. He can not allow the truth to get in the way of his, "Fake but Accurate" truths.

[GK]

James,

Yes, you are right. Ziply never wrote back after his first squawk 2 weeks ago, but his IP address did come back here to read the thread many times (in great shame for being exposed for what he is).

[b]

bob,

Just for the record (thank goodness for the internet as inconvenient evidence so often disappears - on the net, into shredders, down pants - these days):
_

Al Jazeera

April 10, 2003:

The scenes in the Iraqi capital were chaotic. Jubilant Iraqis welcomed advancing US forces in Baghdad while rampaging looters attacked symbols of Saddam Hussein’s power.

Residents threw flowers at the armoured column as it swept past, just three kilometres east of the central Jumhuriyya Bridge over the Tigris river. Joy at the apparent removal of Saddam Hussein was tangible, with one man beating a canvas portrait of him with his slipper.

Crowds threw flowers at the Marines as they drove past the Martyrs' Monument, just three km (two miles) east of the central Jumhuriya Bridge over the river Tigris.

"No more Saddam Hussein," chanted one group, waving to troops as they passed. "We love you, we love you." One young man ran alongside a Marine armoured personnel carrier trying to hand over a heavy belt of ammunition. An older man made a wild kicking gesture with his foot, saying "Goodbye Saddam".

Women waved from balconies, girls threw flower petals at young Marines leaning across gun turrets. One woman held her baby aloft. Tank crews picked the flowers from the tops of their fighting machines, smelt them and grinned. Crowds of Shia men beat their chests in the streets.

Other signs of a breakdown were also apparent. Journalists at the Palestine Hotel confirmed that their minders had disappeared."

www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/041003_us_stops_short_of_announcing_vic.htm

[nobody important]

"Journalists at the Palestine Hotel confirmed that their minders had disappeared."

Without their "minders" the journalists were at a loss as to what to report. Bagdad Bob had never let them down before; so the reporting continued as though the minders nver left.

[Jabba the Tutt]

Julian: I'd make the same point about India, which has about a 10% Muslim population. Among Hindus (+Christians), the US is even more favorably regarded.

[bob]

Futurist, I know you're writing is "pro-American" tripe. If you re-read what I had to say, perhaps you'll understand that what I was saying was that tripe is tripe, whether it's the broken logic of some inconsequential Colorado professor or the broken logic of your own commentary.

You are the same as those you indict, because you are not an honest and impartial mind. Just as Rush Limbaugh is the same as Michael Moore.

'Maybe it is the critics who need to be more "responsible", before their irrresponsible rhetoric makes this conflict even longer and harder...'

And my God, how often have I heard this argument? How many times has this contention appeared, in how many nations over the course of history?

Yes, fascism is invariably more seductive in times of war. That's what that is, that visceral, sub-logical sensation you have, poster--that if only dissent would evaporate (or be evaporated), things would be more efficient, and we'd achieve 'victory'.

That impression, that things would be easier if America were soulless, it has always been there for citizens of legitimate democracies in times of war. It is a base and dangerous urge.

You'd ought to consider the ramifications of that desire. That is simply hatred of the concept of America, in its most unrefined, desperate form.

And as far as the Jazeera article, I hope you understand the difference between Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis by now. Why not take to reading Jazeera on a weekly basis, to keep up on Iraqi ebullience? http://www.aljazeera.com/

Have a peek, why don't you.

[GK]

bob,

Merely hurling insults and branding everything under fashion-sheep slogans is evidence of losing the debate.

Plus, first you insist that Iraqis did not greet us as liberators. Then, when someone demolishes you with an article from your own Al-Jazeera source, you contradict yourself by saying that 'well..only Sunnis hate us'. Shias and Kurds are 80% of Iraq's population, you know.

Answer two simple questions, if you are such an honest, impartial mind :

1) Why have Canada, Australia, and Germany all voted out anti-US, anti-Bush leaders and voted in leaders much more pro-US and pro-Bush?

2) What is your primary reason for opposing the Iraq War, and what should the US do now, from this point forward?

Since you are so good at repelling fascism, these questions should be a breeze.

[bob]

To play around with words like that, "The Iraqis greeted us as liberators", that's really just so unbelievably pathetic. It's outlandish. How many thousands of Americans die in Iraq before we come to grips with the fact that the whole of Iraqis aren't pleased with American intervention?

And why would you even say that, that Iraq is 80% Shiite? That's patently false.

The free-trade policies of "conservatives", as cemented into public consciousness during the 80s, are much more relevant to modernity than leftist protectionism. While I'm not sure what this has to do with Iraq, I think it can be said that conservative economic theory is absolutely necessary to the economic success of any modern nation--certainly a point that's been driven home by the phenomenal resilience of the American economy since 911.

And that's certainly something for which Mr. Bush deserves much credit.

As far as Iraq is concerned, it is the most accidental war we as Americans will ever endure. The presence of WMDs, were they to be discovered in massive quantities tomorrow, would do nothing, absolutely nothing, to justify intervention in Iraq. Only nukes with the range to strike the USA could justify intervention in Iraq.

To ask me what the US should do in Iraq right now is to avoid the point--that the US presence in Iraq is not nearly worth the cost. But I will answer, regardless.

The US should continue doing what it has been doing for the past two months--pulling back US forces, and leaving the Iraqis to do the dying. March was a magnificent breakthrough for American progress in Iraq, as only 31 Americans died in Iraq that month.

As crystallized in Algeria, and as best embodied in the person of Nassar, it is a fatal error to permit pan-Arab nationalism to foment, and to augment the carnage of sectarian strife. By increasingly removing Americans from sight in Iraq, pan-Arab nationalism is effectively squelched.

Getting Americans increasingly out of Iraqi sight and mind is the first big step. By containing the violence to violence by Muslims upon Muslims, the large part of Islamofascist propaganda is undermined.

Should have been done a long time ago, really.

Also, if there is a single competent, articulate, educated voice in this administration, that voice should be positioned in front of a Jazeera camera to humanize that nation that Jazeera seeks to demonize.

Also, an army of bloggers should be clogging up Jihadi blogs with songs of peace and reconciliation. Also, because this is first and last an information war, the US should embrace the potential of internet propaganda to sway Middle East opinion, in the form of productions purporting to be legitimate video captures of terrorist atrocities.

And lastly, of course, the administration should articulately outline the confrontation with Iran. I see the same moronic missteps there--Condy making Ahmanidejad's most recurrent wet dream come true in declaring that "Iran is our greatest challenge".

Positioning America deftly in that confrontation will certainly net dividends in Iraq.

[GK]

bob,

You didn't answer one of the two simple questions. You claim to have an honest, impartial mind, so surely you can demonstrate that by answering the simple question :

1) Why have Canada, Australia, and Germany all voted out anti-US, anti-Bush leaders and voted in leaders much more pro-US and pro-Bush?

Regarding your second answer, you say the US should withdraw and let innocent Iraqis die. So let me ask you :

2) Why have all the stock markets of the region boomed over the last 3 years (Israel, Egypt, Turkey)? None have oil. Why has Syria pulled out of Lebanon, Libya abandoned its WMD programs, and Palestinian suicide bombings stopped? If you believe this had NOTHING to do with turning Iraq into a democracy with a vibrant economy, please explain why each happened in just the last 3 years.

I never said Iraq is 80% Shiite. Anyone with basic reading comprehension skills would see that I said 80% are Shiite AND Kurds. Surely you comprehend this much.

[bob]

I did answer your question. Democracies don't choose leaders based on whether or not they're 'more pro-Bush'. It's goofy to think that Australians and Germans are voting conservative because they like George Bush.

They're voting for a vibrant economy, not George Bush.

Why even feign knowledge of these things? Syria pulled out of Lebanon because the Hariri assassination caused outrage among Lebanese. US intervention is not welcomed by the Lebanese, so it is abundantly clear that US military proximity had nothing to do with it.

Qaddafi was the most vocal Muslim critic of Al Qaeda in the first days after 911. He opened up immediately, assuring his cooperation long before Iraq was invaded. Whether or not Libya has weapons is really pretty irrelevant--I'd certainly trade 3000 American lives to give him back his guns.

Now you're saying that propping up the Egyptian stock market is a good reason for Americans to die?

Most outrageous is your misunderstanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yes, there hasn't been a suicide bombing in Israel in almost 5 days now, fine. But only because the US is finally taking control over there, in funding the Palestinian government and in pressuring Israel to give back some occupied territory.

It's about time Israel got its act together... They'll just keep killing each other until the US applies enough force to knock back Israel to its '67 boundaries. Part of American security is, increasingly, Palestinian security, Palestinian hope.

Israeli concessions have much more to do with promoting peace in the region than does America's Iraq adventure.

Now a lot of folks might want to hit you with Hamas, for bringing that up. But I'm all for Hamas participating in Palestinian government. They're only as criminal as Sharon, in the end.

[GK]

bob,

At least you admitted that the right results in a vibrant economy.

But the new leaders of Germany and Canada are pro-Bush anyway, and the people have voluntary voted them in, despite this.

You said Qadaffi was a vocal critic of Al-Qaeda. Surely you remember that Saddam praised 9/11, saying America deserved it. Thus you prove yet one more reason to remove Saddam.

You are wrong to say suicide bombing is continuing in Israel now, and you know it. You have to provide a good source on the statistics of this to prove otherwise. Suicide bombings have dropped, period.

You seem to claim that Israel is just as much at fault as Palestine, even though Israel doesn't conduct suicide bombings, or target innocent civilians.

It is also odd that you say US involvment with Palestine is a good thing, but with Iraq is not. Are you saying Palestine has more ties to terrorism than Saddam did?

Two more questions for you :

1) Are you saying Israel would be allowed to live in peace if they reverted back to their 1967 boundaries?

2) Why has there been no attack on US soil in 4.5 years, even as there have been attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, Beslan, Delhi, Amman, Egypt, and Turkey?

Answer those two.