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.

[bob]

That's a lot of questions.

I may have misunderstood you on suicide bombing in Israel. You said "Palestinian suicide bombings stopped" and "You are wrong to say suicide bombing is continuing in Israel now". But you also challenged me to admit that suicide bombings have become less frequent.

Suicide bombings have become less frequent, they just haven't stopped. This has everything to do with Israeli policy, and the American pressure that shaped that policy.

Four Israelis killed by suicide bomber, March 30 2006:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-%20Obstacle%20to%20Peace/Palestinian%20terror%20since%202000/Suicide%20and%20Other%20Bombing%20Attacks%20in%20Israel%20Since

I consider Israel to be as guilty as the Palestinians, because Israel has the strength to make changes that Palestinians do not. And I love the irony of Hamas offsetting "the devil of Sabra and Shatila" in the political landscape, even if it was only briefly.

US pressure of Israel is a good thing, because it is good for American security, and more generally, good for the security of American lives. I wouldn't trade 3000 American soldiers for a peace settlement there either, I'm sure you understand.

A stable Palestinian state would marginalize the cult of suicide bombing--over time--. The only way to follow upon that with a lasting peace would be for Israel to shun reprisals for suicide murderers--to let the last of the psychotics bomb themselves into oblivion over 5 years or so, without taking it out on the Palestinian civilian population ala Jenin.

In short, there is no overnight peace, but over time peace could (will, sooner or later) come through Palestinian national stability and Israeli stoicism.

There have been attacks on US soil since 911. The Anthrax attacks were never resolved. Others, most notably the so-called "shoe bomber", were stopped.

But I think the point you're trying to extract from me with that question is a point I'll happily suggest: the US government is better equipped to prevent domestic terrorism, and is much more aware of the challenges it faces.

The CIA, FBI, and even Congress are entitled to much credit on that front.

[GK]

bob,

OK, that is fine.

Now, does that mean you support the PATRIOT Act?

Do you feel that if Bush does in fact wait to get court orders, that he should continue to wiretap whoever he feels is suspicious?

[bob]

Well, I support the Constitution and I support the Patriot Act.

I just don't think that the Patriot Act, even in its current, revised form, supports the Constitution!

I think that it is acceptable to temporarily enact some sprawling laws to combat terrorism, as long as they are ultimately reconciled with the Constitution. And progress as been made on that front, which is all I can ask for.

I'm not familiar enough with the ins and outs of the wiretapping to have a strong opinion on it. I've gotten the impression that the administration's move to wiretap without even getting a court order after the fact, as per law, was a bit overzealous. But I certainly don't like the idea of anyone being faulted for overzealously hunting bad guys.

Basically, I get the impression that the administrations warrantless wiretapping is redundant, given that they can just do the paperwork afterwards and get the warrant, as I understand it.

[Aaron]

Can we compare Bush with his father, Reagan, and Carter?

I'd be interested in seeing those numbers. I bet Reagan had bad numbers as well.

Clinton, I think, gets a big boost simply because he existed during the post-old War euphoria and before 9/11...because if you actually look at all the wars he fought (some without UN approval) you have to wonder how his foreign policy could be more popular...

Or perhaps it's simply the "style" aspect.

[bob]

Carter's just a failure.

And it's funny, when you match up Bush the Elder vs. our current president, how very different they are. They may have the most dissimilar foreign policy of any two American presidents!

I think people will re-evaluate George HW's presidency, in light of America's most recent Mid-East engagement, and find him to be a brilliant geo-political strategist with few equals in American history. Think about just how hard it must have been to achieve consensus in the world and in the UN that Iraq needed to be turned back... Arafat was the only guy in the world outside Iraq who opposed invasion! And the repetitive "This aggression will not stand" actually did usher in a decade of peace in what really is a disaster, a hellhole of medieval mindsets, despair, corruption, and totalitarianism.

I'm still one for the opinion that HW's leaving Saddam in power was the right thing, that it was the extraordinarily measured response that cultivated allies in a deranged part of the world.

Also, the challenges of that presidency needed a guy with his CIA-caliber sophistication--the unravelling of the USSR, the reunification of Germany, what he called the New World Order (an apt description, despite the fact that the phrase is appropriated ubiquitously by the paranoid left to mean whatever they most fear).

And Clinton gets an unfair shake. While his fairly progressive policies at home made him a darling of Europeans, he also supported economic reform at home and abroad, in welfare reform and pushing NAFTA through. Remember, there is probably no NAFTA with Republican leadership--only a Democrat could "go to China", when American public opinion was so skeptical of it. (Remember Perot promising the "sucking sound" of jobs being southward bound?)

It's hard to imagine some presidents breaking with their party to do the right thing, like Clinton did, in betraying unions when the world needed to move on economically.

I may be wrong, because information on Kosovo seems tainted by politics everywhere, but I believe there were zero American casualties via hostiles in Kosovo. That's really not much of an engagement. When there are more Frenchmen than Americans in a skirmish, --insert joke here--.

[bob]

Oh, also on the Clinton front, I really do think that even though Somalia is only a footnote in history, it could have been something awful if not for Clinton.

War can't be made for an abstraction, like "American credibility". That's the criticism I often see levelled at his pulling Americans out.

It's hard to imagine that our current president would have had the (economic, social, political) success of Clinton, simply because he would have "crusaded" in Somalia.

[Bomb-a-rama]

..an illegal war..

Maybe this guy is Koffee Annan in disguise. They both use the same terms.

[Linh My]

I think most people would be surprised if Viet Nam had been included in the survey. India might have had a bit more company.

[GK]

Linh My,

Excellent point, and I had wondered about VietNam for quite some time.

Anti-Americans like to say 'Iraq is like Viet Nam'. That bodes well for the long-term future of US-Iraq relations now, doesn't it?

During the late 1980s, Ronald Reagan was probably more popular in Eastern Europe than parts of the west. Conversely, Mikhail Gorbachev was more popular in the U.S. and western Europe than he was in the Warsaw Pact 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....People like you, who brook no criticism or dissent...But as for this calling me and those like me a "traitor" - dude, you really need to STFU.

Go back and read some of the stuff Clinton said after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, and then come back and tell us what a great guy he was.

Search hints:

"We can't love our country and hate our government."

""But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your philosophy."

"But do not condemn people who work for the government. That's the kind of mentality that produced Oklahoma City."

[hollabaugh]

Americans are well like in the Philippines despite the efforts of PHILIPPINAS magazine(published on the left coast) which trys to rewrite the history of the two countries.

[Matt from FLA]

GK - you're awesome. I'm a first time visitor and this blog goes on my favorites list.

I lived in Asia for many years. I've many Indian friends. The more liberal they were, the more anti-american they were - in spite of having relatives who lived in the US. The most ironic was listening to my liberal friends (indian and european) tell me they knew more about my country than I...and they'd never been there! And they call us arrogant! ha!

[GK]

Matt from FL,

Thanks for the encouragement. Be sure to send this article to any Indian who is anti-US. They will be stunned.

I am Indian myself, and those Indians who are anti-US have formed that opinion only because it is fashionable, and because they heard some white leftist say this. Thus, Indian mistakenly think this is the majority white opinion, since white conservatives are often quiet.

[moptop]

I can't figure out how resuming hostilities when one side fails to live up to its obligations under a cease fire amounts to an illegal war. Maybe some liberal can explain it.

Also, maybe some liberal can explain what Atta was doing in Prague meeting with the Iraqi secret police?

If you claim he was not, please provide your proof that the Czec policeman who saw him there was wrong.

[GK]

moptop,

In addition to that, there was Saddam paying $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, the presence of Zarqawi, and the 1993 WTC bombing done by Ramsey Yousuf, who had extensive ties to Saddam.

Of course, all this would matter if anti-Americans actually cared about facts. They really only care about hating America (yet are too ashamed to admit that this is their real motivation).

[Ymarsakar]

Great stuff dude, this is powerfull stuff to counter the Leftist propaganda. Saves me a lot of time arguing that is for sure.

[M. Simon]

Neville Chamberlain was a man of peace. And he had the papers to prove it.

[Imaan]

i just dont like America because they unilaterally attacked another country to gain possession of their oil and because i hate their foreign policy. Also i think that the Americans are the actual terrorists after they dont even bother to acknoledge the fact that they once too supported osama bin laden when he was against the soviet union. Hence, i feel that America is just feuling up hatred between countries and that they want another major war in which they want to be the victors and control the world.

[Jinx]

Imaan,

Yes, and Muslims have never done anything wrong ever, according to you. All they do is behead innocents, conduct terrorism, oppress women, and hide from modernity. When is the last time Muslims ever did anything constructive?

And if you are stupid enough to think America steals oil, then you are even more hopeless. America BUYS oil at market prices. Without America buying oil, Muslim countries would have nothing but desert sand to eat, as they could not have even drilled for oil without Western technology.

I suppose you oppose the War in Afghanistan too, even though all other countries support it?

[The Constant Skeptic]

Very good post, I added a blurb about it in my recent pic of the day post. Also added you to my blogroll, keep up the good work. I remain skeptical of statistics, but liars lie to the liars about lying, so who will ever know for sure who shot JFK and if every Muslim should be considered a terrorist? Craziness in my opinion. Ignorance is bliss as long as you don't try to show it off to the public.

[GK]

The Constant Skeptic,

Thanks for the encouragement.

[katerina]

WELL DONE!

DON'T WORRY AMERICANS, the rest of the world may hate you but remember we Indians are over a billion people. That may be the reason why we are eager to cling to something, why we starve to death or new born babies die but who wants to save India anyway? We love you, we adore you. Most of us are dying to sleep on the side walks of the US. Don't you see? You have no friends but us!!

You may not like your president but HEY, IT'S ALREADY TAKEN CARE OF. Don't worry, we love him. Whose president is he after all? Yours? Don't be ridiculous, he is a half-God half-human world's emperior.

We are very good at kissing lower body parts. We did it during British rule. Now it's time for Americans. WHEN DID YOU SAY I COULD GET MY GREEN CARD?

[katerina]

WELL DONE!

DON'T WORRY AMERICANS, the rest of the world may hate you but remember we Indians are over a billion people. That may be the reason why we are eager to cling to something, why we starve to death or new born babies die but who wants to save India anyway? We love you, we adore you. Most of us are dying to sleep on the side walks of the US. Don't you see? You have no friends but us!!

You may not like your president but HEY, IT'S ALREADY TAKEN CARE OF. Don't worry, we love him. Whose president is he after all? Yours? Don't be ridiculous, he is a half-God half-human world's emperior.

We are very good at kissing lower body parts. We did it during British rule. Now it's time for Americans. WHEN DID YOU SAY I COULD GET MY GREEN CARD?

[GK]

Katerina,

Good job demonstrating the racism towards Indians that many anti-Americans exhibit when they learn that not every country hates America.

You proved the point of the article quite well.

[James Brian]

"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."

Sorry, I had to laugh at this comment by GK. I guess you missed the whole anti-french hate fest that conservatives were promoting back here in the states a couple of years ago. Don't believe me? Go visit sites like Freerepublic and you can see the garbage they spew out on a daily basis.

[GK]

James Brian,

Wrong. That was merely in response to France's attempts to sabotage the enforcement of the UN Resolutions on Saddam Hussein. France was trying to keep their corrupt Oil-for-Food involvement going, and was caught red handed.

Americans were quite restrained in giving France the slap it deserved. Only anti-Americans who condone France's Oil-for-Food activities would excuse France in that situation.

White leftists are much more racist than white moderates and conservatives. Just look at the treatment they give to Condi Rice, Michael Steele, Alberto Gonzales, Clarence Thomas, etc. No colored Democrat is smeared in this way by Republicans.

[Ben]

Its seems that everyone, liberal and conservative on here, are patronizing. This is why hardcore liberals and conservatives both rub me the wrong way. boths sides think they're right and that the other is wrong. the middle is the way to go.

as for the article, I never knew that India had good feeling towards us. I honestly felt a little resentment towards India (mainly from envy), but its amazing how someone else liking you can change your opinion (now i like them haha).

and the middle-class in america isnt gone persay, its being replaced by the entrepreneur. I'm not substantiating that cause im lazy, but all the data is out there for you to find.

[Ben]

Its seems that everyone, liberal and conservative on here, are patronizing. This is why hardcore liberals and conservatives both rub me the wrong way. boths sides think they're right and that the other is wrong. the middle is the way to go.

as for the article, I never knew that India had good feeling towards us. I honestly felt a little resentment towards India (mainly from envy), but its amazing how someone else liking you can change your opinion (now i like them haha).

and the middle-class in america isnt gone persay, its being replaced by the entrepreneur. I'm not substantiating that cause im lazy, but all the data is out there for you to find.

[alex]

"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."

hey ziply you uninformed liberal, why then, have tax revenues this year been the HIGHEST ever in history, FAR outpacing inflation...? answer that champ

[DTi]

I would hardly say that "Europe" is not capitalist. Look at the strength of the British Economy in particular, which is the very centre of Anglo-Saxon Economics- of which the US economy is based on! French and German Economies, Their governments have some social policies, but they can hardly be described as collective socialists.

" have little desire to continue it through producing another generation of French and German people." I see what you are getting at but this does not quite work. Somehow I don't think that when families decide to have children one of their first considerations is whether the Nation needs them! It's a personal decision, falling birth rates can't really be explained like that.

"considering how American sacrifices in troops and resources have saved Europe twice in the last 65 years."

This is true but needs to be handled more delicately.

First off America's contribution was extremely important in the Second World War, but was by no means the be all end all. The world would be a different place if the US hadn't joined in. But it would also be a different place if Britain had been defeated by the Nazis in the Battle of Britain, or if the USSR had surrendered against german agression in '41. D-Day could not have happened with America alone, or without Germany being presurised on two fronts. It is important that we remember this and take into account all sacrifices made.

Secondly, US industrial aid was vital, but it did not come without a- rather crippling- pricetag, which took many Nations decades to repay. US clearly saw no desire to see it's allies wiped out. But in the early days saw no reason to intefere either. Even after Pearl Harbour, America did not declare war on Germany- only Japan. It was Germany that declared war on the US!

I resent the view that the US was the knight in shining armour. But I also resent the view that Americans contributed nothing to the Second World War.

This survey- like any survey- is merely a reflection of the people asked. I willing to bet that they didn't ask everyone on the Indian Sub-Continent, Everyone in Pakistan, Russia etc. Becuase it is ,of course, impossible. If they only conducted 100000 interviews worldwide

We do not know the format with which these statistics were created, I could do a survey tommorow and show completely different results. They have only conducted 100000 interviews worldwide.

That being said I think these statisitics probably show an extremely rough outline of Worldwide opinion. But I really think it is difficult to create an article making such controversial (but not neccesarily wrong) claims based on this data.

If by strong families you are refering to birth rate- The US Birth rate is declining too. If not, I apologise for misinterpreting your comments.

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

What about the Labour Party in the United Kingdom? That party is left wing- and has been in power for ten years- yet that country has enjoyed the longest period of sustained growth in it's history! More so even, than the Conservative government that preceded it.

I know this cannot be universally applied to every Left wing government, but it is evidence that Socialist policies don't neccesarily result in doldrums economic performance.

I am not commenting on whether US-UK interference in the middle east and elsewhere was correct or not. Whatever their intentions- Can you really blame the people for seeing foreign troops in their local region as slightly intimidating- and as a source for resentment?

Stimulating arguement and debate.

[DTi]

Also another point I forgot to mention. I would imagine the reason why the EU appears to have a large population and inefficient economy might have something to do with the fact that 12 former Communist states with broken down Economies have decided to abandon their ties to Mother Russia and Embrace the European model of Capitalism. (Poland too I might add)

I am not saying the European model is superior. But it is clearly not as flawed as it is presented to be if all these countries are clamoring for membership.

[John]

In the last paragraph of your article you say: "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."
I need to comment on this. Understand, first, that I am a white southern male. Oddly, I am also a Democrat, albeit a slightly conservative one. I work in healthcare routinely with Indian physicians. I'll have to say that over the years, I have observed a stronger work ethic among Indians. They are more thorough with diagnosis and follow their patients more closely. They are more focused and often better educated and informed than their American peers. I am by no means pro Indian but this is a trend that I cannot help but notice. It's a shame really. I've had many philosophical conversations with these guys and I can't say that they are "pro" anything. They are certainly for protecting their livelyhood and that means protecting America. With all of the "anti" Americans out their, perhaps we should embrace at least one ally. Europe is worthless. Fairweather friends at best, enemy at worst. I realize that many jobs have been lost to India. Don't blame them. Blame General Electric, Dell, IBM, and all of the other greedy blue chips that turn a nickle at the expense of Americans and delight of Indians.

[Rasmus Paludan]

I do not like the way USA treats its own citizens. That is, paying them a minimum wage suitable only for dogs and executing people, who are poor and black.

[GK]

Rasmus Paludan,

Your statement is very ignorant.

I do not like the way USA treats its own citizens. That is, paying them a minimum wage suitable only for dogs

So why have 11 million Mexicans come to the US, risking their lives, just to earn the US minimum wage? The US minimum wage is 10 times higher than in Mexico.

and executing people, who are poor and black.

The US only executes people who have committed MULTIPLE murders (not even single murders). China executes people for tax evasion and drug addiction. You probably don't care about what China does to its people, because you are merely a fanatical, envious anti-American.

Whatever country you are from has many more people trying to come to America, while there are virtually no Americans interested in moving to your country. Explain that fact (I doubt you have the courage to admit this).

[Craig Nelson]

quote - "considering how American sacrifices in troops and resources have saved Europe twice in the last 65 years."

If you want to look at the history you'll actually see that America's effect on WW1 was so small as to be irrelevent (India's was much greater) and in WW2 although your material aid was greatly appreciated you'll actually find that in the great tradition of american capitalism Europe paid through the teeth for it. As for 'saving' Europe through troops you'll actually find that, while America lost 80,000 troops (still a massive number) Russia lost 80,000,000. For those of you who dont like maths thats 100x greater than american losses and currently eqivalent to the ENTIRE population of the UK and as-close-as-makes-little-differenc a third of the current US population.

America helped bring the war in Europe to an end. It answered a call for aid from a distant land with its blood and courage and we ARE gratefull, but you did not 'win' WW2. You did not 'save' Europe. Hitlers stupidity and Russias sacrifice were considerably greater factors and ones that the West has constantly ignored.
Had the Nazi's not invaded Russia Britain would have fallen years before the US began to care.

[GK]

Craig Nelson,

WWI was not in the last 65 years, which I hope you know.

The reference of 'twice in the last 65 years' is about WW2 and the Cold War, both of which would have resulted in the loss of Democracy in Europe in not for the United States.

Plus, the US lost 400,000 troops in WW2, not 80,000

Lastly, Hitler's invasion of Russia was on June 22, 1941. America was already providing aid to Britain by then, and was pulled into WW2 just 6 months later, not 'years' later as you wrongly suggest.

Some of your points are decent, but your knowledge of history requires a significant correction.

[Mitchell]

Did anybody else accidentally laugh so hard they almost wet themselves when they read "Russia lost 80,000,000" as in "the German army killed 80 million Russians?"

I couldn't even read anything else he wrote after that.

Nelson, if you don't which nation was responsible for killing so many Russians back then, you are truly hopeless. But here's a clue- go Google the phrase "stalin killed people" and see what you can find out, okay?

[Biswajit Panda]

For each and every assertion you make about India, the opposite also holds true.

We are not at all interested in USA. The "survey was taken" in India. That means of people who know english and where the surveyors could "reach" (means places with 5 star hotels etc).
And then they ask 1/50000 people of the urban area and there were some who didn't like USA (wooo hoo hooo)....

Only on the basis of these points, the statistics would be skewed.

I personally was present in an University where Arundhati Roy (The God of Small Things)and economists and other people addressed a HUGE (most people in US will freak out if they kno what huge number of people means) number of students and intelligentia, when US was attacking Iraq.

Get off LSD is all I can say.

[GK]

Biswajit Panda,

Your message alone reveals how upset you are that most Indians are provably pro-US, and your hateful Communism is a minority that you are secretly ashamed to be part of.

The "survey was taken" in India. That means of people who know english and where the surveyors could "reach" (means places with 5 star hotels etc).

Nope, you did not read the survey (unsurprisingly). It was taken all over India, and that is how it was taken in non-English speaking countries surveyed as well.

Only on the basis of these points, the statistics would be skewed.

If anything, rural Indians would be more pro-US. You have presented no evidence that rural Indians are anti-US (like you are). You have little to support your bias other than emotions and envy.

I personally was present in an University where Arundhati Roy

Arundhati Roy is a radical communist. That you use an anecdotal, non-quantitative example to refute a PERCENTAGE survey is very weak, and proves that your opinion is emotional, rather than intelligent.

Get off LSD is all I can say.
Childish attacks in the place of reasoned data are the hallmark of someone who is desperately trying to cling to a worldview that facts continuously deflate.

I have links from multiple credible sources. You have provided none. No wonder your ideology is a total failure across the world.

[Chris]

"Had the Nazi's not invaded Russia Britain would have fallen years before the U.S. began to care."

Actually, if you look back on history (accurately), you would find that, without U.S. financial aide (lend lease of tanks, ammunition, etc., but most necessarily food, clothing, and other basics) provided to the U.S.S.R., Russia would not have had the supplies to survive as they were woefully unprepared for Barbarrossa. This aide was provided BEFORE the U.S.'s involvement in the war. Thus, let us put an end to any silly myths that America didn't save Europe from the evils of Nazi Germany with the help our money, the sweat of our workers, and the blood of true heroes.

Finally, Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" speech warned against not only the dangers of tyrants, but the equal danger of those appeasers who would do anything to try and maintain a "peace", even when that is no longer an option. Nations tend so easily to forget the mistakes of a Neville Chamberlain. When an enemy tells us it wants to kill us, it would be wise for us to believe it.

[KM]

GK,

I randomly reached your blogsite and would like to compliment you on the content of the site (thought-provoking)and your superior (intelligent and rational) debating style.

[World Citizen]

@Chris

And dont forget that imperial Russian naval fleet helped Yankees to win Civil War, and I'm not even talking about all the money that was sent to support the Civil War. That means, US owed Russia in help, but Russia was a communist state during WWII, which is really sad... and provoked Cold War

[Mastodon]

The relative contributions of the USA and USSR to the victory over Nazi Germany are difficult to compare without controversy, so have at this post. :^)

Certainly the Lend-Lease supplies of raw materials (oil and metals) and food relieved much hardship to the Soviet peoples from roughly mid-1942 onward*. The radio tubes and trucks contributed directly to effectiveness of Soviet military formations, and the American tanks indirectly in that they could be used in training thereby freeing superior Soviet models for combat duty.

But the decisive campaigns of the European war were over before there was any significant presence of US troops. Specificially, the Barbarossa onslaught had withered in the snows before the gates of Moscow in December 1941, and the last remnants of 6th and 4th Panzer Armies under Von Paulus had surrendered near Stalingrad in February 1943.

Add to these serious setbacks the fact that the Soviets killed a very large share of the best of Germany's troops before any Americans met the Wehrmacht or Waffen-SS in battle, and that the Axis had been pushed back behind the pre-Barbarossa borders before D-Day, and you can more accurately gauge how the victory over Germany's armies was won.

The old cliche said it about right (although the numbers would change should more modern information be used) as to the formula for winning the war:
20 Million Soviet lives + 20 Billion American dollars

Before you jump to conclusions, which you seemed apt to do with Bob, rest assured that my intent is not to belittle the contribution of America. It is more to highlight the mostly unknown irony that in the final analysis, the Soviet Union was the greatest single contributor to saving the world for democracy.

While certainly more than capable of winning wars, the United States most clearly shines after the shooting stops. I know of no nation in the history of the world that has been more magnanimous in the treatment of its defeated external enemies**, and of all the things that make me proud to be an American, that ranks first.

* There was a nice appendix in a book called "Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U. S. S. R. in World War II" by Albert Loren Weeks that I found with a search.

** Internal enemies, on the other hand, shamefully fared rather more poorly

[GK]

I don't disagree with anything you have written, but I fail to see which point of mine you disagree with.

[James Brian]

"Wrong. That was merely in response to France's attempts to sabotage the enforcement of the UN Resolutions on Saddam Hussein. France was trying to keep their corrupt Oil-for-Food involvement going, and was caught red handed."

GK, France had not anything worse over it's lifetime to America than say, what the Arab countries have done, yet no one in the media insults them. And I don't think I need to bring up Germany, Japan or Russia either.
I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. My point wasn't that France was innocent, it is that conservatives on these websites have displayed a personal hatred for french people, rather than keeping their anger at the country politically. There is a diffrence. Insults on the aformentioned Freerepublic.com for instance have included such comments as making jokes about the french heatwave, french people stinking, being cowards, french women being hairy, slutty, flat-chested, etc. And I'm sure you have also heard of the cheese surrender monkey comments. Now tell me one other ethnic group, or nationality that endures this in the states, without any type of repercussions? That's right none. This kind of hate, (and it is hate no matter how you try to spin it) did not happen as a response to this one event, it is a prejudice they have had for a long time, (and yes that also includes many hypocritical liberals.) Now I'll go even further as to why this really happens. There is no large group of french people in the states, and no lobby here to protect them, ergo they become easy targets. (We can't insult Muslims, so let's attack the french!) If the french had adequate protection like other groups, (or had a diffrent skin tone) you would not hear 90% of this garbage in the media. Now let me tell you something about myself, I'm an American and I have had a french grandfather who fought in world war II. I can't imagine the horrible things he must have endured or seen during his fight, and even though his country ended up on the losing side, I know he didn't give anything less than his 101%. People who mock men like my grandfather, (be they liberal or conservative) fill me with rage, and I probably would end up doing something I would regret if I ever encountered them. Your earlier point that conservatives are not as racist as liberals struck me as being rather hypocritical. There are definitely racist liberals. But conservative sites like Freerepublic, littlegreen footballs, etc. are likewise filled with people who hate french people, not all of them, but more than enough. And if you would like to see some real anti-french hate visit F**kfrance.com. What would you consider these posters, politically?
I'll even go as far as to say that many of these people have no desire for any real friendship with the french or french people in general. Mocking others is a great way to build ones self-esteem, and there are many unhappy misrerable people in the states, so what better way to rebuild it than to insult an entire group of people in front everyone and be able to get away with it? (And no, criticism of France does not mean one is insecure, but I find degrading an entire group of people, knowing you will face no opposition, is.) They must be fully aware that you don't gain any allies by smearing everyone who is french with the same broad brush, correct? And before you label me as a liberal myself, I voted for Bush twice, and have been a lifetime supporter of the republican party, and supported Bush in his fight against terror. I still agree with republicans on most issues such as immigration and securing Americas borders. I will still generally support republicans because I agree with the issues they usually stand for, but I won't do it with the same enthusiasm as I once did. Conservatives have sadly made it very clear that they neither need nor care for having any french supporters. We are not a powerful enough group to give them any adequate political support and therefore can be discarded. I wonder somtimes, where someone like me falls into the black and white world of American politics today?

[GK]

James Brian,

I think you are hugely overstating the amount of anti-France comments in the US, from a few extremist websites. It is certainly nowhere near the amount of anti-US rhetoric in France. Some of those anti-French comments were silly and counterproductive. At the same time, Chirac behaved shamefully in opposing the US invasion of Iraq, which thus discovered his own involvment in the Oil-fot-Food scandal.

BTW, France just elected the most pro-US leader in decades, Nicholas Sarkozy. That shows that France (just like Germany a year earlier) has recognized the correct priorities.

[daniel]

I've lost the numbers, but a recent poll suggested Israeli's actually like the US more then they like themselves.

[Rob Adcox]

78% of the German populace says it prefers the streets of Paris to be tree-lined. When interviewed about this satistic, the overwhelming response is that "...we Germans prefer to march in the shade".

[James Brian]

"78% of the German populace says it prefers the streets of Paris to be tree-lined. When interviewed about this satistic, the overwhelming response is that "...we Germans prefer to march in the shade".

Rob, I'm sorry I didn't come back here before to read your ignorant post. I guess your one of those simple minded anti-french bigots who can't come up with a reasonable argument, so you resort to the same tired cliches you have heard over and over again from your friends. By the way, my grandfather had more courage than you EVER will, even if you live five lifetimes.