"Three years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the heated debate in the British media about the war has given way to a gloomier discussion about Iraq's dismal state."

I am tempted to say this type of outcome is inevitable, whenever an unprincipled struggle stalls. This is the price to pay for pragmaticism, i.e. focusing only on "what works", at the expense of human values and principles.

As for the Telegraph's botched essay linking indiscriminately to the Irak tragedy, events in Lebanon and Lybia, and the questionable state Syria, Iran and the Gulf monarchies are assumed to find themselves in, I doubt very much it could earn its author a D, in any decent high school. Pathetic, really!

The overall assessment of the situation in Irak to be found in the Los Angeles Times, today, seems to be more to the point. But given the Administration only wishes to hear "good news", it should be reported that everything is just fine.

Yet why on earth is Rumsfeld so adamant this Iraq war is still being won, given it was won years ago?

I'm an avid reader of online media from all over the world and can report that the only country whose news media presents an even remotely upbeat assessment of the situation in Iraq is the U.S. media. Everywhere else, the grim reality of the situation is reported without any of the desperate boosterism of the Fox/Daily News/CNN propaganda machines. Worldwide public opinion opposed this criminally stupid invasion. But the bullies running the show in Washington thought they knew better. They were wrong, yet even after his had become painfully obvious, you Americans re-elected them. You have brought nothing but death and suffering to an already troubled part of the world. Your arrogance in electing and then re-electing this invade-first-ask-questions-later government has cast America in a very poor light. We in the rest of the world must look elsewhere for leadership, and we will. Yours is a discredited empire in steep decline, and you as a nation will ultimately pay the price for your arrogant, bullying ways.

Sven, you're absolutely right. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice have squandered our credibility as a nation with this ill-advised and murderous adventure in Iraq. Had we been serious about bringing down Saddam and bringing democracy to Iraq, we would have embarked on this project in cooperation with the UN and the international community, not in opposition to it. Instead, we embarked on a highly dangerous project largely isolated. Our foes were able to portray this - rightly - as American hubris. And today, day in, day out, we are paying the price in the deaths of thousands of servicemen, the destabilization of the entire Middle East, and rising hatred worldwide against America. Our country is less safe, less admired, less well-off and more isolated than ever as a consequence of this stupid invasion. Bush richly deserves to be impeached over this. I predict it will happen before his term is out.

Sven and Janet have some valid points, but their criticisms degenerate into the vitriol so typical of the left. For Sven, where will you look for leadership, the EU which could not stop massacres in the former Yugoslavia? The UN, which can't do anything, anyplace, for fear of offending somebody's religion, client state, or "sovereignty?" Or perhaps to an amoral Franco-Russo-Sino arrangement? For Janet, face it, it isn't going to happen. It just isn't politically feasible, not even if the Democrats controlled ALL the seats in the House and Senate. John Simpson had a much more balanced view of the situation.

It surprises me is that Tony Blair so blindly followed Bush to war. I’m not saying the British won’t fight or are likely to duck a fight. On the contrary. What does astound me is that with all of their newspaper editorial experience in international affairs and astute analysis for which they have become famous. How did they miss the fact that no Republican President has fought and won a shooting war for the US since William McKinley.

Those of us against this war based on the Administration's flat-out lies were right 100%

Those who backed the war were wrong 100%

This Administration is easly the most corrupt & inept in US History, and they've not gotten ANYTHING right about the invasion & occupation

The only thing left for Dear Leader W now is to try and rally his dwindling number of true believers

He also said that sacrifice will be required for the effort

To which I would ask

What have YOU sacrificed for the Iraq War Effort Mr President?

My apologies to G H W Bush. He did in the first Gulf War. He fulfilled his mandate to expel the Iraqis from Kuwait as promised.

Is it fair to title this piece "British War Critics Crow", as if the UK media were taking pleasure in the death and destruction that has occurred in Iraq over the last three years?

where are wolfowitz and feith now.they sure had alot to say before the war,now they are put to pasture for some fresh blood to propel the strike on iran.they to will then be found to be not telling the truth.but who cares they to will be replaced by those who see the need to attack syria.but all three lies will ultimately serve the real policy of the united states and its religous zealots. these are not mistakes they are a part of the bigger plan.

The only people who benefited from this war are the corporations that pay the President's salary. The only consolation one can get out of this entire fiasco is that history will not judge President Bush kindly. He will go down as the one of the worst presidents of all time, but once he cashes in all of his oil stocks, he'll probably be one of the richest.
And Sven, please go ahead and look for your leadership somewhere else. Rest assured, when America put up her isolationist fence, people like yourself and the rest of the world will long for the good old days of America being the global policeman. Have fun with the Chinese and Iranians. I'm sure they will do a much better job then we.

when are the american people going to wake up and hold their leaders accountable...then the rest of us who need you to succeed can rally behind...we cant support the USA as it stands with such venal leadership... no one is crowing... we are terrified...

THE MOVIE OF THE YEAR!!!!!!!!!

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info
www.wsws.org

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

March 20/21, 2006 -- Its not often that a film can affect the body politic of a nation. But that is the effect of the movie released on St. Patrick's Day, V for Vendetta. Set in a near future England ruled by a Conservative Party government-turned-fascist, the hero, a horribly burned escaped political prisoner named "V" who dons a Guy Fawkes mask, cape, hat, and has an array of fancy weapons (sort of a Zorro, Phantom of the Opera, and Batman clone), blows up London's Old Bailey judicial building and the Houses of Parliament as an act of vengeance for the genocide and political repression carried out by the fascist government. As a historical note, Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up Parliament in 1605 with gunpowder in a plot involving Catholics and Spain. He was caught and hanged but soon became a folk hero to England's working class and Guy Fawkes Day is celebrated with fireworks every November 5. [Note to royalist Anglophiles: yes, I understand that many Britons burn Guy Fawkes in effigy on Nov, 5, but many Britons also celebrate his almost feat with fireworks. I've been to Britain too many times during the festival and know what Fawkes means to those who despise the pederasts and imbeciles who make up the British Royal Family and the House of Lords/House of Commons. It's too bad Fawkes did not succeed in blowing the monarchy and Parliament to hell and back in 1605 . . . there would have never been a Puritan/Pilgrim invasion of North America with all of the concomitant religious idiocy and paranoia we experience today -- which means that George W. Bush would likely presently be a bestial sheepherder on some Shropshire farm].

What has our own fascist right wing media hopping mad are the references to the Bush regime and its wars. One political dissident in the movie has a secret room displaying banned art and posters. One of the posters is from the anti- Iraq war London protests -- it displays a U.S. flag and U.K. flag inter-connected by a swastika with the words "Coalition of the Willing." There are references to a civil war- and virus-ravaged "former United States" that has engaged not only in the actual war in Iraq but wars in Syria and Kurdistan. There are comments about America's rendition and there are plenty of black hoods thrown on the heads of political detainees and "yellow" terrorist alerts. Not only has TV come under total fascist control, but Britain's Royal Mail has been privatized and turned into the "British Freight Co." There is also a reference to a genocide carried out by the English fascists in Ireland and it may not have been totally coincidental that a film focusing on an English fascist government's repression of freedom fighters was released on St. Patrick's Day.

The Conservative Party reaches ultimate power by unleashing a virus on Britain killing thousands. It turns out that leading members of the Conservative Party own stock in the pharmaceutical firms that have the vaccine drugs and enrich themselves in the process. Several top officials of the Bush regime have interests in various pharmaceutical firms involved with anthrax, smallpox, and avian flu vaccines --including Donald Rumsfeld, the former CEO of G.D. Searle [sold to Monsanto] -- and V for Vendetta's references to avian flu as a government attempt to hype the media and bamboozle the public is another clear link between the film's anti-fascist message and the Bush/Tony Blair governments.

Britain's near future features a Fox/Sky News type propaganda news network called "British Television Network." Its major racist, right-wing blatherer also happens to enjoy romping around in a specially-built shower in his office (hmmm... I wonder who that might really be?). There is also the bald, pudgy, and thoroughly revolting top assistant and chief dirty tricks operative to the fascist High Chancellor (hmmm...again, I wonder who that could be?). And then there is the English Bishop who happens to like little girls (well, that could be any of our so-called "moral majority" religious leaders, except in some cases, little boys could be substituted for little girls).

In the end, all these fiends are eliminated, one by one, by our man "V." And this is what probably, more than anything else, has the right-wing defecating in their pants. They know that one day they will face a reckoning for the damage they've done to the United States, to Iraq, to the United Nations process and international law, and to peoples and nations around the world. And that reckoning will be far from a slap on the wrists and the right-wing is beginning to wake up to that fact. Some on the right now understand they overplayed their hand and are trying to change their spots.

The left has always been tolerant to a point. But pushed against the wall, the progressives of the world have always discovered how to treat their vanquished enemies -- just look at what happened to Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Julius Streicher, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Pierre Laval, Vidkun Quisling, and other fascist leaders of the 20th century.

V has one bit of advice that is already echoing around the Internet: "People shouldn't be afraid of their government, government should be afraid of their people."

V

It looks like there will be a run on Guy Fawkes masks and maybe quite a few red spray painted "Vs" on various public adverts and walls. And why not? Let neo-con governments and their operatives and lickspittles everywhere know that with a blossoming of red "Vs" that we the people do understand and neo-con governments and their right-wing supporters should be very afraid of the people.

Already, the right-wing, including blogs like Town Hall, Men's News Daily, and WorldNetDaily, are attacking the film, calling it, among other things, pro-terrorist, pro-homosexual, neo-Marxist, anti-Christian, and left-wing pro-Islamo-fascist (by the way, co-star Natalie Portman is Israeli born). Someone named Ted Baehr, writing for WorldNetDaily, called Britain's Parliament, blown up by V in the movie, "Western Civilization's most enduring symbols of democracy and republican government." That's funny, last time this editor went to Britain, I distinctly remember the country being a monarchy. But history is not a strong suit among the right-wing. Their hero, George W. Bush, can't even read a history book although he's probably listened to the book-on-tape version of Mein Kampf.

The right-wing has plenty to be worried about with the movie V for Vendetta. They will first see the push back in the November elections (and woe be it to them if they once again engage in election fraud). And upon electoral victory will inevitably come the indictments, trials, impeachments, imprisonments, electoral recalls, and, if need be, deportations, or as they called them during the days of Guy Fawkes, banishment.

UK opinion has always been solidly against the war in Iraq. We British don't shirk from a fight when it is neccessary, like in Afghanistan, but most Britons find it hard to understand why Blair was so enthusiastic about invading Iraq. America even offered Britain a less frontline role due to the opposition in the UK and Blair refused.

Before the war Blair was always seen as someone who would compromise his beliefs to be popular. So pushing the invasion against such opposition was a surprise. But now we're in the final years (months?) of his time as PM he's visibly thrashing about trying to find something, anything, he can make his legacy. Anything but the Iraq war and its aftermath. The current sleaze affair in the UK will probably see that he won't be able to manage that.

I also think the title of this page is a little unfair.

Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/sheen_questions_official_911_story_audio.htm

Allan asks where we will look for leadership. Certainly not to the U.S., which - thanks to its hubris in Iraq - stands discredited before the world. U.N. weapons inspectors were pleading for more time, saying they had not found evidence of WMD. Bush thumbed his nose at them and at the world, scorned and mocked the U.N. as 'irrelevant,' and invaded in the face of overwhelming evidence that things would turn out as they have. For all its failings the European Union has vastly more credibility on matters of world affairs than the simplistic bullies who run the United States of America today. Down with America. Long live the EU.

Sven, you're absolutely right that we have lost our credibility on the world stage. But isn't it a little unseemly of you to rub our faces in it? Not all of us voted for the idiot now sitting in the Oval Office. Don't denounce all of us because of Bush. I'm an American, but he's not my president.

The idea that the U.S. will be isolationist if it leaves Iraq is nonsense. What I would like to see is the U.S. to start working with other countries and quit trying to micromanage the world. We first need to eliminate our participation in "Free Trade" Imperialism. Second, we should, working through the U.N., do some real work on development for the countries that need help. I know what worked for the U.S. was trade barriers advocated by Alexander Hamilton, which protected our infant industries from being submerged by cheaper products from more developed countries. We need to dump the WTO, and every country should control their own trade. It is possible to control your own country, but you can't contol the world.
While I would oppose China's dumping of their products in the U.S. with trade barriers, I do think, combined with Russia, they are dealing with Iran and North Korea on a more rational basis than the U.S. and the E.U.. After going through the Cold War with the Soviet Union, I am not impressed by North Korea or Iran having nuclear weapons. While I do not anticipate an attack from those countries, we could, in theory, destroy them with a second strike. There is, of course, one problem. Nuclear weapons are Weapons of UNCONTROLLED mass destruction, and there might be considerable collateral damage to surrounding countries. I don't think we want to go there! Do you?

Sven:

The problem with your analysis (or, more precisely, your hope) is that leadership depends much more on power than on credibility. Even though I think the EU is, in many ways, an incredible success story, it faces very significant structural and economic obstacles that will very likely prevent it from becoming the (or, even, "a") leading global power.

The OECD issued two reports recently that bear this out. The first reported that EU per capita GDP is about 25% lower than that in the U.S. It further predicted that if current growth rates remain substantially the same, in about 20 years per capita GDP in the EU will be a full 50% lower than the U.S.

The second report supported the conclusion that growth rates in the U.S. will likey remain much stronger than the EU. Most importantly, it noted that the EU invests less than half as much per capita in higher education than the U.S. This likely explains The Economist's recent higher ed survey which concluded that 17 of the top 20 universities in the world are American. (It's also worth noting that other sources I've seen have indicated that the U.S. also spends almost twice as much on scientific and technological R&D as do the EU countries.)

As we drive deeper into the Information Age, innovation will be the key to sustaining strong economies, and in the most important areas need to support continued innovation (higher ed and R&D)the U.S. is much better situated than the EU. And, a strong economy is the foundation from which any nation (or group of nations) builds and projects its political and military power.

Simply put, the EU is likely not to have the power in the future (for economic reasons) and in the present (for both economic and structural reasons--i.e., its fragmented political structuree) to challenge the U.S.'s leadership role.

Who might? Well, therein lies the dilemma faced by many who yearn for an alternative to America. The likely successor will be China. Unless China becomes a much more open society (a liberal democracy), though, how much would you enjoy a world dominated by China? Great powers have a tendency to try to shape the world in their own images.

Fortunately for you, you'll likely not live to see that. Reasonable, though challenging, estimates are that it will be at least 30 more years before China's GDP surpasses America's. Even then it's per capita GDP will likely only be 1/3 that of the U.S., which means it won't have the discretionary income needed to project power the way the U.S. does. In other words, it's likely that the U.S. will be the dominant world power for at least another 5 or 6 decades.

And, despite its occasional bad acts and blunders, you should be grateful for that. The past and future alternatives (the former Soviet Union and China) are not pretty.

Note: During the 60 years the U.S. has been the dominant world power, the number of democracies on this planet has surged from 13 to about 80. It's highly unlikely that would have been the case if either the Soviet Union or China had been the dominant power.

Additional note: I recognize that a significant reason EU growth rates lag compared to the U.S. is that the EU invests much more heavily in social programs than does the U.S. While this is certainly laudable (in most ways), it won't get you to the global leadership role you apparently desire.

There's LWP, always at the ready to defend the good name of the good ol' US of A. Sorry, buddy, but all the words in the world won't hide the fact that our country is a house of cards. The emperor has no clothes, the world knows it and is moving on.

Jason:

While you appear to want to dismiss my perspective as just that of some flag waving American, if you had actually read and fairly considered the posts I've made on other threads, you'd see that I'm more than willing to acknowledge fair criticisms of American policies when I think such criticisms are warranted.

In fact, I think the ramblings of thoughtless pro-American ideologues are unseemly. What I find even more unseemly, though, are the thoughtless ramblings of anti-American ideologues.

Furthermore, what you casually dismiss as merely "the words" of my post is what I call analysis. I don't see any analysis in your post.

Everyone has an opinion. Few people have well informed and well thought out opinions. Perhaps you belong in the latter group, but nothing in your post suggests that to be the case.

If the purpose of forums such as this is for people to exchange thoughts, ideas and perspectives in order to better understand how the world works, many of the posts on this site--including your most recent post--are not helpful because they merely express opinions with no indication of how the individual arrived at that opinion.

Now, if you want to take aim at something specifically that I wrote and provide some fair and informed criticism, have at it. I'm willing to re-evaluate my opinion when someone offers me good reasons to do so.

P.J. Casey

I like what you wrote and agree, except on nuclear weapons. Why not add disarmament to your "programme"? I'm surprised you did not mention. There was a time when many of us worked towards world disarmament and some countries like Canada, for instance, played a major role in that effort. Isn't no strike better than first and second strikes in an uncontrolled environment?

Sorry. Message to P.J. Casey was from me, Robert Rose.

So, LWP finds "thoughtless ramblings" of anti-Americans "more unseemly" than "thoughtless ramblings" of pro-Americans.
Funny, I find all of these thoughtless ramblings equally offensive. Most offensive of all, though, are the thoughtless - no, deliberately deceptive - ramblings of those who now control the most powerful military on earth, and who are using that power to wreak death, destruction and lawlessness - and who as a consequence are sowing support for terrorism and instability throughout the Middle East and the world. When you Americans thumb your noses at international law, you sow the seeds of your own destruction, and the destruction of the rest of the world as well. The law of the jungle is no law at all, and that is what you have given us. Take off your blinders and look at what your nation has become.

AND THE WINNER OF THE 2006 ELECTIONS IS,,,,,

California Sued Over Diebold Voting Systems

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:13:50 -0800
Summary:

Diebold came under file in California after the state’s March 2004 primary election for glitches at polling places attributed to its voting systems. Some activists have questioned their vulnerability to hacking and manipulation.

“Glitches,” my ass.

What we need are hand-counts and paper-trails. What’s so freaking hard about that?!?
[Posted By ShiftShapers]
By Reuters
Republished from Reuters
The latest salvo in an ongoing dispute about the security of Diebold electronic voting machines.

San Francisco – Some California voters and activist groups sued the state’s top election official on Tuesday in an effort to reverse the certification of certain electronic voting machines made by Diebold Inc.

FOR THE REST GO TO:
http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/8228/California_Sued_Over_Diebold_Voting_Systems

WWW.ONLINEJOURNAL.COM
WWW.TAKINGAIM.INFO
WWW.WSWS.ORG
OTHERSIDE123.BLOGSPOT.COM

MARTIAL LAW AT WORK!!!!

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/parl-m20.shtml

WWW.WSWS.ORG

Britain: government seeks wide-ranging powers to bypass parliament

By Richard Tyler
20 March 2006

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

Under the guise of reducing unnecessary “red tape” and removing the “regulatory burden” on business, the Labour government is seeking to grab powers formerly associated with the rule of an absolute monarch.

The innocuous-sounding “Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill” concerns what have become known as “Henry VIII” powers, after the 1539 Statute of Proclamations, under which the Tudor King’s proclamations “shall be obeyed, observed, and kept as though they were made by act of parliament.” In the present bill, a similar power is to be granted to ministers, who may reform, repeal and introduce legislation “by order,” i.e., without Parliament debating it in the House of Commons. By ministerial fiat, new criminal offences could be created, punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment. The Bill could also be used to “reform” itself, for example, removing such an upper limit on a prison term enacted under its provisions.

With the sweep of a minister’s pen, fundamental democratic and legal rights could be struck down.

In seeking to abrogate the powers of Parliament, the Labour government is playing fast and loose with constitutional issues that are at the heart of Britain’s centuries-old bourgeois political and legal mechanisms.

Somewhat ironically, one of the few voices of caution came from Britain’s second chamber, where appointed life peers, hereditary aristocrats and church bishops still hold sway. Lord Holme, chairman of the Constitution Committee in the House of Lords, felt compelled to write to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs expressing the serious disquiet his committee had about the nature of the powers contained in the proposed Bill.

“We are concerned by the potential of the Bill’s proposals, if enacted, markedly to alter the respective and long-established roles of Ministers and Parliament in the legislative process. This is because Part 1 of the Bill seeks to confer unprecedentedly wide powers on Ministers to make Orders to amend, repeal and replace any legislation (and to grant powers in respect of rules of the common law in relation to Law Commission recommendations), with only a very restricted role for Parliament in the process.”

In conclusion, Lord Holme cautioned, “The reforms thus have the potential to be so far reaching that special consideration will need to be given by the Committee to the risk of inadvertent and ill considered constitutional change.”

Writing on the letters page of the Times, six professors from Cambridge University Law Faculty, amongst them several senior barristers, noted with alarm that if the bill is passed, “the government could rewrite almost any Act and, in some cases, enact new laws that at present only Parliament can make.”

Condemning the limitations within the bill on this power as “few and weak,” they highlight the potential for the government to use the bill’s delegated powers to: “create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred, punishable with two years’ imprisonment; curtail or abolish jury trial; permit the Home Secretary to place citizens under house arrest; allow the Prime Minister to sack judges; rewrite the law on nationality and immigration; ‘reform’ Magna Carta (or what remains of it).”

They conclude that the bill creates “a major shift of power within the state, which in other countries would require an amendment to the constitution; and one in which the winner would be the executive, and the loser Parliament.”

The new bill is set to replace the “Regulatory Reform Act 2001” and considerably extends the powers of ministers compared with Parliament. However, Cabinet Office Minister Jim Murphy, responsible for introducing the bill, said the legislation would not be used to “do anything that is highly controversial.” The government has also “reiterated its commitment not to use Order powers to deliver highly political measures, such as amendments to terrorism law.”

At the same time, the government has indicated that what might be considered controversial at one time is not necessarily controversial at another, pledging to assess the degree of controversy associated with any particular proposal on a “case-by-case basis.”

Moreover, the bill itself contains no limitations on only implementing measures that are “uncontroversial,” leaving the assessment of such criteria to the subjective discretion of ministers and the government.

A research paper published by the House of Commons Library notes that parliamentary sovereignty means that bills cannot be struck down by the courts. “The concept of ultra vires [action outside the agreed powers of a particular body] does not apply to Acts of Parliament nor to parliamentary proceedings by virtue of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688.” The paper concludes that there would thus be no mechanism by which the courts could review the use of the powers extended to ministers under Clause 1 of the bill.

Liberal Democrat MP David Howarth, who is also Reader in Law at Cambridge University, wrote, “At its most extreme, in a manoeuvre akin to a legislative Indian rope trick, ministers could use it to transfer all legislative power permanently to themselves.”

There is a precedent for such an action. On March 23, 1933, the German parliament passed the Nazi’s “Enabling Act” (Ermächtigungsgesetz), allowing Hitler to pass laws without the need to seek parliamentary approval.

The Blair government is not the same as Hitler’s regime. However, since Labour came to power in 1997, and especially since the 9/11 attacks and the launch of the “war on terror,” there has been a continual erosion of civil liberties and the overturning of long-standing legal norms. The powers of the state have been significantly increased by a raft of legislation that establishes the quasi-legal basis for dictatorial forms of rule.

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill was introduced before an almost deserted Chamber of Commons on February 16, receiving little notice in most of the media. The wide-scale indifference to the far reaching democratic, juridical and constitutional implications of the bill within most of official politics and the media underscores the absence within the political elite of any serious constituency for the defence of fundamental democratic rights.

Sven:

I don't think you responded to most of my points. I will try, though, to respond to most of yours.

You wrote: "So, LWP finds "thoughtless ramblings" of anti-Americans "more unseemly" than "thoughtless ramblings" of pro-Americans."

Yes, I do. Here's why:

1. I am an American. I won't deny that I have a bit of a built in bias. I try to be as aware of that as possible, but I know it's still there. Anyone who pretends that he or she reacts and thinks completely objectively about these issues is being disingenuous.

2. This is an American newspaper Internet site. I find it unseemly that so many people post so much vile here directed at Americans. Good faith and constructive criticism is fair and should be expected. That's not, though, what most of these posts contain. Think about it this way. If you went on-line everyday to a Swedish paper (if you're from Sweden) and found a forum such as this filled with Americans spewing vile (instead of civil criticism) at Sweden and Swedes, wouldn't you find that vile more unseemly than the posts of other Swedes who might respond with poorly reasoned and under-informed nonsense?

3. Many of the non-Americans who post here come from countries (especially those in Europe) which have significantly benefitted from American power during the better part of the last century. I'm not just talking about American deeds from 60 years ago. I'm also talking about the very expensive security umbrella (and other public goods) America provided throughout the Cold War (and even today, though to a lesser extent). No, that doesn't give America a free pass from criticism, but it should give the critics a significant reason to try to express their criticisms in a thoughtful and good faith manner.

As I said, I find the "thoughtless ramblings" of flag waving Americans unseemly; for the above reasons, though, I find the same behavior by many non-Americans even more so.

You wrote: "Funny, I find all of these thoughtless ramblings equally offensive."

I hope that's true. I think, though, that your own posts don't always bear that out. I recall in some previous posts you said things such as Americans should "pay in blood" for having invaded Iraq. That's not only unseemly, it's offensive.

Of course, issues can become heated and no one can always remain above the fray, but I don't see a significant amount of improvement in your more recent posts. Your first post above is filled with what are reasonably interpreted as purposely provocative over-statments, for example: "You [Americans] have brought nothing but death and suffering to an already troubled part of the world."

On its face that statement is clearly false. Of course, there are very good arguments to be made that the invasion was a mistake, but to boldly assert that "nothing" good came out of it is simply wrong and, frankly, insulting to the deaths of a lot of people.

In addition to improvements in the region that are most likely connected to the action in Iraq (e.g., Libya and Lebanon), a poll released earlier this year by Der Spiegel found that a significant majority of Iraqis (well, at least Shiites and Kurds) preferred life in the new Iraq (despite its random physical violence) to life in Iraq under Hussein, where there was systematic physical violence and spiritual violence--i.e., totalitarianism. I suspect that the Iraqis themselves are better situated than you are to decide whether "nothing" good has come of the Iraq War.

We could argue for days about all of the pros and cons of the Iraq War, and I would most likely agree with you that from a policy perspective--or, more precisely, from the perspective of whether America's and Europe's narrow policy interests are being served--the invasion was a mistake. Your statement above, though, is simply false, and the general tone and substance of some of your statements come very close to the thoughtless ramblings you say you find unseemly.

You wrote: "Most offensive of all, though, are the thoughtless - no, deliberately deceptive - ramblings of those who now control the most powerful military on earth, and who are using that power to wreak death, destruction and lawlessness - and who as a consequence are sowing support for terrorism and instability throughout the Middle East and the world. "

There are a lot of ideas and assertions loaded into that sentence. I agree with some of them. I think some of them are questionable--and probably wrong--when considered from a broad perspective. It would take pages to really deconstruct that sentence. If you care to know my thoughts (yes, I know that's an unlikely "if") on the issues of "deception" by the Bush Admin and whether they reasonably and in good faith believed the Iraq War would be a just war, you could look at the exchanges I had with Robert on the thread regarding Wolfowitz.

You wrote: "When you Americans thumb your noses at international law, you sow the seeds of your own destruction, and the destruction of the rest of the world as well."

Again, a sentence which packs a lot of punch because it contains so many challenging assertions and because it's presented in such a dramatic way. I'll try to offer a couple of quick responses.

1. Whether the U.S. has "thumbed its nose" at international law is debatable. (How many wars have been "legal", by the way?)It is worth noting, though, that most of the significant sources of international law that exist today would not exist at all without America's involvement. (Kyoto's an obvious example, though, where the U.S. position has been less than helpful.)

2. I very much doubt that the U.S. is "sowing the seeds of its--or the world's--destruction". Absent a series of nuclear bombs exploding in major American cities (which is possible--as is almost anything--but not likely), the Iraq action will most likely be a much smaller event in terms of loss of human life and financial costs than even the Vietnam or Korean wars (we don't even need to consider the MUCH greater costs and impacts of WWI and WWII).

Iraq has resulted in about 2,000 American deaths. Vietnam caused 58,000 and Korea 36,000. U.S. defense spending is currently slightly more than 4% of GDP. During Vietnam it reached 11% of GDP, and during Korea it reached 15% of GDP. None of these figures are things to necessarily be proud of, but they do help put the matter into a better context.

You wrote: "Take off your blinders and look at what your nation has become."

Well, we all wear "blinders" to some extent. The level of obstruction caused by the blinders is primarily determined by how well informed one is and how careful and thoughtful one is in how one uses that information. Though I appreciate your "advice", I don't have any particular reason to think that my blinders cause me any more obstruction than anyone else who posts on this site. We can all always do better, though, and that includes you.

All your contorted rationalizations for your president's decision to wage this war of choice despite global public opinion massively opposing it do not wash. Each and every one of the justifications presented before the war has turned out to be false. Because of this war, the entire Middle East is today a much more dangerous, unstable and murderous place than it had been. Your nation today stands isolated and reviled the world over because of this war and because of your president's contempt for the United Nations and the opinion of the rest of the world. Respect for international law has been weakened. By waging this war, your nation has sent a clear message to all other nations that our opinions do not count, and that we cannot and must not count on the United States to uphold the law. The world over, governments are being elected that oppose the United States and are staking out an independent foreign policy. The U.S. is detested as never before, and isolated as never before, because of Bush's war. How many more thousand dead Americans will it take to get this brutal reality through your head?

>
America who like isolate itself with no dialogue with anyone other than itself, is forced to face the world on these pages. You should because we are very pissed off a have a right to be. It is my opinion that on American blogs there is very little civil criticism, Americans tend to be name callers. I do not find this on other nations blogs. Name calling is very much an American talent. Do not ask others to do what you do not.

Americans are constantly calling themselves the greatest nation on earth and insulting the rest of us. Maybe we disagree. If America kept the narcissistic comments down to a minimum they would not be challenged so much. But the nerve of calling yourselves the greatest nation on earth begs for a response. You act like arrogant idiots abroad, call yourself the greatest nation and are offended at the response. Grow up.

Sven:

Despite some, frankly, offensive comments that you've posted on this site in the past, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I tried to give you the respect of providing thoughtful comments in response to your posts, but you have shown yourself unwilling to return that respect.

None of the posts you have made on this web site (on this thread or others), suggest that you are willing to consider what are clearly complicated issues with any sense of nuance or objectivity. You simply repeat the same pat and angry (and mostly false) observations over and over again.

Some of your observations are correct. A lot of them are clearly wrong on their face. That's not just an opinion. If you looked carefully at your own statements you would see that they are so black and white in their perspective and so filled with the use of an impossible certainty in their language (much like the thinking of George Bush) that they simply cannot accurately reflect a world that is much more complicated and a reality that is much more nuanced.

If your posts were presented as part of an analytic paper at any good university, they would be rejected.

Your posts are not even helpful to you because they appear to be filled with what must be an ugly anger, and because you show no sign of having reached your conclusions via independent or careful thought.

For your own sake, I hope you give the world and its various issues a little more thought in the future--especially before you post on this site again, and especially before you accuse me, in essence, of being so thick headed that I cannot understand "brutal reality". I think a reasonable and fair third party observer would have to conclude that you have that problem much more than I.

Best of luck.

Keep it up Sven your points are the points of many of us - myself an average Canadian, in the International community. Americans don't get it because they isolate themselves from the rest of the world ( they are so great they can't mingle with the rest of us, are even offended when we try to talk to them on this blog). They will get it later when their dollar has so little value we will us it to poop and scoop.

SpeakOut:

I should "grow up"!?! Maybe you haven't read these posts too carefully, but I think my comments are much more thoughtful, balanced and respectful than yours or Sven's. Given your problematic use of grammar, though, perhaps you are pretty young. If so, you probably need to grow up a little yourself before you tell adults to do so.

I must agree with Sven. LWP is posting a rationalizations that have little to do with a moral critique of the war, which is the same problem that we have with our leadership. They just "don't get it." The loss of life of tens of thousands of Iraquis, and the tearing apart of many more lives, just doesn't phase this Administration or its supporters (who all seem, interestingly enough, to claim to be "Christian!" - I wonder not only WWJD, but what he would say to that?), because "on paper," it all looks pretty good to them. Meanwhile, we have squandered American good will, lost the moral high ground, have become isolated and detested, are viewed as arrogant, and have weakened the case for democracy. Nations that have little respect for human rights now see us as their model - all they have to do is call the opposition "terrorists," and they can engage in criminal acts against their own people. The Administration not only does not respect the rights of others and international law, it does not respect the rights of its own citizens and the rule of law in this country. Unfortunately, it is true that Bush will not be impeached - a Congress run by his own party is not about to impeach him. By instilling fear in Americans, he has managed to give himself three more years to do yet more damage. He and his administration are blind to any of their faults, unrepentant, and deaf to anyone's voice but their own. They have constructed a world as unreal as "The Truman Show" in which they live and move and have their being. It is a bleak situation, indeed, not only for citizens of this country, but also for citizens of the world community.

One wonders what it will take for the U.S. to reach a level of political maturity commensurate with its military power. My hunch is that won't happen soon enough to save this blundering, adolescent nation. The buffoon they elected to the presidency thinks he knows best -- against all the evidence staring all of us in the face. A mature nation would sit up and take notice; the U.S. seems determined to dig itself in even deeper, isolating and weakening itself as it goes. Invading Iraq despite all the warnings from the rest of the world was pure folly. But America went in and now it alone will have to clean up the mess it has made. That will take trillions of dollars and generations of soldiers. America can only be weakened by this. But that is probably a good thing; it has shown itself unworthy of the pre-eminent role in the world it so often claims for itself.

Well, since Sven, SpeakOut and Gary want to belittle my comments as somehow "childish" (I should "grow up") and mere "rationalizations", let's put our cards on the table to see who has the most well informed and balanced perspective.

I have a multiple degrees from a very good university. I have studied (and lived) in Europe and Mexico. My wife is Austrian. I've worked as a financial analyst and a lawyer...for the same university that trained me. I spend a lot of time abroad. And, I regularly read the better papers from the US and Europe. I think those "credentials", if you will, lend themselves pretty well to a balanced and well informed perspective that is nothing at all like a "rah rah America" take on the world--my wife certainly wouldn't allow that.

Sven's and Gary's suggestions that my comments are "rationalizations" in favor of the war are bizarre given that I distinctly said (on this thread and elsewhere) that, from a policy perspective, the war was most likely a mistake. Unlike most posters on this site, I don't use language with overy-certain terms because I'm not so naive to think that things always ultimately unfold as they appear to in the middle of events.

Additionally, I never said nor suggested that the war was "morally" correct. I think that--like most things in life--is an open question. I simply and correctly pointed out that Sven's statement that "nothing" good has come of the war is clearly false on its face, is not an opinion that would be shared by a majority of Iraqis (the people most impacted by these events) and was, therefore, disrespectful to those who have died in the process. If there's a factual or logical flaw there, feel free to identify it. But, don't just lazily assert that I'm "rationalizing" the war.

Now, with respect to SpeakOut's childish comment about using the U.S. dollar for "poop and scoop", let me help you understand a few things about economics.

A currency's value generally fluctuates as a result of four things: domestic inflation, government debt, GDP strength, and trade flows.

1. Domestic inflation is--and has been for some time--lower in the U.S. than in most of the other G8 countries.

2. Measured as a percentage of GDP (which is the measurement economists are mostly concerned with), the US national debt is lower than most of the other G8 countries--including Canada. Yes, you often see news stories that say the US deficit and debt (they are separate things) are at all time highs. That makes for a great headline. It means little, though, because those measurements are in nominal dollar figures, and because the US has, by far, the largest economy in the world. In fact, it accounts for about 30% of the world's economy. As a percentage of GDP, the most important measurement, the annual deficit and overall national debt are at relatively modest levels--as I said, lower than most of the other G8 countries.

3. US GDP growth is, and has been for several years, much stronger than most of the other G8 countries. If you'll look at my first post above, you'll see that even the very well respected OECD (not an "American" organization; it's based in Paris) has forecast that if current growth rates remain substantially the same per capita GDP will be 50% lower in Europe than in the U.S. in about 20 years.

4. The US trade deficit is, however, a problem. It is at alarmingly high levels. But, most economists will tell you that they really don't know how to meaasure it very accurately in a globalized economy because so few products are completely made in any single country. The Chinese government has claimed that it receives less than 15% of the profit from many products "made in China" because those products are actually made by foreign companies with manufacturing facilities in China, and have significant value added elsewhere in the production process.

All of that means that the dollar is probably basically sound. In fact, it has appreciated by about 10% versus the Euro in the last year. There is, of course, the potential for a run on the dollar, but whatever amount of schadenfreude that SpeakOut might experience if such a thing were to happen would be very short lived.

In case you hadn't noticed, Canada is more dependent on trade with the U.S. than in other country in the world. If the U.S. dollar were to slide significantly and the U.S. economy suffered hugely, the same thing would happen to Canada (and most of the world) quickly thereafter.

LWP I'd give it up. This isn't the place for thoughtfull analysis. Most of the posters here, wether right or wrong, are letting their emotions fuel their arguments.

To them any idea that America is NOT 100% evil is being an apologist. (Actually, they're reminding me of Bush.)

LWP, I guess your "multiple degrees" explain your penchant for verbosity. They certainly didn't help you build cogent arguments. No one posting here thinks the U.S. is inherintly evil. Just ignorant on the whole, dangerous, at present, and very badly led. There are many good, thoughtful Americans. Too bad they're in the minority, held hostage by the morons who make up the current political majority and who voted to rush headlong into a pointless and unwinnable war. Not to worry, though: the lies and deceptions of the Bush administration will one day catch up with it. One wonders how many more thousand Americans will die, how much more inflamed the Middle East will become, how much more dangerous the world will be, by the time that finally happens.

I am a 60 year old woman from Canada who believes the 60% of American's should get together with the 60% of Canadian's and stand united together in the hope for a solution to ridding your Country of this current administration. I have noticed more and more American's becoming angry as this opportunist, rich, arrogant bunch of elitists have done every thing they can to make themselves richer at the cost of the integrity and credibility of America. I played in a band called "Rose" which we formed during the Viet Nam war with myself and some incredible young folks from America who were a wonderful addition to Canada in the years that extremely unpopular war went on. I grew up with U.S. T.V. U.S. music, and admired the ingenuity and diversity of American people. I do beleive those of us living in other countries ie (Canada, Mexico, Cuba, etc) get a more realistic coverage of the news from Iraq, and Afghanistan. The U.S. policy has always been aggressive, self serving, and corrupt in the Middle East: long before 9/11, I might add. There have been many betrayals involving puppet governments of the U.S. both in the Middle East and South America over the years. I think it may be time for your powers that be to take a look at that as no one was surprised when you finally got attacked on 9/11. It was unfortunate but bound to happen. How many civilians do you think were slaughtered in Viet Nam? How many in Iraq? 100's of thousands, and not one apology from the arrogant, self righteous hypocrites otherwise known as the Republican hawks and neo cons. Perhaps the reason Bush does not pre empt war on the "sit on the sidelines Canadians" is because he doesn't want another 35 million liberals to vote his party out. Water and oil always has a price, as you have found out. I feel so bad for the 60% of American's who do not believe this was the right thing to do in Iraq. It's hard not to take the criticisms from other countries personally and feel hurt by it, as in the past and present you have also been a generous, helpful, good people on the whole and can always be counted on to help other countries in need. However,,,,,
If America is going to point fingers at other countries for human rights issues, style of government, etc, then she exposes her total hypocrisy to the World, and the Global Village which is getting smaller all the time. ie (these blog sites are great thankyou) It's dumbfounding for the rest of your nieghbors to listen to Rice, Bush, Cheney, Ego Bolton, Rummy, Gonzales, etc chastise others when they are busy running around the World illegally invading, occupying, setting up puppet governments to protect their interests, holding suspects without any charges or proof, torturing people in other countries, including Guantanamo, and Europe, and are totally blind to the fact they are war criminals who should be tried for the indiscriminate murdering of Iraqi's to take one guy who nationalized the oil fields out is totally baffling. Actually disgusting, my friends and nieghbours, and we know it's the minority who are destroying your Country and are the biggest spreaders of fear and lies in the World today. That being the current administration. Instead of bashing each other why don't we the 60% of North American's who want dialogue instead of pre emptive vulgar illegal war get together and throw these people out. Don't worry, they won't starve, Haliburton will always take care of them well.

Sven:

It's not at all helpful if you're going to make generalized assertions such as I'm "rationalizing" the war, or that I haven't built "cogent" arguments.

As I noted before, you're welcome to specifically identify where you see specific lapses in my use of facts and logic. You haven't even tried to do that. Asserting that an analysis is not valid is not the same thing as demonstrating that it's not valid.

I have pointed out specific flaws in your posts, and you haven't responded. I'm inclined to conclude those are tacit admissions on your part.

That's too bad, because I suspect you're actually a bright guy who could articulate an interesting and logically sound perspective if you really wanted to.

Unfortunately, I'm also inclined to conclude that Duck's post above is correct: Most of the people who post here have little interest (if any) in engaging in thoughtful analysis (if any) which might lead to a better understanding of how the world really works. They instead prefer to vent a variety of emotions (mostly anger)--regardless of whether those emotions are based on a well informed and logical understanding of the world.

The Allegory of the Cave from Plato's "Republic" provides one of the most enduring images in political philosophy. As Plato observed, though, too many people are content to enjoy and comment on the shadows on the wall because they're comfortable, familiar, and reinforce the way they want to view the world.

At the end of the day, though, they're just shadows. The real world is much more complicated, nuanced, fascinating, and, ultimately, fulfilling.

What's offensive, LWP, is when your president invokes a series of lies to wage a war of choice, even in the face of massive global public opposition and even after having been warned by experts that a costly murderous mess would be the outcome, and then concocts new lies to replace the old ones, as tens of thousands of people die needlessly and international law is undermined. Instead of rushing to the defence of your president and his criminal pursuit of an unust war of choice, why don't you acknowledge the deadly consequences of his stupidity and hubris. You Americans were warned and you went ahead and waged this war anyway. Now you -- and all of us -- are paying the price. As more and more members of the "coalition of the willing" that you bribed and coerced into joining you on this mad adventure pull out in the face of massive domestic opposition to this madness, you will be left ever more isolated, scorned and alone. It's your mess. And you'll be stuck with it for generations to come.

you know it is difficult to bring others to SEE your point of view when you are constantly POKING them in the EYE. I am not an american and I have a great dislike for the current administrations actions surrounding foreign policy, the environment etc. but I can't vote in the USA and americans can. Its so obvious to me that if the rest of the world would like to see some changes we'd be better off trying to engage americans not piss them off. I am sure that a great number of americans are sick about the state of their country today but when push comes to shove they'll defend their own and rightly so. We do not need to rub their faces in it as it gets us nowhere. Lets look at and discuss the issues not name call. I read and listen to the news from Iraq. I listen to the spin on american TV-blame the media. I see no honest discussion of the issues on Iraq and it reminds me of the lead up to the war, when there was no honest dicussion then. If the issues of Iraq can't be truthfully debated ie problems plans outcomes how can it be managed? You can't sucsessfully solve a problem you can't define. It seems the same reasoning or lack thereof that took the USA to war 3 years ago is at work trying to not solve the problem today. I would challenge the americans to coerce their politicians to come together, be americans first then rebublican or democrat, and work toward a solution. Who in their right mind would want to be elected to try to clean up this mess if it gets any worse. This ain't about politics people its about survival of the western way of life as we know it.

Nice sentiments, Linda, but isn't it a little naive to expect Americans to come to their senses if we limit ourselves to gentle prodding? That's already been tried, and it failed miserably. Americans do need a rude wakeup call -- and they will continue to need it for some time, I'm afraid. Gentle diplomacy apparently isn't enough with this insular, ill-educated nation. As the U.S. dollar continues to plummet, as more countries pull out of their bogus "coalition," as more and more thousands of their soldiers die needlessly, as their national economy continues to collapse, as hatred and contempt for Americans intensifies the world over, and as former allies turn their backs on them and build new alliances, it will slowly dawn on these macho idiots that you can't just thumb your nose at the world and wage an illegal war without paying a very heavy price. Unfortunately, Americans still need to be taught that lesson. Trying to appeal to their better side simply does not work. Their president spat in our collective face when he thumbed his nose at the U.N. and waged this war on the basis of a bunch of proven lies. He had been warned. All Americans had been warned. He, and they, ignored the world and now they must pay the price.

Unilateralism and declaring others "irrelevant" means nothing remains to be said.

Unilateralism and declaring others "irrelevant" is war. Nothing but perpetual war.

"War must be treated as a funeral service. Even victory is a funeral." (Lao Tseu)

Be prepared to die, and to mourn!

Good Grief. For all you American haters, wake up!! The majority of us (Americans) agree that we don't want to be fighting in Iraq or anyplace else. But understand, we can't change our Government in the next 24 or 48 hours. We ARE making our President aware of our displeasure in his policies, and we have the ability to change, but we change through a democratic process. We elect our representatives, we don't overthrow them. For all you bashing us from the EU, we bailed you out twice in the past century, and the bail-out was not popular at home when it began, but we placed trust in our elected officials, and turns out the trust was properly placed. For all of you looking for a new country to lead the free world...go ahead!! We look forward to not responding to the calls for help from everywhere. Gonna be nice to sit back and watch a ball game without worrying about natural disasters, disease control, foreign aid and who the hell is about to go nuclear. Don't call us, we'll call you.

Good Grief. For all you American haters, wake up!! The majority of us (Americans) agree that we don't want to be fighting in Iraq or anyplace else. But understand, we can't change our Government in the next 24 or 48 hours. We ARE making our President aware of our displeasure in his policies, and we have the ability to change, but we change through a democratic process. We elect our representatives, we don't overthrow them. For all you bashing us from the EU, we bailed you out twice in the past century, and the bail-out was not popular at home when it began, but we placed trust in our elected officials, and turns out the trust was properly placed. For all of you looking for a new country to lead the free world...go ahead!! We look forward to not responding to the calls for help from everywhere. Gonna be nice to sit back and watch a ball game without worrying about natural disasters, disease control, foreign aid and who the hell is about to go nuclear. Don't call us, we'll call you.

World War II, which you Americans joined at the last minute, was not a war of choice. It was a just war, involving a genuine coalition of democracies dedicated to defeating fascist tyranny. The invasion of Iraq, by contrast, was justified solely on the basis of two bogus claims: (1) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction - claims that were disputed by international arms inspectors at the time, and which were completely disproven after the fact; and (2) that Saddam was somehow linked to al-Qaeda, an absurdity on its face, since his and their ideologies were diametrically opposed. Furthermore, unlike WWII, the Iraq invasion took place in flagrant violation of international law and of the will of the international community. As predicted, it has destabilized the Middle East, stoked terrorism, and made the entire world a much less safe place. Please spare us your sanctimony. We're not engaging in any frivolous 'bashing' of America; we're rightly angered by your president's know-nothing unilateralism and the needless death and destruction it has caused. You Americans have a great deal to answer for.

Johannes:

Perhaps it would be helpful for you to read my posts on this thread and on the Wolfowitz thread (one of which was a response to you). Most of your comments--"ill educated" nation, dollar that "plummets", economy that's "collapsing"--are demonstrably false. The fact that you offer such dramatic over-statments makes me question how well educated you are, or how balanced your perspective is.

Sven:

You're just making the same post again and again. That's simply not helpful if you expect to engage in any meaningful discussion on these issues. I've invited you to identify specific factual or logical elements of my thougths that you disagree with. You continue to decline to do so. I can only reasonably conclude that you would rather watch the shadows on the wall that confirm your preferred world view, rather than give serious thought to what are complicated issues.

Sven....You're not rightly angered..you're just angry.

Johannes:

I'm sorry. Rather than questioning how "well educated" you might be, I should have questioned how "well informed" you might be. Your post is written in such a way that you're clearly an educated person. Your incorrect "factual" statements and emotionally charged language, though, make me question how well informed you are and how balanced you are in your analysis.

Sven writes - 'You Americans have a great deal to answer for.' OK, I'll bite - where are you from Sven? and what great and noble things has your nation done?

The U.S. will not rise or fall based on the war in Iraq, whether it was a good or bad idea. Get a grip. The U.S. withdrew from Vietnam after a long and divisive war in the early 70s. 15 yrs later the Berlin Wall fell and then the USSR. We'll be ok.

Great posts here from those outside America. It is irritating to constantly have WW2 brought up as if somehow America rescued us, as opposed to us covering for America who decided to not enter the war until the last minute. Only after the war affected them financially did they enter. When they entered the war they let everyone know it was them that won the war. That attitude continues. You enter an illegal war and demand we support you, even calling us names (the French particularly) even though you can't be bothered to get to know us. We are just there on the edge of our seats waiting for America to call. As a nation you need to take a serious look at your international relations. I agree with Sherry that 9/11 was not a surprise to us and we wondered why it took so long with America being masters at pissing others off.
>
Just Joe or whatever he calls himself is an example to me of the Ugly American, who when faced with justifiable anger from others due to the disgusting behaviour of his nation answers with a guilt trip. The post started out fine but disintegrated into rejection of our anger.We have a right to be listened to, we have put up with a lot from Americans. "The Greatest Crooks on earth" How many years have Americans been playing this narcissistic game? Devaluing the opinions of those you regularly offend.
Your propaganda masked as news means you do not get how seriously in debt you are. And LWP, Canada has balanced it's budget for the last 8 years. We have surpluses. Canadians hate their nation running up too much debt. You are living an unsustainable lifestyle. That is your choice.

I start out calmly discussing this but the ignorance makes me angry.

SpeakOut:

Since you feel the need to accuse others (including me) of "ignorance", let me help demonstrate (not just accuse) that you are also under-informed, and that you don't use language carefully.

You wrote: "It is irritating to constantly have WW2 brought up as if somehow America rescued us, as opposed to us covering for America who decided to not enter the war until the last minute."

First of all, how exactly were you "covering for America"? It was a European war.

Secondly, WWII officially started in 1939. The U.S. officially entered in 1941. The war ended in 1945. How does that support your "last minute" claim? (Note, I used the term "officially" twice because, of course, German military actions began before 1939; and, of course, significant US aid to the UK began well before 1941.)

You wrote: "Only after the war affected them financially did they enter."

Maybe you've forgotten about a little event at Pearl Harbor.

You wrote: "You enter an illegal war and demand we support you, even calling us names..."

How many "legal" wars have there been in human history?

The "calling us names" part is merely an anecdotal. Another poster on another thread--a Canadian--pointed to a poll indicating that about 10% (maybe it was a little higher) of Americans had an unfavorable view of Canada, whereas a majority of Canadians held unfavorable views of America.

Statistically speaking, then, doesn't it seem MUCH more likely that there's more name calling coming from Canada? I think the comments on this thread and others support that.

You wrote: "The post started out fine but disintegrated into rejection of our anger."

You find it odd that people don't respond well to incivility? Constructive and civil criticism is healthy. That's not what you and most other posters on this site provide.

You wrote: "We have a right to be listened to, we have put up with a lot from Americans. The Greatest Crooks on earth."

What, exactly, do you have to put up with from Americans? In one breath you complain that Americans ignore you, then you complain that you have "a lot" to put up from them. Which is it?

By the way, the "Greatest Crooks on earth" comment is consistent with much of the lack of real thought or perspective--historical or economic--put into your post. If your dramatic assertion were true, surely the U.S. would have simply turned Canada--and much of the rest of the world--into a colony long ago and forcibly extracted its natural resources. After all, that's how traditional great powers acted. Instead, the commercial trade between the countries results in a trade DEFICIT for America--i.e., a huge benefit to Canada.

You wrote: "And LWP, Canada has balanced it's budget for the last 8 years. We have surpluses."

You apparently didn't read my post very carefully. There is a difference between an annual budget (which can result in a deficit or surplus), and overall national debt. Through 2005, Canada's national debt was 68.2% of GDP. In the U.S., it was 64.7%. Perhaps Canada has enjoyed an annual budget surplus in recent years), but it obviously accumulated a lot of debt in past years.

Given the quality of your posts, I rather doubt that you have any training in economics, so please do not accuse me of being "ignorant" and a victim of "propaganda" unless you can specifically identify where in my comments there are factual or logical lapses.

Now, given the clear analysis I provided in my earlier post as to why your suggestion that you would use the U.S. dollar for "poop and scoop" was not only childish and incorrect, but ultimately not in your best interest, do you want to respond to that specifically and rationally?

Or, like most posters here, do you just want to vent your anger with a questionable undertanding of reality and then conveniently decline to respond when confronted with facts and analysis?

I am not unsympathetic to your suggestions that many Americans are too self-important and too under-informed. Unfortunately, I find the same is true for most non-Americans.

You would have more credibility in your overall analysis if you did a little better job of informing yourself, and did a much better job of providing your criticisms in a thoughtful and constructive manner.

LWP yes you are right I am not an economist yet my figures are very different than yours. I went to the Canadian Dept. of Finance to check the figures so I went to the source. You say Canada's debt was 68.2% of GDP in 2005. No, our debt was 38.7% of GDP in 2005 and the projected level we expect to reach is 20% of GDP by 2020 and so far we are on target.
Canada has the lowest debt-GDP ratio in the G7 nations and our fiscal situation is considered the strongest of the G7.
Canada's opinion of the US has slipped drastically in the last ten years. We have always been aware that Canadians know more about your country than Americans know about us. That is neighbourly to pay attention to your neighbour but we have received so much criticism from your country in the last few years that it has left a bad taste in our mouth.
We knew Iraq was based on false information and we said it. You called us names. We were proven right, which I don't care about but we face so much rude treatment from the US it is wearing even for the most passive. We hosted over a thousand Americans during the 9/11 crisis and treated them like gold. Yet your President thanked only the nations who agreed to be a part of the coalition in Iraq.
Do not forgot we fought you in a war and we won. The Americans couldn't function in the cold. We are a hardy nation but unlike you we prefer peace, it is not a dirty word to us but a goal.
I am angry at the US like most nations. Canada has changed much since we settled this country. We are more like the Swedes than any other country recent studies have discovered. We are community oriented and Americans are individualistic. As we change as a nation growing together, we see you becoming more fundamentalist and conservative. That is your choice but it is insulting in our last election to see your NRA here trying to affect our elections to support your gunloving ways.
We are tired of your deafness in dialogue with the rest of the world and your bullying to get your way. Your judgement of our choices is also an irritant. I am seeing for the first time a national anger at your bullying and callous behavior.
We are a wealthy and comfortable nation and we have finally had enough of you. I can't imagine what some of the poorer nations feel. One thing we all have in common is a complete distate for your nation and it's outrageous behaviour.

SpeakOut:

I'll have to look deeper into the GDP numbers to see if there's a way to reconcile the discrepancies. Independent economists often calculate these figures differently than the governments themselves. For example, you say that the Canadian government reports that its debt/GDP ratio is 38.7%. Similarly, the US Congressional Budget Office reports that the US debt/GDP ratio is 37.4%.

Either way, the US figures are still lower than most of the other G8 countries (which was my primary point) and, if you had read my first post above, you'd see that the OECD predicts that in 20 years per capita GDP will be 50% higher in the States than in the EU. (It's already 25% higher.)

In other words, I don't see you taking issue with my overall point that your "poop and scoop" comment was both flawed and, ironically, against your best interest. Instead, you ducked the general issue by pointing to one element where there might be a factual dispute.

Indeed, I challenged many aspects of your earlier post by asking you several questions in my last post. As I said, though, like many posters on this site you declined to answer them because, one could reasonably infer, having to carefully contemplate facts and analysis would complicate your ability to enjoy your preferred view that the US is a (probably "the") signficant source of evil in the world, and would deflate the schadenfreude you feel--most likely mistakenly--at the thought that the the "Empire" is in steep decline. (If you deny the schadenfreude, how else do you explain the childish "poop and scoop" comment?)

I certainly recognize that the U.S. is not a "Holy Empire", and that it has engaged in some behaviors that were simply wrong, and some that were questionable. As I noted in my first post on this thread, though, I also believe the U.S. has mostly been a very beneficial power to the world.

I'd give more credence to the opinions of those who disagree with that if they could articulate that disagreement with solid analysis. A few people do so and raise good points. Most of the people who post here--including you, if you review and reflect on your posts honestly--just vent anger with a rambling cascade of thoughts, most of which simply cannot reflect the complicated reality the world is.

By the way, if your comment that Canada "won" a war with the US is a reference to the War of 1812, I think you should qualify that by noting that was actually a war between the US and Britain.

In any event, that does nothing to detract from my point that if the US were truly "the greatest crook on earth", (another of your dramatic over-statements) it could simply act like past great powers and forcibly extract Canada's wealth. The power disparity between the US and Canada is such now that it would not be a repeat of 1812.

In reality, of course, Canada is the primary economic beneficiary of its relationship with the US.

Oh, LWP, won't you please stop your preaching about the greatness of America and acknowledge, for once, the needless death and suffering that your nation and its president have inflicted on the world, and on the Middle East in particular? There really is no excuse for the outrage that is Iraq since America was warned, repeatedly, by the world and chose to ignore those very prescient warnings. Your nation, and especially its servicemen, are now paying the price, and that price will only continue rise. Just look at how despised America has become since Bush took office. That's what happens when you show contempt for the opinions of the rest of the world. The antipathy toward the U.S. is so profound now that it will take decades to re-establish the respect your nation once enjoyed.
It's a little pathetic, frankly, to see how desperate you are to portray your nation as great, infallible, powerful, well led. Yes, the U.S. is big, yes, it has a big economy and, yes, it has a big military. Yes, it is still the most powerful nation on earth. But not for much longer, I'm afraid: the criminally stupid decisions your president and Congress have made in recent years are destined to change all of that. Your country is a house of cards, an empire in decline. The signs of it are everywhere. Bluster away and keep watching CNN and Fox News, reading the Wall Street Journal editorial pages and listening to Rush Limbaugh. All of that doubtless comforts you. But as soon as you leave the cloistered U.S., you'll find that attitudes are very different. Americans are despised as never before. If you want some scientific validation of that, check the international surveys conducted by the Pew Center for People and the Press. Is the rest of the world really wrong, and America right? I'm afraid not. We are right to be disgusted by your warmongering and your contempt for the rule of law.

"Anonymous"

It would have been helpful BEFORE you posted to have read my posts on this thread. Then you would have had a foundation of knowledge from which you could have drawn a variety of conclusions that were actually valid. Instead...

You wrote: "It's a little pathetic, frankly, to see how desperate you are to portray your nation as great, infallible, powerful, well led."

Where did I suggest all of these things?

Infallible? I certainly never suggested that. To the contrary, I EXPLICITLY acknowledged that the US has done "some things that were simply wrong, and some that were questionable".

Good leaders? Where did I say that in any of my posts on this thread? In fact, I've said on other threads that the Bush Admin is characterized by a low level of corruption and a high level of incompetence; and, that GWB is likely one of the worst presidents in American history.

How do you expect your opinions to have credibility when you use language in such a sloppy manner and make such unfounded assumptions?

You wrote: "Your country is a house of cards, an empire in decline."

As I said above, everyone has an opinion; few people have well informed and well thought out opinions.

Of course the American "Empire" will not last forever. Nothing does. Whether it's in decline is debatable. Even if it is in decline, you can review my first post on this thread where I argued that it's likely to remain the dominant world power for another 5 or 6 decades, if not longer, and that this is mostly a good thing for the world given the likely alternatives.

If you want to challenge that, provide some analysis, don't just throw up some emotionally comforting wish.

You wrote: "Bluster away and keep watching CNN and Fox News, reading the Wall Street Journal editorial pages and listening to Rush Limbaugh."
I don't use those news sources. By virtue of the fact that I post on this site, you should have been able to reasonably infer that one of my news sources is the Washington Post. Once again, though, your unfounded assumptions undermine your credibility.

You wrote: "All of that doubtless comforts you. But as soon as you leave the cloistered U.S., you'll find that attitudes are very different."

Again, if you had bothered to follow the chain of exchanges I had with SpeakOut before making your post, which a responsible person would have done before charging forward based on a lot of false assumptions, you would have noted that I do leave the US often. My wife is Austrian.

I'm very well aware of the opinions of many people in Europe. Frankly, having lived in Europe when Bush I was president, I can testify that many of those opinions existed long before Bush II.

And, though some of the criticisms of the Bush Admin in particular, and American society in general, are valid and made in good faith, most of the people I've met who hold what might be called "anti-American" views--such as yourself, it would appear--don't impress me as people who are very well informed or willing to look at things carefully and thoughtfully.

You wrote: "Is the rest of the world really wrong, and America right? I'm afraid not."

Well, it depends on what you mean by "wrong". It's hard to say that "feelings" themselves are wrong. They just are what they are. And, since many of those feelings are based on a certain level of envy because of America's dominant world role, they would exist irrespective of whether America was always and everywhere a good actor.

On the other hand, some of the underlying conclusions that people have drawn to support their feelings--e.g., that America is a significant source of "evil" in the world--are, in my opinion, false.

Amid all of the chatter about Iraq, Guantanamo, rendition flights--all issues that are more complicated than you would likely care to consider--stands an unacknowledged elephant in the middle of the room: During the 60 years that America has been the dominant world power, the number of democracies on this planet has increased from 13 to about 80.

America certainly wasn't directly responsible for all of that development, but great powers have a tendency to try to shape the world in their own image, and America has done so.

Now, if you have something intelligent and well thought out to say, I'm willing to listen. If you're just going to rant and emotionally vent, well, I guess you can do that too if it somehow makes you feel better. It certainly doesn't contribute to a meaningful discussion, though.

SpeakOut:

Since I could not find via Google the original investment firm site from which I took the earlier posted debt/GDP ratio data, I found another "third party" source--i.e., not the Canadian nor the American government.

If you go to The Economist's site--www.economist.com/countries--you'll see a variety of economic indicators. Keep in mind that The Economist is a British publication, not American.

Though their data is only updated through 2003, this is what they say: The US debt/GDP ratio in 2003 was 62.4%; Canada's in 2003 was 77%.

Though there are different methods/sources of calculation that lead to different results, one constant result would appear to be that the US debt ratio is lower than Canada's--even if only slightly so under some calculations.

LWP, your claims of continuing U.S. superiority overlook the far more fundamental issue of which direction the U.S. is heading in -- and that is toward greater indebtedness and over-all economic weakness, driven both by the Bush admin's drunken-sailor fiscal policy and an unsustainable and losing war effort that lacks the legitimacy (both internationally and within Iraq, not to mention within America itself) required to win... whereas other G8 countries like Canada have been rapidly improving their fiscal situation. But if the entire world is turning its back on you, as it is today, then all of that is rather secondary anyway. We are witnessing the birth of a new era of global affairs, where one lone, scorned superpower stands ever more alone and isolated, as one-time allies and one-time foes build new alliances against the United States. For one example close to home, just look at the Organization of American States, where Hugo Chavez's candidate beat the Bush administration's candidate for secretary general. Or South Korea, where the historically anti-American party now runs the show. Or the Arab world, where public support for America is now down in the single digits... And we haven't even mentioned Europe, where new leaders like Zapatero in Spain are sweeping out the old corrupt pro-American governments.
But, hey, that's what happens when the world's sole superpower goes to war on the basis of lies, even after dire warnings from the rest of the world, and in open defiance of the U.N. and international law. We may not yet be able to jail your head of state for showing such contempt for international law, but we can sure turn away from your the ugliness of your current national leadership and pursue our strategic and economic interests, as much as possible, elsewhere.

I WAS PUZZLED AS TO WHY BELARUS (SEE BELOW) SHOULD TAKE SERIOUSLY THE U.S. DENUNCIATIONS OF ITS RIGHTS ABUSES WHEN THOSE ABUSES ARE SO SIMILAR TO THE U.S.'S OWN ABUSES AGAINST DETAINEES IN ABU GHRAIB, GUANTANAMO AND THE REST OF THE U.S. GULAG. FROM TODAY'S NEW YORK TIMES:
MINSK, Belarus, March 24 — The United States and Europe said Friday that they would impose sanctions against President Aleksandr G. Lukashenko of Belarus and other top officials for cracking down on a peaceful protest over his re-election, which was widely seen as a sham.

The opposition also said that since their members were arrested in a police sweep early Friday morning, many detainees had been beaten, denied the use of toilets, forced to stand for hours in subfreezing temperatures, and packed nearly by the score into small prison cells.

Antonio:

I appreciate your thoughts. You raise some important issues. Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to provide a very thoughtful response, but I'll outline a response.

You wrote: "LWP, your claims of continuing U.S. superiority overlook the far more fundamental issue of which direction the U.S. is heading in -- and that is toward greater indebtedness and over-all economic weakness..."

I don't think I've overlooked those issues at all. If you look through all of my posts on this thread--not just the last two--you'll see that I've discussed not just current economic indicators, but future indicators.

As I noted above, the OECD forecasts that the per capita GDP in the US will likely be about 50% higher than in EU countries in about 20 years. As I also noted above, this likelihood is increased by the fact that the US spends twice as much per capita as the EU does on higher education, and twice as much on scientific and technological R&D. In the Information Age, those are the areas where economic investments should be made if you want to maintain your ability to innovate and compete.

I also noted that Goldman Sachs estimates it will be another 30 years or so before China's GDP surpasses the US; and even then it would likely have only 1/3 the per capita GDP.<