In Rumsfeld's Fall, Hope and Reckoning

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation is being welcomed the world over as a sure sign that U.S. policy on Iraq will change.

Iranians expressed hope for avoiding confrontation with the United States as a result of Rumsfeld's departure, according to an AP report from Tehran. The Guardian's reporter in Tehran sent back a similar dispatch: "Sources close to the Islamic republic's theocratic leadership said yesterday that the replacement as US defence secretary of the hawkish Mr Rumsfeld by the more emollient Robert Gates improved the chances of direct talks between Tehran and Washington."

In Europe, Spiegel Online reports that some German newspapers worry that a more multilateral America will expect more military support from Europe.

There are two different schools of thought in the international media about what Rumsfeld's departure says about America.

I. A New America?

More than a few commentators say the Democratic congressional victories that prompted Rumsfeld's resignation show that Americans have finally overcome the trauma of Sept. 11.

Rumsfeld's departure is "the biggest marker of policy change" since the 2001 terror attacks, writers Greg Sheridan in The Australian.

"The citizens of the USA have finally emerged from the stupor into which they descended after 11 September and have voted for a change of
direction in the Iraq war, but also in economic and social policy," said El Pais in Spain.

"For the Americans the new balance of power in Washington means the chance of finally moving on from 9/11. It has become abundantly clear that anger is not a good counsel and war not the best weapon against terror," wrote Evita Neefs in the center-right Belgian daily De Standaard.

But the Arab News in Saudi Arabia questioned whether American has changed: "When US arms seemed to be triumphant, Bush enjoyed his highest poll ratings. But Americans don't like losers. That is why they delivered their devastating verdict on the administration and the Republicans who once backed it so enthusiastically. There was however little reference in all the campaign rhetoric to the horrors Bush has brought to Iraqis, proving that even now, Americans can only see this disaster in their own insular terms," the editors wrote Thursday.

The Jordan Times said "Americans have realised that more and more people given the choice between being with or against the bully are choosing the latter.

"We can only hope that this is the beginning of a long overdue realisation among Americans that neither are they alone in this world nor do they have a monopoly on the right values or the use of force," declared the Amman daily.

II. A Moment of Reckoning?

Other commentators hope for accountability, not change, from America.

In Baghdad, Azzaman (in Arabic) called Rumsfeld's departure "a simple gesture toward the wounded Iraqi people who suffered from Rumsfeld's policy and from the crimes of his collaborators."

The independent daily said Rumsfeld's appointees should also resign: "They should observe the satisfaction in Iraq after the departure of a politician whose name is linked to the worst crimes, from Abu Ghraib's scandal and the unleashing of the criminal groups in the streets to the unwise decision of dissolving one of the best and most nationalist armies in the region, paving the way to the civil war and the partition of Iraq."

"Rumsfeld's fall is the beginning of the end of all who served him in the field, Iraqis and non Iraqis..." said the Azzaman editors.

The London-based Arab daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi said the Iraq resistance "deserves the credit for inflicting this resounding defeat on the US President and his party because of its steadfastness and bold military operations and its foiling of the occupation and all the political processes originating from it."

The Palestinian-owned daily said "Iraq's curse... will certainly chase [Bush] until he is brought before the international tribunal as a war criminal who committed crimes against humanity because the Iraqis' blood and the destruction he had left in their country should not be in vain."

Writing in the London Telegraph, Norman Lamont says "Mr Bush and his new Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, need to realise that greater humility is badly needed in the foreign policy of America. It has transferred to the 'war on terror' the mindset and methods of the Cold War. The Islamic revival, which started with the Iranian Revolution and which today is fuelled by Muslim poverty and humiliation, means there will inevitably be governments in the Middle East not to the liking of the West."

Al-Jazeera's newscast of Rumseld's resignation emphasized the view of a U.S. human rights lawyer that former Guantanamo prisoners who claim they were tortured on Rumsfeld's watch will now find it easier to sue him.

"Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said that the Center plans to file a new case before a German court, under the universal jurisdiction law, charging Rumsfeld and others of torture," the Arab News channel reported, according the Open Source Center, a subscription site run by the CIA that translates the international media.

According to the newscast, Ratner "added that Rumsfeld sanctioned a host of torture techniques in Guantanamo, such as the use of dogs and sexual humiliation. He added that the resignation deprives Rumsfeld of his immunity and allows the filing of complaints against him in the United States and abroad."

France's Le Monde wonders if Bush has really changed: "The president hasn't yet recognized that his strategy is bad. He pretends remaining firm on the principles and excludes the idea of a defeat in Iraq. But he wants to change tactics. He is looking for a way out, a way to repatriate the 'boys' without letting Iraq consumed by chaos. The task is difficult. (...). Robert Gates, like Donald Rumsfeld, can't win the war in Iraq. To protect the reputation of the president, his mission is to avoid loosing it in humiliating conditions.

See also:

* "Thank you, America" (Guardian Editorial, Nov. 9)

* "Relief Suffuses World Views of U.S. Vote" (The Washington Post, Nov. 10).

By Jefferson Morley |  November 10, 2006; 12:21 PM ET  | Category:  Global
Previous: Chavez Influence Seen in Ortega Victory | Next: 'Futile Ritual' Seen in U.S. Veto on Gaza Attack

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Democracy means prosperty not destruction, I hope the democrates understands the lesson "don't ineterfer in others businuss"

Posted by: ٍSamy Eweda | November 10, 2006 01:25 PM

The pary that won was not the DEMOCRATIC PARTY is the DEMOCRAT PARTY. There is nothing Democratic about these left wing socialists.

Posted by: Marat Bandemer | November 10, 2006 01:32 PM

Oh by the way. FYI: The United States is not a Democracy either. It is a Republic. If you don't know the difference here either, exert yourselves and go to a printed dictionary. Comprehension of language is lost it seems in the media.

Posted by: Marat | November 10, 2006 01:35 PM

From where I sit, as a Brit living in Asia I would say America's self imposed monopoly on rightiousness is long over due to come to an end.
Many peoples face terror, but weapons cost money and the U.S. is the greatest arms dealer on our planet and so earns a great deal from promoting war and terror around the globe. Yes it came to their shores on 9/11 and it was a tragic time but if you make your money from selling weapons, someday they are going to come back to bite you on the ass, The UK has had its own share of bombings and terror with the IRA for many years and they learned that negotiation was a key to finding a lasting peace.
People want peace, none of us want to be oppressed but the U.S has a misguided view of our world, namedly they think its here for only them.
I think most of the world would be more inclined to tolerate the U.S is they showed even a little humility but no, bold and brassy is the dream or so it seems.
All I can say is poor America.
Time you guys made your politicians accountable.

Posted by: Ed.Lee | November 10, 2006 01:39 PM

Refusing to admit mistake or admit failure is not a trademark of the brave, but that of coward. One does not deserve to win, unless one learns how to lose.

We American hate losing, that may be a virtue on one hand, but it also means we never learn from the past mistakes. Most American like to look in the future, but never understand true lessons always lie in the past.

When all our friends around the world are telling us we are going the wrong way, it is time to listen and learn rather than telling everyone we are smarter than they are. America's founding fathers built this great nation with humility; I will hate see our generation lose it all in arrogance.

Posted by: JL | November 10, 2006 01:51 PM

as a brit living in asia, you have no idea what is happening in north america. you get a skewed view from the press. I'm ready for civil war in the United States. And I don't turn to the deterioration of Europe and Asia for answeres.

Posted by: darrell | November 10, 2006 02:18 PM

As an American I can only embrace the potential of this election with cautious and humble optimism.
I have watched my nation's leaders trample roughshod on those things, that as a child over sixty years ago, I was taught differentiated the USA from the rest of the world. This has been a humiliation, and great saddness.

Posted by: QAK | November 10, 2006 02:24 PM

I share the opinion expressed in Le Monde's editorial. We should not read too much in Rumsfeld's fall. Just as there is more to beauty than cosmetics, there is more to change in policy than the departure of one man.

Signs would be more encouraging if, for instance, some world moral authority (preferably American) had already indicted formally those, within the American Administration, who lied, deceived and are still ultimately responsible for multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity, in Iraq. For the record, let's just remind ourselves how far we had gone, and what the road ahead looked like, during Vietnam, when circumstances such as the ones under discussion here actually occurred, then.

Bertrand Russell: "It is in the nature of imperialism that citizens of the imperial power are always among the last to know -- or care -- about circumstances in the colonies... War crimes are the actions of powers whose arrogance leads them to believe that they are above the law. Might, they argue, is right. The world needs to establish and apply certain criteria in considering inhuman actions by great powers. These should not be the criteria convenient to the victor, as at Nuremburg, but those which enable private citizens to make compelling judgments on the injustices committed by any great power. It was my belief, in calling together the International War Crimes Tribunal, that we could do this, and this book is the record of the Tribunal's considerable success. It serves not only as an indictment of the United States by abundant documentation, but establishes the Tribunal as a model for future use....It is ironic that as the International War Crimes Tribunal completes its task, news arrives from Washington of the dismissal of McNamara and the preparations for a final desperate effort by Johnson before the forthcoming United States elections, to escape from the results of his own wickedness and folly in Vietnam.... Our Tribunal leaves Denmark, therefore, armed not only with the fullest evidence of American war crimes, but with the knowledge that the final chapter of these crimes is still unwritten. We appeal to everyone the world over to redouble his efforts to end this barbarism." ("Against the Crime of Silence", Proceedings of the Russell International War Crimes Tribunal, ed. John Duffett, London, O'Hare Books, 1968) There has been a painful lack of the likes of Russell, in recent years.

Posted by: Robert Rose | November 10, 2006 02:48 PM

All the comments about American hubris and self-righteousness have merit. We do tend to buy into our own 'cavalry to the rescue' mentality regarding world affairs. Republicans and conservatives have not cornered the market on it either. It is American as the proverbial apple pie or hot dog.

It is amusing, however, to be lectured on morals and ethics by such giants of virtue as those in this article. Yes, I agree the U.S. needs to put its house in order, but just as the world doesn't need to be lectured by us we certainly don't need any lectures from them.

I am fully in favor of the potentates in the ME remaining in power. If their subjects want to overthrow them and establish democracy \republicanism they can help themselves. I wish we had done the same in Iraq. We cannot and should not solve their problems for them.

However, after 9\11, the world needs to understand we have the right to defend ourselves against terrorism and tyranny and one way to do that is carrying out an American saying:

'the best defense is a good offense'

Bush's ham-handed application of this principle has failed, but the principle itself is valid when applied with wisdom.
Let's hope there's more wisdom in the months to come and less self-righteousness on everyone's part.

Posted by: Dave Anthony | November 10, 2006 02:50 PM

Marat-
According to yhe definitions in my dictionary (and every one I've seen) the US is both a Democracy and a Republic.

"Democracy: Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives"

"Republic: A political order whose head of state is not a monarch" - A fairly useless term in the modern age; Iran is a Republic; Canadais not.

In short, before angrily demanding others look up words, you might want to have a clue what they mean.

Posted by: 2Short | November 10, 2006 03:01 PM

"as a brit living in asia, you have no idea what is happening in north america. you get a skewed view from the press. I'm ready for civil war in the United States. And I don't turn to the deterioration of Europe and Asia for answeres.

Posted by: darrell | November 10, 2006 02:18 PM"

People like you are "frogs in a well". US press gives only what you have to listen, and dictated by Bush. If the press don't then Bush calls them traitors. For you there is no point of skew as you know only one side of the story.
Europe and Asia are so diverse that press has liberty to support or oppose.
Get out of the well and then confront, you'll be enlightened!

Posted by: VG | November 10, 2006 03:01 PM

Why are all of America's enemies celebrating the Democrats' takeover of Congress? Duuuuuuuuuuuh.

Posted by: Tom | November 10, 2006 03:32 PM

Tom
Its not the enemies, but friends of US, we are hoping Democrats will not be as irresponsible as Bush administration in passing the laws and killing millions of people around the world.
Mind you, if you still support killings of innocent people, then you will be called 'inhumane' like how the administration used to call as 'not patriotic' for those who didn't support the war.

Posted by: | November 10, 2006 03:49 PM

The thing that everybody needs to realize is that, this is not just the US against Iraq. It should be the whole UN, but all of them are pansies who like to hear themselves talk. There have been resolution after resolution in reference to inspectors in Iraq and the lack of cooperation. Finally somebody actually decided to stop talking and do something, and damn it. It's done. Now get the media out of there and let the military take care of the war and this will be over.

Posted by: CSM | November 10, 2006 03:59 PM

I find most of these posts very amusing. You people who post with great enthusiasm about our election results and resignations obviously can't see the forest for the trees.

America is not the loser here. We have our morals to stand on. The losers are 3000 sets of parents here in the US, the Iraqi people and the balance of the Western nations. (Yes, that means you Europe.)

This is just a pause until the inevitable catestrophic events take place. It's coming, just make sure you are prepared.

Posted by: Steve | November 10, 2006 04:03 PM

Yeah let the media out of there and let the military plant some nuclear warheads to justify the war. Thats it, right?
Why do we need a war in the first place?
What has Iraq done to US? Its only those preemptive war games run by the govt that made a decisive factor here.
Don't give me crap of democracy or humanity, war like this is not between soldiers, there are so many people who died, you think all this will stop here? Just because some general thought they could win war easily. And because people of US have a responsibility to chose the most powerful government in this world, please know about the world before giving power to your leaders. No body will come to war at US just for fun, those days are over. So get over it.

Posted by: | November 10, 2006 04:12 PM

VG!

You have the most shallow, uninformed opinion I believe I have ever read in a post.

Here, let me help you out a bit.

There is evil in the world. At different times in history it has been confronted. It will have to be confronted again. The only difference between then and now is that most people, yourself included, are too fat dumb and happy to care about humanity around you. As long as you can get to your candy bars, all is good in your world, and heaven forbid anything disturb it.

Unfortunately, it will take seriously catestrophic events to get fat dumb and happy people off their "enlightened" high horses. Just remember, Steve told, this is not the end. It is only to get worse from here.

Posted by: Steve | November 10, 2006 04:16 PM

I'm an American who emigrated Down Under to escape fascism. It's nice to find this blog in the Post. I grew up reading the paper, and it's so much better online than it was in the 60s and 70s. Thanks for having this compendium of international articles. I agree with the Pom (no offence mate -- at least I didn't call you whingeing) who said Americans get a skewed view through U.S. media. I realised that in general, but I get a more visceral sense of how blinkered American news is now that I can watch Aussie channels that are as unbiased as the BBC. Too bad that so many of the American posters here are so jingoistic and murder-minded. Reminds me of why I left.

Posted by: Bukko in Australia | November 10, 2006 04:33 PM

It took Buddha six years to recognize the enemy within.

It took for Indians to recognize the enemy within is the conviction of strength 6 years after it won a war. It replaced the all powerful party which was running its Government then.

It took six years for Americans to realize what world already knew that the source of terrorism is Bush Administration itself. It is shocking but relief for rest of the world, that Americans matured so quickly.

Hindus divide time in 12 years cycle - as if human mind matures every twelve years. Six years is half cycle - when it turns in opposite direction. Some Hindu influenced nations take it literally, Thailand / Bangkok regularly changes whatever the systems after 6 or twelve years.

Posted by: kankan | November 10, 2006 04:45 PM

Rumsfeld - one GOP (Gay-bashing Old Pervert) down, another couple left to go.

Posted by: BootmanDC | November 10, 2006 05:29 PM

Donald Rumsfeld was anti democracy and an un patriot.

Mainly what he did was represent the view s of a couple of intellectuals and fight for his own position, not the truth.


Paul Wolfowitz, author of the Project For a New American Century, which is a paper detailing the Use Of the Military as the maker of economic decisions based upon force....preemptive strikes....


Iraq was a preemptive strike to grab oil. China and India are both emerging and have many energy needs.

Iraq sits on top of the 2nd LARGEST RESERVES OF OIL IN THE WORLD.....it's the old case of an indigenous population being between the whiteman and something that they want....


you know the same thing that killed most of Americas indigenous population, and remember they were murdered as the bad guys too..........


or in other words,

g o o g l e these phrases,


"Remember the Maine,"

"Remember the Alamo,"


or

Negroponte, Honduras, Gates


to find out what your defense secretary and director of intelligence know about terroristsas.....they are them.


you're being suckered again, it's more of the same with Baker and Gates....


Gates Iran ContraGate, remember when they wouldn't give up the hostages until Regan came into office? that was Gates' doing if I remember correctly.........otherwise they would have been returned while Carter was in office.........


see, if you comes from Washington, and sucks them a bit, they'll hep yah out, and if yah don't wha they maht just hurt yah, make up some BS about cha....


Military Industrial Complex, READ Helen Caldecott's book about Bush's Nuclear Complex and look up PNAC whale yer at it.

.

Posted by: hello disinformationists.... | November 10, 2006 05:45 PM

you are a danger to the gene pool, your intelligence is too low to procreate....


please report to the nearest sterile ization unit and turn your self in for nuetering....


you are a danger to our intelligence quotient median average...you may endanger those near you as well by uttering stupid nonesense repeatedly especially if inebriated or awake...


take care of this immediately!

Posted by: Dear CSM | November 10, 2006 05:53 PM

As a general response to the posters on this blog

1. I am proud to be an American, if I was born somewhere else, I would probably be proud to be from that country. (Whatever it may be)

2. I make no excuses for America

3. I am educated, informed and I read news articles from every continent daily.

That said I am still proud to be an American. I do not make excuses for my country or its leaders.

Our leaders are criticized and our people are criticized for choosing these leaders, but think about this. As one of the most powerful countries in the world, not only militarily but financially, we do not have humble people step forward to become leaders. Only those that thirst for power, glory, and fame make the kind of effort to become a national leader.

We therefore hope that the person who becomes our leader is not a weak person that abuses the power that is given to them; we hope that the person we elect is a strong person, of good moral grain, because that person is a reflection of ourselves. We hope that the person we elect is a person that will help us grow and take care of our children. For that is the only thing that matters to us, our children, we let our politicians worry about the rest of the world so that we may be with our children, grandchildren and friends.

Sometimes we make mistakes; we do pay for those mistakes. How many lives were lost between all of the wars we have fought defending our allies, the same allies who later disown us for being offensive against another possible Hitler. (Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't) How much money is spent bolstering other countries economies so that ours can be secure?

The court of public opinion is rough, and as someone in an earlier blog stated, Americans are blind to what goes on in the rest of the world, and they may be right.

( I hate this word) BUT, if we are so bad, why do people from every country in the world flock to our shores sometimes risking death, to become an American

Posted by: Ben | November 10, 2006 07:02 PM

Just came across this BBC News, quoting Democrats, in todays meeting with Bush, ideas for stopping Iraq War: "One is the phased withdrawal of US troops, and the other is to increase contact with Syria and Iran to help stop the fighting." This thing about getting Syria's and Iran's help is quite fascinating and makes sense. Also totally changes their image from "ugly" to "buddies." Obviously Condi Rice will have to take the lead in this through USAID (foreign aid work). This actually might kill 2 birds with one stone (poor choice of words) in that the Iraq war will stop and the western world may get closer to Middle Eastern countries - is about time. The only problem though is still the US relationship to Israel. As long as Olmert is in charge there havoc will have the upper hand.

Posted by: Fred - Frisco | November 10, 2006 07:23 PM

I echo the words of Ben in his earlier post.
As an U.S. citizen and resident who has spent a good portion of his adult life on three continents, I'm not going to say the United States is perfect. And I'm not going to say we're always better or even any better than the citizens of other countries.

I have the greatest respect and admiration for a number of people and their governments, even if I can find fault with some facets of them.

Much of the world has come to depend on the United States to take the lead in world issues, and because of often singular issue differences, the United States is vilified. Would these countries that are so quick to criticize and condem the United States wish to do without the technology and innovation of the United States, would they wish to not attend the schools or work at the institutions they are at, at remain at home? Why is it that we have some many dual nationals in the United States, who visit their home county but return to the lifestyle and home in the United States?

Would you wish taht the United States didn't provide the leadership and/or assistance that it does? When the tsunami hit Asia were Asian leaders on the phone requesting assisance from individual countries in South American, in Africa, or in the Middle East as they were from teh United States? If the excuse for not doing so is because "they don't have the assets," then maybe, if the United States was so disliked, that assistance would be done without.

How many countries want the foreign aid, the foreign assistance of the United States, from it's voluntary agencies or it's United States Agency for International Development. And how many countries, want that aid but "suggest" that we should "cover up" the USAID logo, or we should only send them the food and provisions that meet their standards. Does anyone else remember when Bangladesh following it's cyclone of 1991 saying that the wanted foodstuffs but "please purge the pork products... we're dying but we fussy and particular." Or the similar "suggestions" following the tsunami.

Was the United States right to invade Iraq? I don't know. I have my beliefs but our elected leadership thought it was the right decision. The world thought the United States was right 10 years earlier when Kuwait was occupied and lined up to be part of the coalition. This time fewer countries joined, fewer countries supported the effort.

But, as many countries, world leaders that have said Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein, where are they when it comes to "knocking heads" of Iraqi leadership on all sides and saying "you, Iraqis" have been given an opportunity... do something with it."

If you don't like the United States, and one or two issues are so important as to color your views, then teach us a lesson. Don't come here for any reason, education, family, life style, employment. Don't ask we open our borders to your supplies, your merchandise, your products at the same time you limit products in your country. Leave us alone. Do without our assistance; openly say thank you but no, we don't want your advice, your technology, your hand-in-hand help, or what's in your wallet; instead, say, "we'll make it on our own, thank you."


de Is there, to use one example, some


I'm an American who emigrated Down Under to escape fascism. It's nice to find this blog in the Post. I grew up reading the paper, and it's so much better online than it was in the 60s and 70s. Thanks for having this compendium of international articles. I agree with the Pom (no offence mate -- at least I didn't call you whingeing) who said Americans get a skewed view through U.S. media. I realised that in general, but I get a more visceral sense of how blinkered American news is now that I can watch Aussie channels that are as unbiased as the BBC. Too bad that so many of the American posters here are so jingoistic and murder-minded. Reminds me of why I left.

Posted by: Bukko in Australia | November 10, 2006 04:33 PM

Posted by: Jeff | November 10, 2006 07:51 PM

I don't think these posts are a fair sampling of American opinion. The Americans have begun to stir-- and as one of them, I have to say, the awakening comes not one minute too soon. It should be obvious to everyone involved that having a secretary of defense who constructs torture policies in the very countries we are there to "liberate" is a bit problematic.

I wish we could move beyond the limited viewpoint that Americans will either win or lose the war. It's not a football game. What exactly have we been trying to win in Iraq these past years? For what purppose are we fighting and how do we know if we've won.

What is it Bush and Co. want? A permanant base for our military in the heart of oil country? A dictator in Iraq who the idealogues in power can tolerate (see Kakistan, for an example). I dont believe it's for freedom and democracy. If it were Bush/Cheney wouldn't have insisted on their right to use torture in this war, and for their right to impunity.

For those of us trying to change the plan-- let's use a different rhetoric. If what we want is peace in Iraq, and a stable government representing the interests of Iraqi people, protecting the human rights of all, then we are not at odds with the Iraqi people. Instead of trying to force our own version of change on Iraq, instead of fighting to the bitter end to shove our version of government down every last throat--

Why don't we seek a peace where everyone has a chance to win, not just a small group of criminals who've comandeered our country for their own selfish economic pursuits.

I hope we can investigate all criminal actions-- and where the public trust has been broken, I hope for retribution.

And ultimately, I hope the rest of the world will be ready to step in and help-- because making peace in Iraq aint going to be easy.


Posted by: mel | November 10, 2006 08:36 PM

Perhaps the most realistic and uncomfortable evaluation was Steve Bell's Guardian cartoon, a take-off of the classic Tenniel cartoon, "Dropping the Pilot":

http://tinyurl.com/y4v264

Rumsfeld may be gone but the ship is still on the bottom of the sea.

Posted by: sm | November 10, 2006 08:49 PM

Thank you Mel and Jeff

I agree with both of you in your comments, I just want to make one change to Mel's comments for myself.

Mel states that

"Why don't we seek a peace where everyone has a chance to win, not just a small group of criminals who've comandeered our country for their own selfish economic pursuits."

I agree with this statement except for the fact that they did not Comandeer our country, We as Americans gave it to them, and we need to take responsibility for that, and then move on.

we are making changes, and we had to wake up. 9/11 woke us up, in a very real way we were blinded by rage and our government could have lit off nuclear ordinance and it would have been OK with us. look at the history of any country that has attacked us on our own territory.

Then the American public feels bad and after bombing someone into the middle ages we build them up to being better than they were before and well beyond.

Bombing us may not be a bad thing, a little heartbreak now, and then who knows, we'll see what Iraq is in 60 years.

Posted by: Ben | November 10, 2006 09:01 PM

@ Steve
"There is evil in the world."

You mean something like this country that planted half the dictatorships and military juntas worldwide to defend its short time and narrow interests?
This country which, from 1945 to 2006, attempted to overthrow 50 governments, many of them democracies, and to crush 30 popular movements fighting tyrannical regimes, bombing 25 countries in the process, causing the loss of several million lives and the despair of millions more?

You live in this country, the United State of America.

@ CSM

FYI Saddam Hussein was put in place by your CIA, thus Iraqis that had to undergo him for decades have to thank you.

Posted by: Sensi | November 10, 2006 09:25 PM

The above title "Rumsfeld Fall, Hope and Reckoning' actually is not correct. It really is Bush's Fall. He lost, that's why Rummy got fired after the Democrats won (so Bush lost)and not before. It makes this whole Iraq War (with all US Soldiers killed or injured for life) so blatantly political rather than justifiable for Freedom or Enemy Destruction. What are we really doing there - obviously the way the Democrats and suddenly the 5 and 4 Stars Generals are talking now, absolutely nothing. That is sad for our soldiers, especially now with the Veterans Day Weekend.

Posted by: Wim @ NY | November 10, 2006 09:26 PM

Let the generals the war not politicians.

Posted by: l | November 10, 2006 10:07 PM

Ben says: "why do people from every country in the world flock to our shores sometimes risking death, to become an American"
--
I say: for the same reason they flock to many Eiropean countries, canada, Australia and New Zealand. "It's the economy, stupid."

Posted by: Sarah | November 10, 2006 10:19 PM

I find it interesting the world is relieved the US is changing course politically. Now that the left has taken power the Evil that has killed so many Americans will feel embolden to continue their attacks against our people. As for Europe all they care about is a weakened America, so they can continue thier economic deals with the middle east since thier Socalist Policies cannot keep up with the free market of America. How sad the hate America crowd within our Country cannot see this. In the end its all about the money not the people.

Posted by: James Hall | November 11, 2006 12:54 AM

It is sad to read that still, despite all that has happened, that there are still people in the States who can't understand that because you don't agree with war and aggression doesn't mean you are a left wing socialist. (is that supposed to be bad?) Clearly most of America still doesn't understand why their system is so corrupt and warlike.

Posted by: Mike | November 11, 2006 01:25 AM

@BEN
"( I hate this word) BUT, if we are so bad,
why do people from every country in the world flock to our shores
sometimes risking death, to become an American"

Haha, Ben as for me I escaped a racist America for Asia. As an American living in Asia it is a paradism here pal. I don't have to deal with white Americans on a daily basis. Think about it. If I were applied to a good college, I had to deal with white educators who costantly checks out my English ability. If I were applied to a job I had to spend a good portion of my time just to satisfy my boss (who is of course a white feature) with regarding my ability to grow, to lead and to work under stressful situation...etc. Think about it, how many CEOs of FORTUNE 500 who is truly of Asia and Africa decensdants?

Secondly, people including me love the land of America, not the habitats who think they own the world. Get yourself out of the well and learn.

Posted by: Tom Nguyen | November 11, 2006 01:37 AM

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches so that no individual or group has absolute power.

The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power, makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican. Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law; popular vote is limited to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote having legislative power itself. John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."[1]

Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing limits on the power of government officials. A constitutional republic is designed so that "no person or group [can] rise to absolute power."[2] No individual is allowed to hold executive, legislative and judicial powers. Instead these powers are separated into distinct branches that serve as a check and balance on each other.

The notion of constitutional republic originates with Aristotle's Politics and his notion of the polity. He Contrasts the polity or republican government with democracy and oligarchy in book 3, chapter 6 of the Politics.

Constitutional republics are advocated by classical liberals. The United States of America is the oldest constitutional republic in the world and the first comprehensive experiment in this conceived form of government. According to James Woodburn, in The American Republic and Its Government, "the constitutional republic with its limitations on popular government is clearly involved in the Constitution, as seen in the election of the President, the election of the Senate and the appointment of the Supreme Court." He says in a republic, as distinguished from a democracy, the people are not only checked in choosing officials but also in making laws.[3] A Bill of Rights exists in the U.S. Constitution which protections certain individual rights. The individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights cannot be voted away by the majority of citizens if they wished to oppress a minority. To eliminate these rights would require government officals overcoming constitutional checks as well as a super majority of vote of Congress to amend the Constitution.

A constitutional republic is a form of liberal democracy, but not all liberal democracies are constitutional republics. For example, though the head of state is not elected in a monarchy, it may still be a liberal democracy if there is a parliament with elected representatives that govern according to constitutional law protecting individual rights (called a constitutional democratic monarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic

Posted by: ja | November 11, 2006 01:40 AM

It seems a lot of you have negative views on the U.S. I personally like America. I like that its a superpower. I like that it provides aid to other countries. I like that it uses its military to overthrow other leaders and governments. I like that it uses covert tactics and shadey transactions to set illegal plans in motion. I mean seriously, suppose Saddam was as powerful as the United States. How would he run Iraq? What if North Korea was as powerful as the United States? How would Kim run it? Even China and Japan would probably do the same thing. Every country would follow the same path of corruption and war if it got powerful enough. Dont be naive to think that it wouldnt. The United States has the power to do all of this and it is going to do all of this until it falls and another superpower takes its place; just as its been since way before the Greco Roman era

Posted by: sc | November 11, 2006 02:15 AM

Rumsfeld's stepped down and former spy chief Gates' take the helm of the U.S. military! All these happened at the Pentagon's actually positive, encouraging news for the whole world!
Post-Rumsfeld should be a reasonable era for the U.S. military!

Posted by: Chun-Quan Meng | November 11, 2006 02:18 AM

Wow...I honestly cannot believe what I'm reading here. People "really" think that America and American's are the worlds biggest problem.

Well, lets take a littel walk back in time, to about 1930. In short, WWII could have been largely avoided if anybody around the globe had any nuts to stand up against emerging problems, such as Italy, Germany, and Japan. Instead, we tried to debate them to death while they laughed at us. Well, the "world view" was wrong then and its wrong now. Bush is an idiot, yes, but not because he's too hard, because he's too soft and lets weaklings like many of you who are disgustingly similar to the likes of those who allowed the last catastrophe of WWII happen.

Posted by: Travis | November 11, 2006 02:22 AM

* Its late and I posted without proof-reading. Let me fix the last sentence:

Bush is an idiot, yes, but not because he's too hard, because he's too soft and lets weaklings like many of you (who are disgustingly similar to the likes of those who allowed the last catastrophe of WWII happen)keep him from acting with the force necessary to end the problem.

And, BTW, to whomever was using the IRA example: comparing the IRA to a fanatical religious group (including the Iranian president who is a religious fanatic) is absolutely ridiculous and a horrible comparison.

Posted by: Travis | November 11, 2006 02:26 AM

@Tom Nguyen

Now, what in the world is wrong with American instructors and employers preferring strong english skills? English is not only the most widely used language in america by far, it is also the worlds most widely used language.

There is no racism there.

Posted by: Travis | November 11, 2006 02:31 AM

@ James Hall

What many American's dont understand is that moving over to a European model of idealistic pacifism (aka weak appeasement) will be the fall of western civilization and advancement.

The United Nations is a corrupt disgrace which has done very little, period.

The last time the US refused to keep a war-ready posture it was bombed at Pearl Harbor. This was only a few years after the Europeans decided to take the "high route" and let politics handle a dangerous situation with Germany, italy, and Japan which led to Europe being all but conquered with a weak Britain fighting as Europes last hope against Hitler--all of which could have been avoided if they had proactively challenged Hitlers advances early on, while his military might was still minimized.

Quickly resorting to voilence and war is a very ignorant thing to do, but not being able to understand that its sometimes necessary is very dangerous.

Posted by: Travis | November 11, 2006 02:44 AM

Dave Anthony writes: " just as the world doesn't need to be lectured by us we certainly don't need any lectures from them."
Sorry, Dave. If it were true that Americans needed no lectures from the world, they would not have elected and re-elected this moronic administration, which has created so much instability and terror in the Middle East and around the world. You Americans foisted this idiot on the rest of us and he has caused enormous harm. Now is not the time to tell the rest of us that you do not want to be lectured. It is you Americans who owe the rest of us an abject apology. Complaints at this stage are not welcome, nor are they merited. Get your house in order, Americans; only when your actions live up to your inflated self-image and the shining principles you invoke in your jingoistic, nationalistic rhetoric will you be immune from criticism. Right now, America is a leading force for evil in the world; it's time you faced up to that indisputable fact.

Posted by: Antonio | November 11, 2006 02:47 AM

A last word, as I read this: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/world/4327250.html I realize that there is hope for the world. The idealistic stupidity that has swept western culture and knocked it upside down with its head in its rear-end will be saved by the sheer brutal, and unreasonable, hatrid that some people have for us. The attacks will keep coming and will get worse, and worse, and worse. Then what some of the most passive countries and passive populations will do will make America's efforts look like something from children's TV.

Posted by: Travis | November 11, 2006 02:49 AM

To Travis

Regarding your response to Tom Nguyen:
Travis, you need to be in Tom's shoes to clearly understand what he means. If you are not a "minority" here, you'll never understand

It's not a matter of "not speaking" or "not understanding" English. If that were the case, there is an easy solution (just learn English). And as you can see, Tom does speak and write English. And so do I.

Unfortunately, as a legal and educated immigrant to America (I have three college degrees, and yes, two of them in engineering), my experience was very similar to that of Nguyen, and that is, I had plenty of negative experiences with the so called "white American society".

Even when I can be considered to be "white" (for American classification purposes), I come from South America and have an accent. I had plenty of suffering in American workplaces since I came here to live with my husband (six years ago).

I never thought it would be this way, and neither my husband who is a wonderful and compassionate American man, and had to suffer too through my experiences here in the US. All of this has greatly affected our marriage too.

Posted by: Clara | November 11, 2006 03:30 AM

For me the situation of the terror attacks on America and America's aggressive military response reflects a much deeper malaise that infects most of our cultures around the world. Which is that virtually all of us around the world have been educated into domination structures. Domination structures involve people exerting power-over tactics to achieve what they want. America, which is the current dominant power in the world (it seems China will be the next dominant power), uses its economic and military might to achieve its aims often at the expense of people from other countries around the world. So, we have developing countries from continents such as Africa and South America saddled with debt and poverty who aren't able to compete with America in economic markets on an equal footing because of free trade restrictions imposed by America (also imposed by Britain, Europe and most countries with economic power). The twin towers, or world trade centre, in New York, as the centre of world trade and seat of many Wall St companies, was a symbol of America's economic world domination. The terrorists who attacked the twin towers were making a stand against domination by America. I abhor their strategy of killing many people to achieve their aims. And I understand their desire for equality.

I saw Bush on the television two days after 9-11 saying: "The reason why they did this to us is because we are good." I was amazed to hear this, and wondered how on earth he could come to that conclusion. I guess his thinking goes something along these lines: the world is full of good guys and bad guys (some of whom are downright evil). Some of the good guys are like sheriffs in the westerns. They protect the rest of the good people in the world from the bad guys. Now if you are out their protecting the world from the bad guys, every now and then the bad guys take a shot at you. You've got to be prepared for this, and go on the offensive to run the bad guys out of town. I don't think Bush had any idea of the underlying motivation behind the attacks.

Let's cross over to Osama bin Laden. What was he saying? He was the good guy and Bush was the bad guy. Osama thought he was doing the work of Allah, and wanted nothing more than to annihilate Bush, the embodiment of Satan. So, in a sense, Bush and bin Laden are twins. They are viewing each other in exactly the same way.

We have all been educated into thinking in terms of right and wrong, good and bad (or good and evil). This way of thinking inherently results in conflict. When we have only two options - good and bad - we naturally consider ourselves to be the 'good person' and the person we are in conflict with to be the 'bad person'. Which makes it easier to think that they deserve punishment or annihilation. This drama is played out in many ways in most of our lives daily. For peace to emerge around the world, we desperately need to be educated into a different way of thinking and communicating with others. The international peaceworker, Marshall Rosenberg, suggests that rather than thinking in terms of good and bad, we think in terms of needs. Everything we do and say we do and say to meet needs that are alive in us as humans. So what needs of mine don't get met when terrorists attack the twin towers. Safety perhaps? Respect for the sanctity of human life? And what needs of theirs were they trying to meet in doing that horrific act. Equality? Respect for their own cultural values? And how can we work together so that we can both get our needs met? This is called 'power with' rather than 'power over'.

In this world we are all interdependent. When we have learnt that we can only get our needs met when others around the world also get their needs met, then we will be able to live together in peace. If you are interested in understanding this perspective on conflict some more, visit www.nonviolentcommunication.com . On the bottom of the home page is a 10 minute video interview with Marshall Rosenberg outlining this approach.

Posted by: Darren | November 11, 2006 03:42 AM

we have not lost/losing anything.

we (US) suffered very minor casualties for taking over 2 nasty countries in little time.
the iraqi religious factions can blow each up all day long - who cares?
we should just stand back and let it play out.
with rummy gone, more troops will be added to secure the government we want in place.

we got what we wanted.
we are not going anywhere.

Posted by: econ | November 11, 2006 03:55 AM

The bottomline is that Saddam's removal could have been accomplished with the aid of a $2 bullet and a sniper, instead of this $6 billion/month debacle. Had we simply drive through the streets of Iraq dispensing $100 bills, we'd have more friends and fewer insurgents. So the experts are wrong--we didn't need 500,000 troops, just 200.

Posted by: Adam (Wash, DC) | November 11, 2006 06:04 AM

"Democracy means prosperty not destruction, I hope the democrates understands the lesson "don't ineterfer in others businuss"
WTF!! ٍSamy Eweda needs to remember who stuck who's nose in who's business on 9/11 and wake up.
The anti-American leaders in the middle east (mainly Iran), will act pleased about the change, and signal a thaw in relations with the US in order to buy more time to develop WMD's.
If ٍSamy Eweda isn't a US citizen he needs to keep his nose out of our business.

Posted by: | November 11, 2006 06:43 AM

"Well, lets take a litte walk back in time, to about 1930. In short, WWII could have been largely avoided if anybody around the globe had any nuts to stand up against emerging problems, such as Italy, Germany, and Japan."


Read your history! In both World Wars the United States was dragged into kicking and screaming when it came to helping the world stand against fascism! It It was the US who stood by as unfortunate others tried to hold off evil. While "heros" like Walt Disney and Lindberg spoke to the cause of Hitler, European were fighting him.
What utter ignorance you show!

Posted by: Mike | November 11, 2006 06:57 AM

"we have not lost/losing anything."

Yes you have, Respect.

"we (US) suffered very minor casualties for taking over 2 nasty countries in little time."

You are unable to take them over. Your military has failed. Im sure those 3000 American families don't think the deaths are minor.

"the iraqi religious factions can blow each up all day long - who cares?"

Thinking people. People who have the humanity you lack.

"we should just stand back and let it play out.
with rummy gone, more troops will be added to secure the government we want in place."

Rummy, as you call him, will probably watching from a German courtroom, or the Hague. The US will be out of Iraq in 1 year with it's tail between its legs, again.

"we got what we wanted."
No you didn't you failed in every respect.

"we are not going anywhere."

Not even down the tube. Your debt if astronomical, your country has no respect, even from it;'s allies, your tourists are scoffed at and your military is humiliated. Want some more?

Posted by: Geddy | November 11, 2006 07:02 AM

it is about time, he should of been booted a long time ago,this is another vietnam in the making.lets not go down that road again.

Posted by: scotty | November 11, 2006 07:08 AM

The elections results matter little, kind of like the conversion to Islam by the former 76er point guard who changed his name from Wally Jones to Wali Jones.

Posted by: Reynolds | November 11, 2006 08:12 AM

Veterans Day is a "no-no" day to complain about wars we fought. It apparently shows disrespect for the men and women in uniform. Well, I disagree. We should ask why we had so many soldiers killed and injured in Iraq - in fact the Democrats are doing this right now and are figuring out how to stop it. Meanwhile Bush again, in Prince Willian County, dedicated another Military Museum Honoring Marine Corps - apparently is good for tourism. Count me out - but Bush should go there often.

Posted by: Bob X., Wash. DC | November 11, 2006 09:38 AM

Americans, whatever happened to following the Constitution? This war is illegal and those that initiated this war should be put on trail! The last time that the US declared war was after Pearl Harbor! Iraq was never a threat to us! The constitution is very clear about rules for the US to engage in war. The constitution was NOT followed, so, there should be accountability! This country is turning into a banana republic. We should have an independent enquiry and there MUST be accountability! Also, there is no way on this planet, that we will win in Iraq, how blind could our leaders be? It's impossible for any Moslem to support a country that supports Zionist Israel. It is that simple. That would be analogous to the black South Africans supporting a country that assisted their country during the days of aparteid. The only difference is that the atrocities committed by Israel are far worse than anything the world has ever seen, include the "holocaust" in this too! I am Jewish too, and I am amazed by the propaganda machine that the Zionists have put on the American people. There is a difference between a ZIONIST and a Jew! It's simple, the Zionist run the State of Israel, and they HATE ALL non Jews equally! I am sure that our casualties are much higher we are being told. We are NOT free! There wasn't even 1 newspaper or news channels that aired any views opposing this facade! Another thing, how can anyone objectively make jingoistic statements such as "the best country in the world, everyone wants to live here etc" that is utter NONSENSE! One cannot qualify or quantify such statements. Don't be a sheep! Use your brain! Germany gets more immigrants than the US, so? SO do most European countries! Wake up America! Wake UP! Another word for everyone to consider... DEPLETED URANIUM! I feel pain for the Iraqi people and our troops!

Posted by: rudeboy | November 11, 2006 11:41 AM

President George W. Bush only has himself to blame. He picked on the wrong target. He botched the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and never managed to complete the job. The Talibans are back. Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. The biggest Bush failure was his dismal handling of the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. He promised a two-state solution but failed to follow on that. He co-sponsored the road map, but allowed Ariel Sharon to tear it up. Is it any wonder that the US has lost its credibility in the Arab World and beyond. Now it is tempting to gloat about the thumping in the mid-term elections, but I won't.

Posted by: nehad ismail, camberley, england | November 11, 2006 12:21 PM

Isn't depleted uranium taboo?

Posted by: Robert Rose | November 11, 2006 12:23 PM

I think we will have to wait for the Baker Commission to make its report and see what he has to say. He did some good work in the Middle East when he was Secretary of State, and I am interested in his insights. He knows enough to listen and work with people.
We need to hold fire until the new Secretary of Defense takes charge. Some brainless twit in Defense (guess who) is talking about going beyond 24 months tours for the National Guard in Iraq. These people haven't got a clue! Any long term commitment in Iraq would require the Draft.
A lot depends on the President having brains enough to listen to Baker, and sidetrack the Cheney collection of idiots.
Al-Qaida is going to miss Rumsfeld and later Bush because of all the mistakes they made in policy and attempts to micromange the battlefield using "Business Methods". They made Iraq a gift to al-Qaida. Cold war methods had contained Saddam Hussein and Saddam wouldn't have tolerated al-Qaida in Iraq. I'm not in Congress, and I'm still going to give them hell.

Posted by: P. J. Casey | November 11, 2006 12:40 PM

@Travis

I welcome and encourage the world to speak, to understand, and to communicate in English. However using English language as a tool to control, to manipulate and to humiliate is a totally different matter. In college, you might not have privilege to deal with a whiteface educator check and double-check your English essays just because of your last name. But in the case of mine, I was inspected so many times to the point that I had to pay big money to a few PhDs in English to re-read and to fix all sentences in my every essays before I turned them in.

Let me give you my one difficult experience in my college days that I still remembered to this day. In my English 101 class, I was given a task to write an essay about a person who influenced me the most. I needed to write about a person or thing that changed my life forever. The paper should be in five single pages minimum, no maximum. As my experience came into my mind, I enthusiastically wrote a whopping twenty double pages. Just for sure, I used a very good English dictionary to replace reproduced words and I paid to have the paper re-read and checked for grammatical and structural errors by a talented PhD in English.

Two weeks later, my English instructor gave me a B- (80%) for the essay without modifying or fixing anything. I told the instructor (he is a white of course) that if he returned my paper with a B-, I expected him to show me sentence by sentence what I did wrong with my essay. He could not explain. He never showed. Therefore, I let him know that I would appeal this matter to his department head and to the university dean as outlined in my college's policies. Two days later, he reversed his decision and gave me an A instead.

Since that matter, five years later I graduated from college with a degree in information systems. However, the degree came with years of frustration and a determination to finish college and to pass all odds. In total, I appealed one grade to dean of the college, to provost and up to the president. I was given a D for another course, later reversed to a C by an order of the dean of the university. I threatened to appeal many other grades but later worked them out with the involved instructors. I proudly believed I was the only student who learned by heart many policies of the college. I enthusiastically read all of the college policies and held them dearly. I was very surprised most of the instructors (professors included, mostly whites of course) did not know policies that governed their career, yet they are still teaching anyway.

In addition, I have many negative experiences with white America in my career and my life up to the point that I moved out of America. No more having deal with white judges, white courts, white government, white universities, white CEOs, white corporate. There are no reports to a white face. Since then I live like a king.

In sum up, many people just like me love the land of America, not the arrogant habitats who control the land and who think that they own the world.

Posted by: Tom Nguyen | November 11, 2006 02:07 PM

The way forward:

1. It is going to take years to repair the damage done by President Bush to the prestige and influence of America in the world.

2. America must now find voices of statesman-like stature to speak to the world, as this great nation pulls back from the brink of calamity towards sanity. Senator-elect Jim Webb, Senator Barack Obama and Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi are three such voices.

3. America must find a way to compensate Iraq for the destruction of this country. Reparations must be paid.

4. Above all else, America must begin to show a genuine respect for Arabs.

5. The so called war on terror can not be won by military action alone. There are simply too many people to be killed. Engage your enemies! The most powerful weapon of a vibrant democracy is reasoned discourse.

Posted by: John Commissiong | November 11, 2006 02:22 PM

Loved reading all the comments. Thank God for this election. I can now say once again I'm proud to be an American. All my friends from "The Greatest Generation" had a big celebration on Wednesday.

Posted by: Jeanie Laurence | November 11, 2006 05:14 PM

Hi Jefferson,

You should perhaps point people to www.WatchingAmerica.com, which has translations of many of these foreign stories.

Best,

Robin

Posted by: Robin | November 11, 2006 07:48 PM

The Baker Commission, which included Gates (just taken over Defence from Rumsfeld), seriously is looking at getting help from Syria and Iran to straiten out this Iraq mess. News-Papers in Europe are discussing this in detail, including BBC (why not mentioned yet here in the US - keeping it a secret - why?!). Also Tony Blair will discuss this (again) next week with the Baker Commission. Obviously something is cooking and will further hasten the UN departure of Bolton (he is too pro-Israel - A good replacement would be Khalilzad, now US Ambassador to Iraq). Otherwise it would mess up Gates' and Condi Rice's required charms to Iran & Syria. If this process indeed evolves then I wouldn't envy Iraq - obviously US Soldiers will leave quickly and some kind of dictatorial power will take control there (like Syria in Lebanon until recently).

Posted by: Fred - Frisco | November 11, 2006 10:09 PM

Dear Comrades (Washington Post Online Readers): I would like to congratulate you on this week's glorious socialist people's revolution. I would like to pledge my support to rooting out the last of the reactionary Republican dens and helping you to seize the Politburo and office of Premier. Until then, I will await evacuation from the rural areas to the urban centers for re-education. In particular, I will will look forward to sensitivity training, diversity training, deprogramming of my religious views and instruction on how to conduct progressive domestic policies and a nuanced foeign policy. Praise the Revolution and our forthcoming Workers' Paradise.

Posted by: Comrade | November 12, 2006 10:12 AM

The Americans have never bring peace to pur planet. I am sorry but they very Greedy, Selfish and very cruel peoples.

They simply never give any thing to this beautiful world.

Zamir Khan
pathanzamir@gmail.com

Posted by: Zamir Ahmed, INDIA | November 13, 2006 12:42 AM

It's as though Bush and his gang have done everything in their power to inflame and enrage the entire Arab world and indeed the entire Middle East: pandering to every ludicrous demand by Israel (green-lighting their latest "security wall" land grab from the Palestinians, for example), marginalizing moderate voices, creating civil wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, openly advocating and practising torture on (mostly) innocent Arab men, kidnapping Arabs around the world (even from erstwhile allies Italy and Canada) and shipping them off to torture dungeons, using sexual humiliation against inmates and an over-all shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach to the entire region and indeed the entire world.
It amazes me that so many Americans still fail to comprehend just how detested they and their nation are by the vast majority of humanity today.

Posted by: Roberto | November 13, 2006 02:23 PM

Sarah

That ws a "Retorical" question!

Posted by: Ben | November 13, 2006 04:07 PM

Comrade wrote:
--Dear Comrades (Washington Post Online Readers)...--

I would think the old line that democrats are closet communists would have gone out of style. How last century! Anti-communist republicans are happily trading with Chinese (communist) businessmen. And Clinton was a promoter of capitalism and not a promoter of socialism. I guess its hard to change with the times, but if you want to point to social programs Comrade why don't you point to Bush's trillion dollar medicare prescription program? Maybe you and I both know its really not a socialist program but a give away to the capitalist pharmacutical companies eh? Not to worry, the new democrats will fix that.

Its funny how republicans think American businesses, which they say they would like to see operate without government interference, continually ask for government assistance, handouts and tax breaks for businesses to "survive", including holding down the minimum wage to $10K/year. Only republicans think American businesses are so fragile and weak. Democrats see American business as strong and in some cases so strong it is in need of constraint and regulation to prevent monopolies, protect citizens and promote other businesses. The past 200 years proves the democrats correct and the republicans wrong.

Posted by: Sully | November 13, 2006 04:49 PM

CSM: "Now get the media out of there and let the military take care of the war and this will be over."

Clearly you weren't listening when Generals Myers, Pace and Abizaid all said there will be no military solution in Iraq.

This page seems to be where the last of the diehards go to die.

Posted by: OD | November 14, 2006 08:30 PM

Mr. Ed Lee

Brazil's Murder rate is higher than Iraq's yet it is touted as an up and coming power. file:///C:/s/nm/20060925/wl_nm/crime_brazil_dc_1;_ylt=AtxkgZI5SD1gLKsUDOrzIg9n.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--

France sells more arms to Africa($900million) than any other country. Even the US only sells $150million worth to Africans. http://www.bloggernews.net/11679

If you follow the Arms sales Market, Russia is not far behind the US in Sales, and neither is Europe. The US doesn't sell landmines to anyone. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4051763.stm

Critical thinking is required to avoid sounding like an mis-informed teenager fighting for a cause (s)he doesn't even truely understand. Like this guy, "The United States, China and Russia should take humanitarian problems more seriously. In fact, they should be ashamed of their record and callous disregard of the dangers posed by these mines.--Pancha Chandra, Brussels, Belgium"

The total international arms trade has been increasing rapidly, in 2005 reaching an all-time high in current dollars of $44.2 billion (from $38.9 billion in 2004). The United States is the world's leading conventional arms exporting nation, accounting for about 29 percent of all international arms trade. Last year, in 2005, it exported $12.8 billion of military gear of all sorts, about half of it ($6.2 billion) going to developing nations. The other main arms exporting nations last year were France (second with $7.9 billion in total arms sales) and Russia (the third exporter, with $7.4 billion in total sales). The United Kingdom and China came in behind, with $2.8 and $2.1 billion in arms exports in 2005. Overall, however, the 25 countries of Western Europe surpass the U.S. in trade of armaments, with about 44 percent of total arms exports. The other two non-Western countries, Russia and China, are responsible respectively for about 17 percent and 5 percent of total world arms exports.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=TRE20061105&articleId=3709


Per Capita, you have to admit that France must be the biggest "EXPORTER OF DEATH".

So please.... spare me from your "civilized enlightenment".

The US is no where near civil war compared to Europe. Europe is having a real problem with constituents just getting along.

I watch American News, Finnish news, Deutsch Welt, CBC and BBC. The media of every country is pretty skewed, so give me a break. But yet, I have access to all of them here in America and watching them all takes my initiative. Most europeans have no idea how badly their continent is going to hell because the only thing they get from their news is pretty much US news.

I read California puts out 500,0000 barrels of oil per day... amazing isn't it? We should just break away from the rest of the US.

Posted by: Eddie | November 19, 2006 01:10 PM

tdzhkpyne rslejxcmi lxuofdg vszomhtwc zbxtvc yjoabvfu kyqavw

Posted by: adglb ngrxq | December 2, 2006 02:43 PM

tdzhkpyne rslejxcmi lxuofdg vszomhtwc zbxtvc yjoabvfu kyqavw

Posted by: adglb ngrxq | December 2, 2006 02:44 PM

tdzhkpyne rslejxcmi lxuofdg vszomhtwc zbxtvc yjoabvfu kyqavw

Posted by: adglb ngrxq | December 2, 2006 02:45 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2006 The Washington Post Company