Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
World reaction to Dem win
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, November 09, 2006

Heh ... in an unsurprising development, it seems most of Europe is pretty happy with the outcome of Tuesday's midterms:
In an extraordinary joint statement, more than 200 Socialist members of the European Parliament hailed the American election results as "the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world" and gloated that they left the Bush administration "seriously weakened."

In Paris, expatriates and French citizens alike packed the city's main American haunts to watch results, with some standing to cheer or boo as vote tabulations came in.

One Frenchman, teacher Jean-Pierre Charpemtrat, 53, said it was about time U.S. voters figured out what much of the rest of the world already knew.

"Americans are realizing that you can't found the politics of a country on patriotic passion and reflexes," he said. "You can't fool everybody all the time — and I think that's what Bush and his administration are learning today."
Good old France. Still unaware that they are projecting. And, of course it is just wonderful to see sophisticated Europeans being as susceptible to stereotype as any American redneck:
In Copenhagen, Denmark, 35-year-old Jens Langfeldt said he did not know much about the midterm elections but was opposed to Bush's values. He referred to the president as "that cowboy."
Of course Danish politicians were a little more diplomatic:
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen told broadcaster TV2 he hoped that the president and the new Congress would find "common ground on questions about Iraq and Afghanistan."

"The world needs a vigorous U.S.A.," Fogh Rasmussen said.
Just vigorous in the way which is acceptable to Europe, one supposes.

Not everyone in Europe, though, was giddy about the Democrats:
Some also worried that Democrats, who have a reputation for being more protective of U.S. jobs going overseas, will make it harder to achieve a global free trade accord.

The accord, said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, "is very important for the future of trans-Atlantic relations."
On the same theme, China too is less than pleased:
And in China, some feared the resurgence of the Democrats would increase tension over human rights and trade and labor issues. China's surging economy has a massive trade surplus with the United States.

"The Democratic Party ... will protect the interests of small and medium American enterprises and labor and that could produce an impact on China-U.S. trade relations," Zhang Guoqing of the state-run Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said in a report on Sina.com, a popular Chinese Internet portal.
Of course Europe wasn't the only part of the world celebrating the rise of Democrats:
People across the Mideast also reacted swiftly, saying it appeared the U.S. president had paid the price for what many view as failed policy in Iraq.

Most governments across the region had no official comment, but some opponents of the United States reacted harshly. "President Bush is no longer acceptable worldwide," said Suleiman Hadad, a lawmaker in Syria, whose autocratic government has been shunned by the U.S.

[...]

In Sri Lanka, some said they hoped the rebuke would force Bush to abandon a unilateral approach to global issues.

The Democratic win means "there will be more control and restraint" over U.S. foreign policy. said Jehan Perera, a political analyst.

Passions were even higher in Pakistan, where Bush is deeply unpopular despite billions in aid and support for President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

One opposition lawmaker, Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, said he welcomed the election result but hoped for more. Bush "deserves to be removed, put on trial and given a Saddam-like death sentence," he said.
And finally, as expected, the clown prince of South America also had to toss in his two centavos:
"Of course, the citizens of the United States are humans with a conscience. It's a reprisal vote against the war in Iraq, against the corruption" within the Bush administration, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said. "All this fills us with optimism."
Of course that's more than the citizens of Venezuela have concerning their own impending "elections".

Some, however few, do understand the possible implications if Democrats are successful in persuading the US to pull out of Iraq too soon:
"The problem for Arabs now is, an American withdrawal (from Iraq) could be a security disaster for the entire region," said Mustafa Alani, an Iraqi analyst for the Gulf Research Center in Dubai.
The reality though is something that most of those celebrating don't understand:
The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said American policy would not dramatically change, despite the Democratic election success.

"The president is the architect of U.S. foreign policy," the ambassador said in a videotape distributed by the U.S. Embassy. "He is the commander in chief of our armed forces. He understands what is at stake in Iraq."
So the bar for Democrats is not only high domestically, it is high internationally. And, given Khalizad's words of reality, it's going to be tough to clear.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
The radical Islamic fruitcakes support the Democrats as well.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Leftists fail to see the connection between themselves and their supporters.
 
Written By: Josh
URL: http://
It’s a reprisal vote against the war in Iraq,
Again, I think too many people are not noticing just what this vote really means. It’s not an anti-war vote no matter how many newspapers and dictators wish it to be. It’s a "WIN the war dammit" vote

But that’s fine by me. The Dems ignore the message at their peril, like the GOP did.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The Dems ignore the message at their peril, like the GOP did.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but unlike the Dems, the Reps could have actually done something about it. And I seriously doubt, given Pelosi’s statement about this not being "a war to win", that she or the Dems plan to push for that at all.

The problem as she and Reid will define it is getting our troops out in the quickest possible way without it seeming to be a defeat ("define winning any way you want"). That won’t set well with many Americans and will never be fast enough for the rest of the world.

Lose-lose.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Just one nit: Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is actually one of Bush’s closest European allies. So when he says "The world needs a vigorous U.S.A." he is being straightforward.

I would be suspicious of the underlying intent of the statement, as you seem to be, if most other European heads of states made it though.
 
Written By: Jimmy
URL: http://
Don parrots one of my favorite memes: our enemies support the Democrats! Life was hard under those feisty, tough Republicans but now that the Democrats have Congress, they can breathe easily!

Let’s see: After the Afghanistan invasion, supported by the vast majority of Americans (excluding the Noam Chomsky fruitbat contingent), Islamists endured a global situation of vast sympathy for and cooperation with Americans in their fight to curb extremist terrorism.

Then came the Iraqi invasion, which has been a lightning rod for Islamists around the region lacking a cause celebre. Throw in the radicalization of scores of Iraqis, not normally inclined to fanaticism but driven in the arms of our enemies by the incompetent occupation of their country. I would say that Islamism has thrived under the policies enacted by a Republican Administration and a (largely) Republican Congress.

Now will the Democrats do better? We can’t say yet. But to think that terrorism is on the wane due to the policies of Bush and ilk is just wishful thinking and birdbrained analysis.
 
Written By: matt s
URL: http://www.nobordersnolimits.typepad.com
But to think that terrorism is on the rise due to the policies of Bush and ilk is just wishful thinking and birdbrained analysis
.


I agree
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
But to think that terrorism is on the wane due to the policies of Bush and ilk is just wishful thinking and birdbrained analysis.

Did anybody say this? Who? Where is that idiot?

Here’s what I have heard people say. That we haven’t been attacked here in 5 years. That we’re killing lots of terrorists. That it’s better to fight them now than expect our children to fight them when they’re stronger. That the Donks haven’t given us a single reason to think they can do a better job.

These things I’ve heard. The other, not so much. Okay, never.

Besides, if terrorism was supposedly "on the wane" thanks to the Bushies, we’d have no call to listen in on your phone calls and subpoena your librarian. We ain’t giving that up just to make a lame campaign slogan.
 
Written By: spongeworthy
URL: http://
By the way, and correct me if I’m wrong- but has anyone else noticed the clear contrast between the way the Reps are acting to losing power and the way the Dems did? I’m not seeing as much of the nuttiness and intellectually bankrupt hardcore bitterness that infected the Dems when they got thrown out after 40 years (or even the hatred fueled spite of the anti-clinton years)

Gives me hope that the GOP will re-find their way.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The Europeans (and others) have long argued that the United States could do a world of good in promoting international law and stability if it worked with other states in cooperative institution building rather than trying to impose America’s will. The sense I get from Europeans is "you guys could do so much good in the world if only you’d cooperate and compromise rather than give ultimatums and say you’re either with us or against us."

Back at a conference on European-American relations in October 2003 I had a discussion with participants who were or had been top level diplomats in the State Department. Most were genuinely surprised that the Europeans tried to stop the US, and believed that once Iraq stabilized and democracy took root, the Europeans would see that they had been wrong and become more supportive again. Chirac was De Gaulle the sequel, and though he’d lured Schroeder to his cause, the Germans were deep down Atlanticist and would come around.

I argued that while the Germans are deep down pro-American, the Iraq war crossed a boundary that they could not support. But I thought that reality would force the US into a more conciliatory policy because I didn’t think Iraq would be stabilized as easy as they did. Once the cost of the war was obvious, the US would learn it needed real allies in a globalized world where terrorism is a real threat, and you’d find Europe welcoming a more conciliatory American policy.

That started happening over a year ago (the elections aren’t driving that), and as the personnel in the White House of Bush the Younger start looking more like the people who served Bush the Elder, we’re seeing a shift in policy, driven by the President rather than Congress, to adjust to the realities of the failure in Iraq. Frankly, I think the President is adapting to this relatively well, given the circumstances, and probably would give Bush a higher job rating now than at any time during his Presidency.

I suspect that by the time Bush leaves office the Atlantic alliance will be as strong as any time in the post-war era, and the shrill anti-Americanism from many Europeans and anti-Europeanism from many Americans will be remembered as a short term reaction to the emotion and tumult of the Iraq war. In fact, I’m more optimistic about the future of the Atlantic alliance than I was during the eighties and ninties.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The sense I get from Europeans is "you guys could do so much good in the world if only you’d cooperate and compromise rather than give ultimatums and say you’re either with us or against us
How do I sum up my feelings about what the Eurpoeans have to think.....I believe the words "who gives a sh*t" sum it up nicely.

Why do leftists always think Europes policy is always superior to ours, that they have some sort of enlightenment we need to share in?

Europe as we know it is dying. The French have more of a muslim problem nowadays that Israel does. Their socialist policies make Pelosi look like Reagan. I’d rather see the Atlantic Alliance go down to dust then see it continue to drag us down, lets replace it with new alliances that work in todays world. That includes switching the UN for something that works. Why so afraid of change?

Why do so many people equate "playing nice" to doing what is best for ourselves?

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Passions were even higher in Pakistan, where Bush is deeply unpopular [due to] billions in aid and support for [Dictator] Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
Now will the Democrats do better? We can’t say yet.
No, the question is "how much worse will the Democrats do". They won’t do better. That’s a given.

Incidently, one of the new Dems in Congress is a CAIR supported Muslim. The Dems may not realize it, but the enemies of America are rejoicing at their victory.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
The Europeans (and others) have long argued that the United States could do a world of good in promoting international law and stability if it worked with other states in cooperative institution building rather than trying to impose America’s will. The sense I get from Europeans is "you guys could do so much good in the world if only you’d cooperate and compromise rather than give ultimatums and say you’re either with us or against us."
Ahh, Europeans. Such a good history of being right.

If anyone wants to know what the Democrats really would do if they could, look to Germany and France. High unemployment, high taxes, stagnet economies, weak militaries. (ignore the quaint old buildings and cute chicks, the Dems won’t bring that).
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
The Europeans (and others) have long argued that the United States could do a world of good in promoting international law and stability if it worked with other states in cooperative institution building rather than trying to impose America’s will.
Such as the massive quantities of help they are providing in Afghanistan? The place everyone thought that it was OK to invade?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Shark,

Our trans-atlantic alliance with Europe is too important to be held hostage by Iraq. The Europeans have realized (long time ago) that only in an alliance with the US, are they able to project some kinda power in the world. Maybe it is time that we realized that it is important to have atleast Western Europe on our side. Let us not associate the UN with the whole of Europe. Europe will drop the UN like a hot potato if it is in their interest to do so, witness, the Balkan War.

Also, hypothetically speaking, if Europe had supported our invasion of Iraq, do you think that things would have turned out differently on the ground there ??
 
Written By: Ivan
URL: http://
Don parrots one of my favorite memes: our enemies support the Democrats!
But our enemies do support the Democrats.
Let’s see: After the Afghanistan invasion, supported by the vast majority of Americans (excluding the Noam Chomsky fruitbat contingent), Islamists endured a global situation of vast sympathy for and cooperation with Americans in their fight to curb extremist terrorism.
9/11 was bound to generate sympathy, and that sympathy was likely to subside. Particularly if America acted in its self interest. Likely, Democrats would have maintained sympathy for the US longer, by pursuing policies preferred by Europeans, etc.

The point is that the sympathy post 9/11 was bound to be fleeting (just as fleeting as the goodwill we received for our efforts in the last two world wars and the Cold War), and that we would prolong such sympathy by acting against our interests.
Then came the Iraqi invasion, which has been a lightning rod for Islamists around the region lacking a cause celebre.
"Islamists around the region lacking a cause celebre."!?

Yeah, right. It isn’t like anyone from the region wanted to hurt us prior to the invasion of Iraq, right?
Throw in the radicalization of scores of Iraqis, not normally inclined to fanaticism but driven in the arms of our enemies by the incompetent occupation of their country.
1) There were "not normally inclined to fanaticism" due to Saddam’s iron fist, not due to Iraqi nature.
2) Iraq was becoming increasingly Islamic under Saddam in the last decade or so.

The bottom line is that by removing Saddam and setting up democracy, we allowed Iraqis to become what they want. What they want appears to be more Islamic than we would like, but we are not pushing them that way, that’s the path they choose. They could choose a secular socialist type of resistance if in fact the American occupation is forcing resistance on them.
I would say that Islamism has thrived under the policies enacted by a Republican Administration and a (largely) Republican Congress.
Islamism began thriving in the late ’70s, in part due to the stupid mistakes of a certain Democratic Administration. It has been the growth ideology of the region since then. The key reason it is growing is that the people of the region embrace it. That’s why even Saddam’s Iraq was increasingly Islamic.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
The Europeans have realized (long time ago) that only in an alliance with the US, are they able to project some kinda power in the world.
Some kinda power = American power + Euro tokens.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Our trans-atlantic alliance with Europe is too important to be held hostage by Iraq.


Lets clarify here. Do you mean the US/UK alliance or the NATO alliance? I see the importance of one but not the other
The Europeans have realized (long time ago) that only in an alliance with the US, are they able to project some kinda power in the world. Maybe it is time that we realized that it is important to have atleast Western Europe on our side.


Why, exactly? And at what cost? Western Europe will be on our side when it serves their purposes, and will be against us when it serves them- such as when they want to keep Saddam’s briber money flowing, or don’t want to upset their large and riot-prone muslim populations. It doesn’t pay to su*k up to them or be the popular kid.
Let us not associate the UN with the whole of Europe. Europe will drop the UN like a hot potato if it is in their interest to do so, witness, the Balkan War
.

Fair enough point I guess.
Also, hypothetically speaking, if Europe had supported our invasion of Iraq, do you think that things would have turned out differently on the ground there ??
Depends how they would’ve supported. Maybe pressuring Turkey to let us stage into Iraq from the North for example would’ve meant a huge difference. Too many things to consider to say how things would’ve changed- or not changed for that matter
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Maybe pressuring Turkey to let us stage into Iraq from the North for example would’ve meant a huge difference.
It would have helped in the actual war, but that went well enough anyway. I don’t see that it would have helped in the COIN ops that followed the war, particularly in the Kurd north, which isn’t the problem.

The best solution to the insurgents was to go after potential insurgents right away in a ruthless manner. Our insurgency problem is due to our nice guy approach. I’m not saying we should get nasty, BTW, I’m simply saying it was the approach thet would work.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Why do so many people equate "playing nice" to doing what is best for ourselves?
Because "playing nice" is part of the bullsh*t template. The left is the left because they believe that smart people in general and themselves in particular can bullsh*t their way out of or into any anything they want. The left didn’t "support" the US in Alfghanistan, they simply couldn’t credibly oppose it, which is why only the true nutcases like Moore and Chomsky, who will say literally anything to oppose their political enemies, came out against it.

Iraq was dicier. There was far less known about the situation on the ground there than in Alfghanistan. The threat was more conjectural whereas in Alfghanistan it was post hoc. The left found numerous openings in the inarticulate Bush administration’s argument and took full advantage of every single one of them. The only way the left would not have opposed an invasion of Iraq is if Uday had managed to send a VX-gram or smallpox-gram to an American city. And then they wouldn’t have truly supported an invasion, they just wouldn’t be able to credibly oppose it.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Freedom fries forever! Seriously, though, when the macacas are pleased, you know there’s trouble.
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
European anti-Americanism: a belief that America is all about greed and militarism, that we are an amoral power-driven society where irrational religious fundamentalism and out of control capitalism has led to a foreign policy that kills first and asks questions later.

American anti-Europeanism: a belief that somehow Muslims are taking over France, that the economies there are collapsing, that European society is stagnant and weak, and that Europe is not only irrelevant, but dead.

Both of these caricatures are totally ridiculous, yet ill informed people on both sides of the Atlantic tend to fall for it. The alliance will survive the neanderthals on each side who just want to hate the other side.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
American anti-Europeanism: a belief that somehow Muslims are taking over France, that the economies there are collapsing, that European society is stagnant and weak, and that Europe is not only irrelevant, but dead
Yeah. We have a word for what the Europeans refer to as their economic status quo: depression. For instance if the US ever saw the 10%+ unemployment that most of Europe calls "normal," we’d be dragging our politicians through the streets behind our SUVs.

You get points for trying to be egalitarian, but some stereotypes exist because they’re true.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
American anti-Europeanism: a belief that somehow Muslims are taking over France
No, just parts of Paris and selected suburbs. Doesn’t the esteemed professor know of the nightly Carbeques for Allah?
European anti-Americanism: a belief that America is all about greed and militarism, that we are an amoral power-driven society where irrational religious fundamentalism and out of control capitalism has led to a foreign policy that kills first and asks questions later.
And by ’European anti-Americanism’ you mean ’Leftwing talking points’ right?
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
Doesn’t the esteemed professor know of the nightly Carbeques for Allah?
Why are you bringing religion into it? It is just a cry for help from disadvantaged youths.
And by ’European anti-Americanism’ you mean ’Leftwing talking points’ right?
Anti-Americanism in Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and elsewhere is rooted in envy.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Regarding Western Europe : dump ’em. I see no purpose to remaining in an alliance as unbalanced as this one. We derive vastly less benefit from it than do the Europeans. Although most of the Western European working class may not bear much ill-will toward the US, their upper-middle and upper classes do. This alliance served its purpose. Time to move on.

Who than shall we ally with? India. South Korea. Malaysia (maybe). Indonesia (maybe). Thailand (Maybe). Vietnam (maybe). SE Asia is where it’s at folks. Yes, they have problems. No doubt about that. They have the potential to become the world’s greatest economy by the end of this century, however. If we could ever overcome our strategic differences, China would also be a great ally. Of course, that’s also true of Russia, but hey I can dream, right?

Another huge, untapped resource is Africa. Yeah, that’s right, the continent that nobody gives a hoot about. There are millions upon millions of hardworking central and south Africans just waiting for freedom, democracy, and a chance to make it in this world. If their leaders would clue in to the value of stability, democracy, and capitalism, they and their people could become major world players. Thanks to the Western Europeans, whom some Americans seem to look to like little lost puppies trying to get a smile and a head pat from their masters, Africa is the trainwreck that it is today. Let’s keep that in mind when we think about buddying up to France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, etc. Oh, and btw, we can merci, danke, cheers, gracias, grazie, agradecer, and merci (again) the Western Europeans for the modern Middle East, too.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
Scott, If you prefer to call me a Neanderthal than ugg (excepted). No matter how you spin and paint your view of America and Europe you still are shallow and misinformed (By your diplomat friends). Your "We all need to hug" theory where the US then embraces "all" that is Europe is just foolish. They aren’t deep down pro-American, they are deep down pro-german. It is about time America needs to be pro-American and let Germany pander to other countries for its own needs. So do your students have to buy your book to pass the class??

 
Written By: coaster
URL: http://
Regarding Western Europe : dump ’em. I see no purpose to remaining in an alliance as unbalanced as this one.


Some, like the Irish, still have a good economy. I wouldn’t dump ’em all.
Who than shall we ally with? . . . SE Asia is where it’s at folks.
Asia is interesting. Japan froze itself in 1600 and we unfroze ’em about 250 years later, and by 1904 they were kicking Russian rear in naval warfare. They also tend to look to emulate success, instead of getting wrapped up in envy like the Euros.

What about Eastern Europe?
Another huge, untapped resource is Africa.
They don’t hate Americans ’cause they are in such bad shape, they can envy anyone they want. Or perhaps they are in such bad shape they don’t have time for envy.
Thanks to the Western Europeans, . . . Africa is the trainwreck that it is today.
I don’t buy it. Africa was a trainwreck going in. The Euros (and Arabs) took advantage of the trainwreck to loot the injured.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Scott, If you prefer to call me a Neanderthal than ugg (excepted). No matter how you spin and paint your view of America and Europe you still are shallow and misinformed (By your diplomat friends). Your "We all need to hug" theory where the US then embraces "all" that is Europe is just foolish. They aren’t deep down pro-American, they are deep down pro-german. It is about time America needs to be pro-American and let Germany pander to other countries for its own needs. So do your students have to buy your book to pass the class??
I borrowed the Neanderthal term from Dean Acheson, who used that to describe his foreign policy foes he considered uneducated on the reality of the situation. Obviously that hurt your feelings, so I apologize.

The world is changing. The Iraq failure is proof that American power has been vastly overestimated by many. Most of our military power is not usable; nuclear weapons are a deterrent, there are few countries it is feasible that we’d fight a war to defeat. If we do, Iraq (and Vietnam and for the Soviets Afghanistan) show that great powers can be bled slowly by low cost insurgencies. The fact is that most of our military power is obsolete in an era of globalization and asymmetrical warfare.

Iran, North Korea and Iraq — the axis of evil — shows this weakness. The US can’t really do anything about North Korea except persuade China to pressure them. Iran scoffs at US threats, and some kind of air strike against Iran would probably play into the hands of the hard liners there. We’re looking now for a way out of Iraq, and it appears that the path will be diplomatic rather than military.

No one is saying "we all need to hug" — that’s silly. But a real assessment of interests, power, and the global situation suggests that western values — common values held by Europeans and Americans — are worth supporting and protecting. We shouldn’t try to impose our culture on the world — that would lead to massive failure — but we shouldn’t ignore our cultural bonds.

America is learning a lesson, a difficult lesson. I really think the Bush administration has learned it, they recognize that they vasted overestimated American power and the usefulness of military power in the modern globalized world. The solution to Iraq, President Bush says, is political. The only way to maintain stability in a globalized world is through the development of cooperative problem solving institutions. Those who like think in terms of hate, competition, and ridicule of others won’t like that. But reality pushes policy, and ultimately reality wins out over ideology. Just ask the Soviets.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Some, like the Irish, still have a good economy.
Ah, I have never understood the ongoing American nostalgia for Ireland. Granted, a great many Americans can trace some distant ancestor back to the blessed green isle, but as far as I can tell from the letters and diaries, most of those ancestors who left Ireland back in the 18th or 19th century would never have looked back. Ireland, to me, seems a lot like Austria, which is to say that it’s trying really hard to be Switzerland. Yes, they have a good economy, and, as a rule, decent hardworking America-friendly people, but they also seem to have a massive desire to be a neutral, non-aligned state. They don’t want to be seen to be too Brit-friendly, they don’t really want to be "Europeans", and I don’t really think that they want to cozy up with the US. They are nice folks, but I don’t hold out much hope for a grand alliance with them. I daresay Pogue will verbally lash me for this theory, but I just don’t see shamrocks in our future.
Asia is interesting.
It really is, but I’m not sure that Japan is the best country to partner-up to. They have a badly aging population (echoes of Western Europe), a questionable economy, and are pretty much hated throughout the rest of Asia. If we build bridges with Japan, be prepared for bridges with the rest of Asia to be burning (especially Korea and China).
What about Eastern Europe?
Well, they seem to honestly like Americans, but I don’t really know where they are headed for the next twenty years or so. They don’t necessarily have the aging population problems that the Western Europeans do and they certainly don’t have the immigration issues, but they also have no track record of stability in modern times and do not have overly strong economies. Given time, strong democracy and a commitment to capitalism, then yes there may be some potential in Eastern Europe, but they are always in danger of either swinging back to Russian-influenced communism or falling for the pan-European ideas of the socialist EU’ers.
They don’t hate Americans ’cause they are in such bad shape, they can envy anyone they want.
Africans are too busy trying to survive to hate anyone. Assuming they ever develop stable governments and societies, any hatred they have is going to be directed north at the Europeans, not west at the US.
I don’t buy it. Africa was a trainwreck going in. The Euros (and Arabs) took advantage of the trainwreck to loot the injured.
Africa has had stable, relatively (for the times) enlightened rulers in pre-European influenced history. I’m not saying that they would have developed into the next utopia without the Europeans interfering, but you cannot absolve the European colonialists from the blame for the nightmare of 20th and 21st century Africa. Belgium’s King Leopold II absolutely raped the future of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Brits demolished South Africa, then handed control of it over to their former enemies, the Boers, who treated the Africans worse than dogs. We can also thank the Brits for the Sudan (Kitchener in particular), Egypt, Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Ghana, and Malawi. Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia and Libya are Italian follies. Germany contributed the mess of Cameroon, Tanzania, Rwanda, Namibia, and Togo. The great navigators of the world, the Portuguese, gave us Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau. And most of the rest was screwed up by the French. Liberia alone stands as a non-European ruined nation [they’ve managed to screw it up pretty well on their own]. It was founded by the US in 1847 and, mostly, ignored since then. The rest of the continent has been carved up and built again in the drawing rooms of European diplomats who gave no thought to traditional tribal boundaries, but rather choose arbitraty points and drew borders. This, more than anything, has contributed to Africa’s massive problems in the post-colonial world.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
No one is saying "we all need to hug" — that’s silly. But a real assessment of interests, power, and the global situation suggests that western values — common values held by Europeans and Americans — are worth supporting and protecting.
Oh, I dispute that premise entirely. If you look, America holds a different set of values than Western Europe currently does.

(Well I’m sure your average American University faculty holds the same beliefs as Europe but they have no real relation to America or even reality in general behind the walls of academia)
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
Oh, I dispute that premise entirely. If you look, America holds a different set of values than Western Europe currently does.
You’re simply wrong. There are different views on war, but really the American view is support a war unless it causes some pain at home. That’s why a neo-imperialist project can’t work — the public will turn on it. But at base the values are part of the western tradition and are based on individual rights, liberty, reason, and values rooted in the Christian tradition (even amongst secular westerners).
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The world is changing. The Iraq failure is proof that American power has been vastly overestimated by many. Most of our military power is not usable; nuclear weapons are a deterrent, there are few countries it is feasible that we’d fight a war to defeat. If we do, Iraq (and Vietnam and for the Soviets Afghanistan) show that great powers can be bled slowly by low cost insurgencies. The fact is that most of our military power is obsolete in an era of globalization and asymmetrical warfare.
The insurgency isn’t low cost to the insurgents.

The US, like England previously, is at its best using sea power (and nowdays airpower) to achieve limited aims. Not invasions (which sometimes are needed), but control via embargos, etc. This has always been true, ground wars are messy.

Our problem with counterinsurgency is not that we don’t have the physical means to do it, but we are not willing to employee the requisite ruthlessness. Further, we insist on rebuilding the nations we defeat.

The war in Iraq was in fact a great success. The insurgency is something we have failed to deal with effectively, because of the high bar of rebuilding the place, and because we lack the ruthlessness to root out and kill the insurgents.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
But at base the values are part of the western tradition and are based on individual rights, liberty, reason, and values rooted in the Christian tradition (even amongst secular westerners).
Western leftists have branched off from classical liberals on these values quite a while ago (assuming they once shared these values). We might both talk about "individual rights, liberty, reason", but we mean different things. In fact, the left is more concearned with "civil rights" or "human rights" than it is with individual rights.

In fact, these western traditions largely (except for Christians aspects) come from the English (and Dutch) tradition of commerce, free markets, and capitalism. English and French Enlightenment thinkers were explaining what was in fact going on in England already, something the French Revolution tried to replicate in France (without success).

The western tradition of individual rights, liberty, and reason is essentially an English tradition that evolved in a commerce based society. The Dutch had a similar tradition, but the French and most other Europeans never quite got it.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
More forign response to our elections:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

(Al Quada thinks we are on the right path).

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
More forign response to our elections:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

(Al Quada thinks we are on the right path).

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://

The war in Iraq was in fact a great success. The insurgency is something we have failed to deal with effectively, because of the high bar of rebuilding the place, and because we lack the ruthlessness to root out and kill the insurgents.
Ruthlessness means actions that kill large numbers of innocents.

Perhaps it’s really that we aren’t evil enough to root out and kill the insurgents. And you know, that may ultimately be our strength.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Western leftists have branched off from classical liberals on these values quite a while ago (assuming they once shared these values). We might both talk about "individual rights, liberty, reason", but we mean different things. In fact, the left is more concearned with "civil rights" or "human rights" than it is with individual rights.
Well almost everyone branched off from classical liberals. American liberals and American conservatives aren’t far from each other in terms of real values, which is probably why they call each other so many names. They differ on how much to fund programs, and where to draw lines, but at a fundamental level they share deep ideological values. This is true in Europe too.
In fact, these western traditions largely (except for Christians aspects) come from the English (and Dutch) tradition of commerce, free markets, and capitalism. English and French Enlightenment thinkers were explaining what was in fact going on in England already, something the French Revolution tried to replicate in France (without success).
None of that developed in a vacuum, and even British liberals like Locke and Adam Smith wrote things that sound very much like the rhetoric of the left — Adam Smith’s work is extremely critical of unlimited capitalism (and, ironically, Karl Marx accepted most of Smith’s analysis, and believed he was offering conditions in which Smith’s system could best operate).
The western tradition of individual rights, liberty, and reason is essentially an English tradition that evolved in a commerce based society. The Dutch had a similar tradition, but the French and most other Europeans never quite got it.
That’s only a branch of western thought on individual rights, liberty and reason. There were many continental branches too, and they have meshed and intertwined over the years. Talk to your average Frenchman, German, Brit, Italian or American, and they share fundamentally similar values. Sure, you can find your communists, nihilists, neo-nazis, and others who dip into the pool of western cultural history and come out with something other than the tradition of freedom and individual rights, but that’s a small minority.

Now, tactically how to make that work and what it means for policy, that creates a myriad of difference. But usually it’s less in terms of core values than in beliefs about how to achieve those values.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Here is the letter I ^sent to Keith Ellison, after hearing him shout "We won!"
Letter to Keith Ellison
Who won? Saudi Arabia? Al Qaïda? The Hamas?The arab slave merchants who, centuries before all europeans, used to go and attack african villages,in order to force women, children,and men into a form of slavery that even the french, portuguese and spanish traffickers (who learned from them)never dared practicing? I mean, the systematic castration of a percentage of black males, according to the needs and conveniences of the buyers. Have you ever asked yourself why there are less descendants of black arab slaves in North Africa and some arabic countries, than african-americans, latino-americans or black carribeans? Because the europeans never went as far as castrating black males. Besides, in an arab muslim country, you would never reach such a level,as the one that makes you rejoice today. Think always about it and, please respect the USA, which give you such opportunities. If you have been elected, I hope it is not just as a muslim.Libermann, for instance, is a Jew, like many others. He does not talk about it in the Senate.Have you ever read "Race and colours in Islamic countries", by Bernard Lewis? Have you visited arab countries? If the answer is yes, have you seen the way black people are treated there? Have yo been to Mecca, where blacks sweep the dirt of the pilgrims, and where there still are black slaves in the houses of the richest? Idem, for Mauritania, despite its official abolition of slavery, in 1981! Everytime I a see a black muslim, my heart cries. Especially when this muslim is american. You all could write books about slavery of blacks by europeans, but do not know anything about what Arabs did to africans,since the birth of Islam. They started centuries before and kept on long after everybody had abolished slavery. Islam is not a religion. It is a political nationalist movement, made by arabs for arabs, essentially against the Jews. Islam is a cult.The most dangerous one. You said "Islam works for me? " In which way? Many wives? The hope to go to a paradise where you will permanently rape seventy young and always renewed virgins? Beware,they will be white, because there is no place for black people in the paradise of Allah. And what about your current wife?As a good muslim woman, what will she get? Blond ephebes walking far away from her and putting her in a perpetual temptation?Come on, Keith!You left a religion of love, for a world of hate. Finally, do you really understand the verses that you are forced to recite, in arabic, while praying? Can you correctly speak arabic? Because,according to Mohamed and his companions, the way one recites them is as important as the sense of the words.I once heard Mohamed Ali,ex-Cassius Clay, pronounce some words in arabic.My God! That was the perfect illustration of the reason why alcohol drinking has been forbidden to muslims: some imams used to get drunk before going to the mosques. The result: nobody could understand them. Just like american muslims reciting the Coran!You can answer to this message, if you want to know who I am and why I am so angry against Islam.Shame on you,black muslim!You converted. People feted you. If a muslim converts to another religion, he must live hiding and protected by the police. If not any of your coreligionnaires would have the right to kill him. Reciprocity is a word you should learn.What are people like you doing in democratic countries? Go to Saudi Arabia or Iran!

P:S: Why did you keep Keith?Why did not you choose one of those muslim names which all are preceded by “abd”(slave, servant): Abd-el Rahman, Abd-el-Karim, Abdallah,etc...? Was it a trick for not terrifying the voters? Bilal ( the favourite black slave of your prophet) could be nice. Or, Omar bin Khattab, his beloved and giant black killer!

Best regards and long life to George Bush!
Fayrouz (I took an arabic pseudonym, in order to deviate the feelings of the islamists.) Fayrouz means "turquoise" (colour and stone)
 
Written By: fayrouz
URL: http://sahraouia
Talking about public opinion in Europe, in general, is not exactly the same as doing it for France. In many european countries,even the smallest, the press is much more diversified than in the nation of "big mouths-lesson-givers", where 96% of the newspapers, magazines, private Tv and radio networks belong to the two war weapon manufacturers, Dassault and Lagardère. Here is the demonstration of what I am saying:
The enumeration may look boring, but is indispensable for anyone who wants to understand what is going on in France since many decades.
1.-Before taking the control of the Express-Expansion Group, Socopress and its biggest stockholder,the Dassault Company, were already the most powerful shareholders of “ Le Figaro”,”Fig-Mag”,”Madame-Figaro”,”TV-Magazine”, “Paris-Turf”,”Presse-Ocean”, “Maine Libre”, “Courrier de l´Ouest”, “Progrès” of Lyon, “Dauphiné Libéré”, “Nord-Eclair”, with a big part in the capital of “La Voix du Nord”, and 40% of capital of the Rossel Group, the most important publisher in french speaking Belgium. Not to forget the magazines "Express","Expansion",« La lettre de l´Expansion », « La Vie Financière », L´Entreprise », « L´Etudiant », « Lire », "Maison Française », « Maison-Magazine » and «Classica ».That was only for the Dassault Company,number one war weapon manufacturer in France.Their main orders come from the government.Besides, the Dassaults, as a family own “Valeurs actuelles”, « Journal des Finances » and the monthly « Spectacle du monde ».We just listed 50% of the french press. What about the rest? Here it comes:
2.-Facing the “Socopress” group and the Dassault family, we have Jean-Luc Lagardère, son of Arnaud, who died some years ago in mysterious circumstances. He is, not only the french second war weapon manufacturer, but also owner of Matra-Hachette (a gigantic book publisher,with a squad of tens among the major companies), which gives their bestsellers a dominant position when it comes to prize coronations. In 2002, Jean-Luc Lagardère took the command of the following newspapers: “Corse-Matin”, “Nice-Matin”, “La Provence”, “Var Matin”. He also is in partnership with the famous “Le Monde”,through the capital of “Midi Libre”, with one foot in the capital of “La Dépêche du Midi”.Mr.Lagardère also owns 25% of the capital of:"Le Parisien",
"L´Equipe",“Paris-Match”,“Elle”,“Télé-7 Jours”,“FranceDimanche,“Femina”,”Entrevue”,“Zurban",“Pariscope”,the “Journal du Dimanche”,the national (Europe 1) and transeuropean(Europe2)radio networks, and 1/3 of the capital of “Canal Thématiques”(a super power in the TV branch).All that means that,in France,the two exclusive cannons and warplanes providers are also the owners of more than 90% of the press.In France,the country of the greatest “lessons givers” worldwide,in terms of democracy and freedom!It also explains why Jacques Chirac did not want to go to war against Saddam Hussein, one of France´s most important customers in the Middle East, before,during, and after the Iran-Iraq conflict.So, dear friends americans, every time you read in the “New-York Times”,a partner of the above mentioned “Le Monde”(partly owned by Lagardère) and other anti-Bush manipulators, that “French people are against this,or favourable to that”,don´t be fool:they just are reflecting the guidelines of the two above mentioned big groups which,instead of challenging each other,act as accomplices in controlling almost the entire press and opinion poll agencies in their country.Only the satiristic,but influent “Canard Enchaîné”(Enchained duck),which exists since 1913, and two or three very small regional newspapers resist their dictatorship.Watch the way the french press reported about the current midterm votes in the USA.The slight victories of the democrats were emphasized and the less significant defeats of the republicans called catastrophic blows or slaps for George Blush. Not to forget the very bizarre fact that each year,Jean-Luc Lagardère sends a one million euros subvention to the communist french newspaper “l´Humanité”.That is the reason why even the communists never harshly criticize this “horrible” capitalist!Electorally speaking, the french communist party represents less than 1% but, due to the participation of many of its members in the “Resistance”,it benefits from special arrangements issued after the Second World War, which allow it to stay afloat among the unions(CGT) and keep on influencing some decisions in other social organisations.All this "beautiful world" is united in a sort of “holy” communion called anti-americanism,no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office. Today, they hate George Bush.For the next president,it just will be about finding a new pretext.
Fayrouz
 
Written By: fayrouz
URL: http://sahraouia
Is Keith Ellison really converted to Islam? Before converting into judaism or christianism,for instance,one needs a preparation,be it short or long. Then one gets lessons of cathechism or Talmud( for judaism, it also is obligatory to learn hebrew).Finally, one is publicly baptised.The whole process is registered and kept in a synagogue or a church.For Islam,there is just a sentence, or a little piece of "surat" to pronounce, three times,in front of a witness or alone in a hotel room or the toilets of a gas station.Nobody can control nor verify anything.If you let it be known, you will never be allowed to quit, but that is another story.Anyway,if your conversion is sincere, you must take a muslim name.So,why still Keith? I think that Mr.Ellison, as a lawyer who has a lot of muslim (somalian) friends and clients, has accepted to be used by Saudi Arabia and the international islamic organisations as a trojan horse( see the excellent 2003 article of Bill Berkowitz "African American Muslims: A clear and present danger http://zmagsite.zmag.org.)The Arabs paid, and Mr. Ellison obeyed.Now,that he is going to sit in such a prestigious and strategic place as the US Congress,he can start with his islamic propaganda.What a shame for America!
Fayrouz
 
Written By: fayrouz
URL: http://sahraouia

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider