News Please no Bush-bashing, America bashing

[Art]

I have to say that I am offended by the amount of blatant anti-American sentiments and bashing going on here (in the politics forum). I am about as middle of the road as you can get politically, but I am really getting tired of it. Show me a country that is perfect, that has no corruption, no politicians with an agenda, that hasn't used whatever power they have (if they have any) for their own benefit. I don't think we're perfect, no country is.

I was born in the US, but I am a dual national and most of my family lives in Europe (talk about corruption). I live in the US, and although I don't agree with every decision the US government makes, I will speak out against that decision, not trash the entire country and it's people.

edit: and to be safe I should mention that this is no way no how, in any way, shape or form, directed at SOS (fears SOS will pour something nasty into my harddrive)

There is a lot of anti-American government sentiment about at this time but it should not offend you on a personal level as the criticisms are directed at the US administration or at the arguments presented by those who support it and vice versa, not the American people. If you have read the article quoted at the beginning of this thread you will see the whole point of the essay is to pour scorn on the people of europe with special emphasis on the French. Understandably - (jk Vanesch)
America's foreign policy is a 'hot' albeit controversial topic and so many threads are devoted to various aspects of it. A thread devoted to say the Fine Fail vs Fine Gael political party divide in Ireland would undoubtedly attract less controversy but also I'm afraid little or no interest.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

It does seem sometimes as if every thread that makes an evaluation of America - either positive or negative - degenerates into Bush-bashing. Whether or not the Bush-bashing is factually accurate, this can be frustrating as Bush is not necessarily the topic of the thread. It should be noted that anti-Americanism does not necessarily mean anti-Bushism.

Mmmm. I don't know. Yes, there are types of anti-Americanism, most of them pure racism, that have nothing to do with Bush. But this article is occassioned by the heightened anti-American atmosphere in Europe at present. This has almost everything to do with hatred of Bush, the Bush administration and its actions. This, though, is applying the term anti-Americanism rather thin. Unfortunately people who despise the Bush administration have a tendency to extend this to the American people regardless of political persuasion. Likewise, many Americans who are pro-Bush tend to name-call anyone with a serious argument against Bush as anti-American. No reasonable argument can occur between these people. Judging by the deterioration of such arguments to racism and name-calling suggests that they are in the majority.

I have to say that I am offended by the amount of blatant anti-American sentiments and bashing going on here (in the politics forum). I am about as middle of the road as you can get politically, but I am really getting tired of it. Show me a country that is perfect, that has no corruption, no politicians with an agenda, that hasn't used whatever power they have (if they have any) for their own benefit. I don't think we're perfect, no country is.

I'm not sure how justified this post is, at least given the posts preceding it. I don't see any more anti-Americanism than anti-Europeanism. In fact, I think Pengwuino is weighing it in favour of the latter. This has, as per usual, fallen more down to pro-Bushism and anti-Bushism. There has been plenty more European-bashing in the EU threads, unfortunately mostly misguided. I wouldn't mind starting a proper critical thread of Europe, but most people either don't seem to care or just post xenophobic remarks.

So vanesch, if its a failure, its his fault, but if its a success, its not?

Simply put, yes. Him and the rest of the coalition. If you punch someone in the rib and it breaks, that's your fault. If the break never properly heals, that's your fault. If it does heal good as new, that is not your success.

 

[vanesch]

Is rooting for and being openly happy about a nation's failure

Ah, come on, the failure of the war in Iraq is not a "nation's failure" (well, Iraq's maybe). Somebody brought up the story about a beehive. Now, imagine that there are mad dogs running around the house, and they've bitten already one child. There's also a bee hive at the back of the garden. So you decide to go and kick with your boots in the bee hive because you have "evidence that the bees are buddies with the mad dogs and are planning a massive attack on your children". You ask your neighbour to help you to kick with your boots in the bee hive, and he tells you not only that he will not do so, but that he thinks that that is a bad idea because everybody will now get bees on his hand ; moreover he tells you the story about the dogs being friends with the bees, he doesn't believe it ; he'd rather go with you after the dogs and let the bees alone. You tell him he's a stinking bastard, you will not talk to him again, and you go out kicking in the beehive. Don't you think that, after you've been stung all over (and the mad dogs too, so they get even nastier) that the neighbour would watch you through the window and have a good laugh with your face ?

a criticism of one single aspect of something that some Americans did or said?

Yes, the single aspect was the war in Iraq and the "some Americans" was the Bush administration (or at least a part of it). I don't think the French in general, or many french intellectuals in particular, nor Chirac, IN GENERAL, are happy when nasty things happen to the US. They were NOT HAPPY with 9/11. This would be the case if they were anti-american.

I'm sure that had to bother you, as the whole freedom fries thing obviously does (perhaps you've heard of frankfurters and sauerkraut being called hot dogs and liberty cabbage during WWI).

Yes, but you were AT WAR WITH THE GERMANS. As far as I know, you're not AT WAR with France !

I suppose this is an easy way of justifying a desire to see a budding nation fail, and the hope's of a people crushed yet again. Come on. If Iraq becomes a peaceful, successful democracy, it might be the best thing to happen to the middle east since the Tigris and Euphrates began to flow (okay, I'm being hyperbolous, but still).

I agree of course. But the danger is that Dubya finds such a "success" stimulating.

If the plan succeeds, will you really continue to say Bush did the wrong thing just because it could have turned out terribly and nearly did? Taking a risk always entails the possibility of terrible failure, but that hardly means one should never take a risk.

The plan ALREADY failed. But that's not recognized yet by Bush, and that's the danger. He's not in control of the situation there, so what happens is not his plan. You can take a risk for the right reasons and if it turns out wrong, too bad. If you take a risk for the wrong reasons, and it turns out right, then you've been lucky. If you take a risk for the wrong reasons, and it turns out wrong, you're a bastard. I consider Bush to be in the last case. If things worked out immediately, he'd be in the second case.

Either way, I just can't agree that a success in Iraq is bad for anybody but the insurgents and perhaps those who caught fifteen more minutes of fame by insisting that it would fail. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this.

As long as the "success" doesn't give Bush the idea to start the same adventure all over somewhere else, I'd say that I agree with you. It would also have been great if it had been an immediate success: then there would have been a direct cause-effect relation (and I would have eaten my hat, but it would have been a good thing).

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Art]

As long as the "success" doesn't give Bush the idea to start the same adventure all over somewhere else, I'd say that I agree with you. It would also have been great if it had been an immediate success: then there would have been a direct cause-effect relation (and I would have eaten my hat, but it would have been a good thing).

cheers,
Patrick.

I think Bush will be so relieved if he can extricate himself from this one he wouldn't consider another such mission in his wildest nightmares. I'd say that privately he must be very unhappy with the hawks in and around his government who persuaded him to embark on this disastrous misadventure

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

[sigh] If the worst comes to the worst, pretend the Devil made him do it.

 

[Evo]

Have you read the original article ? It was full of nonsense! The main claim was that European intellectuals are 1) anti-american and 2) anti-democratic ; given the fact that Amirica is the best there can possibly be (on all grounds), and they don't like it, this must be due to them being green with envy.

Saying that this is nonsense is anti-American ?

I wasn't commenting on the article, I was talking about what goes on here in this forum.

 

[Evo]

There is a lot of anti-American government sentiment about at this time but it should not offend you on a personal level as the criticisms are directed at the US administration or at the arguments presented by those who support it and vice versa, not the American people. If you have read the article quoted at the beginning of this thread you will see the whole point of the essay is to pour scorn on the people of europe with special emphasis on the French. Understandably - (jk Vanesch)

My dual nationality is US/French. I'm tired of French bashing as well.

People shoud speak out against the specific topics and back them up with facts, but few do, most just have the attitude the US did this, the US is evil. Opinions are fine as long as they don't cross the line into wholesale insults. I would like members here to read loseyourname's advice and try to have a fact based discussion without the bashing.

I also see that a few apologies are due Sid Galt from several members for misinterpreting what he said and bashing him directly.

 

[Art]

My dual nationality is US/French. I'm tired of French bashing as well.

People shoud speak out against the specific topics and back them up with facts, but few do, most just have the attitude the US did this, the US is evil. Opinions are fine as long as they don't cross the line into wholesale insults. I would like members here to read loseyourname's advice and try to have a fact based discussion without the bashing.

I also see that a few apologies are due Sid Galt from several members for misinterpreting what he said and bashing him directly.

Once again those who are accused of this anti-Americanism have backed up their comments re rightwing abuse with specific examples. Can you please now do the same
Actually never mind this isn't really going anywhere...

 

[russ_watters]

I have little time (away on business) and little interest in contributing to this flame-america-fest, but I need to agree with this:

Is rooting for and being openly happy about a nation's failure a criticism of one single aspect of something that some Americans did or said? This isn't about a French intellectual opining about the futility of nation-building. That's fine. I don't care. It's when people root for failure that I am bothered and it happens on both sides. Many of the posters here that lean to the right seemed positively joyous when France's role in the oil-for-food scandal was hinted at.

There are a great many people in this forum and in the world rooting for America to fail. Beyond simply disagreeing with us or believing we are wrong, they want us to be wrong. Along the same lines (read the "Leaving the Left" article) there are a number of people on the left who are rooting for Bush to fail and their dislike for Bush is causing them to root against the very things that democrats are supposed to support. The line between anti-Bush and anti-American is one that is impossible for someone on the left to tow - and its part of the reason Kerry lost the election. It isn't just Kerry though - few politicians are really able to adequately deal with the idea that the failure of their opponent is good for them.

This is the primary reason the left is in crisis and the EU (more specifically, France and the "coalition of the unwilling" as one essay called it) are being marginalized. You don't gain fans and win political battles by being against things, you win favor by being for things.

Now - a mea culpa: I'm anti-French. I'll admit it. Heck, I'm almost proud of it. I've been to Paris and Montreal and my experiences have shaped that opinion. France's "coalition of the unwilling" attitude has also shaped it.

So does this make me a "pot" for the anti-Bush/American's kettle? No. My dislike for the French and the liberal pseudo-intellectual crowd is different from their dislike for Bush/the US. Why? Because I don't let my disdain for the left affect my opinions on specific issues. For example, I strongly disliked Clinton, but that didn't affect my opinion that our participation in the Yugoslavia attack (a fairly close parallel of the Iraq situation - except of course that Yugoslavia never was and never would be a threat to the US) was a good thing even though we did it without UN support (again, like Iraq). I still cheer for the right thing even when its the wrong guy doing it. Those on the left who are rooting for the US/Bush to fail need to learn to separate their feelings from their positions on the issues.

 

[russ_watters]

My dual nationality is US/French. I'm tired of French bashing as well.

Quick clarification - do you mean dual citizenship?

 

[Art]

I have little time (away on business) and little interest in contributing to this flame-america-fest, but I need to agree with this: There are a great many people in this forum and in the world rooting for America to fail. Beyond simply disagreeing with us or believing we are wrong, they want us to be wrong. Along the same lines (read the "Leaving the Left" article) there are a number of people on the left who are rooting for Bush to fail and their dislike for Bush is causing them to root against the very things that democrats are supposed to support. The line between anti-Bush and anti-American is one that is impossible for someone on the left to tow - and its part of the reason Kerry lost the election. It isn't just Kerry though - few politicians are really able to adequately deal with the idea that the failure of their opponent is good for them.

This is the primary reason the left is in crisis and the EU (more specifically, France and the "coalition of the unwilling" as one essay called it) are being marginalized. You don't gain fans and win political battles by being against things, you win favor by being for things.

Now - a mea culpa: I'm anti-French. I'll admit it. Heck, I'm almost proud of it. I've been to Paris and Montreal and my experiences have shaped that opinion. France's "coalition of the unwilling" attitude has also shaped it.

So does this make me a "pot" for the anti-Bush/American's kettle? No. My dislike for the French and the liberal pseudo-intellectual crowd is different from their dislike for Bush/the US. Why? Because I don't let my disdain for the left affect my opinions on specific issues. For example, I strongly disliked Clinton, but that didn't affect my opinion that our participation in the Yugoslavia attack (a fairly close parallel of the Iraq situation - except of course that Yugoslavia never was and never would be a threat to the US) was a good thing even though we did it without UN support (again, like Iraq). I still cheer for the right thing even when its the wrong guy doing it. Those on the left who are rooting for the US/Bush to fail need to learn to separate their feelings from their positions on the issues.

As a supporter of free speech I fully endorse your personal right to espouse anti-French racial bigotry. Provided of course, you and others who share your opinions, will afford those who disagree with you the same courtesy.

The First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. The best way to counter obnoxious speech is with more speech. Persuasion, not coercion, is the solution.

http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeechMain.cfm

Or is it a matter of 'It's my ball and if you don't play by my rules I'm taking my ball home.'

 

[Art]

Quick clarification - do you mean dual citizenship?

Bet you wished you'd read Evo's mail before you started your rave against the French

 

[vanesch]

There are a great many people in this forum and in the world rooting for America to fail.

I think that there are many people in the world rooting for America to fail, most of them bearded and with the Koran in their hands. The point I'm trying to make is that amongst European intellectuals, this is a minority position. I'd say, *especially the French left* doesn't subscribe to that view - although it is understandably critical of some specific American actions. I think the paranoia you guys have of Europeans wanting "America to fail" has more to do with your overinflated ego which doesn't support *criticism* than any real anti-americanism. It seems to bite even more when the criticism turns out to be justified after the fact.

Now - a mea culpa: I'm anti-French. I'll admit it. Heck, I'm almost proud of it. I've been to Paris and Montreal and my experiences have shaped that opinion. France's "coalition of the unwilling" attitude has also shaped it.

I think you make a mistake. (oops, sorry, that even shapes your opinion more so ) It is not because you met a few people you didn't like that you have to judge a whole country. I, for one, am certainly not anti-American, nor anti-French. Concerning having overinflated egos I'd say that the French and the Americans are on equal playing ground , but they both have other, nice characteristics.
However, the "coalition of the unwilling" was maybe not so totally wrong, after the fact, wasn't it ? Is that what pisses you off ?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Russ, as easy as rationalising other people's political position in a way that makes you feel safe and superior is, it isn't very helpful. There are some people, also, who might feel that practising politics by winning fans by exuding positiveness, while lovely, is not a very intelligent way of doing it. However, it seems from the article in the OP, stupid is the new intelligent, so maybe you're right. Even so, you are not the man to advise the left on how to approach political matters. For one thing, you're too biased. For another, you're a racist by your own admission. However right and justified you feel you are, that would still be a case of the blind leading the blind.

 

[Danger]

I just started reading at #46, so my apologies if I missed anything important.

you decide to go and kick with your boots in the bee hive because you have "evidence that the bees are buddies with the mad dogs and are planning a massive attack on your children".
Don't you think that, after you've been stung all over (and the mad dogs too, so they get even nastier) that the neighbour would watch you through the window and have a good laugh with your face ?

That has got to be just about the best analogy that I've ever seen for the whole Iraq fiasco.

I think Bush will be so relieved if he can extricate himself from this one he wouldn't consider another such mission in his wildest nightmares.

I think that you're severely over-estimating his learning potential. If nothing else, you'd think that he would have learned from his old man's humiliation from screwing it up the first time. (In fact, one wonders how much 'revenge' for that prompted the current situation.)

I've been to Paris and Montreal and my experiences have shaped that opinion.

How on Earth can you even pretend to make an equation out of that? It's like saying that you're anti-Spanish because you've been to Madrid and Mexico City, or anti-English because you've been to London and Chicago.

I think the paranoia you guys have of Europeans wanting "America to fail" has more to do with your overinflated ego which doesn't support *criticism* than any real anti-americanism. It seems to bite even more when the criticism turns out to be justified after the fact. However, the "coalition of the unwilling" was maybe not so totally wrong, after the fact, wasn't it ? Is that what pisses you off ?

Bingo!

 

[Evo]

Quick clarification - do you mean dual citizenship?

Yes, I have dual citizenship.

 

[Art]

Yes, I have dual citizenship.

I think Russ might be trying to get you deported

Does the USA allow dual citizenship?
Carl Shusterman: Actually, the US considers dual nationals to be US citizens and ignores the citizenship laws of other countries. So if you are a US citizen, the last thing you should do is to try to enter the United States using a foreign passport.

 

[Evo]

I think Russ might be trying to get you deported

My mother is French and hates the French mindset, which is why she moved here (she's a naturalized US citizen now). All of her family still lives in France.

I am not bothered when someone states specific things they dislike. I dislike a lot of things about the politics and attitudes of some groups of people in both countries, but I wouldn't stereotype the entire population of a country.

In the US I am considered a US citizen. I have two passports, one US, one French. Abroad, I can claim either nationality and can use either passport.

 

[Andy]

Of course everyone wants america to fail, when you where at school did you not take joy when seeing the really smart kid get something wrong? In sports nobody likes to see the best team win, over the past 10 years manchester united have become the most hated team in England, why? because they are the most succesful. And now chelsea with the billions that they have received from Roman Abramovich are becoming the most hated club.

I think if i was American i would take pleasure in all the criticism that is put to the US, just because it shows how successful the United States have been.

Whoa, just realized i said something nice about those stupid fat people!

 

[Art]

In the US I am considered a US citizen. I have two passports, one US, one French. Abroad, I can claim either nationality and can use either passport.

And yet in the land of the leaders' of the free world you can't. there's a touch of irony there.

 

[russ_watters]

As a supporter of free speech I fully endorse your personal right to espouse anti-French racial bigotry.

Oh, is that what it is? Just be careful that you don't become both the pot and the kettle on this one, Art.

Provided of course, you and others who share your opinions, will afford those who disagree with you the same courtesy.

Free speech means you can say whatever you want as long as you don't threaten anyone. But that doesn't mean the content of your arguments or the justification for your opinions is necessarily valid.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, as easy as rationalising other people's political position in a way that makes you feel safe and superior is, it isn't very helpful. There are some people, also, who might feel that practising politics by winning fans by exuding positiveness, while lovely, is not a very intelligent way of doing it.

Clearly these people worked in the Kerry campaign.

However, it seems from the article in the OP, stupid is the new intelligent, so maybe you're right. Even so, you are not the man to advise the left on how to approach political matters. For one thing, you're too biased.

Au contraire. I am only very slightly to the right, politically. I'm not a big fan of Bush and if the Democrats had a real candidate ('I'm not Bush' doesn't cut it) and a real plan ('We don't support Bush's plans' doesn't cut it), I very well may have voted for them.

For another, you're a racist by your own admission.

My opinion of the French is not racism. To broaden the definition in such a way makes any negative opinion of a people racism regardless of justification. That isn't what racism means.

But hey - call it what you want - I do feel secure in my beliefs. Just remember one thing: I'm being honest about them. How many others here are?

 

[russ_watters]

Bet you wished you'd read Evo's mail before you started your rave against the French

Why? Oh yeah - because I'm supposedly a racist. And that's exactly the point: since I already know Evo, learning she's French has no impact whatsoever on my opinion of her, because I'm not a racist.

Everyone has biases, guys. Everyone has preconceptions. Everyone buys into stereotypes to one extent or another. What separates me and you, Art, is that I'm perfectly willing to admit my biases and similarly, will not call someone a racist just simply for having a bias (such as your anti-American bias). There is a difference - and the ironic thing is that people who are unwilling to admit the difference are often further toward the racism side than the bias side.

Here's a stereotype I've picked up in Mexico: people here are nice to the point where they will drop everything to help you. They are just about elated to show you that they speak English. I don't know if they are that way toward all visitors or if its just Americans, but there is a palpable "tone" of friendliness here.

But I guess that just makes me racist against Mexicans.

 

[vanesch]

Of course everyone wants america to fail, when you where at school did you not take joy when seeing the really smart kid get something wrong?

That's a terrible mindset !

I'd rather make the following comparison, which I lived throughout high school. I wasn't good at sports. I was very good at maths, but that wasn't such a big deal: most guys (and girls!) liked more the very sportive boys on the winning local soccer or rugby team. It left me quite indifferent ; I preferred maths and wasn't terribly impressed by the sportive prestations of the others. That doesn't mean I hated sportive people (I enjoyed doing it later, at university), but their view on what was important in life simply didn't impress me, and if any such guy tried to tell me what great guy he was, he could expect an ironic answer.
Does that mean I wanted him to fail in the next competition ? Does that mean I was green with envy ? I think it simply meant I didn't care. The things I found important were different.

 

[Art]

Oh, is that what it is? Just be careful that you don't become both the pot and the kettle on this one, Art.

If you don't know what a word means you would be best advised to look it up before using it but then again that's only for people who are trying to make sense. I'll help you out this once; 'bigoted = unreasonably prejudiced and intolerant'. - By the way Russ, what is it with you and kitchen utensils?? Were you a cook in the navy or something?

Free speech means you can say whatever you want as long as you don't threaten anyone. But that doesn't mean the content of your arguments or the justification for your opinions is necessarily valid.

Yes I agree, in fact I've seen the quintessential proof of this statement that you kindly provided for us in your postings.

 

[russ_watters]

How on Earth can you even pretend to make an equation out of that? It's like saying that you're anti-Spanish because you've been to Madrid and Mexico City, or anti-English because you've been to London and Chicago.

Have you been to Montreal? It really feels like they want to be part of France. If nothing else, Frenh Canadians want independence from Canada for largely cultural reasons.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Clearly these people worked in the Kerry campaign.

If they're campaign was no so absent in important but none-too-fun issues that needed to be addressed, it sounds like a meaningful campaign. If the problem, as you suggest, was that it wasn't all joy joy happy happy then politics is in a graver situation across the pond than any of us had expected.

Au contraire. I am only very slightly to the right, politically. I'm not a big fan of Bush and if the Democrats had a real candidate ('I'm not Bush' doesn't cut it) and a real plan ('We don't support Bush's plans' doesn't cut it), I very well may have voted for them.

I've read a large number of your posts across various threads. Your political standpoint is not in doubt. But you misinterpret 'biased'. I was talking partisanship, not actual political beliefs. It is a sad fact that the former tends to inform the latter, rather than the other way round. I'm not saying that's the case with you, just that there's a difference.

My opinion of the French is not racism.

You despise the French. I will call it what I like, and what it is: racism! Of course you think you're not a racist, and of course you believe the reasons why you hate them are valid, but let's just call a spade a spade here. If you despise an entire nation because of whatever generalisations you have made about them (I don't want to know), you can argue semantics til the cows come home and you'll still be a racist.

Interesting that an anti-European article led to criticisms of said article which led to accusations of the critics of anti-Americanism, and now the Americans come running with their views on other nations. Perhaps anti-Americanism is so seemingly high because people see it where they want to see it? The same people certainly seem oblivious of any other racial intolerances, even their own.

 

[russ_watters]

I think that there are many people in the world rooting for America to fail, most of them bearded and with the Koran in their hands. The point I'm trying to make is that amongst European intellectuals, this is a minority position. I'd say, *especially the French left* doesn't subscribe to that view - although it is understandably critical of some specific American actions.

Well, I mixed two separate issues here and wasn't clear about it: the way the American left feels toward the Bush administration and the way Europeans (and by this, I mostly mean politicians) feel toward the US. Part of my point was that there are similarities, but there are, of course, differences.

An American liberal who wants to see democracy in Iraq fail (at least, for the next 3 years) isn't really against democracy but against Bush and knows that if things go badly in the US as well, it increases the odds for liberal politicians being elected. And yes, this isn't just something unique to liberals - conservatives thought the same thing when Clinton was President. In fact, both sides will actively sabbotage the other even at the expense of doing what everyone knows is right. That is what I have a problem with.

With Europe it is similar but more about foreign policy and global power, of course, but there is a simple fact about politicians: those without power want it and those with power will do whatever they need to to keep it. France wants to be a superpower - and there is nothing wrong with that. But, similar to above, what there is something wrong with is doing bad things and opposing good things just for the sake of power. France's conflict of interest wrt Iraq is a prime example.

I think the paranoia you guys have of Europeans wanting "America to fail" has more to do with your overinflated ego which doesn't support *criticism* than any real anti-americanism. It seems to bite even more when the criticism turns out to be justified after the fact.

Well, the jury is, of course, still out on Iraq, but perhaps you're right - my feelings toward France wanting power are part of the other side of the coin from above: people in power want to stay in power. And don't worry - I won't call you a racist for having an anti-America bias where you see and point out the "arrogant American" stereotype. I'm consistent: yes, I know that there are some anti-American stereotypes that are justified. However, though what you might consider arrogance or paranoia I consider simple cockiness or confidence: we're on top and we know it.

I think you make a mistake. (oops, sorry, that even shapes your opinion more so ) It is not because you met a few people you didn't like that you have to judge a whole country. I, for one, am certainly not anti-American, nor anti-French. Concerning having overinflated egos I'd say that the French and the Americans are on equal playing ground , but they both have other, nice characteristics.

That's interesting - right after saying I made a mistake for saying something, you said exactly the same thing! Like I said above, about the only thing different about me is my candor - don't read something into that that isn't there.

However, the "coalition of the unwilling" was maybe not so totally wrong, after the fact, wasn't it ? Is that what pisses you off ?

Yes, from the political side, France's "coalition of the unwilling" politics pisses me off. And why shouldn't it? The very concept is abhorrent: gaining power by being an opposer of everything another power does. And so far, the French government doesn't seem all that concerned with the company they are keeping at the UN.

 

[russ_watters]

Of course everyone wants america to fail, when you where at school did you not take joy when seeing the really smart kid get something wrong? In sports nobody likes to see the best team win, over the past 10 years manchester united have become the most hated team in England, why?

This is implied in my posts, but I think you are right - to some extent there is a natural inclination in humans to root for the underdog and be defiant toward authority. An awful lot of what I said about the subject is based in one form or another on this aspect of human nature.

However, while that makes it natural and understandable, it does not make it ok. This isn't a football game and the stakes are far too high for that to be acceptable here. There is nothing morally wrong with rooting for the Cubs - but it is morally wrong to root against democracy in Iraq. If the other "team" wins in Iraq, the result will be poverty, violence, and death.

I think if i was American i would take pleasure in all the criticism that is put to the US, just because it shows how successful the United States have been.

And I do. I revel in it. The only thing worse than a tyrannical dictator is a benevolent one because there is a danger that the benevolent one could rule for a long time without someone taking him down. The idea of long-term American dominance of a free, democratic, prosperous, and peaceful world - with a marginalized UN - has to be utterly terrifying to those in power in the UN.

 

[russ_watters]

I've read a large number of your posts across various threads. Your political standpoint is not in doubt. But you misinterpret 'biased'. I was talking partisanship, not actual political beliefs. It is a sad fact that the former tends to inform the latter, rather than the other way round. I'm not saying that's the case with you, just that there's a difference.

Fair enough: but please don't mistake opinionated for biased.

You despise the French.

I do not despise the French. In fact, there are very, very few people I despise and most of them are individuals. About the only groups I would say I dispise/hate are actual terrorist groups. So again, please don't read things I didn't write. I dislike the French attitude and I dislike French politics. That's it. That's where it ends.

By the same token, I dislike the politics of the left in the US - but I still would have died for any democrat, if necessary, when I was in the military.

I will call it what I like, and what it is: racism!

Why is it racism for me to say I dislike the French attitude and not racism for others to say they dislike the American attitude?

If you despise an entire nation...

Again, I didn't say that.

Interesting that an anti-European article led to criticisms of said article which led to accusations of the critics of anti-Americanism, and now the Americans come running with their views on other nations. Perhaps anti-Americanism is so seemingly high because people see it where they want to see it? The same people certainly seem oblivious of any other racial intolerances, even their own.

Pot:kettle, eh?? See above: why is it ok for you to have an anti-American bias and not ok for me to have an anti-French bias?

 

[Art]

Why? Oh yeah - because I'm supposedly a racist. And that's exactly the point: since I already know Evo, learning she's French has no impact whatsoever on my opinion of her, because I'm not a racist.

Relax Russ, take another pull on whatever it is you're smoking and chill out. I didn't call you a racist in my post above I called you a bigot. A different thing entirely. A racist is somebody who believes in the superiority of a particular race mmmm maybe better not go there..

Everyone has biases, guys. Everyone has preconceptions. Everyone buys into stereotypes to one extent or another.

Russ I hate to be the one to break it to you, but they don't. You are one of a select few.

What separates me and you, Art, is that I'm perfectly willing to admit my biases and similarly, will not call someone a racist just simply for having a bias (such as your anti-American bias).

Russ, as in the aforementioned I didn't call you a racist as bigot seemed by far the better choice of words in the context. Now I will explain to you again, hopefuly this time you will take note. I am far from being anti-American, I have many relatives living there and have visited many times myself. I confess when Clinton was in power I was very supportive of American policy (with hindsight probably an error) but the key difference was, rightly or wrongly I trusted Clinton. I honestly genuinely believe Bush jr to be a slimey, sneaky, rather stupid, figurehead puppet for a very nasty administration who pull his strings. In my opinion the backroom boys got a lot of power in Reagan's last years in office, got a taste for it and haven't let go. So please stop with the anti-American nonsense.

There is a difference - and the ironic thing is that people who are unwilling to admit the difference are often further toward the racism side than the bias side.

Russ, you are about as subtle as a brick. If you want to call me a racist why not just come out and say so. Though I would point you to the definition I provided above.

Here's a stereotype I've picked up in Mexico: people here are nice to the point where they will drop everything to help you. They are just about elated to show you that they speak English. I don't know if they are that way toward all visitors or if its just Americans, but there is a palpable "tone" of friendliness here.

But I guess that just makes me racist against Mexicans.

I guess you must have been getting down to the end of that funny stuff you're smoking when you wrote this last paragraph as if it has a point it's gone straight over my head.

 

[Art]

Of course everyone wants america to fail, when you where at school did you not take joy when seeing the really smart kid get something wrong?

I was that smart kid, you ruined my life. You bastard!

 

[loseyourname]

Of course everyone wants america to fail, when you where at school did you not take joy when seeing the really smart kid get something wrong? In sports nobody likes to see the best team win, over the past 10 years manchester united have become the most hated team in England, why? because they are the most succesful. And now chelsea with the billions that they have received from Roman Abramovich are becoming the most hated club.

I think if i was American i would take pleasure in all the criticism that is put to the US, just because it shows how successful the United States have been.

Whoa, just realized i said something nice about those stupid fat people!

That reminds me of how utterly joyful so many commentators were over the demise of the Lakers this year (especially sportswriters from cities of teams that had been beaten by them in the playoffs). Myself and all other Laker fans will gloat all the more when they are back on top and these do-nothing franchises with whiney, insecure fans are still foundering.

It should be noted, however, that this is sport we are talking about. It is dangerous to let attitudes such as these spread to arenas in life where lives are on the line.

To vanesch, when I said that there are people out there rooting for the failure of a nation, I did mean the Iraqi nation. I do also remember reading the story of a rich couple in Sumatra toasting with champagne as the twin towers collapsed. Then there are the people I've lived with here and in New York/New Jersey who believe everyone that doesn't live on the west coast or in the upper northeast is an ignorant bible-thumping hick and that no one aside from these low-life confederates, that in retrospect should have been killed or simply allowed to secede, are the only people that could possibly support a republican action at this point. The condescension is disgusting.

 

[Evo]

And yet in the land of the leaders' of the free world you can't. there's a touch of irony there.

Well, since I live in the US and claim US citizenship, I don't need any passport inside the country and why would I want to use my French passport to enter the US and have to go through the extra hassle?

Germany currently does not allow dual citizenship.

 

[Evo]

since I already know Evo, learning she's French has no impact whatsoever on my opinion of her

 

[Art]

Well, since I live in the US and claim US citizenship, I don't need any passport inside the country and why would I want to use my French passport to enter the US and have to go through the extra hassle?

Germany currently does not allow dual citizenship.

It was just a wind up Evo
However FYI

III. American-German Dual Nationality

1. Both the United States and Germany recognize the concept of multiple nationality.

2. A child born to an American parent and a German parent acquires both American and German citizenship at birth, regardless of place of birth, if the parents satisfy the jus soli or jus sanguinis requirements of their respective countries. See the sections above entitled, "Basic Primer on American Citizenship Law," and "Basic Primer on German Citizenship Law." Neither country requires a person born under these circumstances to choose between American and German citizenship, i.e., he/she may keep both citizenships his/her entire life.

http://immigration.about.com/library/weekly/aa102599.htm

 

[Informal Logic]

Anti-Americanism is for the most part anti-Bush sentiments. When the president of the US abuses his power by deceiving the UN, congress, and American people in order to illegally invade a country, this is bound to be the sentiment, and justifiably so. What is amazing is that there are still people who cannot see this, and still go around saying things like "if you don't support Bush, you are unpatriotic."

As much as Bush supporters would like to think it, it is not likely that Bush will be given credit for anything good that may become of the invasion. If Iraq becomes a model for democracy, I will not give Bush credit, and would not even if it could happen immediately. The reason why is because I am part of the half of America that never supported Bush and the war, and will never excuse him for the lies. And the number of Americans who feel this way is increasing. More importantly the rest of the entire world never supported Bush for the same reason, and probably feel the same way.

If other countries, such as Lebanon are ever really able to achieve democracy, I will not give credit to Bush for any domino effect. In fact I will suspect it happened despite Bush and anti-American sentiment caused by him. More importantly, desires for democracy have existed in the Middle East long before Bush became president. I only hope he doesn't do more stupid things, in particular with regard to Iran.

What makes Bush supporters think that history books will be written only by them?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Fair enough: but please don't mistake opinionated for biased.

I wasn't. I was not commenting on your verbosity on the subject but your bias. You misinterpreted what I was saying your were biased about. Anyway...

Why is it racism for me to say I dislike the French attitude and not racism for others to say they dislike the American attitude? Again, I didn't say that.

Are you making up m arguments for me? No-one in this thrad has actually posted anything along the lines of "I dislike the Americans". You are the only person here to actually dislike an entire nation based on whatever limited experience of them you have had. (BTW: the worst people I have ever met in my life have all been US customs officials. I do not, based on this, make gross generalisations about Americans or even US customs officials in general. It's just that the ones I have met would have made Hitler relatively desriable company, they were that awful. If I were extend this opinion to 'the Americans', I would consider myself xenophobic, because there is no reason to believe my limited experience of Americans is in any way typical.) So there has been no occasion to take anyone on this thread to task for anti-Americanism, despite Evo's confusing contirbution to the debate.
[/QUOTE]

Pot:kettle, eh?? See above: why is it ok for you to have an anti-American bias and not ok for me to have an anti-French bias?

Okay, main issue with this: what anti-American attitude of mine are you talking about? My anti-Bushism? That's YOUR partisanship, not my anti-Americanisn. that gives you this impression. My criticism of the article? That was an anti-European article, so if anything that's pro-Europeanism. My contempt for your opinions? That's just you, Russ. I would not think to tar any other American with the same brush. At least make a token gesture of substantiation before resorting to slander. Or not... do what you want, but if you are fast slipping into trollish behaviour.

 

[Art]

Russ hasn't posted for a while. I guess he's gone off to lick his wounds or maybe he's just fallen off the limb he climbed out on. .

 

[Evo]

despite Evo's confusing contirbution to the debate.

Not confusing if you actually read my post where it clearly states "in the politics forum", I didn't say anything about "this thread". You are too new to the forum to know the long history of bashing Americans here.

It's not the only country bashed, it tends to go in spurts.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Not confusing if you actually read my post where it clearly states "in the politics forum", I didn't say anything about "this thread". You are too new to the forum to know the long history of bashing Americans here.

It's not the only country bashed, it tends to go in spurts.

It's presense here was confusing, not its content. I think it has confused matters. You gave the impression Americans were being victimised on this thread by the very nature of your comment being in it, and now the expected onslaught of the swivelcahir-militia have started to bring the debate down to the level of reactionary xenophobia. I'm not dissing you - you seem cool.

I was thinking of a joke involving 'bashing' and 'spurts' but damn my better judgement prevailed.

 

[Evo]

El Hombre Invisible, a couple of people in this thread thought I was fingering them and I'm not, it's just something that has been around for awhile, not nearly as bad as it was some months back.

I'm not dissing you - you seem cool.

I'm draconian according to one member (after I locked their thread). Oh well.

I was thinking of a joke involving 'bashing' and 'spurts' but damn my better judgement prevailed.

We could use some levity. Or on second thought...

 

[Evo]

Evo, Can you provide specific examples of American bashing in line with the guidelines posted for this thread which you have vocally supported.

There are literally thousands and would require too much time to find since there are no keywords to search on. I explained in my post to El Hombre Invisble. You'll have to trust me on this or go back and read through 20,000 posts. It's all there.

 

[whozum]

I usually stay out of politics, this is the first bit that caught my eye and I have to say you couldn't have said it better.

I have to say that I am offended by the amount of blatant anti-American sentiments and bashing going on here (in the politics forum). I am about as middle of the road as you can get politically, but I am really getting tired of it. Show me a country that is perfect, that has no corruption, no politicians with an agenda, that hasn't used whatever power they have (if they have any) for their own benefit. I don't think we're perfect, no country is.

 

[Evo]

I wasn't looking for them all, just a couple of representative samples. I've looked myself but couldn't find any. If there are literally thousands to pick from then surely it should take but a few minutes of your time to substantiate your claim. Or is this "Do as I say, don't do as I do?"

Actually a quick search came up with a few member's posts and showing them as examples would probably be embarrasing to them, so no, I'm not going to list member's posts. If you are curious you won't have too much trouble finding the posts. If you don't believe me, all you have to do is stay tuned, there will be more.

 

[Evo]

p.s. Preferably by people who are currently posting on this thread as the accusation has been leveled at us

Not by me, go back and read my post.

 

[Evo]

p.s. Just read your last mail. If it isn't referring to this thread then why post it here? Sorry if this seems pedantic but the inference appeared to be that we were on an America bashing expedition

Which post are you referring to?

 

[Evo]

I usually stay out of politics, this is the first bit that caught my eye and I have to say you couldn't have said it better.

Well at least ONE person likes me. Thank you whozum.

(where did you say to send the money?)

 

[vanesch]

And don't worry - I won't call you a racist for having an anti-America bias where you see and point out the "arrogant American" stereotype.

I'm consistent: yes, I know that there are some anti-American stereotypes that are justified. However, though what you might consider arrogance or paranoia I consider simple cockiness or confidence: we're on top and we know it.

That's exactly what I wanted to say: "you're on top and you know it". You're on top concerning GNP and the military ok, but that doesn't make you guys superior in everything, with no possibility of mistake. It's exactly what I wanted to illustrate in my post about the guys being sportive and thinking they were "the best", them being pissed because it didn't impress me.
Now, happily, I know that not all Americans think that way, and most importantly:

That's interesting - right after saying I made a mistake for saying something, you said exactly the same thing!

You misunderstood me. I cited a property of an often found mentality as well with americans as with the french. And again, not ALL americans or french suffer from it, but it is an often found characteristic. BUT I DIDN'T SAY I WAS ANTI-AMERICAN FOR THAT REASON. I cited the property as a possible explanation of the PARANOIA that some of you have to see anti-Americanism everywhere, from the moment we say that Bush made a mistake, or that the war in Iraq was a failure, or this, or that criticism, concerning some specific american action. I didn't cite the property to say I hated it or so. But, again, if you're convinced of your own god-status, and mere mortals dare to say that you made a mistake, then that quickly turns into blasphemy.

You said you were anti-french and even proud of it. I think that such a statement is a mistake.

France's "coalition of the unwilling" politics pisses me off. And why shouldn't it? The very concept is abhorrent: gaining power by being an opposer of everything another power does.

Now, let me pretend to be as naive as you, when you claim that American foreign politics is not about power games (as any foreign politics of any country is), but "to bring the good to the rest of the world". Let me pretend that France wanted, by all means, to stop a friend from doing something very stupid, and that it wasn't a power game. Like taking away the car keys out of the pocket of a drunken friend. Ok that's a too rose-tinted view of reality of course, but there was something to it. Most people in the street really were convinced that you guys were going to do something extremely stupid. As far as I'm concerned, I think they were right. Of course, you pretend the "jury still to be out" until YOU are right, but that's normally classified then as a non-falsifiable statement.

 

[chound]

I thought America wuz a republic not a democracy since you directly elect the head of the state