DescentBB

Heh, I knew that comment wasn't going to slip through unmolested.

Woah. I need Drakona on my BB...

Post here Drakona! www.shadowlan.com/forum

Drakona, you should sell that post to a publisher and make some money off that moral philosophy treatise.

Drak, correcting someone when they've heard misinformation is good. i commend that. But: they also need to hear the facts about the other side.

Kind of like when you decide on a purchase on video cards (geek reference, I know.) you give the pros and cons for one side, and the pros and cons of the other.

But when someone gives biased information (IE: good points about person x, and bad points about person y), that leads to tainting. And you know that tainted information in this day and age is just as bad as misinformation. I try to be as central as I can on things.

Does this clear things up for you? If not, feel free to ask more questions. I enjoy having my brain picked.

Hold on a second. You're saying that if someone says to me: "Bush engineered 9/11, and Kerry knew it," after setting the record straight, I should go on in equivalent detail about why John Kerry should be elected??

Not why he should be elected, no. That's his choice to make. But say what good he's done in the past along with what he has screwed up on.

I'm sure Bush has done some good things aswell.

I'm sorry, Drak. You're a sweetheart and I have profound respect for your opinions and especially your ability to rationalize them. However, I'm not sure if you have travelled outside of the US since Bush, but I have. Regardless of what your political leanings are, when a HUGE majority of the world disapproves of your administration, the appropriate descriptive seems to be "embarrassing". I don't really think it's a break from reality to say that.

Stepping away from (albeit, flawed) international institutions in such a crass and uncompromising fashion is embarrassing to me. Rejecting Kyoto is embarrassing. Claiming that US soldiers shouldn't be a part of the ICC is embarrassing. Rejecting the nuclear test ban treaty is embarrassing.

You may agree with these policy moves. That's not the point. There are a million solutions to every problem. Just because people believe things may not be working does not speak to nor justify such a disregard for the concerns of other nations. As we are learning, being the only hegemonic superpower draws a lot of attention to you. And it is important, indeed critical, that we confer a sense of legitimacy throughout the world. Without legitimacy we will not last long. We cannot "go it alone" in this world.

Is it a break from reality to worry about the bridges we're burning? Is it a break from reality to worry about the profound disapproval other nations have expressed over our policy decisions? Is it a break from reality to worry that an overstretched empire is a vulnerable empire?

I assume you were in Europe? If so you shouldn't make the mistake of believing that their attitudes are an accurate reflection of the rest of the world.

I spent over 10 months of the last 1 1/2 years backpacking in Asia and my experiences with attitudes towards the US couldn't be further from what you describe. While its true that more people had a negative view of Bush they were not rabid about it and were perfectly capable of separating their views of the administration from their opinions of America.

The vast majority of local people I talked to still had an extraordinarily high opinion of the US even when they had specific policy differences with our current administration. In fact, the only real Bush-bashing I got was from European and American travellers.

So that's where you've been, damnit.

Regardless of what your political leanings are, when a HUGE majority of the world disapproves of your administration, the appropriate descriptive seems to be "embarrassing". I don't really think it's a break from reality to say that.

Sometimes all that a majority means is that all the idiots are on one side. I'm not making any value judgments on the topic of application that is at hand, but using international support as the sole criteria for whether an action is appropriate is a flawed litmus test. If every country but the United States decides they'd be better off if they saw off an arm, that doesn't dictate that we should follow suit. There must be a more objective test than mere international favor.

*The neighbors hate us* never cuts any ice with Americans anyway. Feels like one of those *last refuge* things whenever I see someone bring it up.

Lothar wrote:

mom wrote:If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?

Had you read Saint Noam's "Manufactured Science" you would realize that concepts such as gravity and inertia are just fabrications of the Physicist-Industrial complex. That being the case jumping off a bridge is perfectly rational behavior.

Otherone wrote:While its true that more people had a negative view of Bush they were not rabid about it and were perfectly capable of separating their views of the administration from their opinions of America.

The vast majority of local people I talked to still had an extraordinarily high opinion of the US even when they had specific policy differences with our current administration.

This is what I have said and believed in a few months ago. I still stand by it to this day. Just because anyone has a disagreement with american policies does not make them anti-american.


Kuf, when all bridges are burned, there will be nowhere to go. cut off from everything as it were.

True. Conversely, much of the actual anti-Americanism you encounter has nothing to do with either American policies or the current administration.

You know, if noticing and exploring how and why the world reacts to America is some kind of "last refuge" argument to you, I find that arrogant and, more importantly, very dangerous.

Do you really believe that America can take on the world?

What does it have to do with then Otherone?

1) Little-brother syndrome (French media, as an example).
2) Ideology (Radical Islamic theocracy, aka the Taliban).

Some of it has to do with the fact that *all* countries act out of what they see as their own self interest and sometimes, rightly or wrongly, that conflicts with American foreign policy (France).

Some of it has to do with having lived under America's protection for so long that you no longer understand historical reality (much of the rest of Western EUrope).

Some of it has to do with fanaticism, either religious (Hamas) or otherwise (Chomsky, neo-Nazis).

And alot of it is intellectual laziness (groups like iraqbodycount.org, journalists like Robert Fisk) or plain ignorance (the afformentioned backpackers).

As the above two posts enumerate, there are--and always have been--manufactured reasons for being anti-American, not the least of which being simple human envy. It's not a condition that began with George Bush nor will it end when Bush is no longer in office, be it this election or next. So whenever someone brings up the *we have to change to please the neighbors* argument as a compelling reason to vote out Bush, I take it as a sign that they've retreated to their last redoubt and no longer have much ammo left in the gun. Most of us know we're damned if we do, damned if we don't and have developed rather thick hides to the criticisms of those whose own interests might not always dovetail with ours.

I find this "the world hates America" stuff that's being barfed up rather amusing. As if there's some kind of universal love for countries like Russia, China, Britain, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Zimbabwe, whatever, in the world.

It brings to mind a recent government study conducted in France:

----------------------
10/10/2004
The French are arrogant, rude and surly to foreign visitors.

For once - quelle surprise! - the thought comes not from an embittered tourist but the leading French politician behind a damning report on how the Gallic welcome leaves much to be desired.

Senator Bernard Plasait, a member of France's upper house of parliament, has concluded what millions of visitors have known for years. "Our bad image in this area, the arrogance we are accused of, our refusal to speak foreign languages, the sense we give that it's a great honour to visit us are among the ugly facts of which we should not be proud," reads the first paragraph of his report, commissioned by the government.

"Certainly these accusations don't date from yesterday," the report continues. "In the 18th century, Horace Walpole wrote that he couldn't stand the French. 'I detest them for their insolent and misplaced air of superiority,' he declares.

"Where does this detestable reputation, which is like a ball and chain, come from?" His conclusion is that the French have only themselves to blame for their notoriety. Le Url
---------------------------

Granted, it's about tourism, but I don't think their politics exactly inspire warm fuzziness either. I can't think of country that does. No, not even Canada. If only the policies and actions (and inactions) of other countries got as much coverage as the U.S. gets.

kufyit wrote:You know, if noticing and exploring how and why the world reacts to America is some kind of "last refuge" argument to you, I find that arrogant and, more importantly, very dangerous.

Do you really believe that America can take on the world?

No country can take on the whole world as evidenced by WW2. On the other hand it is said that Americas economy is the engine that drives the worlds economy. Picture the world if America were suddenly to disappear. Conversely picture the world if say France was to disappear.
As to other countries hating us, well it is tough being the place where the streets are paved in gold. I find it interesting that the Saudi's are running radio ads exclaiming their friendship towards us no doubt in response to the conspiracy scenarios the liberal press likes to foment.