I know i free very angry at the US and I acknowledge that the other post was to speak of the dead, so i thought i would respect that wish and now speak about the US politics and the practises of the US government. Now for anyone who doesnt know me im just a 22 white european from northern ireland and not trying to incite hatred of any kind.

I just cannot stand America any longer.

There policies regarding other countries suck.

Their policies on global issues suck.

Their policies on the 'War against Terror' suck.

Their joke of a President sucks.

Their aid percentage is a joke.

Their treatment of this recent disaster is a joke.

Their treatment of allies is a joke.


Now im not going to spout on here about each point, but the 1s that really rub me the wrong way are the global warming, the aid % and the treatment of allies.
The war against terror is as well but it is so well discussed that everyone knows about it.

1. The US has had a severe natural disaster, and being the only superpower in the world has ask for aid from other countries.

Why?

Petrol, the US governemnt needs petrol.... so that their humvies can do a 13 miles to the gallon... pollute the air even more and then just let this get even worse....

ill go now.

PS i love americans, they are some of the nicest people in the world, and i have friends that are americans, what i dont like is the politics behind it all, and the fact that america cant see anyone elses point of view...

please raise any point that you feel are wrong, but i think that there will be more points to add than take away.

btw this is my point of view and is not that of the websites or forum creators... (as far as i know)

This is a conversation by the way, im sure there are some good points about america too... so bring them up... :S

I perfectly agree with you, especially on the point that there are really nice Americans (including those of this community ).

The only problem I have with their politics is: They affect me.

I don't want to get skin cancer because the hole in the ozone layer is *not* exclusively in the sky above the US.

I don't wanna be bombed into pieces by islamistic terrorists in Germany who may not know I don't share Bush's fundamentalistic opinions.

I don't want to pay nearly 2 dollars for one liter of gas, because the US-economy buys all the amounts from europe their own (now destroyed) oil-platforms cannot deliver.

I don't want to hear how bad people feel in New Orleans after a Hurricane and it's consequences (which were - or at least a big part of them - avoidable) while in Africa/South America die as many people *PER DAY* for hunger. I say it again: I don't like to see people die either, but please try to see the global relations of a "small" hurricane in comparison to problems we should care of as well.

We can repair the disastrous effects of a hurricane, but we wont be able to recreate our fossile fuels or our atmosphere.

Our policies in regard to other countries are no different than those of any other country or country in the same position as the US. There is also the media spot light, certain actions go without notice when taken by other governments that would gain world wide notice if taken by the US.

I take global issues and other countries to be the same, much of the time they don't mesh with what is best for the US. There are times when the same policies aren't even good for the countries signing on but they do so because of political or internal pressure.

Which policies concerning terrorism? Although, I can guess.

The President is a joke in what way, because he doesn't just following along with whatever European countries are doing?

The US gives more foreign aid than any other country, the percentage of it out of the GDP doesn't matter, especially considering that US citizens give huge amounts on their own to charities.

The hurricane strike on the Gulf Coast and the resulting **** storm of botched action and incrimination is a direct result of the Mayor of New Orleans and Governor of Louisiana being ineffectual leaders. Not to mention about a quarter of the NOPD and NOFD running away. President Bush actually had to call the Governor to get the Major to order the evacuation once the landing point of the storm was finally determined. Once the evacuation was ordered, none of the safety shelters were opened and instead the Mayor declared the sports stadium a shelter even though it is not on the list of shelters and it being unable to support a thousand people in the previous hurricane (Ivan), let alone 20,000 now. That's not even all of it.

The flooding it self of New Orleans was unavoidable since the levies had just been upgraded to Category 3 hurricane standards only three years ago, with no plans to upgrade to Cat 4/5. Even with plans right after to upgrade to Cat 3, it would have taken until 2008 to finish such a project considering the length of time it took to conduct the Cat 3 upgrade .Today I heard the director of FEMA, I think it was him, say it would have required efforts starting 20 years ago to avert the disastrous floating.

What treatment do you refer to?

I don't recall any formal requests for aid, although any aid is of course appreciated. I recall only two countries actually offering any, Canada and some other country, perhaps the UK. Money is of course not needed, what is needed are more personnel and helicopter, things that you can't have too much in a disaster caused by a hurricane the size of France.

For running Humvees, no and don't forget European super cars getting 8 miles per gallon. Petroleum is for more than just the production of gasoline, it is used in the production of literally hundreds of products, such as every single plastic. We're in need of crude oil because one of our major sources has just been cut off and much of our refining ability has been knocked out, I think nine refineries are in Louisiana.

It's not that we don't see other's point of view, it's that we don't have to, it's the same with any country in our position.

And to lighten the mood->
http://simcityneworleans.ytmnd.com/
http://nokatamaricleanup.ytmnd.com/

Well, I hate to have to admit it, but there is nothing to add, or well, anything I could add wouldn't make the view brighter.

Unfortunately, we all will have to suffer dearly as a consequence of recent and long term US foreign, economic and ecologic policies.

But keep one thing in mind, even if we all get struck in this desaster:

Every behemoth falls some day!

Let us just hope its not going to last so much longer.

@MajorDiarr
Sorry I didn't see your post, since you posted quite at the same time.
Well though I respect your view, I have to say that not all your quoted information regarding the calamity in New Orleans seems to be correct. Its mainly that kind of information that a very goverment related TV-Station would broadcast. From, let me say, the few reasonable information sources, the story 'sounds' and 'looks' quite different.

One more thing:
If you think that the worldview of the "actual" US government, "ruling by ignorance" is something wise to do, you should consider if it is worth bearing that stigma that this policy has brought upon already too many US-citizens.

As an American let me respond to a few comments:

Undated: You don't like America's policy on some issues? Well, as an American I don't agree with some of our policies as well. I also don't agree with some policies other nations make. It's wonderful to not only live in countries where we can express our opinions but also have a vehicle to communicate globally. However, I do take exception to negative comments about America's foreign aid and I don't understand your comments about allies.

ftranschel: You mention the amount of people dying in Africa which is a horrible problem. But let me ask you ... which nation sends more money to Africa (both private and public) than America? Which country has had their soldiers killed and bodies dragged through the streets when trying to deliver food in Africa?

(side note: no amount of foreign aid will come close to solving the problems in Africa. What will? Here's a true fact: "Their has never been a war between two nations in which each nation had a McDonald's franchise." While it might seem to be a random fact there is an economic truth to it which is a key for Africa. Unfortuantely, that truth indicates Africa is still a long ways off from catching up.)

Mentat: you state that we will all have to suffer from American policies. If America makes poor decisions then it can affect the entire world. Of course, many of our good decisions have made the world a better place, don't forget that. Also, just a quick glance at history shows how the world has paid a price for the poor decisions of other nations as well. It's not hard to look a short distance into the future to possible see how poor decisions by North Korea, Iran, or Venezuala could have a horrible impact on the world.

I'm not trying to say that America is perfect. On the contrary, America has plenty of warts but it's not fair to simply point out the negatives without balancing it with the good. America, like another other nation in the world, has made decisions you can agree with or disagree with. If you look throughout history you see that whenever a country was dominate it made decisions which were not in the best interest of other nations.

Mentat, you also make a comment Every behemoth falls some day! You're exactly right. A hundred years, two hundred years, maybe three hundred years from now America may no longer be the dominate country in the world. But who will be? China has perhaps the best chance to dominate the world economically if not also millitarily. Unless they change the way they do business that might not be a good thing. Be careful of what you wish for. America may diminish but you might not like who replaces us.

I really think you all should look at the fact that the matter. The US could not go into Iraq with out the assistances of 37 other countries including the ones a lot of you all live in. So your governments must have felt some of the views the US are shared. The war in Iraq no matter what reason we sent our coalition of troops over there for has been done, but over all we removed a murder of head of state in that country. I will not bring history in to this part because we all know about what has gone down in the past.

Yes, the US is in trouble but that is because we made ourselves too dependant to other nations; due to the upper class wanting to stuff their pockets, and they let this country slip in the toilet. Our government pays its companies with tax breaks to move into other countries and start production there up until a short time ago. That is wrong to do that I don’t care if the rest of the world sees this as be a greedy nation in the past for keeping our production in house. Now look what it has caused the US. we are in debt to the rest of the world and living on borrowed money with nothing to back those funds. Is it too late for this country to fix things here? I don’t think so; if the US stops handing out our jobs and take a back sit on world affairs, and we drop the UN rebuild ourself. But that is where the other foot drops because it will be the way things were in the 1950’s-60’s before we took the Vietnam on. that leaves the rest of the world to deal with their own issues, and then we go back to no giving a rats’ ass about it. Most conflicts the US has been in since Ronald Reagan was in office were requested by the UN minus a small few.

I can not stand the fact that the US looks like the big brother to the rest of the world, but you all have to face fact the only reason it is like that is because we have the power to do so, but again it is normally upon the request of the other nations in the UN to have us go out and police areas.

Next stop in the world’s history is in the other two hot spots on the globe; Iran and the Soviet Union/Chinese there is a lot going on over in these countries that the rest of the world needs to be worried about other then the US going into Iraq. I tell you what let the US stay out of those issues, and we let the rest of the world deal with them.

Why is oil costing the world so much now these days?? Well you have to look on what the Iraqi government was doing with its’ oil other then the (Oil for Food) program. Like trading weapons getting assistance from the French to start a nuclear program, (may this had been for an energy program or not.) buying up Soviet tanks and so on. The oil was flowing through those channels and keeping costs down. Allowing the world to be happy, but it could have lead into a larger problem further down the road. If we left Iraq to continue.

As far as air pollution goes; you should really turn your head to the right and look and China and India first before you decide to look to the left at the US, Canada, and South America.

“WAR ON TERRORâ€￾ easily correctable by letting us go into Pakistan, and have the rest of the world turn a blind eye for about 3 weeks.

No offence to you but I really have to giggle when the Irish point fingers about any government issues outside their own since you all have been killing each other over the last 50 years over the (British Government of Ireland Act)

In Final:
If the rest of the world wants the US to close its doors on its’ self; I for one would not have a problem with that. We can stop all exporting our goods, and stop our “joke percentage of world aideâ€￾ (as the original poster quoted) toss out any illegal/non citizens out of the country. Let us know I’m sure we would be happy to oblige you.

I received the following around the time of 9-11. It's a Canadian's view of America which I've saved over the years. I thought it might be appropriate to post this here, for what it's worth.

TRIBUTE TO AMERICA

The following, from a Canadian newspaper, is worth sharing. Its subject is "America: The Good Neighbor".

Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:

"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States. When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped. The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans.

I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon-not once, but several times-and safely home again.

You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble.

Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake. Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those."

Stand proud, America!

Every nation makes decisions for their own, so does the US. I don't complain on decisions the US makes for their internal matters, so doesn't anyone. I mean, they are clearly good in making policies and decisions to deal with internal disasters and other things.

What I do complain about, which is the same as other people complain about, is that they consider themselves as the "Police-force" of the world. They make decisions for other countries and they make decisions for the world. I find the points of ftranshel to be perfect.

The United States had no right to invade Afganistan OR Iraq. By doing so, they dragged numerous other countries into the fight who had absolutely NO business being there.
Furthermore, by doing so, they allowed the conflict to escalate only further. Talk about people dying: the dead in Madrid and London would still be alive if only Bush did not attack Iraq. While we are at it: Iraq is even in more chaos now than it was when Saddam reigned. You can say about the guy whatever you want, it was a killer and a monster, but he did know how to maintain order.
Trying to force democracy on those people also is a mistake. Democracy simply doesn't work there. They cannot even agree on a simple constitution without blowing each others' brains out.

To conclude, I have the perfect example of American arrogance right in this thread. For some reason it is considered wrong or weak or whatever to call in aid when a disaster occurs. Well, it's not. Perhaps if the US did call in for aid and acknowledged that they cannot do EVERYthing, there would have been a lot less casualties. No one is going to laugh because they ask for help to save lives!

Let me back up MajorDiarr here. We have three major cable news networks (and countless related new services) and they are all private. America doesn't have state-run news (if that's what you were meaning). Just about all of the points MajorDiarr brings up I heard. It seems that the Louisanna state government make some bad mistakes but it's hard to really blame them too much.

Many try to compare the response to this disaster to that of 9/11 but there's really no comparision. 9/11 was a few blocks in New York. This hurricane is an entire region flattened and a large city under water. In 9/11 most of the victims were dead. With this hurricane most of the victims are still alive and needing medical attention, food, water, and shelter. There's also a hundred times more victims to deal with. Dealing with 9/11 was relatively easy compared to this.

there are a lot of uneducated/misguided/populist views being spouted in here on both sides of the argument.

for example, the war on terror. a lot of people are confusing the actions in afghantistan, which had just about the entire worlds popular support, and Iraq, which didn't. the yanks HAD to go into aghanistan after 9/11. there are no two ways about it. the bluring of the lines in regards to Iraq has been deliberate. link Iraq to al-qaeda is tenuous at best, and an absolute lie at worst. you can support one military action without necessarily supporting the other, as most countries did.

it's worth noting in regards to Iraq, that at the time of the invasion, the real nuclear threat to the world was emanating from Pyongyang, not Baghdad.

the other misconception seems to be on economics. a popular saying amongst US money traders is "if we screw up, you pay for it" in reference to the trading of the greenback. and it's true, but that's hardly something you can blame the yanks for, is it? you can criticise american foreign policy all you like - and there is plenty there to be critical of - but it's hardly fair to criticise american economic policy on the basis of it adveresly effecting other nations who have CHOSEN for years to ride on the back of the strength of the american economy.

if you want to criticise american economic policy, do so because the current government is spending more on building mechanised infantry than on provding education, medicine, employment and suitable accomodation to poverty stricken areas in L.A. and New York; rather than doing so because american inflation means that it costs more to fill the car with petrol in france than it used to...

A few comments for Centurion_VarDin: I would say that not only does the US consider ourselves to be the police-force of the world, the world also does. That isn't a one way street. If there's a crisis and we send troops part of the world complains. If there's a crisis and we don't send troops the other part of the world complains.

We didn't have the right to invade Afganistan or Iraq? By what measure does a country gain that right? Does a country have to be attack first before invading? See 9-11. Check. Does a country need approval form the United Nations? Check. What other requirements are there?

The dead in Madrid and London? Unless Spain and England are willing to call for the destruction of Israel and change religion to Islam, they would be on the terrorists target list. We certainly did not need to remain at the receiving end of the terrorist attacks. I'm certain that if Romulus was they wouldn't sit idly by to receive the punishment without taking the offensive.

Setting up a new government is not an easy task yet Afganistan already has a new constitution and had free elections. That's amazing in such a short period of time. In Iraq things are very difficult. I believe democracy and freedom can work but it will be a long and painful process. The difficulty in creating a constitution shouldn't surprise anyone. When America was coming up with our constitution the original states had fewer differences and a much more stable situation than Iraq and we didn't get this far this fast. Just the fact that they are getting this close is amazing.

I don't understand your "perfect example" of American arrogance. I do not know if America asked for help but I do know it has been offered by many nations and some has been accepted. I have no idea what type of aid was offered and what was accepted.

just on this in regard to Katrina - i know Australia is sending over a couple of hundred SES personnel, and local charities have already raised over $10m in specialised funding (food, clothes etc).

i'd be absolutely stunned if countries with similarly close working relationships with the US (uk, canada etc) haven't done something similar...

As an American nothing has ever hit me as had as 9/11 did. Not knowing what would happen next ... living near a major airport and seeing no planes in the air for several days ... I have many emotions and memories from that day and the following days which will stay with me forever. Many of those emotions are not pleasent and therefore I don't enjoy reliving them.

One thing I do remember from those days were pictures from around the world of people in other nations who were weeping with us. As an American we often only hear critical opinions about us from other nations ... and that's fine. Again, everyone has their opinions. If we all agreed it would be a boring planet.

I'll always remember 9/11 when America was hurting more than perhaps any other time ... and the world wept with us. As an American, that's one memory of 9/11 I never want to forget.

Could you tell my why the USA can afford to _maintain_ up to 20 dictatorships in Africa's poorest countries? Can you tell me why it's no problem for you to see that those dictators use this money to buold up their regime instead of giving people food?



That's right. But that's no reason to stop making *good* decisions and to not listen to what friends have to say:

America (read: poeple *and administration*) has become comfortable about drawing money where they have no imagination of. From Irak, everyday there are pictures in the news. There are Americans dying. From Uganda or Zimbabwe (choose what you like) nothing is what keeps people's pain present because you don't like to see people starve while running to MacDonalds.

What you indeed have forgotten about is to talk to peoples as they deserve it. First thing was to "instruct" the Irak people to become democrats. This can't work as they have no idea what democracy means. The very only thing to show them and the world is to exemplify this to them through your own life. Now you have a problem: Irakies don't like your way of life. It's kinda ironic that's part of a well-run democracy to be able to not like something, but you won't accept it as that issue regards you.

Now you can type your "you're not american"-phrase if you like. I tell you something: You tought us democracy after WWII, and were thankful for that. You kinda protected us against the former soviet union, and were thankful for that. But sixty years have past since WWII and 15 years have past from the fall of the Berlin wall. I think it's high time to gain the right to tell America if we don't like some of their policies like you did with us _for years_ and we always did accept this critique and thought about it. That's something *friends* should be able to do, and I must say I regard the American people as friends no matter which way some of them may think of me.

ftranschel - there are som many things wrong with that post, i don't even know where to begin...

Please try to.

Lemme just preface this by saying i'm no fan of the current administration of my goverment. I could go on for pages about policies I have strong objections to...now with that said...in regard to the original post..

First remember whatever problems anyone might have with the US we are not the borg,We are not all of one mind...the last 2 presidential elections we were split right right down the center..so if u don't like the our president,hey 50% of americans would agree.Power sways back an forth, the republicans control 2 (soon to be all 3) segments of the gov...but it'll sway again down the road.

As far as katrina is concerned we didn't ask for aid it was offered we accepted.(from the U.N. and Nato at least as i understand) Many other countiries have offered which is great.Undated lemme get this straight though...we would be wrong to ask?...we're talking an area of destruction the size of Great Brition..now couple that with a major city being underwater,you tell me what country on earth could handle that?...Now couple that with the fact that the US has stepped up to the plate to help others in disasters.

Others brought up africa...just keep in mind the great powers in europe play as much or more a part in the mess that continent has become..the french protection of rawandan butchers jumps 1st to mind..

Lastly (as this is getting long) i'm alittle fed up with this european attitude that america is somekinda plague that must resisted...do we make mistakes?...sure we do, dozies...just like every major power when they had there time in the sun.(brition and the middle east for example)..try to keep in mind in the last 100years america has stepped up twice to the plate to save the whole of europe...500,000 dead americans...not fighting to save their homes but someone else's...just something to keep in mind or is it like the old saying "yeah that's fine but what have you done for me lately?"

I see your point, and I fully agree not everything is bad.

But WHAT THE HELL is wrong to say "there are things that are really GOING WRONG"???

heh... here goes...


ok, firstly, this fails to address northtexan95's statement. the fact remains that the US do have a presence in Africa - and it is generally requested by the nations who benefit from that presence. Somalia is a good example. The Somali government - as deficient as it was - actually requested the presence of US marines there. That in and of itself DOES NOT equate to the US supporting the Somali regime, which you seem to imply it does.

Furthermore, I think you'd be hard pressed to name your "20 dictatorships in Africa's poorest countries" that the US 'maintains' as you imply. The biggest criticism of US foreign policy you could level in regards to Africa would be the fact that they haven't done enough to instill a sense of law in certain countries where tribalism is still rampantly enforced at the end of a gun. The problem here is, if the US or UN did take a hardline approach in order to eradicate this problem (which would btw, help ensure that reielf aid and food reaches the people it is supposed to), they would be criticised for ignoring the needs of the dying poeple on the continent in the short term because of the big picture approach to the long term. We live in the era of the sound byte, and having some poor schmo on the tv pointing out that millions of people are dying per day due to starvation and aids means that thinking of more than short term is difficult to do without attracting massive amounts of criticism.


and this where your argument runs into real problems. define a *good* decision? good for whom?

He might be nothing more than a village idiot, but George W. Bush was elected to govern the United States of America. Nothing more. 9/11 was all about fundamentalist islamic perception that the US is too involved in trying to dictate policy to the rest of the world. It is a critcism that is at times justifiable. Yet here you are stating that they aren't thinking enough about other countries when making policy. Where is the line in the sand?

I know exactly what you are referring to with this statement - the popular opposition to the invasion of Iraq. But let's not get the lines too muddled - foreign policy is about more than Iraq, mistake such that it was.


I'm not quite sure what this supposed to mean. To me it screams the politics of envy (ie. take from the rich and give to the poor). I'm sorry, but in capitalist societies this line of thinking does not work. It's pretty much a lean towards base socialism (nee communism). You need to generate wealth in order to support the poor. So the line of thinking that a resource rich nation should give a definable amount of what it has in order to prevent guilt over images of millions starving whilst they indulge at their local Macca's everyday is somewhat simplistic.

either that, or your thought sounded better in German than it translated into English.


This is a total misunderstanding of the realities of life in Iraq under Hussein. Look, I was principally opposed to the yanks invasion of Iraq (and to our eternal shame, the part the Australian government played in it). But the fact is, once done, it was pointless to either a/ subjugate the nation as a province under US rule; or b/ allow another dictator to take charge and continue to milk what should be a wealthy nation, dry. the only option was to try and instill a form of government that has been proven to be viable of the last two thousand years throughout the civilised world - democracy.

to say that the iraqis had rejected democracy as witnessed by their patent dislike of the US is a fallicy to say the least. throughout their history, iraq has been governed by dictators or theocrats. democracy had never been given a chance to take root.

now, the real criticism of the US plan, was the stubborn refusal to accept that this wasn't going to work like the Marshall Plan or the Truman Support proposition. that in Iraq, there has never been a seperation of government and church, yet in a succussful democracy, the two cannot be inetricably intertwined. so allowing mullahs and imams to come to the fore and lead on a 'democratic' religious front is always going to be doomed to failure. sooner or later, another dictator or fundamentalist theocrat is going to rise above the cream and assume power when you build from such a base.


and now for the history lesson. one that you shouldn't need. democracy wasn't installed in germany for the benefit of the german people sans WWII. it was installed to stop the advance of communism throughout eastern europe, and also to protect the rest of western europe from any further threat of german militancy. after all, WWII was merely a direct consequence of WWI. after the signing of the treaty of versailles to conclude WWI germany was left in a state of barely being self sufficient. the war reparations to france alone were crippling the german economy, and as a result, the great depression, and then the great inflation ensued. it was hitler who mobilised the country by refloating the mark, and revitalising the countries industrial base - unfortunately he did so by increasing the demand for military supplies and ordinances, although there were other industrial advances, such as the mass production of the volkswagen - in order to provide employment and the much needed stabilisation of the economy.

now, that we can put your criticism into some correct historical context, you will see that just because an action appears to be in the best interests of one party, doesn't mean to say that it isn't in the best interests of another. like i said, the installation of democracy had nothing to do with the welfare of the german people, and almost everything to do with stabilising the rest of europe - especially against the perceived advancing threat of communism. looking at iraq as part of a bigger picture in the middle east, what do you think would happen if history repeats itself? sixty years ago it would have been unimaginable that nations around germany such as czechoslovakia, romania and poland would ever become free democracies. so what happens if, in twenty years, countries like iran for example are fully functioning democracies thanks to the seeds laid in Iraq over the last twelve months. it's not impossible. after all, democracy went east in 91 when the wall came down...

so yes, countries DO have the right to question American foreign policy, but certainly not for the reasons you've tried to outline.

There is one more requirement, northtexan. That is attacking the people who made the agression. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. Iraq did not attack the united states. The Islam did not attack the United States. We all know who did it. Al Qaida did. The major problem is that Al Qaida is not a country or state you can declare war to. I acknowledge that is a difficult situation which can not be solved that easily. But just because there is no good way to attack those who attacked you doesn't mean you can just attack someone else at random.



If England and Spain did not pledge support to the US like France and Germanny did, there would have been no attack whatsoever. I fail to see what Israel has to do with it. Indirectly it does, of course, since they are allies of the US.

Please Scatter, there is no need to give us Europeans, history lessons, thank you.

Ok, this has become just like I feared it would end up.

It clearly shows, that Europe and the US have quite a different view on the recent historic events. Many a point has been brought up by both sides, but rarely any argument.

I for myself, have spent quite a long time in the US and do have some dear friends there. Nevertheless I can not deny that from my view, which is of course humanistic, social, environmental and purely intellectual (these are quite all things, you get actually accused/hated for by the majority in the US), the US has lost its democracy for good. The country is at war, thats something, we europeans sometimes forget, and it doesn't care whom it is going to mow down, if it just gets its revenge for all attrocities that have been brought upon them. And it is a war, they can not win, since the problem is, the real enemy of the US is the US itself. Decades(especially those with republican presidents) of horrific errors in the foreign policy have made the US-citizien one of most hated beeings in this world! Although a completly failed social policy has pushed many people in the US into poverty, creating beeings, without rights or chances to improve their lifes. While in the same time a very small number of people have increased their wealth incredibly. Regarding environmental policies, I will just say a few things: 1.) The US consumes more energy then the rest of the world. 2.) Kyoto-protocol! 3.) The US is also responsible for most of the greenhouse(CFC) gases that get produced and used, while most european countries have stopped using them at all.

Well, I am sure we all agree on, that the US has had a good impact in the past on the development of this world and its fragile balance.
But please my friends from the US, open your eyes, your actual government does not only threaten this world, its on the way to destroy it, alltogether with everything we had politicaly achieved in the past 60 or so years.

For all of us: I guess we have to accept, that democracy is on the brink of existance and the enire world as such (in its existence) is on the brink of destruction.
And if we don't work on those issues seriously, most of us(or our decendants) won't live the day, when earth peoples unit and finally make it as a space faring race. Or even worse, humankind never might be able to do so.

One more thing: Of course its not just the US that is responsible for everthing bad that got listed in the recentr posts. But the US is the western societies FLAGSHIP, and if this ship doesn't turn arround, we might all be forsaken.

Right, and here it's getting even worse! The war on Iraq is the one thing, the talks about "the axis of evil" (dunno if I retranslated the german meaning of it correctly) is a quite unjustifiable statement more to the worse. Threating sovereign countries equally is one of the basic priciples of the global society, one should think. international *respect* is something that has really pissed of more people than just those of the referred "evil countries". As I said: You can tell a country: We don't like certain issues. But you *never* may say: "Asshole, your stupid politics is wrong..."

Referring to "good decisions": I agree decisions are a matter of the definition of it's ethic relations and the point of view. But taking decisions for others, especially sovereign countries is something that deeply disrespects the american way of life (as I understand it). I mean, you just cannot jump into a country because you don't like it's head of state. It doesn't matter, if it's a dictator, a democratic president or even a king - as long as your reasons are blank and not justified by the UNO.



Be sure, I'm not a socialist. All I wanted to say is that the American policies have become an expression of the US' decadence. It's nothing but that which lead to the situation where you did not care of Saudi-Arabian problems with *your* culture and laws as long as the oil was flewing.



Now if some other country comes to the US, subjugates it and "tries" their favoured system of state with the US-citizens, *WOULD YOU LIKE IT*? I guess no. No, because the US *favours* democracy as their system, and: No, because *you* want the indefeasible right of choosing your form of government yourself. I think the paternalism of Iraq's people in this issue fully disqualifies any thought of you about wether it is right to "bring democracy" to a sovereign country. I have to give in: It *may* be right, but it is not yours, nor mine, nor Mister Bush's issue to decide. To put it a bit more strikingly: They don't want your freedom, they want their own.



Here is something Platon, one of the first democrats said: "A people always has the form of government (or: leaders) it deserves."
This refers to a certain idea of man, an enlightened one, which Iraq's people certainly do not share. As long as they dont follow Kant's "sapere aude" they simply cannot understand what the US tries to tell them.



Be sure you don't need to patronize me on my own history. The fact that the Germans benefitted from the American installation of democracy in Western Germany was as inevitable as the fact that nowadays Germany is the world's top-exporter, and thus the wealth it brought to us. I know that communism-paranoia was a real problem in those days, but to simplify it to that dimension, which does not regard the people it affects is too easy, even today. Life is always about people, not about states. After all it's people, states consist of, but it's people as well, Al-Qaida consist of. To mix it up so your guns have a target is *NOT* a good solution.



That's perfectly right, and that's perfectly okay. The only thing about that is that the US is so arrogant to not care about "the other party". That's something very basic in every liberalistic society. Have you ever thought about Kant's ethics and it's cathegoric imperativ? "Act always the way that the maxime of your will can be the basis of a general law." This implies that you decide about an action your about to do from *every* perspective. And that is something I strongly accuse the current US-administration of.



Is it your opinion that it is right to interfere with internal affairs of a sovereign country, because you think it will change it to your favour?

I agree that the breakdown of the Soviet Union was a great victory of democracy and capitalism, but it was not achieved through "cowboy"-diplomacy tried to repacify the middle east but a true and veritable paradigm in germany and other countries. This reminds me of the fact that in these days Poland celebrates the founding of the east-block's first worker's union which shows: They managed to break their government on their own. THEY DID NOT NEED YOUR TANKS AND YOUR DEAD SOLDIERS.



Everyone has the right to question your motives as you apparently proclaim the right to interfere into foreign affairs of sovereign states. I'm repeating this as you apparently don't care about this.

ftranschel - i'm not american fyi.

i'm an australian with left wing tendencies. i just tend to think it seems to be too easy to blame all of the worlds ills on the US. even if they are being governed by a strategically shaved monkey who has been taught to talk...

Scatter, I don't care where you come from. You apparently share some opinions I don't share. That's the reason I oppose.

the problems of youth show themselves here
Iraq was justified for the simple reason it got rid of saddam, never mind the millions he had killed.
Afganistan, they were told Arrest over all al`queda terreriosts and hand them over, they said no, they should have said yes. this country is now a democracy.
do not say the people of the middle east cannot handle democracy, the turks have managed quite well, and yes turkey is a muslim country.
why should america sign up to kyoto? it would damage the economy of their country, and by knock on effect the whole worlds.
What most europeans seem to forget is that they should support america in the war on iraq, just because the leaders of france and germany were joined at the hip with saddam does not make the war wrong. the attack on london would have happened without our involvement in iraq anyway, because these people want the world to be an islamic state, so what a wonderfull thing to look forward to should the us collapse, wake up and smell your bullshit people, we need america, a lot more than the yanks need us.

did bush get in through democracy... i think not, so how can they preach what they dont do?

well yes he did, he won the popular vote this time round.

That sounds okay to me. The problems I see come from the fact the UN did not conclude the same and the "proof" the US posed at the UN were faked.



That's quite okay as well.



That's something I don't agree with. Turkey has some issues unresolved which I generally concern as undemocratic. They still have the death penalty [1] and they don't care as much as necessary about human rights[2].



Soon there will be no world left you could have an economy on. That's the reason. If you don't care, just go on wasting time to turn the environmental shift around.



I noumerously stated what made the war wrong. You don't have to share my opinion anyway.



Nah, that's what the propaganda keeps telling you. Those terrorists want to break of the American interests in the Middle East (read: Their exploitation of the oil fields), and their interference within their culture. In their perspective veryone not supporting them is gainst them. You should better not make the same mistake.

[1] Thus, I don't consider the US as a perfect democratic and humain country.

[2] I know some Kurds which were persecuted in Turkey just for being Kurds. If this is democratic, we should start to hunt down Americans.

the kurds were prosucuted in turkey because they were demanding a free state.
whats wrong with the death penalty?
global warming has happened in the past, without our help, i fail to see the world being destroyed because of it. this is just ecological crap to scare the ignorent.
please don`t tell me whats propaganda and what is not, all the imams who support terrorists have stated they want the world ot be an islamic state.