Feelings about anti-American drivel

[aznyron]

All of bin Laden's comments prior to 9-11 took place during the Clinton administration. Am I to understand that Osama was still unhappy enough with US foreign policy during Clinton's administration that he began planning the 9-11 attacks, the attack on the USS Cole, attacks on US citizens around the world and the attack on American embassies in Africa?

No, we should not negotiate with terrorists.

In one of the quotes, Osama actually attempted to influence our elections. To suggest that we should listen to him and take his advice in electing our leaders is laughable.

this is a joke BIN LADEN is dead has been for years that impostor you see on TV dreamed up by the Republican party to scare voters in to voting for Bush and they will do it again in 08 I don't buy in to the B/S Bin Laden planned & had executed the destruction of the WTC now if you told me it was planned in D.Cheyney home I would buy that 100 %
terrific combo bush/cheyney oil & defense use the defense to get the oil at the tax payers expense I know I can not convince you that cool but there is no proof that Bin Laden did all those horrible things. Now think about this there 10 million dollar bounty on Bin Laden head for 7 years and no one dropped a dime on him give me a break

[jackspratt]

These idiots are jealous of the Americans, why????

!. More Freedom
2. Can speak their minds, good or bad
3. Good way of life, really it is.
4. excellent education, with out having to pay bribe money to get in an education establishment.
5. Freedom of religion
6. Freedom of speech
7. INNOCENT until proofen guilty.
8. free elections with out having to buy or bribe voters
and there is more.

They are just jealous of the us, including the extremist terrorists who can't be free like us. Terrorist who have to kill innocent child, women, old men and only look for blood. Killing is the only reason they kill.....they love blood and seeing people die....not for the purpose of religion at all.

Pop's

The "These Idiots" are IMO anyone who is anti-American. Chavez is using the anti-American attitude so he can make good friends with Cuba and Iran, especially with Iran. Iran has a leader that kept 52 hostages from an embassy captive. (it's an act of war when invading an embassy grounds, that ground is the sovereignty of the country it represents). "These Idiots" are also the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and they are anti everything that isn't worshiping Islamic religion. These are only just a few, and some who we have help in the past, then they turn and stab, not only the Americans but the British as well, in the back. Yes, we have made mistakes, and most likely continue to....Americans are human you know.

Pop's

Pop's are you seriously suggesting that everyone who is anti-American (I assume you mean the government, but it doesn't matter) is jealous of America?

Let's take, just as an example, a Dane who is anti-American.

Maybe they are firmly against the Iraq invasion, or maybe they have strong objection to US cultural imperialism, or any other reason.

Do you think that Dane has less freedom than an American, has less freedom of speech, a poorer standard of living, a deficient education system etc etc etc?

I very much doubt it, so whatever reason would there be to feel jealous. In fact the average Dane could probably point out many things in their country which is superior to the US system. Now multiply that by all the other people in other free western democracies who also dislike the US, for whatever reason (valid or not).

Let's also look at the mindset of your average extreme terrorist. I don't pretend to know what is happening inside their head, but I think it extremely unlikely they long for, or miss, the freedoms and rights you list. It is not possible to impose your way of thinking upon others of totally different upbringing and history - as GWB has learnt to everyone else's cost in Iraq.

ps the Iranian leader during the US Embassy invasion in 1979 was Ayatollah Khomeini, who died in 1989 . The current supreme leader is Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamanei.

[aznyron]

Jack it not anti American in most people minds it anti BUSH just like it is in mine & I am American & I love my country
and wish I was there with my wonderful wife. but GWB turned the world against the USA I honestly believe when a new person is living in the W/H things will get better world wide he will mend fence between many countries who dislike for Bush has caused them to be anti USA

[WBU ALUM]

What should an American president listen to from European people?

HISTORY we have quite a lot of it you know

That is pretty convoluted and vague, which tells me that you don't have much of value to tell the next American president.

I'll ask again of anyone of European descent who thinks that American presidents don't listen. What do the European people specifically have to tell the American president that will be of value in his foreign policy?

[rick]

Tonight their was a piece on TV about Ramadan in Gaza Palestine - most people there are not looking forward to it. Why? Because the israeli blockade means that only 'humanitarian' imports are allowed - i.e. food aid, some medicine and limited amounts of fuel. Supplies for factories are not allowed, electricity is sporadic, water is short, spares for machinery rarely available. As a result, 80% are unemployed the rest are mainly employed by the government there. In other words, it is a ghetto (strange, who used to be found in ghettos?). Should we be surprised if people there are radicalised and would happily tear a jew apart with their bare hands, or are willing to blow themselves up?

So, are these people dangerous to us? Can you tell me how many British citizens in Palestine have been killed by Palestinians in the last 5 years? And how many British in Palestine Israel has killed? As usual, the bodycount achieved by Israel is far higher. a number of 'accidents'. I do know that the sympathy that Israel had, say, back in the 1960's in the UK is now pretty much gone among the public. We know injustice when we see it.

Now that Tv is available to practically everyone, they can see it too. We may not like muslim fundamentalists, terrorists, taleban and suicide bombers, but they are the flowers that have thrived on this conflict. History has taught us that injustice will be repaid, with interest, unless you admit your mistakes and at least get out of the way. The British always thought they were doing a good job with our empire, but most of our subjects did not see it that way! Given the chance, most countries left pretty quick.

Most insurgencies have proved you cannot win without the people being on your side. look at the causes, and address it.

[jackspratt]

Let's start with "Don't invade Iraq" There are no WMDs, there is no established linkage between Saddam and terrorists that threaten the west (ie Al Qaeda), and Saddam does not represent a current danger to the West. He is a bad bugger, but no worse than a lot of other tyrants you have chosen to ignore.

Oh sorry! You're not going to listen then

[WBU ALUM]

Weren't European countries providing some of the intelligence that led to the belief that Saddam had WMDs?

I'm trying to find out from ambrosius, or any other European with an eye to the future (2009 and beyond), what specifically they have to tell the American president that will be of value in his/her foreign policy.

[BobHelm]

Subtlety & Moderation maybe WBU !!
The world does not need a "sabre wielding" USA administration - which is how many in the world view the Bush years.
Neither does the world need an USA administration that decides to withdraw from the world & sit behind its borders!!
In fairness the Bush administration is attempting to tackle the Korean issue in a way that should benefit everybody.
It has attempted to help resolve some of the Middle East issues in a similar way but the Palestine/Israel/Syria/Lebanon issues are not going to be solved in a few years.
Sorry to harp on about it but to start the Iraq war was a MAJOR blunder. Having made that blunder the USA & its allies could not have just "washed their hands" of it. The Armed Forces have done remarkably well over the last couple of years to start to restore some sort of order in the country, but they were badly let down by the politicians who put them in that position in the first place.
So maybe the lesson to go to the next President is that the use of economic pressure & diplomacy is maybe a longer term solution to issues but actually reaps longer lasting solutions. A by product is that it also shows the USA in a "good guy" light - but that is only a by product!!!

[BobHelm]

Weren't European countries providing some of the intelligence that led to the belief that Saddam had WMDs?

You are absolutely correct WBU. It was British Intelligence. Mr. Blair was not just Mr. Bush's most ardent supporter - he actually encouraged him to go to war. Why??? I have no idea. Maybe to try & get into the good books of the USA again. Maybe he (or rather the intelligence services) had some sort of score to settle with Saddam. One thing for sure the 'intelligence' was mighty iffy. It all came from Iraq citizens living in UK !!! Most had not been back to Iraq for many, many years & could have no more idea what was happening in the country than me. Everyone of them had an axe to grind with Saddam. However all their utterings were treated as gospel (with no 'warnings' about possible conflict of interests) in the report that was produced.

[bigwavedave]

I remember Libya was about to be one of the real baddies of the world.... I believe that diplomacy worked on gaddaffi, i know the US bombed his house but he was in a tent but i still believe this is an example of diplomacy and sanctions working...... Why not learn from this, you know gaddaffi was "the man" in the world of terrorism even more so than saddam... Something worked with him and it certainly wasnt military intervention so why cant the powers that be learn from this example and maybe use the same against say iran, N Korea, Russia, you know the famous axis of evil!!!!!

[WBU ALUM]

As I recall, only France and Russia did not want to go into Iraq, and we now know it was because they were doing business with Saddam despite the UN resolutions. Spain pulled out late when they had the train bombing and a new president.

Bob, I appreciate your effort to answer my question, but I'm looking for specifics that go beyond Iraq. Iraq is an old and tired topic that has been beaten to death. If Iraq is the only thing that Europeans have to bitch about, then I'll withdraw the question.

My biggest concern is that if the US responded as passively as so many complain that they should, that no one else will step up if necessary. A good example is the fact that the EU has just now told Russia that they do not agree with their invasion of Georgia. What took 'em so long? There didn't have to be a measured verbal response to Russia's actions. It shouldn't have taken two weeks to say "You did wrong." Will the EU do what they have to do militarily if necessary? Will the UN ever step up, or are they as useless as they appear?

[WBU ALUM]

I remember Libya was about to be one of the real baddies of the world.... I believe that diplomacy worked on gaddaffi, i know the US bombed his house but he was in a tent but i still believe this is an example of diplomacy and sanctions working...... Why not learn from this, you know gaddaffi was "the man" in the world of terrorism even more so than saddam... Something worked with him and it certainly wasnt military intervention so why cant the powers that be learn from this example and maybe use the same against say iran, N Korea, Russia, you know the famous axis of evil!!!!!

It didn't work with Iraq because France and Russia were still doing business with Iraq despite the UN resolutions. That is why both countries would not go along with the UN Security Council resolution to use military action.

[BobHelm]

The EU have dug themselves into a huge hole with Russia. Russia now provides so much of the energy resources to the EU that they just cannot afford to upset them. There is zero possibility that any armed force will be used against Russia.
But, the Georgia affair is not as one sided as some would like to paint it. Russia would claim that it has a 'war against terror' with some of its neighbours and it is entitled to protect its citizens against these terrorists by any action it deems necessary - sound familiar???
Russia rattling its sabre is certainly in response to the 'defensive shield' that the USA are talking about placing in Eastern Europe. I think that policy should be carefully examined by the next President. Not because it has upset Russia but more because I cannot understand why USA wants to waste a large sum of money on something that is of dubious benefit to anyone. Personally I would prefer the money spent on some sort of 'Manhattan project' to produce some sort of renewable energy source to reduce dependence on oil & gas.

[jackspratt]

It didn't work with Iraq because France and Russia were still doing business with Iraq despite the UN resolutions. That is why both countries would not go along with the UN Security Council resolution to use military action.

It was not just Russia and France who disagreed with the US (and others) within the UN.

When in early 2003 Spain and the UK proposed resolution 18 in the Security Council (which would have authorised the invasion), only 4 members of the Council (US, UK, Spain, Bulgaria) said they would support it. Amongst others, France, Germany, Russia, China and Pakistan would not support it.

So what happened - the Resolution was withdrawn, because in the near certainty that it failed to pass, it would have removed any pretence of legitimacy that the (intending) invaders were claiming. Instead, they decided to base their "legitimacy" on the earlier Resolution 1441.

And for the record, a number of countries were doing business with Iraq prior to the invasion (including Australia, one of the invaders). Doing business was quite OK as long as it was within the UN framework.

Finally, Spain did not withdraw from the coalition because of the Madrid train bombings. The incoming socialist government was merely meeting one of its previously announced election promises, not to participate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN_Sec ... e_Iraq_war

[WBU ALUM]

The EU have dug themselves into a huge hole with Russia. Russia now provides so much of the energy resources to the EU that they just cannot afford to upset them. There is zero possibility that any armed force will be used against Russia.
But, the Georgia affair is not as one sided as some would like to paint it. Russia would claim that it has a 'war against terror' with some of its neighbours and it is entitled to protect its citizens against these terrorists by any action it deems necessary - sound familiar???
Russia rattling its sabre is certainly in response to the 'defensive shield' that the USA are talking about placing in Eastern Europe. I think that policy should be carefully examined by the next President. Not because it has upset Russia but more because I cannot understand why USA wants to waste a large sum of money on something that is of dubious benefit to anyone. Personally I would prefer the money spent on some sort of 'Manhattan project' to produce some sort of renewable energy source to reduce dependence on oil & gas.

Yes, I understand the EU problem. By not being able to do anything but wag their finger at Russia, they have left themselves vulnerable. Frankly, I'd like to see the US pull out of Europe completely.

And yes, the excuse of Russia sounds familiar. Of course, the democratic government of Georgia is not a dictatorship murdering thousands of it's own people or financially sponsoring terrorism. It is just the Russian line of propaganda. The EU knows this, but as you've pointed out, it is of no consequence.

[WBU ALUM]

My question still remains to ambrosius, or to any other European with an eye to the future (2009 and beyond), what specifically they have to tell the American president that will be of value in his/her foreign policy.

If there is no advice about anything other than Iraq, I'll consider things to be A-OK.

[BobHelm]

No,no, no WBU not the "Financially sponsorship of terrorism" claim against Saddam again. I really thought that rubbish had been put to bed.. If an Arab country's financial support of the Palestinians can be seen in this light, then so can Americas financial sponsorship of the IRA to blow up parts of London, Birmingham, Belfast & the rest of North Ireland.
Yes Georgia does have a democratically elected parliament. But, under its constitution the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia are actually treated as separate states.
Republic of Abkhazia declared independence fron Georgia in 1992.
Republic of South Ossetia has never been an integral part of Georgia !!
Russia would claim that it sent troops at these independent countries request to aid them against aggression from their neighbour, Georgia.
Few things in world politics are simple, or black & white. I truly hope that the next President doesn't view everybody in the world as a friend or a foe and accepts that a different view from that held by him doesn't necessarily make it incorrect....

[ambrosius]

The future president of the USA should listen and cooperate on following issues:
- Global Warming -> bad name in fact we better call it Global Pollution, instead of ignoring the Kyoto agreement and only looking at short term economic benefits you will need a president with guts who will take measures which are drastically enough so our children still can live in a healthy world. This is of course an international issue wit more players then just the USA and Europe. China will be an mayor factor in the global ecological issue. But looking at the Olympic games and the measures they took against the smog in Beijing and how efficient it was I am mildly optimistic. Also because of the communism if the establishment is convinced that they have to tackle the pollution the rest of the country will (have) to follow. In Europe and even more in the USA the lobby of the industry is still to way to powerful, they sadly enough, look only at short term economic benefits. So we need a long term international ecological plan to save/preserve the world. If the USA will play solo slim again and only will look at short term economic benefits or power (f.e oil drilling in a nature reserve in Alaska) the anti-american feeling will not really diminish.

- international politics: Let diplomacy speak rather than guns. Stop helping 'unconditionally' Israel, help the Palestine and Israel people finding a real solution. The Palestine question is the root of terrorism nowadays. Those people were really threaten badly and all muslims and many others feel that this is a very great injustice. But because this is now going on for more than 40-50 years the problem has really escalated. Of course the solution will not be easy. But the USA can for example consider a boycott of Israel if they do not stop building settlements in Palestinian territory and demanding freedom for the Palestinian people. If the USA is able to help the Palestinians the anti-american feelings in the Arabic world will diminish greatly.

- World Economics: This is very linked with the global pollution, big international companies should not have that much influence anymore so they can satisfy their shareholders with monthly/yearly profits ignoring ecological and political issues. Also , and this is an internal issue in the USA, It is my opinion that president candidates can not be sponsored anymore by companies. So these companies can not have any direct influence o the president anymore.

- World poverty : The USA should give a bigger percentage of their annual budget to resolve poverty in the world. Now they are giving compared to the other countries in the West the least money. Also I foresee big problems in the USA it self with possibility of poor people radicalize against the establishment. For us in Europe it is shocking to see that there is no universal health care or social welfare system in the USA. I rather be born poor in Thailand then poor in the USA.

well this is just a start but my son (1 year 7 months) is getting annoyed and is demanding my attention....

I want to make clear I have nothing against the USA but we have to work together and take some drastic measures in order to "save' the world. We live in a global society now, ignoring others will have a negative effect.

[Guns482]

[quote]
I'll ask again of anyone of European descent who thinks that American presidents don't listen. What do the European people specifically have to tell the American president that will be of value in his foreign policy?
WBU ALUM
Well for ne most European countries have at one time or another conquered, colonised and basically helped most of the known world to some form of governemnt and in some cases education.
Now I know that from an American perspective that is useless information but take for example India, a country of some 1.2 billion, they in the main will agree that under british rule they were actually better governed, but that is history.
So what can your Eurpoean forebears tell today's ammericans, learn form our mistakes would be the main thing, which it appears the USA does not, it does not even learn from its own short lived mistakes, but there you are, no-one is perfect
So do not be so sanctimonious, your country is not even 300 years old yet.

[WBU ALUM]

ambrosius, I appreciate your response. You took a lot of time to provide some detailed thoughts.

First, the four issues you brought up are probably not things that the American public is very concerned about. For that reason, I wouldn't look for too much movement on those issues no matter who is elected the next president. Mr. Obama talks about them and Mr. McCain references them now and then, but lots of things are said on the campaign trail that never happen.

Americans are split on the Global Warming phenomenon. In fact, most probably don't believe it. I don't look for much movement there. However, most are concerned about the environment, and I look for continued good efforts in that regard.

Americans consider Israel a friend and consider the Palestinians to be the enemy. I doubt there'll be a change in alliances there. As for diplomacy, it is used in most cases when cooperation can be gotten from other countries in the region. It's working with North Korea even though NK hasn't done much to hold up their end of the agreement, and it is having a rough go with Iran due to countries continuing to do business with them. Again, cooperation is key, and Americans know they can never depend on it.

As for businesses contributing to political campaigns, it has not happened for a long time and cannot happen. As for profits, well, America is based on the economic system of capitalism. The goal will always be to make profits. Those who violate ecological laws are fined. Hell, the US can't even drill its own oil due to environmentalists.

Sorry, but I think we do enough for all countries of the world who need it. I'm not about to contribute more tax revenue to feed someone else in another country. Between government aid and private donations, Americans do their part quite well. The US is 4% of the world's population, and as you think you would rather be poor in Thailand than poor in the US, then the US must feed and take care of their own.

Again, thanks for taking the time to respond, ambrosius.