Yuku free message boards

Ok, bit by bit.

Quote:

---

Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia, and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

---

Well that really depends on what you mean by having stood by you. Majorities in mostl of those countries opposed recent American foreign policy. If the writer means countries where governments supported the US, then you can probably discount Spain whose current government campaigned against the war and probably the UK where most members of the government opposed the war and opposition support was required in order for Blair to get the authority to invade Iraq.

Quote:

---

The other list contains everyone not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

---

I'd love to see what figures that writer was working with. Besides, I'm sure breaking an infinite number of international agreements and effectively starting a trade war with almost every nation on the planet would work out real well for the US.

Quote:

---

The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hell-holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.

---

OK, leaving aside the fact that the US gives only a tiny, tiny percentage of it's GDP in foreign aid and that most of that goes not to third world hell holes but to allies in the form of military aid and that the money in question is usually given only on condition that the country that receives the aid promise to spend the donations on American produce, the net effect would be that more innocent people would die and the corrupt dictators and polititions would continue to live in luxury.

Now, if the US was to lead a charge against corrupt third world governments, I'd be in favour of that. If it were to take the money it gives to dictators and tyrants and give it to NGOs working in those countries, I'd applaud. I'd be especially glad if it stopped supporting corrupt tyrants just because it is politically convenient.

Quote:

---

Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.

---

What is with the Francophobia? I never really understood it. Majorities in almost every nation, major and minor, on this planet opposed the invasion of Iraq. The French government, like many others, correctly analysed that Iraq was unlikely to have enough (if any) WMD to justify a military invasion at the time that the US wanted to invade, and people start calling (Belgian) french fries Freedom Fries and French Toast (German) becomes Freedom toast. Dictionary.com should have al link to those stories on its page entries for 'petty' and 'ignorant'.

And besides the Francophobia, here is what gets me. The many countries that opposed the war never declared war on the US. The governments did not urge followers to burn American flags in the streets.

They simply disagreed with American policy.

What the hell is wrong with that?

It isn't as though the US was ever in danger. This was not a case where the China or Russia invaded the US homeland and France, Germany and the rest of Europe decided to remain neutral. The US decided to launch a pre-emptive war against a third world county before allowing every other method to be exhausted to the satisfaction of most countries. And then the American people feel shocked when most countries disagree?

Why the hell do Americans feel betrayed? The US has disagreed with other nations many times, be it on Palestine, the right to food, Kyoto or the International Criminal Court. And yes, such decisions mean that people's opinions of the US lower. But I have never seen anything as juvenile as the Francophobia that engulfs America in response to a difference of opinion on a single matter.

Large portions of the American population need to grow up and realise that friends and allies can disagree. And if you doubt that, then try and make a list of countries on this planet who did not offer aid to the US after the New Orleans disaster. Did France and Germany hold back on account of a policy difference on Iraq or even in response to the juvenile actions of American polititions? No.

How anyone can think that allowing innocent unfortunate people to suffer and die because they or their government disagreed with George Bush's decision to invade Iraq is beyond me. Do they intend to withdraw police protection for Americans that opposed the war also? How would Americans feel, if they had been unable to deal with the fallout of the New Orleans disaster and their calls for help were ignored because of American policy on Iraq?

Quote:

---

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.

---

Trust me, if you wanted to solve American social problems, you'd want a lot more that what it gives in foreign aid. Try taking some cash from that ridiculous military budget.

And the threats seem kind of impotent, given that Bin Laden is alive and well 4 1/2 years after 9/11.

Quote:

---

Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France, or maybe China.

I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany, and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bon chance, mes amis.

---

Again, a total confusion of the Iraqi invasion and terrorism. Iraq had fuck all to do with Al Queda. Bin Laden was as likely to attempt an assasination of Saddam as he was to ally himself with him.

Did France Germany or Russia oppose the US invasion of Afghanistan? Who exactly has troops there now? And trust me, if the US withdrew from NATO, it would make a lot of people happy.
The US will not withdraw from NATO because it wants to control it. Why else is it so opposed to the ERRF?

Did France withold information about terrorist threats to the US? No. In fact, the US attempted to use intel gathered by French sources in order to convince the world to support it.

I really can't relate to this at all.

Quote:

---

I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch you're precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York

---

Oh right, now all the foreigners are 'creeps'. This just gets more and more strange. New York's parking situation is an important factor in this guy's view of multi-lateralism. That should show you that he isn't all there.

Quote:

---

A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change.

Mexico is also on List 2. President Fox and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra tank and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put em? Yep, border security. So start doing something with your oil.

Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.

---

What? This just reminds me of a kid who shot his fellow students about a year ago in the US. He had made a crappy flash animation about killing people.

You guys really shouldn't be letting people like this kid vote. This is playground politics.

Quote:

---

We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska - which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there. They care.

---

There isn't anything here to analyse or criticise. Canada didn't support the US invasion of Iraq so you're going to ignore environmentalist concerns? What a load of horseshit!

Quote:

---

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, "darn tootin."

---

No shit! Nobody wants to stop the US looking after its own people. This kid is just inconsistent. He supports invading Iraq, but he thinks that the US should take an isolationist stance? Explain that one. He thinks that the US should not be interested in spreading peace and democracy around the globe, but if other countries decide to act in accordance with such a policy, he wants to punish them?

Quote:

---

Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America. It is time to eliminate homelessness in America. It is time to eliminate World Cup Soccer from America.

---

Yes because the French are pissed off that America helped defeat the Nazis? Nobody has ever opposed the US making the place a better place, it is when it supports terrorists and tyrants that enmity is gained.

And 'World Cup Soccer', what the hell? There are hundreds countries who'd love to host the event because of the billions it brings to an economy. He is annoyed because foreigners give money to the US?

Quote:

---

To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thanks guys. We owe you and we won't forget.

---

Except of course that our friend has already forgotten the times that France, Germany and others supported the US. What he means is that he'll like countries so long as they blindly follow American leadership. If they dare to disagree, then they become his enemy.

Quote:

---

To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic.

---

What can you say to somebody so deluded? All of a sudden, he seems to think that a secret Arabic superpower will emerge and conquer any country that hadn't be bombing the shit out of Arabs for the past decade? Not likely.

Quote:

---

Even though Germany gets millions every year from the US, they seem to hold us with major contempt.

---

And you get nothing from Germany? Think about that for a moment. I'm sure that you've visited now and again. That money is leverage. And moreover, I think you need to appreciate the difference between extending the American sphere of influence and spreading democracy. Granted there is some overlap, but spreading democracy in Eastern Europe weakened the Soviet Union which strengthened the US. It wasn't really about altruism.

And what makes you think that Germans hold the US in contempt? Sure most Germans hold the current US foreign policy in low regard, that is entirely different from somehow hating America or Americans. If we can make a distinction between your foreign policy and America itself, surely you can too? Check out the PEW global attitudes survey from 2004 if you don't believe me.

Quote:

---

As far as alienating the rest of the world, they are doing it to us, we Americans as a whole have a very poor reputation in the world today. Maybe they might come to appreciate us a little more when we pull out our support, they take it for granted right now.

---

Look at that survey Frank. I've got most of the relevant stats here. plainofpillars.blogspot.c...rance.html
( I seem to have published the rough draft by mistake, but the figures are still there)


You seem to think that the majority of people in the majority of nations are all wrong. Truth is, non-US citizens seem to know more about US foreign policy that you guys do.

If you look at the PEW survey, America's image abroad disintegrated because of US actions. This isn't about hating America, it is about not supporting American policy.

What you suggest is not going to happen, largely because US interventions often (though not always) in order to further American interests. The US supports an anti-democratic tyrant in Pakistan and then invades Iraq claiming that it wants to nurture democracy in the region. Why do you think that is? Why not invade Pakistan? Or Burma? Hell why not just withdraw military support for dictators worldwide and see what happens?

From what I've seen, the goal of American policy has been to spread American influence by any means, even if it means supporting tyranny.
Friendly dictators are ok, democratically elected leaders that oppose US interests are not. Of course, it isn't that simple. Presidents need to get elected. The views of potential voters are taken into consideration. That is the saving grace of the US system.

That is how it looks to us. So you can hardly blame us if we regard the good things the US does with a certain indifference. In the end, we know that the US will only help us when it is in its interest or when enough interest can be generated from the ground up.

Frank, I wouldn't say that the piece upset me, I found the writer's ignorance more annoying than anything. I keep coming across these same old misperceptions and I'm just at a loss as to how to deal with them. If this sentiment is common in the US and based upon the same misperceptions that this writer holds, then I just don't know what to do.

The writer of that piece just managed to confuse so many different issues, that you have conclude that he'd have been better off by doing some reading before writing.

Does he not realise how much the US borrows from the rest of the world? US isolationism would have a far greater negative effect on the USA than any other nation on the planet. Where exactly does he think the cash for Bush's taxes has come from. George Bush has borrowed more from foreign governments than the previous 42 presidents combined.

He makes the common mistake in the US of assuming that it is generous to poor countries, where famine and disease reign. In truth, it isn't. Now that isn't to say that other countries are particularly generous, but the US, while coming second in gross terms, comes last percentage wise, and in terms of combating poverty and disease, it is particularly bad since most of the aid goes to the likes of Egypt and Israel in the form of weapons.

And he might well argue that we 'ungrateful jerks' might be speaking German if it were not for the US, but the same can be said of Russia, the UK and at a stretch half a dozen other countries. Are we turn a blind eye when they abuse human rights? Were we supposed to bow down to Stalin and the Soviets as a result? Should Spaniards argue that Americans should bow down to them because they defeated American natives? There just isn't any consistency in the man's arguments.

Sometimes, I'm just confused as to how Americans end up so out of touch with the sentiments of most of the world's population. When every other nation on the planet supports a move like say, banning certain landmines or the charter on the Rights of the Child, maybe even the International Criminal Court, the US government will oppose it.

In almost any other nation on this planet, being in an international minority of one on a humanitarian issue, public pressure would force the government to sign such a treaty. In the US, a slim majority (circa 2% of the world's population) will think that the rest of the world's population is wrong, that children should not have a right to food and then most frustrating of all, they actively attempt to torpedo moves to allow people the right to food.

Quote:

---

There is some legitimacy to these claims in the form of a corrupt UN, member nations misappropriate funds, they willfully and secretly break the sanctions lawfully placed on offending regimes, they reject invasion of a criminal establishment for the previous reasons, even though the offending nation has been refusing compliance of a lawful surrender agreement for more than a decade. This is all very frustrating to us.

---

Welcome to what the rest of the world has put up with for the greater part of the last century. I agree that the UN is corrupt, but don't pretend that the US has not utilised this in the past. It is pretty annoying that the US uses and abuses the UN when it wants to, but then just dismisses it as irrelevant when they cannot manipulate it. It reminds me of a time when I was younger and I was part of an under 15 soccer team. I played for a team that had a rather terrible football pitch that was slightly, though significantly slanted. One day we played a game. During the first half, we played up the hill. When half time came, it was 1-0 to our opponents. But as we began to get ready to play the second half, the opposition began to protest. All of a sudden, they thought it unfair that one should have to play up a hill. (The game was almost abandoned, but eventually they gave in and decided to play. The game ended 1-1.)

Between 1984 and 1987, just three years, the US used its veto a total of 150 times when all of the rest of the world's nations supported a resolution. So those of us (the other 95% of the world's population) who live outside the US, find it more than a little hyprocritical when Americans complain that France (gasp!) threatened to veto a US resolution, especially when most nations agreed with France. We all know that the UN is corrupt (though not as corrupt as certain interest groups in the US like to suggest), but it offers us an alternative to chaos. We all want reform, but the US is seen as an enemy of reform. The resentment that other nations feel toward the US at the UN can be seen in the ECOSOC and ACABQ affairs. Personally, I think that the use of secret ballots is needed more often.

In the eyes of most of us, the US complaining about corruption at the UN is like a prostitute complaning about promiscuity in her village while claiming to be a virgin. When most folks in town have slept with her, nobody takes it seriously. An interesting read on the matter would be former secretary general Boutros Boutros Ghali's book on the matter or the book We Did Nothing which I mentioned in the book suggestion forum.

Also, when you suggest that 'THEY' rejected the invasion because they were making money from the old status quo (and I presume by 'THEY' you mean France and Germany) what you fail to account for is that the vast majority of nations opposed the move, not just France and Germany. I know that most Americans don't 'get' that, at least that is what the PIPA report concluded, but majorities in every nation, and the majority of governments did not approve of the US decision to invade Iraq. Clearly, even in nations that had no financial interest in keeping Saddam in power, opposition to the war was powerful.

Furthermore, to argue that France and Germany opposed the move because the old status quo favoured them while ignoring the economic advantages that the US and its allies will make from their Iraqi adventure, well it just isn't being consistent. If economic factors had been at the basis of the French objections, then don't you think that the US would have resorted to bribery, as is the custom. I have never seen anything to suggest that the French were making any serious money from keeping Saddam in power at least when compared to what they were likely to make from participating, if only in name, alongside the British, the Spanish and the Australians.