Hating Bush

Hating Bush

Europeans may have trouble carving out a common foreign policy, but most agree on one thing: Bush must go. With US elections rapidly approaching, countless Europeans are fervently seeking to sway American voters. But can their efforts really make a difference?

By Charles G. Hawley

Even in Europe, there is no escaping it. The United States presidential campaign is everywhere. Every tiny change in the polls wins a spot on the evening news and not a day goes by without coverage of the campaign. Academics regularly bash heads over the latest campaign intrigue and a flood of titles critical of Bush and the Iraq war dominate display tables in German bookstores. They are selling briskly.

One trend is clear: Europeans hate President George W. Bush. Moreover, they are appalled that a man many here see as responsible for much of the evil in the world has a good chance of being re-elected to the world's most powerful post next week. Most of all, however, Europeans are frustrated that, no matter how loudly they may groan, they can have no real influence on the outcome on Nov. 2.

"For the populace," the prominent German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote of the election, "there is no topic that is more exciting, infuriating, and more personally relevant -- but at the same time, they are convinced of the futility and uselessness of this agitation and they are waiting for results like a lamb going to the slaughterhouse."

The feeling in Europe is almost unanimous. In a September survey by the US-based Program on International Policy Attitudes, challenger John Kerry was the clear first choice in almost every European country. Seventy-four percent of Germans prefer him compared to just 10 percent for Bush. In France it was 64 to 5 percent. Holland: 63 to 6. And in Britain, Washington's closest ally in the war in Iraq, support for Bush's election is a mere 16 percent compared to 47 for Kerry. Only in Poland, likewise fighting in Iraq, did people support Bush -- by a margin of 31 percent to 26 percent.

And while the war in Iraq -- a war seen here as the geopolitical version of a bull in a china shop -- is a big part of Europe's disgust with Bush, he was a controversial figure from the start. His pull-out from the Kyoto Protocol, his backing away from the International Criminal Court and one unilateralist move after another set Europeans against him from the start.

Bush's post 9/11 pre-emptive strike policy and the perceived bungling of the Iraq war have only intensified such disdain. On this side of the Atlantic, most consider Bush a liar and a cynical power manipulator bent on world domination. The Abu Ghraib torture scandal merely cemented that growing suspicion. Unlikely as it may be, no small number of Europeans believe Bush is planning to invade Iran immediately following an election victory.

"Bush is representative of certain aspects of America that Europeans find threatening," Friederich Mielke, expert on transatlantic relations and syndicated author of a weekly column on the United States, told SPIEGEL INTERNATIONAL. "They feel threatened by a country that makes unilateral decisions, by arrogance of power with a lack of cultural finesse. Europeans are afraid of the radical and frightening toxic Texan."

Yet, as Mielke points out, Bush also strikes a deeper European nerve. He says that transatlantic relations, and US-Germany relations in particular, have steadily improved since the 1950s. By the time the Clinton administration ended, that relationship had developed into a true world partnership. But Bush's apparent disdain for Europe and especially Donald Rumsfeld's referral to Germany and France as "old Europe" changed all that.

"In the 1990s, we enjoyed having a relaxed and natural relationship of equals with the United States," says Mielke. "Bush has completely destroyed that. Rumsfeld has told us that we are no longer partners in leadership. The '90s were a Golden Age in German-American relations. That has been totally destroyed. We are now in the worst phase since the very end of World War II."

The European desperation for a Kerry victory is palpable. Following each of the presidential debates, European papers promptly and almost universally announced Kerry's rhetorical superiority. A survey released Wednesday showed even more forced optimism: 59 percent of Germans are betting Kerry will win.

There have also been a number of practical attempts to influence the vote. "Vote 44," a project founded in Europe and dedicated to encouraging the 525,000 Americans it estimates are living here to vote Bush out of office, has bought television spots, hung posters in cities across the continent and handed out 70 million fliers in support of Kerry. "We Europeans have a social responsibility," Matt Lahitka, founder of Vote 44's German chapter told SPIEGEL INTERNATIONAL. "The whole world is disgusted by American politics -- the politics of ignorance, of anti-freedom and anti-United Nations. We want a change."

But the most audacious anti-Bush action in Europe to date has been an action by the London daily The Guardian. Last week, the paper published the names and addresses of undecided voters in Clark County, Ohio, and encouraged its readers to mail the swing-state citizens with hints on how they should vote. The paper ended the project after 11,000 people e-mailed in asking for names of voters.

Yet in the end, of course, all Europe can do is hope. And fume about Bush.

"The worst thing for Germans," says Mielke, summing up a view that crosses many borders here in Europe, "is how you can start a war based on lies and not get fired. The country does not exhibit global responsibility. They are parochial. They do what farmers in Ohio want and say 'go to hell' to the outside world."

[General Phoenix]

Kind of makes you realize that Bush doesn't just affect us in the U.S. - like it or not, the United States is in a position of great power and influence on the world stage. I've never really liked that fact myself - I think that we've spent too much time and effort trying to affect foreign situations while ignoring some pretty major internal problems. But that's neither here nor there...

Here in Australia I have to say that for the first time ever we are watching the US elections with intense interest. And I have yet to speak to a single person who does not want Bush to loose. We know little of Kerry at all. All we care about is that he is removed from office.

And GP we also get the feeling that the powers that be in the US want to influence the entire world. How could we not when on every other US import tv show the US president is referred to as "the leader of the free world". I gotta say that this shazbots us Aussies no end whenever we hear that. He is not our leader and it offends us no end when we hear Americans refer to him as such. And by admitting this I'm not just trying to be controversial and upset the many americans on this board. Just trying to be honest with you and tell you how we feel.

John.

[p.s. Cargile]

It used to be Britain. It used be France. It used to be Spain. It used to be Italy.
Now its the United States.

[fulcrum]

All the United States are doing at the moment is leading everyone down the garden path of war and destruction.
Its tragically ironic that the deaths of 3000 people in New York and the Pentagon have lead to an estimated 100,000 deaths in Iraq, and the loss of hundreds of Tons of high explosives in the chaos that followed last years invasion.

and ya think the american people wants this war? Heck no... I didn't want it , my family and friends did not want it... but do they every listen to the american people...Nopey... I just hope he lose.

Originally Posted by Aeinc

and ya think the american people wants this war? Heck no... I didn't want it , my family and friends did not want it... but do they every listen to the american people...Nopey... I just hope he lose.

You're not alone in having to suffer that. We have the same problem. For once the Australian people were all on the same side and were against the way iraq was handled yet Howard totally ignored us supported his pal Bush.

Unfortunately in the elections we just had Howard got in again despite the backlash against him. The reason being we are in an economic high right now and the alternative party couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. The good economy is nothing to do with our government. we are just in the right part of the usual cycle.

[General Phoenix]

Well, I'm going to take great pleasure in voting for John Kerry before I go to work tomorrow.

And for you football fans, remember that whenever the Redskins lose the week of the election, the incumbent candidate ALWAYS loses the election. Here's to tradition!

Well at the moment Bush seems to be marginally ahead in the count so far. What I want to know is how come everyone I speak to has nothing but critiscm for Bush yet so many people seen to vote for him ? To us outside of the US Bush seems an illiterate, war mongering, religous zealot yet he still manages to get so much support. I've spoken to enough Americans to know they aren't that different to the rest of so where the hell are these votes coming from ??? Or is there something so scary about Kerry that the rest of the world just doesn't see. Which to be fair is entirely possible as our news services have show us very little about the man. The only articles that I have seen about him are covering those rather dodgy looking attempts to smear his war record. Which quite frankly I don't understand why the whole topic means shazbot as far as the election goes. It's not like the President is going to fighting anyone hand to hand.

Can any of our US bretheren shed some light on this ?

[skyhawk223]

Kerry is an unknown and is seen by some as changing his opinion based on the political winds.
What this election has shown is that democrats are more likely to speak out about things, but not carry through. Look at all of the newly registered democrats, a vast majority of them are college age kids. Only 17% of those came out to vote. When it comes down to it, a majority of Americans are willing to accept Bush's flaws and feel more comfortable with him than they do Kerry.
Another point is that Kerry is a Massachussets Democrat associated with Ted Kennedy and Clinton, which is a liability in large parts of the country, especially the South.
I have also noticed over time that his wife is always scowling. People may laugh at that, but I think that deep down people are affected by that and it may have had an impact on the results.
That's just my take.

[General Phoenix]

I think Bush appeals to the inner hatemonger in many people.

Got a problem in your life? It's the fault of the Muslims - they're all terrorists, you know...
Or maybe it's the homosexuals - lets take away their rights one by one. That'll show 'em...
Oh, and that whole "international community" thing? Screw 'em - the U.S. doesn't need the rest of those little nations anyway...


Reminds me of another former world leader. German guy, tiny moustache - what was his name...?

[skyhawk223]

That's a pretty bold statement. While one can extend their reasoning in that direction, others feel as equally strong that Bush's opponent has leanings towards the old Soviet system. The truth for both (former) candidates lies somewhere in between.
What I find silly is how some people get so emotional that their candidate lost even to the point of tears. Get over it. If your candidate lost, do what you can to prevent that next time around. What makes me sick is when new voters say "My candidate didn't win. Obviously my vote didn't count so I am not going to vote next time around." These are my bipartisan comments as the behaviours noted above happens no matter who has won the election.

I was actually planning to avoid this area of the forums, for the reason of getting involved. I was content just posting my images for constructive criticism, and so forth. But for some reason, I felt the need to just take a peek in here today. I found exactly what I expected to find.

This campaign has driven a wedge down the center of the world. Forget just the U.S. having issues with what is going on. A lot of people saw this as a fundemental battle bewteen what they perceived as right and wrong.

And as a correction to a perviously mentioned, and obviously emotionally typed statement... Bush may have pushed for a ban on Gay marriage, but he did not get it. The democratic process of the vote from the people got it officially banned in 11 states. Be careful when making statements. The truth will always come out.

One last word of advice... when you want to discuss something take the emotion out of it. If it gets to the point where emotion is all you are running on, it is a proven fact that instinct kicks in and blood levels in your brain drop.

Think about that.

[skyhawk223]

Aren't you glad you stopped by?

[p.s. Cargile]

Survival is about Dominance.

Originally Posted by p.s. Cargile

Survival is about Dominance.

Not even close to being true. Survival is about finding a healthy balance with those other creatures around you. And that goes for nature as well as among humans. If you study history you'll find that any system that tried to rely on dominance eventually came crashing down in a heap. When you continually make enimies at some point you are either brought down by outside influences or you self destruct from within. There isn't a case of dominance yet that didn't fail within a relatively short period historically speaking. Even the romans couldn't manage it.

[p.s. Cargile]

True, the Roman's lost their dominance.

Nature is a lot more brutal than you point out. All life cannot divorce itself from the genetic programming no matter how intelligent they are, or how "enlightened" they believe themselves to be. Life's great goal is to remain extant. All life competes for energy to sustain itself. Life is not based on fairness. Some forms of life are better at obtaining the energy they need to survive than others. Some forms of life, in order to secure the energy they need, destroy competive life forms. When humans first settled into the landmass of the western hemisphere, they hunted to extintion many large animals. Some of these animals preyed upon humans, some of them where preyed upon by humans, and some of them were competitors for food. Brains beat tooth and claw. And humans have become the most dominate species in this geological epoch.

Great masses of humans compete with other masses of humans for energy--for food, for resources, for those things that make survival easier. We will kill each other to secure these things. The indigenous peoples of the western hemisphere may have been able to kill off the mammoth, the saber-tooth cat, and the American lion, but thousands of years later they were unable to fend off the dominance of the Europeans. Sure their treatment may have been unfair, but no one was driven by their nature to seek out a balance. They were driven to survive. They were driven to dominate. Driven by their genetic code.

So yes, the Romans dominated and then were dominated. The British Empire dominated. Ghengis Khan dominated. Alexander the Great dominated. Stalin dominated. Napolean dominated. Hitler dominated. Japan dominated. History is replete with domination and subjugation. And even Islam dominated. Now members of that group wish to dominate again.

To which I say that if you choose thugs and murders to dominate you, then prostrate yourself before them. Don't ask me to do the same.

If you don't like the dominance the US has, then beat us.


And we, all peoples, all individuals, need enemies. We need conflict. Conflict is the Great Motivator. We do great and remarkable things when we strive to overcome conflict. Without a conflict, a challenge, an obstacle, or an enemy to overcome there would be no Life.

Originally Posted by p.s. Cargile

And we, all peoples, all individuals, need enemies. We need conflict. Conflict is the Great Motivator. We do great and remarkable things when we strive to overcome conflict. Without a conflict, a challenge, an obstacle, or an enemy to overcome there would be no Life.

You are not really comparing war with evolution??!!??

[p.s. Cargile]

War is but one of many conflicts. Don't read into more than I have written. Bias has a way with altering our observations to prove to ourselves what we believe. Even mine, to which I'm aware of. I write vaguely often, because the attention span is so small. Thus I rely a great deal on the reader's own experience to fill the blanks.

But in answer, no I'm not. Let's say there is a cluster of single-celled organisms living in a stable environment. Once that environment goes through a drastic change will the organisms that have mutated to withstand that change survive. At this level they have been accidentally enabled to overcome the conflict which is the environmental change. That's evolution.
War is solely a human activity, the greatest severity of obtaining and securing energy for the tribe. Who do we 'blame' nuclear energy and weapons on? Do we blame it on Einstein for the theory, or do we blame it on Nazi Germany with whom the US competed with to get it first, or do we blame it on the US for whatever? Regardless, take away Nazi Germany from history and you take away a lot of the technical advances that arose in that period. The Nazi's, with their plan for dominance, gave us jet propulsion, gave us advanced rockets for which without we would not have gone to Moon in 1969 (which also the Soviet Union is deserving of credit for being a competitor toward that goal), and gave us interstate highways by which to move military equipment rapidly throughout a nation (the Autobahn, and Pres. Eisenhower's Interstate Highways). The conflict, yes the War, in the 1940's has given us our modern world. Without WWII, such advances would have happened much slower as there would have been no nessecity for their expediency.

Wars of self-defense I condon. War's of empirialism I don't.
From what I know of liberalism (or leftism or socialism, or collectivism, or communism (see my bias inserting itself), and having been one) is that it focuses on nuances, the gray area, whereas, in contrast, conservatism is about absolutes and the black and white. The only arena where each side flip-flops is War. Of War, liberals approach it simplistically; they approach it in shades of either black or white--what is a good reason for attacking one country is good enough for attacking another. Conservatives, on the other hand, see the nuances of war, they understand that each country is different and thus must be approached differently, even if two countries pose the same threat. This is why North Korea and Iran (and perhaps Saudi Arabi and France) are being handled differently than Taliban Afghanistan and Sunni Iraq were.

I don't see the Battles of Afghanistan and Iraq as wars of emperialism. I see them as wars of self-defense. And that is a biased perspective that I will not apologize for. It has come up over and over that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that the US should not have sought a military resolution. Well, Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 either. It was not the Executive Orders of the Taliban to strike the US. It was not the Afghani armed forces that attacked the US. We used military force against Afghanistan simply because they were Harboring Fugitives. We resumed hostilities with Iraq because: 1) Hussien refused to abide by the Gulf War cease-fire, and 2) his regime was Aiding and Abetting terrorists organizations. And if you remember, its the War on Terrorism, not just a War on Al Qaeda. We are not fighting a National threat, yet we must combat nations that assist the threat in order to subdue the threat.
I believe that wars of empirialism are started by troublemakers/powerseekers.
I believe that wars of self-defense are responces to troublemakers/powerseekers.

Wasn´t it nice that so many former Nazi-scientists worked for the US after the war?


"I believe that wars of self-defense are responces to troublemakers/powerseekers."

No argument there.
But was you country under attack by Iraq?


"And if you remember, its the War on Terrorism, not just a War on Al Qaeda."

But that is a war that can´t be won.
You only drive more people into the arms of those terrorist groups.
But you are right. It is labled as the war on terrorism, but somehow it turned into the war on Saddam an WMD that he didn´t have. And now it is the war on regime-change in Iraq. Funny!

[p.s. Cargile]

The War on Terror is the conflict that we desire to overcome. If you believe it can't be won, then you have already given up.

No Iraq didn't attack us. Neither did Afghanistan. And as I think about it there have been very few Wars that the US has been invovled in by which war was a result of being attacked.

But let me do some research. . .

War of 1812: US Declared over British impressment of US seamen.
Mexican-American War: Mexico attacked after US annexation of Texas
Spanish-American War: US Declared after accusing Spain of sinking USS Maine. Conflict over Cuba.
WWI: US entered after sinking of civilian shipping by German subs.
WWII: US Declared on Japan for attacking naval forces.
Korean War: US involved after North Korea attacks South Korea for reunification after WWII treaties split country.
Vietnam War: US Declared to prevent communist spread.
Invasion of Grenada: US Declared to liberate US students, and put down rebellion.
Invasion of Panama: US Declared to capture Noriega.
Persian Gulf war: US Declared after request by Kuwait for intervention after Iraq invasion.
Former Yugoslavia Conflict: US involvement with Allies to stop genicide.
Afghanistan War: US Declared after failure to surrender terrorist forces.
Iraq War: US Declared. Resumption of hostilities for failure to abide Cease-Fire agreements, of which WMDs were one factor of many.

So out of 13 armed conflicts, the US had only been attacked by foreign armed forces twice, the Mexican-American War, and WWII. Spanish-American War was blamed on an attack, but later found that USS Maine suffered a boiler explosion and was not victim of conflict. WWI was an attack on our commercial interest by naval forces, but not an attack on our military, or soil.

Justifications for war are not soley dependant on whether or not the country was attacked. Justifications for war are the result of a diplomatic failure to resolve a conflict between nations. The US has gone to war because the diplomacy failed regardless of which nation is or was at fault for that failure.

Furthermore, ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and the search for Al Qaeda leadership was not halted for the Iraq War. We did not remove necessary forces from Afghanistan to dispose Saddam Hussein. And it was always about regime change. The first news reports that came out a year prior to war claimed as such. Reporters repeated asked Bush and Rumsfeld if there were plans for regime change in Iraq. They gave no comment.

Sure, war is the continuation of diplomacy with different means.

But in the case of the second gulf war, the US stood against some of its important partners in the world - Germany and France (who helped the colonies to get rid of British control). And so many other nations warned the US that it is a mistake to invade Iraq - and they were right.
Long after the "Mission Accomplished"-speech of "W." your troops are still dying in a country they delivered to terrorism and chaos.

And the jusification for the war WERE the WMDs of Saddam and the threat they pose to the rest of the world. Only after after your administration had to accept that there were no WMD they "adjusted" the reasons to go to war a few times.

[skyhawk223]

I have a question. Does anyone care that Saddam continually violated the restrictions that were placed on him and the country after the first Gulf War and didn't the UN issue a resolution saying something to the effect of "Cease and desist, or else"?

An open question, and I'm not going to take a side here, but what should the "Or else" have been? Do you think increased sanctions would have worked? Perhaps cutting the oil for food/medicine program?

[p.s. Cargile]

France and Germany. . .Let's just say "Oil for Food Scandal". Let's add US forces finding stockpiled ammunition dated for 2003 and stamped "Made in France." You helped Saddam's regime, with allies, or important parters, like that, who needs enemies?

I voted for Bush because I actually agree with him. The UN is a joke but despite that it is very complicated. Saying that the US's war with Iraq is illegal is akin to taking a single word out of a paragraph and elabrating on the 'meaning' of the word without reading the paragraph.

I am told Europeans have a problem with Bush. Fine. I am told by a European magazine that I am an idiot for voting for Bush... Not fine. Just because someone dissagrees with you they are an idiot? Just because someone dissagrees with you want to 're-educate' them? Now that sounds similar to a couple 'dominate' historical figures but not in the way you claim. Furthermore, American news 'is' slanted towards the Democrates 'socialism' (Democrates are 'not' liberals, they are socialists); However, European news's slant towards socialism makes American news's slant look like a 90 degree corner. Europeans are free to say and believe whatever they want but when they start trying to 'influence' american politics, there is a problem. European culture virtually 'instructs' you on how to think like a good socialist. The problem is that America is not socialist. The reason America is so successful is because we do not 'regulate' 'everything' like a good socialist would do.

The reason I didn't like Kerry was more than his 'flipp-flop' status. It was that his actual 'voting record' in the state senate marked him as an extreme socialist like Ted Kennedy. I personally have major bias's against socialism as a political/economic whatever. IMHO socialism has proven to be a faulty idea. The fact that Kerry didn't seemed to not want to 'do his job' as a state senator bugged the hell out of me too. People elected him to be a Senator but he was too busy jetskiing. Why would I expect Kerry to serve as the President any other way? Also the whole vietnam thing bugged me too. Minus all the rhetoric from both sides the fact is that Kerry went back to Vietnam for a 'photo shoot'. I don't know about you but from what I know of life as a soldier in the Vietnam war was not pretty. 20 years later I wouldn't be going back for a 'photo shoot'.

This may be a new and smaller world we live in but I still do not wish to hand over American soveriegnty to the U.N. let alone France or Germany. I understand that the rest of the world has a problem with this. Specifically Europe has a problem with this. Well lets just take that into perspective though. Europe has 'always' had a problem with the US's success. Europe in general has a very sever inferriority complex in their views towards America. America has had half the time they have and have developed three times as far as they have in all the ways that people really care about. So Europeans are just using this as another way to convince themselves that they are superior to the US.

I also think that the fact that all the 'Middle East' trouble spots used to be 'European' colonies is not a coniencidence either. Sure it was your forefathers actions but I think people still get hurt over the idea that like Europe, America invaded Iraq, unlike Europe, America is very likely to 'leave' Iraq more 'civilized' (old world view) than when we came in. Afterall that was the reason they were colonies (to bring civilization to the savages) but after a century or so Europe lost the stomach for colonialization.

So in the end, I suppose the best point I can make is this. Current news reports are making it clear that Germany, France, and Russia decided to pocket a little of the Iraqi people's money with the Oil for Food program. I am sure 'you're' news isn't giving the details that support this or even 'drawing the same conclusion' but that is what I am hearing on the news and judging by 'who' is saying it and 'what' they are saying I believe them. So before you start creating a vote 45 program try fixing your own graft and corruption before you start pointing high minded fingers at the US.

[skyhawk223]

Oops...

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

This may be a new and smaller world we live in but I still do not wish to hand over American soveriegnty to the U.N. let alone France or Germany. I understand that the rest of the world has a problem with this. Specifically Europe has a problem with this. Well lets just take that into perspective though. Europe has 'always' had a problem with the US's success. Europe in general has a very sever inferriority complex in their views towards America. America has had half the time they have and have developed three times as far as they have in all the ways that people really care about. So Europeans are just using this as another way to convince themselves that they are superior to the US.

I also think that the fact that all the 'Middle East' trouble spots used to be 'European' colonies is not a coniencidence either. Sure it was your forefathers actions but I think people still get hurt over the idea that like Europe, America invaded Iraq, unlike Europe, America is very likely to 'leave' Iraq more 'civilized' (old world view) than when we came in. Afterall that was the reason they were colonies (to bring civilization to the savages) but after a century or so Europe lost the stomach for colonialization.

So in the end, I suppose the best point I can make is this. Current news reports are making it clear that Germany, France, and Russia decided to pocket a little of the Iraqi people's money with the Oil for Food program. I am sure 'you're' news isn't giving the details that support this or even 'drawing the same conclusion' but that is what I am hearing on the news and judging by 'who' is saying it and 'what' they are saying I believe them. So before you start creating a vote 45 program try fixing your own graft and corruption before you start pointing high minded fingers at the US.

It is not the Europeans who think to be superior, it is the US. Your post made this very clear.

But the US were also European colonies...
Iraq was cilivlized. Only the culture is VERY different.
And this Saddam-regime would not have lasted forever. Some day the Iraqis themselves would have overthrown it - as it happend quite often in the most recent history of other nations.

Of course it wasn´t only the US that helped Iraq in the 70s and 80s - all the western world helped this country to arm itself. A major mistake.

LOL... ok obviously I was not clear in my meaning so I will reiterate.

I do not believe the US to be better than any nation or culture; despite what you may thing. Europe 'does' and has had an inferiority complex in regards to the US for a very long time. You personally may not feel this way but Europe in general has demonstrated this time and again.... look at it this way.

1.) the US has a higher standard of living than any other nation in the world by far.
2.) the US replaced Brittain and France as the major political and economic force to be recogned with in the world.
3.) without the US, Europe would be worshiping Hitler.

Hopefully now you can see that there is ample 'motive' for Europe to be envious of the US. As I said, you personally may not but the reality is that the 'majority' of Europe does. There are plenty of reasons for this but if you just want to classify me as a nut then so be it. Someday, reality will rearer its ugly head just like gravity. You can only jump so high before the Earth runs into you again.

When I said 'civilize the savages', that was the term that your forfathers (old Europe) used as justifcation for mass genocide and inslavement of entire population centers... er I mean 'colonialization'. My usage of that term 'civilize the savages' was to try to help you realize that Europe isn't as perfect as you seem to think you are. The reason I feel you see yourself as perfect is because of your high mindedness in regards to the US. By high-mindedness I am referring to the attitude of [oh you guys are so stupid, can't you see why I am right? I have logic and reason on my side. How could you be so stupid as to elect Bush again]; this attitude obviously suggests that you are some how morally superior and thereby able to make these difficult decisions as if they are childhood lessons of life. Perhaps this is not your intent but I have read everyone's post before posting and I detect a very 'LARGE' amount of self importance and superiority.

I am an American and I believe in what my country is doing. I agree with it 100% and think we need to continue on. By saying that you think I am being arrogant and pig headed?... you should try reading some of your own posts sometimes. The mere thread of this topic is egotistical. A European saying the "hate-bush" and somehow people in the US are suppose to care? I mean come on; if me, an American, created a post entitled "Hating Jacques Chirac", you would be screaming bloody murder. 'oh you americans are so arrogant and yadda yadda yadda.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

I do not believe the US to be better than any nation or culture; despite what you may thing. Europe 'does' and has had an inferiority complex in regards to the US for a very long time. You personally may not feel this way but Europe in general has demonstrated this time and again.... look at it this way.

Give me an example for this inferiority complex.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

1.) the US has a higher standard of living than any other nation in the world by far.

Not true. The standard of living in Europe is equally as high as in the US.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

2.) the US replaced Brittain and France as the major political and economic force to be recogned with in the world.

But currently you are trying to abuse you political force.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

3.) without the US, Europe would be worshiping Hitler.

OF COURSE, the Hitler-argument!

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

When I said 'civilize the savages', that was the term that your forfathers (old Europe) used as justifcation for mass genocide and inslavement of entire population centers... er I mean 'colonialization'. My usage of that term 'civilize the savages' was to try to help you realize that Europe isn't as perfect as you seem to think you are. The reason I feel you see yourself as perfect is because of your high mindedness in regards to the US. By high-mindedness I am referring to the attitude of [oh you guys are so stupid, can't you see why I am right? I have logic and reason on my side. How could you be so stupid as to elect Bush again]; this attitude obviously suggests that you are some how morally superior and thereby able to make these difficult decisions as if they are childhood lessons of life. Perhaps this is not your intent but I have read everyone's post before posting and I detect a very 'LARGE' amount of self importance and superiority.

Who ever said Europe is perfect.
It is not.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

I am an American and I believe in what my country is doing. I agree with it 100% and think we need to continue on. By saying that you think I am being arrogant and pig headed?... you should try reading some of your own posts sometimes. The mere thread of this topic is egotistical. A European saying the "hate-bush" and somehow people in the US are suppose to care? I mean come on; if me, an American, created a post entitled "Hating Jacques Chirac", you would be screaming bloody murder. 'oh you americans are so arrogant and yadda yadda yadda.

Well, something like that already happend.
Remember, when those idiots burned French cars and dumped French wine on the streets. Or tryed to rename "French Fries" as "Freedom Fries".
Such stupidiy. Those "French" fries are from Belgium.
I wonder why nobody tried to topple the the statue of liberty - you do know she is French?

Not true. The standard of living in Europe is equally as high as in the US.

US GDP: $ 35,400
German GDP: $ 22,740
France GDP: $ 22,240
England GDP: $ 25,510
http://www.finfacts.ie/biz10/globalw...epercapita.htm

So what news have you been watching again?

But currently you are trying to abuse you political force.

and WHY should it matter to you? we aren't trying to send our troops into Germany or any EU nation. See this is an example of your envy. I know you don't see it so let me spell it out.

1.) The US has its political agenda
2.) you Europeans don't like that Agenda.
3.) you Europeans realize that you can't do anything about the US political agenda
4.) you Europeans wish you had the same power as the US to push your political agenda.

This is what you call 'envy'. I don't know, maybe the world translates poorly into German.

Who ever said Europe is perfect.
It is not.

Who said? do you read what I write? YOU SAY you are perfect by your very attitude. Despite the fact that the US/Iraq war has nothing to do with you; you feel it is your moral obligation to 'correct' us Americans in our faulty logic. Ever hear of the saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" Not to try to bring religion into this but it's very hard to get through to you, it seems. :P

Well, something like that already happend.
Remember, when those idiots burned French cars and dumped French wine on the streets. Or tryed to rename "French Fries" as "Freedom Fries".
Such stupidiy. Those "French" fries are from Belgium.
I wonder why nobody tried to topple the the statue of liberty - you do know she is French?

lol... oh come on now; you have to know that the French backstabbed us right? They said that they would support the resolution in the UN to formally declare war on Iraq. Yet when push came to shove they said 'screw you America'. So the natural response of anyone is to say 'screw you, right back'. AND NOW it comes out that the French backstabbed us over 'money' (oil for food program). How can you honestly expect Americans to think of France (as a country) as a great ally? So again this is not arrogance, this is rage; two totally different emotions.