[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
It's a direct question.

And you expect a direct answer?

From Simey?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Yeah, I am. I want your opinion. That's all. You're well read. You have a good grasp of history.

I don't want a summary though.

Do you agree that overall, Euro-American relations are at the lowest point since 1944?

If yes. then we agree.

If no, then when was it lower? I'm not asking for an explanation or reasons or any other information. It's a direct question.

It's a direct, unanswerable question. It's unanswerable because you didn't acknowledge any of the points I made about 1944 being in the middle of the war. It's unanswerable because it asks about the US at a time when it wasn't yet a liberator. It's unanswerable because it anticipates the division of Europe into two camps in the Cold War. There were a lot of ups and downs over 60 years, and they didn't neatly happen all at once over a single very large and diverse continent.

Leaving aside the obvious differences within Europe which really ought not to be ignored, the closest I can get to a simple answer for you is this: At times over the last 50 odd years when the US was coming to the rescue of Europe, I have no doubt that Americans were relatively popular in Europe. And at other times, that rather artificial popularity faded. Cynics will say that Europe is always there when they need us. But I think it is also fair to say that there is a degree of simple human nature to it.

On the other hand, don't get to carried away with nostalgia. There was always a lot of resentment there. Growing up in England I still heard people repeating the old Over Paid, Over Sexed, and Over Here" line from World War II. Resentment towards a country that has in the past 60 years always been the bigger, and more powerful partner is also human nature.

But this would be so easy to poke holes in. You could simply ask what is "Europe." Is it England, or Greece, or something in between? They aren't the same place you know.

I'm sorry that this doesn't answer your question as a yes or no. Some questions can't be answered that way.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by eklipse:
And you expect a direct answer?

From Simey?

Alright, eklipse...

There are some Europeans who hate Bush. So what?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Logic:
So when we criticise men like Saddam Hussein he's also doing something right?

Your history spans a whole 200 hundred years? wow!

From Saddam's point of view he MAY have felt our criticism was an indication he was doing something right. But, if he did feel that way he miscalculated, didn't he?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by BRussell:
It is interesting that this has actually been a fairly major campaign point for Kerry - "Stronger at home and respected in the world" was his campaign slogan. I wonder how much that resonates with Americans. His campaign obviously thinks it does.

I think at best it just provides some validation to what Bush's political opponents have been saying all along. It's not like Americans are saying "oh so a bunch of Europeans don't like Bush, that really changes my mind." But having outside observers agree with you simply provides some additional evidence that you were right all along.

The same Kerry campaign which fliiiippped and flooopppped around in the wind for more than a year trying to come up with a cogent message and FINALLY did. They had to see what their leftist followers felt in order to chart a course? And now that they've figured out what you all want to hear you are lining up behind him???

A nation's foreign policy will attract nations that agree with it. The sole purpose of that foreign policy is not (or SHOULD NOT) be simply to gain favor with Europeans. It is to benefit US interests.

If we can gain support from Europe, that's alright. But it's not of paramount importance. We shouldn't intentionally piss off our neighbors, nor should we sublimate our interests to the goal of winning approval from Europe.

If Europeans 'hate' Bush, tough nutz.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's a direct, unanswerable question. It's unanswerable because you didn't acknowledge any of the points I made about 1944 being in the middle of the war. It's unanswerable because it asks about the US at a time when it wasn't yet a liberator. It's unanswerable because it anticipates the division of Europe into two camps in the Cold War. There were a lot of ups and downs over 60 years, and they didn't neatly happen all at once over a single very large and diverse continent.

Leaving aside the obvious differences within Europe which really ought not to be ignored, the closest I can get to a simple answer for you is this: At times over the last 50 odd years when the US was coming to the rescue of Europe, I have no doubt that Americans were relatively popular in Europe. And at other times, that rather artificial popularity faded. Cynics will say that Europe is always there when they need us. But I think it is also fair to say that there is a degree of simple human nature to it.

On the other hand, don't get to carried away with nostalgia. There was always a lot of resentment there. Growing up in England I still heard people repeating the old Over Paid, Over Sexed, and Over Here" line from World War II. Resentment towards a country that has in the past 60 years always been the bigger, and more powerful partner is also human nature.

But this would be so easy to poke holes in. You could simply ask what is "Europe." Is it England, or Greece, or something in between? They aren't the same place you know.

I'm sorry that this doesn't answer your question as a yes or no. Some questions can't be answered that way.

OMG, this is ridiculous. I'm speechless, almost.

I asked you a simple direct question 4 times now. You've dodged, evaded and answered things I didn't ask in every response.

I didn't ask for a comparison of 1944 vs. 2004. I didn't ask for a summary of the period. I didn't ask for justification of your opinion. I didn't ask for history of our relations. I didn't ask for explanations of high and low points. All I asked, was.... here, I'll try again:

Would you agree that overall, Euro-American relations are at the lowest point since 1944?

"It's a direct, unanswerable question.", you say. Well, I answered it. Here, I'll do it again - I believe overall, Euro-American relations are at the lowest point since 1944. That's it. That's my opinion. That wasn't really that hard at all. Why don't you try it? Do you NOT have an opinion?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
OMG, this is ridiculous. I'm speechless, almost.

I asked you a simple direct question 4 times now. You've dodged, evaded and answered things I didn't ask in every response.

I didn't ask for a comparison of 1944 vs. 2004. I didn't ask for a summary of the period. I didn't ask for justification of your opinion. I didn't ask for history of our relations. I didn't ask for explanations of high and low points. All I asked, was.... here, I'll try again:

Would you agree that overall, Euro-American relations are at the lowest point since 1944?

"It's a direct, unanswerable question.", you say. Well, I answered it. Here, I'll do it again - I believe overall, Euro-American relations are at the lowest point since 1944. That's it. That's my opinion. That wasn't really that hard at all. Why don't you try it? Do you NOT have an opinion?

I'm sorry. No matter how many times you ask it, if a "simple direct question" can't be answered with a simple direct answer it can't be answered with a simple direct answer.

You are entitled to your opinion of it. But I think it is a stupid question, and any answer that is as simplistic as either "yes" or "no" is a stupid answer.

[swrate]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
[B]Not a good example, given Switzerland's record of immoral collaboration.

The US really doesn't have a choice here. If we fight terrorism, fighting terrorism obviously makes you unpopular with terrorists, their sympathizers, and those who are simply inclined to try to live with terrorism and to try to buy it off.

The problem is, the US is a target of terrorism whether we like it or not. There is no bigger power that we can palm the problem off to. We can't say "don't blame us, go talk to Switzerland" because that just isn't credible. Switzerland isn't the largest economy in the world, and nobody screams at Switzerland if it doesn't back them up in every little problem in the world. Switzerland also isn't irrationally blamed for all problems, and it isn't a cultural synonym for the modernizing trends that threaten fundamentalists.



There is an old truism: where you sit is where you stand. Where we s

Forget truisms.
Why not a good example? Regardless of any past collaborations, Switzerland still has a good image, this imo proves the opposite.
If I start thinking like many of you here, It happened years ago, and it was only�..
I like using my swiss passport because it�s welcome almost anywhere on the globe�.


America is not the only target, we all are concerned and terrorism has not been cut, au contraire, lately Madrid, Beslan, Istambul, Taba, so terrorism is getting worse. Violence, beheadings kidnappings�
Eradicate terrorism, are you going to make selling explosives/opium legal? They sell the stuff because they need to eat. Westerners are using and buying the stuff.

Half of the Americans share a similar view to Europe�s in November 2004. I do not agree with these lines amongst others:
"When it comes to the use of force, mainstream American Democrats have more in common with Republicans than they do with most European Socialists and Social Democrats."
The Christian democrats and radicals groups from the right wing will be �for bush saving $$$ and blood�, a minority here.

Americans here have solid reasons on why not to re-elect GW, (Patriot Act, economical situation in the Home Land, fear of consequences, war�list goes on) so they perfectly know why some Europeans dislike bush , and yes, most would vote against him, ironic, you are either with me or against me, the visionary hero.
People re-electing him also have their reasons
America is not the American dream any more, armies brought �freedom� with lakes of blood.
America feared because of weapons oil and money, being feared gives such a feeling of power!
The German article is quoted as a specially surprising article.
The site it�s posted on
http://www.bild.t-online.de/BTO/index.html
did surprise me too. I suppose he, Hugo M�ller-Vogg is a democrat Christian right PMBlocher type, (at least blocher has du go�t in art fields) a bad taste magazine, imo. It�s his opinion, trying to save money and blood.
He wrote other stuff, mein Weg,
http://www-2003.readme.de/home/sachb...9?group=sc-pol

People don�t usually read that sort of magazine to be informed about politics, here also you will find aauthors/magazines endorsing bush, others against him.
The Christian democrats and radicals groups from the right wing will be �for saving�,
That is a minority here.

Reagan was not disliked as much as Bush, Bush converted a few Republicans from here to vote Democrat.
Irreparable damage is already done, and fixing it will take time whoever in office.
Let�s pretend to agree, boys, lol. I feel one has to pretend in the US, here, people, whether American or not do not have to pretend whether for/against.

Most Europeans �dislike� bush, he killed part of the dream with his Corps interests, he opened Europe�s eyes about the politics of the Pentagon. Greedier, more powerful, self centered then other nations.

ps: posted in precipitation before it vanishes suddenly too (lack of attention).

[Troll]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
See, that statement alone speaks volumes. Look it over and think about it. Let's see what you deduce from it.

Uhhh, let's see, it says George Bush is a recovering alcoholic so he can't drink alcohol but that I would like to have a chat with him anyway to ask him all number of questions. That doesn't look like volumes to me.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm sorry. No matter how many times you ask it, if a "simple direct question" can't be answered with a simple direct answer it can't be answered with a simple direct answer.

You are entitled to your opinion of it. But I think it is a stupid question, and any answer that is as simplistic as either "yes" or "no" is a stupid answer.

5 times now, but who's counting?

No, you didn't answer the question but you've answered much more.

I find it distasteful that you post so many responses addressed to me, attacking MY position without having the guts to take one yourself. How can I be so wrong if you don't know either way? I'm not sure on the technical meaning of intellectual dishonesty but I'm pretty sure you just nailed it.

"Unanswerable", you say. I answered it. I could ask the next hundred people I see and get hundred answers. It's only an opinion after all. It maybe right, it may be wrong. Doesn't matter, it wasn't the point. I've seen wrong answers, emotional and misguided answers but I've never seen someone afraid to admit that they have an opinion and then argue against those that do. Shameless.

Funny thing is, I wasn't trying to trap you. It wasn't a 'gotcha' question. I was simply trying to get out of the thread with a clear distinction between our two positions. That is all. I guess that's impossible since you don't really have any positions. At least none that you're willing to stand by. I guess your posts aren't worth the pixels they spark. Thanks for the education.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
5 times now, but who's counting?

No, you didn't answer the question but you've answered much more.

I find it distasteful that you post so many responses addressed to me, attacking MY position without having the guts to take one yourself. How can I be so wrong if you don't know either way? I'm not sure on the technical meaning of intellectual dishonesty but I'm pretty sure you just nailed it.

"Unanswerable", you say. I answered it. I could ask the next hundred people I see and get hundred answers. It's only an opinion after all. It maybe right, it may be wrong. Doesn't matter, it wasn't the point. I've seen wrong answers, emotional and misguided answers but I've never seen someone afraid to admit that they have an opinion and then argue against those that do. Shameless.

Funny thing is, I wasn't trying to trap you. It wasn't a 'gotcha' question. I was simply trying to get out of the thread with a clear distinction between our two positions. That is all. I guess that's impossible since you don't really have any positions. At least none that you're willing to stand by. I guess your posts aren't worth the pixels they spark. Thanks for the education.

You really have gone off the deep end. You pose a question and insist that I answer it yes or no. I don't think your question can be answered yes or no, and I say so. That's my opinion, and you get all huffy about it.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Logic:
So when will you start promoting democracy in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and several other ME nations that you are so cosy with at the moment while you continue to attack nations like Iran and Palestine?

We haven't attacked Iran or Palestine. We have tried negotiating with Iran and have ALWAYS supported peace and security for both the Palestinians and Israelis.

The efforts in support of and to promote democracy is always best accomplished, when possible, through diplomacy and negotiation. Do you advocate military intervention to impose democracy in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

Could we count on Icelandic support?

[TETENAL]

The USA always promotes democracy? In Iran?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You really have gone off the deep end. You pose a question and insist that I answer it yes or no. I don't think your question can be answered yes or no, and I say so. That's my opinion, and you get all huffy about it.

Not huffy, just offended.

You've attacked my position numerous times in this thread without having the guts to state yours. I find that unacceptable and intellectually dishonest.

Simey, I don't respond to the juveniles around here because I enjoy a good adult political discussion. That's why I primarily respond to you and a few others. I'm not interested in simply trading jingoistic slogans back and forth. I've always thought you were here for the same reason. If I'm wrong about that assumption then let me know. I expect that if someone is going challenge me they'd have the integrity to stand by their positions and simply not try to push buttons.

Again, I was just trying to leave the thread with a clear distinction of our two positions. I thought you had one.

You continually state the question is unanswerable. I answered it. It's just an opinion. Like they say - "Opinions are like a**holes, everyone's got one". Don't you?

[Saad]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
The USA always promotes democracy? In Iran?

You mean the Pahlavian dynasty was not peace and freedom loving? Darn Richard Nixon, LBJ, and JFK!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I'm not interested in simply trading jingoistic slogans back and forth.[...] "Opinions are like a**holes, everyone's got one". Don't you?

busted

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Not huffy, just offended.

You've attacked my position numerous times in this thread without having the guts to state yours. I find that unacceptable and intellectually dishonest.

Simey, I don't respond to the juveniles around here because I enjoy a good adult political discussion. That's why I primarily respond to you and a few others. I'm not interested in simply trading jingoistic slogans back and forth. I've always thought you were here for the same reason. If I'm wrong about that assumption then let me know. I expect that if someone is going challenge me they'd have the integrity to stand by their positions and simply not try to push buttons.

Again, I was just trying to leave the thread with a clear distinction of our two positions. I thought you had one.

You continually state the question is unanswerable. I answered it. It's just an opinion. Like they say - "Opinions are like a**holes, everyone's got one". Don't you?

On that particular question, posed in the way you insist on posing it, and bearing in mind your narrow insistance that it only be answered yes or no, then no, I have no opinion.

In fact, i am not even sure of the question. You are asking whether the US has ever been more unpopular than at any time since 1944? Do you mean at any instant, anywhere in Europe? In all of Europe as an average? At the same time? Over some unspecified period in time? Do you mean to limit it to "Europe" as we dealt with it for much of the Cold War -- i.e. Western Europe? Are you including Eastern Europe? I have no ****ing clue what you mean by "Europe." And if you ask such an incredibly specific question, to which I am supposed to make an extremely sweeping answer, it matters what the hell you are thinking.

Do you mean, for example, that when the US was incinerating civilians in German cities, did those Germans like the US less than now? The answer to that is probably. How about when the US encouraged Hungarians to rise up against the Soviets - and then let them be crushed? I doubt we were popular then. But on the other hand, how about when we (along with others) saved Berlin from starvation in 1948-49. We probably were pretty popular then. Except, perhaps, among those East Germans who really believed in Communism. And they did exist.

Or how about these examples. France was liberated in 1944 by the US, and we were probably popular. But in 1966, France was kicking the US out along with NATO. Britain on the other hand has been a close ally since the war. But they were seriously pissed off at the US when it turned on them during Suez. Greece came close to going Communist in 1947. Many Greeks still resent the US for intervening then, and for backing the generals. They also believe that the US backed Turkey against them. The US has never really been popular in Greece. Now, how do we compare the Greek perception of the US with that in, say, Britain? I have no idea how you would quantify that.

I'm rambling to make you see something. I like tidy narratives as much as the next person, but Europe's history since 1944 is too diverse and the continent too big to make a trite comparison like you ask for. There is no meaningful yes or no answer and i am not going to guess one knowing that it is meaningless, just because you can't accept that.

[RonnieoftheRose]

The Madness of King George

"Rebels in our empire? Terrorists! WOT WOT!"

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
The Madness of King George

"Rebels in our empire? Terrorists! WOT WOT!"

Gee, that image looks suitable for use on US currency!


BTW, your caption is very clever!

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
On that particular question, posed in the way you insist on posing it, and bearing in mind your narrow insistance that it only be answered yes or no, then no, I have no opinion.

In fact, i am not even sure of the question. You are asking whether the US has ever been more unpopular than at any time since 1944? Do you mean at any instant, anywhere in Europe? In all of Europe as an average? At the same time? Over some unspecified period in time? Do you mean to limit it to "Europe" as we dealt with it for much of the Cold War -- i.e. Western Europe? Are you including Eastern Europe? I have no ****ing clue what you mean by "Europe." And if you ask such an incredibly specific question, to which I am supposed to make an extremely sweeping answer, it matters what the hell you are thinking.

Do you mean, for example, that when the US was incinerating civilians in German cities, did those Germans like the US less than now? The answer to that is probably. How about when the US encouraged Hungarians to rise up against the Soviets - and then let them be crushed? I doubt we were popular then. But on the other hand, how about when we (along with others) saved Berlin from starvation in 1948-49. We probably were pretty popular then. Except, perhaps, among those East Germans who really believed in Communism. And they did exist.

Or how about these examples. France was liberated in 1944 by the US, and we were probably popular. But in 1966, France was kicking the US out along with NATO. Britain on the other hand has been a close ally since the war. But they were seriously pissed off at the US when it turned on them during Suez. Greece came close to going Communist in 1947. Many Greeks still resent the US for intervening then, and for backing the generals. They also believe that the US backed Turkey against them. The US has never really been popular in Greece. Now, how do we compare the Greek perception of the US with that in, say, Britain? I have no idea how you would quantify that.

I'm rambling to make you see something. I like tidy narratives as much as the next person, but Europe's history since 1944 is too diverse and the continent too big to make a trite comparison like you ask for. There is no meaningful yes or no answer and i am not going to guess one knowing that it is meaningless, just because you can't accept that.

Laughing Out Loud. (acronyms & smileys just don't do justice anymore). Can't say I'm surprised by that response. It's typical rambling avoidance. Maybe you should change your handle to 'Dances with Words'?

The direct question (note that I asked it indirectly several times before that), was:

Would you agree that overall, Euro-American relations are at the lowest point since 1944?

Your response? In order:

You answered that the US is less popular in Belgium in 2004 than in WWII. That's NOT what I asked. DODGE.

Next you compared 1944 Europe with 2004 Europe. That's NOT what I asked. DODGE.

Next you wanted to summarize a 60-year history. Or refused to. That's NOT what I asked. DODGE.

Next you say it's "unanswerable". (and yet I answer it) Bzzzz, wrong response again. DODGE.

Now you don't understand the question AND you have no opinion. That's a pretty idiotic thing to admit to at this stage of the thread. Didn't stop you from saying I was wrong though.

It's silly to play cat and mouse with you. It's obvious that no matter how the question is phrased you'll skirt around it. The fact that it's come this far is just more evidence of how far you'll go to avoid taking a stand. It's tiresome. Pathetic and tiresome.

I'm not asking for factual backup. I'm not asking for quotes. I asked you to clarify your position. I asked your opinion. I asked you to state your position on the issue on which you challenged me.

spacefreak, Railhead, Pachead, Cody Dawg, aberdeenwriter, Zimphire are all posters I rarely agree with. Yet, I don't doubt the conviction behind their posts. At a minimum, one could admire the type of passion they're willing to lay down. Can the same be said about you?

Now that I think back on it, I don't think I've ever seen you answer a direct question. Have you ever flat-out answered a challenge without obfuscating? Certainly never in the many debates we've engaged in. I wished I had pressed you earlier. It would of saved me the trouble of responding to posts, that I now know, even you don't believe.

Nevermind, I don't expect you to answer that any more straightforwardly than the simple question you've left open here.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What it actually boils down to is that many Europeans have no problem with America, provided America conforms to what they want America to do and be. It's when America insists on behaving too much like America that they get upset.

Are you implying the other 50 % (+- 5 %) are not `what America stands for' or `less American'. Of course many people from all over the world are upset with the current Administration, as they probably were with -- say Reagan. After all, `the other half' is also American

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's very easy to say that you like something only when it suits you. But it isn't the same thing as saying you have no problem with America. Of course you do. Presidents like Bush and Reagan represent a significant percentage, maybe even a majority, of what makes America, America. Those presidents are popular with many Americans and what makes them tick is reflected in significant American traits. When you say you hate them, it is the country that elected them you are hating, not just the man.

Of course people like only things that conforms with their ideas, so this is pretty much a no-brainer. But I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say ... of course both Kerry and Bush represent (in terms of voters) a sizable portion of the American population, again, a no-brainer. Just because foreigners tend to dislike Bush, and would prefer Kerry, this simply amounts to siding with the other 45-52 % (we'll see on the election what percentage of the votes both get).

Point is that American politics does concern other countries a lot more than -- say -- German politics concerns America. Thus, foreigners are interested in American politics, because they have to. Other countries are affected (in terms of politics, security and money) by America's decisions, whether we want it or not. `We' share the bill.

Still, it's your election, and whether I like it or not, the outcome will be the outcome. But I have the right to say what I want, think what I want, and if I think that the way things are handled is wrong, then I will. As Americans do.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Do you know the phrase, "the bank is too big to fail"? That pretty much applies to the US. If foreign investors all decided to call in their debt, they would suffer right alongside the US, and probably worse. So it isn't going to happen.

Just take a look at the bank crisis in Japan
Jokes aside, I don't think America's fortunes should depend on that alone.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Laughing Out Loud. (acronyms & smileys just don't do justice anymore). Can't say I'm surprised by that response. It's typical rambling avoidance. Maybe you should change your handle to 'Dances with Words'?

The direct question (note that I asked it indirectly several times before that), was:

Would you agree that overall, Euro-American relations are at the lowest point since 1944?

Your response? In order:

You answered that the US is less popular in Belgium in 2004 than in WWII. That's NOT what I asked. DODGE.

Next you compared 1944 Europe with 2004 Europe. That's NOT what I asked. DODGE.

Next you wanted to summarize a 60-year history. Or refused to. That's NOT what I asked. DODGE.

Next you say it's "unanswerable". (and yet I answer it) Bzzzz, wrong response again. DODGE.

Now you don't understand the question AND you have no opinion. That's a pretty idiotic thing to admit to at this stage of the thread. Didn't stop you from saying I was wrong though.

It's silly to play cat and mouse with you. It's obvious that no matter how the question is phrased you'll skirt around it. The fact that it's come this far is just more evidence of how far you'll go to avoid taking a stand. It's tiresome. Pathetic and tiresome.

I'm not asking for factual backup. I'm not asking for quotes. I asked you to clarify your position. I asked your opinion. I asked you to state your position on the issue on which you challenged me.

spacefreak, Railhead, Pachead, Cody Dawg, aberdeenwriter, Zimphire are all posters I rarely agree with. Yet, I don't doubt the conviction behind their posts. At a minimum, one could admire the type of passion they're willing to lay down. Can the same be said about you?

Now that I think back on it, I don't think I've ever seen you answer a direct question. Have you ever flat-out answered a challenge without obfuscating? Certainly never in the many debates we've engaged in. I wished I had pressed you earlier. It would of saved me the trouble of responding to posts, that I now know, even you don't believe.

Nevermind, I don't expect you to answer that any more straightforwardly than the simple question you've left open here.

I'm not going to give an opinion when the question is so stupid that the only opinion I can reasonably give is "I don't know." Europe is not one country, I can't answer a question that assumes that Europe is one country with one coherent relationship with the US when that was never the case.

If you can't ask an intelligent question, don't get angry when people throw up their hands.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
But I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say ... of course both Kerry and Bush represent (in terms of voters) a sizable portion of the American population, again, a no-brainer. Just because foreigners tend to dislike Bush, and would prefer Kerry, this simply amounts to siding with the other 45-52 % (we'll see on the election what percentage of the votes both get).

That's exactly what I was saying. That's why it isn't possible for people to say they have no problem with the US, only with leaders like Bush and Reagan when leaders like Bush and Reagan are quite representative of a very large chunk of America. When people react against those leaders, it is an integral part of America they are reacting to.

Of course leaders like Clinton are just as representative. You are correct to say that people are siding with one part of the US and against another. But it is disingenuous of people not to admit that they are criticizing a part of American culture when they criticize the leaders America produces. Or alternatively, they really think that people like Bush don't represent America, and if so, that's just ignorant.

In any case, anyone with open eyes is quite aware that there are some unflattering stereotypes about the US that are widely held. Basically, leaders like Bush and Reagan play in to some of those stereotypes, and to that extent, they play into the hostility that those stereotypes engender. On the other hand, some leaders like Clinton play against them, so they are liked more.

Part of this is just the differences between how Americans view their society and how Europeans tend to view it. Many of the qualities that Americans (especially more conservative ones) find endearing about leaders like Bush. Things like blunt speaking, overt patriotism, religiosity, declasse "man of the people, hanging out on the ranch" stuff -- seems to play very badly in Europe. Maybe it is just a difference in preferences.

And above all that, there are times where our national interests are just closely aligned, and others where they aren't. Right now, there is no perceived issue particularly uniting the US and Europe. There is no Soviet Union, for example. So some of the former glue is missing. Americans thought for a while that the common threat of terrorism would supply the glue, but it didn't because your view of it and ours are polar opposites.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm not going to give an opinion when the question is so stupid that the only opinion I can reasonably give is "I don't know." Europe is not one country, I can't answer a question that assumes that Europe is one country with one coherent relationship with the US when that was never the case.

If you can't ask an intelligent question, don't get angry when people throw up their hands.

Now, it's a 'stupid question'. Is that your final answer? We're all beginning to lose track.

Of course, there was enough there for you to attack MY position. Boy, that's a brand of self-righteousness you don't see often - " You're WRONG, but I have no opinion. But I know you're WRONG." LOL, it certainly is unique. Usually, my positions are challenged by somebody who believes in SOMETHING.

I was (am) bored by your rambling, tangential responses. All I wanted is for us to get to a 'agree to disagree' stage and move on. You couldn't let it go at that.

I have to admit it was amusing to see your desperate little back-peddling. Now, it's just embarrassing.

Let it go.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's why it isn't possible for people to say they have no problem with the US, only with leaders like Bush and Reagan when leaders like Bush and Reagan are quite representative of a very large chunk of America. When people react against those leaders, it is an integral part of America they are reacting to.

Let's make a "Gedankenexperiment":

I'm in the Toscana, it's wonderful warm and sunny weather, I see the beautiful landscape, eating very delicious Gnocchi with Gorgonzola sauce with a glass of Chianti, and in my arms I have a gorgeous Italian women.

Then it is not possible for me to say that I like Italy, because I have a problem with Berlusconi?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Let's make a "Gedankenexperiment":

I'm in the Toscana, it's wonderful warm and sunny weather, I see the beautiful landscape, eating very delicious Gnocchi with Gorgonzola sauce with a glass of Chianti, and in my arms I have a gorgeous Italian women.

Then it is not possible for me to say that I like Italy, because I have a problem with Berlusconi?

Individually? No of course not. A lot of Americans dislike Bush and of course they don't dislike the US.

However, when a lot of people with no first hand knowledge (or no meaningful first hand knowledge) of the US react the way they do, it is appropriate to observe it is stereotypes they are reacting to.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
...people with no first hand knowledge (or no meaningful first hand knowledge) of the US...

What would you qualify as being 'meaningful'?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by eklipse:
What would you qualify as being 'meaningful'?

Having at least lived here for a year or two, preferably as a taxpaying adult. That would be enough to give a person an independent basis for an opinion, as opposed to merely repeating received opinions.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's exactly what I was saying. That's why it isn't possible for people to say they have no problem with the US, only with leaders like Bush and Reagan when leaders like Bush and Reagan are quite representative of a very large chunk of America. When people react against those leaders, it is an integral part of America they are reacting to.

Of course leaders like Clinton are just as representative. You are correct to say that people are siding with one part of the US and against another. But it is disingenuous of people not to admit that they are criticizing a part of American culture when they criticize the leaders America produces. Or alternatively, they really think that people like Bush don't represent America, and if so, that's just ignorant.

...

And above all that, there are times where our national interests are just closely aligned, and others where they aren't. Right now, there is no perceived issue particularly uniting the US and Europe. There is no Soviet Union, for example. So some of the former glue is missing. Americans thought for a while that the common threat of terrorism would supply the glue, but it didn't because your view of it and ours are polar opposites.

So what is your point then?
Basically everything you are saying also applies among Americans (`only'). If you resort to possessive pronouns like `your' and `our', you completely take both sides as homogenic entities, which is not true. As you may witness on this board, some Americans do not share your (as in you, SimeyTheLimey ) points of views on the glue.

`We' are also not diametrally opposed to each other, that's a misconception of `yours'. `We' are just opposing parts of `your' ways and means of doing things and there are alternatives withing `your' country.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Individually? No of course not. A lot of Americans dislike Bush and of course they don't dislike the US.

However, when a lot of people with no first hand knowledge (or no meaningful first hand knowledge) of the US react the way they do, it is appropriate to observe it is stereotypes they are reacting to.

The same is true of the states. France's government is suddenly left-wing, etc. etc. But at least on these boards, many, many foreigners do have first-hand experience of the US. But I wouldn't say this is a prerequisite to form an opinion. I find it pretty alienating that any criticism to US policies is immediately interpreted as anti-American.

And as an equally stupid reaction, suddenly, you eat `freedom fries' (to pick just one mind-boggling example) and dump good French wine (that one really hurt me ).

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Having at least lived here for a year or two, preferably as a taxpaying adult. That would be enough to give a person an independent basis for an opinion, as opposed to merely repeating received opinions.

So I am not allowed to have an opinion about the US because I never lived there?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
So I am not allowed to have an opinion about the US because I never lived there?

I think you should temper your opinions with an understanding and admission that you don't in fact know the country and therefore have very little basis for anything but a tentative opinion.

One thing I noticed living in Europe. The stronger and more firmly held the negative opinions about the US, the less likely it seemed to be that the person expressing them actually had any first hand knowledge of the US. Not counting trips to Miami Beach, of course.

That cuts both ways as well. A lot of Americans with the most dogmatic opinions about Europe have little knowledge of any European country. That's exactly why I refuse to answer VMPaul's silly question. I know it can't be answered yes/no in the way he demands, and I understand (or at least, try to understand) the limits of my own understanding of Europe. That doesn't mean we can't have opinions. But they need to be qualified. There is a difference between an honest to God informed opinion, and just regurgitating groupthink.

[TETENAL]

Good, my opinions are "tentative". Call them like that if you want to.

What I don't agree with, and what I'm actually pretty pissed about, is that you called me "Anti-American" for criticising an American president. I resolutely object being Anti-American. My opinion about your government is only a small part of my overall ("tentative") opinion of America. Some aspects I dislike, others I like (I personally would would say it balances out to the positive). Maybe both positive and negative opinions are "tentative", but it is certainly not based on an underlying Anti-American sentiment.

That's why I brought the example of Italy. It's with every country in the world. You find good and bad everywhere. And just because you point out the bad doesn't mean you hate the people or the country overall.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Good, my opinions are "tentative". Call them like that if you want to.

What I don't agree with, and what I'm actually pretty pissed about, is that you called me "Anti-American" for criticising an American president. I resolutely object being Anti-American. My opinion about your government is only a small part of my overall ("tentative") opinion of America. Some aspects I dislike, others I like (I personally would would say it balances out to the positive). Maybe both positive and negative opinions are "tentative", but it is certainly not based on an underlying Anti-American sentiment.

That's why I brought the example of Italy. It's with every country in the world. You find good and bad everywhere. And just because you point out the bad doesn't mean you hate the people or the country overall.

Did I personally call you anti-American? I don't recall. I might have done. Then again, you might have just read into something else.

I think you should realize that when a person only makes negative comments, it's likely to be interpreted as not being the product of balanced opinion. And when that person has no personal knowledge, and really no personal stake in something, yet still has strong (negative) opinions, it's more likely still.

I was asked earlier about my emotional attachment to British politics. It's a country I lived in for 19 years, and I have family there. Also, indirectly, the identity of the British Prime Minister and the policies of the British government has an effect on my country. But dispite that, I really don't have any emotional interest in British elections. In other words, I seem to be more detached about a country I know very well and have a family stake in, than many of you seem to be about a country you don't know at all and have no stake in.

When I see such personal emotional involvement in the internal politics of a foreign country, it does make me wonder how rational it is. It is not like Germany is some weak dependency totally subject to the poltics of the US. You have your own politics, and your own place in the world. But you seem to be obsessed with a country that isn't your own, and it strikes me as weird and maybe not motivated by entirely rational reasons.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Did I personally call you anti-American? I don't recall. I might have done.

You did. I found that offensive.

I think you should realize that when a person only makes negative comments, it's likely to be interpreted as not being the product of balanced opinion.

If you read such a discussion board you naturally get a skewed impression. If you read Apple's troubleshooting fora you would think Macs are total crap. That's because of the nature of such a board only people with problems post. Those in the majority who don't have problems you don't read. It's the same effect here. The US foreign policy is "arguable". That's why you read about it here.
However I'd like to point out, that I also post positive example of US politics. See a recent example. I also post negative examples of my own country, but such posts naturally quickly die due to lack of interest. I also post in the OS X and Software fora. These are my main interest here.

Also, indirectly, the identity of the British Prime Minister and the policies of the British government has an effect on my country.

See, and the US president has an effect on my country. More so than the British prime minister has on yours. It's the lot you have to carry as the most powerful country in the world. Carry it with more pride.

When I see such personal emotional involvement in the internal politics of a foreign country, it does make me wonder how rational it is. It is not like Germany is some weak dependency totally subject to the poltics of the US. You have your own politics, and your own place in the world. But you seem to be obsessed with a country that isn't your own, and it strikes me as weird and maybe not motivated by entirely rational reasons.

This is an English language forum based in the US. As I said from time to time I post a thread about my country, but what you and the international viewers here are commonly most interested in is US politics. Of course German and European politics is personally more interesting for me, but this is nothing I can extensively discuss here. I discuss this in other German language fora and with my friends. So what you know about me is only a small skewed aspect. Your opinion of me should be considered "tentative".

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
You did. I found that offensive.

Sorry. However, have you looked at the stuff people post pretty regularly about me? But it is just a web board.

If you read such a discussion board you naturally get a skewed impression.

True enough. I probably react to it a bit more because I got pretty sick of encountering anti-American sentiment when I lived in the UK. (Less so when I was in Germany, by the way, but there much of it could be explained as a normal town antipathy to soldiers). Conseqently, my first reaction is pretty negative.

On the other hand, if I were one of a group of Americans hanging out on a German board obsessively discussing the minutia of German politics and telling Germans what to do and think despite not having any connection to Germany, don't you think some Germans might wonder what my problem is?

[swrate]

The estimation loss of votes of European voters towards GW, according to Pr.. Sam Wang, is at a 9% loss. (approximation)

I know people swinged and voted Democrat, and one only (not in real life) switched the other way round, so I find that estimation reasonable.
Going from that point, I believe the same happened in the States, even if the proportion of voters swinging to the left is smaller.

I am not a partisan, neither side, I felt closer to another candidate.
All this talk about how Europeans hate US, are jealous, etc... , maybe partly, yet in the 80�s , 90�s, there was a lot of admiration and respect for US, and it has to be regained.
I don�t know anyone around me who hates the US., some think US citizens are special, but the administration spilling blood has radicalised opinions.

US is in my heart, the Big Apple is part of me.
I tested a few counties states, the difference of mentalities.
People are totally different from one state to another, from one neighbourhood to another.
I imagine many are dazzled and confused having to start to think about the global problem.
Icydanger, and the danger awakens the minds.
Its as if an inferno wheel had started spinning, I wish a way of balancing on the line will be found through a change. Difficult task ahead for the next term.
Diplomacy, negotiation and collaboration are desperately needed, i.e the episodes (mistakes/problems) of the administration.

Are we being brainwashed?
News in many(M-E, EU) countries are: US said no to this, no to that, no to this, US built, funded, US in war, US spilt blood, US tortured, US raided F,N,S, US (inside)split.
Every day, one of those will come up.

Personally,
I do not like seeing soldiers give sweets to starving children.
Sugar.... makes many diseases worse on fragile bodies.

-2
Second of November, �Jour des Morts�
I care very much about the happenings that day, as well as many people, our economy/politics are tied to US.
We do not have much impact with just our thoughts, and I doubt the countings will have ended that day.
Here we are lucky. We know the results one or two hours after the election, we live, not in a Democracy, nor in a Republic, we live in a Confederation, sliding to the right lately.
I care very much about my backyard, here too, and the US are part of my garden.
Discussions bring suggestions and a better international collaboration
cannot be negative.


Whatever the outcome of this votation,
If GW is elected, will he be able to clear his own mess or will he make more?
If Kerry is elected, will he be able to clear the mess, or will people start whining before he even has a chance of moving? Because �problems� �mistakes� will not vanish from one day to the next.
Cleaning this up will take years, and people will find it hard and difficult.

Personally, I was unhappy when GW was elected in 2000.
I even apprehended him being elected, I never forgot how his father, GBush left Saddam in power, and probably had contracts, until the sanctions, with Saddam. I read reports about the consequences of the sanctions on national health, education, economy and wondered why they left the monster there, and were punishing whole populations.
After I read a few team of wolfs previsions (not on the web anymore) I understood why.

I also despise the fact GW went to Iraq at a time when a better intervention was needed in Afghanistan, even though a very large majority of humanitarians, leaders, analysts, were saying it would be better to start in September-October. They disregarded Dr Blix reports, will stop my list here, the post is already too long and time is catching me up.

[CreepingDeth]

Personally, no matter what country you are, you shouldn't gauge your ideas popularity in other countries. If you're a commie, you don't care what country x is doing. If your a capitalist country, you don't care what country y is doing.
Stop making your decisions on the opinions of others.

Of course, that doesn't take into account who's wrong and who's not on principal. Another discussion.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
If you're a commie, you don't care what country x is doing. If your a capitalist country, you don't care what country y is doing.
Stop making your decisions on the opinions of others.

Hmm, let's see:

1953 Iran: Prime minister Mossadegh who is supported by the communistic party is toppled with the help of the CIA
1954 Guatemala: Socialistic president Arbenz is toppled with the help of the CIA
1961 Cuba: CIA tries to topple and kill communistic president Castro
1961 Kongo: CIA kills president Lumumba
1964 Brasil: After social reforms president Goulart is toppled with the help of the CIA
1965 Dominican Republic: USA militarily intervenes on the side of the military dictatorship after toppled socialistic president Bosch tries to return
1967 Greece: USA helps the fascistic dictatorship of Papadopoulos into power
1973 Chile: CIA organizes the assassination of socialistic president Allende
1974 Cyprus: Democratic president Makarios is toppled with the help of CIA and US-State Department
1976 Argentina: Military dictatorship comes into power under CIA instruction
1981 Nicaragua: USA supports terror groups against the communistic government with weapons
1991 Haiti: USA initiates military coup against democratically elected president Aristide

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
If your a capitalist country, you don't care what country y is doing.

Whom are you telling this?

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Hmm, let's see:

Some useless numbers.


Whom are you telling this?

Ok, you misunderstood what I was saying. Why should any country give a **** about the opinion of foreign governments. Why would anyone look to the popularity of their country in another country to judge how they are doing.

My point: I don't give a **** about what Euro-socialists think about my President or my country. French, Germans, Romanians�I really don't care.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Having at least lived here for a year or two, preferably as a taxpaying adult. That would be enough to give a person an independent basis for an opinion, as opposed to merely repeating received opinions.

lol!

so, you think that the best person to give an objective opinion on the US is someone who has lived there for a while paying taxes (maybe after having lived in another country previously?)

maybe they might also be called 'Simey'? and be 'clinically insane'? or would that make it a little too specific?


get real man.

[moki]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
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.

And that's how it should be; Europeans should have zero influence on the US election; indeed any overt attempts to influence the election will likely backfire.

It seems leaders in Europe, and around the world, are rather divided on the issue, though:

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041...0448-5556r.htm

It seems to me that Europe has more than their fair share of domestic problems to deal with.

[Keiretsu]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Agree. Who cares what the Europeans think? OUR country, OUR election. Stay the f**k out of it.

So why did YOUR country care about the germans not helping to stupidly invade Irak?

So YOU people stay in YOUR country!

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Ok, you misunderstood what I was saying. Why should any country give a **** about the opinion of foreign governments. Why would anyone look to the popularity of their country in another country to judge how they are doing.

My point: I don't give a **** about what Euro-socialists think about my President or my country. French, Germans, Romanians�I really don't care.

Yeah, you don't give a ****. But others do. I am interested in the politics of other countries, such as Japan, France, and Italy.

Oh, France has a conservative government, they are not part of the `Euro-socialists' I think it has been mentioned more than once.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
lol!

so, you think that the best person to give an objective opinion on the US is someone who has lived there for a while paying taxes (maybe after having lived in another country previously?)

maybe they might also be called 'Simey'? and be 'clinically insane'? or would that make it a little too specific?


get real man.

Hardly. Several people on this board have lived in several countries. We've had threads about it, go search them.

I mentioned the taxpaying thing for the same reason why I distinguish my 19 years in the UK from my three years in Germany. While I was in Germany I was a US soldier, which means I didn't really participate actively in the German economy. It's similar to an exchenge student's POV. In my view, someone like that has a little more perspective than a tourist (you are there longer, and therefore have more opportunity to talk to people), but much less than someone who really lives and works the way a local does.

I don't think you can really intelligently discuss a country's internal politics until you know the country the way a person living in that country knows it. Until you are paying for the things you see, you aren't a true participant as a resident is.

My UK experience, by the way, is also getting out of date. I know that, and understand that. I haven't lived there since the late 80s.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Agree. Who cares what the Europeans think? OUR country, OUR election. Stay the f**k out of it.

Why dont you guys apply that thinking to the rest of the world, stay the F**K out of every other countries business. Otherwise your fair game. PS Canadians hate bush too.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't think you can really intelligently discuss a country's internal politics until you know the country the way a person living in that country knows it.

That sounds very true. And you will find that Bush is mostly criticised by foreigners for his foreign politics. Whether you rase or lower taxes for upper or middle or lower lower income probably doesn't really interest much foreigners.

Some domestical issues the US is pressing to get in foreign countries as well (behind CreepingDeth's back) like DMCA we got by US pressure, Patriot Act we got biometric passports to be able to travel to the US, and software patents the US is pressing so that we get them. So there is naturally some interest what happens in the US since it is influencing our lifes.

[Spliffdaddy]

omg, the Canadians hate Dubya?

whatever will we do.

(insert rolleyes)

[Athens]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
omg, the Canadians hate Dubya?

whatever will we do.

(insert rolleyes)

oh if you guys only knew how dependent you are on our energy, if we cut you off, the US would be screwed, something like 25% of all your power and natural gas comes from us. So ya whatever will you do...

(insert middle finger here)