As the US presidential election approaches, people all across Europe ask themselves who they'll vote for. Some have discovered, to their dismay, that they can't. Thanks to a clause in US election law, a mere technicality that requires what lawyers call "US citizenship" to vote, hundreds of millions of Europeans have been disenfranchised. It isn't yet known when this clause was inserted, but it should suffice to ask: Who benefits? George W. Bush, of course, and the fact that he did it without being noticed demonstrates his power over the American media.

But there are those who want an end to this discrimination of non-citizens. Only three weeks ago, Aftenposten wrote in an editorial:

The US means so much to the world that "the rest of us" almost should have a form of voting rights in the US.

Then there's this campaign, Europe against Bush, headed by the former deputy leader of the Liberal Youth Party in Norway, Knud E. Berthelsen. Nettavisen writes:

Many Norwegians now gather European forces with one purpose: To ensure that president George W. Bush is fired by the American voters. .. - I can't sit quiet and watch as Bush destroys the world. If there is one political issue which is important to support, it's regime change in the US. That is the key to everything else I work for, such as global democracy, human rights, and saving what's left of the environment here on Earth, [says Berthelsen]. Berthelsen counts on massive support for his campaign for the following reason: - How many Bush fans do you know? How many have you heard say something negative about Bush? Even those who normally don't have opinions about anything political have opinions about Bush, and the great majority is against. This is true for all of Europe.

The paradox Berthelsen wants to focus on is the fact that the leader of the US is also leader of the world, but is elected only by American citizens. - As a world federalist I also believe that all the citizens of the world together must elect the leaders of the world, while now it's those 100 million Americans who vote in the US elections who choose the world leader. I want to show Americans what we Europeans believe about Bush, and show the opponents of Bush that they have our support.

Insert usual joke about being on Karl Rove's payroll here: ""

I'm not surprised that people in the "social liberal"/centre-right Liberal Party believe these things. I would have been until recently, when I found their member magazine at a friend's place. (He claims, as if I believe him, that he's not a member.) It seems from what I read that the Liberals have turned wacky on foreign policy. Mix neo-pacifism, irrational faith in international institutions and US/Israel-paranoia with moderate centre-right politics, and you have much of the Norwegian Liberal Party. (Israeli terrorism against Palestinians must be condemned! Fund the UN with a global lottery! Hm?)

I wonder if Berthelsen has thought through his wish for European voting rights. It's usually assumed that when you vote in an election, the winner becomes .. your leader. Will we now have to pay taxes to Washington? Obey the new president's foreign policy? Follow their constitution? There are many interesting possibilities, and a Kerry victory - which Berthelsen obviously hopes for - won't make them much less interesting.

Myself I hope to keep a low profile on the election. Yes, Bush has done a good job on foreign policy, and that's all I really care about, but unless more internationally unpopular wars become necessary in the next presidential period, I don't think the kind of Democrat who could beat Bush would do a much worse job. Or maybe I'm wrong, but there's so much noise and spin in the presidential trench wars that I prefer to just watch. I just wish the noise and spin would stay in the US, and not seep out all over the planet.

(Update: Jan Haugland writes about this as well, and the Argus mentions a similar campaign. And then there's Hans Blix: "I think maybe we foreigners should have the right to vote in your next election, since we are so dependent on you.")

I suggest that if Europeans want to vote in US elections that they abandon the EU and apply for US statehood instead.

Just for the record, I've never paid for membership of Venstre. I find their foreign policy disgusting.

Bjorn,
Please allow me to say first how much I have enjoyed reading your postings over the last year as I have never commented here before. I was moved to comment on your previous post, but I think this one dovetails nicely into where my mind is re: Bush-hating Europeans. It seems there is no sense by the Bush haters that their vitriol streams off of President Bush and lands squarely on me. I like President Bush. I voted for Bush. I will vote again for Bush. Bush has done what I wanted in regard to the WoT and in Iraq. I see no sense that lefties who hate Bush with a vitriol I find unseemly, and frankly just a little bit planned and contrived, understand that they by definition must hate me as well. Even in America this is true. John Kerry has not demonstrated in any way that he wants to be MY president. The contempt his campaign has shown for the actions the President has taken do not exempt me as a regular citizen he wishes to represent. I have been made to feel as though I must be his enemy as well. I refuse to yeild, however. I like my President. I like Texans. I like cowboys, and I like New Yorkers and don't want to see what happened on 9/11 or 3/11 happen again. My heart sings with joy at the downfall of Saddam and the awakening of the Iraqi people. I have come to absolutely love them and think that the world has surely missed out these past several decades in the silencing of their voices. So please allow me to say as just a regular American that the Commie/Islamofascist axis (which sadly the Euro-lefties have decided to either join or prostrate before; I'm not sure which) had better be just as unnerved and offended by Wendy as they are by GWB.

That's a good, interesting comment, Bjorn.

If Europeans wish to vote in our elections, they're perfectly welcome to emigrate to our shores and become citizens of the United States of America. That's how most of our ancestors did it. Of course, it would mean embracing the values that most Americans hold dear, including our Constitution. You see, all that it takes to become an American is to believe in the power of that document and to live by its precepts. It is what we share in common, even though we have divergent ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds in our society. It is what has made us such a successful nation for more than two centuries.

When *the world* is against US, I know we're right.

Is our being right (again) arrogance or confidence?

Guess it depends on whether or not one asks a European or American.....

Someone should remind these people what goes around, comes around, do we get to vote in their elections?????

Wendy:

You've nailed it on the head. Thank you for an excellent post!

Well, Wendy - I don't like Bush much. If I could vote in the U.S. (which Norway, with its silly prohibition against holding dual citizenships, prevents me from doing), I would have voted for Gore in the last election and Kerry in the upcoming election. I may have held my nose while I voted for them, but I still think they'd be better for the US than Bush. I also think Bush came by the office of presidency through an extra-constitutional process, and I think he's handled the war on terror abominably. But I suppose it's okay for you and me to disagree.

But if there's anything that drives me to change my mind, it's these knee-jerk, pseudo-intellectual Eurosnobs who think that they by virtue of drinking European water or something believe that their insights are superior to anything their American counterparts could come up with. It's gotten so ridiculous that they may - with their inane activism - accomplish the exact opposite of what they intended. Americans may vote for Bush DAVKA (a Hebrew expression that means "out of sheer spite.")

As a voter who voted for Gore and hated Bush, I can tell you that most people who still hate Bush are those who haven't learned anything and are in denial about September 11, the War on Terror, and the spread of Islamofascism.

Really, folks. If you Bush haters would sit down for a few minutes and think about WHY you hate him, you'll find that it's mainly because of trivia. It's because you don't like his religion or you're afraid that John Ashcroft "might" "possibly" take away your civil liberties. In fact, you still have more civil liberties than you did under the Sainted Bobby Kennedy. Being against Bush because of his religion is called PREJUDICE, folks.

Anyway, I find that most Bush haters today are afraid to think about changing their minds because Bush hating is really a fashion statement, not a true product of actual knowledge.

While having my cup of coffee at Starbuck's this morning, I listened to the banter about how stupid and fascistic Bush is. Yeah, sure. What a laugh.

For once I don't visit your blog in the morning, Bjørn, and we end up writing more or less the same story.

Except I actually did that joke about Karl Rowe ;)

I've heard that sort of thing plenty of times -- I don't get the logic of turning your own government and economy over to France and Germany and then complaining that you don't have adequate control over the US....?

Wendy, by the way, is 100% correct.

A Danish newspaper (Berlingske Tidende) is running an advertising campaign in which billboards and posters shout "ANTABUSH" in bold white letters on a black background. In a much smaller font, the ads ask whether Americans will finally be able to get rid of President Bush this November. Just like that. The assumption being, of course, that some alien power came down and installed the Bush administration on America against its will (yeah, yeah, you Florida conspiracy nuts go ahead and have all the fun you want with that one), and that the wretched American people may not be able to get rid of him even if they want to! And this is an ad, remember, to sell a newspaper, not some kind of organic brain disorder medication... in a socialist country that's all agog because their Crown Prince is getting married! (That Mary's a hottie though, you can't blame the guy.)

Bjorn, thanks for this story.

This kind of stuff makes it much more likely that I will be voting Bush on my absentee ballot.

http://www.liberal.no/200402/tekster/Globalisering%20er%20positivt

In Reference to todays post on Europeans wanting to vote in the US elections (If this goes through, can I vote in the spanish election next time?) I saw that the leader of the liberal party in Norway, Lars Sponheim, (not to be confused with american def. of "liberal") threw in all his intellectual weight in to the Am. Elections too; "The best thing USA can to do this autumn, is to elect a president that sees the value of the UN, and puts the UN ahead of the US". When Lars Sponheim, the man that praise-worthy tried to make the struggle for better treatment of Circus Elephants a prime issue last election year, and recieved not far from 100,000 votes last election, feels it is time to give his council to the american electorate - the american voter damn better sit down & take notice. Yes listen well, Yankees - Because its far from certain Sponheim will repeat himself. Youve been warned.

G

By interesting coincidence, "The Argus" blog has a post on this very same subject, which IMHO is even more entertaining than this one, which is quite entertaining as it is (http://www.registan.net/the_argus/2004/03/outsourcing_cit.html).

P.S. "The Argus" blog specializes in Central Asian affairs. It's the best one I've found yet for info on Central Asia (http://www.registan.net/the_argus/).

Odd that overthrowing a dictator in Iraq to install a democracy is considered such a threat to global democracy by Venstre. Similarly support for Israel, a democracy, against dictatorships which oppose it, again a threat to global democracy. I suppose eventually we'll hear how opposing the dictatorship Cuba and supporting the democracy Taiwan are also threats to global democracy.

I think dissident frogman has another bumper sticker --"The best thing USA can to do this autumn, is to elect a president that sees the value of the UN, and puts the UN ahead of the US". --

Put the UN ahead of the US

Vote John Kerry

"apply for US statehood instead" But where do we put the 51st star on our flag?

In addition to agreeing with Wendy's excellent post, I'd like to mention that isn't it funny how Europeans seem to think that to calling someone a 'cowboy' is an insult and being from Texas is somehow shameful? The recent Spanish elections lead me to wonder if the Islamists might not try something similar shortly before the American elections. If they do, I'm about 99% sure the public reaction would be worlds apart from Spain's.

John Thacker,
but that *is* what they believe are threats to global democracy. By definition, everything the US does is wrong according to these people. I can even guarantee, that should the US give up WoT tomorrow, when the next terrorist attack comes the US will be blamed by them for not being responsible and continuing finishing the WoT...
Paul, if they are clever they wont do anything in the US, and stay far away, trying to keep the threat out of the election. Kerry says he will ask permissions from Europe before doing anything, and that would mean 4 years to attack and rebuild the networks while "appropriate response" will be *discussed* in the UN and EU...

Wendy,
thanks for letting us now you exist. :-) I was beginning to doubt with all the big media reporting otherwise.. It was a really great post! :-)

Oddly enough, both of these campaigns want to publish my criticism and are interested in presenting it honestly. No editing for content involved. The guy from Voices04 even said he agrees with a lot of my criticism of the whole endeavor. Interesting folks.

I've been thinking . . . Why don't the Europeans try to vote in the Saudi elections? I blame the Saudis for funding and spreading Islamofascism so rapidly in the past 20 years (when I wasn't paying attention). Since the Saudis are the ones who are causing the trouble, the Europeans should be trying to influence them.

Just a thought.

I hope John Kerry wins the upcoming election, but to hate Bush isn't that an Arabian approach too America? George W. Bush seems like a nice chap, almost likable. Some critics in "Europe" have accused him of using the same rhetoric as Hitler did in the 30's.

If you aren't too disgusted you can read the speeches yourself and make up your own mind about it. http://www.hitler.org/speeches/

I hope this is not inappropriate.Feel free to delete it Bjørn.

OG: Hating Bush or irrationally attributing evil motives to the US - ie. anti-Americanism - is an American idea, exported to Europe. A genuinely European approach would not reuse internal American partisan rhetorics, which is pretty much all this is. Nothing original about it, just a different kind of cultural imperialism. Bush as Hitler is a good example. Only an American would care enough about internal US party politics to invent that idea, or the related ones about Republicans being fascists or modern imperialists. There are many good aspects of American culture, but this trench war rhetorics is one thing I really wish they'd keep to themselves.

Random thoughts -

"I think maybe we foreigners should have the right to vote in your next election, since we are so dependent on you." AAAAARGHH! Americans, certainly conservative ones, don't WANT you to be dependant on us! And WE are NOT at fault that you are. We don't want to be "indespensible" to our 28-year-old children, we want them out and about and forthright and self-sufficient. If we disagree with them about some things, at least we will respect them for their independence. Got it, Hans?

"Americans may vote for Bush DAVKA (a Hebrew expression that means "out of sheer spite)."
Hello. I've been harping on the 'sphere the horrible dread I feel for these Olympics coming up. They WILL be an anti-American hate-fest, mark my words. And millions in Europe will say, "Thank God, now the Americans see 'the truth' and they'll vote against Bush." Guess again.

I argued with a friend and said, "Don't the Europeans have an obligation to follow the Republican ideals of the US governing party, given the help and liberation and all that the US has done, and given that it is the backbone of NATO?"

A: "Of course not, they are under no obligation to sign up for Republican ideals at all.

"Then why in the world am I or my party obligated to sign up for the transnational ideals of European socialists?"

A: Uh.... um..... uh....

Isolationism is coming, no matter who wins in November. Hope the world is ready for it.

Let's clear away one myth before we do anything else. Bush is _not_ a cowboy. I've known cowboys, I'm related to a couple and i've got strong cowboy sympathies/leanings. W is an east coast poser with a resort ranch home. As Conway said, I don't call him a cowboy till I see him ride.

I don't hate him, but I don't think he's a very good president. And I find Rightwingers complaining about W-hatred hilarious, they're the ones who raised the bar in that department.

"Isolationism is coming, no matter who wins in November. Hope the world is ready for it."

This is a complete misreading of the geo-political situation. Bush ran as an isolationist. Recall his campaign agenda that he didn't believe nation building was in the US interest.

Isolationism is a non-issue in the space age. Those that advocate isolationism today are as intellectually fossilized as those who think the world is flat. Even if the US wanted to adopt isolationism as a policy it would not be possible.

Isolation is not in the agenda. War is in the agenda. The war against the jihad has not been won just because Saddam and the Taliban have been defeated. It is just a start. The next big flashpoint will probably be Iran.

Iran has a nuclear bomb building program that is in it's advanced stages. The UN and IAEA have once again shown themselves to be spineless appeasers regarding Iran nuke program. One way or another Iran will not be allowed be attain nuclear weapons. This will probably reach a boiling point this summer.

By the time the US election arrives in November, Iraq will be a distant memory that won't be the big question of the day. It will be the war with Iran.

And I'm sure France and many other Europeans will not allign themselves with the US despite knowing full well that Iran is developing nuclear weapons with the intent of arming the jihad.

Reid -

Just to clarify, I do not support isolationism, I merely predict it. I do so after a radical re-assesment of the human race that I have undergone in the past year.

Quite simply, I have lived my entire life under the impression that most people on earth will choose freedom and liberty over tyranny, and that we would agree that the advancement of freedom on this planet is a goal that we all hold as desireable, though we might differ on methods.

I now have no choice but to acknowledge that millions of fat, happy Westerners who have never genuinely feared their own government (genuinely, not rhetorically) will knowingly and forthrightly, without apology, march in lockstop with the most monstrous tyrannies on the planet. If North Korea invaded the South tomorrow, mnillions of Westerners (and others) would quietly or quite publicly root for the Pharoh that has starved two million of his own people, and do everything possible to undermine the fight against him. After warehouses full of archives about what Stalin did, what Mao did, what Pol Pot did, absolute personality cultists all, we see Saddam Hussein doing the EXACT SAME THINGS and millions of free people could not care less.

Would that they did not care. They go out of there way to enable Saddam Hussien to continue doing so, in perpetuity. And, after all we know about such regimes, millions of Westerners now feel quite capable of identifying totalitarianism when they see it.... in America, where the Dixie chicks got removed from some country music stations for a while because they went overseas and criticized the President when war was imminent. Starve two million, 300,000 mass graves, slaughter 22 million in purges..... hurt the Dixie Chicks latest tour.... all the same, what's the difference, who are we to judge anyone (EXCEPT George Bush's America, always fair game).

American engagement requires the suppport of the American people in helping those weaker than us to fight for their liberty, freedom and right to choose their own government, and do so in safety. If tens of millions of people, many who we once called allies, do not care one damn bit about their freedom, much less anyone else's, and are convinced that whoever, foreign or domestic, who tries to safeguard them from those who would destroy them if they could, whoever that is is basically an imperialist oppressor and white supremecist....

Well, such people cannot be defended. They cannot be helped. Even if we wanted to, we can't. Like your 28-year-old child, the time has come for them to make their decisions, and live..... or ... die .... with the result.

America WILL live free or die. Others, I am now convinced, will not. And no child of mine will be sent into the field to defend such people. They will defend their lives and freedom themselves, or lose it.

We will stay as armed as is necessary, and aware of our limitations.

I damn near cry as I write this. The spectre of millions of free men and women signing up with not just tyranny (like Marcos or Pinochet), but genuinely monstrous, unfathomable, and obvious tyranny sickens my soul to the core. And I wonder just how dark the next few decades will be, and if millions of children in once-free lands wil watch movies from our own era and civilization, and turn to their parents and cry "What did you DO to us?"

I think it's important to realize that even with Gore today, or Kerry in the future, as presidents of the U.S., the U.S. would still hold a much more hawkish posture vis a vis terrorism and Arab nationalism (whether it's the secular or "religious" variety). I don't think that a Democratic president would have invaded Iraq, but I do think he would have gone after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The Europeans may not be as pissed off as America as they are now, but they still would have been pissed off. And, sadly, I think Al Qaeda still would have bombed Madrid.

--I don't hate him, but I don't think he's a very good president. And I find Rightwingers complaining about W-hatred hilarious, they're the ones who raised the bar in that department.--

Raised the bar from what? Considering how low it went.......

We're not the ones moving the goal posts back.

Why is Europe dependent on US? Because we're the king and they haven't gotten out of the serf mode yet.

--Follow their constitution?--

That's a win for you, gun rights, possibly concealed carry and cops will actually need warrants before taking evidence away when investigating companies.

Plus cheese and caramel popcorn. And stores open late!

And the papers could actually portray Jacko Chiraq as a worm and not be fined!!!!

YUM!

Andrew X: "If North Korea invaded the South tomorrow, mnillions of Westerners (and others) would quietly or quite publicly root for the Pharoh that has starved two million of his own people, and do everything possible to undermine the fight against him."

No. You've misunderstood the way European neo-pacifists think. They're not - most of them - consciously rooting for the bad guys. They have a set of ideals they want all countries to obey. Those ideals include "thou shalt not invade another country, but talk out all thy differences". If North Korea invaded South Korea, everyone would condemn it, _and_ support an international force (if desired) to fight them back, because then Kim Il Sung would be the aggressor. If South Korea or the US invaded North Korea, or struck against its leadership somehow, no matter for what reason, _they_ would be the aggressors, and there would be angry peace protests across the world.

The war in Afghanistan was supported by mainstream Europe because it was seen as striking back, and rejected by leftists because they believed there hadn't been enough talk yet. So people differ in how much talk they believe is enough, and what exactly defines a just invasion, but they all agree that you do talk a lot, and that you don't attack first. That's a dangerous thing to believe, but not as suicidal as you make it out.

Sandy: "And the papers could actually portray Jacko Chiraq as a worm and not be fined!!!!"

They can now, most places. Freedom of the press is not an issue here. It's how you use it that matters. Sweden has very broad protection of speech, but from what I understand a larger number of media taboos than Norway and Denmark.

ic, 51st star on our flag? It won't do. See, our allegiance is not to a king, nor to a queen, nor to Bushitler, our allegiance is to the flag. It just won't do to mess it up. Until we decide how and where to put the star, Europe has to remain our protectorate. Haven't we been protecting her for more than half a century? Like the Peurto Ricans, Europeans can send a representative to our Congress to observe how real democratic govt. works. After all our govt. is said to be the best that money can buy.

"support an international force (if desired) to fight them back"
Like last time in Korea?

Multilateral, United Nations Authorized, France Approved,
Foreign Troops in the Korean War:

300,000 -- US
39,474 -- Foreign
339,474 -- Total

88% US

I guess the world doesn't mind young Americans fighting and dying, it just wants to tell them where and how they die. It's so cowboyish for the Americans to die for their own country, it's much nicer for them to die for someone else's.

"I now have no choice but to acknowledge that millions of fat, happy Westerners who have never genuinely feared their own government (genuinely, not rhetorically) will knowingly and forthrightly, without apology, march in lockstop with the most monstrous tyrannies on the planet."

Please read this piece by an Iraqi blogger
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

Inheriting freedom and deserving it. Mar. 26, 2004

Bjørn wrote:

"If North Korea invaded South Korea, everyone would condemn it, _and_ support an international force (if desired) to fight them back, because then Kim Il Sung would be the aggressor."

You mean Kim Jong Il, right?

Anyway, I'm not as optimistic. To build on ic's point, the international community may support a UN resolution under Chapter VII of the charter that would require North Korea to retreat. But I think they would only support military force to enforce that resolution if the US did the dirty work and took all the risk.

If the US said - "we're already too busy elsewhere - somebody else deal with this" - then I suspect France, Germany, Japan, China, etc., would complain a lot, ask for negotiations, declare progress, not accomplish a thing, all while hundreds of thousands of Koreans were murdered and impoverished.

Let's not kid ourselves. If the US has a terrible record of stopping genocide, Europe's is even worse. Fighting another war in the Korean peninsula - especially if the south had been overrun by the north - would be nasty nasty (and horribly expensive) business. And I'm cynical enough to think that several European leaders wouldn't be too upset if Lucky Goldstar, Samsung, Daewoo, Hyundai, stopped eating in on their market positions.

"Fighting another war in the Korean peninsula - especially if the south had been overrun by the north"

We are getting off topic. The North would be easily defeated by the South even without substantial US military assistance. The problem for the South is that Seoul would be devastated because it is within artillery range of the North.

The North Korean military is twice the size of the South. But the South has one of the worlds best trained and equipped militaries. The South has a 600,000 man military and millions of reservists. The North will not start a fight with the South. They know it would be the equivalent of signing the regimes death warrant.

Leif: "You mean Kim Jong Il, right?"

Um. No, I believe that Kim Il Sung's death was staged, and that he actually lives inside a vulcano island in the Pacific, from where he directs all the evil forces of the world. (Hey, I got "Kim" and "Il" right.)

"To build on ic's point, the international community may support a UN resolution under Chapter VII of the charter that would require North Korea to retreat. But I think they would only support military force to enforce that resolution if the US did the dirty work and took all the risk."

That's not the point. They would _support_ it, which is a few steps short of actually making significant contributions, but several steps ahead of rooting for the bad guys, as Andrew suspected they would. Europe is not going to play a significant role in international security matters until we have a major change of perspective, but that's not the same as siding with the tyrants.

And of course Reid is right about this being a bad example.

I don't want to veer too deeply into Korea, but I will say it is on topic because it is a good pardigm of how this world, right here and right now, confronts monstrous tyranny.

"If North Korea invaded South Korea, everyone would condemn it, _and_ support an international force (if desired) to fight them back, because then Kim (Jong Il) would be the aggressor."

Well, you are in Europe and I am in the US, so I will not disagree. I will simply say that I have a PROFOUND belief that the poeple who would think and act as I said above would number in the millions. Start with the absolute willingness to ignore, utterly and completely, the nature of the tyrannies in Iraq and N. Korea, and the millions of victims of it. There have been millions of marchers for "peace" over the last year. I know that some who even dared mention the crimes of Saddam at them were villified and even physically assaulted.

Note that in our hypothetical Korean invasion, Kim Jong Il would do or say SOMETHING to justify if, even if it were patently absurd. As you say, "South Korea or the US invaded North Korea, or struck against its leadership somehow, no matter for what reason, _they_ would be the aggressors".

And I say that all this monstrous pharaoh would have to do is SAY the US is the aggressor, and millions of besotted Pilgerites and Fiskies would swallow it whole, and thus support the "non-aggressor", who also happens to be the guy whose subjects are three inches shorter than their southern bretheren, due to forced starvation in behalf of ideology.

And millions do not care. At all. Simple as that.

Remember that in 1939, people were quite capable of making the case of how terribly Poland was treating Germany, and the awful things it was doing to ethinic Germans, and that attack by Polish commandos on that German radio station on August 31 really was the last straw, etc etc.

People will believe whatever "facts" fit what they need them to fit. But it's not hard to see the diffenence betweed a society that has a representative government, an oppostion party(s), and a free press.... and one that does not have those things, but DOES have a "father of the nation", in ultimate power, unctiticized, until death.

Millions of free Westerners ARE capable of seeing the difference between those two.... they just don't give a damn. They don't hold the former as even remotely superior to the latter, and will happily advance the interests of the latter at any given time, and shrug their shoulders over the results.

And it is in that reality that I can see what may be the death of "the West" as we know it, and a rollback of human liberty on this planet.

And millions just don't care. I know this. They have told me with their own actions and voices, and I believe them.

--Sandy: "And the papers could actually portray Jacko Chiraq as a worm and not be fined!!!!"

They can now, most places.--

But not where it counts, in frogistan, which I should have made clear, sorry.

It's not just that the NorKs can bomb SK, but also the possibility that SK learned Germany's lesson of absorbing the Eastern Germans. Lots of money down the tubes.

---three inches shorter than their southern bretheren, due to forced starvation in behalf of ideology.--

I thought it was more like 8+++ inches, 4'10" to about 5'7 - 8" or thereabouts.

I heard the same thing from CNN International in 92 when I was in Hong Kong, that Asians were getting taller because they were sleeping in beds and eating western food (McDonald's).

Well, no wonder why Blixie was pissed, his lifestyle depends on US. At his age, too, one would think he'd actually have grown up by now.

Europe has more people than the US and about as much money. So if the US is really destroying the world, isn't it fair to ask why Europe is failing to save it?

It does make one wonder. America and Europe are obviously highly interdependent, share very similar notions of liberty and human rights, and even have an increasingly universal linqua franca, English. Why should they not move toward becoming one state?

Geography and inertia are the two obvious reasons, and neither one should be lightly dismissed. However, the long term interest of the United States is clearly to spread American economic and political values as widely as possible, against the day when American power alone may not suffice to defend them. Europe for its part would be well advised to desist from the greatest wheel reinvention project in the history of the world -- the creation of a European federal state -- in favor of accession to a federal system that has worked for over two centuries.

In addition, we may as well be plain about an uncomfortable reality: European culture is dying. Preoccupied with ensuring a quiet life of easy prosperity for its current generation, Europe is producing too few children to ensure its future. It wants youth, energy, dynamism. It can get these through massive immigration of people carrying with them the backward and inferior cultures of Africa and Asia, or by reaching instead across the Atlantic toward the one nation that has proven its ability to reinvent itself through the ages.

Would this mean Europe would become more like the United States? It would. Europe's governments would become smaller and less intrusive, its private economy larger and less constrained. Its military forces would come under American command, and European representatives would meet to write laws not in Brussels but in Washington.

Obviously the act of assimilating so many new states would substantially change the United States as well. The initial impact would be greater for those European countries that chose to apply for statehood, however -- it going without saying that so large a project could be undertaken only in a piecemeal fashion. In any event, for those Europeans seriously wishing a voice in how the American government is chosen this is the obvious path to take.

I would be at a loss as to what to suggest to Europeans who wanted a voice in American affairs without wanting to pay any price for it.

Random thoughts. I think, that US and European values and policy are based on different concepts. Historically our foreign policy has been rooted in quasi-isolationism, unilateralism and preemptive conduct. See John Gaddis’ new book “Surprise, Security and the American Experience” I submit that these policies have been successful -- at least from our point of view -– because we have never been constrained by concepts or the guilt of empire building. A good example might be the Marshall Plan. Europe on the other hand seems to many Americans to have worn itself out by wars and building empires. Its approach now is to discuss and negotiate. See “Power and Weakness” by Robert Kagan
1.
In so doing with Islamics, it is impliedly of the view that there is a central kernel of shared values. Yet Islamics are by and large not integrated into European society and are viewed as workers and only workers. Moreover, Islamics seem very resistant to integration or accepting other groups.

Our experience in the US is different. Prejudice aside in some areas, we really do not have second class citizens or workers. We divide ourselves between illegal immigrants and citizens and once you are citizen that is the end of the story and your voice is equal. We find social differences to be a plus and of great interest. We are organized around a central core of values; the perimeter of which keeps changing but the central core remains inviolate. Our central core in inclusive -- and frequently very abrasive. If anyone has ever lived or even visited NY for even a short period there is that wonderful story about a tourist who has been here for sometime and asks someone for directions to “Can you tell me the way to the Statue of Liberty or should I just go F*** myself?” If you have never come here you will not find this funny and even find it horrid. Europe on the other hand is quite courteous and fairly exclusionary.

Today the largest ethnic group that has contributed to Bush’s reelection in terms of dollars are Arab Americans -- notwithstanding the great divide over Israel. That seems to say a lot to me about how US vlaues impact on recent citizens. Bush was once asked about international cooperation and the what he would say if we were attacked again. He said in words and substance I will not say vote for me and if we are attacked I will seek an international consensus before doing anything. Mr. Blix would like to have it both ways: have the right to veto US policy but not the obligation to pay for the consequences. Indeed I can imagine Blix proposing that US taxpayers fund Sweden’s social programs. I think I should stop now my thoughts are truly getting to random.

Great site by the way. Very sophisiticated commentary by the people who respond to your articles. I always learn something

--Would this mean Europe would become more like the United States? --

They have spent the better part of the last 60 years if not 200 making sure they're not like US.

Steyn had an article recently that revisited something he wrote about a year ago, IIRC. The 18th century belonged to America (but geez, really only the last 25 years) but the 19th century would be Canada's and it would "rule" North America.

Still waiting.

They prefer darkness, communism/fascism. I consider it a form of mutated monarchy. This is it, they're going to have to choose or the choice will be forced upon them, but I don't think it'll be by US.

Actually, tho, statehood does not come easily, first they must become a territory. They would become a state in about 30-50 years.

Soomeone just sent me a very snide, but funny joke. I cannot resist posting it:

The French Government announced today that in light of the Madrid bombing, France has raised its terror alert level from "run" to "hide." The only two higher levels in France are "surrender" and "collaborate."

Hello - Europe wants to vote in USA elections? Haven't you noticed: we Americans don't get to vote anymore. (Oh, we can vote all we want, we just can't get our votes counted.)

A better campaign would be to find a way to get Americans to learn what's going on in the world - those of us who understand didn't support Bush in 2000 and don't support him now! Find a way to help Americans who are crushed by capital to stop opposing labor. Convince bankrupt Americans that universal health care is not only a right, it's a lot less stupid than paying insurance companies. Convince SUV drivers around me that they have to breathe the air on this planet, too.

Find a way to do this, and you can leave the voting to us. Wait - in fact, we Americans didn't elect the insane criminal junta who occupies the White House. The majority of us ARE thinking liberals! But something stopped us from protesting SERIOUSLY when our govt was stolen.

I'm all for a quiet life. I also would like to see America and Europe more integrated. However, I think that Europe has some really great ideas about taking care of the common citizen. We Americans are too individualistic and greedy. This is going to hurt us big time in the near future. With (real) unemployment in the U.S. running around 7-8% with no social safety net such as the Euros have, and with greedy and out of control crazed capitalists running our government and society we have no right to lecture anyone else on their problems. We ought to look at ourselves first.

"A better campaign would be to find a way to get Americans to learn what's going on in the world - those of us who understand didn't support Bush in 2000 and don't support him now!" Well excuse me but, your arrogance aside, I think that you do have the argument backwards.

As for votes being counted or not: actually the voting process follows the electoral college process and all votes were counted. More importantly, some months afte the US Supreme Court decision, the NY Times (a rather liberal paper)laboriously went through the entire Florida voting counts and concluded that Bush had in fact won in Florida.

"Thinking liberals"? A mostodd and endangered breed of thought. With do aplogies to Descartes most liberals today have the view "I feel therefore I am right" and the facts be damned.

As an American I am sure that if I were European I would want to vote in the US election as well, undoubtedly our behavior here dramatically affects your life as well. When I go to Europe now I cannot tell that I've left the US, I hear American music, see American movies, American art shows in your museums, American books everywhere. Europeans are fond of nursing their primary defense mechanism for having been so marginalized and that is calling Americans stupid and imagining themselves to be superior thinkers, and that against all evidence. Think about this for a moment: presently America has two dune buggies roaming around the planet Mars collecting soil samples, analyzing them, and radioing the results back the US from 3,000,000 miles away. Could the EC put two of them out there? All of you together? Without even doing it, could you even design a system to do that? I think not. Hence when we move into the Middle East to settle everyone's problems you're just going to have to trust us. Because you are not us. And that's why you don't get to vote like us.

I may not be liberal as seen from my last note about Decartes, but I do think that it is quite presumptuous to say "you're just going to have to trust us. Because you are not us". Europeans have legitimate concerns and questions. The way to change a position is most assuredly not say "trust me" rather it is to engage in a dialogue and force tough questions to be answered. I happen to think that the US is correct, but we are not voiting for class president here and lives are at stake. What do you propose if the burden gets too much for the US --just say trust us and commit your troops. I think that is quite a bit to ask

right brain
If you came here looking for kinder garden,keep on looking. Try to connect your left-brain with your right brain and it will work better.

Another joke on behalf of the French: Lance Armstrong winning tour de France for *THE SIXTH* time(go texas).

Ah yes the French: Why are the roads in France lined with trees? Because invading armies don't like to march in the sun.

My last contribution on the French:

"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes." --Mark Twain

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." -- General George S. Patton

OG Norway, that is spelled "kindergarten" not kindergarden, inasmuch as #2 below calls for "no personal attacks" I will not comment further than your poor spelling.

thank you for the correction

Herbie, NY, of course they have legitimate concerns and questions and that’s why Bush was at the United Nations for fourteen months trying to get a consensus regarding Iraq. When Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 he didn't talk to UN at all, just went in with the Brits and French (really!) Bush tried and tried and eventually threw up his hands; he did make a poor case ultimately about going in hanging everything on discovering the elusive WMD rather than a need to fight Islamo-fascism. An argument made by dozens of Middle East analysts, everyone from Christopher Hitchens to Thomas Friedman. And for those who will be quick to dismiss a connection to 9/11 and Iraq I would point out that the day after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor FDR declared war on......Germany! Of course they had nothing to do with the attack on our Hawaii, but he saw Nazi Germany as the same monster and the problem. Ditto for Iraq, I don't think it really mattered where we started in the Middle East, just so we started. Setting up a democracy in the Middle East will drive and encourage democracy in that area the same way setting one up in Japan did for Asia. If the left in Europe refuses to fight fascism the right in America will. Again.

Right brain

As for your response to OG, you should spell in Norwegian as well as OG spells in English. I wish I could. A rather snide comment I must say.

I have what appears to be your stream of consciousness response to my posting. After reading it closely I am of the considered view, with due apologies to Ambrose Bierce, that the first word and the last word are too far apart. (For those who do not know who Bierce was he was an American Icon in the 1800s who wrote a wonderful book called the Devil's Dictionary. Among the better definitions was the one for a "second marriage": "the triumph of hope over experience." My note refers to one of the great book reviews he ever wrote "The covers of this book are too far apart.)

Seriously you are all over the place. You have run together a whole series of concepts and many are really not related. I, for one regard Bush?s speech to the UN as having been very powerful
While I don't disagree with how you come out; your arguments do nothing to support your conclusion. the issue, as I see it, is not WHETHER Europe a chance to ?see the light?-- so to speak--; rather the issue for Europe is ?hiding from the light does not make it dark?. The UN is an ossified organization ? controlled by a mob in the General Assembly of dictators. I am watching with some glee as to how the investigation with food for Oil comes out. Right now the betting is that France and Russia received substantial moneys through Bank Pariba. I am fascinated that Kofe?s son worked for one of the companies that funneled this money. Both the Wall St. J and the NY Times had wonderful op ed pieces on Kofegate (See Safire in the NY Times)

To analyze your argument further:
“of course they have legitimate concerns and questions and that’s why Bush was at the United Nations . . . for fourteen months trying to get a consensus regarding Iraq.”

OK but going to the UN, which is composed for the m,ost part by a series of small nations that are not riuled by demcoracy is not the way to make the point.

The next sentence giver no support and runs two topics together neither of which are related. Besides Hitchens in not and does not pretend to be Middle East Analyst Friedman in my view is a legend in his own mind. Thus:

“When Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 he didn't talk to UN at all, just went in with the Brits and French (really!) Bush tried and tried and eventually threw up his hands; he did make a poor case ultimately about going in hanging everything on discovering the elusive WMD rather than a need to fight Islamo-fascism. An argument made by dozens of Middle East analysts, everyone from Christopher Hitchens to Thomas Friedman.”

As for the next sentence, you have your facts wrong. After Pearl Harbor, it was the Germans who declared war on the US and the US responded. To this day no historian that I have read understands why Germany did this

“And for those who will be quick to dismiss a connection to 9/11 and Iraq I would point out that the day after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor FDR declared war on......Germany! Of course they had nothing to do with the attack on our Hawaii, but he saw Nazi Germany as the same monster and the problem.”

As for the next sentence, I submit that part of it is right and part of it is grossly wrong. Whether Iraq will be a democracy is still very much an open Q. What has been under appreciated is that by going into Iraq, Bush has caused a ground swell in the Middle East. He has forced Lybia to give up its weapons and there are now demonstrations in Syria by the Kurds for their rights. Even though the Arab Summit was a failure, the fact that democracy was open for discussion is significant.

“Ditto for Iraq, I don't think it really mattered where we started in the Middle East, just so we started. Setting up a democracy in the Middle East will drive and encourage democracy in that area the same way setting one up in Japan did for Asia. If the left in Europe refuses to fight fascism the right in America will. Again."

That is how I analyze your arguments

Herbie, NY

My favorite literary insult is Truman Capote’s response to Jack Kerouac’s On The Road, to which he said, “That's not writing that's typing.” I really have not much to add to your response other than perhaps I am using the term Middle East analyst too loosely, among my primary criteria being that they wrote about the Middle East prior to 9/11. Mostly I find them of the same mind: Christopher Hitchens, has been writing about and visiting the Middle East for well over a decade, I consider him a fine source of information about this area, along with VS Naipaul. Thomas Friedman, like most of NYC, I read every witty sentence. You were right Germany declared war on us on Dec. 7th, the American Congress declared war on them on the 11th . Oh well.

Right Brain

My own view of the general response by European governments to the current problems we face is is not unlike yours, but I think the problem has to be approached differently. With respect to European political leadeers (Blair aside), as Bierce once said: “intelligence is so highly honored [in Europe] that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of office.”

If Europeans can vote in the US without moving here, I should be able to run for office in Europe without leaving Texas. Who's with me?

And Herbie, inquiring minds want to know why Kofi had the black box in his files for 10 years. That could have prevented Rwanda.

Lynne???

Have you actually been paying attention to Europe's HC?

France - broke and putting money in so there's no long lines like Britain.

Britain - long lines and nearly broke. And as Iain Murry wrote, Britains are known for their bad teeth. They've also had national dental care for 60 years. He writes on HC, too, check out his blog.

Canada - they get faster treatment coming to America.

They can "afford" to take care of their citizens because they don't have the armed forces we do. We are their armed force, on the whole. We subsidize them.

Why in the world do you want to get rid of the best health care system in the world? And it is. We don't need to send us faster down the path to doom for 5% of the population. We can change things and cover them differently. I don't know if you're listening to spin, but there's a new book coming out, very expensive tho, about health care.

Also keep in mind that at age 40, we all need some freshening up. Technology is not what it was in the 60s, there's no reason the plan has to remain the same.

Check out some postings at Marginal Revolution.

And this is the info from Arnold Kling's blog:

Last night, I went to hear a talk by Regina E. Herzlinger, author of Consumer-driven Health Care. Her philosophy of health care is the opposite of the conventional wisdom that I derided in America is Crazy.

...Herzlinger said that 20 percent of the people without health insurance in the United States have incomes over $50,000, and that the fastest-growing income segment of people without health insurance is incomes over $75,000. She said that the absence of high-deductible, consumer-driven health plans is a big reason for this. (Not the 1st time I've read this, but how many times have you heard/read this in the news??? They're the backbone of America - Small Business Owners.)

Herzlinger is very skeptical of international comparisons of health care costs and outcomes. She pointed out that Europe's greater population density should make it easy to deliver care at lower cost. She pointed out that Canada's homogeneous population should make it easy to have overall good health care statistics. Controlling for population characteristics and population density is necessary in order to evaluate international data.

Herzlinger argued that the Swiss system of health care has features to emulate. One challenge for market-oriented health insurance is that insurance companies have an incentive to try to weed out risky patients. The Swiss system counters that by a risk-rating system which in effect taxes insurance companies that select low-risk patients and subsidizes those that select high-risk patients.

---

Sorry, Bjorn, OT, but I take my chances when I see them - even if I have to do it on a Norweigan blog - think about that for a mo! I'm going thru a blog in Norway disseminating info to an American living in America which she should be able to read in America but can't because of agendas.

--Hello - Europe wants to vote in USA elections? Haven't you noticed: we Americans don't get to vote anymore. (Oh, we can vote all we want, we just can't get our votes counted.)--

Laurie, some of us only got our votes counted once, others were on their way to 4, 5, 6, 7??? times...

Boy, do I feel left out. And Ginsberg didn't seem to have a problem w/it, my 1 to others 5ish, 7ish times.....

Oh, and since I'm an expert with the punch card system since I've been using it for 20 years now, I learned a long time ago to turn my ballot over to make sure my chads weren't hanging.

Of course, maybe if the ballot were designed as a bingo card.......there might not have been as much confusion......For people who've been voting for 50 years.

Keeping in mind that I don't ever recall ANY general election where I got to vote for 2 presidential candidates on the same ballot. And I think it's safe to say they never did either, but hey, there's always a first time for everything.

And don't try any arguments on me, I'm from Chicago (the city w/the most spoiled ballots, BTW) and I had relatives who were precinct workers way back when. It's not like a Daley had a hand in it or anything....OOPS! Man, Richard I must have been spinning in his grave, his son couldn't pull it off after growing up at the old man's knee.

Phili gave it a good try tho, 100% turnout in some precincts. Had more votes than the number of registered voters in the city. I tip my stylus to them.

But that's just me.

--A better campaign would be to find a way to get Americans to learn what's going on in the world--

Why do you think we're here? And at dissident Frogman's, David's Medienkritic, Mesopotamian, EURSOC, Cum Gran Salis (when hanz ze beeman posts) Merde and others?

I'll even bet you'd feel right at home in The Independent's chatroom at prospero/delphi.

Alan
Oh I do like that. My first vote would be to end early retirement in France and increase the work week to 45 hours. I would then end subsidized lunches. Most importantly I would eliminate all bureaucrats (a French word meaning imbicle); the test would be that if you have more than one pen in your pocket and the ink is not blue that you are fined. For Europe as a whole which spends 1/2 of the EU budget on agricultural subsidies; I would offer an amendment that there bo no agricultural subsidies after say 5 years. I would then require European financial reporting to prohibit "off balance sheet hidden reserves"

Sandy As for voting I say “vote early and vote often”

As for health care choices, one of the best books analyzing the issues is “Risk and Reason: Safety, Law and the Environment” by Cass R. Sunstein

Sandy Finally you do keeping saying that Americans should find out what is happening in the world. It seems -- to me -- that what you really saying is not that Americans don't know what is going on, but they don't agree with you and other liberals. I find that quite arrogant. Most of your postings seem to be filled with pre-formatted generalizations. The Q’s and response I see posted here, have for the most part, few generalizations let alone conclusions. If you have a point as why Americans don’t know what is going on perhaps you might be more concrete in your analysis.

Right Brain, one correction: FDR didn't declare war on Germany, the Germans conveniently declared war on the U.S. This was a bungle on Hitler's part, because if the Germans hadn't declared war on the U.S., FDR would have had a difficult time justifying the "Europe First" policy that Churchill wanted. The pro-German isolationists would have fought him tooth and nail, pointing out correctly that we were at war with the Japanese and that should be our primary focus. Instead, Hitler made it easy for FDR to set the wheels in motion to liberate Europe first.

One thing that I find interesting: We were attacked by the Japanese and then the Germans declared war on us. But where was the first place that American troops invaded? Morocco! Why? Because it was strategically necessary.

And that is also why we went into Iraq, even though we were attacked by Al Qaida: Because it was strategically necessary. We had two choices after 9/11: We could change the nature of the Muslim world in order to decrease the odds of another even more catastrophic attack on the U.S., or we could kill the lot of them. Iraq is the fulcrum where we are trying to place the lever, so to speak. We're a bit queasy about genocide, so we're going to try to change them first. The world should hope and pray that we are successful, because if we are eventually attacked with a nuke by some crazy Muslim, may Allah have mercy on the Muslims, because we won't.

SANDY P.

One of the great books written on social insurance and medical problems was translated from the French several years ago. "The New Social Question” by Pierre Rosanvallon. It is available on Amazon. Like all good books it is short; very little citation and long on analysis. My personal hate: books that are filled with obscure references and citations which, more often than not, don’t support the premise offered. :-)

Given the EU's anti-trust attack on Microsoft, I thought I would share with you the following software problems :-)

Upgrading to Wife 1.0
Last year a friend of mine upgraded from Girlfriend 4.0 to Wife 1.0 and found that it's a memory hog leaving few system resources for other applications. He is also now noticing the Wife 1.0 is also spawning Child-processes which are further consuming valuable resources. No mention of this particular phenomenon was included in the product documentation, though other users have informed me that this is to be expected due to the nature of the application.
1. Not only that, Wife 1.0 installs itself so that it is always launched at system initialization where it can monitor all other system activity. Some applications such as PokerNite 10.3 , Bachelor Party 2.5, and Pubnite 7.0 are no longer able to run on the system at all, causing the system to lockup when launched (even though the apps worked fine before).
Wife 1.0 provides no installation options. Thus, the installation of undesired plug-ins such as Mother-in-law 55.8 and the Brother-in-law Beta is unavoidable. Also, system performance seems to diminish with each passing day.
Some features my friend would like to see in the upcoming Wife 2.0:
A "don't remind me again" button.
Minimize button.
Ability to delete the "headache" file
An install feature that provides an option to uninstall 2.0 version without loss loss of other system resources.
An option to run the network driver in "promiscuous mode" allowing the the system's Hardware Probe feature to be much more useful/effective.
I myself wish I had decided to avoid all of the headaches associated with Wife 1.0 by sticking with Girlfriend 3.0 Even here, however, I have found many problems. Apparently you cannot install Girlfriend 4.0 on top of girlfriend 3.0. You must uninstall Girlfriend 3.0 first, otherwise the two versions of Girlfriend will have conflicts over shared use of the I/O port. Other users have told me that this is a long-standing problem that I should have been aware of. Guess that explains what happened to versions 1 and 2.
To make matters worse, the uninstall program for Girlfriend 3.0 doesn't work very well, leaving undesirable traces of the application in the system. Another identified problem is that all versions of Girlfriend have annoying little messages about the advantages of upgrading to Wife 1.0!
VIRUS ALERT
All users should be aware that Wife 1.0 has an undocumented bug. If you try to install Mistress 1.1 before uninstalling Wife 1.0, Wife 1.0 will delete MSMoney files before doing the uninstall itself. Once that happens, Mistress 1.1 won't install and you will get an "insufficient resources" error message. To avoid the aforementioned bug, try installing Mistress 1.1 on a different system and " never" run any file transfer applications(such as Laplink) between the two systems.
FYI: Don't even think about a shared directory!!!!!!!!!

Herbie, I have been accused of many things, but being liberal is not and has never been one of them.

Also Herbie, if you search Bjorn's site, you will find one posting w/comments from other Americans, mainly women ages 62ish to late 20 early 30ish, who might still lurk.

The gist, they're using the web to find out what's going on, don't like what's going on, and have decided not to be quiet when European friends/business associates/
acquaintences "critique" America. They've kept silent wanting to keep everyone happy.

No more. Because they think we live in a bubble, but pot, meet kettle, for the most part. Unlike people like Bjorn who "get it" and devote a lot of time to put together this informative site.

Don't know if it's true, but someone did post somewhere that Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist still hadn't been published in France by the end of 2003.

Sandy P.

Just back from Court. The Skeptical Environmentalist a very good book

Yes, we Westerners should all be allowed to vote in each other's elections and run for office in each others' countries.

Myself, I have a hankering to be PM of a smallish but highly developed and prosperous Euro country. Where do I sign up for PM of Holland?

I agree with Bjørn that much of the European (particularly Scandinavian) reaction to Iraq is based on an obsession with process and interminable negotiation, not by some sort of identification with the Ba'athist regime. I do recognise that Germany has played an important role in Afghanistan.

However, it must be said that outside of Northern Europe (for example here in Australia), there are many for whom the issue of process is little more than a rhetorical flourish, if it is even mentioned. Some have not wavered in their confident opinion that Bush is roughly equivalent to Hitler and that (for example) Capitalism is as bad as, or perhaps worse than, Communism. These are the people who supported Pol Pot's regime (such as Noam Chomsky) until it became impossible to do so, at which point they blamed it on America's actions in Vietnam (as Pilger did). These are the people who write a curt sentence about their heartfelt sympathy for the 3000 innocent victims of September 11 at the beginning of an article that goes on to ask just what America expected, after decades of selling Coca Cola in third world countries. These are the sociology graduates (and professor!) who were unanimous in telling me that there was no difference in human rights between Australia on the one hand and Ba'athist Iraq and Libya on the other.

Another bright chap told me that if we only left Iraq to 'evolve' for a couple of centuries, it might lead to something new and worthwhile, just as barbarous European imperialism led to modern liberalism. (This was the most positive thing I ever heard him say about European civilisation, and I hadn't the heart to point out that his theory was absolute nonsense.)

Andrew is right that many western anti-Americans simply don't care what is happening elsewhere. One of my leftist friends pretended that he opposed the war for humanitarian and altruistic reasons. I went to great lengths to prove that many Iraqi people wanted America to invade for humanitarian reasons, and he said "Look, actually I don't care what happens there. I just hate Bush and Howard." I can assure you that this friend has no respect whatsoever for the rule of law. When the war effort was successful, he made an observation that was also made by respected newspaper columnists: he was concerned that if Bush found it too easy to overthrow Saddam, he might be emboldened, and invade other dictatorships, which would be a "nightmare scenario"!!! For whom?! One columnist said that troop deaths for the Australians and Americans would be a beneficial brake on their bellicose policies!

It's not that these people are secret agents for Iraq, or actively conspire to facilitate terrorist attacks. They are simply burdened by a deep and malignant prejudice, one that they are incapable of escaping because consider themselves immune from such character flaws. The point is that they are capable of viewing the defeat of autocratic despotism by democratic countries, with the stated goal of installing freedom, as the very worst outcome. That Bush wants to make the world a better place intensifies their hatred for him.

PS Wendy, great post!

T. Stanley
I have come to believe that the liberals to day are much like the victims of Stalin's show trials. One was heard to say as he was led to the firing squad "Please tell Comrade Stalin, he doesn't know what is going on here." I maintain that we are at war for the soul of Western civilization. If we were to lose this war I am confident that Noam Chomsky will cry either “it is a mistake you have not read my books” or – as is more likely – "I go gladly; I deserve it" and the furture of his children be damned

We Africans too would like to vote in European elections, especially in France, Germany and the UK. Europe continues to affect Africa even more than USA affects Europe. That way we can remove Chirac and other leaders that we regard as monsters, while you come to America to remove Bush.

Dear Bjorn,
I must put my two cents in here. I was born in 1955. I was only 8 years old when President Kennedy was shot. I look at what we faced then and what we, as a world, face today. President Kennedy could have taken another path. Where would we be today? Would Cuba have blown the world apart? This is what we are facing today. Is war the answer? If we go around being the agressor, or we any better than the ones we go after. Jesus was a man of peace, but he stood firm in what he believed. I think Jesus was trying to tell us agression is not the way to win someone over. Keep your enemies close and love them. Drive them nuts because if you keep them close change can happen. You begin to find common ground on which you both can stand. Our world leaders need to learn thsi and choose the best from all and get rid of the worst.

Please let me clarify something here. When I say keep the best and get rid of the worst. I am talking about traits. There is good and bad traits in everything and sometimes you have to decide to take hold of the good and leave the bad alone. We can bring about change through understanding. This is why education is so important. One world, One people, Let's take care of it so we can all live in it. This saying goes for nucular war, polution, anything that destories where we live. I admit I am a humanitarian, as well as an American citizen, but I love our world. I am afraid we will destroy it if we are not careful. I believe we must make the best choices on whom we put in office so that we protect our world and our people. I also believe we need strong leadership in the United Nations to help make the right choices for our world not the individual countries. After all isn't this what they were started for. I would like to see the world working for the betterment of the world. If we all stand united then who can fight with us. I believe it gets back to basics we are all the same. We want good futures for our children, in a free society. Every country has its problems. Every society has something to work on. What if we decide to work on world hunger and to rid the world of desease, to really apply love one another as ourselves.

"Hence when we move into the Middle East to settle everyone's problems you're just going to have to trust us. Because you are not us. And that's why you don't get to vote like us."

Well said, sir, well said! But I will go one further and say that we are being infected with the disease of collectivism, the euphemism for socialism. We see it here from Americans who say we are too individualistic--yet that is precisely what built this country and will keep it strong. Individualism. Collectivism will bury us in the grave of communism.

In my opinion it is important to see what is happening in America in a historical and Global context. Focussing on the immediate issue of regime change in the US shifts attention from the regime change that is happening here in Norway.

This article is an excellent summary of the process leading to George W Bush becoming president -- the ongoing campaign by utterly self serving, Machiavellian, "ends justifies the means", individuals in the US. The Politics of Deceit in service to the Economics of Greed.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7054.htm

The point is something frighteningly similar is happening here in Norway. (indeed it is happening throughout the whole of the Western world)

Would it not be, more appropriate to use the American experience to alert the Norwegian people to the same threat here at home?

Please visit some helpful info about online gambling online gambling http://www.online-gambling-4u.net/ online gambling online gambling http://www.onlinegambling-4u.net/ flowers flowers http://www.flowers-4u.net/ ...

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/645

Spicedsass: A Vision of Hell, March 26, 2004 06:45 PM

Please consider the import of the following few paragraphs in light of the internationalist agenda favored by the party posing...

Whine And Jeez: Europeans Want US Voting Rights, March 31, 2004 10:25 PM

This is something I've realized for years. Now, Europeans are actually calling for it. Heh.