(no subject)

[angelchicken]

Lovely. Except not.

Could this be why future history books will Praise Bush for taking down Saddam Hussein after he perpetrated the attacks on NYC and DC 9/11/01?

Sometimes I really, truly hate this country.

Can someone explain to me again how this man because the leader of the free world?

Editing this because I wrote that sometimes I really hated this country. And that really isn't true. I am proud ot be an American. I watch the news and am greatful that I love in a country where I am seen as a person, not a nucience. And I am respected.

But, like so many people, the politics can and do frighten me. Often. And I feel that because we are a big country yet a young country that should we implode, it's going to happen big. And while I am not a fly on the White House or Pentagon walls and I have no clue what is really going on in Washington, it seems like President Bush is really tying to stir up as much trouble as he can. And that freaks me out in a very. big. way. Which leads to my asking, once again, why is he the leader of the free world?

Comments

Umm. . . he's not!

[dry-witha-twist.livejournal.com]

He may be the leader of the U.S., and he may have Mr. Blair in his pocket (who may, or may not keep his job for long), but Shrub has alienated most of the free world. The majority of people in Canada, Europe (despite some gov't's support), South America, Asia, Africa - well pretty much everywhere, and certainly in the world's democracies - oppose, fear, and resent Bush and his policies. When he got in, I was mainly afraid for what he would do to Americans, and what he wouldn't do for the rest of the world. Now I'm worried about what he's doing to Americans, and what he is doing to the rest of the world. Suddenly American isolationism is looking like the lesser of two evils.

Of course, the upside is that we (Canada) will become a haven for all you cool, smart, independently thoughtful Americans. Our plan to take over the world is unfolding perfectly ::insert evil, echoing laughter here:: ; )

Re: Umm. . . he's not!

[angelchicken.livejournal.com]

Right. I know he really has done a spectacular job at alienating the US from the rest of the world (United Nations, Shmunited Shmations). And that he really isn't leading the free world (which is probably for the best). But with the seat of president came the title. I don't know, though.

Is the President of the United States thought of as the Leader of the Free World in other countries? Or is that our own country's hubris.

Is it 2004 yet?

Our plan to take over the world is unfolding perfectly

Crap! There's another one? Between you and canadia_bit, man. Fortunately I have you both friended, so I feel slightly secure. All I ask for is a constant feed of the Marsters and the Firth, and lots of good readin'. I'm low maintenance.

Oh, and maybe some chocolate. Mmmmm.

Re: Umm. . . he's not!

[canadia-bit.livejournal.com]

Is the President of the United States thought of as the Leader of the Free World in other countries? Or is that our own country's hubris.

From my point of view? No, he's not. I don't think there is such a thing as the "Leader of the Free World". And from what I can tell, it is a title the American media has bestowed upon its own leaders for lo these many years. It's annoying and wrong. Because I may be a member of the "free world", but I sure as hell didn't vote for anyone but my own government to lead me. And while I may appreciate leadership and intelligent thoughts that add to an international dialogue, I am vehemently opposed to any one person, or that person's government, considering themselves the nominal leader of us all.

I'm a HUGE supporter of the United Nations. I think it is hubris for anyone to think they have a right to a larger say in world politics. I don't buy the idea of "we give you money, do as we say." No way. In my ideal world, 'have' countries would give aid to the 'have-nots' without expecting anything in return. Helping out a poor nation, a war ravaged nataion, a diseased nation does not give any other country the right to determine the political nature of that country. Sadly, that's what I see the US doing a lot of the time. It's influence peddling in order to gain a position of power and superiority. And in our increasingly global world, there's no place for it. It's part of the reason I could not support the war in Iraq (interesting side note: on American news, it was always called the "War with Iraq"; in Canada, the "War in Iraq" - note the subtle change in meaning when you shift the prepositions.) I believe that the United Nations should have ultimate control in situations like this, so that balanced ideas and solutions can be found. I believe in the idea of an international community that supports itself. I'm not a moron, I know this will be greatly difficult and that challenges will still exist, but I am much more supportive of a world view, not a narrow North American one.

I think this attitude comes a little bit from this subtle difference between the United States and Canada. The United States is a country forged by two wars: The American Revolutionary War (which I believe Americans call the War of Independence) and the American Civil War. These historical events are landmarks in US history, and helped make it the country it is today, in government, laws and attitudes. Canada, on the other hand, became a country when a bunch of white guys got together for a weekend in Charlottetown and decided to become a country. Sort of anti-climactic. Canada is a nation run by committee. We talk about everything to death, write millions of reports (ask dry_witha_twist about Royal Commissions). It seems to be in our nation to talk about things to find a solution. We'll go to war if we have to, and will fight damn well (remember we were involved in WWI and WWII from the get go, and in 1812 we burned down the White House - score!). But there is a deep-seated Canadian ideal of dialogue and peacekeeping. It may seem silly to a lot of people, but it is a mark of our nation in international spheres. Whereas I feel the US is seen as, well, kinda violent.

At the end of the day, I'm a very left-wing liberal, bordering on socialist. If I had my way, equality would be the basis of international relations and no one would ever have the gall to call anyone the leader of the free world.

Re: Umm. . . he's not!

[abby20.livejournal.com]

As my own brain has melted: nearly exactly what she said.

Re: Umm. . . he's not!

[angelchicken.livejournal.com]

I like what you say. And the way you say it. And I agree. I wish the damn country wouldn't resort to guns every time there is a problem.

And I, too, had a huge problem with the War in Iraq.

I think, also, that as much as my problem is with the government, it is also with the media. Like with the remembrance of September 11th, the media does what it can to make each and every news story as sensational as possible without thought to anything but ratings.

I think that maybe if the networks spent more time thinking about their audience and less time thinking about ratings we might actually getfair and unbiased coverage.

I don't mean to get all het up (or get others het up). I am just bad-moody and frustrated by the blatant spin doctoring that is going about.

I love the United States, but if I need to leave for my own piece of mind, can I bunk on your couch until I find a place? :)

Re: Umm. . . he's not!

[dry-witha-twist.livejournal.com]

I'm a big fan of the concept of the UN, but I have huge problems with the details - remember, the UN system allowed the Rwandan genocide, the endless war in the DRC (which has cost literally millions of lives), and has given rise to such absurdities as Libya chairing the Human Rights Council. It is a system in desperate need of reform, and Kofi Annan is actually set to introduce proposals later this year - anyone want take bets on whether the veto wielding nations will allow reforms that reduce their dominance?

While I agree with the moral principle you cite of giving aid to poorer nations in recognition of shared humanity, it also makes sense in terms of enlightened self interest. The world runs by a set of rules (alliances, treaties, trade agreements) which have, to date, almost exclusively benefited the developed nations. The populations of the developing nations may not be able cite specific examples, but they know this on a visceral level - just by comparing what they see around them with how they see us living on TV. They work just as hard if not harder than we do, but rarely ever manage to achieve the most basic level of comfort and security. At a certain point, they realize that there is no point to following the rules, and frequently throw the just rules out with the corrupt. Example: the Islamic Revolution in Iran. In 1979, Iranian students looked to Islamic fundamentalists for salvation in a knee jerk reaction against a repressive US installed and backed dictator (the Shah). Twenty four years later, a new generation of Iranian youth are rebelling against the fundamentalists. Another example occurred a few days ago: the developing nations walked out of the World Trade Organization talks because the First World basically stone walled on any reforms of their own trade barriers.

Our gov'ts indulge in a level of moral bankruptcy and utter hypocrisy that should put us to shame - but it hasn't. I think a lot of the difference between Canadian and American perspectives has to do with this issue. Because of the high proportion of recent immigrants in Canada and our resulting ties with the developing world, we're a little more aware of that enormous divide. We tend to think more in terms of a balance between individual rights and group rights. By contrast, American culture celebrates individual achievement almost single-minded-ly. The overwhelming belief that the American system (and the system America enforces) is fair, and therefore that people get what they deserve makes it seem that the rest of world is just whining. When many Americans hear about billions of dollars being spent on aid, they think to themselves "We do so much for the world, and all they do is complain or send nut job terrorists to attack us - screw 'em". What they don't realize is that those billions are pocket change compared to what the US reaps from the rest of the world through resource exploitation, unfair trade practices, cheap labour, etc. Again, it's a perspective thing, and a knowledge thing.

As to the US being violent - there is a long history of American nationalism being closely intermingled with militarism. But that's not unique - most powerful countries go through it. France, Spain, England, Italy, Germany - they've all had their moments. Hopefully, this is a phase through which America will pass. If not, I shudder to think of what's to come.

I differ from you on only one point - leaders. There have been times when truly remarkable men and women have stepped forward and changed the face of the world, both for better and worse. There was a time, in the years following WW2, when the American president really was considered the leader of the free world, because most of the rest of the free world was on its knees. If I were to cite the leaders of the free world today, I think I'd have to cite (despite their flaws) Gerhard Schroeder and Jacques Chirac. They alone have consistently expressed the concerns of the world on the international stage over the last couple of years (and their countries have also had the most success in actually capturing Al Qaeda agents).

I am loving this conversation but if Angelchicken gets bored with her LJ turning in to a model UN, I'll shut up (or we can move it to another LJ).

Re: Umm. . . he's not!

[angelchicken.livejournal.com]

No, no! Hang about! I love this conversation.

Sadly, it is way to early in the morning for me to digest everything you said. I will have to reread it later, after I have had my coffee. :)

The gist is, I like what you said and how you said it.

I was talking about this with my mom last night, specifically about why it bothered me that America is so quick to rush to the aid of the countries who can help us long term (like, say, the oil enriched Middle East - Iraq, Afghanistan, etc).

Basically, what she said is that when it comes to politics, altruism is a dirty word and countries that lead the people to believe that they are doing things solely for the benefit of the suffering nation are liars.

Well, she might not have been that abrupt. As I said, I haven't had my coffee yet.

Basically, when it comes to the governments of the world interacting it is an "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" policy. I don't think that is ever going to change. We (the US) may say we are going in to Iraq and wiping out a horrible dictatorship and (which it really was, even though I really am confused as to how we got there from 9/11) but in the long run it will help us. Is it right? Not really. But it is human nature (a cheap, overly general excuse, but also, not entirely wrong).

Hopefully, this is a phase through which America will pass. If not, I shudder to think of what's to come.

I absolutely agree. Violence as a means of resolution is so common that I think it would be a shocking and exceptional news story if a huge inter- or intra-country conflict was solved peaceably. I do hope that, as the US continues to amass power, and as technology advancements show us new and creative ways of wiping out mankind, that the trigger happy mindset that so many world leaders seem to have simmers. Nuclear attacks terrify me (and I don't want to discuss nuclear anything in my journal- not because I am ignorant about it, but because it freaks me out too much. I get all panic attackish and it is generally unpleasant) and I know that there are leaders (who have been elected or taken control) who are so very eager to try their hand at nuclear war, and I am really, really afraid that some little boy (or girl) playing at being a big power is going to push a button and take out cities just because he wants to.

Why are we staying away from North Korea?

Re: Umm. . . he's not!

[dry-witha-twist.livejournal.com]

Because no one knows just how crazy Kim Jong Il is, and he almost certainly has nuclear weapons already. He has presided over mass famine in his own country and seems to make abrupt and very confrontational diplomatic moves. Either he's a very adept player of the int'l security game, or else he's truly nuts. And if he's truly nuts and he feels backed into a corner, South Korea and Japan could end up as smoking craters that glow in the dark (not to mention the results of retaliation against North Korea).

I will say one thing in defense of Kim's position - we in the West did not live up to our end of the agreement in which we were to provide economic development aid in return for NK halting its nuclear weapons program. It was our gov'ts failures to provide the promised aid (specifically oil and food) that precipitated the current crises.

Of course, there is inherent hypocrisy in saying to the world that countries who already possess nuclear weapons (and the power they endow) have every right to them, but any other country that tries to develop them is a "rogue nation". Until the nuclear powers take serious steps toward nuclear disarmament (not complete disarmament, but a significant reduction), condemnation of countries like North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Iran for developing them are simply blatant attempts to enforce the geopolitical pecking order. And then you add the fact that the US overlooks Israel's nuclear weapons program. . .moral arguments are unconvincing if they're not applied consistently.

As scary as nuclear proliferation is on the one hand, it also forces the world to find non-military resolutions. The irony about the war in Iraq is that if Hussein had been a genuine military threat to America (or even Israel), it's unlikely the invasion would have occurred.

[mishamcm.livejournal.com]

He won the election fair and square. Five to four. With 100% of the black vote, even! What a guy.

You know how older folk are always saying things like, "You young whippersnappers think THAT's a scandal? Let me tell you about Teapot Dome."? Not me. I hated Reagan, I hated Bush Sr., but Dubya, who hasn't got half his dad's intelligence, seems inexplicably to have the potential to really destroy the freedom this country was built upon in a way previous fascists never could. While simultaneously embarrassing us with his stupidity and convincing the rest of the world that we're an imminent threat to all of them.

[angelchicken.livejournal.com]

It's exhausting, living in this country.

I think the "We don't need no stinkin' UN" attitude he has is one of the scariest things to happen to this country.

I would like to take a stand and say "Hi! I am AngelChicken. I am an American. And I do not support war. I do not support ignoring the rest of the world. I did not vote for Bush, and I know very few who did. I am proud of my country. But kind of confused by it's electoral college. And the fact that the swing state in the elections governor just 'happened' to be the candidates brother."

[adjrun.livejournal.com]

Heh. I love what's happening now, with the US in re: the UN. Because all of three months ago, it was, "Screw you, UN, we'll do it ourselves!!" And now Bush et al are all, "Hey, UN, is that a new dress you've got there? It's really purty. Hey, about that whole Iraq thing..."

I loathe Bush. Absolutely and completely loathe him. But I think that, rather than be what gets him reelected (I think this was his primary reason for going to war in Iraq, really), this situation will prove his undoing.

Well, a girl can dream.

[chicken-cem.livejournal.com]

Oh my holy chicken. There is no end in sight to the lies and distortions. This Bush Administration is the worst in memory.

(And let me tell you, ever since I saw the Watergate hearings on TV when I was like, 4 years old, I've been quite cynical about politicians.)