David Frum recently commented on FF about the Roper NBI (National Brand Index) poll in which the United States has suddenly emerged in 2009 as the “most admired country” on the planet. Apparently, we have vaulted from seventh place to overtake France, Germany, England and Japan to the number one slot. The report states that this is due to the rock star popularity of new president Barack Obama. This certainly would seem to be the case as no one can deny Obama’s personal popularity as a transcendent figure around the world. To much of the globe, his election symbolizes the possibilities that exist within the USA which allow one to rise to the very pinnacle of power and prestige, regardless of one’s circumstances. On the face of it this poll’s result should give us awarmy-fuzzy feeling.
But, as Frum points out, these numbers reveal a fickle attitude that as he says could very easily shift the other way in a fortnight. And certainly, the goal of a president should not be that the rest of the kids on the block like us. As a means to an end that works in our country’s favor on some policy initiative, sure. But if being popular on the world’s streets is the end in and of itself, this poses a problem. Especially given that such popularity can evaporate with another election cycle that the world finds objectionable.
For the sake of argument, however, let us assume that Frum is mistaken and that this new pro-USA attitude is more solid than we think. Still, I ask the fundamental question: does it really matter much that the people of the world (those polled at least) “admire” the USA? And who is doing the admiring? Maybe we need not be gratified, but rather concerned by this new-found adoration and ask ourselves what does it mean?
Well, we have seen in the past nine months of the Obama presidency what it does NOT mean. It does not mean that Obama’s popularity – that has showered down upon the rest of us mere mortal Americans – has translated into foreign policy victories for the United States. Oh sure, foreign leaders will fawn over America’s media “celebsident,” jostling and nudging each other to get their beaming faces in the photograph with him at the latest economic summit, climate change roundtable, or old fashioned America-bashing that he’s got down to a science. But when the mikes are turned off, the cameras stowed away, the dinner plates cleared, and the leaders disappear into the conference room and roll up their shirt or blouse sleeves for some serious negotiations, the United States, that now most beloved of nations, tends to walk away empty-handed. This despite Mr. Obama’s personality… or perhaps even more disconcerting, because of it!
Consider this disconnect between being well-liked and being an effective statesman. Mr. Obama may harbor a belief that there is no problem that cannot be thawed by the warmth of his charm, the record would dictate otherwise. George Will laid it out nicely this weekend:
- He has asked Israel stop expanding the settlements… they didn’t.
- He asked the Palestinians to engage the Israelis… they didn’t.
- He suggested to Saudi Arabia some gesture towards Israel… they didn’t.
- He said to Iran do this that and the other thing… they haven’t.
- He said to Honduras please restore your president… they didn’t.
- He said to India and China please restrain your greenhouse gasses… they won’t.
- He asked NATO to please take some of our Gitmo terrorists… they won’t.
- He asked NATO to please send more troops to Afghanistan… they won’t.
As Mr. Will summed it: “The world adores him and ignores him.”
Unfortunately, then, we have the opposite of what we need in a world leader and standard-bearer. I think when it comes to foreign relations, it is better to be respected than liked. And no, they are not the same. Especially in the realm of foreign affairs where national interests trump all – as Mr. Obama discovered yet again at the hands of the IOC last week. You can possibly have both respect and adoration. We have had it once or twice before, especially in the aftermath of World War II. But in a world that will always gravitate, in the end, towards its own self-interests, you must have the former or face diminishment abroad. And so there will be times when as president, one will actually have to make a decision that the world will not agree with, but is in your own country’s best interest nonetheless. As much of Europe lurches relentlessly towards a pan-Islamic caliphate in the next half century, the USA will be ever more at odds with nations that were once traditional allies but will have have become different countries altogether. When a world that is positioned to be ever more hostile to our interests suddenly approves of the direction we are headed in, it may be time to take a step back and reassess if this is such a good thing. And so Barack Obama – and his successors – must always remember the core covenant made with the American people when assuming the highest office in our land. That he was elected President of the United States of America, not the world. And as such he must always place our national interests first and foremost… even at the expense of getting knocked down a few rankings in the next NBI poll. Based on what I know of the history of nations, I’ll take being respected over being liked any time. And based on what I’ve seen so far, I wonder if President Obama even knows the difference.
58 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Oct 7, 2009 at 10:41 am
Out of curiousity – where hasn’t President Obama put America’s interests first?
Granted, there is a large divide in this country over what America’s interests are. For example, while most Americans think that our interests are best served if the US currency stays strong … while Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) boasted in June that he told Chinese officials not to trust America’s budget numbers. The Obama administration favors Israel adhering to UN resolutions (remember when people were using violation of UN resolutions as a justification for invading Iraq?), while Eric Cantor (R-VA) traveled to Israel, where he spoke out against President Obama’s opposition to expanded settlements. The Obama Administration is trying to work towards a global consensus on climate change, while Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is going to the upcoming climate change conference in Copenhagen, bringing a “Truth Squad” to tell foreign officials there that the American government will not take any action. Obama, as you noted, has been trying to work out a power transfer in Honduras that complies with their constitution – while Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is running down there to tell the Honduran military to stand strong against any pressure from our government.
But I have no doubt that Obama and his advisors, including people like Gates and Huntsman, believe that his administration is acting in America’s best interests. That said, this isn’t selling toothpaste – America will need a track record over a few years that we’re really turning away from the Bush war/torture/abuse policies, and not just a few nice speeches and big crowds.
2 Raider1 // Oct 7, 2009 at 10:43 am
Well, the question is does being popular in the “streets” as Schaeffer calls them translate into getting foreign governments to be more amenable to doing the US’s bidding? Will’s litany that he rattles off seems like it isn’t so far. The Olympics laid that issue out there for all to see.
Europe will be Eurabia soon and as such will not be our allies in the future. If Scheaffer’s sentiments seem to border on some form of attitudinal isolationism, the sentiments are understandable.
Bush was despised by the world because he did what he thought best for America come what may. Obama seems to place America in the same league as all the other nations so naturally they like us more now. But as the author shrewdly asks…is this really a good thing? That a wolrd (at least a European Continent) of weaklongs and appeasers who are cowering in fear of Islamic gangs burning and trashing and murdering at the slightest “offense” to their religion should approve of us may be a sign that we are doing something wrong!
3 Raider1 // Oct 7, 2009 at 10:52 am
Climate control initiatives will have a negative effect on US industry. And other countries will not comply or will be excluded.
Unilateral disrmament will diminish our defence capabilities. And other countries will not comply.
Denying Poland missle defense creates animous on the part of a TRUE ally to placate a de facto enemy Russia.
Wringing his hands over Afghanistan makes us lok weak around the world as well. That is against our national interest but it is not in his nature to wage a war. He is not a “wartime consiglieri” as they say. That is what we need.
And by going overseas and time and again criticizing the USA while giving the world (which is much more backward, cruel, repressive, and vicous than we) a bye he diminishes our own moral ground in the world. Takign a tongue lashing from punks the likes fo Ortega and Chavez diminshes his office and therefore the US as well.
Just off the top of my head. Obama really views the world as one big community…not the fractured mess of self-interests that it really is.
4 balconesfault // Oct 7, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Climate control initiatives will have a negative effect on US industry. And other countries will not comply or will be excluded.
Climate change is already having an impact on the US economy, and that impact is expected to grow more and more significant. We have a compelling national interest in leading the efforts to slow the rate of change.
Unilateral disrmament will diminish our defence capabilities. And other countries will not comply.
Yeah, well, when someone starts talking about unilateral disarmament that will be something to worry about.
Denying Poland missle defense creates animous on the part of a TRUE ally to placate a de facto enemy Russia.
Except we didn’t do it to placate Russia. We did it because we replaced it with a better strategy for American interests. America first, remember?
Wringing his hands over Afghanistan makes us lok weak around the world as well. That is against our national interest but it is not in his nature to wage a war. He is not a “wartime consiglieri” as they say. That is what we need.
We had that. And 7 years after we started fighting, we’re still stuck there losing lives. Maybe we do need to think about things some.
And by going overseas and time and again criticizing the USA while giving the world (which is much more backward, cruel, repressive, and vicous than we) a bye
You must watch Fox News a lot.
Because Obama’s rhetorical style is always … America has made mistakes … BUT America has been a powerful engine for good, and others are guilty of much worse things that need to be addressed.
Now, certain media are happy to just quote Obama saying “America has made mistakes”, and try to portray that as the entirety of his speeches. But they are certainly not serving their audiences need to know a fair and balanced account when they do so. This is usually considered “propoganda”, and is the equivalent of a Michael Moore film, but unworthy of a news outlet.
Just off the top of my head. Obama really views the world as one big community…not the fractured mess of self-interests that it really is.
All communities are fractured messes on some level. Go look at the undercurrents of politics in Wasilla, for example. The mark of a leader isn’t his ability to exert force to gain a (temporary) deferrence of his values and coerce people to comply, but to get others to accept and internalize his values so force is not as necessary in the future.
Given that it is America’s economic interests to not be trying to compete on a global marketplace while far outspending every other nation on a dollars per capita basis on national defense, this seems like a fiscally conservative approach.
5 Raider1 // Oct 7, 2009 at 1:17 pm
You’re swallowing the Global Warming (now just called “climate change” as the earth has COOLED the last decade) kool-aid. Cap and Trade and emission standards are just a transfer of wealth from one industry to another nothing more. From manufacturing to Goldman Sachs, Al Gore’s entity (with former Galdman Sachs partners) etc. You honestly think the Chinese, INdians etc will comply with any global emssions standards? Stop it.
In fact your whole post is just a White House talking points and not worth rattling off rebuttals to one by one. You’re as naive as your Chosen One.
Believe what you want to believe about the man. I can’t help you.
6 Raider1 // Oct 7, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Wasilla? You managed to put a Palin reference even in this subject which is as far removed from her now as can be? Wow. Now I know you’re a kool-aid drinker. Seriously man, don’t waste my time.
7 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 7, 2009 at 1:31 pm
raider1 wrote: “Bush was despised by the world because he did what he thought best for America come what may. ”
No doubt, Bush did what he thought was best for America, but that is not why so many hated him. People hated Bush because in trying to do what he thought was best, he actually did a lot of stupid, harmful things that the U.S. and the rest of the world are still trying to recover from.
Bush was an absolute disaster – certainly the worst president in the last hundred years – and he is despised because of his actions, not because of his motivations.
8 Oneon1isto // Oct 7, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Raider: You said: “Well, the question is does being popular in the “streets” as Schaeffer calls them translate into getting foreign governments to be more amenable to doing the US’s bidding?”
Yes. Especially when you consider our primary enemy gets their power from the streets. Guerrilla and terrorist actions depend on the support of an indigenous, local population–without which they have no protection. Support for America in the streets can turn into support for our troops in their streets, and force Al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc. into the open.
This is why bombing Iran is such a bad idea. The streets aren’t against us there, which gives us leverage over a regime that’s trying to save its own hide. It can’t find refuge with its own people, so it must come to terms.
It’s classic hearts and minds. We don’t want to be the bad guy anymore, and for the past 8 years we were everyone’s favorite bad boy. Didn’t get us anywhere.
9 Raider1 // Oct 7, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Tell me what being the so-called “good guy” got us. Bush was a convenient excuse for the aquiesent and pacifistic in Europe to point their fingers at anyone but themsselves for their problems that now with Obama they have no choice but to confront on their own.
And do you really think that when Europe goes Islamic that anything we do will matter? Islamocfacists do not hate the US and the West for what we do…rather for who we are.
10 Raider1 // Oct 7, 2009 at 2:00 pm
The Muslim street has become increasingly more radicalized too. It has nothing to do with what we do. Our greatest enemy in the world is actually Saudi Arabia who uses our own oil money to fund the spread of its atavistic and violent and intloerant Wahabiist brand of Islam that the young Muslims all over the world are flocking to. Saudi Arabia’s biggest export is not oil…it’s ideology. Something we cannot confront by “extending a hand.” Naive pie in sky clapptrap wishing for the world to be as we wish, not as it really is. This authoer based on his other posts seems to understand this too.
11 Raider1 // Oct 7, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Spartacus what did Bush do that was so terrible that it damaged the entire world?
12 sinz54 // Oct 7, 2009 at 2:22 pm
What are you talking about???
Currently the U.S. spends only 4% of its GDP on national defense–despite the fact that we’re fighting two wars. As a percentage of GDP, that’s far LESS than it did in the 1950s and 1960s when the U.S. was the undisputed world economic leader. And less than it did in the 1980s when Reagan was president and the economy was recovering from the Carter stagflation and was beginning the personal computer revolution in which America was (and still is) dominant. (Did the Reagan defense buildup hurt Apple or Microsoft in any way?)
The Obama defense budget is now LOWER than any defense budget since 9-11, despite the fact that we’re at WAR:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=bgxlz6&s=4
Listening to you liberals, you would think that spending 4% on national defense is bankrupting the country.
You liberals keep harping and harping on cutting national defense. Ever since Vietnam, it’s become some kind of an obsession with you guys, just like cutting taxes is for the conservatives. For them, taxes are always too high and must be cut; to you, national defense is always too costly and must be cut.
13 sinz54 // Oct 7, 2009 at 2:25 pm
raider1:
What makes you so sure you’re right about that, while 99% of the world’s climatologists are wrong?
NEVER buy into pseudo-science just because it’s telling you what you want to hear. Throughout the history of our civilization, science has discovered things that were disturbing to the average citizenry. (It was pretty disturbing when folks found out that the universe doesn’t revolve around the Earth, for example.)
14 balconesfault // Oct 7, 2009 at 2:31 pm
raider: In fact your whole post is just a White House talking points and not worth rattling off rebuttals to one by one. You’re as naive as your Chosen One.
I don’t believe in Chosen Ones. I do believe in listening to people with differing opinions.
Wasilla? You managed to put a Palin reference Actually, not a Palin reference – but a reference to “Anytown USA”. Thanks to Palin, we know a lot more about Wasilla than the proverbial Anytown – and so we’re a lot more aware of the fractured messes that exist at virtually every level of any political sphere that’s not under totalitarian rule – but the point of my comment wasn’t an indictment of Palin but simply an acknowledgement that fractured messes are the norm … and controlling them via force (totalitarianism, unilateral use of military force) is not a sustainable pathway, while getting others to view your values positively is.
raider: Bush was a convenient excuse for the aquiesent and pacifistic in Europe to point their fingers at anyone but themsselves for their problems that now with Obama they have no choice but to confront on their own.
What problems that were inherently European were they pointing the finger at Bush for? I’ve not heard this argument fully elaborated on in the past.
And do you really think that when Europe goes Islamic that anything we do will matter?
Ahh … now I get it. You’re one of them. I might as well be arguing with a truther or proofer or someone who believes that Obama is essentially a socialist.
15 sinz54 // Oct 7, 2009 at 2:34 pm
balconesfault:
Please, don’t quote Obama’s talking lies–oops, I mean talking POINTS, to me. I used to work in the aerospace industry, remember?
Obama’s system replaces long-range interceptors with short-range interceptors. That’s a defense only against the CURRENT generation of Iran’s medium-range missiles. But that fails to hedge against Iran’s future capabilities.
Independent analysts believe that Iran will have a true ICBM, the Shahab-6, capable of reaching even America, in another 6 years. (That’s because it’s largely based on the Taep-o-dong ICBM from their warm friends, the North Koreans.)
http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id.110/missile_detail.asp
Obama’s system will be useless against it. And he can’t just wave a magic wand and make another system magically pop into place. It takes 10-15 years to design, prototype, test, and deploy a brand new defense system.
The REAL reason that Obama abandoned the Polish system was to curry favor with Russia, which sees Poland as within the Russian sphere of influence and doesn’t want American ICBM interceptors on Polish soil (since that helps defend Poland from Russian attack).
As a Commander-in-Chief, Obama is full of bull. He constantly spins American concessions as achievement for the folks back home. Wait till the 2010 congressional elections when we plaster him with this stuff.
16 Raider1 // Oct 7, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Balcon…do you object to me stating an imperical FACT that Euorpe will be a Muslim contienent by the end of this century? Tell me your undertsanding of Europe’s demographics that belie this claim. What do you mean by “one of those?”
(Of and if you really think anyone believes you pulled Wasilla out of the blue for no reason beyond making apoint about anytown USA — gee, then why didn’t you say “Anytown USA”? wel…I got a missle strategy in Poland to sell you.
Europeans that I know when I go there (do you?) love to blame Bush specifically for radicalized Islam in their back yards. It has nothing to do with their immigration policies (or lack thereof) aquiesance to Islamist sensibilties will squelching Western values out of fear of violence (unless you think censorship to avoid riots is a positive development) their population implosion, etc.
17 Raider1 // Oct 7, 2009 at 2:43 pm
And Balcon you are offerign no opinions that I cannot get more eloquently (if just as unsound) from your Annointed One himself. That is why I have no interest in addressing your Robert Gibbs notes.
18 Raider1 // Oct 7, 2009 at 2:47 pm
The world is becoming more Islamic each day. In Europe there are old continentals who will soon die off and taking Western culture with them as they have no offspring, and there are young radical Islamists who are multiplying and overtaking the continent. By 2050 germany’s indigenoius pop will be halved. The most popular newborn boy’s name in Belgium now? Mohammed. Number of Muslims in London alone? Over 1 milllion. And more Londoners go to Mosque now than church.
Give it time Balcon. You will be begging for an American NON-Apologist to protect you from the Islamic hordes one day. Barack HUSSEIN Obama will not be that man.
19 balconesfault // Oct 7, 2009 at 2:48 pm
me: Given that it is America’s economic interests to not be trying to compete on a global marketplace while far outspending every other nation on a dollars per capita basis on national defense, this seems like a fiscally conservative approach.
Sinz: What are you talking about???
Currently the U.S. spends only 4% of its GDP on national defense–
Ahh – reading for comprehension time. I said “per capita basis” … you said “GDP”.
But for the record, the countries who are our main competitors globally from a trade standpoint (I’m not talking about resource export, but finished/durable goods) all have substantially lower spending per GDP than the US on defense. France – 2.6%, India 2.5%, UK 2.4%, Taiwan 2.2%, Finland, Romania, Norway, Thailand, Italy, Hungary, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark – all below 2%. China – 1.7%. Japan 0.8%.
That’s an awful lot of overhead to run when you’re trying to be competitive.
The US had it nice for a long time – Europe’s industrial base demolished after WWII, still being a net 0 energy import/export nation, China and India with primitive workforces. It isn’t that way anymore – China has as good of manufacturing technology as we do, and India is getting as educated a workforce as we have.
20 balconesfault // Oct 7, 2009 at 2:51 pm
sinz: The REAL reason that Obama abandoned the Polish system was to curry favor with Russia
So was Obama trying to curry favor with Russia during the Presidential Campaign, as well?
How about the REAL reason is that as many experts view the Polish system as a money sink that might never be able to achieve its stated goals, as view it as a true shield against ICBMs?
raider Balcon…do you object to me stating an imperical FACT that Euorpe will be a Muslim contienent by the end of this century?
You say fact … I say paranoid delusion. Let’s work the whole thing out…
21 balconesfault // Oct 7, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Of and if you really think anyone believes you pulled Wasilla out of the blue for no reason beyond making apoint about anytown USA — gee, then why didn’t you say “Anytown USA”?
Since you missed it, I guess I’ll repeat: Thanks to Palin, we know a lot more about Wasilla than the proverbial Anytown – and so we’re a lot more aware of the fractured messes that exist at virtually every level of any political sphere that’s not under totalitarian rule
Interestingly, not only do you know more about Europe than the Europeans, but you know more about my intentions than I do myself. Sort of makes discussion wholly irrelevant, doesn’t it?
22 sinz54 // Oct 7, 2009 at 2:53 pm
raider1 & balconesfault:
Liberals like “balconesfault” are just uncomfortable at the notion of America exerting world leadership.
First of all, they don’t believe that America has the moral right to lead any other nations to do anything. Because, you know, America had slavery and it killed lots of Indians, blah-blah-blah, the usual drivel. So how dare America judge others when she herself sucks.
Secondly, they have this bizarre notion that military leadership is directly antithetical to economic leadership. History shows that to be totally false. In fact, the nation that was militarily powerful also ended up being economically powerful. Both the Roman Empire and the British Empire are examples. In fact, in the 19th century, it was the British Navy (together with the as yet young American Navy) that swept piracy from the world’s oceans, opening up commerce. It gave the island nation of Britain worldwide economic lifelines. And Britain’s economy blossomed.
In my lifetime, the decline of America’s military potential in the 1970s directly paralleled the decline of America’s economy. In the 1980s, Reagan reversed both trends. By 1990, the U.S. was dominant again both economically AND militarily.
Liberals just don’t care for the military. They think the military is icky, they think wars are icky.
They’re wrong.
So what do liberals really want? I think they want America to become a second-rate power comparable to modern-day France. We’ll have world influence, but not world leadership on anything.
I absolutely detest that notion, and I absolutely reject it.
23 balconesfault // Oct 7, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Liberals like “balconesfault” are just uncomfortable at the notion of America exerting world leadership.
Wrong. We’re just opposed to the type of “leadership” shown for the last 8 years.
In other postings, you’ve acknowledged what a collosal failure Bush’s leadership was on many levels. Yet you instinctively circle wagons when the suggestion is that his overall strategy for global leadership was flawed, rather than simply a few of his tactical decisions.
In fact, the nation that was militarily powerful also ended up being economically powerful. Both the Roman Empire and the British Empire are examples.
Note that term … Empire. Empires do things like ransack their colonies of wealth and resources in order to feed that military machine. Ironically, the US does the opposite – we destroy countries, then spend billions to rebuild them. And if there are any “spoils” to be gained, we ensure those spoils flow to multi-national corporations who have no true allegiance to America’s best interests.
<b.In my lifetime, the decline of America’s military potential in the 1970s directly paralleled the decline of America’s economy.
Except as you yourself has noted elsewhere … any perceived loss of America’s global military dominance in the 70’s was wholly a fraud – an intelligence failure of grossly overestimating the Soviet Union’s military capabilities. Reagan didn’t reverse any trend except for the rapid growth of the military industrial complex during peacetime … you know, the thing that Dwight Eisenhower had warned about.
They think the military is icky, they think wars are icky.
Wars are icky. Although maybe you can tell us about the ones you’ve fought in that were wonderful experiences for all involved?
On the other hand, liberals are very supportive of the US military. Defense contractors, not as much.
I think they want America to become a second-rate power comparable to modern-day France.
The ones I know believe that America’s ability to be a first rate power over the long haul is inextricably linked to our ability to right our economic ship, and limit military growth to a sustainable level … and for our leadership to be partly because of our military and economic might, and partly because nations want America to succeed because they trust that our leadership will not lead into more Iraqs.
24 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 7, 2009 at 4:36 pm
raider1 wrote: “what did Bush do that was so terrible that it damaged the entire world?”
He started an unwarranted war that killed over 100,000 Iraqi citizens and destroyed the country’s infrastructure. That war also resulted in over 4,000 dead American soldiers and approximately 30,000 wounded American soldiers. He was completely absent in proposing regulations that may have helped prevent the implosion of the global financial sector. He bankrupted the U.S., thereby limiting our influence for good around the world. He authorized torture while condemning other countries for doing the same. He conducted domestic politics in a manner that was excessively divisive and even caused some Americans to classify other Americans as traitors merely because they differed on policy. And, to top it all off, he did all of the foregoing with brash, yet foolish, arrogance.
Did all of these things directly affect everyone in the entire world? Of course, not. However, all of these things caused many people throughout the world, including here in the U.S., to despise him deeply. He is absolutely the worst president this country has had in over 100 years. So, contrary to your comment, the world does not despise Bush because of his motivations; it’s because of his actions.
25 balconesfault // Oct 7, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Speaking of defense contractors …
Number: S.Amdt. 2588 to H.R. 3326 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010)
Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.
In short – an amendment to prohibit contractors from forcing an employee who is making a rape charge to submit to arbitration, rather filing a criminal complaint.
30 Republicans voted against it … although all 4 Republican women voted for it.
Yes – Halliburton/KBR are named … but then again it’s Halliburton/KBR who presided over the infamous Jamie Leigh Jones case. They deserve to be called out again for it.
Since when does conservatism mean preserving the right of corporations to protect rapists?
26 EscapeVelocity // Oct 8, 2009 at 12:07 am
Great stuff in the Telegraph (UK)…
David Cameron must fill the leadership vacuum left by Barack Obama
David Cameron must reject the folly of the Obama doctrine and follow the example of Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, writes Nile Gardiner.
President Obama has gone out of his way to apologise for his country’s past at almost every opportunity on foreign soil, from Cairo to Prague to Strasbourg. The result has been the humiliation of the United States, and the growing perception of the president as an extremely naïve commander in chief who appears to be sacrificing the national interest to appease international opinion
(I especially enjoyed this barb…)
Even the French now think Obama is weak in the face of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the menacing Mullahs of Tehran.
(LOL! Even the French! Obama is the laughing stock of the World, certainly Europe)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/6269781/David-Cameron-must-fill-the-leadership-vacuum-left-by-Barack-Obama.html
27 Kevin B // Oct 8, 2009 at 4:05 am
escape velocity : “Great stuff in the Telegraph (UK)…”
Yep. An editorial. One editorialist’s opinion is far more indicative of the pulse of Europe than any poll could ever be.
28 balconesfault // Oct 8, 2009 at 4:25 am
And who is Nile Gardner?
Nile Gardiner is Director of The Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom
Ah. Ok.
29 Raider1 // Oct 8, 2009 at 8:25 am
Kvin, no one denies Obama’s POPULARITY. What this editorial (and Schaeffer’s) asks is what do we get for it? The USA has been dissed on subtantive matters at every turn from Iranian stalling, to NATO denying him troops in Afghanistan to even the Olympics. The world is a dangerous place man. And nice guys DO finish last.
30 Raider1 // Oct 8, 2009 at 8:55 am
He started an unwarranted war that killed over 100,000 Iraqi citizens and destroyed the country’s infrastructure.
-And also deposed from their midst a monstrous dictator who killed 10x that many in the dead of night, poison gassed his own people, and lets its economy drive to the while he and his sadistic sons siphoned off billions into their own personal bank accounts, but hey. (Not saying that was the war’s aim nor justification, but people conveniently forget that Iraq was a bloody pile of murdered innocents – true innocents – before we got there and not the modern version of Eden that you, and the Michael Moore crowd of propogandists like to offer up as their reality)
That war also resulted in over 4,000 dead American soldiers and approximately 30,000 wounded American soldiers.
-Wars do that yes. Why we say war is hell and not a walk in the park.
He was completely absent in proposing regulations that may have helped prevent the implosion of the global financial sector.
-Well, the record belies that and will steer you towards Messers. Frank, Dodd et. al but you don’t care about that. EVERYONE had a hand in it dude so stop with simplistic overviews of a VERY complex subject that we may never fully understand–we still argue over the causes of the great depression for Pete’s sake.
He bankrupted the U.S., thereby limiting our influence for good around the world.
-No argument there. Hmm. Not a fan of deficit spending are we? Then you must REALLY hate Obama yes? He took Bush’s bogus deficits and QUADRUPLED them. Go get ‘em Tiger!
He authorized torture while condemning other countries for doing the same.
-And thwarted several terrorist attacks in the process. And if Gitmo is “tortue” then we need a new definition for what US servicement have endured at the hands of the Japanese, Koreans, Germans, Vietnamese and AL Qeada over the years! Only in lefty loon land is waterboarding of three people who were masterminds of 9/11 as heinous torture. You guys are such wusses. And now the king wuss is in the White House.
He conducted domestic politics in a manner that was excessively divisive and even caused some Americans to classify other Americans as traitors merely because they differed on policy.
-Now you’re just in another world in which the hatespeak spewed by the Left about Bush ever since the “stolen election” of 2000. And your points are getting weeeaaakkkerr.
And, to top it all off, he did all of the foregoing with brash, yet foolish, arrogance.
-Ugh. Full moveon.org regurgitation now. Put the pamphlet down and come up with your own thoughts.
Did all of these things directly affect everyone in the entire world? Of course, not.
WHICH SHOOTS DOWN THE ENTIRE THESIS OF YOUR RIDCULOUSLY JUVENILE POST!
However, all of these things caused many people throughout the world, including here in the U.S., to despise him deeply.
-So? Obviously in 2004 the American peole (HIS people) disagreed with this enlghtened world you feel such a need to be loved by. And that’s what matters. Get it? The world hates us. No one will ever root for Goliath.
He is absolutely the worst president this country has had in over 100 years.
You obviously don’t know anything about Carter, Johnson, Harding, etc. YOU obviously don’t know about much at all it seems except for how to vomit up DNC and moveon.org cliches.
So, contrary to your comment, the world does not despise Bush because of his motivations; it’s because of his actions.
-Yes, because his actions placed America first over their appeasing flaccid ways in the face of Islamic terror sending them into a new Dark Ages. By all means Balcon, go join your Eruo-friends. Personally, I’d rather have a president the world doesn’t like…IT MEANS HE’S DOING SOMETHING RGHT!
31 Raider1 // Oct 8, 2009 at 9:09 am
Balcon. The world will always hate the USA because they envy what we have, who we are and what we stand for. Bush was a convenient foil, but I hate to tell you this but Bush was more what America is about than Obama will ever be (and I am not even a big W fan!). Obama views himself as a “citizen of the world” which suits the softies overseas just fine but has transalted also into a diminishemnt of REAL American power and prestige where it counts (not a Frnch Bistro on the streets of Gay Paree but rather the halls of the Kremlin).
I am an American because it is NOT the rest of the world. I have no interest in mimicing Europes unsustainable socialist welfare behometh that wil soon collapse upon itself, Europe’s suicidal low birth rates, Islamofacist hatred that treats women as dogs and infidels–that’s you pal–as gnats to be swatted away as a stain on the world. America is the last hope of Western civilization…with laws and creeds of liberty that allow even DNC drones like yourself to post even the most ludicrous views that are grounded solely in a disproven ideology, facts be damend, without fear of censorship or retaliation.
Let’s put is this way. SCREW ALLAH AND MOHAMMED. Do you realize that that would be considered a hate crime in places as close as Canada? Ask Mark Steyn. I would be condemned to beheading in Qum or Riyadh for saying that. And, I hate to tell you, it would be censored in Holland, Germany and France for fear of inciting Islamonuts’ rage and retaliation. So if it’s all the same to you, you can have the citizen of the world as your leader. I’ll take the guy who says America First … and believes it. He will be the one to save us from the new Dark Ages envolping once civilized, open and Christian societies from whence this great nation came.
Oh, And I notice, um, that you live here too? gee, why is that?
32 sinz54 // Oct 8, 2009 at 12:23 pm
raider1:
I agree.
Early in the 20th century, my own ancestors came to America to GET AWAY from Europe. And when I was a very young child, my grandma (who had come to America as a young girl) told me how lucky she and I were to be in America rather than Europe. She was right. Had she stayed in Europe, she might have been swallowed up in World War II.
But “America First” does NOT mean “Make the rest of the world look like America.” And this is where Bush fell short.
We CANNOT turn Iraq or Afghanistan into pluralistic, Western-style democratic capitalist states in just a few years. The British Empire civilized India–which was already a relatively peaceful society–but it took them centuries. Americans don’t have the stomach for a generations-long effort like that.
Bush assumed that the lure of freedom was so great, as to cause the peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere to effect radical changes to their existing societies, if only given the chance. He was wrong. Who is the Afghan who is equivalent to Thomas Jefferson, or John Locke, or Edmund Burke?
Before Bush started down the path of nation-building in 2002, “America First” type conservatives used to HATE nation building. In fact, during the 2000 debates with Al Gore, Bush himself said he opposed it. He should have never changed his mind about that.
33 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 8, 2009 at 1:01 pm
raider1,
Your response to me @ #30 makes practically no sense at all. You asked me what Bush did that has caused people to despise him. I responded by giving you several examples. And then you proffer justifications for Bush’s actions as if these supposed justifications then mean people don’t despise him. The justifications you offer are weak, but even if they were strong, they do not undermine my argument that his actions caused people to despise him. People simply do not accept the justifications that you think warranted Bush’s actions. For example:
According to you, people shouldn’t hate bush for starting a war that killed 100K Iraqis and ruined their country because Saddam killed and gassed his own people (w/ U.S. help – Cheney specifically). The rest of the world simply disagrees. Moreover, Bush didn’t start a war in Iraq for this reason. He started the war because of WMD, which did not exist.
4,000 dead, 30k wounded American soldiers, to which you simply respond by saying “wars do that.” Of course wars do that you idiot. The issue is whether or not the war is worth the loss of life. This one clearly was not and only the most rabid neocons still believe that it was.
You allocate blame for financial collapse to Frank and Dodd. It’s irrelevant that Bush had confederates in this debacle. He’s still the president and the one most accountable, and people hold him most responsible because it happened on his watch.
You mention the federal budget deficit under Obama, but you failed to point out that the stimulus bill and the Afghan war are really the only new substantial spending under Obama. TARP, Medicare Part D, the Iraqi war and tax cuts are what caused the budget deficit to explode. Bush caused each of those. So no, people do not blame for the current deficit, nor should they.
As for torture, if the torture that Bush authorized was appropriate and necessary, why did he order an end to it in 2004? You are clearly not familiar with the facts on this issue and it would be futile to discuss this issue with you further until you became more acquainted with the facts.
You cite Bush’s reelection in 2004 as evidence that the American people like him. Yet, you ignore that he left office at the end of 2008 with an approval rating in the 20s. If past popularity is dispositive, why didn’t you cite his 90% approval rating right after 9/11?
You also apparently don’t believe his politics were unnecessarily divisive. You and I are each entitled to our opinions on that issue and there is no way either of us can empirically prove the other wrong. However, many people (including many GOPers) perceived his politics as excessively divisive and that has caused some people to despise him.
34 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 8, 2009 at 1:04 pm
raider1 wrote: “The world will always hate the USA because they envy what we have, who we are and what we stand for.”
Uh, no. The only reason we’re posting comments here is that we have empirical evidence that the world will not always hat the USA. In fact, the USA is now the most admired country in the world.
35 Raider1 // Oct 8, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Sparticus: What you said, and what I responded to was this: “he actually did a lot of stupid, harmful things that the U.S. and the rest of the world are still trying to recover from.”
THE REST OF THE WORLD ARE STILL TRYING TO RECOVER FROM? How much more hyperbole can you use? No, Sparticus, the rest of the world has moved on its merry way just fine without nary a look back because Bush caused “the rest of the world” very little hatrm other than being disliked. You “recover from” a friggin tsunami or major war, not from a presidency of a foreign country. What I asked you was what did he so terrible that did damage to the “rest of the world.”
Your response? To quickly go off to moveon.org or Michaelmoore.com or Pelosi’s, Reed’s or the DNC website and list the same old trite general complaints about Bush. His administration may have caused you and your liberal breast beaters angst, but if you think the rest of the world really cares about who we have in the white house (beyond this infatuation with a shallow teleprompter reading rock star) then you clearly have never traveled much.
Your argument was that since Bush’s policies were unpopular with the left and the appeasing and Islamo-cowered Europeans that he inflicted some sort of major wound upon that world that this entire planet of 5 billion people must now “recover from.” Seriously a little bit daramtic there no?
So what we have then is a good old fashioned policy debate. One that has been debated ad nauseum. YOU say the deaths in Iraq were a waste I say they were for a just cause. You think waterboarding men who massacre 3000 civilians is torture I think it is not. You blame Bush for the economic meltdown, I say you are partisan and simplistic to think so. You ridicule Bus’s deficits (as do I) but then dismiss Obama’s that are FOUR TIUMES Bush’s and counting. You call him a devisive force, yet conveniently ignore the hatred spewed at him from the 2000 election on from the hard left “Bush war criminal, Bush = Hitler, Abort Bush, etc.” (I don’t condone hate speech against Obama either but to pretend the left did not viciously ridicule this man causing othrs to circle the wagons around him to defend him is simply ignoring history). And so it goes. Two worlds.
BUT your thesis that Bush did so much damage to the entire world
36 Raider1 // Oct 8, 2009 at 1:52 pm
And SParticus we are posting comments on a poll that David Frum put up as evidence of how FICKLE your friends (not mine) across the pond can be. You mean to tell me that the mere man who sits at 1600 Penn. Aven. is the single reason why “the world” (certainly not the Islamic world by the way) loves or hates a nation of 350 million people with a rich history spanning 300 years to the present and been the most influential nation in modern history? All this because of one man’s ascendency to the off ice of Chief Exec? What we have is imperical evidence that “the world” (not the Islamic world) are very very very malliable and weak, and capricious in their judgemenst of nations. Great, today they love us.
You ever think they do because Obama is idstinctly NOT like typical Americans? But is more like Europeans in attitude and policy ideology? ergo then, do these people survey love the USA or love THEMSELVES and see their images of who they wish they were reflected in Obama. And thus WHEN a conservative comes in again, an American patriot first rather than citizen of the world easily oushed around, that faux adoration will vanish as they see themselves deposed. Get it?
37 Raider1 // Oct 8, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Sparticus. When is the last time you have set foot in Europe? Be honest now.
38 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 8, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I travel to Europe twice a year, most recently in March of this year. Is this relevant?
39 balconesfault // Oct 8, 2009 at 2:20 pm
You ever think they do because Obama is idstinctly NOT like typical Americans?
Ummm … Obama is distinctly like typical Americans. We’re not a nation of super-wealthy trust fund children whose ancestors were Senators and Fed Board Chairmen and if you go waaay back came over on the Mayflower.
A lot more Americans are mongrels, like Obama – people with parents or grandparents who were born in foreign countries, people whose family trees disappear a few generations ago instead of being tracable for hundreds of years, people who grew up without inherited wealth and family connections that ensured their success in the world from the moment they were christened with the family name.
Obama is typical American – the kind who if he proclaims in elementary school that he wants to be President someday, gets the story of how if he works hard and plays by the rules that in America – anything is possible. That is something we should all be celebrating, because it speaks to the America that countries around the world have admired since the days of de Toqueville.
40 Raider1 // Oct 8, 2009 at 2:20 pm
<<>
When you say ‘let’s workl the whole thing out’ do you mean do the numbers? Or live together? If it is the former, they are undeniable. If it is the latter then your naivete is unbroachable.
But if I am paranoid and delusional, and there for you are not, then you must have the opposite of my beliefs. Therefore does this list below sum up your veiwpoints nicely?
So then your contention is that Europe is NOT being quickly Islamified?
So then there are NOT 1,000,000 Muslims in London alone now? So then the most popular boys’ name in Belgium now is NOT Mohammed?
So then you do NOT believe that by 2015 (6 years) half the Russian Army will be Muslim?
So then you do NOT believe the fact that the birthrates in most of the western world are well below replacement rates, while the birthrates in most of the Middle East are well above?
So then you do NOT believe that this fact, coupled with increasing rates if immigration to the west from parts of the world where the general population is quite antithetical to western values (freedom, democracy etc.) will inevitably lead to confrontation.
Question: when is the last time you’ve been to Europe? Be honest. Tell ya what. Let’s go to Amsterdam and I’ll buy yo ua falafal from one of the many Middel Eastern restaurants tehre (and we can chat with the proprietor while we scan the “wall of martyrs” togethe – photographs of those who blew themselves up in Gaza.
41 Raider1 // Oct 8, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Ummm … Obama is distinctly like typical Americans. We’re not a nation of super-wealthy trust fund children whose ancestors were Senators and Fed Board Chairmen and if you go waaay back came over on the Mayflower
Nice fallacy of the false atlternative there Balcon. NEXT! Being American is not about race or ethinicity. It is about a MINDSET. A common thread of shared beliefs that make us all able to co-exist (really co-exist, not European fear of the Islamic nights) .
Obama fancies himself a world citizen first. His very upbringing in SE Asia then Hawaii (that newest and most Pacific of states) is not teh typical Amercian upbringing. His world view is much more in line with Chirac (yes I now he’s no there) and Gordon Brown and other European socialists than with what Americans view themselves to be and stand for….why he had to “go to the center” to get elected. But Europe knows what he is about. As Michael Moore said: “You’re one of us.” But Moore is certainly not the mainstream…you connect the dots.
42 Raider1 // Oct 8, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Sparticus. That was actually geared more towards Balcon than you. if you go there then you cannot deny that Europe is becoming increasely populated by aged Europepeans and young immigrant Muslims.
43 Raider1 // Oct 8, 2009 at 2:33 pm
“Obama is typical American – the kind who if he proclaims in elementary school that he wants to be President someday,” — IN INDONESIA. Yep pretty much like the rest of us! LOL
“gets the story of how if he works hard and plays by the rules that in America.”
Oh you mean like how cleanly and above board its done in the Chicago political
scene? What WORLD do you live in dude?
“That is something we should all be celebrating, because it speaks to the America that countries around the world have admired since the days of de Toqueville.”
Oh indeed. It is proof that even a European (at heart and mind) can become president. Certainly a man with no executive experience, who never ran a business or even met a payroll, an indistinguished career as an attoryney, then “community organizer” (like ACRON is yay!), a mediocre stint as a state legislator and a less than one term junior senator from Illinois can become president simply based on the virtues of his…color.
Yes it is worth celebrating alright. That you need not be qualified to be president. Just be Black but, how do the fawing liberals say, “articulate.” Great.
44 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 8, 2009 at 2:35 pm
raider1,
The “recovering” from the Bush era that many in the world (including here in the U.S.) are doing is psychological. Bush was an abysmal failure, but I personally have not suffered in any way as a result of his policies, except that I scorn the damage he caused to my country and I care about the loss of innocent life outside of my country. I guess by your reasoning, no one in Mexico or Thailand was adversely affected by Hitler since he didn’t invade either of those countries or kill anyone in those countries.
Unless you consider 75% of the U.S. to be part of the Left, you are hopelessly wrong when you imply that Bush’s policies were unpopular only with the Left. The guy had an approval rating in the mid 20s. Why don’t you ask John McCain how popular Bush’s policies were with the country?
With respect to your implication that the rest of the world is flawed because they’ve become so bothered by a single man, that seems to be clearly impertinent. The issue is whether or not U.S. interests are undermined when the rest of the world hates us. I, and practically every other sane person in this country, believe the answer is clearly yes. It matters not that the rest of the world is flawed, it’s the world in which we live. To the extent we can promote our interests without causing the rest of the world to hate us, we should do so. I have every confidence that Bush never set out to cause the world to hate us. He simply was too incompetent to appreciate how important this is.
45 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 8, 2009 at 2:41 pm
raider1: “Sparticus. That was actually geared more towards Balcon than you. if you go there then you cannot deny that Europe is becoming increasely populated by aged Europepeans and young immigrant Muslims.”
Of course it is. This is a fact. It’s also a fact of the U.S. Western democracies are becoming less white and their white populations are comprised of older and older people. So what? I don’t know if are actually this way and I’m not accusing you of this, but you sound like a fearful xenophobe who won’t be able to adapt and compete in a modern, changing world.
46 balconesfault // Oct 8, 2009 at 2:53 pm
So then the most popular boys’ name in Belgium now is NOT Mohammed?
I don’t know what your database says. Here’s the best data I can find:
http://www.babynamefacts.com/popularnames/countries.php?country=BGM
The Top Baby Names in Belgium for 2007
Boy Names
1. Nathan
2. Lucas
3. Noah
4. Louis
5. Thomas
6. Arthur
7. Mohamed
8. Milan
9. Mathis
10. Hugo
…
31. Kobe
…
91. Hamza
Take a look – maybe I missed some in there – but it looks like the 7th, 31st, and 91th most popular baby names for boys had Muslim roots. Hardly the demographic tidal wave that your paranoia envisions.
So anyway – it is certainly true that Europe is receiving unprecedented waves of immigration, primarily from Muslim nations. I’m sure this is a shock to many people used to the extreme homogeniety European countries have had to date … not so much a shock to we Americans who are far more used to waves upon waves of people who look different than us, and who have different cultural backgrounds from us. Personally, in an increasingly dangerously crowded world, I think developed nations have reason to put back-pressure on nations who won’t develop a culture of ZPG and let them work those issues out internally, rather than serving as a relief valve for their excess population growth. But I don’t see this the way you do – you see our quality of life being swamped because of too many people who don’t think like you … I see our quality of life being swamped simply because of too many people.
47 Raider1 // Oct 8, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Once again clever but wrong Balcon. I am talking about the most popular boy’s name period. Do you have the list of immigrants that came into Belgium on this? How about the boys in general?
The problem with Europe is not what people LOOK like, it is attitudes. Unlike the waves of immigrants who came to AMerica from whome we are both descended, Euorpe is being overwhelmed with a wave of immigrants who do NOT wish to asimilate at all. A Muslim in France doesn’t consider himself French. A near-illiterate Imam spewing anti western vitrol in Copenhagen does not consider hismefl Danish. They consider themselves Muslims. They are not immigrants. They are COLONIZERS.
Why you refuse to accept this is just proof of the left’s penchant for wnating the world to be as they wish it to be (all lalal prancing in fields singing ‘all you need in love” ) when the reality is far from ideal or pleasant (“behead those who blaspheme Islam!” “Death to Euoprean infidels”)
48 Raider1 // Oct 8, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Baclon…so about those other points I mention? You do disagree with them yes? I am just paranoid?
49 Raider1 // Oct 8, 2009 at 3:14 pm
By the way…I cannot type. I assure you my spelling, grammer and syntax are not as bad as it seems! LOL.
50 balconesfault // Oct 8, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Once again clever but wrong Balcon. I am talking about the most popular boy’s name period. Do you have the list of immigrants that came into Belgium on this? How about the boys in general?
Nope – your claim – you prove it. As I said, that was the best/most pertinent data I could find.
Unlike the waves of immigrants who came to AMerica from whome we are both descended, Euorpe is being overwhelmed with a wave of immigrants who do NOT wish to asimilate at all.
In my experience, this kind of open door policy isn’t a result of the liberalism you decry … but because certain industries/corporations have a business model that relies on population growth, and they’re using immigration as a backdoor around attempts by progressives who encourage ZPG to maintain quality of life and environmental protection.
Longterm, of course, that business model is doomed to run into a wall. But in the short term it plows ahead trying to reap as large of profits as it can from unsustainable population increases.
If the business communities in those countries decide that continued immigration levels are bad for business … I have no doubt the doors would rapidly slam shut.
51 Raider1 // Oct 8, 2009 at 3:36 pm
The most popular names in these for Dutch cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht? Muhammed.
Second most popular name in Britain now besides Jack? Muhammed.
In the countryside the names are more traditional. But in the CITIES check out a serach of any major city in Europe and see where Muhammed (or variations) rank in popularity.
The new Islamic conquest is upon Europe now. If you find that values that are uniquely Western–religious tolerance, thrift, scientific discovery, individual liberties, equality of the sexes, the rule of secular laws, etc.–are not worth fretting over then by all means, call me a paranoid and move about living your life with your head in the sand trying to tell yourelf that there is much we can learn from living under Sharia law, practising state-sanctioned mysoginy, and religious intolerance and censorship when the Imams take over.
52 Raider1 // Oct 8, 2009 at 3:46 pm
“What’s the Muslim population og Rotterdam? Forty percent. What’s the most popular boy’s name in Belgium? Mohammed. In Amsterdam? Mohammed. In Malmo, Sweden? Mohammed. By 2005, it was the fifth most popular boy’s name in the United Kingdom. Yet most Europeans weren’t even aware of the dominant demographic trend until September 11, and subsequent events in Madrid, Paris and London. ” — Mark Steyn, America Alone.
Now I do not have the source of his stats, but there is a fine bibliography at the end wher eyou may peruse for yourself.
And let us even say for sake of argument it is only what you say it is. The point is that the trend is happening and maybe it will be ten years before Steyn’s claim (if is wrong to you) becomes the fact.
The problem with arguing with multiculturalists like you is that you do not wish to acknowledge that there are indeed superior culures. I could hit you with facts and figures about human rights scores of Muslim versus Western nations, with imperical data, evidence, even anecdotes and you would simply decry them as my “opinion.” Islam taking ove rEurope is not an opinion…it is a fact. An unpleasant one but one nontheless whose negative implications for the progress of man and knowledge you seem unwilling to accept.
Arguing with someone like you is like playing tennis with someone who believes that the ace I just served is merely a social construct. (That is from Steyn as well by the way.)
53 Raider1 // Oct 8, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Balcon. You hit on the demograohics at the heart of the problem. When you have only 1.1 children per couple (Spain), 1.2- 1.3 (Italy and Greece) around that fro GErmany as well (whose indigenous germanic poulation will halve in fifty years) then you must import immigrants to, in effect, be the vhildren you did not have.
And with all do respect, I do not think your experience matters. What matters is the overalll trend. When 40% of British Muslims want Sharia law for example, when more Londoners now attend mosque than church, when German publishers self-censor for fear of Muslim violence (so much for assimilation and grakllying behind Western free speech eh?) then this is NOT like regular immgration of times past where you become a hyphenated American say and then just an American who may have his/her ethnic roots to draw from for a sense of identity within a gretaer identity.
Mulsims want NO PART of westrn culture. This is hwy, as I said, this is not the story of a wave of immigrants…it is the story of a COLONIZATION. A conquest. Only conquest now by reprodyuction, not the sword. A very deliberate one. Why become a German when you know by the time your grandkids (all fifty of them) become adults that Muslim will be the dominate force? You just wait and use the laws and the welfare state against the host in the meantime…the way a virus uses the host to nurish itself and grow while killing it form the inside.
You can tell yourself it’ll all be good. But the fact is, under Sharia law, we could not have this discussion.
54 ottovbvs // Oct 8, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Get a life man……where the percentage in being an American president that is reviled by the rest of the world versus one who is admired and respected……..do all your neighbors hate you……do you want them to hate you…….at times your immaturity is startling
55 pnwguy // Oct 8, 2009 at 11:40 pm
raider1:
So leaving alone the issue of many western nations with less than replacement birth rates, what do you suggest? It’s not as if that somehow encourages greater family size of Muslim households. That happens regardless. They would just be continuing to swell in other countries and adding to the festering dysfunctions in their native societies. You could take the stance “let them rot there”, but if there was anything we learned from the 9/11 experience, it is that the problems of dysfunctional societies and ideologies aren’t so easily contained within their borders. At least not when so much of our commerce is global in nature, and where people move about between nations relatively free.
Seriously, I’m not being flip here. If what you are advocating is a new crusade, to stem the tide of a world population with greater Muslim dominance, articulate it. I’m curious about your solution.
The two nations with Muslim majorities I’ve had personal experiences with, Turkey and Malaysia, are both highly secular and by and large non-threatening societies. There are fundamentalist pockets in each, I’m sure, but they have both embraced modern society to a great extent. Now Saudi Arabia seems to be an entirely different matter. If there is a Muslim dominated society we SHOULD be poised against, it’s that one. The export of really vile anti-Western religious hatred, with almost unlimited petro-dollars behind them, seems to come from there. And yet we bend over backwards for the Saudis.
56 Raider1 // Oct 9, 2009 at 9:22 am
Otto. Get a clue and climb out of your we-are-the-world bubble man. Of course I would rather have my neighbors like me than not. But more important I want them to respect my property rights first and foremost and not treat me like dirt by leaving cars up on blocks in their driveway, leting their lawns grow to weed fields, etc.
As Schaeffer says (I guess you didn’t read it…big words in there I know) you can be liked and respected, but if you can only be one it’s better to be respected, even at the expense of popularity.
To use your silly neighbor analogy and take it a step further, which would you rather have?
1) A neighbor who just loves you, thinks you’re the greatest guy in the world, but has no compunction about letting his dog crap all over your lawn, has blaring steross playing outseide until 4am, blocks your driveway with his car, and genrally cares little for your property rights? OR…
2) A neighbor who thinks you’re a jerk because after you asked him nicely many many times to curb his dog, turn down the music and get the car out of your driveway, you finally called the cops on him and he complied.
Personally I’ll take 2 because there are times when you will not be able to have both. And I would rather have my proeprty rights respected and lose a potential “friend” than be treated like a doormat in the name of “peaceful co-existence.” That’s called surrender.
57 Raider1 // Oct 9, 2009 at 9:29 am
PNWguy…Europe is finished. It is in a death spiral demographically from which it cannot recover. I have no solution. Just learn from them as best we can. If it means curbing Muslim immigration so be it. Call it an act of national defense. The stakes are too high.
58 Raider1 // Oct 9, 2009 at 9:38 am
PNW…based on what I have seen in my travels, I would be very happy to help Europe repopulate with the women of Italy, Spain, Greece, Sweden, and the South of France (not so sure England or Germany!). But although personally that is a solution to which I would be open, if I musabout t go to bed with these women to take one for the time I guess I must, I do not think that women–who find my personality a natural profilactic–will be open to this most sensible of solutions.
You must log in to post a comment.