http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/the_world_according_to_obama.asp
"The World According to Obama
It’s interesting how Democrats harp on foreign policy explanations for anti-Americanism while disregarding the role domestic policy plays. In the world according to Obama, America is hated because we’re in Iraq:
"The fact that the continuation of a presence in Iraq as Sen. McCain has suggested is exactly what, I think, will fan the flames of anti-American sentiment and make it more difficult for us to create a long-term and sustainable peace in the world," Obama said today at a campaign stop at The Little Dooey, a barbeque restaurant in Columbus, Miss.
Never mind that farm subsidies--as in the policy Obama defended vociferously while pandering to Iowans a few months back--leave the poorest people in the world starving and without jobs."
There has pretty much been "anti-American sentiment" since before the United States existed, and still people think we're going to eliminate that? Maybe I'm a skeptic (actually, I know I'm a skeptic) but for some reason I don't see anyone liking us anymore if we leave Iraq or stay there for "another hundred years" (a phrase popularized by criticism of John McCain). History shows that we're just not very popular on the playground.
Additionally, is it only me that thinks the leap from farm subsidies to "the poorest people in the world starving and without jobs" is a little large? I think I need a pole to make it across that gap (though I am pretty short and don't run very fast). Perhaps our lack of popularity on the global playground has more to do with the fact that we think we should be very popular, important and necessary and less to do with individual actions. Maybe "America" just has a bad attitude.
2 comments:
i don't feel that attitude has much to do with it. were the younger nation playing in grounds populated and owned by nations that have been around far longer then the americas were even known to exist. were the fresh piece of meat tossed to the pack of wolfs that feast off the blood of toughs unable to stand on their own two feet. the predicament lies in the fact that not only are we the younger nation, the baby at the adult table, but were the child prodigy super star that over shadows others that were once called the center of the world. to top it off, were the super model of how a country should be, and thus go out on whims alone and unhelped by nations around ours, in order to prove to others that we are worth our weight in salt. the reality is if it wasnt for us, france would be a foot note to germanys army, iraq would be once again the tyrannical dictatorship that it once was, Afghanistan would be in its anarchist state, their would be no north or south korea, just korea, and the the Muslims would be blaming another sue-do Christian nation for turning their once very prospers middle east in to a series of third world countries, forgetting the fact that their own fanatical thought process was their down fall to begin with and seams to do nothing more then dig their grave deeper. so i say screw the critics of America, were it not for us, kings and queens would rule the lands, and the fuddle age of man would be the norm rather then the acceptation. were it not for us, tyranny and oppression would be the common foe rather then the declining fashion. our blood payed for many others comforts, and i for one believe its high time that the old dogs be laid to rest, and the new sprits be allowed to rise.
Yes, if it "wasnt for us, france would be a foot note to germanys army . . . and the the Muslims would be blaming another sue-do Christian nation for turning their once very prospers middle east in to a series of third world countries" but I think the US has a nasty knack for (and history of) sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. We take it upon ourselves all too often to bail others out of "trouble"; where do you draw the line? Would it have been right to stay out of World War II and allow France, among other countries to become "footnotes" ? No, probably not. But was it our place to police communism all over the world and squash dictatorships? Why was it our place? Because we thought so. I don't think your place on the totem pole is decided by what you think, though in our case it has been. My biggest qualm with this aspect of the United States is that we use this Big Brother technique to intervene only in places where it is beneficial to us, though those actions are later played off as The Right Thing To Do not The Advantageous Thing To Do. Our involvement in the Middle East has a lot to do with oil, not squashing tyranny and spreading democracy. The United States could have made tremendous humanitarian efforts all over the world (genocide in Darfur, tsunami relief in Southeast Asia) but we haven't. Let's face it: All they have in Indonesia is batik and George Bush (among other government officials) wouldn't look good in a sarong.
Also: you may want to invest in a dictionary, or utilize a spell check tool. Though your argument was mostly sound, the atrocious spelling errors made it easy to shrug off.
Post a Comment