Describing and/or criticising the current US governments attitude is
a political point not an attack on America as a whole. There are US
politicians I agree with, is that an attack on the US? It seems to me
that the US people on the list tend to be supporters of the
Republican Government and take an attack on it as an attack on their
fine nation.
I grew out of 'Teddy' several decades ago:) Good point score though
Mike!
On the economic stats front we don't have the information to hand to
make a judgement. I assume the Time article was correct that the US
gives more of some kind of aid though none of us know whether that is
total, military, private, developing countries or other. Perhaps
someone fancies a visit to the Time web site to resolve this one?
The treaty I was referring to was the ABM treaty which the Bush admin
stated they were going to put aside and break by running tests, when
they got elected because they didn't think it relevant anymore. What
is the point of making deals with someone who welch's on them? Talk
about a PR blunder. With that and Kyoto the signal, intended or not,
was sent that the US was not interested in international co-operation
and could not be trusted to fulfil it's internationaly agreed
obligations under treaty. You may be the good guys, but the Bush
admin certainly gave those who don't like you some pretty potent
propaganda to tout about.
I genuinely understand why the US wants Missile Defence but the way
the message was delivered ensured that the debate in Europe has been
about tearing up of tried and tested nuclear treaties that have
helped keep us all alive rather than the actual merits of the
proposition. Those small minority who dislike the US on principal due
to political or personal reasons have been parading around 'going we
told you so'. Get too many of those and the small minority becomes a
majority. All it took was some quiet diplomacy with the Russians
along with some debt relief and an 'amendment' would have been pushed
through. Instead an enormous amount of fear and bad feeling was
engendered and Russia's back, another proud country, put up for no
good reason and valuable ammunition given to the enemies of
the 'West'. Stupid thing is, the US is doing now what it should have
done in the first place!
The arguement for Missile Defense is that is better to have a 10%
chance of knocking out a missile from a rogue state which is going to
wipe out 100,000 or more of your people than to have no chance at all
and it would be negligent of a countries leadership not to pursue
such an option assuming cost effectiveness. I can't see a US
President wanting to tell his/her people that lots of them have died
because they didn't want to disturb the rest of the worlds
sensitivities. There is an an equal duty to ensure that the US has
good relations with the rest of the world because, as 9/11 shows,
it's not just Rogue States that commit mass murder but individuals
and small organisations who grow out of perceived injustice. The Bush
administrations attitude to the ABM treaty and Kyoto were, rightly or
wrongly, seen as arrogance and contempt for the rest of the world,
international institutions, agreements and law. Few more dragon's
teeth. Sometimes you have to sow them but it is bad government to do
it without need.
Britain saved the US in WWII. If Britain had not fought Germany, on
it's own, and had gone for peace with Germany after the Fall of
France then, after they had of dealt with Russia, the US would be
dancing to an Axis tune. USA vs Eurasia, Africa and all those lovely
South American Generals? My money on the latter all in all. If the
USA had not entered the European war then the UK and Russia would
have almost certainly have beat Germany. We'd all be toasting Karl
Marx but hell, better than the Nazi's. So can I please hear all those
people out there asking for our undying gratitude for the US role in
WWII start expressing their gratitude to the UK, Commonwealth and
other allied troops who were saving their butt whilst their parents
were out buying Cadillacs. The reality is that there were three major
powers along with the Canadians, Aussies, Kiwi's, Nigerians,
Chinese.....all of whom fought and died to the best of their ability
so that we have the freedom we do. To claim that any particular
nation deserves special gratitude is ludicrous.
WWI victory is more directly attributable to the US intervention as
it broke the stalemate. The one, of course, we should be grateful for
is winning the Cold War which was a burden most heavily shouldered by
the US. No USA and we'd have been off to the collective farms for
Uncle Joe.
Mike Barber is right about the Economist. Give it a go.
Cheers
Chris Courtiour