George Bush & "The Greatest Country in the World"

[13788]

7x6andchg: Well, DMW -

As for Paris, TX (and KY, too, I believe), we may not be at war with the French as we were with Germany in WWII, but there is a town here in Wisconsin that is pronounced "New BER-lin" solely because it USED to sound like the town in Germany..... and that's also why we call them "hot dogs" - the word was the primary replacement for frankfurter.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Anti-German sentiment during WWI was also the reason for substitutions like 'Salsbury steak' for 'hamburger' and 'liberty cabbage' for 'sauerkraut'. The 'liberty cabbage' example sounds too much like today's 'freedom fries'. English has a lot of French loan words in daily use. Hopefully the zealots are not going to try to expunge them from the language.
BTW ... Interesting historical note: before WWI, 'French toast' was called 'German toast' because it is originally from Alsace, where German was the language. It made its way to Paris where it was called pain perdu ('lost bread'). Because of anti-German sentiment, restaurants decided to stress its connexion with the French freedom fighters. That's why we call it French toast. And if someone tries to get me to say 'freedom' toast, he's going to get an earful from a fed-up Cuban with a 'tude!

 

[jay_too]

out of this war have come a couple of scenes that make me proud to be a human and an american. out of the devastation and horror that is war, i was a witness (through tv) to:

the marine standing on a humvee rapping to a bunch of iraqui kids. he made them forget for a few minutes the reality of living in the midst of war.

the brother of lori piestewa (the first american woman soldier to die in combat) asking the media and america for a few days for the family to grieve in peace and calling upon the world and its leaders to pray and work for peace and bring the planet back into balance.

because of them, i know humanity lives.

jay

 

[13788]

thatsme: Thought I would add some balance or at least another perspective to this topic.


1. As far as Bush, really I could delve pretty deep into this, but I will try not to. He is an idiot, IMO. However, he not very conservative at all, especially for a Republican. He was handpicked by the GOP in 2000 and rode the support to victory. In the the Republican debates, he was the least effective speaker ( Alan Keyes being the best). People are going after ( or supporting) Bush in the same way they did with Clinton; along party or ideological lines. Even though Clinton was not particularly "liberal" and Bush is not very "conservative." Just as Republicans passionately attacked Clinton, they now blindly support Bush even though he is pretty moderate.

2. As far as "liberal" labels, I consider myself a classical liberal ( libertarian). It would make the most sense to me if most of you were as well, but I do not get that impression. I think many of you might be half way. Basically I believe in individualism and complete personal and economic freedom. ( Of course, this is individual in nature and is not permission to harm others). I believe completely in privacy and property rights. The government is supposed to exist as a servant to the people for the sole purpose of protecting them. And if you want to have freedom, you need complete freedom. If you believe the government should not be in your bedroom, then they should not be in your property, commerce,etc. You cannot have it both ways. Unfortunately, modern "liberals" are not liberal at all. They believe in huge government, the nanny state, and extreme interference and regulation ( total disregard for privacy and property). This goes the same for Democrats and republicans. it is a 2 headed monster that keeps growing ( and you keep feeding it).. I also find it strange that so-called liberals tend to be more liberal socially,sexually,etc but they support politicians and governments that are more regulatory and collective ( do not believe in individual rights, because they do not believe that any individuals actually exist).

I could go on and on ( for example, associates of the "right" and Bush family have a history of fostering communism, hardly "conservatism")

3. As far as USA being the Greatest Country on the Earth. I think in spirit and intent, it is.

My basis for this thought is:

The USA was the first country that was based on freedom of and the individual; a country of opportunity and attainment ( not ascribed status).

I am not going to disparage Europe or any other parts of the world. In fact, I have many friends from former Soviet areas ( they are more "american" than most americans, I might add). However, it has always seemed that in most places of the world, people are neither free not have any spirit of freedom. They are born in a certain position and forced to live a certain way for their entire lives, for no reason, nothing they can control ( maybe because of who their father was or family was,etc).

In a truly free capitalist society ( What the US has always hoped to be, but never quite acheived; but at least it is close and has that spirit), each individual can live freely as he chooses and be anything he wants in life as long as he is willing to work for it.

To me it is simple as individualism vs. collectivism. you may disagree, as many Americans are collectivists and have an unhealthy lust for things I believe are wrong ( For example, one of the great things is not having Kings or Queens, yet many Americans obsess over creating their own "Royalty" in the form of The Kennedys or Bushes,etc).

BTW, I oppose the war and dont think highly of Bush. However this isnt a left vs. right or "liberal/conservative" thing. Most people have no idea of the actual meaning of those terms.

 

[jay_too]

re: The Greatest Country in the World

i am glad that i was born in the u.s., but i have problems with this phrase. it is arrogant and insensitive. yeah, i think our leaders and people should be more sensitive to the national pride of the brits, french, germans, italians, slovenians, etc. while i have not traveled that much, i have never been in a country where i was told this is a hell hole. quite the contrary, i find that when i am abroad, i am in a country with a great and interesting past and one that is culturally important.

cetainly, in the last half of the 20th century, we garnered more than our share of nobel laureates and created an economic engine that much of the world envies. we have demonstrated our technological prowess in the development of weapons of war. our movie and television programs are watched worldwide; and in large part, they are responsible for american english becoming the language of the world. but can any american say that jerry springer is culturally important and is a worthy export?

i think we should be more humble and tolerant of other peoples for we have stood on the backs of past giants. the arabs taught us to count, add, subtract, multiply, and divide using arabic numerals. out of africa came the foundations of ragtime, the blues, jazz and rap. from italy and france art and music. from germany and austria, the great classical tradition in music.

i think the jury is still out on america being the greatest country in the world. moreover, i am not sure how to measure such a statement.

jay

 

[13788]

Solis24: [quote author=thatsme link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=36#43 date=04/09/03 at 23:50:20]However, it has always seemed that in most places of the world, people are neither free not have any spirit of freedom. They are born in a certain position and forced to live a certain way for their entire lives, for no reason, nothing they can control ( maybe because of who their father was or family was,etc).

In a truly free capitalist society ( What the US has always hoped to be, but never quite acheived; but at least it is close and has that spirit), each individual can live freely as he chooses and be anything he wants in life as long as he is willing to work for it.[/quote]

OK, for the record, I'm from Canada. I've been to the US a few times but not that many. I have been to France as a teen as part of a student exchange and have now lived in Germany for a year as part of another student exchange program. Go get a coffee or a drink of water, this is a long one.

I would also like to apologize if I also say anything conceited or gratuitous because god knows I'm not perfect either...

I myself had very similar views from the rest of the world before I came to Europe. I thought Canada was the best country to be, that we had real freedom in Canada, unlike the US which struck me as having less freedom in spite of claiming to be the "freeest" land on earth. Canada is really not that bad but thank heavens for travelling, I've had the opportunity to discover other countries and other ways of living and thinking. What you describe as being how people grow up elsewhere in the world is about as true in the US as about anywhere else in the world. Everybody is affected to various degrees by what their parents think, whether that makes them think the same or differently. No single country is better than another altogether, it just depends on what angle you look at it from.

Here in Germany, the spirit of freedom seems to be alive and well and the Germans themselves don't even seem to know it. You can be who you want, you can voice your opinion (political, social or other) without fear of people getting all judgemental on you (well some will, just like anywhere else) and a lot of people, whether they disagree or not, will voluntarily start up a discussion or a debate on the topic at hand and you will most likely never be judged for what you think and be respected in your opinion the whole way through. Respect for other's beliefs and opinions is a key in making a free society function.

A favourite example of mine: up until now, and even in smaller towns throughout the country, I have felt more at ease being openly gay than even in Canada, where the only place I could be totally open was at home and in the gay village in Montréal. Montréal is supposed to be very open and tolerant and yet, friends of mine holding hands outside the gay village got stoned for it. Here, it's anywhere. Even in this small provincial town of 250000 where I live, I could go walking down the street holding my bf's hand, stop and kiss him on the cheek and get away with just a few looks or stares and nothing else. Try and do that in any city the same size, anywhere in North America and you could seriously get in trouble.

And what about every American being able to live freely and do as he pleases? You need money for that. If you are born poor in the US, you will most likely stay poor from lack of support from the government and from being unable to pursue any higher education. Canada has the same problems for education but at least it's a bit less expensive and we have a few more social progams in place. Forgive me for taking Germany as an example again but studying at university costs 75$ a semester here. Period. Nothing else. In some cities, you'll even get free public transportation for the duration of the semester as part of your semester fees. A bit closer to freedom of education, is it not?

You said that any American willing to work for his ideals can attain them, well that goes for every other person on Earth too you know, it's just that sometimes, there's just way to many things standing in your way to get it done it a lifetime. A friend of mine grew up in rural Michigan from a very very poor and very large family where the hopes of getting anywhere in life were as poor as the family itself. Well, not wanting to suffer the same fate as everyone else, my friend started working at age 12 and worked a job all through junior and high school on top of working on being a top student in school, leaving him with very few hours of sleep at night. And you know what? He made it to Yale, studied law, became a lawyer and is now a tenured law professor in a university in NYC. You could take that as a proof of your statement, I take it as a proof that something is seriously wrong when the only thing a man can do to get himself out of poverty is to start working at age 12...

Down from the soap box I step and back onto the ground where I belong. Thanks for bearing with me.

 

[jay_too]

Solis24

Thanks for the post. I wish more citizens of other countries would wade into this discussion. Perhaps, they are reluctant to offend the American members of this group...but ya know, we sometimes learn from other viewpoints.

jay

 

[13788]

Finnmark: I am endlessly fascinated, and encouraged, by the posts on this topic:  it is both a splendid example of the internationalism of LPSG, and one of the reasons why so many of us tune in daily to this site.  Proof, too, that the penis can point in more than a solely sexual direction !

I believe it is difficult, if not impossible, to have any degree of objective understanding of other countries and their cultures without the experience of the curious visit:  I refer to eyes-wide-open and the questioning mind.  Best of all is Solis' experience of actually 'living there'.  My travel opportunities have taken me, in the main, to continental Europe, Russia (& the former Soviet Union), the Middle East, Australia and the United States:  vastly contrasting areas, each intensely fascinating in their histories and culture, and all containing lovely people, many of whom have become firm friends (only an hour ago I was delighted to receive an Alaska-postmarked letter!).

I have been lucky in this respect, and know that  only through 'being there' have I in any degree been able to understand each country's unique individuality. Yet more than that: only by having one's feet on the ground in Moscow, Marseilles, Minneapolis, Melbourne (forgive the corny alliteration, but I'm trying to make a literal point!) can you  begin to see how the rest of the world looks from their actual point-of-view on the earth's surface.  This first struck me forcibly when in Moscow during the 'Cold War';  I hadn't realised that to the Russian the 'enemy' was not in the west, but all around, at most points of the compass.  Equally, when in the US, I view the rest of the world as an American does:  far away, remote, beyond the shores of this huge country, and way beyond the vast oceans.  America is all!

By the same token, when abroad, I look back at tiny Britain and see it all in a different light.  Which is very good for me, since 'home' (however much we may love our birth-land) is too familiar to view objectively, and  too close to see ourselves as others see us.  The result can be a myopic and arrogant patriotism.

So "the greatest" just won't do.  If only because it implies all other peoples being "lesser".  There is so much variety and richness around ... some even revealed in microcosm, you might say, in many of the posts on this site!  I may be British (and specifically English) by birth and residence, but spiritually I am European (Europe is my 'home', I love it).  But neither of those facts sets me above others.  There is so much to relish - even envy - in the rest of the world.  (Gay-friendly Holland, perhaps ...?)

To conclude: you might gather from this that I would be the first to echo Jay's plea for varied views from other lands. I wonder what the rest-of-the-world's view of Britain is, for that matter ? Do you go along with the Blair-Bush axis of ..... ?

 

[13788]

7x6andchg: Finnmark-

I think you're correct. Using the world "greatest" does, by its very nature, imply that all others are inferior...which is the kind of myopic patriotism you refer to.

I think people end up socialized into the country they live in. For many of us that is the country, usually, that we were born in and in which our families live. Some, however, do move abroad, and stay abroad. I think if most people spend any length of time in another country they begin to lose their attachment to their "home" country and begin to appreciate what other places have to offer.

It is the difference between us all that makes life on Earth interesting. The true shame is that some people don't like people who are "different" in any way, and therefore, revert back, somewhat defensively, to their own way of doing things, often deriding the "different" ones in the process.

7x6&C

 

[13788]

Icarus213: Looks like everyone else on the thread is unanimous in the conclusion that the president is an idiot and an embarrassment. I firmly disagree, but here is an interesting side observation:

I notice that during the war (now it's over...after just three weeks, wow) pretty much everyone against the war and Bush were people who were against Bush from the beginning of his presidency. There weren't many people saying "Wow, this really changes everything I thought about him. I used to like him before, now I don't." The people protesting the war were the same people who were already protesting globalization and American imperialism and the WTO. I think this shows that war sentiment was very politicized- liberals didn't like it and conservatives did, with most of the center falling in favor of it (about 70% of Americans supported it).

All this to say, I could say I was deeply impressed by the president's leadership and decision to oust Sadaam, but of course I would- I'm a conservative. But equally true, those who criticize him (especially for something so trivial as a misspoken word) are commonly liberals who are more likely to see his presidential performance in a bad light, no matter how positive the results are. It's the way we think. Therefore no matter what the facts are, each side has it's own guy, and if he isn't my guy, I won't ever like him....right?

And I never make fun of France, btw. Been there and loved it!

 

[13788]

mindseye: [quote author=Icarus213 link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=48#49 date=04/21/03 at 08:02:10]I think this shows that war sentiment was very politicized- liberals didn't like it and conservatives did, with most of the center falling in favor of it (about 70% of Americans supported it).[/quote]

Beyond the slap-happy labels "liberal" and "conservative", there's also an issue with people who think 70% of Americans constitute "most of the center".

Take off your blinders, man. Most of the world did not support it.

 

[13788]

Icarus213: Mindseye-

I was referring to the American public. 70% isn't the center, it includes those who always supported Bush (the right) and those in the center, to add up to more than half. The 30% who didn't support it are most likely those who didn't like Bush in the first place. This isn't surprising, it's just an observation.

The labels I used are contemporary verbage, not the original Locke/Hobbes definitions. I think most people know what I meant.

And yes, most of the world did not support the war. I was not asserting that it did.

 

[jonb]

I'm guessing all those who supported Hitler included "the center" too. Oh, wait, that's an unfair comparison: Hitler was legitimately elected. LOL

[quote author=Icarus213 link=board=99;num=1046679711;start=48#51 date=04/21/03 at 14:06:33]Mindseye-

I was referring to the American public.  70% isn't the center, it includes those who always supported Bush (the right) and those in the center, to add up to more than half.  The 30% who didn't support it are most likely those who didn't like Bush in the first place.  This isn't surprising, it's just an observation.

The labels I used are contemporary verbage, not the original Locke/Hobbes definitions.  I think most people know what I meant.

And yes, most of the world did not support the war.  I was not asserting that it did.

[/quote]

 

[jay_too]

icarus..

25 or 30 years from now when i tell my children about my first vote in a presidential election, i may fudge and say i was strongly for gore. the truth of the matter is that i was for neither candidate...i succumbed to the american traditionof voting for the lesser of two evils. in fact, i rather liked the hick from texas...he was funny and clearly out of his element.

until the march to war, i was pretty much non-political. since then, i followed someone's suggestion on this thread to get political and try to change the policies.

i am guilty of believing that war results from a failure in diplomacy, that the un has a major role in the 21st century, and that the adventurism in iraq is gunboat diplomacy. i am definitely a liberal in your parlance....but why can't people discuss issues and ideas without someone trying to denigrate their opponent by calling them a liberal? the better way or truth or whatever may not arise from a single idealogy but may be the result of a synthesis of varied ideas and viewpoints......holy hegel!! i'm in trouble now.

i objected to the u.s. going it alone with neither u.n. or western european support. the u.n. and france, germany, and russia did not find overwhelming evidence of WMD. as of this afternoon, coalition forces (read u.s.) in iraq have not either.

you mention that 70% of americans support bush. this is not surprising........probably more than 93% of americans support our troops in iraq. i know that i support the troops, and i suspect that i probably know some over there and i want them home safe and sound. i think a more meaningful question to ask at this time is:
Do you think the war was justified?

jay

 

[13788]

7x6andchg: Jaytoo-

I'll chime in and say "yes and no".

We have yet to find any "weapons of mass destruction". However, the bulk of the Iraqi people seemed happier afterwards.

a toss-up to me - certainly not worth $100 billion.

And gas prices here are still $1.55 a gallon (that was a joke, guys)

7x6&C

 

[Ralexx]

I will pick up the thread...
I was asked why I do not post a message concerning this topic (being known the fact that I am an ardent francophile and a European unity supporter and devotee). I deliberately avoided the topic for one month, considering that it was useless to talk about France when "France" was the last word an American wanted to hear : and there is no deafer person than the one who doesn't want to hear. (I was politely asked in 2 emails to "fuck off with my Frenchy arrogance and pro-French attitude, America rules" - that's a good example of a truly honourable and excelent education, though I didn't understand why they were allowed to love their country while I wasn't allowed to love France in the same way. I'm afraid I have to tell them now I usually ignore messages who lack commonsense and valuable judgement.)

To my delight, I can see nuances here, I can see I am not the only one here adoring France, I am not the only one here considering EUROPE my true, unique home. Je dois avouer, donc : je vous adore, car - en fin - je vois d'opinions qui sont la réflection d'une pertinence bien charpentée et d'une pensée qui étale les nuances nécessaires à une telle discussion.
I will not hide anymore (it's useless, my real name is already known) the fact that a certain social status of my family allowed me to be a Euro-trotter since I was 11 (right after the 1989 Revolutions) : Austria, France (I live and lived here), Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Switzerland, the Czech R., Slovakia, Denmark, Greece, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Germany (add Liechtenstein and Monaco, Turkey and Egypt, and my native country, Roumania, where I'll return). Maybe those who are acquainted with the EzBoard LPSG remember my enthusiast travel-guide-like postings at least about Italy and Tuscany. I can resist anything but considering Europe and its 35 nations my fatherland. Tout ça au nom de l'unimultiplicité de l'Europe, all this in the name of the "unimultiplicity" of Europe.
France, you say ? Nothing seems to me more triumphant and exultant than Champs-Elysées seen (by day or by night) from Place de la Concorde, with its Arc majestically culminating at the end. Nothing seems to me more exquisite than the Eiffel Tower during night, when the illuminated metal becomes a structure of pure light, carved on a dark blue royal sky. What to say about Paris, which is the supreme expression of architectural grace and glory, of chic, charm, picturesque, style and perfect refinement ! France had achieved an unparalleled equilibrium between the old and the new. The French are a very modern nation, I may say : nothing seems to me more elegantly futuristic as the solar-powered telephones which revolve beside French highways, or - for instance - the Citadis tramways with their revolutionarily aerodynamic frame on the streets of Lyon, Bordeaux and Strasbourg, while rural France is welcoming you with its millenary traditions and savoir-faire.
The world owes to this pre-eminent nation more than one could imagine : from literature to society, from architecture to science, from philosophy to aesthetics, from gastronomy and fashion to perfumes and lifestyle. 1200 years of Frenchness in all these fields were a true blessing. France knows it very well : she's unsurpassable in the world of culture. And that's the world that lasts. (Besides, without Montesquieu and Voltaire or Rousseau, without their completely new ideas, no July 4 1776 would have taken place... France fed the American myth like no one else in the 18th century.)
If France opposed to war, that is because she knows what war means in a way US do not (fortunately for US population and misfortunately for its political maturity). In the last 210 years, France suffered 7 invasions (1792, 1814, 1815, 1871, 1914, 1940, 1944). If France opposed to war, it is because she knew war is, ultimately, useless. If Germany opposed to war, that is obviously why : only 58 years ago, the dream of a 3rd German empire dreadfully collapsed in what could be called the last act of the Europe's fall from History's graces. Today, even though Bundeswehr is impressively trained, it is used solely for defence.

As for me, I enormously love France, not because I have French ancestors, not because 2 members of my family are recognised as "écrivains français", French writers, and were much lionised from the 1890s to 1960s; I love France because of the feeling of impeccable intellectuality she offers (which I will always place above its economic, military and political strength), because she always privileges quality to quantity ; I love it because France's aspect replenishes human senses by harmony, extreme beauty and proportion ; because France asks, doubts, questions ; because she was engulfed in tears, tragedy, in hopes and victories, because France torments, searches, because she has a colossal sense of History, of human Evolution, of Dignity and true Grandeur.

This is, of course, my vision and I would still have a lot to tell. With the same "Frenchy arrogance" I seemingly have to assume (I might even like it, who knows ?), I will congratulate all those who posted such well-thought, discerning, astute and cosmpolitan words to this topic : guys, you're absolutely great.

 

[13788]

Solis24: I would first like to extend my sympathies to all those of you posters who, like me, have to put up with the blusterizer jingle everytime you post on this thread!

Ralexx, OMG I knew I had to go back to France sometime. I was there for two weeks when I was 15 and was not impressed but I was also too young to appreciate it all.

I just thought again about how media coverage changes from country to country after talking over the phone with one of my best buddies and former roomate who still lives in my old appartment in Montréal, Canada. He says you guys in North America are still seeing the shots of the Irakis applauding the arrival of the american and british troops arriving on irakian soil.

We here in Germany have recently seen repeated demonstrations made by the Iraki who wish for the soldiers to get out and stop occupying their country, given that Saddam Hussein is gone and that the country is rightfully theirs.

We have seen images of hospitals and government offices and even museums housing age-old works of art all being plundered without the american soldiers doing anything about it. Why are the soldiers strangely protecting only one government office, the one in charge of oil? I'm not exactly surprised myself.

My point is really this: always lay a critic eye/ear on what you hear from the media, wherever you are.

 

[13788]

Finedessert: "We have seen images of hospitals and government offices and even museums housing age-old works of art all being plundered without the american soldiers doing anything about it. Why are the soldiers strangely protecting only one government office, the one in charge of oil? I'm not exactly surprised myself."

I think the answer to that is very easy, With all the nut cases in and around Baghdad willing to put their life on the line for Saddam, coupled with the fact that only a small part of Baghdad was in control of friendly forces, it could be possible that "Oil Ministry Building" was the first Government Building they came in contact with.

You have to remember that OIL is the life blood of Iraq, and the Iraqi people. I don't think there is a market for sand.

Grandpa

 

[jonb]

Oil's also the life-blood of Bush's contributors. Call me a cynic, but I think he cares more for his contributors than he does for Iraqis. Fifty bucks says there's going to be someone even worse than Saddam in soon enough.

 

[13788]

tott666: It's been said that Bush is a religious nut on a cruisade. I'm inclined to agree, unfortunately... Syria first, then Iran. Or any muslim country in the middle east.