George Bush & "The Greatest Country in the World"

Way to kill the thread, BiteSize.

miniver_cheevy: here's an interesting link put together by the minority on the house appropriations committee which shows what a HUGE FAT LIAR george w. truly is:

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_...ughtonfilm.htm

I'm appalled. Or rather, I'm certainly not surprised that Bush would make a bunch of empty promises. I wouldn't mind seeing a report on who exactly benefits from all these budget cuts.

realllly dee..

it is all about tax cuts for those making 6-figures or more.

jay

Just rename this thread the "Democrat/Liberal Spouting Post" and get it over with.

Pecker

kyle: bilbo, it seems to me that you're the only one trying to supress opinions.

Yes, and that's why he's not a liberal. (bilbobagginsx should look up the definition of liberal some time.)

AFAIK, I'm party-neutral. The Republicans are cyanide, and the Democrats are sugar. It just happens that one kills you softly.

Finnmark: I hugely admired Mark for courageously starting this critical, and possibly divisive (at least in the US) subject, and then equally disappointed by the way it quickly seemed to run into the sand ...

I am British, I live in England, I have a number of very good American friends in states as diverse as Arizona and Alaska, California and Pennsylvania ... and several in between. I have visited them all many times over the past 20 years. I have always been received in that great country with kindness, courtesy and hospitality. I think I can fairly say that my interests, in addition to my contacts, have led me to have a sensitive awareness of US life from the 'inside'. And, as a great bonus, scenically I have admired some of the greatest landscapes in the world.

And yet I have always returned home with a feeling of great anxiety and unease.

The United States is wonderfully rich: in resources, in the arts and sciences, in inventiveness, in the skills and diversity of its people. It is also - inevitably, perhaps, through its history - dangerously defective.

I will, from a number, just take two facts. First: geography. North America, as a continent, is effectively isolated. It is buffered from the rest of the world by two huge oceans. It has no land borders, save Canada and Mexico, and has never been threatened on either. It is a world unto itself, proud and (until 11-9-01 ... as we would put it!) unsullied on its own land mass. From this vantage point the rest of the world can be regarded both as a holiday playground, and - when the children in the playground become obstreperous - as an area to be policed. Benignly, of course.

From this stems the popular world view of American 'arrogance' - a word that crops up time and again; allied with 'naivete', implying an ignorance of what makes other countries (or associations, like the EU) 'tick'.

The second significant fact in American history is religion.
The Founding Fathers arrived seeking asylum. The purpose of their perilous journey to establish a puritanical, bible-based and rigorous faith free at last from the constraints of an already 'liberal' Europe. Thus was 'God' (and, significantly, an almost 'Zionist' concept of God) built into the American Constitution. And so, to this day, there is - to European eyes - this almost sick-making religiosity and self-righteousness built into every political utterance. America is under the exclusive direction of God.

All this is frightening, and frankly, I am more frightened of George Bush than I am of Saddam Hussein - evil though he might be. The fact that he appears to be semi-literate is beside the point. Mark's quote: "This is the greatest country on the face of the earth and we are the finest people" is quite appalling, and could come straight from one of Adolf Hitler's speeches.

I have seen this gestating for the past 20 years, hence my "anxiety and unease", now come to fruition.

All a long way from LSPG's splendid purpose, so forgive me. But thanks again to Mark for prompting it all ...

You're very welcome.

When I was 22, I took my first trip to Europe. I went to Sweden for about 8 weeks. I remember thinking as I boarded the plane, "Maybe I'll never return to the U.S." I soon realized, however, that I am unmistakeably from the U.S., in the way I talk, the way I dress, my sense of humor, etc. I realized that, as much as I dislike the conservative/religious nature of the U.S., it's the place where I feel most at home (at least for now).

I'm comforted by the thousands, if not millions of people who have protested the war. It reminds me that dissent is alive and well in the U.S., even if it isn't always obvious.

7x6andchg: Mark and Finnmark-

Mark-

I, too, travelled abroad, in the much-maligned (at the moment) France. I simply loved the country. I found the natives quite pleasant (as long as you TRY to speak French, and who, among Americans, doesn't want people to TRY and speak English?) Their wit, sense of country (with or without belligerence), and humor were impeccable. I found myself wondering if I could stay there...apres tout, je parle francais, et ca, ca comte beaucoup la (after all, I speak French, and that counts for a lot there).

But I could not stay...I am, after all is said and done, an American, like you. It is in the way I talk, the way I dress, the way I move and act. I am shorter (5'8") and am dark-haired and complected, so I would often get mistaken for a Frenchman or an Italian whilst in France...after all, tourists to France come from all countries...but I digress...I am an American, one who tries to understand what other cultures do and say to make them 'tick'. What's sad - and this is directed towards Finnmark - is that most Americans don't even know that much about Canada or Mexico. Does the average American know how many provinces and territories does Canada have, and their capital cities? Can the average American name three Mexican states? Does the average American even KNOW that Mexico HAS states? And these are our NEIGHBORS!?!?

And here is where I segue into Finnmark's discussion -

Americans have often been isolationist for the exact reasons you describe. Take, for example, Great Britain...only, what, 30 miles (50 km), separates the UK from the rest of Europe? And yet that very 30 miles and the resilience of the British people kept the Germans from running complete roughshod over the UK in WWII...imagine an entire ocean of separation, AND quite a bit of the money in the world, AND the military might for which the spending has already been addressed in this discussion...who's going to bother us? Or so we thought.... until 11th September 2001.

And I have to tell you that the outpouring of support that came immediately after that event was, to me, as an American, a wonderful thing. That HM would play the Star-Spangled Banner at Buckingham Palace and fly the Stars and Stripes at half-mast (not to mention the UK's current support) means a lot - after all, we are the country that FOUGHT you for our independence in 1776.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I think both of you are right...Mark_LPSG_Admin, I, too, believe that the United States is the greatest country in the world. But, that said, I am an American. It would be natural for me to think that, would it not? I happen to truly enjoy the cultures and people of many countries, which is an important difference, Finnmark - not all Americans, and I'd be willing to say not Mark are so closed-minded as to think that in the Hitleresque way you describe. Otherwise, would the topic even be open for discussion--and opened by him?

However - Finnmark - you are right too. Americas greatest failing, IMHO, is the fact that we are isolated. I check the BBC, CBC, and TF1 at least once a week just to get a different perspective on things...but I am not a typical American...just one, of almost 300 million.

<man gets down off soapbox> Sorry, long post.

Paul/7x6&C

Finnmark: I've already jumped in with one long post, and will try not to push my luck again; but would just pick up on a couple of points that Mark and Paul (7x6&chg) make.

Thanks for your great and carefully thought-out post, Paul (no soapbox - don't worry!). I cheer no end your praise of France; I treasure your post for that sentiment alone. One can argue its current stance pro or anti, but it is for me - of all the countries I have ever visited - the most civilised and cultured, where simply 'being' is a sheer delight. How much we in Britain could learn from our nearest neighbour were we not bedevilled by ignorance (cf. USA/Canada ?) and a crude and vulgar love of 'frog-bashing'. That does not make me proud of my country.

"I, too, believe that the US is the greatest country in the world ... it would be natural for me (an American) to think that ..." Paul attributes this sentiment to Mark, and nails his own colours to that mast. Mark didn't actually say that (George Bush did!); he did say "it's the place where I feel most at home".

This sentiment ("greatest country") is the crux of my worry. One can have, rightly and naturally, a love for one's homeland; I can, for England ... it's where all those things you've mentioned (speech, dress, humour etc.) come together in a familiar and comfortable way. But that doesn't lead me to think that England (Britain) is the "greatest country". We need to think out the meaning of that phrase: the US is the 'greatest' in terms of economy and military might, France the 'greatest' (see above!), Australia in terms of laid-back lifestyle, and maybe even Britain in some respect or other! And so on and so on, we could all make our own list.

What we're really going on about here is the nature of "patriotism". Is it a natural affection for the land of my birth and upbringing, or is it "my country - right or wrong" ? I did feel that you slipped a bit, Paul, in your penultimate paragraph and wonder if you really meant to say what you did! Nowhere did I even hint that "all Americans (and) Mark are so close-minded as to think in the Hitleresque way (I describe)". Of course they don't, and that's the great encouragement of this discussion, as you rightly imply. We're opening up a huge subject with many facets. We can only make a few points. I must shut up!

We started by talking about GWB and his concept of "the greatest country". This is the point. Read his phrase again. Substitute "Germany" for "America" and you're right back in the 1930's. And look where that got us. That's my worry.

Thanks!
Finnmark.

mindseye: There's a concept for which I have no word, but I'll approximate this concept with the phrases "faith-based patriotism" and "inquiry-based patriotism".

Faith-based patriotism builds upon a belief that you should love and support your country, no matter what. Faith-based patriots defend the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, the singing of the national anthem at games, all as sensible exercises in showing your devotion to the country. Faith-based patriots show their love for their country by supporting it, during both peacetime and war. They were the first to donate blood at the Red Cross after 9/11. Faith-based patriots trust that our government is basically doing the right thing.

Inquiry-based patriotism seeks enlightened, participatory reasoning. Inquiry-based patriots question capricious, unprincipled, and ad-hoc decisions. They value the first amendment -- freedom of assembly, speech, press, and personal beliefs all being necessary parts of the inquiry process. They show their love for their country by working to improve it. They fought to abolish slavery in the 1800's, and to secure women's suffrage in the 1900's.

Both types of patriotism are healthy in moderation, or in combination. In the extreme, both forms are dangerous. An extreme faith-based patriot gladly operated the gas chambers at Auschwitz, secure in his believe that the government is always right. Extreme inquiry-based patriots form conspiracy-driven militia units in Montana, convinced that the government is suppressing truth from them.


As an inquiry-based patriot, I've tried to be neutral in these descriptions, and hope I haven't missed the mark too much. I submit, then, that George Bush demands too much faith-based patriotism from us -- that he wants our support, but he's unwilling to participate in the inquiry process.

BIGBOYDAVE: Wow mindseye
excelent descriptions . I guess this explains why the vast majority Of Americans Support the troops but that the country Is almost evenly split on support for the actual reasons of going to war also why Support for the President in most other issues excepting the war is again almost evenly split.

Very astute observations, Heath. I guess faith-based patriots include those Germans living near Dachau who said, "I never smelled Jews cooking. Concentration camp? I thought it was a spa." I've always thought it possible to love one's country without believing its leader to be infallible. In my opinion, Dubya has made a huge mistake, but that belief does not make me a traitor, nor does it make me love this country any less. My family's emigration from Cuba was a difficult and risky ordeal. We worked very diligently on passing the citizenship exam. We earned the right to exercise our freedom of speech. I can say, "George W. Bush is full of shit and doesn't speak for all of us," and still be a loyal American.

The high quality of threads like this has to give the lie to the old prejudice that big penises and little brains tend to go together.

As a fellow Brit, I want to record my agreement with much of what Finnmark has written. I don't know why, but I had you down as a Scandinavian ...

Just to stick to the UK role in all this, on my reckoning (someone no doubt can put me right on this), aside from the ill-judged 1956 Suez venture this is the first time in a century that British troops have been sent into battle other in response to an offensive from an enemy. If you are looking for some criterion by which Britain may be reasonably judged as "great", I reckon that our record of fair play, the British instinct of support for the underdog, and of resorting to battle only as the last resort (as in 1939) could be it.

But given what is happening now, I wonder. The only basis for supporting this war in my view would be solid evidence that Iraq was amassing weapons with offensive intent ... so far IMHO we haven't seen it. If there is real evidence to support the need for this war and all the deaths it is causing, I fail to see why it can't be made public. Before the war started our leaders in their rhetoric were every bit as belligerent as were the Americans; it was almost as if we were spoiling for war. That I think is shaming, if nothing else.

I have a hunch that British attitudes to France have probably changed for the better over the past few weeks as a result of their scepticism about the war - despite the best efforts of our tabloid press.

I agree that the troops have to be supported, and now the war has begun we have to hope for a speedy end to it. But I fear that the long term results will be devastating.