T Nation

Win for Pro-American Politician


This time, in Denmark:


So, Merkel is relatively pro-Bush and pro-American. Sarkozy is relatively pro-Bush and pro-American. Gordon Brown is relatively pro-Bush and pro-American. Germany, France, Great Britain, Denmark: All with the U.S. still in Iraq and Bush still in office. There may be more, but those are off the top of my head.

Remember this if Hillary wins and the U.S. news media all of a sudden discovers that not everyone hates the U.S. or its current government and attributes that to Hillary.


Not to break your bubble BB, but I must remind you that the unconditional alignment with Bush is what cost some Spanish, Italian, and British leaders their seats. Now, did the French vote for Sarkozy because of his foreign policy? Hell no! In fact, if you followed at all the last elections, you'd see that foreign policy was not at all a decisive factor. And Royal was a lot more aggressive than Sarkozy on military interventionism.

But I digress. The idea the average European "hates the U.S." is ludicrous. They just aren't fond of aggression, and Washington happens to exhibit lots of it - all over the world. That said, Democrats have always been more tactful than Republicans when it comes to selling said wars of aggression. In my opinion, a Democratic win is more likely to tone down the war rhetoric from the White House, and that would translate into a slightly better image worldwide. I'm sure we can agree that Hillary would give much better press to the US in Europe than, say Rudy. I don't like the bitch any more than you do, but you shouldn't let that clutter your judgment.


As Washington exhibits tens of BILLIONS a year in foreign aide and humanitarianism.

If you look at the effort in the war vs our OTHER help in the humanitarian world, we are heavily loaded on the aide side.


Lixy's never been to the US, and has never been to most of the European countries. But she can speak for them as if she knows their heart.

What a load of shit. I swear, you are the most worthless poster on here. At the very least learn a new fucking tune, girlfriend. The "American Imperialist Pig" bullshit is really getting old.

Even Europe is getting tired of your shit, and electing pro-US leaders.

How can you be so fucking wrong so often, and still not leave in shame?



True. Nobody has ever challenged that. But just because you're giving someone corn doesn't mean you can kick the shit out of him/her whenever you feel like it.

As a side note, don't forget that a lot of your foreign aid (dispatching billions of aides would be quite a sight) goes out in the form of weapons and that proportionally, you're not really giving out that much compared to other countries.


DO you have any numbers to prove this? Or is this just more menstrual typing?


Don't see how it's of any relevance to this particular topic, but I have to correct you. I have not seen a lot of the country, but I have been to the US.

I'll let you judge. Here are the places I've been in Europe: Spain, France, Switzerland, Italy, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, Malta, Belgium, Czech republic, and Britain. Definitely not most, but I'm probably half your age so...

Again, not that it matters but I'm a man. I've told you that many times, yet you insist on using female pronouns when referring to me. Is it supposed to be derogatory? In that case, you have some serious maturing to do.

Listen, I like being put on a pedestal as much as the next guy, but giving me credit for influencing European elections is way over the edge.

It's always nice to see countries getting closer to each other. If anything, it helps work out differences and gain perspective on things. However, European leaders are not elected on the basis of how close they are to the US. They can, however, get sacked for supporting what's essentially a war of aggression.

The political climate in Europe doesn't resemble what's taking place across the pond. Your presidential candidates speak a lot about foreign policy for a good reason: Because Americans are dying as we speak and the economy is getting drained because of the war. In Europe, people talk about health, safety, taxes, immigration and the only foreign policy topic that gets any coverage (and is of any relevance to the voters) is the future of the European Union (constitution, Euro, etc...)

Everybody's pro-US around here. Everybody respects the sovereignty of your country and admires your successes. But it doesn't mean they gotta support a murderous US president when he decides to embark on a killing spree. See the difference?


The question could easily be turned around on you rainjack, do you have any numbers to support that most of the "aide" the US doles out in the BILLIONS in your words, ISNT in the form of mechanized war? Judging from the PALTRY amount we gave and continue to give to our OWN STATE a good while after the worst hurricane ever faced by the country, then id have to say its merely academic.

This is one of the reasons why respect for the US is declining world wide, instead of using our words and intellect when opinions and posisitons are challenged, we go for the throat and attempt to villify and belittle people instead of justifying our position with common sense.

The proliferation of this trend can be directly correlated to the fact that supporters of Bush and the new "american way" have NO common sense arguments as to the actions of the American government over the past 8 years, they simply cant admit they were wrong and take responsibility for the monster created.

The post that started this whole thing is hilarious, its basically insinuating that the inhabitants of these countries voted for a pro-bush candidate so those inhabitants "like" us......It is arrogant to assume that the candidate being pro-bush and pro-american was even on the radar as far as the danes, french, etc are concerened. Thats like saying you voted for bush because he is great allies with the great leader of Luxemborg.

People voted for Bush because he was going cut taxes with great "strategery" and bullshit of the like. This is more American Arrogance that causes us to deny the fact that our stronghold on the world has developed rheumatoid arthritis.


Not derogatory in the least. If you act like a woman, what is wrong with being called a female?

I fell for your "I am a man" bullshit once. But your continual menstruations have to be that of a very angry female.

If you are insulted, then so much the better.

maybe if you are insulted long enough, and often enough you will finally get the hint dozens of posters have dropped and just fucking leave.

To only have one argument shows far less maturity than which public restroom you use.


What makes these guys pro-Bush? Pro-American manybe, but it seems like being a Bush-buddy is what cost Blair his seat. As well, Sarcozy is pro-modernization. Yes, he likes America more than Chirac (who was an arrogant pissant in that matter), but that doesn't mean Europe suddenly loves Bush. Bush sucks. Even WE know Bush sucks. EVERYONE knows he's an idiot. And of course, their are the retards who think he's either brilliant or the second coming of Hitler.

The average European, coming from those I've met and the opinions they see at home (France, Great Britain, Poland, and Germany) have said they don't really hate the US at all. In fact, they like us more than their neighbors half the time (French-Brit relations on a common social level aren't the best ya know). Like Lixy said, Europe is in a very non-aggressive stage right now, half from guilt from their previous imperialist ways and half because of their fear of another devastation like the first two world wars.

Saying that politicians in other countries win or lose based on their view of America is both ludicrous and incredibly arrogant. They have their own issues, both domestic and foreign, that vastly outrank "US friendship".


I'm sorry, but where did any of you get the idea that I said that being pro-American or pro-Bush was a deciding factor in winning these politicians their elections?

I said they were pro-American and relatively pro-Bush, and that they won.

My point was that apparently being pro-American and pro-Bush must not have hurt them too terribly much. If you were to read the U.S. media, you would be shocked and amazed to learn any European politician could win an election while holding pro-American, pro-Bush positions of any stripe. The whole point of this post was to criticize U.S. media reporting.

According to Lixy, the French care so much about American foreign policy that it had zero effect on the election. He's probably right - but that's not what one would expect given the reporting about how shocked and upset the Europeans are with U.S. foreign policy. If those reports had a higher value than future fish-wrapping, one could logically expect that the voters would make some sort of issue out of it, assuming there was a distinction among the electoral choices. Of course, one could "insinuate" from DiscMan's post that he is so arrogant as to assume Europeans are so ignorant and apathetic about foreign policy as to not give a whit about the foreign policy of the candidates for whom they vote - not a belief I would hold, but what would one expect from the average arrogant liberal...

Additionally, as to governments that have had problems for being pro-American, maybe the Spanish government - though they had a more pressing problem with the electorate because it came out they lied about the terror bombings right before the election.

Which British leader lost his position due to alignment with the U.S.? Blair's approval ratings were down, but he stepped down on his own terms, with his party still in power and still aligned with the U.S. And I thought the Italian election had more to do with the corruption allegations/charges against the leader?


I know Bush pledged $10billion for AIDS...in Africa. Last time I checked - HIV wasn't fought with tanks, or "mechanized war".

But maybe I missed something.

What does domestic aide have to do with the Euro-elections? But just for shits and giggles- no other hurricane rescue effort ever included $2000 debit cards. Without beating a dead horse - Nagin, and the POS governor of LA should be far more to blame for the state of affairs in NO than any federal official should.

If you could acually read, you would see the word "relatively" prefacing both pro-Bush, and pro-America.

The rest of your post is just angry anti-Bush/anti-American rhetoric. You live here. You can make that judgement. Lixy has never been here, so she needs to shut the fuck up.


I don't think anyone said that.

Like BB said - given the press we get over here - it is nice to know that people that aren't lixy-like in their vitriolic hatred of the US can even get elected in Europe, much less those that are even slightly pro-US.


Actually your wrong Rainjack...Bush pledged 30 billion to AIDS/Africa back in June. The only bad thing about it is pledges dont get anything done, how bout we GIVE the money, instead of planning to give it. Its also 30 Billion dollars over the next 5 years that hes "pledged". Not to say that isnt a generous thought, but to say that thought makes up for fighting for gasoline is simply insane. And I'd publicly humiliate myself if the public EVER found out Africa recieved that money under Bushes reign.

As for your shits and giggles 2000 dollar debit cards are PLENTY of relief for hundreds of thousands of people that have lost EVERYTHING they ever had. Of course, those people that had been locked in NO without relief should shouldve grabbed those cards and been damn happy about it..... give me a break. Bush cut the funding of the levees by 80 percent in 2004 to fund his oil hunt and left those people out to dry...2000 dollars is like putting a bandaid on an amputation.

And again your penchant for skimming over things missed the fact i compared domestic funding to foreign aid basically saying i doubt foreing aid outweighs domestic aid, so that BILLIONS in foregin aid CANT be accurate...If it is we're in worse trouble than we thought.

As for angry rhetoric...it unfortunate to think that the present situation in this country WOULDNT make someone angry, and is probably how we got here to begin with.


He's just giving his opinion - something that you and I do all the time. Your attacks are without merit. He's a valuable contributor to this forum who provides a necessary counterbalance to the standard neocon jingoism from yourself and others.

I'm reading this and trying to figure out what your problem is.

I look at his posts and realize that his views are very typical of a European observer. If you doubt this, there are countless news sites and forums you could visit for yourself, to discover where European sentiment truly lies. You would find that he is not off the mark.

He consistently makes poignant observations. For instance, it's true that Democrats carry out American imperialism with slightly more tact than Republicans. Such is the widespread perception, at any rate. Clinton was loathed in Greece and Serbia, thanks to Kosovo, but generally loved in other places around the world. Everybody knows that Democrats are as pro-intervention as Republicans. The difference is that Dems make gestures towards multi-lateralism, while neocon Republicans are all about unilateralism. It's not much of a difference, but there it is. In all likelyhood, Hillary WILL get a better reception worldwide than the Chimp. And it won't be a result of media propaganda.

This forum can be informative and entertaining but also hateful and dogmatic. I'm surprised that some people put up with it.


They are trying to have a decent work relationship with the US.

To be even relatively pro-Bush would be career suicide.

All they are is being Chinese about this: Smile and be as non committal as possible until anyone but Bush takes the oath.


Here's the deal: Europeans are appalled with US foreign policy. There is hardly any debate about that. Everybody's upset about the unnecessary war your president started. I believe even the pope refused to meet with Bush in protest.

Suppose Sarkozy committed French troops to the initial invasion despite 90%+ of popular opposition, then some gang of criminals blow up a TGV killing hundreds. Do you not think the guy will instantaneously turn into a political corpse? Well, that's exactly what happened in Spain (and to a lesser extent) in the UK.

Bush won a second term because of the "mission accomplished" stunt, cleverly staged increases in "terror levels", but most importantly because a lot of people still believed Saddam had a hand in 9/11 and that he had WMDs. For reasons beyond the scope of this discussion, the average American cares a lot less about what's happening around the world than the average European. He is also much more likely to condone gratuitous military interventionism.

People are, by default, pro-US and pro-every-other-country-on-Earth. They are also generally anti-war. So, the level of closeness to the US is of no concern when everything is dandy, because that is what's expected. However, when you realize your leader is spineless and has been unconditionally bowing to Washington (read the released Zapatero-Bush exchanges), and that caused many many deaths, chances are that the public will punish the government through the ballot. Heck, even the Americans woke up and slammed the Republicans last year.


Actually - I was wrong. It was $15 billion.

And you are horribly wrong as well. The $15 billion was pledged in 2003. If I am not mistaken he did it in his SOTU address.


Sadly - I think your last statement says all you really need to say. You hate Bush. Fine. But in the process - you are ignoring facts in deference to fueling your hatred.

No other victim of a natural disaster in the US ever got anything approaching free money like folks in NO did. Plus they had hundreds of thousands of trailers shipped down there - not to mention the billions and billions that are still being spent.

IF you want to get on your soap box about Katrina - at least be intellectually honest about the matter, and admit that the Fed did indeed spend money - just not enough to suit you.

ANd while you are trying to be honest - admit that Nagin should be on trial for murder. Talk about someone who did nothing.

Use facts Sparky. You have produced nothing but opinion.


It is informative when she stays out of it. It is very enlightening when she can keep her one-tracked mind out of a thread.

She has every right to post whatever bullshit she wants. I have the right to dislike it, and tell her to leave.

I am trying to figure out what your problem is.

1st amendment for everyone but those you disagree with?


Exactly. Point out lixy's lies and bias and you are a bad guy. Let's accept his double talk and deception without question!