Oh, no, I didn't mean mature thoughtful people, just the teens and students who see it as a cool way to cut class and then run to the latest American flick.

As for the Coke and McDonald's boycotts and all, I don't know why people think some sugar water or fried potatoes mean anything except that the company that makes them started randomly in a certain country. They try it in America, too: Haagen-Dazs is from New Jersey and so is Heineken, and they try and get the cachet of Europe going. Of course, most people are in on the truth and call it Hoboken-Daz.

I guess what annoys some Americans is that Europe made a choice and now seems mad that we didn't go the same way. After two wars of violence that Americans really can't comprehend, they decided to spend their money on social justice and a subsidized lifestyle-free health care, free college, cheap housing, etc. Fine. But America decided to keep its muscles strong, and let everybody choose their own doctors and houses and go their own way, which for a majority works well. And we used a lot of that muscle, and a lot of money we could have used here, to stop Europe from being nibbled away by a horrible facist regime. It's OK, that's what friends do, and the benefits flow both ways. But now it's seen that Europe doesn't want us to use our hard-won military might to free another people. There's also nasty undercurrents of anit-Semitism in some of what you see over here, especially from France.

I do feel sorry for the Brits, though. They;re no longer a superpower, which must suck already, and now all their former colonies, from Iraq to Palestine to Zimbabwe, seem to be in a mess. No wonder they're so nervous about America making the same mistakes they did. I guess they don't realize we have no intention of taking over anything.

But America decided to keep its muscles strong, and let everybody choose their own doctors and houses and go their own way, which for a majority works well.

I'd just like to say that Caroma isn't speaking for all of us Americans. Many of whom haven't gotten a chance to choose our own doctors since our employers switched to HMOs.

But now it's seen that Europe doesn't want us to use our hard-won military might to free another people.

Actually, Europe didn't try to stop *us* doing it. They just wouldn't vote for the *UN* to do it. And it's hardly "Europe": last I checked, the UK, and (God help us) Bulgaria, and other bits of "the new Europe" support the war. Unfortunately for President Bush, France, which has a U.N. veto, does not.

Actually, do you know that Bush as President has no power about Kyoto? In this country, Congress ratifies treaties, not the Pres. Now, you could argue that if he really really wanted to, he could have lobbied for it, but frankly from what I understand it's a mess to begin with (exempting China?!) but not even Clinton bothered to try to push for it.

And when the Senate did vote on it, they voted it down 99-0, Democrats and Republicans alike. And the UK Parliament didn't pass it either, right? In fact, didn't only Romania actually ratify the thing?

So, while he could have been more tactful about it, I don't see how Bush can be blamed for this one.

There's also nasty undercurrents of anit-Semitism in some of what you see over here,

I refer you to any of Pat Buchanan's recent outbursts against the war. Or, I'm sure, Farrakhan's, although I haven't seen any cited.

Anti-Semitism, like racism, pops up all over, like crabgrass or bamboo. Damn bamboo.

Well, sure, but nobody takes Buchanan or Farrakhan seriously. There's no rallies for Buchanan, he's not in office, and there's not gangs of teenagers going to Williamsburg and beating up Hasidic kids.

nobody takes Buchanan or Farrakhan seriously

Buchanan was the keynote speaker for the [sorry, 1992] Republican National Convention. I assure you Bob Dole hasn't forgotten that.

I'd just like to say that Caroma isn't speaking for all of us Americans. Many of whom haven't gotten a chance to choose our own doctors since our employers switched to HMOs.

Some of us can't even go to a doctor because we aren't employed. We get a bad case of the flu and we're screwed.

Actually, do you know that Bush as President has no power about Kyoto? In this country, Congress ratifies treaties, not the Pres. Now, you could argue that if he really really wanted to, he could have lobbied for it, but frankly from what I understand it's a mess to begin with (exempting China?!) but not even Clinton bothered to try to push for it.

He has no power to ratify it true. He does have power to negotiate it, rather than throw in the towel.

Me too, I'm also unemployed with no insurance. But aside from covering the most desperately poor and the elderly, we just don't seem interested. All the more reason for me to find a decent job. But it's damn hard. I'm paying for basic hospitalization coverage so I don't lose my house if something happens. I dunno, Heather, if presidents as diverse as Clinton and Bush both didn't bother much with this treaty, and no country save Romania has ratified it, just maybe the problem's with the treaty?

I don't know why people think some sugar water or fried potatoes mean anything except that the company that makes them started randomly in a certain country

You don't think that companies make any attempt to create brand identities? You don't see advertising building upon prejudices and predelictions? You don't associate particular brands with particular 'images'? You don't think its American-ness is something that Coke considers important? I'm not asking whether you, educated, middle class American that you are, can see through the manipulations of advertisers and choose your clothing, food and household items based upon inherent value rather than intangibles and perceived cachet. I'm just asking whether you think that the majority of people do.

I guess what annoys some Americans is that Europe made a choice and now seems mad that we didn't go the same way.

Here's the thing: Europe isn't a country. Europe isn't one ideology or one political system. So if you're going to base an argument on a US/Europe dichotomy we may have some problems, because Europe doesn't have or express one unified opinion about, well, pretty much anything. What with Europe comprising a shitload of different countries.

But now it's seen that Europe doesn't want us to use our hard-won military might to free another people.

We really have quite diametrically opposed views of current events, if this is genuinely how you interpret (a) what's happening in the world right now and (b) why many people in the world are uncomfortable with it. Not just Europe, incidentally. China. The Middle East. Africa. Canada. Pretty much the whole world.

Many countries don't countenance the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation and the murder of its citizens in the attempt to depose its ruler, however much of a complete and utter bastard he may be. Because if failure to comply immediately with UN resolutions is worth invading a country about, why isn't this applied across the board? And why does it justify disregarding the democratic process of the UN? Conversely, if the UN doesn't matter a jot and we're invading Iraq because its ruler is a bad ruler who opresses his people, why doesn't this apply across the board? If it's because he may have weapons of mass destruction hidden somewhere despite all our efforts to find any evidence, why is this more important than North Korea, which definitely has Nuclear weapons? The US (and, I've no doubt, the UK) has a history of supporting dictators and brutal regimes - indeed, of deposing/helping to destroy democratically elected governments - because it suited their own goals. International policy has not traditionally been dictated by high-minded ideals, although I like to think that both our nations do manage to do 'the right thing' sometimes even if it doesn't meet our selfish ends. I hope so. But that isn't what motivates most of your foreign policy, or ours.

These may all be points which can be addressed and demonstrated to be mistaken, and our actions in attacking Iraq may be seen by History as A Good Thing, but there are too many inconsistencies for the current position to be accepted easily by the rest of the world as a good guys V bad guys scenario.

It looks far too much like Iraq is the whipping boy for 9/11, despite not being responsible for it. It looks too much like we're saying "Hey, nobody's been seen to pay for the bruising to our pride and our confidence after somebody had the nerve to try terrorism against us. We wanted that Bin Laden's head on a pole, but he's not cooperating. They're all arabs. What's the difference?"

Presenting this as churlishness on the part of "Old Europe", as the White House has taken to doing of late, is patronising the intelligence of the American people. No doubt everyone has an agenda coloured by their own particular situation in relation to the Middle East, but it sure as hell isn't a simple black and white matter of Good Old America being selfless and compassionate versus Selfish Old Europe being mean and intransigent. It's a case of the USA (and, God help us, the UK) versus the rest of the world, for reasons that continue to be opaque. We're deciding that democracy doesn't count if it doesn't agree with the decisions of the richest voters.

There's also nasty undercurrents of anit-Semitism in some of what you see over here, especially from France.

For my part I've seen more in the way of prejudice against Islam, and disconcerting Muslim=Fundamentalist=Terrorist=BrownPersonWithFunnyHat bigotry, but YBigotryMV. There's undoubtedly anti-Semitism out there, and that's a problem. There's shitloads of insidious anti-Arab sentiment out there, though, and it's reinforced in the media (film & TV especially).

(I very much don't equate pro-Palestinian sentiment with anti-Semitism, myself, but I trust you weren't doing that either.)

No wonder they're so nervous about America making the same mistakes they did. I guess they don't realize we have no intention of taking over anything.

Speaking personally, yes, I am. And no, I don't.

edited for clarity. Without much confidence.

For my part I've seen more in the way of prejudice against Islam, and disconcerting Muslim=Fundamentalist=Terrorist=BrownPersonWithFunnyHat bigotry, but YBigotryMV. There's undoubtedly anti-Semitism out there, and that's a problem. There's shitloads of insidious anti-Arab sentiment out there, though, and it's reinforced in the media (film & TV especially).

Agreed on both counts. I have seen a whole lot of prejudice against Islam. (And against Sikhs, because it seems like a lot of people can't tell the difference.) It seems to have died down a bit lately, but it's definitely there. And while there is nowhere near as much overt anti-Semitism, it has seemed to be on the rise lately, and I've seen some stuff recently that's scared me.

(I very much don't equate pro-Palestinian sentiment with anti-Semitism, myself, but I trust you weren't doing that either.)

Depends on context and how it's expressed. (And, pro-Palestinian is really not a terribly useful term. I've heard people claim that they're pro-Palestinian, and then express almost exactly the same "what should happen" views that someone who self-identifies as pro-Israeli says.) But, I have seen plenty of anti-Israel protests step way over the line into anti-Semitism.