The What Of Nations?

I agree with libertyfirst 100%. to still believe that we can ask n korea to give up their weapons is ridiculous. the u.n. has been trying that for years with iraq, n korea, and now iran to no avail. It's sad that democrats would rather us look like wimps than actually stand up for ourselves and do what had to be done. As for the war on terror, Iraq did have wmd's and they sent them to syria when the weapons inspectors were searching. they made inspectors wait outside each location and put the wmd's on trucks to syria. They have satellite proof of this although the democrats seem to have gotten to it, because I haven't seen it since. The fact is every democrat knows they're in syria, but would never admit it because they would be admit there were weapons in the first place. In case you didn't know, when clinton - a democrat - was in the white house he called for the same thing but never did it, so why is a republican criticized when he actually goes through with it. It makes no sense.

Admitting that other nations exist, have opinions and are worth listening to and talking with is not pandering. What we see coming from Cheney, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh and other Republican leaders is pandering, pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Too bad good writing is written-off as flowery and without substance. I

Instead of spending time on flowery language George Will could do well to get facts straight. Even assuming Obama got smirks and not smiles as Will hopes- hey he did not get shoes like W

So what is Mr. Will suggesting? The return to the male posturing of bush and cheney, or creation of another front on the "war on terror"? Hasn't he had enough blood to last a while?

As a fellow Republican I am extremely tired Of George Will's and other Radical Conservatives making up straw arguments to castigate Liberals.
Here is a Perfect example.,
"To believe that is to believe, as liberals do, that harmony is humanity's natural condition, so discord is a remediable defect in arrangements"
The fallacy in the above sentence is that he is somehow privy to the inner beliefs of one segment of society and that these beliefs are a common thread among that group.
It really is time to stop. When a segment of the population continues to use these type of tactics to attack the opposition it hurts us in many ways. It reduces the opportunity to find common ground and compromise. I think it is very clear that we are in the mess we are in today precisely because of the above type of attitude.

To those posters who continually clamour for the repairing of our image in the world, please give us some insight as to WHY this is important? Why should we care what we THINK is the image? Has having a lousy human rights image hurt China? Has an image of being feckless and double-dealing affected France? What about North Korea's thumb in the eye of the world? Iran certainly doesn't seem a bit worried what its "image" is. Furthermore (and sincerely) what does nearly hugging Hugo Chavez or bowing to King Assuad do for us the US? Do we gain any greater cooperation on matters than mean something to us? Please give us some examples. How did the "softer" and apologetic side of Jimmy Carter help our foreign policy back in the late 1970's? Is this need to be liked something that you liberals out there feel that compelled to champion -- no matter the size of crap, hypocrisy, and humiliation it may involve? Granted, I'm being a bit argumentative here, but instead of just rambling on about how bad Bush et. all hurt our image and how Obama will restore it; tell me WHY we should care?

Perfectly said, George Will. We can only hope that this liberal delusion and fascination with the European community and the United Nations will fade right along side of NATO and its strategic usefulness.

I didn't like you much when you to continued to extol the virtues of our president, GWB, for the past very long eight years, however, now you are just tacky, tacky, tacky, in your excoriation of our president during his first 100 days; still the same old drab doomsday remarks about the liberals. Could even be considered un-American not to support our president without whining about the 'bad guys' around the world that you seem to believe President Obama's administration does not notice. Perhaps you remember Teddy Roosevelt's big smile and quote, "Walk softly and carry a big stick."

I didn???t like you much when you to continued to extol the virtues of our president, GWB, for the past very long eight years, however, now you are just tacky, tacky, tacky, in your excoriation of our president during his first 100 days??? still the same old drab doomsday remarks about the liberals??? Could even be considered un-American not to support our president without whining about the ???bad guys??? around the world that you seem to believe President Obama???s administration does not notice. Perhaps you remember Teddy Roosevelt???s big smile and quote, ???Walk softly and carry a big stick.???

I shall begin by explaining my viewpoint: I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Translation: I wish my government to quit picking my pocket (both parties have been doing this for some time now) and stop enforcing their morality code on me (both parties are also quick to jump on this one, be it Republican fundamentalist Christian morality or Democratic New Age morality). No existent party at all corresponds with my personal views, so in the last election, I voted for our current President, who at least appears articulate and intelligent, something the previous administration never managed. That said, I agree with the basic premise of Mr. Will's argument and we forget these things at our great peril. There is a concept known as game theory which is applicable here. Every nation will do whatever it can for its own betterment, and since the United States of America is still the most prosperous nation on earth (so far) every one is out to pick our collective pockets in any way they can, and will seek to diminish our power and prosperity to their own ends. Be this rogue leaders or entire nations. No leader abroad stands without some portion of the people behind him. Not even Kim Jung Il. Do not forget that, and do not for a moment believe that the 'World Community' has our best interests at heart. They do not. They have theirs. Also remember this in economic terms. Open the floodgates of 'Free Trade' and we rush to meet everyone else at the bottom. Why is it that so many can conceive one of these, yet be blind to the other? It is the same truth and the same coin.

It is obvious why Mr. Will is a columnist and not chosen by any admistration to be a representative of our country to any country in the world. He seems to be unable to understand that the USA is no longer the leader of the world.
Mr. Will the world has gone on without us and will continue to do so. Mr. will mistakes diplomacy for"pandering" just as he sometimes mistakes baseball as America's best loved and most important sport. Posted by Lew Blockcolski

Your column reminds me of that elegantly succinct conundrum: ???All generalizations are false.??? I am liberal and do not believe that harmony is humanity???s natural condition or that Europe is a functional community, beyond what has been achieved in a shared defense and currency. It is disingenuous to suggest that liberals??? love of diversity includes acceptance of primitive barbaric behavior. Your patently false statements provide no logical support for your opinion. After America???s arrogance toward European allies during the Bush administration (remember ???freedom fries???), Obama???s attempts to create a working relationship, while not perfect, are laudable. R.I. Shoaf Anchorage

Sorry, to continue my last posting: Why do the conservatives criticize Europe for being averse to war? They were bled white and devestated twice in the last century, and let's not forget that we oversaw the writing of the German constitution that allows there military to operate soley for defense. And cut them some slack, after all, they have to deal with the French daily. And the concern over atrocities in Saudi Arabia--nothing new there, why so upset by it all of a sudden? BTW: read today of a teenage couple near Kabul who were publicy executed with AK-47 shots to the head for attempting to elope. Maybe the more appropriate anger should be directed at those neo-cons who diverted our resources from stabilizing Afghanistan allowing a government with the abiltiy to stop such travesties. Who executed this young couple--the Taliban, of course. Remember them, the ones we supposed to be freeing the Afghans from. And remember, Europe (even France) understood and supported our actions there. What was it the conservatives diverted those resources for: the ill-concieved and unneccesary invasion of Iraq, During the run-up to that war the conservatives, who knew everything, ignored and derided Europe, and the U.N. as weak and irrelevant. Turns out they were right in questioning the premise for that one. Wonder why they aren't so eager to jump in with us in Afghanistan now? Disclosure: I am an American who currently resides in the Balkans. I can tell you first hand that President Obama is being successful in his efforts to repair the image of America, and restore the European confidence in American leadership. It's working, and if it is necessary for this President to spend so much time to reestablish our ties with Europe and the world, maybe the conservatives should thank themselves for creating that necessity

It seems the conservative are utilizing their selective memory, and continue with their heads firmly inserted somewhere unhelpful. I would not call it "pandering" when the POTUS travels abroad and treats his analogues with courtesy and respect rather than arrogance and ill-concealed contempt. And what of this outrage over President Obama adhereing to custom and protocol by BOWING to the Saudi leader--I seem to remember the former President HOLDING HIS HAND AND KISSING HIS CHEEK. Why not, I guess, their families have a long, close relationship. As to the disingenous criticism of the Obama administration being so weak as to resume a role in the U.N. Human Rights Council, which the Bush administration so self-righteously boycotted due to the presence of undesirables: bullcrap--conservatives have sought every means possible to deride and weaken the U.N. whenever it was not in lock-step with their agenda. It doesn't help when the U.S. remains in that small group (like Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, etc.) that clings to the practice of capital punishment, which Europeans have universally denounced as a human rights violation. Perhaps if the United Nations were treated as a serious partner rather than a tool, results could be achieved. Maybe. Maybe not. The Balkan action: does anyone else remember the way the conservatives screamed bloody murder, "Wag the Dog", etc.? Btw: it ?

A modest question ??? or two.

If there is no significant downside to spending trillions of dollars that don't exist, why have they been holding out on us? Why didn't the federal government simply give Americans everything we wanted and needed years and years ago?

Or, if there is a downside that is anywhere near proportional to this massive, previously unimaginable federal borrowing, why is no one talking about it?