The Fearful Superpower

Newsweek is losing circulation every month. It will soon go out of business. As for Fareed he uses every opportunity to be little the U.S... Most Americans care little for the rest of the world. I have traveled 3 continents myself and found most people to be lease than friendly to the U.S... Also we build things that matter now, flashy buildings are old hat. We make I-pod, I phone, computers, Robots, spaceships, new drugs, new better crops, New medical equipment, The internet, GPS, and.......on and on. Yes we should hold our heads in shame. We are such losers.

The world does not hate Bush, its the muslims who hate Bush. Rest of the world just cant understand Americans who elected Bush not once but twice. How dumb can one get. They say lightening doesnt strike the same place twice. Looks like Americans havent heard of that phrase. Its the only country which fights "wars" outside of their own country be it Iraq or Vietnam. 9/11 is the only "war" that was fought on American soil after WW II. Americans who inflict wars on other countries, were sooo scared by Osama's video, that they elected Dubya once again. Its rare to find such a unique combination of being so dumb and so arrogant, and so many of them like Ms Rice, who blamed India's prosperity for food shortage in the world all at one place. Last week when Bush's dissapproval rating went close to 65% (It no longer called approval rating) he was seen and heard "advising" Zimbawe leaders, and blamig Mugabe of being "ineffective" leader and "failing" in his duties. There is one more phrase, that americans havent heard of - "Charity begins at home" Instead of helping others Mr.Bush and Ms Rice and rest of the coteries, can you just focus on US. Leave the rest of world to others, and it will be far better

It's important that the world knows something about India. Ever since its independence from Britain 60 years ago, India has fought 3 wars with Pakistan alone! During one of the wars, India "cut" Pakistan into two pieces, Pakistan and Bangladesh. India also fought but lost a border war with China and "swallowed" a little Himalayan kingdom Sikeem that scared the hell out of another little Himalayan kingdom Bhutan which quickly surrendered its defense to India. As recent as 1999, India was on verge of a nuclear show-down with Pakistan. How many country has fought so many wars as India since WWII?

It's important that the world knows something about India. Ever since its independence from Britain 60 years ago, India has fought 3 wars with Pakistan alone! During one of the wars, India "cut" Pakistan into two pieces, Pakistan and Bangladesh. India also fought but lost a border war with China and "swallowed" a little Himalayan kingdom Sikeem that scared the hell out of another little Himalayan kingdom Bhutan which quickly surrendered its defense to India. As recent as 1999, India was on verge of a nuclear show-down with Pakistan. How many country has fought so many wars as India since WWII?

I apologize for the multiple posts; the website keeps telling me that it failed.

As for China, they may only have a fraction of the nuclear weapons that the U.S. has, but they have all that they need. The huge arsenal of weapons possessed by the United States is overkill and far more than any nation would need to destroy the entire world if they wanted to. A first strike by China could destroy not only Tokyo, Taipei, Honolulu, and Anchorage but also Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington, Atlanta and New York as well. The Chinese could wipe out the U.S. government, the backbone of the U.S. economy, and any capability the U.S. might have to formulate a proper response before we even realized what was happening. In absence of a missile defense shield, which our own government continues to obstruct and which Europe and Russia oppose for their own malignant purposes, Mutually Assured Destruction is no longer enough to keep us safe. But even then, the primary threat from China is not military???it's economic. The largest fraction of our national debt owed to foreign countries is owed to China; if China wanted to really hurt the United States they could foreclose upon those debts and send the government into bankruptcy, or sell off their reserves of the dollar and make it virtually worthless. Growing Chinese demand for oil contributes to our own high oil prices that are wrecking our economy. The next president will almost certainly implement regulations upon our own industry equal to or greater than those specified in the Kyoto Accords, and if it's Obama or Clinton it's doubtful that he/she would be willing to keep in place the tax subsidies for our own companies that would be essential to prevent them from raising prices, laying off workers, or engaging in further outsourcing in order to offset the cost of additional regulation; China, meanwhile, will most likely continue to be exempt from any such regulations, due to a combination of economic extortion and white guilt, despite the fact that they have overtaken the United States as the world's #1 polluter, to the point where our athletes going there for the Olympics this year are concerned for their health in the toxic atmosphere of Beijing. This means that China will probably overtake the United States as the world's most productive economy within the next decade, and will most likely overtake the U.S. in GDP within 25 years.

These are SERIOUS issues that the next several administrations and Congresses will have to deal with, and Zakaria is doing the nation a disservice by encouraging people to ignore them. For the nation's sake, I hope Zakaria's message in this article goes unheard and unheeded in November.

The notion that the Democrats have not engaged in fear-mongering is laughable. They have fear-mongered about global warming, fear-mongered about the Patriot Act, fear-mongered the economy almost into a recession, fear-mongered about attempts at Social Security reform (where they accuse Republicans of fear-mongering)....fear-mongered any time they felt it would suit them politically. Back in 2004 they fear-mongered about an impending draft that never came, and way back in 1964 they used the politics of fear to insinuate that Barry Goldwater was a warmonger who was going to lead the world to nuclear Armageddon. Using fear to win elections is nothing new for them; it's incredibly hypocritical for them to now criticize Republicans for allegedly doing it. If so, Republicans only learned from the best.

Though it claims not to, the article trivializes numerous serious threats to future American security and prosperity, particularly the threat posed by radical Islamic fundamentalism. It goes so far as to ridicule those who recognize the dangers that we face in the modern world and wish to do something about them; Zakaria is Chamberlainian in his abject denial of the facts of the world around him. Iran doesn't need to have a military budget the size of the United States; its paramilitary forces alone dwarf the size of the U.S. military, and with aid from China and Russia the quality of its military hardware could easily come to rival that of the U.S. if left unchecked. Iran doesn't need to spend billions of dollars on military R&D; they can just buy the technology they need from nations that already have it with oil. Furthermore, the primary threat from Iran is now and continues to be the possibility of Iran giving WMDs to Hezbollah or some other terrorist group and that group then using those weapons against Israel, Europe, or the United States. The purpose of containing Iran is to keep them from ever reaching the point where they will be capable of doing that and no one will be able to stop them. Zakaria fails to understand this. (cont'd).

The notion that the Democrats have not engaged in fear-mongering is laughable. They have fear-mongered about global warming, fear-mongered about the Patriot Act, fear-mongered the economy almost into a recession, fear-mongered about attempts at Social Security reform (where they accuse Republicans of fear-mongering)....back in 2004 they fear-mongered about an impending draft that never came, and way back in 1964 they used the politics of fear to insinuate that Barry Goldwater was a warmonger who was going to lead the world to nuclear armageddon. Using fear to win elections is nothing new for them; it's incredibly hypocritical for them to now criticize Republicans for allegedly doing it. If so, Republicans only learned from the best.

Though it claims not to, the article trivializes numerous serious threats to future American security and prosperity, particularly the threat posed by radical Islamic fundamentalism. It goes so far as to ridicule those who recognize the dangers that we face in the modern world and wish to do something about them; Zakaria is Chamberlainian in his abject denial of the facts of the world around him. Iran doesn't need to have a military budget the size of the United States; its paramilitary forces alone dwarf the size of the U.S. military, and with aid from China and Russia the quality of its military hardware could easily come to rival that of the U.S. if left unchecked. Iran doesn't need to spend billions of dollars on military R&D; they can just buy the technology they need from nations that already have it with oil. Furthermore, the primary threat from Iran is now and continues to be the possibility of Iran giving WMDs to Hezbollah or some other terrorist group and that group then using those weapons against Israel, Europe, or the United States. The purpose of containing Iran is to keep them from ever reaching the point where they will be capable of doing that and no one will be able to stop them. Zakaria fails to understand this. (cont'd.)

The notion that the Democrats have not engaged in fear-mongering is laughable. They have fear-mongered about global warming, fear-mongered about the Patriot Act, fear-mongered the economy almost into a recession, fear-mongered about attempts at Social Security reform (where they accuse Republicans of fear-mongering)....back in 2004 they fear-mongered about an impending draft that never came, and way back in 1964 they used the politics of fear to insinuate that Barry Goldwater was a warmonger who was going to lead the world to nuclear armageddon. Using fear to win elections is nothing new for them; it's incredibly hypocritical for them to now criticize Republicans for allegedly doing it. If so, Republicans only learned from the best.

Though it claims not to, the article trivializes numerous serious threats to future American security and prosperity, particularly the threat posed by radical Islamic fundamentalism. It goes so far as to ridicule those who recognize the dangers that we face in the modern world and wish to do something about them; Zakaria is Chamberlainian in his abject denial of the facts of the world around him. Iran doesn't need to have a military budget the size of the United States; its paramilitary forces alone dwarf the size of the U.S. military, and with aid from China and Russia the quality of its military hardware could easily come to rival that of the U.S. if left unchecked. Iran doesn't need to spend billions of dollars on military R&D; they can just buy the technology they need from nations that already have it with oil. Furthermore, the primary threat from Iran is now and continues to be the possibility of Iran giving WMDs to Hezbollah or some other terrorist group and that group then using those weapons against Israel, Europe, or the United States. The purpose of containing Iran is to keep them from ever reaching the point where they will be capable of doing that and no one will be able to stop them. Zakaria fails to understand this. (cont'd)

The notion that the Democrats have not engaged in fear-mongering is laughable. They have fear-mongered about global warming, fear-mongered about the Patriot Act, fear-mongered the economy almost into a recession, fear-mongered about attempts at Social Security reform (where they accuse Republicans of fear-mongering)....back in 2004 they fear-mongered about an impending draft that never came, and way back in 1964 they used the politics of fear to insinuate that Barry Goldwater was a warmonger who was going to lead the world to nuclear armageddon. Using fear to win elections is nothing new for them; it's incredibly hypocritical for them to now criticize Republicans for allegedly doing it. If so, Republicans only learned from the best.

Though it claims not to, the article trivializes numerous serious threats to future American security and prosperity, particularly the threat posed by radical Islamic fundamentalism. It goes so far as to ridicule those who recognize the dangers that we face in the modern world and wish to do something about them; Zakaria is Chamberlainian in his abject denial of the facts of the world around him. Iran doesn't need to have a military budget the size of the United States; its paramilitary forces alone dwarf the size of the U.S. military, and with aid from China and Russia the quality of its military hardware could easily come to rival that of the U.S. if left unchecked. Iran doesn't need to spend billions of dollars on military R&D; they can just buy the technology they need from nations that already have it with oil. Furthermore, the primary threat from Iran is now and continues to be the possibility of Iran giving WMDs to Hezbollah or some other terrorist group and that group then using those weapons against Israel, Europe, or the United States. The purpose of containing Iran is to keep them from ever reaching the point where they will be capable of doing that and no one will be able to stop them. Zakaria fails to understand this. (cont'd)

You know what I hate most? I hate to listen our president saying that everything is OK, when the whole country is worry about what is happening. The price of the gas, milk, rice... what is going to be next? I would prefer listening him saying "I understand", then I would say, he is going to do something about. But he says that everything is OK, that means he is not accepting the reality. So, how can we expect him to help us, when he is not seeing the problem? Is anybody there close to him, who could advise him to change his approach. We are not happy.

We have been a very pasive and patient nation. Will our nation regain its power again? is a very good question that needs a simple answer. My answer is YES!, we will regain our power, but not once Bush is gone or when Democrats are in power again; but when we understand once and for all that we are not a united nation. Our people is tired of unnecessary wars and policies that show us that politicians do not care about us. Once our leaders understand that our people is first, I believe that our nation will be as powerful as it's always been.

Is the United States afraid, or does the United States see a clear and present danger in the Middle East that left unchecked could consume the world with its radical message of hate and intolerance? In order for the world to grow in peace and prosperity, we must first eliminate the threat to that peace. This is what we see. What we can't see and don't understand is why the rest of the world does not see this as well.

I believe the author has a good perspective. It seems to me that building a world is better than bombing the *** out of people who don't even have enough to eat...

wHAT IS THIS BOLLYWOOD

Clubby corp dc.
Being in the " catbird " seat and having forgotten long ago how to truly play an honest card game....
No sense in being fearfull. It's really called " Game Over, Tilt. "

If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress? The republicans are the class of bad ideas and the democrats are the school of no ideas.