Thursday, December 02, 2004

Cabinet Talks

We are seeing many new changes to President Bush’s cabinet and I think it is nice to see some shifting around of resources and fresh blood in these positions. The new rules in corporate America show that moving people from job to job and letting them bring skills from one area of the business to another have worked well. Brining in the new skills of one area to another here will also be a benefit. Although I am sad to see Colin Powell go he did not fit in with the administration and it was time for a change in that department. I am heartened by Condoleezza Rice who I feel will do an excellent job especially with her understanding of national security matters. I look forward to seeing what she will do in this position and reconciling our goals with the rest of the world which will take a lot of work from her and the president. Most importantly though she has his trust.Another member of the cabinet who has the presidents trust is the new Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. This former White House Counsel who owes his career to the president is the new attorney general. I was never a huge Ashcroft fan (if you lose to a dead man you have problems) and am looking forward to see how the prosecution of the war on terror will be affected by this new judicial department. This is an incredibly important position and one that I am glad to see being taken seriously. While we are fighting a war on terror we must not forget there is a legal war as well and the with the Patriot Act set to expire we must have an attorney general who is aggressive in going after terrorists within the confines of the law. As I need to get back to homework I will try to talk about the other cabinet positions later on.

Amnesty International Strikes Again

After attending one of the most painful talks I may have ever had to attend on Lehigh’s campus (Kevin can verify this) I was thinking about something I had overheard. The talk was on changing domestic violence laws in Europe and how globalization was affecting them. One and maybe the only interesting part of the discussion was when the speaker mentioned that Amnesty International is getting involved with domestic abuse cases. Their reasoning behind this is that domestic abuse is equivalent of state sponsored violence which must be curbed. If the state has no laws against this they are supporting it so they should be held responsible. This is of course ridiculous and we see another moment of liberal lunacy at its finest. Amnesty International was already tantamount to a terrorist organization when they demanded that members of the IRA who were being held until they give up their compatriots who planned the bombing of a British school be released. These people are simply insane and now they want the state to be held responsible for domestic violence. I do not wish to make light of domestic violence because it is a serious issue but the approach Amnesty International wishes to take is sheer folly and will lead nowhere. The state is not going to be bullied and with much of the domestic violence in Europe being Women on men it adds another dimension. While this is incomprehensible to American feminists it is quite a reality in Europe and was also stated by the speaker. There is not much other to say than to laugh at this and I move for it to be put on the liberal lunacy section of the blog.

RE: Post WW2 Books

I was intrigued by the post David made on Post WW2 books and I have been thinking about which ones I would reread. Although they are not what I would call great literature I find the Jack Ryan series very enjoyable and have reread them many times. I also wanted to second David’s recommendation on “Catch-22” which is a very interesting book with a variety of themes and messages. With regards to specific books that I have read that I would reread there are two. One is Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” which was an interesting story (although in my opinion complete fiction despite what the masses seem to believe). I found this book to be enjoyable and a light read that took an interesting idea and made it into a very good thriller. Although not one I will reread the prequel “Angels and Demons” by Dan Brown is not a bad book either but “The Da Vinci Code” was superior. The other book I would reread and recommend is Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” which fellow blogger Mary encourage me to read. Although a longer book it represents many ideas. One can stop with the simple allegory of capitalist vs communist (socialist) ideals or look at the writing style in which it was intended of objectivism. Be warned this book is much deeper than Dan Brown’s books but it is well worth the read and provides a different look at the world. Finally one last other series that would go under the read once is the Master and Commander Series by Patrick O’Brian. I am only on book 5 of 20 but it is a very good series (written in the language of the time) and goes beyond the movies story. The movie tired to combine many of the books together and does not do justice to the richness of O’Brian’s characters.

The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

I would like to update everyone on our humble campus newsletter, the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. As of the first day of classes in January, the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy will be in newsprint - 16 pages and 2,000 copies, four issues planned for the semester. I am really excited about this and optimistic that we will have a hard-working, enthusiastic staff after the great meeting we had last night. David, you would be happy to hear that our retainment at meetings has been three times better than last year. There are a lot of young, smart kids who will take over the newspaper and club when the rest of us are gone. As well, as I have instructed Brian, once the VRWC goes to newsprint it will be referred to as a "newspaper." Calling the VRWC a newsletter will keep it in the same league as the Lehigh Star, the oft-neglected, pathetic attempt at campus politics published bi-annually, at four whole pages, by the LU College Democrats. Their best article of the last issue, "The Case for Kerry," was terrible. Their worst article, an attack on the CR's Christina Hoff Sommers lecture, was more terrible. So anyway, calling the VRWC a newsletter next semester will result in some form of medieval punishment.

David, any suggestions as to the format you would like to see would be greatly appreciated. As well, I think we will have to chip in and send you out your very own copy of the newspaper when it comes out. With 2,000 copies, I would like to see us offer subscriptions for a small fee so we can send out the paper to alums and other interested readers. I don't think we need to look for a profit on this, but maybe include a free subscription with a donation to the paper and also offer regular subscriptions at cost.

If there are any readers of our blog out there that would like to have a PDF copy of the VRWC's old issues or future issues sent to them, email me at and I would be happy to send them out.

Finally, I find it kinda funny that "blog" comes up in the blog's spell checker.


I tried to post a response about Rumsfeld last night but Blogspot decided to be irritating and just devour the post without even saving it as a draft. Anyway, Brian, I have to disagree with your assessment of Donald Rumsfeld. I think he has been an excellent Secretary of Defense and I hope he stays for the next four years.

He has not been working against the intelligence bill behind the scenes, though I do recall reading that he is concerned about handing over control of satellite operations from the military to the proposed office of the national intelligence director. I think that's a valid concern, since during combat, the forces in action need to have their reconnaissance data available quickly and seamlessly. It seems to me that is much more likely to occur with recon satellites under the control of the military's joint command structure, rather than having to order things up from bureaucrats in Washington or Langley. Unfortunately, I can't find where I read this, but at the very least Rumsfeld has specifically denied working against the bill. The best evidence that he's telling the truth? The New York Times editorial page thinks otherwise.

I think Rumsfeld has done an excellent job rebuilding the Defense Department from the Clinton years and transforming the military from a force designed to fight the Cold War to one more suited to fight the War on Terror. I'm wondering, what "blunders" specifically are you referring to? The CIA has been full of screwups, but I don't see any problems with the DOD that are enough to warramt Rumsfeld's resignation.

Beyond Rumsfeld, though, I have to say, I'm getting tired of everyone automatically assuming that everything the 9/11 Commissioners carry down from Mt. Sinai is automatically a great idea. The report and the hearings have been published and people can decide for themselves whether or not the recommendations make sense. I'm certianly more inclined to take the word of the people actually fighting this war over that of an unelected committee. Who said these guys are the final authority on anything?

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

UN and Red Cross at limits of usefulness

Once again the UN and Red Cross are showing why international relationslimit sovereignty and are simply not very useful. The UN is riddledwith corruption and is embarrassing to those who set it up and give somuch money. The Red Cross is once again intervening where it does notneed to be.
UN has taken so much money from the Untied States (22percent of UN budget) and we keep on giving. 20 billion taken from theUN to kill our soldiers and put our citizens in danger. This ismindblowing. It is time for a change and it should come in the form ofa reduction in budget. The UN exists as a function of US hegemony and ifit is not serving our purposes it is time to cut it off. Thank God Kerrylost or we would be begging there approval to fight terrorists. Forthose who are looking for some very good analysis on the Oil for foodscandal see David's previous posts about it.
The Red Cross has decided that it is time to say Gitmo isabusing prisoners and that we are treating them unfairly. Theseterrorists deserve much worse than we are giving them and I think if wehave gotten information out of them lets give them to the Saudi's whowill quickly behead them and see what the Red Cross says. We treat ourenemies much more humanly than any other country in the world save theSwiss. The Red Cross should go keep up its efforts in Darfour and someof the other troubled regions. In the meantime we will have to put upwith these baseless accusations much like the mosques that were bombedin Fallujah. Recent stats show that 86% of the mosques in Fallujah heldweapons (Fox and Friends) which is another crazy idea that the Red Crosshad wrong. When a Mosque holds weapons it is no longer a religious sitebut a legitimate military target.

Time for Rumsfeld to go

Well I must apologize for my lack of blogging. I have had no computerfor the past three weeks and it is very good to be back online. Some ofthis material will be a little dated but I have read some interestingthings over the past couple of weeks. My book reviews will become muchmore limited as I am starting an independent study project ton LatinAmerican dictators and an honors thesis on Napoleon which seems to beready to consume my life. Anyway I will keep this brief until I canwrite out my longer posts. Donald Rumsfeld needs to resign. Hisshameless pursuit of the defense intelligence budget while pursuing thedeath of the intelligence bill only infuriated me. I am sick of thedepartmental infighting that goes on in the government. The idea of theJoint Chiefs of Staff is so laughable that I cringe to think of it thatway. I am glad we have joint commands outside the control of the JointChiefs of Staff so that our military is able to work together andaccomplish missions without constant fighting. The Joint Chiefsrepresent their branches well but rarely compromise when it comes tobudget or having their service the most important in a war. I would alsowager that many of our pentagon leaks come from joint chief of staffoffices. Rumsfeld has had too many blunders on his record and whilebefore this I was one of his biggest supporters I have now just beendisgusted. Given the current outlook however I would say it is time fornew leadership at the defense department. I think Paul Wolfiwitz will bean excellent replacement but may be plauged by the shadow of Rumsfeld. More to come in a later post about the cabinet positions.

Alexander a disapointment

I have to agree with David that Alexander was just a bad all aroundmovie. The Plot was erratic and the homophobic eroticism that pluagedthe film served no point. Alexander (and I am aware that manyhistorians believe he was gay) had a great deal more to his live thanthat. He did conquer the known world and here we see a directors attemptto make history into bad documentary. The epics of late have not beenvery good which for me as a person who loves history is disappointing.I would love to see a good movie about a historical figure that works.Troy did not follow the history, Alexander for reasons David has saiddoes not work and then the Alamo which had good historical content butwas plagued by PG-13 rating that limited good battle scenes. These arejust of the few in the recent string of disappointments in thehistorical genre.

Welcome Hugh Hewitt Readers and Listeners!

If you've come across us thanks to Hugh's collection of novel recommendation links, let me welcome you to our humble blog. This is a group blog, begun by myself and some of my friends and fellow members of the Lehigh University College Republicans, though I've since graduated.

The focus here is usually politics, but almost anything can be the subject of discussion. Scroll down a bit and you'll see a couple of posts I made about cartoons. If you like what you read, by all means check out the archives. I seem to do the bulk of the posting here, since everyone else is still in school and because I tend to be rather verbose in my writing.

Anyway, I hope you'll find something worth reading here and if so, I certainly hope you'll return.

Post-WWII Novels Worth Rereading

After reading the New Tork Times Book Review's piece on Tom Wolfe's new book, I Am Charlotte Simmons, Hugh Hewitt seems to have become intrigued by the last line, "You may never put down a Tom Wolfe novel. But you never reread one, either." So, he's now asking bloggers and callers to his radio show to recommend novels written since World War II that they have reread.

For me, of course, my favorite novel of all time came immediately to mind, Orwell's 1984. I've reread it many times and always enjoy it, though I often scare myself with the parallels to some of the far-leftist thinking out there. It was written in 1949, so it does qualify, though I imagine Hugh was looking for something more recent.

Well, Joseph Heller's Catch-22 is certainly more recent than 1984, but not by all that much. I love this book. It is not only an excellent look at what the experience of combat does to the minds of men, it is also a great read just for its outright absurdity. The interrogation of Clevinger is one of the funniest dialogues I've ever read, and I never get tired of reading the other bizarre exchanges Heller puts throughout the book. Unfortunately, I have never receieved a good grade on any paper I've written about Catch-22, but I still like it all the same. I seem to recall that Heller became a vehement Bush-hater, but I don't believe he's made a spectacle of himself unlike that dolt Kurt Vonnegut, so I'll give him a pass.

Another novel that I've reread a few times just happens to be The Right Stuff by Tom Wolfe. I've been fascinated with space travel and astronomy and an enthusiastic supporter of the space program since elementary school, and, being a history guy, I've read about the history of NASA to no end, so I love Wolfe's story of the early days of American human spaceflight. I'll always remember the story of Pete Conrad (3rd man to walk on the moon) leading the rebellion against the bizarre medical tests the astronaut candidates were subjected to, as well as Wolfe's description of the creepy needles they used to make the men's muscles move on their own. This was a book I often read with a flashlight in my sleeping bag on Boy Scout camping trips when I was supposed to be sleeping. This habit also taught me that it was better to just go to sleep when everyone else did, though, because it was terrifyingly horrible being the only one up at 2 AM to hear the bear sniffing through camp. Ignorance is bliss, as they say...

Yet another novel that I've reread many times, though not quite the quality of the prior three, is Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park. I love the story, but what always grabs me are the ethical and scientific dilemmas presented in the course of the novel. I particularly enjoy Ian Malcom, though I'm certain I'd despise him if I knew him in real life.

My dad loves to reread Crichton novels, but I hesistate to recommend anything that may dad returns to time and again, since those things include the live-action version of George of the Jungle and the US version of Godzilla.

Many thanks for the link, Hugh!

Monday, November 29, 2004

Alexander the... oh, it just plain sucked

Two of my friends dragged me to see Alexander over my protestations a couple days ago, and unfortunately, my suspicions about the movie's crappiness were confirmed. It skipped over all the really interesting parts of Alexander's life to focus on, well, very little. Most of it was scenes in bed chambers and other torch-lit rooms either involving Alexander looking lovingly at his best friend or drawn-out shots of Alexander's pretty-boy man-servant. Really, the whole "conquering the known world" thing was incidental to this movie, which was apparently about homoerotic cinematography and Angelina Jolie pretending that she was the star. Interesting performances by Anthony Hopkins as Ptolemy and Christopher Plummer as Aristole were lost in this, as was any sense of history. Oliver Stone also apparently wanted us to know that Alexander dreamed up the Suez Canal, over 2000 years before it was built, as he was lamenting the death of his best friend.

I hadn't expected the movie to be that good going in, and thought that the homo- and bisexuality would be, well undertones. Unfortunately, Stone thought it was important to beat the audience over the head with this aspect, and oh yeah, Alexander did some conquering between his endlessly-alluded to sexual escapades.

And even with all this, I'd thought they might say something about, I dunno, crossing the Turkish Straits, the siege of Tyre, Persepolis, some of those important events. But no, they had to make time for long hugs between the Macedonian warriors and more of Angelina Jolie's scheming.

Victor Davis Hanson complains about the same things I do and just excoriates the film. Read it; it's good and unusually short for him. In the end, the lesson I should have remembered is that 95% of the time, the History Channel documentary on the subject of an allegedly "historical" movie is vastly more entertaining and informative than the actual movie itself. (Besides, with commercials involving Wayne Gretzky and Dan Marino discussing the "MVP of the Ancient World," how can you not want to watch?) (Via Belmont Club)

Sunday, November 28, 2004

Fisking for Fun

Will this make up for the lack of blogging over the last few days? You decide. Since it's long, maybe you can read it in installments until my next post. Either way, I've decided it's probably better to update whenever the writing bug bites me, rather than worrying about having a post every day.

Ah, who am I kidding? I'll feel bad about it anyway. Anyway, enough with my lame excuses. Enjoy, (if you enjoy my posts, that is.)

A friend of mine saw this thread on Right-Thinking and decided to take the quiz linked, to see if he also was a not stupid American. I did as well, and got an 18/20, only to be berated for it:

You have an impressive understanding of the world for an American. It is likely that you feel intellectually isolated in your home country, and often have to hide your opinions from others. Deep down, you realise that your country is the single biggest threat to world peace in modern times, but you have not yet summoned up the courage to emigrate.
Of course, I love America and feel right at home here. Actually, I do often feel I have to hide my opinions from others, but only from embittered, smarmy liberals like the guy who runs that quiz site. I’d have to take issue to the “biggest threat to world peace in modern times,” etc. This guy smears feelings of rage and jealously all over his front page like a child’s finger painting, or maybe like feces on the wall of a monkey’s page.

He really doesn’t deserve an answer, but having spent much of the day reading Ann Coulter’s new book, I’m feeling a bit cheeky (how’s that for European?) and thought I’d give a shot at responding to the rant on the front page. Warning: this will not be very nice and will likely be extremely sarcastic. (Keep in mind that the "you" used below is referring to Mr. Hating America Is My Only reason To Live and not my gracious readers.)

First let me say that I scored 18/20 on your simplistic quiz and I proudly voted for President Bush (and Pete Coors) because he has done an excellent job as president. He, unlike you, understands the world and the true nature of the enemy Western Civilization faces. Unfortunately, appeasers such as yourself remain blind to this fact, preferring to embrace the Hitlers, Stalins, and Maos of the world, lest some people accidentially be liberated in the process.

You begin your rant by asserting that
In the few years he has been in the (sic) Whitehouse [gosh, I thought he was smart!], America has rapidly slipped from its position of strength in the world, and its people have had their freedom, security and economic stability jeopardised.
And where exactly is your evidence for any of this? I don’t see any country, or block of countries, seriously challenging the United States militarily, economically, or culturally. Even the French grudgingly continue to admit that the US is the only superpower. Our people have indeed had the three things you list jeopardized, but not by George Bush. Rather, by the Islamofascists and their ilk who attacked us on September 11th (and for 20 years prior to that) murdering 3000 innocent people, who were not even all Americans.

I’m glad to hear you “loathe Americans,” because that certainly puts your jealous, embittered comments in perspective. I’ll reciprocate and say that I loathe people like you who have an irrational hatred for the greatest country in the history of the world. You defend your generalization about Americans by saying “The trick is to generalise only where conditions appear to be averagely valid….” So, I guess since it’s “averagely valid” that a huge number of terrorists happen to be Muslim I can say it’s a sham to call Islam “the Religion of Peace”. I suppose I can also say it’s “averagely valid” that Europeans are whiners who have rejected the lessons of history and are now reaping the benefits of the appeasement that they have sown through Islamic terrorism.

You slander Americans by saying they have, “an inflated sense of self-importance, a near total lack of grace or empathy, almost porcine self-interest, and blinkered nationalism.” I’m afraid I’m not enough of an “enlightened European” to figure out what “blinkered nationalism” is supposed to mean, but I can address the rest. You know, if anyone has an inflated sense of self-importance, it has got to be the Europeans. Their empires have crumbled, they depend on the United States for their defense and their economic vitality, and their influence on world politics continues to diminish day-by-day. They whine and gnash their teeth if we don’t have the UN’s approval of something we do, or ever worse, doing something without the approval of France and Germany. Horrors! What would Napoleon and Otto von Bismarck think of your snivling? Not much, I imagine. As for a total lack of grace and empathy, hey, it’s not Americans who carry the stereotype of not bathing or shaving regularly.

A “porcine self-interest?” My, my, that’s certainly hypocritical for someone whose political affiliation is to any existing state. God forbid countries should act in their self-interest. A horrible thing, that is. Can you imagine those awful British for concluding it was in their self-interest to fight the Nazis in WWII, or those nasty French and their English rivals for building the Suez Canal in self-interest? (I’ve recently learned that it was in fact Alexander the Great who dreamed up the Suez Canal, and not Ferdinand de Lesseps. Thanks for clearing that up, Oliver Stone!) Neither of those was of any benefit to mankind! Because, you know, the other, non-American countries in the world, never act in “porcine self-interest.” That’s why top-level French and Russian officials eagerly took oil bribes from Saddam Hussein in exchange for their vetoes in the UN Security Council! That’s why China continues to keep is boot pressed directly on the neck of Taiwan and Tibet, lest they get any nasty ideas like independence, self-governance, or freedom!

And the next paragraph, where do I even start? Well, I can certainly say (being cultured enough to know the colloquialism this time) that our pride in our military strength, wealth, and contribution to Western civilization are, in fact, not bollocks. See above in regards to military and economic strength, but for our contribution to Western civilization, I seem to recall a document called The Declaration of Independence that the leaders of the French Revolution (and subsequent Reign of Terror) were rather fond of. I also seem to recall that the United States directly introduced democracy to Germany, Japan, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and preserved the governments of France, Italy, West Germany, Greece, Turkey, and South Korea from Communist takeover. We have also been indirectly responsible for democracy coming to Nicaragua, Russia and some of the former Soviet states, Poland and much of Eastern Europe, the Philippines, and others. America has contributed a great deal to the world, including inventing the critical components of the computer you used to write your screed, and very likely the software you used to write it. Again, you accuse the United States of never acting other than in its self-interest. I should hope so, which is why I voted for Bush twice (2000 and 2004, lest you feel tempted to spin silly election conspiracies). I wonder, though, why you’re so indignant about this when the countries of Europe have done exactly that throughout recorded history and continue to do so to this day, as every country in the world does. Only self-important “progressives” and others ignorant of history ascribe a negative connotation to states acting in their self-interest.

America is without question the land of the free and the home of the brave. I don’t see too many other countries where the population continues to oppose hate speech laws and whose all-volunteer military is as dedicated and as readily willing to sacrifice for their freedoms as ours (with the notable exceptions of Great Britain and Australia).

You whine that the US has not yet pacified Iraq and this is apparently evidence that American “military power is simply smoke and mirrors.” I suppose that means Japan’s failure to pacify China, Soviet failure to occupy Afghanistan (thanks to help from the United States), French failure to pacify Algeria and the Ivory Coast, British failure to keep control in India or Palestine, German failure to destroy Great Britain and the Soviet Union, and many others mean that those militaries were never of any consequence and people were just being panicky in worrying about them at all. You further claim that “Since D-Day, the US has demonstrated a total lack of military savvy.” You know, I’m really enjoying enlightening someone supposedly as smart as yourself to a little something I call “history.” You might want to check it out sometime. You’d learn about the Battle of the Philippine Sea, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Inchon, the complete destruction of the Tet offensive, Grenada, Panama, the strikes on Libya, the first Gulf War, and the swift victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. All occurred after June 6, 1944. You might want to make a note of that for future reference.

Another complaint is the alleged loss of respect for America in the rest of the world. Oh, I’m not so sure about that. The Ukrainians seemed pretty happy to have our support in their struggle for democracy, the Saudis exhaust themselves every day trying to make Americans like them, African countries love our foreign aid, Israel realizes that it has a true friend in the US, and the people in Northern Ireland understand where we’re coming from. But more importantly, why would the US want the respect of countries who fall all over themselves to accommodate terrorists like Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein, who were perfectly happy to have the US come in and settle their problem in the Balkans for them, while condemning us throughout the entire process, who eagerly gobble up American money and culture only to despise it, who insult us at every opportunity, and who still worship at the altar of Neville Chamberlain?

You ask, “Before Bush came to power, who had heard of Al Quaeda?” Oh I dunno, maybe the families of the Kenyans and Tanzanians who were slaughtered in 1998 by that very organization, maybe the great Richard Clarke who did so little much about it during the Clinton administration, maybe the Sudanese who offered to arrest and hand over Bin Laden in 1996, or maybe the Saudis who wanted nothing to do with him? Certainly Saddam Hussein, who kept trying to arrange meetings with top Al Qaeda officials during the 1990s, and certainly the Taliban, who welcomed the group into the country they held hostage. Ann Coulter writes, “In the year 2000 alone, LexisNexis lists 280 items [in newspapers] mentioning Al Qaeda.” Since 2000 is before January 20, 2001, I imagine that counts as “before Bush came to power.” But I might be wrong, since you’re the history expert.

The bitter America-hater continues, And it's not even as if all this benefits the average American in any way. Far from reaping the rewards of their government's militaristic posturing, the American people are having their freedoms eroded, their economy punctured, and their personal safety put at risk. Gosh, the American people seem to have a different view of how much it is benefiting them, or at least 51% of them do. By the way, you have still not given one shred of evidence for any of your charges. But I wouldn’t expect you to. “Progressives” love to deal in innuendo, insinuation, and outright falsehoods (see Moore, Michael), but facts to liberals are like sunlight to vampires.

Jealous as ever you write, “Another 4 years of Bush will see American even more isolated and weakened - economically, militarily, and politically.” I’ll enjoy seeing your reaction in 2008 after Iraq has had democratic elections, Tony Blair has been reelected and strengthened his support of the United States in the War on Terror, when our economy is doing even better and foreign leaders continue to visit the United States and beg for our support for Kyoto, the International Criminal Court, and a new ABM treaty (to all of which the answer will be, “Denied!”).

And this is just funny, “Just as America stood by and waited for Europe to weaken itself through war in 1939, before stepping in to grab the spoils and collects its money, it's now Europe's turn to wait quietly while America cripples itself with misguided wars and inept foreign policy.” Gosh, the Americans sure stood by in 1939 and 1914, all the way to 1941 and 1917, but they didn’t do anything for Europe then, no. Remember how the Europeans came up with the Fourteen Points and financed the Marshall Plan? Oh, my bad. They didn’t. Yeah, how’s that double digit unemployment going for everyone in France and Germany? Not so hot? What about the Islamic terrorism in Holland and Spain? No? The bloated, socialist, unaccountable EU constitution? How’s the whole “freedom of speech” thing going in Russia? You might want to ask Mikail Khardokovsky, in his jail cell. And while you’re at it, ask Jacques Chirac about his wonderfully successful intervention in the Ivory Coast. I’m sure they love the French there. You guys have done a wonderful job reaching out to Turkey to invite it into the EU. Oh wait, you’ve blocked it at every turn. Silly me.

In the end, you’re just a bitter, jealous person who desperately wishes he was an American, so he could enjoy living in the greatest country God gave man and could push your naïve, discredited, progressivist (read: socialist) agenda here. Your ignorance of world history is astounding and your aversion to facts and evidence is typical. I hope you enjoy your smug inferiority complex until the discothèque down the street is blown up by Islamofascists. Us Americans will probably still help you out after you come crawling back to us in your disgrace and failure because, after all, that’s just the kind of people we are.