Hugo Chavez vs. the Saudi Royals

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Do you really think Chirac is seethes with anti-Americanism and wants to destroy the country?

One more huge advantage Chavez has over the Saudis: Chavez is not a Muslim.

Also since I'm Christian, I'm obviously going to rate countries based on how they treat Christians. Venzuela does positively, Saudi Arabia does VERY negatively.

[opebo]

Furthermore I think a lot of governments don't hate the US, just hate Bush, like me. Why should I feel bad toward a government because they are opposed to someone I am?

You're kidding yourself, man.

No, BRTD is correct.  While naturally most Europeans do not like the typical American (who would?), they are not 'anti-american' in an active political sense.  I think they would prefer a world in which a rogue state did not invade other countries at will, for no other reason than domestic political considerations.  Agression by a very powerful country very naturally frightens all other countries, as we saw in the 1930s and 1940s.  Would we say that the British of 1939 were 'anti-German' in the sense that they hated those krauts for their manners, sausages, and leiderhosen?  Perhaps, but irrelevant - the important geo-political disagreement then as now, was over naked agression.

[dazzleman]

Furthermore I think a lot of governments don't hate the US, just hate Bush, like me. Why should I feel bad toward a government because they are opposed to someone I am?

You're kidding yourself, man.

No, BRTD is correct.  While naturally most Europeans do not like the typical American (who would?), they are not 'anti-american' in an active political sense.  I think they would prefer a world in which a rogue state did not invade other countries at will, for no other reason than domestic political considerations.  Agression by a very powerful country very naturally frightens all other countries, as we saw in the 1930s and 1940s.  Would we say that the British of 1939 were 'anti-German' in the sense that they hated those krauts for their manners, sausages, and leiderhosen?  Perhaps, but irrelevant - the important geo-political disagreement then as now, was over naked agression.

You're really nuts if you compare the US to Nazi Germany in the 1930s.  And proof of that is in the behavior of the Europeans.  In the 1930s, they showed their fear of the Germans by bowing and scraping to them.  If they were so afraid of us, they'd be doing the same thing.  No, the French didn't like our invasion of Iraq because they lost money because of it, not because they fear American "aggression."  If they really feared American aggression, they'd be kissing our azz.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Still the question is asked: why should I hate a government because they hate Bush, who I hate?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It is also terribly ignorant to pretend that simply because Chavez doesn't support Al Qaeda, that he doesn't support terrorism.  Ever heard of FARC?

FARC may be despicable, but they are not terrorists by a definition you've argued many times, they are simply a guerilla group. If they're terrorists, so were the Contras, either both are terrorists or neither are.

whatever the case, I find Al-qaeda far more worrisome than FARC.

Since FARC is deep into assasinations and kidnappings, they're more than simply guerilla soldiers.  They are in fact involved in terrorist activities.

what guerilla group doesn't also do assasinations and kidnappings?

whatever the case, terrorists or not, I would still want to have sex with their female soldiers. Especially since Colombian girls are ing GORGEOUS.

[opebo]

Furthermore I think a lot of governments don't hate the US, just hate Bush, like me. Why should I feel bad toward a government because they are opposed to someone I am?

You're kidding yourself, man.

No, BRTD is correct.  While naturally most Europeans do not like the typical American (who would?), they are not 'anti-american' in an active political sense.  I think they would prefer a world in which a rogue state did not invade other countries at will, for no other reason than domestic political considerations.  Agression by a very powerful country very naturally frightens all other countries, as we saw in the 1930s and 1940s.  Would we say that the British of 1939 were 'anti-German' in the sense that they hated those krauts for their manners, sausages, and leiderhosen?  Perhaps, but irrelevant - the important geo-political disagreement then as now, was over naked agression.

You're really nuts if you compare the US to Nazi Germany in the 1930s.  And proof of that is in the behavior of the Europeans.  In the 1930s, they showed their fear of the Germans by bowing and scraping to them.  If they were so afraid of us, they'd be doing the same thing.  No, the French didn't like our invasion of Iraq because they lost money because of it, not because they fear American "aggression."  If they really feared American aggression, they'd be kissing our azz.

Not so.  Appeasement didn't last long - the invasion of Poland was met by a declarations of war.  And I certainly do compare the US to Nazi Germany, though you probably do make a good distinction that places like France do not fear being invaded.  No, the current number one rogue state seems inclined to confine its agressions to the colonial hinterlands.  Why?  Well, France has nuclear weapons, of course.  And perhaps more importantly, McDonalds.

Imagine yourself the ruler of a non-nuclear armed country today.  What comfort would it be to you that the US is only somewhat fascist?  The key is that it is a hugely powerful state which has demonstrated a national inclination to invade other countries without reason or provocation.  Scary stuff, whether ones lame excuses for it are 'WMD', 'he tortured his own people', or Leibenstraum (which by the way was stolen from our own Manifest Destiny, wasn't it?).

[Hitchabrut]

Saudis