Obiwon,
I do wish you'd stop thinking that you are the mouthpiece of Americans, that you have the pulse of the American people at your fingertips. You just make shit up.

"You'll find the few Americans, Octavious, who don't spend all day long staring at the idiot box (not even that TV itself is bad, but TV TODAY IS) or texting all day or stuck in a dead end job...

Those few, maybe 2%, but still there, Americans who READ and go to plays and listen to music that ISN'T all about rape and beating women and blasting with no rhythym whatsoever..."

Where did this come from? You got in trouble in another thread stating that when an American hears the word Germany, they instantly think 'Nazi'. Did you learn nothing from that thread?

Foreign policy isn't a matter of Right or Left.
To strenghten my reputation of egocentric french asshole let me remind you : In politics the term left wing derives from the French Revolution, as brave Montagnard and Jacobin deputies from the Third Estate generally sat to the left of the president's chair, a habit which began in the Estates General of 1789. The Monarchist and Religious deputies sat to the right. In fact the leftists were more pro-war than the rightist.
So basicaly Leftists are for changement and social reformation, Rightist are against.

What, so I'm not allowed to express my opinion?

That's all this is, DingleberryJones- an opinion. You can decide whether it carries weight or not, obviously you don't think it does. That's fine. But I'm still entitled to take up my position nevertheless.

And, I am NOT the mouthpiece for Americans- I'm merely an American with a mouth and a mind (you can decide which is larger.) ;)

If you don't like my interpretation and views on America, countries, philosophy, or whatever else, fee free to say I'm a moron and disregard- just have something better for your own opinion, then.

I'm a mouthpiece for my standpoint- and as an American, that includes my standpoint as an American, and on America herself.

I can't speak for Americans or even for all my fellow Canadians but in Canada, the stereotype of Americans is that they would like to make us the next state (an idea only true 200 years ago.) Also, we like to think that they think that we live in igloos and travel by dogsled because it's perpetually winter. It's true that we have a lot of Arctic, but most of the country is not very different from your northern states (not Alaska!) I think that especially the prairies have only slight variations between Canada and the states.

@ chamois: "So basicaly Leftists are for changement and social reformation, Rightist are against. "

I don't think this defines the American "Right" at all...that Rightest are against change and social reformation. I am conservative - right - and think that our society could stand to go through a hell of a lot change and social reformation. The problem is the political left in this country has successfully hijacked terminology such that people associate conservative with stagnant, which is far, far from the truth.

@obiwan : I think DJones' point is that when you make the statement "All Americans x..." you are assuming the mantle of mouthpiece for all. It really isn't that difficult to understand his argument. Your (rather ridiculous) broad generalizations as quoted above...about TV, Germans, and I assume a plethora of others...are rather presumptuous statements categorizing all around you....kind of like a mouthpiece. If you can back these generalization with actual facts, then you are simply passing on a truth. If you are simply stating these things based upon your small realm of friends and acquaintances, then you are overstepping your authority to make such statements. (Yes....small realm. There are over 300 million in the country...I doubt you know the viewing habits of all, etc.) Perhaps you should take his advice and simply learn to phrase things better. "In my experience it seems that..." as opposed to "Most Americans..." I'd say DJones tends to be a rather intelligent, thoughtful commenter...you would do well to listen to him in order to more effectively make your points.

@gman - I don't know any Americans that want to make Canada another state. Not saying they don't exist...but even living next door (Detroit area) I don't hear such talk.

Regarding Americans, contrary to popular opinion and the inevitable Olympic dress code, not all Americans are 10-gallon hat-wearing cowboys! lol

Some of us don't wear hats AT ALL.

When I feel like loathing myself, I wear a french beret. (JUST KIDDING chamois!)

When I feel like loathing myself, I put on a 10-gallon hat. With spurs. Then I head out to the Indian reservation.

berets are cool. Btw cowboys hats are associated with gayness in France ^^

Really? The only gay sort of haberdashery that I can think of are motorcycle hats.

Actually, the beret took a big step up on the coolness scale when the US Army adopted it. :P

cowboy hats? gay? oh man Nashville must of just become the gayest city in America then replacing San Fransisco.

OK, I didn't think I was wording that so it could be interpreted "All Americans are like x..." but as that's how it's been taken, I'll be a tad more careful.

As myself, as AN American, and not THE American or ALL Americans...

@gman:

I know of Americans who would joke about making Canada #51 (myself included, making that joke) but only jokingly, no American I know, nor I, really seriously want that... and the only real stereotype I can think of that MOST Americans I know (is this being careful enough?) would ascribe to the Canadians would be hockey... I think Canada, and I just think a hockey stick in most youngsterss and fathers' hands and some good maple syrup... and Mounties (OK, I lied- that's 3 stereotypes, not 1.) ;)

@krellin:

I would attempt to define the difference between the American Left and Right as:

-The Left is generally based in the Northeast/West Coast with some smatterings all around, depending on the popularity of the current President
-The Right is generally based in the South/Midwest, with some smatterings all around, depending on the popularity of the current President
-The Left tends to want to focus on helping (first and most) the middle & lower class
-The Right tends to want to focus on helping (first and most) the middle and upper class
-The Left will tend to push more for what it will deem "Civil Rights" and "Opportunity"
-The Right will tend to push more for what it will deem "Defense" and "National Security"
-The Left's philosophy is exemplified (a bit) by Locke, Stuart Mill, and John Lennon :p
-The Right's philosophy is exemplified (a bit) by Hobbes, Aristotle, and John Wayne :p
-The Left feature such sad creatures as Reid, Pelosi, and MSNBC's media team :p
-The Right feature such sad creatures as Cheney, Palin, and FOX's media team :p
-Typically, the Left is younger, more diverse, and treat elections as a chance for change
-Typically, the Right is older, more Euro in ancestry, and treat elections as a civic duty
-The Left, when spun by the Right to appear "evil," is portrayed as a socialist consortium
-The Right, when spun by the Left to appear "evil," is portrayed as a facist movement
-The Left TENDS to have more of a base of support in those in defense of The Arts
-The Right TENDS to have more of a base of support in those in defense of Gun Rights
-The Left, is, over the Right, generally MORE linked to Gay Marriage
-The Right, is, over the Left, generally MORE linked to Creation Science
-The Left has such past leaders as Jefferson, TR, FDR, the Kennedys, and Bill Clinton
-The Right has such past leaders as the Adams Lincoln, TR, Ike, Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes
-The Left, as fanciful and pie-in-the-sky as it can be, DOES care about the US
-The Right, as trigger-happy and pro-status-quo as it can be, DOES care about the US

(Oh, how soundly are those many points going to be challenged!) ;)

Remember, its just MY OPINION! OPINION DISCLAIMER- I DO NOT, HAVE NOT, AND, FOR THE GOOD OF THE NATION, HOPEFULLY WILL NOT EVER SPEAK FOR ALL AMERICANS EVERYWHERE!

;)

Hey, I'm a damn hippie (albeit a well-groomed one that goes to mass weekly), but I'd like to pretend that I have absolutely no connection to that douchebag Reid or that vampire Pelosi. I'd prefer to think about Frank Zeidler, Bob LaFollette, and Dorothy Day.

Also, I'd disagree with that broad assessment of where liberals and conservatives are. It's more an urban/suburban split. The Midwest is a bit mixed: Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota are pretty Democrat; Missouri, Indiana, and the Plains are usually pretty Republican. Ohio and Iowa can go either way.

South tends to be more conservative. well it is the bible belt too.

I agree with rudekker - Left/Right is Urban vs Suburban/Rural. I wonder why that is? I suppose it's because those in "the city" tend to look to government for more services...make my bus/trains run on time, blah blah blah while us country folk can do it our damned selves, thank you very much and if I need some help with my rent or a meal, I'll call my church first, then my neighbors. I think "distance" tends to bring about more individualism and self-reliance, which I think is distinctly NOT a trait of liberalism (takes a village, wealth distribution, everything is a "right"....)

I'll buy Urban/Rural as the splitting point, that'd fit the Northeast/Pacific Coast tending to be more liberal and the South tending to be more conservative... and that works better than my version when applied to the Midwest.

Why is it that way?

I agree and disagree with your reasoning, krellin.

It IS that Ubran=more involvement generally, rural=less, but I think for a different reason.

The Urban centers, NYC, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, Hartford, Providence, San Francisco, Portland... those centers are all pretty high on what we might call "refined" things. An example being theatre; the Metropolitan Opera House and Broadway in NYC, Hollywood and the Theatre District with LA, Boston's high on opera and theatre and symphony houses, same with Portland and SF and Hartford and the others. In these places, government becomes a big theme; think of all the great plays and movies that have to deal with freedom or government or opression or natural rights or people struggling in economic hardhips... the urban centers have such an influx of this sort of thinking, and the media makes these ideas, from which ever slant they present it from, so prevalent, that I think those in the urban centers, growing up with that, can't help but think about govenment more. What's more, and what I agree with you on, the DO care, very much, about the bus stops and subways and regulations for businesses and corporate this and that... so legalities play a larger part in their life.

The rural centers, by contrast, I think (again, this is just MY OPINION) both are and see themselves as being more self-contained and self-defined. Where the urban centers are constantly changing what they champion in many ways, as their political opinions constantly work towards change for this or that, those in rural centers feel relatively safe from the winds of change; to use a stereotype with the best possible intentions, if your fatehr worked a plot of land, and his grandfather, and his, and you can trace your ancestry aback and they've all been farmers or worked in the fields or with animals or in the miltary or some other sort of outdoors-related profession, why, you, most likely, will take that route as well. Also, I'd argue that the urban centers, as another side effect of the cultural influx and the fact they're always debating about how to change things, are more prone to be, shall we say, philosophical over religious, taking those terms just for the sake of this argument (even though in realtiy this is FAR too close-fisted a definition) to mean that "philosophical" means constantly arguing WHAT is True, and "religious" to mean set in accepting one ideology, for hundreds of years, AS True. In the urban centers I think (just a hunch) that you'll find more agnostics, off-shoot religions, atheists, and people who are just "open" and are willing to here many different views of what's right and wrong and true and false and then for themselves make a determination what they think, whereas in rural centers the dominant religion (and in America, nearly everywhere in rural areas, that simply means whatever form oc Christianity is most popular, but Christianity and thus the Church and Bible) is THE answer, THE compass for right or wrong, its much more set in stone... and in tradition.

I'd say the split is because those of us in cities have to see our neighbors and have to tolerate every damn thing they do. Those folks in cities can do more, because there isn't anyone out in the country to get pissed at them.

But that said, there is a strong rural Democrat presence in the Midwest as well. If you look at the last election at least, the rural areas in Wisconsin and Minnesota tended to go blue.

@rudekker:

Yes, but how much of that was actually true liberalism, and how much was "Pick the candidate with the "D" next to their name because I've HAT IT with Bush and the GOP!"

@obiwanobiwan: It was a chalk outline drawn on a wet bar top by a guy who'd been drinking. How accurate do you think it was?

Part of the reason for the "Damn Yankee agreesors!" is arrogance and attitude. Example:The American fleet sails through the Straits of Hormuz. There is plenty of radio chatter on unencrypted channels between the ships talking about Iranians, radar sites, airfields, ports <all targets>, how crap their forces are and using the word "Ragheads" a lot. The British fleet sails through the Straits of Hormuz in silence. If they must communicate then they do so using lasers point to point.

@obiwan2: in living memory the UK, The Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Italy and Belgium (bless 'em) all had overseas empires. Most European countries have been subject to intervention in the same period and almost all have experience of intervening either through the UN, NATO or individually.

So Europeans have a pretty good idea of what interventionism (the word you were searching for) brings. Which is probably why most of them don't like it when governments, including our own, do it without bloody good reasons, a reasonable chance of success and minimal risk of kicking off a nuclear conflict.

I think you should see European disapproval of (some) American overseas policies as a friend not wanting you to make the same mistake that we have already made. We have much more in common than we have differences, sadly it is human nature to overlook the former and focus on the latter.

"I think you should see European disapproval of (some) American overseas policies as a friend not wanting you to make the same mistake that we have already made. "

I have never viewed European protests at American intervention that way. And even after you suggest that, I still can't see it that way. I always view it as 'You boorish Americans think you own the whole world and can boss everyone around, and we're so much more cultured than you.'

I think DJs probably closer to the mark there, although there are elements of truth.
i think its more along the lines of "We know we did terrible things, isn't it great we're all more sophisticated now. Oih you, follow Protocol".
America's policy of ignoring or avoiding international agreements on key issues has rubbed Europe up the wrong way (eg climate change, Iraq)

Good contribution Diplomat61, those of us who are lucky to live in nations where democracy and rule of law apply should be working together, there are too many people in the world oppressed and misled by those who espouse the extreme/intolerant and use violence. With great power comes great responsibility, I wonder how China will handle it's growing power. I am curious about the way so many Americans do not participate by voting in elections, and this allows well organised groups to wield greater influence than they should really have, eg the conservative christian political organisations. I also think the American constitution lacks a mechanism for change, look at the domestic problems caused by the incredible amount of guns and the inability to reform their constituion regarding the right to bear arms. The new series, following "Band of Brothers" called "The Pacific" gives you an insight into the great amount of goodwill that Australians of my parents generation have for America, The British would have let us go the way of Hong Kong, Singapore in WW2, it was only a very determined Australian Prime Minister, Curtin, who insisted that battle experienced troops ( many of them our famous"rats of tobruk") be returned from Egypt/North Africa to Australia to help defend against the Japanese. Try converting the amount of money America poured into post war reconstuction in Europe after WW2 into today's dollars/pounds/deutchmarks/euro's, it was an incrediblely generous act. All of this does not mean I think America is without fault, who of us, as persons and nation states are without human frailties. As Diplomat61 suggests we need to remember what we have in common, and I would add, just how magnificent we can be when we put the common good above self interest. Now if you will excuse me there's some one I have to go and backstab so badly ( just kidding)

MM,
The Constitution does have a mechanism for change - Amendments. And the GOOD thing is that it is not by majority vote. Otherwise, every 4 years the Constitution would be changing as the wind blows.

As for gun control, I'm not sure the majority of Americans would vote for that, so I'm not sure your point has merit. They may - I don't know, haven't checked any surveys, but there are many many states where you will never be able to pass gun control.

As for participation in elections (Did I read that Australia has mandatory voting?? At least according to Wikipedia - I'm not sure thats the best way to go either), yeah, it sucks.

Beside which, the religious right, as you noted, has more power in the Senate, because their power base is in smaller states. So the 'religious right' in Iowa has the same power as liberal California in the US Senate, even though California has 12 times the population.

No doubt, European criticism of American interventionism is driven by a range of motives/attitiudes, including Figles' good point about following protocol, and probably varies by subject too.

Apart from differences on principle I am sure criticism would be less if the track record was better. Aside from the humanitarian interventions, such as Haiti following the earthquake, what are the successful interventions, European & American, of the last 30 years? The Balkans (eventually and very painfully), Sierra Leone, Haiti (UN mission in 2004) and possibly GW1 are all that I can think of.