@obi-wan-- probably rather a lot. But Wisconsin does have a history of progressivism and liberalism. We're the state that spawned Bob LaFollette. Plus the Mississippi Valley and the south of the state tend to always be liberal, despite being thoroughly rural.

Here's a thought that's sure to irritate more than a few: Why Europeans think Americans are boorish, think we think we rule the world, etc....I think it's based upon jealousy.

In a relatively short time of history, the Europeans lost their global reach as empires and were supplanted by the upstarts that went over to that new continent...

Not many will admit it, I'm sure, but it interesting that I often read of how little American's know of European history and culture....meaning that Europeans do...and therefore implying that they understand they went from masters of the world to having to seek our assistance very time there is a little global uprising.

I'm not saying this is the WHOLE reason for negative views of Americans...but it sure as hell has a lot to do with it.

Regarding the US fleet mouthing off over the radio when sailing through some straights...it's INTENTIONAL. Not that tough to figure out. "Hey, Iran...you stupid fucks....we know where all your shit is...and we have them ALL targeted. Try something...we dare you, you SPONSORS OF TERROR." yeah...the US would love to find an excuse to launch a few cruise missiles at the belligerent nation of Iran. You know, the country who sent a guy to the UN who called Bush the devil? So let's not get all up in arms if US troops throw back the insults, as if no Iranian has ever insulted an American. It's political saber rattling, and it's intended to keep a belligerent nation on guard from spreading it's wings too wide...

@ Krellin
I don't think jealousy has much to do with it, in all honesty. I can't really think of many Europeans who would prefer to be Americans. Indeed, for the average man in the street there is very little to be jealous of (perhaps less true in eastern Europe, but can't say for sure on that either). Most anti-American feeling, in my opinion, comes from disappointment. You have the potential to do so much good and lead the world to make progress on so many issues, and yet you consistantly fail to do so.

Well, let me try to respond, hope this will help:

1. I admit we Europeans have no right to irritate you by having an opinion. You're all eloquent and reasonable peace-loving people.

2. The argument that classical Greek and Roman culture, The Renaissance, etc. are no longer relevant because these nations have no nuclear arsenal it one I cannot beat.

3. I believe you should be targeting Venezuela, not Iran, if you want to settle the "devil" argument. Then again, "Axis of Evil" does not sound much nicer and what someone said in public was always a valid reason for war... but what do I know... I'm only European.

4. I always find it amazing how, of all people, it's always the crazy and ignorant ones that ask such questions :)

It's not jealousy dude, it's a feeling of superiority.

spot on OCT.
krellin , there may case for jealousy in elite circles in say France or England but the average man or woman on the street doesnt care about such things I think. Careful about terms like "sponsor of terror" , Im pretty sure the Iranians havent forgotten flight 665
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Haha, Ivo +1 :P
I know I would certainly not swap Britishness to be American! Only nation I could genuinely see myself moving to is New Zealand.

@krellin: What I said is not fully accurate about how Canadians see Americans. Most of our stereotypes are what we like to think you think and not really based on anything real.

@obiwan: You have the stereotypical Canadian right on the nose with your assessment!

Hey DJ, check out the stats on child gun deaths for America, the vast majority are killed by a gun owned by a family member, not the criminal bogeyman. I can go shootin' feral pests, foxes, goats etc and am quite capable of knocking them over with a "single" shot bolt action rifle, only a clown who can't shoot properly takes out an M16/Armalite or similar semi auto/fully auto assault rifle for "sports shootin" in my opinion. As to the ability to reform/improve a constitution, I would not presume to tell you what changes you should or should not make, I was, and am curious. Yes in Australia voting is compulsory so we get a good turn out at elections, so the winners have a genuine legitimacy. Of course if you don't vote it is not a hanging offence, the Electoral Commision send you a letter and provided you respond with any plausible reason why you didn't vote you get a simple OK, please vote next time otherwise we might fine you, you would have to have a record of failing to vote at several elections & failing to provide any excuse/reason before you got a fine. Remember we have had a stable democracy here for longer than a lot of other countries, without civil war(s) and gave women the vote long before most other nations. All the benefits of democracy and all you have to do is pay your taxes and get out and vote every few years. It might not be perfect, but if we waited for a perfect operating environment before doing anything, nothing would ever happen.

It's a shame that we are only starting to recognise the appalling way we treated our indigenous people, the aborigines for so long, but we have started the healing, but there is so much work still needed. One of the great things about Australia is we have people from just about every other country who have come here to live and make a better life for themselves and their families, racists who get too loud soon find themselves under siege from all quarters. As an aside i love the American comic genius, Lenny Bruce's "are there any niggers here tonight" monologue where he soon gets too " well we have 3 kikes 2 guineas 2 dikes, a couple of funky hunky brothers etc etc"

MM,
I think perhaps you should reread my post.
"Hey DJ, check out the stats on child gun deaths for America, the vast majority are killed by a gun owned by a family member, not the criminal bogeyman. "

At no time did I state my support for or opposition to gun control. I merely stated that I wasn't sure the majority of Americans were in support of gun control. You were trying to use that as an example of the flaw in the American Constitution. I was pointing out the fallacy of that argument.

"Yes in Australia voting is compulsory so we get a good turn out at elections, so the winners have a genuine legitimacy. "

In America, the apathetic don't vote. In a compulsory system, be compelled to vote doesn't mean you will educate yourself on what you are voting for. So your apathetic will go cast their vote for whoever has the better jingle, or whoever has the less (or more) sounding ethnic name, or the hot chick. Compulsory voting doesn't necessarily make for better results or a more educated electorate.

Then again, having CNN and Fox News yelling at you for a year doesn't make for an educated electorate either.

Agreed rudekker

@DJ: "Grenada, Panama" thanks, those are good examples. I was actually thinking of Grenada when I mentioned Haiti.

For me, I think the lesson is that intervention is not an absolute no-no but must only be done with an extremely good reason, achievable goals and no significant risk of escalation. Even then, doing so without international support, perferably a clear UN mandate, is likely to cause accusations of interventionism.

We're all pretty retarded in the end. This thread is proof.

@Amon Savag: "We're all pretty retarded in the end. This thread is proof." We are all dead in the end. I do not how this thread proves anything about our mental state prior to that.

Lol, I like Amon Savag's statement...

Rudekker, in Australia we have our own version of Fox News, the Herald Sun.

+1 Amon Savag

DJ I wasn't having a go at your position or non position on gun control as a form of personal criticism, and whether Americans wish to stay awash with guns or introduce gun control is their own decision to make. My personal opinion is that the need for better gun control in America is a "no brainer", particularly if you look into gun death/injuries in that country, and you are free to disagree or adopt a "let them choose, but I don't think they are interested" position. I think your position, if I have interpreted it correctly is quite reasonable, and it doesn't cause me to lose any respect for you. I do think that it would be dificult to sustain a logical argument that they should have more guns per capita and less control than they currently have, but emphasise it is for them to decide. I similarly think it is overkill to, for example go duck shooting with a level of "artillery" that verges on using surface to air missiles at times. I have a friend who shoots specific bird species on request for our state museum and he manages to do quite well with a "single shot" bolt action rifle that is relatively small bore, similarly I do not need a "semi auto" or "auto" to shoot foxes etc.
As to the merits of compulsory voting, whether another persons intellectual capacity and understanding of the political process meets some arbitary standard you, I or anyone else sets up to determine some "value" for their vote, I think is a rather patronising position to take, and in saying that I am NOT saying that is the position you have taken.
As to the wisdom or merits of international intervention, I do not necesarily agree that non intervention is axiomatically the best approach, sometimes any intervention, flawed and all is better than doing nothing, and a classic example of that is the English Prime Minister Chamberlan's (sorry about sketchy spelling) backdown to Hitler in 1938 (?) Again may I emphasise that I am NOT saying this is the position that you, DJ have taken on that issue.

Diplomat61 describes simply,but elegantly the criteria that should apply to intervention using force. I would add that often the best forms of intervention are non military and when our political leaders do not give non militarry options a serious try first they probably deserve serious domestic & international criticism.

A small problem with the Chamberlain arguement. While I think he shouldn't backed down, people forget that most of Europe was emerging from the Depression, and WW1 was still lurking in people's minds. And that example had nothing to do with foreign intervention.

Maybe the best thing, instead of intervention or non-intervention, is a healthy amount of pragmatism?

I will give an example using a complex and dificult issue, Iran's claim that it has the right to pursue it's nuclear ambitions. A simplistic summary of the west's response is that we have said "No way will we allow you to proceed, you cannot be trusted" and lot's of sabre rattling as well as some serious diplomatic efforts and use of economic measures. Now the term "nuclear technology" is a general, non specific term or description. The assumption is we mean, in the example of a "nuclear power plant" a fission based reactor using enriched uranium as a fuel, as that is the most common example, and that is apparently what they are trying to get going, and we know that from that capacity an ability to move to produce fission based nuclear bomb technologies and materials (enriched uranium and plutonium isotopes) results.
An emerging nuclear technology uses enriched Thorium as a nuclear "fuel" for fission based reactors. The principal nation that has developed this technology is India, and call me cynical, but the Indians have developed this technology as a result of their own domestic situation regarding their domestic deposits of Uranium and Thorium, and the requirements of their military. India has deposits of Uranium within it's borders, but they are relatively low grade deposits, unlike us in Australia and Canada with our high quality deposits. India has good quality deposits of Thorium. By being able to use enriched Thorium as a fuel (often in combination with enriched Uranium) they can meet the demand for electrical generation and still have plenty of Uranium for military purposes from their limited domestic reserves of Uranium.
It is possible to use exclusively enriched Thorium as a fuel for a fission based nuclear power plant, and it's what we will probably be doing in a few hundred years when we have used up most of our high quality Uranium reserves (if the human race is still here).
The notable difference between using enriched Thorium as a nuclear fuel compared to using enriched Uranium is that you get a different group of "by products", Thorium has a different "decay chain" of elements to Uranium, and generalising, they are less toxic and have shorter "half lives" than what is produced from Uranium. For example you get no plutonium, and as you are not using Uranium, cannot produce "weapons grade" Uranium.
I sometimes wish that we in the west would (to use a cricketing term) "go onto the front foot" and say to Iran "Fine, you say you want to use this technology exclusively for peaceful purposes, then if you are prepared to meet International inspection criteria,etc etc, we will help you build nuclear power facilities that use exclusively enriched Thorium, which we will sell you" and then watch them flap about like a wet chook trying to justify their supposed "peaceful" need to use Uranium based technology.

How do we respond when the Suadi's, the Kuwaiti's ( both allies of the "west") decide they want to go nuclear to prepare for the time when WE exhaust their oil reserves ? It might be useful to have the Thorium option ready to go before we arrive at that point in the future. Do I have a self interest in this, as an Australian, who is involved in Uranium mining and exploration, absolutely, I think we have approximately an estimated 30% to 40% of the world's known Thorium reserves to go along with all that Uranium we have. One of the "downhole" probes I use in Uranium exploration, & can maintain & repair emits high energy nuetrons, generated in an electrically energised "nuetron tube" containing dueterium gas (Hydrogen with an extra nuetron per atom) and a tritium (hydrogen with 2 extra nuetrons per atom) enriched platinum target anode. The "nuetron" tube is a spin off from a type of trigger device used in certain types of nuclear bombs. You want to find Copper and or Gold using electro magnetic technologies, Uranium using a variety of probes or tools, write my boss or his partners a seven figure cheque and take a ticket, we are fully booked, but will consider all requests (except Iranian's until they can demonstrate being worthy of our trust and attention) Bon Chance

Damn good points Largeham and Rudekker. I am glad we can discuss these isues without running off to grab a gun & opening up at each other

Interesting post Major. The Thorium option is new to me and looks very attractive, especially for the other countries that will inevitably want nuclear power in the future. Do you know why this is not being pushed by various governments currently talking to Iran?

MM
"I think your position, if I have interpreted it correctly is quite reasonable, and it doesn't cause me to lose any respect for you. "

What is my position? I don't believe I ever stated it. That was my point. You said
"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 amount of guns doesn't show that the Constitution lacks a mechanism for change - if 90% (a totally made up number to prove my point) of the people don't want gun control, how does the # of guns prove that the Constitution does not have a mechanism for change?!

MM
"whether another persons intellectual capacity and understanding of the political process meets some arbitary standard you, I or anyone else sets up to determine some "value" for their vote, I think is a rather patronising position to take,"

No, my point was with compulsory voting, you will get people who ADMIT they don't know or care about an issue casting a vote. Nothing to do with what I think.

boston MA formerly NY, NY
I was one of the half million who marched against the war in NYC feb 15 2003
As people tried to get to First Avenue they overflowed onto Second and Third Avenue traffic was at a stand still no one could go anywhere, cause the cops kept closing off streets heading north as 1st ave filled up. eventually they opened up 63rd st