"When our opening alliance solicitation was, "Go along with what we want or go screw yourself, you traitorous smelly foreign wimpy scum!", it's not surprising we had a lot of rebuffs."
"Please show me where we took a different tone in the runup to the Iraq invasion."
To the contrary, the Prez didn't call anyone "traitorous smelly foreign wimpy scum!" Nor did he tell them to "go screw yourself." What he said was to the effect, "if you support or tolerate terrorism, we will consider you opposed to us." And, in the heat of the post 9-11 days, I don't consider that excessive. Six years later, the rhetoric has cooled considerably.
The fact that some nations, notably China, Russia and France, chose to ignore the call for help and even work against US interests, is indicative not of lack of the US trying to build a consensus against terrorism, but rather of those countries trying to benefit themselves to the detriment of the world community in general and the United States in particular.
The continuing sentiment that "the US can do nothing right, especially with Bush as Prez" is pretty annoying. And it certainly isn't the "View from the Center."
"...the tone of your reply and the accusation that goes with it are not appropriate for this thread..."
And the tone of the comment prompting that reply also doesn't fit the "personality" of this thread. When a normally rational person such as you makes a rabid statement not fitting reality, what are readers supposed to assume? You're the thread boss, you can do as you choose, accept it or not. |
