@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
It's probably this paragraph that most irks the likes of Finn and Mr. Soggy.
Quote:And with George Bush's blood-drenched presidency still fresh in the memory, it's only to be expected that 81% want to see the less belligerent Barack Obama re-elected. Only in Pakistan, target of relentless civilian-slaughtering US drone attacks, do a larger number prefer his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney.
I can't speak for H2O but it doesn't irk me in the least.
As long as the rest of the world doesn't need the US to save their bacon (oops, sorry if that offended any Muslims out there), it's only natural that they would want a disengaged America making peace with its alleged decline.
I've no doubt that if I was a European I would find it irritating that I had no ability to influence the government that had far more influence on world affairs than my own, and I might find it appealing to favor the US presidential candidate who showed the least inclination towards maintaining a vigorous US foreign policy.
I'd like to think that I might have the foresight to understand that the world is an unpredictable and dangerous place and based on history, if nothing else, there's likely to come a time when I and my nation might be relieved that there is a truly democratic superpower...even if the price for that failsafe is having to put up with what I might perceive to be bellicose arrogance.
But no, it doesn't irk me.
It amuses me though when I appreciate from where the Guardian's and like minded Europeans are coming from when they endorse Barack Obama.
For the sake of argument, let's assume the Guardian is accurate in describing the Bush presidency as "blood-drenched."
Even the Guardian can't charge that the red stains in the Oval Office were the due to the blood of Brits and Europeans.
Yes, Brits and other Europeans lost their lives and limbs in the Iraq and Afghan wars but is the Guardian or you contending that George Bush is responsible for that loss of blood? That he forced the leaders of the UK and Europe to send troops to these wars?
Are you really willing to admit to an entire continent's emasculation, by a US president?
No of course not, and so the blood stains are from the dead and torn bodies of innocent Muslims.
Well, by the estimation of the Guardian, Pakistan has suffered the most in this regard due to the US drone attacks so prized as a security and political weapon of President Obama and so they are only ones rooting for Romney.
And yet the Guardian and (by their account) the rest of the world (not to mention you) prefer Obama over Romney.
It makes you wonder if the Guardian et al are really that concerned about the loss of innocent blood.
It's hard to imagine how a US president who approved a surge in the Afghan war and personally selects the targets of US drone attacks (knowing full well the possibility if not likelihood of collateral deaths) would not have his presidency described by the Guardian as "blood-drenched."
Proving once again that the Left is far more motivated by ideological politics than pronounced principles.