[steel_resolve]

HAHA weso enjoy being pricks don't we gearhardt?"

Yes we do Jacques. Good thing stabbing America in the back doesn't come with any consequences hunh?...uh..."

[Felis_irritable]

"It's very rude to say these people want to help al-Qa'eda. They don't."

And how, exactly, does he know this ?

[omega4412]

"unwittingly"? "inadvertently"?

[Rembrandt_fan]

The article read, "Mr Downer gave warning that criticism of America's conduct in Iraq could – inadvertently – provide an incentive for terrorist attacks."

There is and has been nothing 'inadvertent' about support for Al-Queda by summertime allies--France, particularly. The sole claim to international standing that wretched, ungrateful land possesses is its seat on the UN Security Council. From the French perspective, a confident, assertive America is the major obstacle to the UN assuming a viable role as a genuine arbiter of international affairs. An America beaten into defeatism and isolationism would allow France to assume its place as a kind of diplomatic fulcrum, lending its weight to those issues and power blocs that further French interests, whatever those interests might be. French interests may vary over time, but its desire to assert what it believes is its historical leadership role in world affairs hasn't changed since 1787.

This all sounds like tinfoil-hat stuff, I know, particularly the part about the UN, but it's the only explanation I can come up with to explain seemingly inexplicable French motivations. The Chinese and Russians have their own agendas, as well, but at least--by comparison with the French--their goals are straightforward. To give enemies their due, the Chinese and Russians come at you like men, from the front, with clear intentions.

[Billthedrill]

Posted on a duplicate thread -

An excellent point, actually, but it's falling on deaf ears. One of the chief reasons that anti-Americanism has become such a first resort in European intellectual life is that it has always had no negative consequences at all. One may invoke it, appear a brave and dissenting figure, a fierce and independent critic, etc ad nauseun, and still the stupid Americans had to maintain, say, a missile shield or lose the Cold War.

The world has changed but not, alas, the behavior. Downer is correct in pointing out that now there are negative consequences to this profoundly self-satisfying behavior and the question is whether a frank assessment of the risk on the part of the critics will outweigh the considerable egocentric benefits of anti-Americanism.

My guess is that it will not. These are largely persons who prefer being regarded brave and independent to actually being so in reality - the latter carries its own risks, as the late Oriana Fallaci exemplifies. Downer is correct, IMHO, but he might as well have saved his breath.

[Cindy]

On another note...

Anti-Americanism by Americans lifts up our enemies, too.

---

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=antiamerica
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=antiamerican
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=unamerican