Evil dictators

[HS Thomas]

"Evil Dictators" - is the term a conundrum ? I mean an oxymoron..
Now that Saddam has been captured , I suppose Osama bin Laden will be the next target. And after that Robert Mugabe. Who next ?
[ December 16, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Steven Broadbent]

maybe. I have heard the phrase benign dictator - but I can't remember who about.

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
"Evil Dictators" - is the term a conundrum ? I mean an oxymoron..
Now that Saddam has been captured , I suppose Osama bin Laden will be the next target. And after that Robert Mugabe. Who next ?

OBL has been a target for two years, but he's not a dictator. Mugabe is evil but physical, political, and economic facts make him difficult to remove. Mugabe has significant support from his fellow African Heads of State. Until that changes and he is isolated diplomatically he can rest easily.
Mugabe is a piker as dictators go. He probably hasn't killed more than a few thousand directly or indirectly. He's more in the Pinochet class than real killers such as Pol Pot, Stalin, and Saddam.
One other factor is that oil wealth enables a dictator to export his evil widely. Mugabe doesn't have the wealth to disturb his neighbors. If he invades another country the South Africans will squash him like a poxy cockroach.

[Randall Twede]

"evil dictator" might be redundant but not an oxymoron. an oxymoron is a term that is absurd such as "military intelligence" ;^)

[Steven Broadbent]

maybe that benign dictator was Bill Gates. Mugabe has took his country to the brink of economic collapse. Most of his people are suffering very badly indeed.

[Nick Allen]

Bill Gates is most definetly an Evil Dictator. He may not be killing to many people, but anyone who controls a monopoly of the magnitude of microsoft has to bear '666'.

[paul wheaton]

Dictator: isn't that a phallic potato?

[Ashok Mash]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
...Who next ?

That guy who runs North Korea, may be!? And then Iran, Burma, Syria, Saudi Arabia? Its going to be interesting, I suppose!

[Tim Baker]

Mugabe surely can't last much longer looking at what he's done to the country. The sad thing is that the other south african countries could get rid of him within a week without even resorting to military action. It really confuses me as to why they support him so much, he's starving his own people

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Ashok Mash:

Its going to be interesting, I suppose!

As long as one doesn't live there

[Ashish Agrawal]

Personally i support Saddam. Actually majority of indians support him...coz he isnt a terroist, it is America who made the world call him so. America is just making way for its hidden agenda...i.e. OIL in Iraq. If it is that concerned abt world peace and terroism, dont u think it should hav helped India first which is facing terroism since last 40-50 years?

[Steven Broadbent]

What about the tens of thousands of women and children he gassed? Not to forget
all the innocent people he tortured, the man in a psycopath and an inhuman barbarian.
I know a lot of Indians here in the uk and no-one supports Sadaam.
And you, despite the java ranch rule that we should be nice to each other I've got to say you are a 24 carat, grade A berk.

[Jeroen Wenting]

ah, the old false argument that the US only does it to get cheap oil.
Had the US really wanted cheap access to Iraqi oil they'd have accepted the Iraqi offer of favourable oil deals in exchange for lifting the UN sanctions (like France did).
The only people I've met who don't support the disposal of Saddam are either hardline leftists or those who have a pathological hatred of the USA (often these are the same people).

[Joe King]

... I guess that technically the Queen is a dictator.... and what about the Pope? He's a religious fundamentalist ruling a theocraticlly controlled country?
Anyway, after all the trouble keeping the peace in Iraq, I cant see America going after another country quite yet. Syria is the obvious target (they even have their own Ba'ath party), but it'll probably be a while. There is no way N Korea will be attacked any time soon. Iraq was attacked because we thought they *may* be able to hit us with WMD. N Korea wont be attacked because we know they *can*.
As for Mugabe, he may be an evil toerag, but he's a clever one. He's playing the race card as much as he can, and all the other African leaders are being pursuaded with it. Maybe they dont like the idea of a corrupt African dictator being removed because it makes them realise that they could be next. Countries like the UK and Australia are now stuck in a bit of a problem where by if they do anything against Zimbabwe they are called racist and the Commonwealth could fall apart. I guess they are just waiting for Mugabe to pop his cloggs, and see what happens next.

[Ashok Mash]

Originally posted by Joe King:
[QBThere is no way N Korea will be attacked any time soon. Iraq was attacked because we thought they *may* be able to hit us with WMD. N Korea wont be attacked because we know they *can*.[/QB]

I totally agree with that one!

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by Joe King:

Anyway, after all the trouble keeping the peace in Iraq, I cant see America going after another country quite yet. Syria is the obvious target (they even have their own Ba'ath party), but it'll probably be a while. There is no way N Korea will be attacked any time soon. Iraq was attacked because we thought they *may* be able to hit us with WMD. N Korea wont be attacked because we know they *can*.

Syria is quietly backpedaling a la Quadafi. North Korea won't be attacked for two reasons. China wouldn't like it and the US isn't going to get into a war with China. Bush is pursuing quiet diplomacy with the Chinese to get them to put the arm on North Korea, with considerable success. With NK brandishing it's A bomb South Korea and Japan will have to follow suite and quickly. China likes being the only atomic power in the area. The status quo suites China very well for now, and NK is shaking that up.....
The second reason the US won't attack the NK is that the NK army has 10,000 well dug-in artillery pieces overlooking Seoul and is quite capable of damaging the hell out of a bunch of civilians whether they have an A bomb or not. Destroying all that artillery would take the US army quite some time, and South Korea would take a lot of damage in the meantime.
[ December 17, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]
[ December 17, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]

[HS Thomas]

The next Saddam ? He boils his opponents in oil....
Published on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 by the Guardian/UK
Tony Blair's New Friend
Britain and the US Claim a Moral Mandate - and Back a Dictator Who Boils Victims to Death
by George Monbiot
"The British and US governments gave three reasons for going to war with Iraq. The first was to extend the war on terrorism. The second was to destroy its weapons of mass destruction before they could be deployed. The third was to remove a brutal regime, which had tortured and murdered its people. If the purpose of the war was to defeat terrorism, it has failed. Before the invasion, there was no demonstrable link between al-Qaida and Iraq. Today, al-Qaida appears to have moved into that country, to exploit a new range of accessible western targets. If the purpose of the war was to destroy Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before he deployed them, then, as no such weapons appear to have existed, it was a war without moral or strategic justification.

So just one excuse remains, and it is a powerful one. Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. While there was no legal argument for forcibly deposing him on the grounds of his abuse of human rights, there was a moral argument. It is one which our prime minister made repeatedly and forcefully. "The moral case against war has a moral answer: it is the moral case for removing Saddam," Tony Blair told the Labour party's spring conference in February. "Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is in truth inhumane."

Had millions of British people not accepted this argument, Tony Blair might not be prime minister today. There were many, especially in the Labour party, who disagreed with his decision but who did not doubt the sincerity of his belief in the primacy of human rights.

There is just one test of this sincerity, and that is the consistency with which his concern for human rights guides his foreign policy. If he cares so much about the welfare of foreigners that he is prepared to go to war on their behalf, we should expect to see this concern reflected in all his relations with the governments of other countries. We should expect him, for example, to do all he can to help the people of Uzbekistan.

There are over 6,000 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan. Every year, some of them are tortured to death. Sometimes the policemen or intelligence agents simply break their fingers, their ribs and then their skulls with hammers, or stab them with screwdrivers, or rip off bits of skin and flesh with pliers, or drive needles under their fingernails, or leave them standing for a fortnight, up to their knees in freezing water. Sometimes they are a little more inventive. The body of one prisoner was delivered to his relatives last year, with a curious red tidemark around the middle of his torso. He had been boiled to death.

His crime, like that of many of the country's prisoners, was practicing his religion. Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, learned his politics in the Soviet Union. He was appointed under the old system, and its collapse in 1991 did not interrupt his rule. An Islamist terrorist network has been operating there, but Karimov makes no distinction between peaceful Muslims and terrorists: anyone who worships privately, who does not praise the president during his prayers or who joins an organization which has not been approved by the state can be imprisoned. Political dissidents, human rights activists and homosexuals receive the same treatment. Some of them, like in the old Soviet Union, are sent to psychiatric hospitals.

But Uzbekistan is seen by the US government as a key western asset, as Saddam Hussein's Iraq once was. Since 1999, US special forces have been training Karimov's soldiers. In October 2001, he gave the United States permission to use Uzbekistan as an airbase for its war against the Taliban. The Taliban have now been overthrown, but the US has no intention of moving out. Uzbekistan is in the middle of central Asia's massive gas and oil fields. It is a nation for whose favors both Russia and China have been vying. Like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it is a secular state fending off the forces of Islam.

So, far from seeking to isolate his regime, the US government has tripled its aid to Karimov. Last year, he received $500m (�300m), of which $79m went to the police and intelligence services, who are responsible for most of the torture. While the US claims that its engagement with Karimov will encourage him to respect human rights, like Saddam Hussein he recognizes that the protection of the world's most powerful government permits him to do whatever he wants. Indeed, the US state department now plays a major role in excusing his crimes. In May, for example, it announced that Uzbekistan had made "substantial and continuing progress" in improving its human rights record. The progress? "Average sentencing" for members of peaceful religious organizations is now just "7-12 years", while two years ago they were "usually sentenced to 12-19 years".

There is little question that the power and longevity of Karimov's government has been enhanced by his special relationship with the United States. There is also little question that supporting him is a dangerous game. All the principal enemies of the US today were fostered by the US or its allies in the past: the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Wahhabi zealots in Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein and his people in Iraq. Dictators do not have friends, only sources of power. They will shift their allegiances as their requirement for power demands. The US supported Islamist extremists in Afghanistan in order to undermine the Soviet Union, and created a monster. Now it is supporting a Soviet-era leader to undermine Islamist extremists, and building up another one.

So what of Tony Blair, the man who claims that human rights are so important that they justify going to war? Well, at the beginning of this year, he granted Uzbekistan an open licence to import whatever weapons from the United Kingdom Mr Karimov fancies. But his support goes far beyond that. The British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, has repeatedly criticized Karimov's crushing of democracy movements and his use of torture to silence his opponents. Like Roger Casement, the foreign office envoy who exposed the atrocities in the Congo a century ago, Murray has been sending home dossiers which could scarcely fail to move anyone who cares about human rights.

Blair has been moved all right: moved to do everything he could to silence our ambassador. Mr Murray has been threatened with the sack, investigated for a series of plainly trumped-up charges and persecuted so relentlessly by his superiors that he had to spend some time, like many of Karimov's critics, in a psychiatric ward, though in this case for sound clinical reasons. This pressure, according to a senior government source, was partly "exercised on the orders of No 10".

In April, Blair told us that he had decided that "to leave Iraq in its brutalized state under Saddam was wrong". How much credibility does this statement now command, when the same man believes that to help Uzbekistan remain in its brutalized state is right? "

[Jeroen Wenting]

Ah, another example of that far-left newspaper called 'the Guardian'...
They've also called Arafat peaceful while he was busy orchestrating the murder of hundreds of Israelis.
They will call any terrorist fighting a communist cause 'freedom fighters'.
etc. etc.
In the past they were funded by the KGB, I wonder who funds them now...

[HS Thomas]

Regardless of the source, if the facts are true ,surely the cap fits.
That is ,the President of Uzbekhistan is an Evil Dictator.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Ashish Agrawal:
Personally i support Saddam. Actually majority of indians support him

It's good to know where people stand. It's good to know who the people are that support somebody responsible for the deaths of over a million people.
coz he isnt a terroist, it is America who made the world call him so.
Believe what you'd like. My assumption is that there is no evidence I could present here which would change the mind of people who have already chosen to believe the fiction that Saddam doesn't sponsor and support terrorism, so I guess we can leave it at that. However, this information is well documented, so if someone feels my assumtion is wrong, I would be happy to (yet again) post on this topic.
America is just making way for its hidden agenda...i.e. OIL in Iraq.
Again, believe what you'd like. I will point out though that if this was our goal we would have attained it in 1991 the first time we went into Iraq, and we would have "stolen" Kuwait's oil resources after we freed them. However, if you can present a convincing argument that this is our "hidden" agenda, I would be most happy to consider it.
If it is that concerned abt world peace and terroism, dont u think it should hav helped India first which is facing terroism since last 40-50 years?
How do you think "peace" is obtained? Are you willing to pay any price to for peace? I'm certainly not, some prices are too high. I'm sure we could have peace if we let the Islamists carry ou their agenda unobstructed, for example. The oppressed people of Afghanistan were certainly living in "peace" nder the iron fisted rule of the Taliban, would you be willing to "peacefully" live under those conditions?
Regarding India's terrorism... Much of it has been viewed as domestic, and as India has been a part of the Soviet bloc, we weren't exactly allies during the Cold War. Aside from that, our strongarming of Musharraf, forcing him to crack down on terrorism in his country, and the removal of Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, will have a direct affect on terrorism all over the region. However, if you believe that India needs our help with its terrorist problems, we are helping many countries (such as the Phillipines), so I'm sure all Vajpayee has to do is ask.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Joe King:
N Korea wont be attacked because we know they *can*.

Actually, the DPRK won't be attacked immediately because they will decimate Seoul and the millions of people who live in that area, simply though conventional artillery if nothing else.
However, as much as we are committed to not letting them have an effective nuclear weapons program, Japan is even more so. It would be a mistake to lose site of this.
If we (the ROK, Japan, and US) feel the cost of what they may do to Seoul is an acceptable tradeoff to removing their weapons, or we believe that we can mitigate what they will do, then we will go after their weapons.
As for Mugabe, he may be an evil toerag, but he's a clever one.
Mugabe is definitely someone that Europe should take care of. He falls squarely into the European sphere of influence and is a member of the Commonwealth. In fact, he is probably the best indication of what the EU will do with people like him, which so far, has been nothing really.

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Ashish Agrawal:
Personally i support Saddam. Actually majority of indians support him...coz he isnt a terroist

Sad to say, but the above statement truly reflects the majority Indian sentiment. I place the blame squarely on the EXTREMELY liberal and biased media there. And this is again another surprise to me because Rupert Murdoch controls much of the media there. (Come to think of it.. I've actually begun to like Rupert Murdoch now)

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Mugabe is definitely someone that Europe should take care of. He falls squarely into the European sphere of influence and is a member of the Commonwealth. In fact, he is probably the best indication of what the EU will do with people like him, which so far, has been nothing really.

You will find that europe has virtually no influence in south africa, and you will actually find that they were suspended from the commonwealth and then left of their own accord. That is all that the commonwealth can do, it is basically a trade association and has virtually no political influence let alone military. It is controlled by the member states, only one of which is a member of europe but all of which are former colonies. It's not surprising that most of the members are not eager to condemn another one of the members less the light fall on them. Not all of them are democracies themselves. When the neighbours of Mugabe do not wish to do anything there is nothing that can be done. You can't just parachute thousands of soldiers in to the middle of a country without a base and expect them to overthrow the government. The fact that it is a former colony is actually a reason why it is less of a good idea for britain to take military action, it would look a lot more like imperialism to the people living there are more likely to resist.
Problems that are within the sphere of influence of the EU are those former soviet states actually near europe, south africa is a bloody long way away.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
Problems that are within the sphere of influence of the EU are those former soviet states actually near europe, south africa is a bloody long way away.

"Sphere of influence" isn't about distance, it's about relations. The Phillipines, for example, despite being half a world away, are firmly in the US sphere of influence. Due to Europe's long tradition of involvement in Africa, Africa is generally considered to reside more in Europe's sphere of influence.

[Tim Baker]

well it is determined both by distance and current relations. since south africa doesn't have good relations with the EU in particular and it is a long way away, there is little influence. the history of colonisation on our part and slavery on the US part (generally) make relations troublesome with many african nations.

[Sonny Gill]

Originally posted by Ashish Agrawal:
aPersonally i support Saddam. Actually majority of indians support him

Ashish, the majority you are talking about here is the same one that elects convicted(or known) cirminals to the national parliament. There supporting Saddam does not make him a good man.
And chances are that if you ask someone from that majority about Saddam, I doubt they would be able to come up with any concrete facts, other than that he fought back America. Hell, some of them probabely like him for his mustache!
Probabely, most of those who support Saddam, simply do so because of their anti-America sentiment. Again Saddam's being anti american does not right all his wrongs.
For our other (non-Indian) friends on this forum, let me give you my take on the basis of anti-american sentiment in India. During the cold war era, USSR was supporting India, esp. in the Indo-pak rivalry. Infact, America probabley started supporting Pakistan to contain support for USSR in that region. And most of us in India grew up being taught that USSR was all good and America was all bad, that Stalin and Lenin were heros, and that people in USSR lived ideal lives. Ironically, the Indian communist parties and the ruling party were mostly at loggerheads (this last bit is just my impression). I think, slowly but surely, that anti-american feeling is diluting, and being replaced by more critical thinking.
Just to put things in prespective - I do not unconditionally support America either, and I do tend to think that many of the problems in Middle East, Afghanistan etc. are of America's own making. But I find it disgusting when people use that as a justification for horrible acts like the attack on WTC.
At the same time, our American friends here need to remember that many of the people with anti-american sentiment have seen death and destruction caused by 'weapons of destruction' made by U.S., whether directly supplied by U.S. or not, and as a result of American ( Government) policies, directly or indirectly.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ashish Agrawal:
Personally i support Saddam. Actually majority of indians support him...coz he isnt a terroist, it is America who made the world call him so. America is just making way for its hidden agenda...i.e. OIL in Iraq. If it is that concerned abt world peace and terroism, dont u think it should hav helped India first which is facing terroism since last 40-50 years?

So you support a man who is responsible for the deaths of 1 million people and has used poison gas on his own citizens? Very nice. As far as the US helping India, one might keep in mind that India was friends with the USSR during the Cold War. As to today, what exactly would you like the US to do about terrorists in India? Invade India?

[Ashish Agrawal]

U r right Sonny, an anti-american sentiment has evolved in India. This is because if u see from an Indian point of view, u ll feel its correct. Even media over here is discussing on "America's Hidden Agenda". Yesterday only i saw one on NDTV 24x7. Even experts agree with this. If u remember, during this osama-bin laden hunt, our PM was ready to give whatever support US needs, but there was no response from US government. Infact they supported Pakistan and then flooded them with lots of US currency. What i personally feel is this can be possible that later US may find Osama in Pakistan only.
One more thing is, after the WTC attack US immediately took action against Afganis, whereas when India tries to defend its borders from cross border terrorism, they call it as an offence...and say that its not good...both countries should start peace talks etc...so many times it has been proved that Pakistan supports terroism..directly or indirectly. but no one is taking any action against it...neither can India coz it dont want to oppose the world. India had stayed calm for last 50 yrs, but its the time to seriously think abt it and take some action. Pakistan has taken more than 30% of Jammu and Kashmir. Instead of giving it back to india, US is suggesting to make LOC as international border. What would hav US done if it were at India place? I think it is really sad. I dont want to hurt any American over here...but this is the fact what we are witnessing. any commnets on this are most welcomed.

[Devesh H Rao]

Originally posted by Ashish Agrawal:
U r right Sonny, an anti-american sentiment has evolved in India.

Hate would be a much exaggerated word to define the emotion it is more kind of mistrust.
The US practices double standards and it is not new. To give an example when India and Pakistan were involved in the 1971 war the Americans had sent in their pacific fleet into the Indian ocean to put pressure on the Indians while what India was doing then was similar to what US is doing now in Iraq more so something which was very much valid from India�s perspective as the refugees from the then east Bengal were flooding India and it would have created a security problem for India if this had been allowed to continue.
Similarly when India went nuclear a great hue and cry was raised as if only some countries have the right to the big-N. Even in Iraq for that matter America expects India to send troops but would it ask for the same in Afghanistan surely not as it would have angered the Pakistanis.
It expects India to open up the consumer market for American products but would pass a bill to prevent outsourcing.
American companies have patented traditional Indian medicinal treatment practices as in Tulsi and Neem herbs or Basmati rice (they even changed the name to Texamati  and expect us to pay the US companies for things which are our own to start off with. They say India is corrupt but we have the Enrons and Andersons as proof as where the pie really lies.
This list could go on but that would be a full scale rant and I am somehow trying to limit it to a half rant ���All said and done America is really great to have evolved as a nation from so much diversity that it has. It really is a melting pot where people really can do the best for themselves.
No double standards in here but I really do admire the Americans but also at the same time hope they mature a bit and learn humility instead of being the bully that it is trying to be in the world right now.
On second thoughts if we did a count of all the topics on MD which have branched off to a different topic than what is the main topic I won�t be surprised if we get a near cent percentage

[Ashish Agrawal]

One more thing i want to put focus on is, in the Iraq or Afganistan war, whenever even a single American soldier died, media around the world used to make it a very big news. On the otherhand, this is very common in India. Here our soldiers are dieing everyday. Not only the troops but the civilians are also facing the terorists....Bomb Blasts at public places, etc. Is it so that an Indian's life doesnt have any value? Why are the countries supporting anti-terrorism neglecting this?

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Sonny Gill:
Again Saddam's being anti american does not right all his wrongs.

Though I am not needed here but still just wanted make a point.
Being anti Iraq-war does not mean that person is pro-Saddam.
Now please continue.

[HS Thomas]

It expects India to open up the consumer market for American products but would pass a bill to prevent outsourcing.
American companies have patented traditional Indian medicinal treatment practices as in Tulsi and Neem herbs or Basmati rice (they even changed the name to Texamati ? and expect us to pay the US companies for things which are our own to start off with.
You are kidding aren't you ?
Basmati rice still has to be grown in India though ? Near the Himalayas ?
Which Indian politician was responsible for allowing the patenting. I am pretty sure the patenting process doesn't allow random patenting of foods around the world. Can India patent a Texan steer and call it a bullock ?
I am speechless...
Paving the way for bio-engineering....

[Pradeep bhatt]

Is it so that an Indian's life doesnt have any value? Why are the countries supporting anti-terrorism neglecting this?

I see 2 reasons
1. India is over populated
2. Indian is not rich country
[ December 18, 2003: Message edited by: Pradeep Bhat ]

[Pradeep bhatt]

It expects India to open up the consumer market for American products but would pass a bill to prevent outsourcing.

Very good point.
The new US Ambassador wants India to open up more for US companies.

[Jason Menard]

What on earth does any of this have to do with "Evil Dictators"?

[Thomas Paul]

The level of silliness is going up. "The US was mean to us in 1971!" Well that was more than 30 years ago and Richard Nixon was president. Nixon is dead so can we move on now? :roll:
As to the basmati rice patent issue, it is way overblown:
http://www.rediff.com/money/2001/aug/21rice.htm
The US does not expect India to pay for Basmati rice. A patent was granted for three varietal strains of basmati rice that were developed by RiceTec using cross breeding. Only if Indian farmers chose to grow any of RiceTec's varietal strains would they be required to pay Ricetec.

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The level of silliness is going up. "The US was mean to us in 1971!" Well that was more than 30 years ago and Richard Nixon was president. Nixon is dead so can we move on now? :roll:

So if you want another country to forget about something all you have to do is kill the head of state from that time? cool!

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
So if you want another country to forget about something all you have to do is kill the head of state from that time? cool!

The question is, how long do you hate the US for something it did? Should we despise Germany because of World War II? I will bet that most of the Indians complaining about the US weren't even born in 1971. But if we are allowed to hold grudges for indeterminate periods of time then I am going to despise India because they supported the USSR during the Cold War.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The question is, how long do you hate the US for something it did? Should we despise Germany because of World War II?

Personally, I'm still pissed off at the Brits for taxing us so heavily back in the 1600's and 1700's, and that whole Boston Massacre thing totaly was not called for. Let's also not forget the Mexican's and the Alamo. I still harbor a grudge over that one to this day. :roll:

[paul wheaton]

I often feel great pride in being an American. And I often feel great shame in being an American. And for both cases it is usually about something that I have absolutely no control over.
I vote regularly. I suppose that makes a small difference.
I know I've heard all sorts of mixed messages about what people think of Americans. I suppose all of it is justified, although I hope that when one of these folks encounters an American, they won't hold that one individual responsible for things they cannot control.
I suppose that if folks want to see the united states do the right thing, it would come through voting. I suppose that this forum is an opportunity for folks from other countries to persuade Americans on how to vote. Who we have as president will definitely make a difference in how we treat other countries. And the presidential elections are coming up ...