"He could apologize to Japan for Hiroshima, then he could apologize to the Indians"

You say that as if it's a bad thing, a wrong thing.

I get it that apologizing for dropping a bomb on an enemy during wartime seems silly, but generally the "apology" or "regret" there is about the 65 years of disease, cancers and birth defects that followed due to radiation and pollution. The innocent people who were injured after the war because of the nuclear bomb.

And do you seriously think that the US government did nothing wrong vis à vis the Native Americans? Things that need to be rectified and apologized for? Why would it be wrong to apologize for that?

To turn this inside out to other threads... I'd be ok if, instead of Christianity, we had a faith system here in America where every morning we all wake up and say a prayer of sorrow and thanks to those that came before us here. And that was it. "Thanks, Coastanoans, and sorry about being enslaved by Spanish Missionaries.."

Because what else can we do, but keep it as part of the social consciousness? We can't undo that kind of damage. You'd go insane just thinking of the ramifications. But we're here now. Can't undo that.

Might make us a slight bit more enlightened to remember things like that, though.

Mike, it's just a game, or an acting. Even if politics gets really mad at som points, those are minors. There just here to guarantee that the important things won't change.

There a some industry (weapons & military, medical, banking & economic, and maybe Hollywood & music) that are daily dealing with billions.
Their spare money is millions : the price of your house, even of your neighbourhood is nothing for them.

Imagine, war is a good time for the millitary industry, we can all understand that, but peace too : trainning troopers cost (bullets), helicopters 's got to be fixed, and so on.

Now, if you are that powerfull, and to keep that going, you have to be friend with the two major politicals groups : you won't risk to be just friend with A when there's a risk that B win the elections, do you ?
And you've got the money, aka the connections, to have friends in both side.
That way, either A or B wins, business is still continuing.

That's why Obama did minor change, did not pull back troops from Afghanistan or Irak, and his major move was to help the banks, while they were responsible from the economical crisis.

Please understand that, by not being an american, i don't have to be democrat or republican. So i don't have to choose or like a side.

In all fairness to Obama - he did pull down the troop levels in Iraq, as he said he would, and he did put a surge in Afganistan, as he said he would. This was all exactly what he said he was going to do, and it made sense. The organization behind the terrorist attacks came from Afganistan, not Iraq. We never should have went to Iraq.

As for helping the banks - part of me agrees with you about how it is a snow job for the rich, but the reason the banks were given loans (which they have repaid) was to keep credit alive in America. The banks were prepared to freeze all credit - which sounds good in theory - who wants more debt? Except that the reality is that almost everything that happens in America is done on credit. Very few people buy a car or a house or an education with a bag of paper money. Everything is credit. Want to open a small business? Credit. In the hospital for more than a week? Better have credit. Etc.

Now - that fact reveals that our whole system is built on a precarious house of cards - but that's the house we live in, and if credit ended, we would be killing each other for human meat in America.

Keeping the banks alive, which kept credit alive was what saved America from complete collapse.

I get your point, however. Speaking as a lefty, I've spent my whole life speaking out against the banks - so in a perfect world, they would just go away. But at this point, they are so ingrained into our society, they can not go away without destroying the whole system.

All in all, I don't think Obama is doing a bad job, and I do think he's different from the previous President in that his actions are intellegent and well-thought out and aim to better everyone, not just the elite. Having said that, I would hope that you, being neither a democrat nor republican, and thus, having no "dog in the race" as we say here, might repeat your points for the benefit of our American friends who think Obama is some sort of Socialist.

The more Europeans we have who can say that he is NOT a Socialist (because who would know better than you guys, right?) the less they can legitimately play that particular political game, no?

And do you seriously think that the US government did nothing wrong vis à vis the Native Americans? Things that need to be rectified and apologized for? Why would it be wrong to apologize for that?

Obama is not a socialist.

You know Bernie Sanders, the only admitted Democratic Socialist in the US Congress? He's a Moderate Centrist. Over here, he'd be considered on the far right fiscal conservative, pro-military end of the Social Democratic scale. Or even as moderate conservative who would only be considered a socialist because he identifies himself as one.

Ok. Now measure the distance from Bernie Sanders to Obama, who is somewhere in the centre, perhaps even a bit to the right, in US politics. That is how far Obama is from the outer edges of socialism.

Obama's actual policy is even to the right of every right wing government we've had ever (in Norway) on most issues.

That's how "Not Socialist" he is.

"its that "apology atmosphere" that Obama and the left promote that has brought us to a world where everything America has done needs to be apologized for "

Well, Superman renouncing his citizenship was, as I've said, stupid and politically naive on the part of the writer and whoever in editorial who decided to let it stand.

And no-one over here in Europe has suggested that America needs to apologize for everything they've done. Only what they've done wrong, and the ways in which the Bush administration deliberately misled its allies around the world, how members of congress went out of their way to ridicule, belittle and offend those of their allies who called Bush on his lies. Etc.

America did a lot of wrong under the Bush administration, and Bushalienated most of the US' strongest allies, to the point where there was serious talk as to whether Europe should have a shared NATO defense that doesn't include the US.

That would mean stripping the US of army bases in Europe, limiting their access to European "areas of interest" and restricting their intelligence gathering within those areas of interest.

Do you seriously think that the popular revolts against Arab leaders would have been possible if Obama hadn't cooled down tensions so that the US became less of a "Big Bad" than the tyrants who ran these places?

With McCain-Palin in power, running a Bush-like foreign policy, people in Arab countries  (and Iran) would be so busy protesting the moronic US foreign policy that they'd have no thought for internal reform, democratic or otherwise.

Mike,
About Obama, for what i know.

He may have pull down some troops in Irak, but they were replaced with … private army, such as Black Water. So less civilians, still an american controle.

In Afghanistant, he delayed the pull back. Wich is a way of keeping theme there.

Now, just look closer to a few things.

The whole Irak invasion was based on reports stating that massive destruction weapons were there. Wich even Bush say it was wrong. So, wrong pretext.
Wich caus the death of what, 50 000 americans and much much more irakians.
So, someone apparently didn’t do his job rigth.

In Afghanistan, the idea was because Ben Laden was reported as « being there ». So the invasion started, apparently without locating him precisely previously.

Many death in both side (event french) and a villain that looks more like Bond’s Bloffeld, hidding in his secret vault with a white cat.

« He’s there, he’s there. »

Look like someone didn’t do his job rigth.

Those terrorist has the bad habit to always go where the land has ressources, it seems.

Now the banking. When the FED lower the rate, it has for effect that borrowing money was cheaper. Also, bad credits were done.

Now, all those financials are professionals, they did study a lot of years, and have people to control their work.

Yet, its a MAJOR crisis. And anybody would be a fool thinking that, just as rain or tornadoes, « shit happens ».

Look like someone didn’t do his job rigth.

Now, Obama, by not condemning thoses things, did in fact, approved them.

but the reason the banks were given loans (which they have repaid) was to keep credit alive in America

Yes , I heard that.

But you have to realise that maybe, credit is what put people in deep deep shit.

There used to be a survival rule that was : « eat what you can », wich was a way for humans to live in harmony with their lands.
It has became « buy what you can (and be wise enough not to wish what you can’t afford) », yet, still a survival rule.

Now, it’s just : buy now, pay later.

Now - that fact reveals that our whole system is built on a precarious house of cards - but that's the house we live in, and if credit ended, we would be killing each other for human meat in America.

Keeping the banks alive, which kept credit alive was what saved America from complete collapse.

The fact is it’s still a house of card, and it will collapse, soon or later (in fact, soon).

The only thing is to inject money, just as the farmers used to feed the monster that live in the woods for he does not eat theim (or take their kids away).

Yet, it’s ticking clock.

As long as people will think that a guy like Madoff is responsible for the crisis, they won’t see that it’s the whole system that’s responsible of that.

America is not saved. And how could it be ? The dollars isn’ based on gold (a real, physical value). It’s just like art : the price is what people are willing to pay for it.

Politics are just here for the people not noticing this : lets debate about the gay mariage (just an example) instead of debating of the situation, and how we ended here.

America did a lot of wrong under the Bush administration, and Bushalienated most of the US' strongest allies, to the point where there was serious talk as to whether Europe should have a shared NATO defense that doesn't include the US.

Hm. I'll bet no one in Europe would have even remotely considered excluding the US from NATO during the 50s-90s...who would have protected Western Europe from the Soviets?

Hm. I'll bet no one in Europe would have even remotely considered excluding the US from NATO during the 50s-90s...who would have protected Western Europe from the Soviets?

Bill, what you said is untrue.

1) not all the europeans country were on Nato. France did leav this organisation in 1966, and it was a good thing. Sadly our fucking president put us back.

2) Nato's goal was aimed aginst the sovietics, and on european's ground. No more sovietics, no more Nato.

3) Many post sovietics reports have shown that the soviet were not that millitary strong, and willing to attack us.

You can watch "the Russia house", with Sean Connery (after Le Carre), it's the first movie that speaked of that.