As for Saudi Arabia, I actually do think we should cut ties with that country. It’s an Islamic dictatorship which spawned 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. Saudi money fuels radical mosques, madrassas, and imans throughout the Arab/Muslim world and even here in America. Supporting that country and it’s government is like hugging a rattle snake, something NONE of our presidents has ever understood.

Now to health care. Yes, health care IS different from helping people hit by a natural disaster. I mean, that’s really a weak argument, JM. If that’s all you’ve got that’s sad. You see, JM, natural disasters aren’t every day events. People are not hit by tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc., continuously. Disasters happen here and there, they affect a limited number of people, and then they end. The government may have a role to play in helping people to recover, but that’s different from government paying the health care costs of an ENTIRE nation INDEFINITELY.

JM, I’m not against gov’t paying for health care SELECTIVELY. If a family is facing a catastrophic illness, like cancer, and can’t pay for the treatment, the gov’t might can help. But the gov’t should NOT provide blanket health care to all. If it’s going to do that, why stop there? Why shouldn’t the gov’t pay for everyone’s housing, too? Why shouldn’t the gov’t pay everyone’s car note, day care bill, grocery bill, utilities, and college tuition? Hell, why don’t we just ditch the whole notion of personal responsibility and make the gov’t our nanny AND our God?

And last but not least, I have NEVER been drunk or high on ANYTHING in my ENTIRE 45 years. SO THERE!

And I suppose if it’s just a matter of degree and not kind, then the US should sever ties with just about every country on the planet – no handshakes! – we certainly strongly disagree with any number of things that other countries do or see differently. Or maybe just the undemocratic ones. What say you about our ties with Saudi Arabia? Or do you imagine that’s a democracy ruled by gentle, magnanimous leaders? And I suppose it would be better if Chavez and Castro, who apparently butcher thousands of their countrymen (who knew?), were conspiring with the likes of Iran and Al Qaeda. I know a significant number of right-wingers like to portray themselves as beleaguered martyrs who happily cut their nose to spite their face, but I didn’t know to count you among them. Put down that bong!

How do you feel about natural disasters striking? Should the government provide relief? When hundreds or thousands are made homeless by a tornado, earthquake, hurricane, flood… should the government say “I hope you had insurance or money to rebuild your lives”? If not, please explain why the situation is any different when it comes to healthcare. Please try to avoid hyperbole, fabrications, and utterly meaningless aspersions (I realize that might be impossible for you).

Suffice it to say, I will never agree with your idea of what the liberal position is. First of all, I don’t consider myself a representative of a group that isn’t organized that way. Second, you’re almost always wrong. Lefties admire Fidel Castro? PUT DOWN THAT BONG!

I will give you Brownie points, though, for having the honesty to admit that anti-Americanism existed before Bush and won’t end with the ascendancy of Obama. I really didn’t expect that from a leftie. I’m shocked!

And yes, I think France’s health care system deserves “intense study” but don’t take that to mean I have the same fetish for universal health care you lefties do. And can you please explain said fetish? I mean, you lefties act like universal health care is the ULTIMATE litmus test for a noble society. It doesn’t matter to you what kind of crimes a government commits, if it gives its people universal health care it’s good and just in your eyes. That’s the only explanation I can think of for why so many lefties admire tyrant Fidel Castro, for instance. To paraphrase a gay blogging friend of mine, liberals don’t care how many gays Castro kills so long as the straight people get free health care. I think that’s a fair summation of the liberal position. What say you, JM?

And Jean, thanks for trying to defend me from Jane but I have to say I AM stubborn in my opinions, and I have to be. I’m sick and tired of my country being the world’s whipping boy, trashed, smeared, disdained, derided, and condemned from without AND within. It’s my duty as a patriot to defend my country against the dishonest and unfair attacks of the jealous, the ignorant, the slackers, and the evil. As he revealed on his Mea Culpa Tour, Obama isn’t up to that job. But somebody’s gotta do it and that somebody is ME!

- Anti-Americanism existed before Bush, and won’t go away with Obama. This is true. Underlying resentment in the Muslim world certainly predates the Bush era and it will outlast it.

- Europe generally acts too little and too late. This has generally been the case since WW2. Maybe it’s an aversion to involvement in war because WW2 was so brutal for them. Maybe it’s realpolitik. (That might explain Bosnia and Rwanda, for instance) This makes its role on the world’s stage less than what you would expect given its size.

What Seane-Anna does leave out:

- While anti-Americanism has and will always exist, there is something to be said for its relative strength. I for one am glad that Obama is reaching out to the likes of Chavez and Castro. Think about it: they are not our real enemies, and differences with them are far easier to reconcile than with other hostile regimes. The more the US enjoys popular support among the vast majority of nations, the more it will marginalize those countries who genuinely do present a threat (think Iran, for example).

- If Europe acts too little, the US acts too much. Yes, every world power throughout history has been guilty of doing too much, so this is just a fact. When the US’s relative strength wanes, its free hand to create war and intervene when it’s not necessarily prudent will be reined in. That’s a good thing. Wars cost (LOTS of) money, they destroy lives, and in many cases do not leave a better outcome than if they hadn’t happened. Iraq is a very good example.

And I have to agree with Seane-Anna that the French health care system is worthy of intense study (along with others) as we look to create universal healthcare Stateside. Not an easily dismissible compliment given both France and universal health care are both widely derided in the right-wing circles that Seane-Anna no doubt frequents.

Sorry I did not give that positive note. I appreciate. But you did not comment Europe’s leading role in the fight against climate change either. Tie.

Sorry if my English sounded offensive. Your French is much better

But again, you’re missing the point. This is not a competition to measure up to the US power. Just an attempt to make you understand that leadership has many sides. Claiming that Europe has no leading role whatever the matter is just an ignorant and stupid statement.

I’m done trying to open – not change – your mind. Maybe one day you’ll get that the “leading idea” in today’s world is precisely that, no matter the good reasons, one country alone cannot – and should not – lead nor rule the world. And this is a true European lesson, learned from over 2,000 years of failed testing.

Sure, Nicholas Sarkozy brokered a cease-fire between Russia and Georgia but, if memory serves, that was AFTER the fighting had all but ended anyway and Russia had kicked the hell out of Georgia and gotten what it wanted. Not very impressive, if you ask me. And as for Yugoslavia, you’re right, Jean. The Europeans are only cleaning up the mess; America did the heavy lifting…as usual. Again, not impressed.

European soldiers dying in Afghanistan don’t fill me with awe, either. The EU nations have suffered paltry losses compared to America. The US has lost 612 soldiers in Afghanistan. Do you know how many France has lost? 27. The Europeans closest to the US in losses are the Brits with 152 dead. The third hardest hit nation isn’t even in Europe, it’s Canada with 118 dead. The Yanks, the Brits, and the Canucks are the fighting triad in Afghanistan with the Yanks, as usual, leading the way. Score one for America yet again.

You were at your best, Jean, on the health care issue. The article on France’s health care system WAS impressive, although I was a bit skeptical considering the story was in the Boston Globe. Still, it was an interesting read and gave me something to think about. You score one point, Jean. But only one.

Useless in Yugoslavia? Did you know that out of 13,800 NATO troops in Yugoslavia, over 10,500 have been sent by the European Union (check out the contributing nations to KFOR: France alone sent more troops there than the US). But of course, once the open conflict is over, cleaning the mess is not breaking news anymore.

No one in Europe is trying to diminish America’s leadership and overwhelming military power in today’s world. But please, “useless” and “impotent” is hard to swallow, and offensive. Especially as European soldiers are dying along with Americans in Afghanistan.

Of course, non-American successes are rarely breaking news on Fox. And what’s not on TV does not exist, right?

But more importantly, I think you’re misunderstanding Obama’s point about a European “leading role”, by looking at the military and diplomatic aspects of it only. The world certainly needs a police. But there’s also room for teachers, scientists, philosophers and artists. You might think that global warming is a myth and that green technology is “useless”. However, here’s an area where Europe certainly has the lead. As Obama is unveiling his “high-speed train plan”, you might want to consider France’s fastest train network in the world as a possible example. Want to talk about healthcare? check this. The discoverer of the human immunodeficiency virus (AIDS): check it here.

Maybe not an overall leading role. But not so bad for a useless, impotent, declining civilization.

I think Obama was not diminishing America’s leadership at all. On the contrary, he gave America’s leadership a purpose and a strategy to keep growing, by learning from others instead of dividing further more.

Jane and Jean, please give me some specific examples of Europe playing a leading role in the world today. Yes, Europe has a 2,000 year old, or even older, civilization, but how does that translate into a LEADING role in the world TODAY? Islamic civilization is close to 2,000 years old but it has no leading role in the modern world, except for being the leader in the production of terrorists. Sorry J and J, but age alone doesn’t win you any points.

And Jean, I never said that Europe hadn’t achieved anything of late. The EU can be considered some sort of an achievement, although exactly what kind is open to debate. I do know that the EU was useless in stopping ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia in the ’90’s. America, under the guise of NATO, did that. The EU was impotent in the face of Russia’s aggression against Georgia last year. The fact that many EU nations depend on Russia for much of their energy supply probably explains that. And internally, the different EU countries are committing indigenous suicide and surrendering to radical Islam faster than you can say, “Allahu akhbar!”. Sorry Jean, but that does NOT add up to a leading role in the modern world!