I find it a little ironic that you're saying others are vitrolic about something, lazs2.
I don't think you're really interested in hearing a serious response to your guesses. You're just looking for counter-punching opportunities to throw out the same, old snappy, 'this-ought-to-stir-the-pot', randomly generated words from the limited lazs2 talking-point list.
Americans are not the only people with a stake in American elections and America. The U.S. is the only economic and military 800 lb. bear in the woods and all policies of the bear have a direct impact on people across the world. If you lived outside the U.S., you'd be very interested in what the bear was doing also.
The policies of America also have an important financial impact on investment. America's deficit is funded by whom? If you say it is funded by future generations of Americans, then you are misinformed. It is funded more by foreign investment in U.S. paper than by domestic investment.
Others are no more "violently anti-Bush" than you are violently anti-Kerry. You're just scarier because you're a gun fanatic.
Your inflammatory style could actually be contributing to people hoping (and acting) toward a Kerry victory.
Think about it, lazs. A normal human being reading your posts - not knowing that you are actually just kidding - might think that you were a member of some sort of radical, extremist, well-armed, fringe, militia group bent on overthrowing the U.S. government and replacing it with a wilderness anarchy.
But seriously, Americans are, for the most part, not hated overseas. Some recent American policies are disliked though. Many countries that have been supporters of the U.S. and considered themselves to be allied with the U.S. on many issues are now being isolated by the U.S.
How quickly you have forgotten the outpouring of support from across the world to America and Americans after the 9-11 incident. It is the policies of President Bush since then that has caused the overwhelming negative feelings in U.S. allies.
They have been dragged into a war that has no possible stable outcome. The entire middle-east situation has been a mess for generations and Iraq has no better chance of being any more stable than the long-running Palestinian-Israeli situation.
They were dragged into it by duress. The, "You are either with us or against us," comment by President Bush was particularly disturbing to many.
Many people outside the U.S. feel that the recent policies of President Bush have done more to de-stablize and polarize the world that they live in than Iraq ever did.
The U.S. isn't exactly the leading light in the world for unbiased media. Media bias is no better or worse anywhere else than it is in the U.S. One difference in media is that there is not media censorship like the U.S. is going through right now.
People outside the U.S. are allowed to see more graphic photos and TV images of what 'collateral damage' really means for the over 10,000 civilians, women and children killed and 70,000 wounded so far. You aren't allowed to see those images, or even the caskets of your own dead in the U.S. I have to believe that that has a profound effect when people ask themselves the question, "Now, why are we supporting this war in Iraq again?"
Sometimes those who are a few steps removed can see things with a broader view. Many people felt the 'evidence' of Iraqi WMD presented before the world, and the 'evidence' that Saddam Hussein could deliver them quickly, on demand, were the points that made even skeptics say that perhaps we had better give tacit approval to U.S. action to disarm him. Those two points gave the slight nudge to those sitting on the fence.
It may not matter if everyone was deceived or the administration was incompetent - the result is the same. The captain of the ship is telling the passengers to stay the course and they are either with him or against him. But he is blind to the field of icebergs he has steered the ship, with all the passengers, barrelling into at flank speed.
