NationStates Jolt Archive

Damn, I was fine with Canada and the whole of Europe until I came here and discovered stereotyping at its best.

Now I got this HUGE problem with Canada and I have this urge to conquer Europe.

Hell, now I sing "Blame Canada" at Cross Country workouts all the time.

the sheer amount of racism and sterotyping on these boards is sickening. I'm Canadian, and I'm disgusted with my fellow Canadians for being a part of it.

I'm Canadian. I live in America. My problem with the current state of America is the amount of sheer nationalism...though that's not quite as visible as it used to be. The ideals of America are great. The American people, for the most part, are great. The leaders (currently) have some issues. That's about it.

I'm Canadian. I live in America. My problem with the current state of America is the amount of sheer nationalism...though that's not quite as visible as it used to be. The ideals of America are great. The American people, for the most part, are great. The leaders (currently) have some issues. That's about it.
is it such a problem, to be in love with one's country?

If I see a man down the street waving a Mexican flag, I wouldn't think less of him. If I see a man waving the U.S.S.R. flag, I wouldn't think of anything bad...I'd worry for his future health...but I wouldn't think bad of him.

Damn, I was fine with Canada and the whole of Europe until I came here and discovered stereotyping at its best.

Now I got this HUGE problem with Canada and I have this urge to conquer Europe.

Hell, now I sing "Blame Canada" at Cross Country workouts all the time.

I have no problem what so ever with the majority of Americans, I only have a problem with your current government and neo-cons who wish to live in la la land and wouldn't know the truth if it hit them in the face. Thankfully the majority of Americans do not fall into this category. I think some times a lot of us say "Americans" when we are really talking about your current government.

The only Americans I take issue with are Republicans and Fundamentalists. The rest of you are quite lovely - I even married an American lady.

I have no problem what so ever with the majority of Americans, I only have a problem with your current government and neo-cons who wish to live in la la land and wouldn't know the truth if it hit them in the face. Thankfully the majority of Americans do not fall into this category. I think some times a lot of us say "Americans" when we are really talking about your current government.
I hear that "Americans = government" a lot by others too.

I mean, does it hurt to add the word "government" after the word "American"....because it helps a lot.


I don't address the Canadian government as Canadians. I address the Canadian people as Canadians.

I have no problem what so ever with the majority of Americans, I only have a problem with your current government and neo-cons who wish to live in la la land and wouldn't know the truth if it hit them in the face. Thankfully the majority of Americans do not fall into this category. I think some times a lot of us say "Americans" when we are really talking about your current government.

you can't "just have a problem with the governmnet" the people knowingly elected that government

you can't "just have a problem with the governmnet" the people knowingly elected that government
many people can easily point out that Bush wasn't elected.

I hear that "Americans = government" a lot by others too.

I mean, does it hurt to add the word "government" after the word "American"....because it helps a lot.


I don't address the Canadian government as Canadians. I address the Canadian people as Canadians.

Yeah, you're totally correct. I myself have been guilty of this many times. I will try to be more careful when I post to distinguish between "Americans" and the "American government" I'm sorry if I haven't always been clear.

P.S. Blame Canada is a great song! ;)

Yeah, you're totally correct. I myself have been guilty of this many times. I will try to be more careful when I post to distinguish between "Americans" and the "American government" I'm sorry if I haven't always been clear.

P.S. Blame Canada is a great song! ;)
great thanks...especially since I see a lot of your post

(and that song is super-catchy)

many people can easily point out that Bush wasn't elected.

sure he was

the American people determined that the best electoral procces for our country with the electoral college

and GW won that electoral college

Americans are hated everywhere because we seem arrogant and meddle in places where it's none of our business. We also lie to the world about important issues (the Soviets did this too, but they kinda lost the cold war, so we get the hate now). Plenty of people are ignorant and only listen to the bad things about the US, which, sadly, have been more and more common. The problem is, there are plenty ignorant US citizens that ask themselves "Why do they hate us?", which fans the heat of hatred against us.

you can't "just have a problem with the governmnet" the people knowingly elected that government

Well that's been argued... but anyway even if Bush did win fairly, not everyone who voted for him agrees with him on everything.

I'm a Canadian who is definately as anti-Bush as it gets, but I don't hate Americans. The only ones I have a problem with are those who, now that they know what Bush is like, STILL vote for him. I think the ones who say "we have to agree with him because he's the president" are brainwashed idiots. I don't hate them though, I just don't agree with them. I don't like hating people, it takes a lot to make me hate someone. Bush, I hate.

I have friends in the US in Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky and Georgia. I have family in California. I LIKE many Americans. BUT WAKE UP AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY, PLEASE! Vote in the next election, and not for Bush.

you can't "just have a problem with the governmnet" the people knowingly elected that government


I didn't vote for Bush, but yet you refer to me as the people who elected the government. Even though the people elected the government it is very hard to control what the government does.

sure he was

the American people determined that the best electoral procces for our country with the electoral college

and GW won that electoral college
I seriously hope that was ironic.

sure he was

the American people determined that the best electoral procces for our country with the electoral college

and GW won that electoral college
and how does that tie in with us voting for him?

E.C. or no E.C. The fact remains the same that more people voted for Gore then for Bush. Thus, Bush does not represent the majority of Americans, whether he won according to the American system fair and square or not. However, As I watched what happened almost 4 years ago, I'd say Florida was rigged by his brother and Katherin Harris. However, that wasn't my point.

As an American, my biggest problem with America is how Conservative it is.

My biggest problem with Americans is how so many of them rely too heavily on TV media. Too many of them are way too gluttonous. Too many of them could care less about the environment. Too many of them think that America is the best country on Earth and act like their shit doesnt stink when they travel abroad. Too many of them are violently reactionary and don't seem to care about taking intelliigent approaches to solving problems. Too many of them let themselves be walked all over by the govt.

But the opposite is also true about huge amounts of Americans and what I said above is probably also true of a lto of people in other countries as well.

Damn, I was fine with Canada and the whole of Europe until I came here and discovered stereotyping at its best.

Now I got this HUGE problem with Canada and I have this urge to conquer Europe.

Hell, now I sing "Blame Canada" at Cross Country workouts all the time.


I don't really care either way about Americans as a whole. I just like to correct the occasional blatant misinterpretations of history they occasionally put forward, such as "W3 w0n teh w0r of 1812!!!!!1111" I also like to correct blatant misinterpretations of history put forward by fellow Europeans, lest they make me look stupid by association. ;)

I have lots of online friends who are American, and I have nothing against the country in general. Just idiots like Whittier.

Just idiots like Whittier.

Then you'll be happy to know I deleted him...

As an American, my biggest problem with America is how Conservative it is.

My biggest problem with Americans is how so many of them rely too heavily on TV media. Too many of them are way too gluttonous. Too many of them could care less about the environment. Too many of them think that America is the best country on Earth and act like their shit doesnt stink when they travel abroad. Too many of them are violently reactionary and don't seem to care about taking intelliigent approaches to solving problems. Too many of them let themselves be walked all over by the govt.

But the opposite is also true about huge amounts of Americans and what I said above is probably also true of a lto of people in other countries as well.

Actually, I'm one of the people who do believe America is the best nation on the planet. Which is the main reason I want to start my own nation to show people how its done. ;-)

Actually, I'm one of the people who do believe America is the best nation on the planet. Which is the main reason I want to start my own nation to show people how its done. ;-)
There's nothing wrong with loving your country. My problem with Americans is that plenty of them treat you like dirt when they find out that you don't.

I'm Canadian. I live in America. My problem with the current state of America is the amount of sheer nationalism...though that's not quite as visible as it used to be. The ideals of America are great. The American people, for the most part, are great. The leaders (currently) have some issues. That's about it.

I have no problems with people expressing love of their country. Whoever says "my country is the greatest" is a good patriot. What I have a problem with is people who say "all other countries are crap except mine", whether that person is from the US, France, Burundi or wherever.

you can't "just have a problem with the governmnet" the people knowingly elected that government

Yeah, but in practice, how well does the government represent the people? Not only in the US, but everywhere. I don't think that there is a government in the world that adequatly represents the people; simply because of the nature of government and people.

I have no problems with people expressing love of their country. Whoever says "my country is the greatest" is a good patriot. What I have a problem with is people who say "all other countries are crap except mine", whether that person is from the US, France, Burundi or wherever.


That is pretty much what I meant. I didnt word it to sound that way though, sorry. I think America is awesome, but I think there are other contries that are awesome also (having traveled to them I know this first hand). No country is perfect and some countries suck.

My problem is me :confused:

BUT WAKE UP AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY, PLEASE! Vote in the next election...

i don't mean to nit-pick here, but canada isn't exactly the stellar example of a country rejecting political apathy. this past national election saw the lowest voter turnout yet.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/29/canada/turnout040629

pot? kettle. both black.

you can't "just have a problem with the governmnet" the people knowingly elected that government

And the government in turn misleads the people who vote for said government officials. Or you got the people who have the mentality of "I wouldn't vote for a Democrat/Republican even if you put a gun to my head!" I think they know their candidate sucks, but clearly he MUST be better than the other guy because he's a (insert political party here).

Many Europeans can look down on you for the simple reason that you really don't have much history of your own. American kids leave school with knowledge of almost every damn thing that's happened in the U.S since it's foundation, that's no way to run a country. What you need is to create a little history. And what better way to create history than a revolution?

All you have to do is convince your local authority to do the honorable thing and secede from the U.S.A. You know it's the right thing to do. And to get immunity from vengeful forces from Washington, draw a little blue line around your countries borders. This identifies them as "Sites of Cultural Importance". Under the Geneva convention these cannot be tampered with (i.e crossed) by enemy forces.

Then you can pretty much survive on aid packages from various backing nations, not to mention the Red Cross and other groups who will be far happier to go to a sleepy American town than Fifty-years-of-civil-war-istan. And we haven't even started on the various benefits involved in creating your own constitution.

Go on, try it yourself at home. See what you can make of your home town.

My problem with america.

Every one else in the world thinks that i am a racist black white horribly dressed homosexual fashion genious who hates himself, permenatly depressed, suicidal, pissed off murderous a man slut female transexual hick who cant speak correct grammer and eats everything bathed in grease while destroying everything aroudn me and beating my wife who was once my husband but is really my aunt who is now my sister.

That and everyone that isnt american hates me.

but other then that, i love america, its pretty free, pretty free compared to most and hell, we got canada for a neighbor, thats not so bad, i like canada. I like bacon, i like those flapping headed beady eyed bastards!

Many Europeans can look down on you for the simple reason that you really don't have much history of your own.

That's not a good foundation for looking down on Americans. I know plenty of Europeans that have far better reasons for disliking America and History only features when Americans are too damn proud of it.

Damn, I was fine with Canada and the whole of Europe until I came here and discovered stereotyping at its best.

Now I got this HUGE problem with Canada and I have this urge to conquer Europe.

Hell, now I sing "Blame Canada" at Cross Country workouts all the time.
you should be singing blame Bush insted--that would be more accurate

I have no problems with people expressing love of their country. Whoever says "my country is the greatest" is a good patriot. What I have a problem with is people who say "all other countries are crap except mine", whether that person is from the US, France, Burundi or wherever.
The only people I've heard expressing such sentiments are Americans, the British, and the French. The flags of all three countries are composed of blue, white and red. Coincidence?

This kind of rabid nationalism (it's different from patriotism) is dangerous. It leads people who consider themselves "patriotic" to denounce others for allegedly being less so.
The Nazis denounced Jews as less German than the blondes.
Today, the Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs of America denounce liberals as "unpatriotic" for their dissenting political opinions.

And what do others make of a handful of Europeons taking their chances at cursing and spitting at Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France for "being an American in a Europeon sport"

is it such a problem, to be in love with one's country?

If I see a man down the street waving a Mexican flag, I wouldn't think less of him. If I see a man waving the U.S.S.R. flag, I wouldn't think of anything bad...I'd worry for his future health...but I wouldn't think bad of him.
Forgive me if this has already been said but I have not the patience to read this whole thread. Colodia, loving one's country is one thing. Blindly following everything your country's government supports is another thing. Patriotism and Nationalism are two different things, after all.

is it such a problem, to be in love with one's country?

When it leads to War, and use of patriotism as a tool against pacifists, then yes it is a problem.

When it leads to War, and use of patriotism as a tool against pacifists, then yes it is a problem.
I don't think Americans waving flags caused the war in Iraq.

I don't think Iraq is full of pacificts....I mean...seriously...

Bush caused the war

I'm an american and I think that a disgusting percentage of my fellow citizens are nationalistic morons who have abandoned the ideals this country pretends it was founded on. "give me your tired, your hungry, your somethingorother refuse yearning to breathe free", and now we're arguing over letting immegrants in because some of us are too lazy to work hard enough to compete with them. it's obnoxious and petty. if nationalism isn't a more polite form of racism, it's awfully close. (when it's even more polite at all)

you can't "just have a problem with the governmnet" the people knowingly elected that government

Most people vote for whichever party promises irresponsibly low taxes and wonderful-sounding job creation promises. Voters don't generally think about many other issues.

This is a selfish and short-sighted way to vote, but Americans certainly aren't the only people in the world who vote this way. In Canada the same thinking nearly got a Conservative government elected which would have been nearly as bad as the Republican ones our American neighbours get constantly stuck with.

What is my problem with America?

We're the only nation to use nuclear weapons in aggression: against Japan, Kosovo-Serbia and Iraq.

The government is run by IMF-lackies and international bankers (Bilderburg) and drug-running secrete societies (Skull and Bones)

The people stand by and let watch the Police State take over with glee (the illegal raid and following razing of the Church in Waco, Texas) and ignore the facts of government involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11.

I'm an american and I think that a disgusting percentage of my fellow citizens are nationalistic morons who have abandoned the ideals this country pretends it was founded on. "give me your tired, your hungry, your somethingorother refuse yearning to breathe free", and now we're arguing over letting immegrants in because some of us are too lazy to work hard enough to compete with them. it's obnoxious and petty. if nationalism isn't a more polite form of racism, it's awfully close. (when it's even more polite at all)

that and add to the fact my "fellow" americans beleive themszelves to be better than the rest of the world and immune from the worlds problems, and divided by partisan differences that mean nothing at all, lets thank reagan

I don't have a problem with Americans as a whole- some of my family are from Chicago. I do sislike people who voted for Bush, but then I also dislike any of the citizens of my country who voted for Thatcher.

My problem with some Americans?

Name a country!

"Why don't things work here like they do back home?"

Being an American citizen, I don't hate America. However, I have my own hypothesis on why Americans are hated. It is because we are radically different from the rest of the world. Many of us, for example, see war as a means of diplomacy. The rest of the world sees it as a last resort, and something to revile. Americans also have less cultural mores than the other nations. While there are nations that even our enemies would judge as more immoral, our immorality is highlighted by the fact that the US is currently the most powerful nation.
Also, we are isolated geographically. It leads to a variety of factors that is the worst of Americans: naivete, a false sense of security, and global apathy. Thankfully, much of those sentiments are disappearing now. In fact, I'd say that if we weren't as naive of a people pre-Sept. 11, no matter what we did, we'd be respected.
However, part of me wishes America to remain naive. I'm finding it useful to the US that we are so hated.

I don't really have a problem with america, well except those shotgun wielding Hicks that is.

Culture isn't based on history, culture is the here and now everyday routines of the people in that nation. The people that go on and on about cultural history, it's just that History, not culture.

And on an idle note the War, as you put it, would have happend who ever was in charge, though they might have had a differnet lie to front it with...

The president is my problem. Not the Americans because I am too an American.

Two words. Willful ignorance.

My high school government class was considered a sluff class, just a class that most people would ditch because it was so easy to get a D. Maybe (at most) a half dozen serious students in the class of 40.

Over 1/2 (or 2/3, just an estimate...at least 1/2) of seniors in my classes were able to vote in the California primaries. I was one of about 20 or 30 (again, an estimate...probably high) people in my entire senior class of 400 people who voted.

A good portion of the american public has the idea that if it doesn't immediately affect them, they needn't worry about it.

Oh and I dislike Bush to an extreme.

i am fine with america, just stay the .... away from any other country, unless the un says it is ok

What I find interesting is, as a (insert insult here) American, the Canadians saying they hate "just the US government". But that means that they also hate about 45% of all Americans, too, as the latest poll shows Bush and Kerry virtually tied. That's pretty good for a president "not supported by the people".

i have NO problem with the country america as i am one myself. Hell i love this country to death. I don't though like Bush. Once he stepped into office America went to hell, absolute hell. Millions started to get layed off as jobs went overseas. Our national debt is the highest its ever been and our economy is the lowest its been since the great depression. Bush has everyone wound up about terrorists while he passes bills that slash our constitution to shreads. We breach the geneva convention like a binch of nazi's. Nnationalism is outa control. Anyone who is a liberal or supports the constitution is considered a terreist or anti-american like the jews in WWII. I am seriusly worried about the second election. We are fighting a war in 2 countries with national debt rising and taxes falling (wierd hmmm?) and if he gets re-elected he's realesed a statement that he will go after Iran next.

For an overview things are pretty screwed up here and oh yea he might cancel elections and with the patriot act thats perfectly legal =(

sure many americans are racist but most of them probably arent. we like to think highly of ourselves and we dont like blame so when we make jokes that might seem stereotypish its not always to be mean but for self esteem and to crack fun at ourselves and hell sometimes its funny

Damn, I was fine with Canada and the whole of Europe until I came here and discovered stereotyping at its best.

Now I got this HUGE problem with Canada and I have this urge to conquer Europe.

Hell, now I sing "Blame Canada" at Cross Country workouts all the time.

Well, speaking personally, I don't have a problem with Americans...

I only have a problem with those Americans who: are racist, blindly swallow any line of crap their government or media feeds them, believe they are somehow the planets' ultimate lifeform due solely to an accident of geography at the time of their birth, who are totally ignorant of customs and beliefs outside of those they practice themselves, who cry "freedom of speech for all" one minute and "if you don't love us shut the hell up!" the next, whose view of the Middle East and a lot of other countries is based almost solely on B-grade action movies, or who deny any evidence that the American government has EVER committed ANY questionable actions even when presented with black and white proof.

Hope that clears up my stance. :)

sure he was

the American people determined that the best electoral procces for our country with the electoral college

and GW won that electoral college

Actually he didn't. Read the U.S. Code Title 3.

you people have a problem with the USA

not with america

north AMERICA, central AMERICA, south AMERICA

oh my they all have "AMERICA"..

interesting..


although the term americans is used to refer to the USA citizens it is still annoying when people say "what is America's problem?"

just because they are using it wrong..

First of all, America is a sovereign state. The UN is refusing to do anything about the terrorists that have been screwing around with that region since the 70's. The oil-for-food program turned out to be a huge flop. If the UN gets in our way when we're trying to stomp the terrorists out, only so that they can keep their power, then why should we ask for their clearance on everything. There is nothing in our constitution that says "If Congress approves the decision to go to war, then they must present it to France and Germany".

And no. I am not swallowing what the media says. If you have seen the political sections of CNN, NBC, and ABC, you wouldn't be saying that.

Also, The hijackers started the war when they did the strikes on our civilians. The Taliban gave these freaks land and Saddam gave them cash. I have no idea where Texastambul got the "nukes on Iraq" idea. The Iraqis, though annoyed by our continued presence, prefer us to the nuts who are whacking off civilian contractor's heads and blowing up bombs in the streets. They want to live normally, and we are doing our best to stop the people who are screwing things up over there.

And no. that wasn't from the media. A close relative of mine just got back from Iraq, and the troops there are annoyed with the media's saying what a bad job they're doing, simply so their party can get power again.

*psst* Iraq was a sovereign state too, with no remotely proven ties to Al Queda.

The UN interested "only in keeping it's own power"? LOL - that's rich, coming from someone defending the greatest "Might-makes-right" nation to have ever existed :)

No, I take that back - why should the USA try to be a global citizen. In the words of Dennis Leary "We got the bombs! Nuclear f***king winter!" ;) The Bush administration should be free to goosestep over the face of the rest of the world simply because you are "the bestest with the mostest"...ROLL ON!

i just hate those americans that sterotype engllish peaple we are not all posh and drink tea all the time

you people have a problem with the USA

not with america

north AMERICA, central AMERICA, south AMERICA

oh my they all have "AMERICA"..

interesting..


although the term americans is used to refer to the USA citizens it is still annoying when people say "what is America's problem?"

just because they are using it wrong..

No they're not. If a country is called United States of America, then it's perfectly fine to abbreviate that to "America".

Otherwise you should refer to Holland as "Kingdom of the Netherlands", to France as the "French Republic" and Australia as the "Commonwealth of Australia".

No they're not. If a country is called United States of America, then it's perfectly fine to abbreviate that to "America".

Otherwise you should refer to Holland as "Kingdom of the Netherlands", to France as the "French Republic" and Australia as the "Commonwealth of Australia".
And Britain as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/

First of all, America is a sovereign state. The UN is refusing to do anything about the terrorists that have been screwing around with that region since the 70's. The oil-for-food program turned out to be a huge flop. If the UN gets in our way when we're trying to stomp the terrorists out, only so that they can keep their power, then why should we ask for their clearance on everything. There is nothing in our constitution that says "If Congress approves the decision to go to war, then they must present it to France and Germany".

And no. I am not swallowing what the media says. If you have seen the political sections of CNN, NBC, and ABC, you wouldn't be saying that.

Also, The hijackers started the war when they did the strikes on our civilians. The Taliban gave these freaks land and Saddam gave them cash. I have no idea where Texastambul got the "nukes on Iraq" idea. The Iraqis, though annoyed by our continued presence, prefer us to the nuts who are whacking off civilian contractor's heads and blowing up bombs in the streets. They want to live normally, and we are doing our best to stop the people who are screwing things up over there.

And no. that wasn't from the media. A close relative of mine just got back from Iraq, and the troops there are annoyed with the media's saying what a bad job they're doing, simply so their party can get power again.

I just hope you know we can never win in the middle east. There will always be extremists there who will suicide bomb and take hotages. Saddam never gave alqaeda cash, he has absolutly NO ties to Alqaeda but do you think the government controlled media would tell you that?

Also if you read the flight charters for the Airplanes the terrorists names NEVER appear on them. So they never hijacked it. Also some of the "suicide bombers" are still alive how did that happen?

Yes you have swallowed the media crap hook line and sinker. I don't think the troops are doing a bad job. Bush is, they are just following orders. Even the ones in abu grahb prison =P.

I personally love America. I think the nation is great, I have nothing against it, in fact I wished I was born down there instead up here in this hell hold to the north of the USA.

Damn, I was fine with Canada and the whole of Europe until I came here and discovered stereotyping at its best.

Now I got this HUGE problem with Canada and I have this urge to conquer Europe.

Hell, now I sing "Blame Canada" at Cross Country workouts all the time.

Nothing. In fact, i find some americans quite freindly :)

I hear that "Americans = government" a lot by others too.

I mean, does it hurt to add the word "government" after the word "American"....because it helps a lot.


I don't address the Canadian government as Canadians. I address the Canadian people as Canadians.

The problem occurs when the american goverments refers to its selv as Americans (and means the world) to start with.
And by the way could we for once state that Americans are all the people leaving and the AMERICAN CONTINENT (Wich include Canada, Mexico, and all the rest of the center and south america)??
Find your selv another way of calling your selv.... I don't know, hem,.. the USers or something like that...

That is the problem with the US, US is the only worth while nation to mention... US is the world. It is not by chance the when something is REALLY great in the States it will be called by the "United Staters" as the best of its kind IN THE WORLD.... ever asked to the rest of the world what they mean about it?

No they're not. If a country is called United States of America, then it's perfectly fine to abbreviate that to "America".

Otherwise you should refer to Holland as "Kingdom of the Netherlands", to France as the "French Republic" and Australia as the "Commonwealth of Australia".

no no no... WRONG.
It would be like call Holland for Europe.
Or Marocco as Africa.

America is a continent!!! not a nation. The nation is the federation of states =US....
Get it?
Study history if not.

Hello :)

My husband and I are both in the military and in public affairs positions (he is a combat photographer, and I am a journalist). Even though we have been doing this job for years, neither of us has formed a solid opinion on, I guess, a basic question:

Is it helping or hindering Americans to see the footage/coverage of events like 9/11 and the war with Iraq on television? Was it necessary for us to tune in every day and watch us invade Baghdad? My opinion sways back and forth so often that I honestly do not know myself, which makes "believing in my job" difficult at times.

The reason I ask this question (forgive me for getting off subject) is because a few people have mentioned that Americans rely too heavily on media portrayal of events.

What do you think? Thanks :)

I have no problems with Americans at all. I know lots of Americans and they are all nice people. Much more outspoken and friendly than most Europeans.
I have much greater problems with the French than Americans. They(or at least Jacque Chirac) are the most arrogant, annoying people that exists who wants the world to speak French.(I know I'm a little too generalizing :) )

The only Americans I take issue with are Republicans and Fundamentalists. The rest of you are quite lovely - I even married an American lady.
Damn it, I'm having a hard enough time finding one as it is, now you come over and steal one away. I tells ya', if Artoonia didn't have such beautiful womenfolk, you'd be looking at a war, fella.

that all depends on how you choose to define the "us".

if you define the us as the land of america then there is nothing wrong with it.

if you define the us as the people who poulate that land then there is, generally at least although there are exceptions everywhere, nothing wrong with them.

if you define the us as what the name stands for then again there is no problem.

the problem lies with the overall perception of the us.

there is an innate arrogance that comes across when the us is discussed in terms of "the world". please don't take that to mean that all americans are arrogant because they aren't, i have friends and family in america and i know that on the whole the people are the same as everone else anywhere in the world. the arrogance comes from the whole "american" label.

a little more than 100 years ago a quarter of the worlds population fell under the control of the british empire and all it stood for. the "british" appointed governments in the colonies and ran the affairs of people all over the world. thay insisted that everybody under the british flag adopted british ideals and followed british laws and this lead to a great deal of animosity and unrest around teh world. anyone who failed to follow these rules was subjected to so called "gunboat" diplomacy, they were forced, at the point of teh gun, to comply with british rule. in other words the british were arrogant enough to beleive that all the peoples of teh world should follow there ideal of teh correct way to behave etc. this didn't work and the violent struggles to end british rule destroyed teh empire and left the world in the condition it is now. that is not to say that the average man on the street in britain was arrogant but that was teh perception of the name "british".

does this sound familiar?

you may believe that there are certain freedoms that are a right and that there is a correct way to act but that is not the way we all see the world. that is the way western democracies see the world. if the fate of teh british empire teaches anything it is that you can help people to better themselves and their countries but you cannot force them to do things your way and this is what the "us" is seen to be doing.

i have no wish to offend anyone in the states, i am merely trying to answer teh question.

Hello :)

My husband and I are both in the military and in public affairs positions (he is a combat photographer, and I am a journalist). Even though we have been doing this job for years, neither of us has formed a solid opinion on, I guess, a basic question:

Is it helping or hindering Americans to see the footage/coverage of events like 9/11 and the war with Iraq on television? Was it necessary for us to tune in every day and watch us invade Baghdad? My opinion sways back and forth so often that I honestly do not know myself, which makes "believing in my job" difficult at times.

The reason I ask this question (forgive me for getting off subject) is because a few people have mentioned that Americans rely too heavily on media portrayal of events.

What do you think? Thanks :)

A very valid question and a difficult one.

( i cannot answer as acrratly as to the effect on americans, being a brit, but the question is still valid)

Did it hurt or harm things, is a difficult one to ponder, maning because you have to ask WHAT its hurting or harming.

On obvious case of harm perhaps is that because of the very patchy nature of the ability to cover the attack many wild rummers appeared and then were dismiied. One incident i can recall is an 'armoured colloum' left basra, belived to be huge and later found to be truck convoy (if memory severs).

But in other cases its usefull showing perhaps the real effects of war on the people in the areas far more acuratly then telavised bomb dropping videos.

Overall i would tend to say that the coverage was benficiall purely on the point that the more data you have the easyer it is to make up your mind on a subject.

When people blame the media in the US they i think are more acusing it of bias it what it is reporting than, exactly what the matieral is. The sillyest example would be do you show a picture of happy iraq's pulling down a satur or the wide scale shot showing how small the crowd was. Both are true but presenting only one view could give a distorted opinion.

I think that sometimes the most harmfull thing in media coverage is the presentation of opinion as fact. And the subset of that is people who only watch one source of news can never guess an acurate view point. Thier is alot of misleading/wrong badly written information present and only interpretation of those sources can give you a true picture.

So yes i think those images from the invasion helped because they provided information, but did they help in the sense of tell us what was really going on? of that i'm less certain

a difficult question and reading back the above, not really one i can answer eiher, i think i'm now slightly more conffused than i was to start off with

Oddly enough, canadians are actualy americans as well ;)

the USA just couldn't come up with a catchy name like canada did, so we are left with nothing but being refered to as americans.

And No, we may elect a person to goverment, but thats about all we do. They do thier own thing once in office, we sit, watch and get hated by the world.

you people have a problem with the USA

not with america

north AMERICA, central AMERICA, south AMERICA

oh my they all have "AMERICA"..

interesting..


although the term americans is used to refer to the USA citizens it is still annoying when people say "what is America's problem?"

just because they are using it wrong..

We refer to the United States of Mexico as Mexico too. Are we using that wrong?

Hello :)

My husband and I are both in the military and in public affairs positions (he is a combat photographer, and I am a journalist). Even though we have been doing this job for years, neither of us has formed a solid opinion on, I guess, a basic question:

Is it helping or hindering Americans to see the footage/coverage of events like 9/11 and the war with Iraq on television? Was it necessary for us to tune in every day and watch us invade Baghdad? My opinion sways back and forth so often that I honestly do not know myself, which makes "believing in my job" difficult at times.

The reason I ask this question (forgive me for getting off subject) is because a few people have mentioned that Americans rely too heavily on media portrayal of events.

What do you think? Thanks :)

I think that the people have a right to know what the government is doing in their name with their tax dollars. If anything, the US media is the most restircted one out there. If you think that they are showing a lot of footage - you would be stunned by what the rest of the world sees.

Frankly, I don't think you show enough of what is going on - not too little. And yes, I think that it should be better balanced between the good and the bad. The hard part for that though is that every time they show the good things it gets orchestrated and planned to the point where it winds up looking like a propoganda event even if it really isn't. The battle footage, however, you know is immediate and unscripted.

Hell, if I had my way the average soldier would have a streaming webcam on his helmet so people could tune in 24/7 to see what is really going on. Put in a tape delay if neccessary for operational security, but let people really see it all - for good and for bad. A military Truman Show.

The moment something is hidden, the first question is: "Why?"

Why don't you WANT us to see it?
Why don't you trust us to be able to handle it?
Why should we support something that you don't feel comfortable sharing with us in it's entirety?


You want to treat the people as children, then don't be suprised at the fact that you wind up creating a country of ignorants who won't be equipped to become the next generation of leaders that you will need.

-Z-

Hello :)

My husband and I are both in the military and in public affairs positions (he is a combat photographer, and I am a journalist). Even though we have been doing this job for years, neither of us has formed a solid opinion on, I guess, a basic question:

Is it helping or hindering Americans to see the footage/coverage of events like 9/11 and the war with Iraq on television? Was it necessary for us to tune in every day and watch us invade Baghdad? My opinion sways back and forth so often that I honestly do not know myself, which makes "believing in my job" difficult at times.

The reason I ask this question (forgive me for getting off subject) is because a few people have mentioned that Americans rely too heavily on media portrayal of events.

What do you think? Thanks :)
No problem.

Personally, I think that the media is not showing both sides of the argument on how good a job America is doing in Iraq. Usually, all I hear about are dead Iraqis, dead Iraqis, dead Iraqis, and dead Americans. Surely good things are being done in there!

I think the problem people have with our reliance with the media's portrayal of events occuring is that the media shows a biased side most often. Get rid of the bias, and we'll be much more educated in terms of what is going on.

So I think that there is no problem with us Americans watching these events on our T.V. so long as there is a lack of bias.

Although sadly, I doubt that'll occur anytime soon thanks to an all-out ratings war between our media stations.

no no no... WRONG.
It would be like call Holland for Europe.
Or Marocco as Africa.

America is a continent!!! not a nation. The nation is the federation of states =US....
Get it?
Study history if not.

Are you saying the US isn't named "United States of America"? :confused:

I have no problems with Americans at all. I know lots of Americans and they are all nice people. Much more outspoken and friendly than most Europeans.
I have much greater problems with the French than Americans. They(or at least Jacque Chirac) are the most arrogant, annoying people that exists who wants the world to speak French.(I know I'm a little too generalizing :) )

The only problem with that generalisation is that if the French are the arrogant ones, why is it that I so often hear them having to talk English to UK tourists in their own country? Yet if they came here to the UK and started talking French, a significant number of people wouldn't understand a word of it.

Hello :)
My husband and I are both in the military and in public affairs positions (he is a combat photographer, and I am a journalist). Even though we have been doing this job for years, neither of us has formed a solid opinion on, I guess, a basic question:

Journalist? Don't be so nieve -- You make propaganda exclusivly for the US military!

Is it helping or hindering Americans to see the footage/coverage of events like 9/11 and the war with Iraq on television? Was it necessary for us to tune in every day and watch us invade Baghdad? My opinion sways back and forth so often that I honestly do not know myself, which makes "believing in my job" difficult at times.

Was it necessary for American's to watch the Zapruder film? Without it we would not have seen Kennedy's brain blasting out of the back of his head as he passed the grassy knoll. (supposedly by an assassin that was behind him)

Is it any wonder that the FBI and the NSA have decided not to make the filming of the Oklahoma City Bombing available to the public? Right across the street from the Alfred P. Murrah building was a Bank with no fewer the 15 operational cameras that would have captured McVeigh and his Ryder Truck -- why will this film never be released? Why wasn't it used by the prosecution? Perhaps the real question is who else helped McVeigh and why is the federal gov't protecting them?

It's also interesting to note that the First plane that hit the WTC was swallowed by the building, while the Second (after giving every camera-man in NYC enough time to get a nice live shot) exploded hollywood-style on impact! (consider the implications of this "coincidence" for yourself)

Also, The hijackers started the war when they did the strikes on our civilians. The Taliban gave these freaks land and Saddam gave them cash.

prove any of this...

I have no idea where Texastambul got the "nukes on Iraq" idea.

educate yourself...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/2001/depleted_uranium/default.stm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1112-01.htm


The Iraqis, though annoyed by our continued presence, prefer us to the nuts who are whacking off civilian contractor's heads and blowing up bombs in the streets. They want to live normally, and we are doing our best to stop the people who are screwing things up over there.

they tell a different story...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001927572_iraqpoll13.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4036345,00.html

Hey Texas, how about try not to use a very baised anti Bush source.

How about this one, from an Iraqi in Iraq.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

Oh, you can't use that. That's by some Iraqi gentlemen that are very happy about the US taking out Saddam and thank us for rebuilding their country.

I don't hate America, nor Americans - not even your government. However, there are a few reason which haven't been pointed out for the anti-American venom we all hear:

Firstly, the US is the centre of modern media. TV, radio, the Internet - because they all are focused *in* the US they are all focused *on* the US. This means that people are going to think about the USA a lot more than they do about other countries. This is going to enhance both pro and anti US sentiment.

Secondly, there is a jealousy component. People hate countries more powerful than themselves. The US isn't the only country to suffer from this - it's no accident that the French and British cope so much flack! As the previous world powers, there's still a great deal of remembered jealousy turned on noth countries. Fortunately, the anti-Spanish sentiment seems to have finally faded - several centuries after them ceasing to be a world power!

Thirdly, people are affected by the US, and meet US citizens, quite regularly. When was the last time that Ghana made a decision which affected you? US companies are involved everywhere in the world, making decisions. By definition, every decision upsets some people, so no matter what happens, there's going to be continuous supply of people who've been upset by Americans. Similarly, people meet US tourists. Doing a mental count, I think I've meet more nice US tourists than annoying ones. However, the annoying ones are *louder* and sadly make a far greater impression, despite being the smaller number.

Finally, most people don't really 'get' free speech. The fact that you can criticise Bush and not disappear into an internment camp proves that you've got a decent society - but people don't seem to notice/realise/remember this.
Which sadly probably means that free speech isn't going to last that much longer. :-(

>a basic question:

>Is it helping or hindering Americans to see the footage/coverage of events >like 9/11 and the war with Iraq on television? Was it necessary for us to >tune in every day and watch us invade Baghdad? My opinion sways back and >forth so often that I honestly do not know myself, which makes "believing in >my job" difficult at times.
Helping.
Big time.
The first war to feature photography and to have journalists present was the Crimea. Up to that point the newspapers had simply printed the winning general's description of the battle/war without criticism.

The shock of seeing what war was really like changed the nature of war. The public outcry at the suffering of the wounded, of the suffering of the civilians in the war zone, the privations suffered by every soldier - these lead to massive improvements in medical care, the treaties which turned the (often ignored) chivalric customs of war into international law, and generally reduced the horror of war.
This had a knock on effect: WWI was the first war in which battlefield casualties exceeded losses from disease etc (of course, the increased deadliness of 20C weapons was also a major part of this). Once people were more worried about whether their lad in the army was going to die in combat than whether he'd die of disease, the desire to prevent wars gained a greater force, so that public opinion became much more anti-war. (Yes! Saying "the war in Iraq is justified" is a long way from "wars strengthen a nation" which was a common belief in previous centuries.

So every time a work mate comes back from hospital, every time you get a meal which isn't moldy - every time your pay comes through on pay day! - remind yourself that you're part of the reason why.

Hey Texas, how about try not to use a very baised anti Bush source.


I linked to four different news sorces that all covered the same Gallup Poll results... My guess is that you didn't even bother to click the links and read the headlines...

Still, I am interested to learn how MSNBC, USAToday, and Gallup are "very baised(sic) anti Bush source(s)"


How about this one, from an Iraqi in Iraq.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

Oh, you can't use that. That's by some Iraqi gentlemen that are very happy about the US taking out Saddam and thank us for rebuilding their country.

A) That's not a news source.

B) It's fake... The most blatantly protruding evidence of this is the proudly displayed Isreali-look-a-like flag in the top righthand corner. When the (one nation)Coalition unveiled that horrendous flaunting of Imperial prowess, the outrage was unanomious - including that of the Interim Council. Obviously, someone forgot to tell the Occupational Government that it isn't polite to redesign another nations flag (especially when the end result is similar to that nations enemy)

sure he was

the American people determined that the best electoral procces for our country with the electoral college

and GW won that electoral college

Read the U.S. Code Title 3. That election was held illegally due to the illegal participation of Florida, which had not resolved issues dealing with its appointment of electors as required by law.

Free Speech has now been used and abused. Everybody wants to go out and protest everything and complain about everything. People are protesting and rebelling against the fact that the United States is rebelling against the UN. Rebels are rebelling rebellion! What has this world come to. What is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular. Just because the Nazi's all agreed on what to be done with the Jews was right, doesn't make it right. There is no right or wrong left in this world, only different opinions on everything. Also, who ever was saying that Iraqi flag looks like the Israeli flag obviously has never seen the Israeli flag. And even if it did look like it, look at Europe and their multi colored, but all seemingly similar flags. The tricolor and the Scandanavian cross flag. At least the British are original.

Free Speech has now been used and abused. Everybody wants to go out and protest everything and complain about everything.
Yeah. Free speach should only apply if your pro American.
The tricolor and the Scandanavian cross flag. At least the British are original.
How in hell are the tri color and the Swedish flag even remotely similiar?

freespeech is becomming less and less free such as racial comments can get you arrested now and sexual harrasment is not covered.

No they're not. If a country is called United States of America, then it's perfectly fine to abbreviate that to "America".


I prefer to abbreviate it to US, or USA. Why did they give it a name more suitable for a corporation? I mean, the Founding Fathers clearly knew that America is much larger than just the 13 colonies and the continent has had that name much longer than there had been British colonies.

What I refuse to do is to use Americas to designate the continent clearly called America for almost 500 years now.

Is it helping or hindering Americans to see the footage/coverage of events like 9/11 and the war with Iraq on television? Was it necessary for us to tune in every day and watch us invade Baghdad? My opinion sways back and forth so often that I honestly do not know myself, which makes "believing in my job" difficult at times.


I think it depends by what you mean by "helping" and "hindering". I think that the journalists filfilled their role to the best of their capacities, embedded or not and society will have to do their part. Some things will be helped, some will be hindered. The outcome is for society to decide.

Also, who ever was saying that Iraqi flag looks like the Israeli flag obviously has never seen the Israeli flag.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3670001.stm

Read the U.S. Code Title 3. That election was held illegally due to the illegal participation of Florida, which had not resolved issues dealing with its appointment of electors as required by law.
the election was never declared illegal by any court.

the election was never declared illegal by any court.

If there is a law that says stealing is illegal and I go steal and then don't get punished by a court, does that mean I am not a thief?

If there is a law that says stealing is illegal and I go steal and then don't get punished by a court, does that mean I am not a thief?


Funny thing is nobody stole anything.

If there is a law that says stealing is illegal and I go steal and then don't get punished by a court, does that mean I am not a thief?
he won it through the electoral college

he won it through the electoral college


Thats the only way you can win it....it was all fair.

good answer...and a good song, Cold Hard Bitch

Funny thing is nobody stole anything.

So, then Katherine Harris taking thousands of registered democrats off the voters list who were legally allowed to vote and then were stopped at the voting stations and told they couldn't vote because Katherine Harris (who just happen to also be the co-chair for G.W.Bush's campaign in Florida) and the Sec. of State had them removed is not illegal? Or should not be illegal?

I don't give a flying rats ass about "hanging chads" and damn re-counts.. the woman committed elections fraud!

I'm not a big fan of this extreme American nationalism. It's what allows things like the invasion of Cambodia to happen and be tolerated. I'm also against so many of our lawmakers allowing religion to creep into public policy.

Would I rather live anywhere else? No. But Canada is a close second.

By the way, I have yet to find anyone friendlier than the Canadians. Especially up north in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Wonderful people.

So, then Katherine Harris taking thousands of registered democrats off the voters list who were legally allowed to vote and then were stopped at the voting stations and told they couldn't vote because Katherine Harris (who just happen to also be the co-chair for G.W.Bush's campaign in Florida) and the Sec. of State had them removed is not illegal? Or should not be illegal?

I don't give a flying rats ass about "hanging chads" and damn re-counts.. the woman committed elections fraud!


*giggle*

Yeah, You keep thinking that, maybe someday your story will be true... BTW, Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat to protect yourself from the evil Republicans trying to brainwash you! HAHA!!!

I'm not a big fan of this extreme American nationalism. It's what allows things like the invasion of Cambodia to happen and be tolerated. I'm also against so many of our lawmakers allowing religion to creep into public policy.

Would I rather live anywhere else? No. But Canada is a close second.


So loving your country is wrong? :rolleyes:

*giggle*

Yeah, You keep thinking that, maybe someday your story will be true... BTW, Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat to protect yourself from the evil Republicans trying to brainwash you! HAHA!!!

Have you been hiding under a rock? It's already been proved. However, instead of going to jail, she ended up in Congress. Go figure. That's ok, cause we will see who gets the last laugh on Nov 2nd!

So loving your country is wrong? :rolleyes:


I said EXTREME nationalism. The belief that your country is perfect and can do no wrong, and that it has the right to impose its beliefs on others.

Have you been hiding under a rock? It's already been proved. However, instead of going to jail, she ended up in Congress. Go figure. That's ok, cause we will see who gets the last laugh on Nov 2nd!


Give it up ok? Bush will silence those Far-Left Neo Nuts in November, He is ahead of Kerry.

I said EXTREME nationalism. The belief that your country is perfect and can do no wrong, and that it has the right to impose its beliefs on others.


Here is a shock, Canadians, French and most of Europe in General act like that!

Here is a shock, Canadians, French and most of Europe in General act like that!

What was the last country Canada invaded? I must have missed that one.

Give it up ok? Bush will silence those Far-Left Neo Nuts in November, He is ahead of Kerry.

That's funny.. that's not what the numbers say.. in fact, the swing or what is known as battle ground states that will decide the election are very much in play. In fact all of the states that went for Gore in 2000 are strong for Kerry in 2004.. Where as there are 6 battle ground states that went for Bush in 2000 that are slightly slanted towards Kerry and some in a dead heat.. exactly what polls have you been watching? Apparently you have an opinion based on no actual facts. It's okay, a lot of people do it.

That's funny.. that's not what the numbers say.. in fact, the swing or what is known as battle ground states that will decide the election are very much in play. In fact all of the states that went for Gore in 2000 are strong for Kerry in 2004.. Where as there are 6 battle ground states that went for Bush in 2000 that are slightly slanted towards Kerry and some in a dead heat.. exactly what polls have you been watching? Apparently you have an opinion based on no actual facts. It's okay, a lot of people do it.


Making up stats again? HAHAHA!!! Keep dreaming, Bush is ahead and Kerry carries NO Southern states btw.

What was the last country Canada invaded? I must have missed that one.


Are you blind? Canadians think they are the reflection of perfection!

Making up stats again? HAHAHA!!! Keep dreaming, Bush is ahead and Kerry carries NO Southern states btw.


All right as a curiosity; I call you on this.

I try to read many sources and all the polls I have seen say otherwise.

So do give us your source.

I am curious.....

Are you blind? Canadians think they are the reflection of perfection!

American's don't think the same thing? A little national pride is fine. But when you start wrapping yourself in the flag, and saying that anyone who disagrees with you is "Un-American" you are out of line.

And when a country invades other countries without cause, props up brutal dictators, and alienates nations, it is definitely on the wrong track. These are not things to be admired.

Go ahead and love your country, just don't invade every country that doesn't feel that same love.

I said EXTREME nationalism. The belief that your country is perfect and can do no wrong, and that it has the right to impose its beliefs on others.
America is no saint nation. Look at all the nations we illegally invaded while Clinton was President. If he was still president, there wouldn't have been such an uproar about us going to Iraq.
I think this thread very partisan due to election and party conventions.

I know Bush will. Based on faith, cause polls aren't reliable.

America is no saint nation. Look at all the nations we illegally invaded while Clinton was President. If he was still president, there wouldn't have been such an uproar about us going to Iraq.
I think this thread very partisan due to election and party conventions.

There wouldn't have been an uproar? I think that Clinton would have been impeached again if he did what Bush did. I can just hear that junkie Limbaugh now.

As far as this thread being partisan...everyone, regardless of their political stripe is invited to post. There's no party affiliation check at the door.

All right as a curiosity; I call you on this.

I try to read many sources and all the polls I have seen say otherwise.

So do give us your source.

I am curious.....


You go based on polls? Polls can be made to say whatever you want them to! I go based on face to face meetings and phone calls!

There wouldn't have been an uproar? I think that Clinton would have been impeached again if he did what Bush did. I can just hear that junkie Limbaugh now.

As far as this thread being partisan...everyone, regardless of their political stripe is invited to post. There's no party affiliation check at the door.
Where did I say there was?
I only expressed an opinion that it seemed partisan.

You go based on polls? Polls can be made to say whatever you want them to! I go based on face to face meetings and phone calls!

No not at all. Ever hear of the Public Affairs Act of 1975?

You stated Bush is ahead and I am curious to where you found that.....

You go based on polls? Polls can be made to say whatever you want them to! I go based on face to face meetings and phone calls!

Sorry, but anecdotal evidence is even less reliable than polls.

I don't trust either one. Who knows who's going to win? It's too soon to say.

Making up stats again? HAHAHA!!! Keep dreaming, Bush is ahead and Kerry carries NO Southern states btw.

Do you believe if you say it enough times it will make it true?

I don't make up any thing. I have no reason to.

Kerry Overtakes Bush in Swing States, Nationwide

One (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=avllqKv5ld6w&refer=top_world_news)

Kerry Heads to Convention With Lead in `Battleground' States

Two (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aM3ozXkQegtw&refer=us)

Lets also not forget that no Republican has EVER won the White House without winning Ohio, which Kerry also leads in.

Before you speak.. make sure you A) Know what you're talking about and B) Hope the person you're trying to bullshit doesn't know that you're bullshitting...;)

Polls are meaningless.

Polls are meaningless.

Unless they say your guys winning right? LOL You people are so transparent! :rolleyes:

Americans are hated everywhere because we seem arrogant and meddle in places where it's none of our business. We also lie to the world about important issues (the Soviets did this too, but they kinda lost the cold war, so we get the hate now). Plenty of people are ignorant and only listen to the bad things about the US, which, sadly, have been more and more common. The problem is, there are plenty ignorant US citizens that ask themselves "Why do they hate us?", which fans the heat of hatred against us.


Hmm let me see... We are hated cause we seem arrogant? Then the french would be the top list of hated countries number 1. Why cant we have pride in our great nation? We have the strongest military that history has ever seen, and to go with it we have the strongest economy in the world. Yes there are ignorant American citizens but there are ignorant people all over the world. I have a major problem with some countries in Europe mainly France. France call us arrogant which makes me laugh, they dont support any action that we do, they say they are going to be the anti - american force in the UN which means they want to polarize the UN again like it was in the cold war. The only thing France is good for is hosting invasions. Our so called "allies" have forgetten history (not talking about England, Poland, Itally, and others in the coalition). We bailed them out of WW1, WW2, came to the aid of France in Indo-china when Frances army got massacred in Vietnam. Not many people know that France is the reason we went to war in Vietnam they were a colony of France and declared independence and we came rushing to Frances aid under the guise of attacking communism(big mistake). How much blood have we Americans spilt for Eurpoeans? That in the hour of our greetest need they tuck tale and run and openly attack us. Kosovo, Bosnia, Germany, the Soviet Union and many other threats we have destroyed to make Europe safe. I could go on and on but i will stop here for now.

Unless they say your guys winning right? LOL You people are so transparent! :rolleyes:
even if they did, they could still be wrong. the only they're good for is moral boosting.

Have you been hiding under a rock? It's already been proved.

First of all, I love you (yes, I know you're a happily married mother) but despite that love, I have to call you out on this one. There are more important things to do besides engaging in a pointless arguement with these three idiots. One has "faith" that Bush will be (re?)elected, another is in manic-denial about Mrs. Harris, and a third (dispite his atrocious spelling) believes that the invasion of Iraq was the "hour of our greetest need." Frankly, they are beneath you and your provoking them is painfully embarrassing. This isn't worth you time.

The fact is they haven't been hiding under a rock, but rather they are in middle school and addicted to Fox News.

Now, please -- I beg you -- stop wasting your beautiful mind on this rabble and jump to my thread http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342654 to give it the "star quality" that only a visit from nationstates' least eligible mod can provide.

If you do choose to post there, I am certain that my thread will rise from obscurity into fame, rightfully claiming the vogue status it has always deserved..

Hmm let me see... We are hated cause we seem arrogant? Then the french would be the top list of hated countries number 1. Why cant we have pride in our great nation? We have the strongest military that history has ever seen, and to go with it we have the strongest economy in the world. Yes there are ignorant American citizens but there are ignorant people all over the world. I have a major problem with some countries in Europe mainly France. France call us arrogant which makes me laugh, they dont support any action that we do, they say they are going to be the anti - american force in the UN which means they want to polarize the UN again like it was in the cold war. The only thing France is good for is hosting invasions. Our so called "allies" have forgetten history (not talking about England, Poland, Itally, and others in the coalition). We bailed them out of WW1, WW2, came to the aid of France in Indo-china when Frances army got massacred in Vietnam. Not many people know that France is the reason we went to war in Vietnam they were a colony of France and declared independence and we came rushing to Frances aid under the guise of attacking communism(big mistake). How much blood have we Americans spilt for Eurpoeans? That in the hour of our greetest need they tuck tale and run and openly attack us. Kosovo, Bosnia, Germany, the Soviet Union and many other threats we have destroyed to make Europe safe. I could go on and on but i will stop here for now.


These repeated and ridiculous attacks on France merely prove your own ignorance and arrogance.
Last I recall, the French and Americans have always been allies, or at least neutral in each others affairs, never enemies.
The French were the only nation to assist the US in its war of independence.
The they sold some more of what is now the US to you (at better prices than what some paid the native peoples for their land).
You've been on the same side in two world wars.
The French appear to be a target of US resentment because they kept maintaining that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Don't you just hate it when someone proves you wrong?
And the farce of "freedom fries" made those involved look like hicks and yokels.
Kindly learn some of your own history unless you want to look rather silly.
For the record, I am an Australian, one of your (regretfully on this occassion) allies.

i don't have a problem with Americans

These repeated and ridiculous attacks on France merely prove your own ignorance and arrogance.
Last I recall, the French and Americans have always been allies, or at least neutral in each others affairs, never enemies.
The French were the only nation to assist the US in its war of independence.
The they sold some more of what is now the US to you (at better prices than what some paid the native peoples for their land).
You've been on the same side in two world wars.
The French appear to be a target of US resentment because they kept maintaining that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Don't you just hate it when someone proves you wrong?
And the farce of "freedom fries" made those involved look like hicks and yokels.
Kindly learn some of your own history unless you want to look rather silly.
For the record, I am an Australian, one of your (regretfully on this occassion) allies.


I do agree that while we're having some problems with the French now, when push comes to shove the French and Americans will always back each other up. Alot of Americans just see France (right now anyway)as a nation that would rather make money than do what's right. (With the Oil for Food scandal being the main reason for oppossition.) But that has to do with their current government, not their people. The French never maintained there were no WMDs in Iraq, as a matter of fact, they believed Iraq had them as much as we did (we even shared intel on the matter).

That said, if you are going to attack an American about not knowing his history, maybe you should learn atleast enough to make a good point.

For instance, France bearly helped the US in our war for independance. They landed 6,000 troops in Newport, RI where they stayed until the trap layed for the Brittish was sprung by Gen. Greene luring the Brittish north and Gen. Washington coming south to trap them. Only then did the French assist us by blockaiding the Brittish's only other means of escape...the sea.

The Dutch actually did way more to help us than anyone else. They often supplied us with powder and cannon, and they didn't have to wait till we won a major battle like the French did (Saratoga) to help us.

So, could you kindly not chastise someone for not knowing history when you don't know it yourself?

Oh, one last thing. The French agreed to the Louisiana Purchase because Napolean couldn't afford to place troops there during he many wars in Europe. That's why he sold it at a low price...not as a favor the us.

Don't you just hate it when someone proves you wrong?

And I worked with some Aussies in Iraq, good guys very good guys. A little crazy though.

First of all, I love you (yes, I know you're a happily married mother) but despite that love, I have to call you out on this one. There are more important things to do besides engaging in a pointless arguement with these three idiots. One has "faith" that Bush will be (re?)elected, another is in manic-denial about Mrs. Harris, and a third (dispite his atrocious spelling) believes that the invasion of Iraq was the "hour of our greetest need." Frankly, they are beneath you and your provoking them is painfully embarrassing. This isn't worth you time.

The fact is they haven't been hiding under a rock, but rather they are in middle school and addicted to Fox News.

Now, please -- I beg you -- stop wasting your beautiful mind on this rabble and jump to my thread http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342654 to give it the "star quality" that only a visit from nationstates' least eligible mod can provide.

If you do choose to post there, I am certain that my thread will rise from obscurity into fame, rightfully claiming the vogue status it has always deserved..


Right here is the problem with Liberals right now, and what will drive middle America away from your point of view.

You guys say some outlandish things that are obviously not true and so spun that even someone with out much knowledge in Politics can pick it out.

You actually have some good positions, ones that a lot of Americans would agree with...but then you start talking about Foxnews...like the channel is some mythical place that conservatives go to worship, or you say things about Harris who only obeyed her state constitution to the letter. Yeah, I don't like what happened in Florida either, but the fact remains she did exactly what she was supposed to do.

Here's the kicker about that. If there was a democrat as sec of state at the time, and they decided to violate the constitution in order to give the state to Gore...you would think that would be better?

You'll chastize Harris for following the rules, because it wasn't your guy that came out on top. And when you do that, average Americans see that and think you're being foolish.

As far as Iraq goes, read this blog from a friend of mine who is an Iraqi doctor.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

If you can read that, and his other friend's blogs and still say that us going to Iraq was wrong. Then you are without compassion.

I'm not a bush supporter, infact I know I wont be voting for him but, for god sake people. can we get over the "how much we hate america" and "how much bush is an ass" talks around. :headbang:
i'm an american and i highly LOVE america :eek: . i'm not a bush fan though so, if you hate em' then hate em'... just remember to not vote for him this time around(hell i didnt even vote for him the first time around). it seems like the majority of people are anti-bush now anyhow so, i don't think it will be too much of a problem for him to not be elected in this term. :D

"Can't we all just get along" :fluffle:

Damn, I was fine with Canada and the whole of Europe until I came here and discovered stereotyping at its best.
Now I got this HUGE problem with Canada and I have this urge to conquer Europe.
Hell, now I sing "Blame Canada" at Cross Country workouts all the time.

I totally agree with you. The amount of Anti-Americanism, especially in Europe, but also in other parts of the world, is unbelievable.
It is the usual blame thing: you always try to blame someone else. And great powers are never popular powers. That´s the way it is. Envy is a strong emotion, envy and non- acceptance that someone else is stronger, more capable, more decisive, more dedicated. So you lower him down, blame him for your own failures and make up disgusting things about him. That´s the situation America is in. And since the collapse of the Soviet Union America is the only remaining super power and therefore the main projection field for any kind of movement in the developing countries who wants to blame someone. And in Europe it is just the envy of the american strength. But American strength isn´t the problem, the problem is the weakness of Europe. Anti-Americanism only distracts from the problems of Europe and is an instrument to distract people over there from them.

I do agree that while we're having some problems with the French now, when push comes to shove the French and Americans will always back each other up. Alot of Americans just see France (right now anyway)as a nation that would rather make money than do what's right. (With the Oil for Food scandal being the main reason for oppossition.) But that has to do with their current government, not their people. The French never maintained there were no WMDs in Iraq, as a matter of fact, they believed Iraq had them as much as we did (we even shared intel on the matter).

That said, if you are going to attack an American about not knowing his history, maybe you should learn atleast enough to make a good point.

For instance, France bearly helped the US in our war for independance. They landed 6,000 troops in Newport, RI where they stayed until the trap layed for the Brittish was sprung by Gen. Greene luring the Brittish north and Gen. Washington coming south to trap them. Only then did the French assist us by blockaiding the Brittish's only other means of escape...the sea.

The Dutch actually did way more to help us than anyone else. They often supplied us with powder and cannon, and they didn't have to wait till we won a major battle like the French did (Saratoga) to help us.

So, could you kindly not chastise someone for not knowing history when you don't know it yourself?

Oh, one last thing. The French agreed to the Louisiana Purchase because Napolean couldn't afford to place troops there during he many wars in Europe. That's why he sold it at a low price...not as a favor the us.

Don't you just hate it when someone proves you wrong?

And I worked with some Aussies in Iraq, good guys very good guys. A little crazy though.



I just wanted to say thanks for the back up... For one thing i do know history and I never said that the US and France were not allies. I just pointed out how we help Europe constantly because they cannot do it themselves. Americans are called on constantly to help the world and are put down and spat on when we do... And the same goes for if we dont help. So if the United States was so arrogant we could say, "you know what F*** the world withdraw our troops from over 100 countries and not pay a penny in foriegn aid which is more than all other countries put together. I want to know why we give aid to coutries that hate us. I say if they wanna hate us then lets give them a reason lets see how they like us when we stop giving them 500 billion dollars a year. We could use that money domestically to help our poor and put our children through school or universal healthcare. But we dont. we help the world.

Most of what I've read here indicates that persons in other nations disagree with the political philosophy of American conservatives. They don't like the fact that the current administration has the audacity to act without consulting them first. And what really burns their butts, is that their favorite tactic of silencing opposition by force is not viable against America.

They don't like the fact that the current administration has the audacity to act without consulting them first.

Thats it in a nutshell. How DARE the US act in its own interest without getting permission from the French. :rolleyes:

European nations needed us badly after WW2 and we were there for them. The Soviet Union is gone now and they no longer need us, so now we must answer to them when acting in our own interest? I don't think so. If they don't agree with us fine, but to actively oppose us is just outragious.

I've found a good tactic for dealing with Canadians when they spit on the sidewalk in front of me and call me a Warmonger. I simply pull out my cell phone and tell them "Hold on, I'll call up George and tell him to call off the troops."

Works every time.

I do agree that while we're having some problems with the French now, when push comes to shove the French and Americans will always back each other up. Alot of Americans just see France (right now anyway)as a nation that would rather make money than do what's right. (With the Oil for Food scandal being the main reason for oppossition.) But that has to do with their current government, not their people. The French never maintained there were no WMDs in Iraq, as a matter of fact, they believed Iraq had them as much as we did (we even shared intel on the matter).

That said, if you are going to attack an American about not knowing his history, maybe you should learn atleast enough to make a good point.

For instance, France bearly helped the US in our war for independance. They landed 6,000 troops in Newport, RI where they stayed until the trap layed for the Brittish was sprung by Gen. Greene luring the Brittish north and Gen. Washington coming south to trap them. Only then did the French assist us by blockaiding the Brittish's only other means of escape...the sea.

The Dutch actually did way more to help us than anyone else. They often supplied us with powder and cannon, and they didn't have to wait till we won a major battle like the French did (Saratoga) to help us.

So, could you kindly not chastise someone for not knowing history when you don't know it yourself?

Oh, one last thing. The French agreed to the Louisiana Purchase because Napolean couldn't afford to place troops there during he many wars in Europe. That's why he sold it at a low price...not as a favor the us.

Don't you just hate it when someone proves you wrong?

And I worked with some Aussies in Iraq, good guys very good guys. A little crazy though.

6,000 troops in Newport, that's all you think they landed? The Dutch certainly helped us (enemy of my enemy, not out of any particular feeling for our cause), but France helped us far more. The main musket of the American Army during the Revolution was the Charleville, produced and shipped to us by France, over 80% of powder used by the American Army was French in origin.
Newport was a failure becuase of the French leader pulling his troops back, but then again, that might be why they replaced him. Further troops were sent and when Washingston marched south to beseige Yorktown, over half of his force was French. Blockading the British in Yorktown was perhaps more important then blocking them across land. By sea the British could sail to New York to linkup with the other British force and march through the North, or head south again and romp around. Greene had destroyed most river transportation to slow the British pursuit of him and trap them, his army would be several weeks in transit during which the southern colonies (which had never received as much military attention as the north) may start to feel a lot more loyalist, destroying what is already a very fragile coalition.
What you said about the Liousiana Purchase is true however, but Napoleon did feel he was aiding an enemy of Britain by giving it more power, it wasn't like he threw darts at a map to select the receiver of the Territory.

I've found a good tactic for dealing with Canadians when they spit on the sidewalk in front of me and call me a Warmonger. I simply pull out my cell phone and tell them "Hold on, I'll call up George and tell him to call off the troops."

Works every time.

That is PERFECT! Brilliant, I've been looking for something like that for years.

6,000 troops in Newport, that's all you think they landed? The Dutch certainly helped us (enemy of my enemy, not out of any particular feeling for our cause), but France helped us far more. The main musket of the American Army during the Revolution was the Charleville, produced and shipped to us by France, over 80% of powder used by the American Army was French in origin.
Newport was a failure becuase of the French leader pulling his troops back, but then again, that might be why they replaced him. Further troops were sent and when Washingston marched south to beseige Yorktown, over half of his force was French. Blockading the British in Yorktown was perhaps more important then blocking them across land. By sea the British could sail to New York to linkup with the other British force and march through the North, or head south again and romp around. Greene had destroyed most river transportation to slow the British pursuit of him and trap them, his army would be several weeks in transit during which the southern colonies (which had never received as much military attention as the north) may start to feel a lot more loyalist, destroying what is already a very fragile coalition.
What you said about the Liousiana Purchase is true however, but Napoleon did feel he was aiding an enemy of Britain by giving it more power, it wasn't like he threw darts at a map to select the receiver of the Territory.

Actually, the French acted on our behalf to get at the British, not out of some love for the Colonists. After victory was won, they thought they could influence the US, but Franklin, in negotiating the Treaty of Paris was astute enough not to allow us to be beholding to the French.

Ironically, the ideals the American troops imparted on their French allies were taken back to France and were in a small way, responsible for the French revolution.

I hear that "Americans = government" a lot by others too.

I mean, does it hurt to add the word "government" after the word "American"....because it helps a lot.


I don't address the Canadian government as Canadians. I address the Canadian people as Canadians.

+1000

I totally agree with you. The amount of Anti-Americanism, especially in Europe, but also in other parts of the world, is unbelievable.

It is the usual blame thing: you always try to blame someone else. And great powers are never popular powers. That´s the way it is. Envy is a strong emotion, envy and non-acceptance that someone else is stronger, more capable, more decisive, more dedicated. So you lower him down, blame him for your own failures and make up disgusting things about him. That's the situation America is in. And since the collapse of the Soviet Union, America is the only remaining super power and therefore the main projection field for any kind of movement in the developing countries who wants to blame someone.

And in Europe it is just the envy of the american strength. But American strength isn't the problem, the problem is the weakness of Europe. Anti-Americanism only distracts from the problems of Europe and is an instrument to distract people over there from them.
There is very little anti-Americanism in Europe. A lot of us hate George Bush. Is that anti-Americanism? I don't think so. You also speak as if European governments stir up and encourage anti-American feelings in their peoples. This is pretty rich coming from a place where the government openly condemned the entire French nation and all its people, and incited hatred for France.

I don't think that most Europeans envy America either. Europeans regard the American people with pity a lot of the time. We hear that there is very little media and public debate or political dissent. We hear that corporations dominate life. We hear that there are few government services. We hear that there is huge social inequality. We know that workers in America get far fewer public holidays than us. I don't know if all of these things are true, but we are not jealous of them.

I see you are talking about the myth (and that's all it is) that Europe has no military and no ability to defend itself. We are not weak. Huge military overspending is just not very popular here.

Have you ever considered that in your country, government-sanctioned Anti-Europeanism only distracts from the problems of America and is an instrument to distract people over there from them?

I linked to four different news sorces that all covered the same Gallup Poll results... My guess is that you didn't even bother to click the links and read the headlines...

Still, I am interested to learn how MSNBC, USAToday, and Gallup are "very baised(sic) anti Bush source(s)"




A) That's not a news source.

B) It's fake... The most blatantly protruding evidence of this is the proudly displayed Isreali-look-a-like flag in the top righthand corner. When the (one nation)Coalition unveiled that horrendous flaunting of Imperial prowess, the outrage was unanomious - including that of the Interim Council. Obviously, someone forgot to tell the Occupational Government that it isn't polite to redesign another nations flag (especially when the end result is similar to that nations enemy)


Texas, that's the new Iraqi flag...man, you don't know shit do you?

And it isn't fake, I know the guy who does the site, he showed it to me in Iraq.

There is very little anti-Americanism in Europe. A lot of us hate George Bush. Is that anti-Americanism? I don't think so. You also speak as if European governments stir up and encourage anti-American feelings in their peoples. This is pretty rich coming from a place where the government openly condemned the entire French nation and all its people, and incited hatred for France.

I don't think that most Europeans envy America either. Europeans regard the American people with pity a lot of the time. We hear that there is very little media and public debate or political dissent. We hear that corporations dominate life. We hear that there are few government services. We hear that there is huge social inequality. We know that workers in America get far fewer public holidays than us. I don't know if all of these things are true, but we are not jealous of them.

I see you are talking about the myth (and that's all it is) that Europe has no military and no ability to defend itself. We are not weak. Huge military overspending is just not very popular here.

Have you ever considered that in your country, government-sanctioned Anti-Europeanism only distracts from the problems of America and is an instrument to distract people over there from them?

There was certainly a lot of Anti-Americanism in the last German elections. Most of what people percieve to be is simply untrue on both sides. I live in Orlando Florida and we get SO many tourists from Europe. They stay in the tourist areas and seldom venture out of it. What perception do they return home with? They do not see the real America, only the area set up for tourists. They go home with one idea of the US that is patently false.

Anti-Europeanism, IF there is any, is only brought about by the actions of the European governments. The German elections for example. When the leading candidate decries the US and makes false statements about the US it lead to some bad feelings, but they passed. The French and their absolute opposition to our policies are a different matter all together because they did not just disagree with us, they ACTIVELY worked against us.

Do we have problems here in the US? Most assuredly we do, as does every country. Is the US a great place to live? It is the best for me, and I have lived in and travelled to other countries. I lived in England for 4 years, South Korea for a year and I have spent another 7 years travelling in 29 other countries in 3 other continents so I am not some IGNORANT American who does not know of what he speaks.

Workers here do get fewer holidays, but unlike most European countries our unemployment is much lower and our productivity is far greater. In France it is ILLEGAL to work more than 36 hours a week and they get 6 weeks off a year. Why is that? because they have so few jobs they are "sharing" them. We also do not pay anywhere near as much in taxes as our European friends. As for healthcare, we have choices. I personally have a health insurance policy that covers my whole family for $460 a year. That includes prescriptions. While I do not have FREE healthcare like some of our European friends, I can be seen by my doctor of choice within 6 hours if I need to be and do not have to get on a "waiting" list for non life-threatening surgeries. When I lived in England my wifes aunt needed hip surgery and had to wait 7 years for the operation because it was not life-threatening. Hardly worth having "free" healthcare at that cost.

Social inequity....hmmmm My business partner came to the US with $300 to his name. Today we have built our little company up to a $5,000,000 annual sales enterprise with no help from anyone. Thats the beauty of the US. ANYONE can work hard here and be successful. The same is not true in many European countries. There will always be those who do little and expect a handout. I have seen beggars in Europe too, so we are not so unalike in that respect. The US is a nation of INDIVIDUAL freedoms, not a socialist state so some people will fail to perform and will be left behind. We have the freedom to fail as well as succeed. What I think sets us apart is our tenacious desire to try again instead of looking to the government for help.

European countries certainly do have militaries, and a very good ones too. I had the pleasure of training with them when I was in the USAF and saw their effectiveness first hand. Their numbers are shrinking, but they are still a great force.

The bottom line is that most Europeans who complain about the US or our president, whoever he/she may be, usually do so out of a lack of knowledge of the US and the problems our people face. We choose our president and our congress out of a need to meet OUR needs, not those of people in other countries. Thats why you choose your leaders, provided you live in a country that allows you to do so.

i don't have a problem with americans. i have a problem with idiots, but there are idiots everywhere. most idiots don't say "you only hate me because i'm american" generally when i wasn't saying that i hated them, and usually i had no idea they were american. i've yet to come accross someone accusing me of being anti-france or anti-england when i've disagreed with them, but plenty of people like calling others anti-american for disagreement.

There was certainly a lot of Anti-Americanism in the last German elections. Most of what people percieve to be is simply untrue on both sides. I live in Orlando Florida and we get SO many tourists from Europe. They stay in the tourist areas and seldom venture out of it. What perception do they return home with? They do not see the real America, only the area set up for tourists. They go home with one idea of the US that is patently false.

Anti-Europeanism, IF there is any, is only brought about by the actions of the European governments. The German elections for example. When the leading candidate decries the US and makes false statements about the US it lead to some bad feelings, but they passed. The French and their absolute opposition to our policies are a different matter all together because they did not just disagree with us, they ACTIVELY worked against us.

Do we have problems here in the US? Most assuredly we do, as does every country. Is the US a great place to live? It is the best for me, and I have lived in and travelled to other countries. I lived in England for 4 years, South Korea for a year and I have spent another 7 years travelling in 29 other countries in 3 other continents so I am not some IGNORANT American who does not know of what he speaks.

Workers here do get fewer holidays, but unlike most European countries our unemployment is much lower and our productivity is far greater. In France it is ILLEGAL to work more than 36 hours a week and they get 6 weeks off a year. Why is that? because they have so few jobs they are "sharing" them. We also do not pay anywhere near as much in taxes as our European friends. As for healthcare, we have choices. I personally have a health insurance policy that covers my whole family for $460 a year. That includes prescriptions. While I do not have FREE healthcare like some of our European friends, I can be seen by my doctor of choice within 6 hours if I need to be and do not have to get on a "waiting" list for non life-threatening surgeries. When I lived in England my wifes aunt needed hip surgery and had to wait 7 years for the operation because it was not life-threatening. Hardly worth having "free" healthcare at that cost.

Social inequity....hmmmm My business partner came to the US with $300 to his name. Today we have built our little company up to a $5,000,000 annual sales enterprise with no help from anyone. Thats the beauty of the US. ANYONE can work hard here and be successful. The same is not true in many European countries. There will always be those who do little and expect a handout. I have seen beggars in Europe too, so we are not so unalike in that respect. The US is a nation of INDIVIDUAL freedoms, not a socialist state so some people will fail to perform and will be left behind. We have the freedom to fail as well as succeed. What I think sets us apart is our tenacious desire to try again instead of looking to the government for help.

European countries certainly do have militaries, and a very good ones too. I had the pleasure of training with them when I was in the USAF and saw their effectiveness first hand. Their numbers are shrinking, but they are still a great force.

The bottom line is that most Europeans who complain about the US or our president, whoever he/she may be, usually do so out of a lack of knowledge of the US and the problems our people face. We choose our president and our congress out of a need to meet OUR needs, not those of people in other countries. Thats why you choose your leaders, provided you live in a country that allows you to do so.


Good post, Biff, I lived Korea for a little over a year as well. Along with living in about a dozen other European and Middle Eastern nations...but I'm not in the Chair Force, I'm in the Army.

I'm Canadian. I live in America. My problem with the current state of America is the amount of sheer nationalism...though that's not quite as visible as it used to be. The ideals of America are great. The American people, for the most part, are great. The leaders (currently) have some issues. That's about it.

Being an American, I've seen how most of my people are. America is filled with ignorant people who see other cultures by their stereotypes alone and do not care to understand other cultures. America is a wonderful country. Its just many think that because "we are the greatest nation the world has ever seen" that we don't need to learn about others and that everyone else should speak English so we can understand them.

I wouldn't mind if people did speak more English, but I wish I could speakother languages myself. I for one woud like to personally apologize for my ignorant countrymen. All Americans aren't fat and stupid. But I feel that it is our own stereotyping of others that led to us being see as that.

Being an American, I've seen how most of my people are. America is filled with ignorant people who see other cultures by their stereotypes alone and do not care to understand other cultures. America is a wonderful country. Its just many think that because "we are the greatest nation the world has ever seen" that we don't need to learn about others and that everyone else should speak English so we can understand them.

I wouldn't mind if people did speak more English, but I wish I could speakother languages myself. I for one woud like to personally apologize for my ignorant countrymen. All Americans aren't fat and stupid. But I feel that it is our own stereotyping of others that led to us being see as that.


So, Crossman. Which other nation should we be studying? I know alot about the UK, Ireland, the Balkans and most of the conflicts that took place in the world. I don't know much about Belgium for instance...so if I met a Belgian and he said he was from East bum f#$%, Belgium and I didn't know where that is, is it okay for that Belgian to say that I'm an ignorant fool now?

So, Crossman. Which other nation should we be studying? I know alot about the UK, Ireland, the Balkans and most of the conflicts that took place in the world. I don't know much about Belgium for instance...so if I met a Belgian and he said he was from East bum f#$%, Belgium and I didn't know where that is, is it okay for that Belgian to say that I'm an ignorant fool now?

You've taken what I said too far to the extreme. You are obviously not one of the people I have a problem with. My problem lies with the people who say all Arabs ride camals and are terrorists, etc (let alone can pronounce the word arab instead of A-rab). Or all people from Africa are underfed barbarians who run around in loinclothes and hunt lions. I'm not saying be an expert on other cultures, just be able to see past the stereotypes. Of course if you don't know where some town in Belgium is it would be wrong to think of you as an ignorant fool. I can't use Belgium as an example for anything because I don't know any Belgian stereotypes. I have a problem with people who think people from India are terrorists, they aren't even Arab! Its people like that.

Do you understand now that I clarified it for you, Nuesia?

You've taken what I said too far to the extreme. You are obviously not one of the people I have a problem with. My problem lies with the people who say all Arabs ride camals and are terrorists, etc (let alone can pronounce the word arab instead of A-rab). Or all people from Africa are underfed barbarians who run around in loinclothes and hunt lions. I'm not saying be an expert on other cultures, just be able to see past the stereotypes. Of course if you don't know where some town in Belgium is it would be wrong to think of you as an ignorant fool. I can't use Belgium as an example for anything because I don't know any Belgian stereotypes. I have a problem with people who think people from India are terrorists, they aren't even Arab! Its people like that.

Do you understand now that I clarified it for you, Nuesia?

I get what you're saying. And I hate those ignorant fools too, but I'd just like to remind you that is a small minority. Don't make it seem like it's everyone. If it's previlant (I can't spell, sorry..."Long live spell check") where you live, then travel to a different part of the country and you'll see that most, and when I say most, I mean 98% (just made that up) don't think like that.

I get what you're saying. And I hate those ignorant fools too, but I'd just like to remind you that is a small minority. Don't make it seem like it's everyone. If it's previlant (I can't spell, sorry..."Long live spell check") where you live, then travel to a different part of the country and you'll see that most, and when I say most, I mean 98% (just made that up) don't think like that.

I know its not the majority of Americans. But even though its a minority of the people, I see it as a big problem. That small minority makes us look bad. The few ruining it for the many.

Either way Neusia, glad we're basically on the same page.

Yup

Ignorance is found everywhere. You HAVE to know a subject before you can critique it. Who puts faith in a movie review by someone who has not seen the movie in question. Thus it is for those who critisize the US. Oh, they may have VISITED the US, but they do not KNOW the US. One has to live in a country to KNOW it and it's people. Criticism based on anything less is just not accurate.

Then you'll be happy to know I deleted him...
Thank you! Man, he was annoying.

Hmm let me see... We are hated cause we seem arrogant? Yes there are ignorant American citizens but there are ignorant people all over the world. That in the hour of our greetest need they tuck tale and run and openly attack us. Kosovo, Bosnia, Germany, the Soviet Union and many other threats we have destroyed to make Europe safe. I could go on and on but i will stop here for now.
Well, the trouble is that with many Americans, ignorance is a source of pride. ("Damn straight I'm a redneck! Don't confuse me with the facts!") It's hard to blame the rest of the world for anxiety looking at a potent combination of -ignorance-arrogance-uncontested military might (and not afraid to try out the toys in some remote region, cause shmause...)
BTW, from personal experience I'd say healthcare in the US is the absolute end. Even my ultra-American husband :mp5: (gotta love him :fluffle: ) became a believer in Europe, where doctors actually made him well for free.
Living in America, on the other hand, has made me sick and tired. What is wrong with working short hours and taking vacations as long as one can comfortably afford oneself? It's downright therapeutic.
As I recall, the thread called for constructive criticism. So perhaps our flag-waving friends, cold-hard-bitchy or otherwise, should think about starting their own thread about what's the greatest thing about the USA?
Ahh, and welcome back, Whittier. It was too good to last. Can't keep our dear Gestapo, oh, sorry, meant to say Homeland Security supervisors out for long, eh? ;)

Do you believe if you say it enough times it will make it true?

I don't make up any thing. I have no reason to.



One (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=avllqKv5ld6w&refer=top_world_news)



Two (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aM3ozXkQegtw&refer=us)

Lets also not forget that no Republican has EVER won the White House without winning Ohio, which Kerry also leads in.

Before you speak.. make sure you A) Know what you're talking about and B) Hope the person you're trying to bullshit doesn't know that you're bullshitting...;)



:rolleyes:


All I can do is laugh at you now, Believe whatever the Liberal Media tells you, That doesn't make it true.

:rolleyes:


All I can do is laugh at you now, Believe whatever the Liberal Media tells you, That doesn't make it true.


You know what I feel bad about, is that in a post I read you said when you grew up you wanted to be a teacher.. I suggest a different profession..

You know what I feel bad about, is that in a post I read you said when you grew up you wanted to be a teacher.. I suggest a different profession..


Now you are putting words in my mouth? It is obvious flaming is ok for a mod. Don't hate me because I won't fall for your lies, Try giving me something real to go off of? :rolleyes:

pot? kettle. both black.

Hey remember on the Apprentice when Omarosa thought that lady was being racist when she said that thing about the kettle being black? That was funny!

That's the kind of American that annoys the crap out of me. Not like, black people, but uneducated people. Fortunately for America, those people are everywhere! Have you noticed that 95% of the people you come across are dumber than you are? I have! It's these same people that believe that GW is noble and that they should support what he does because it'd be un-American not to. Well, I disagree. It's un-American to bend over and take it and not do anything about it.

As for the Americans that are idiots abroad, yes... there's a good number of these folks running around. But hey, not all of us (yes, I'm American) are like that. In fact, I'd say I'm hypersensitive to cultural differences because I don't want to be referred to as a stupid American. I also try to be respectful of other people in general, even stupid people.

Respectfully,

The Rogue Nation of Tejad

Now you are putting words in my mouth? It is obvious flaming is ok for a mod. Don't hate me because I won't fall for your lies, Try giving me something real to go off of? :rolleyes:

Amusing since you are the one putting words into people's mouths, who is going off on nothing, and who is flaming more than not. Hypocrisy is amusing, no?

I suggest you actually read people's responses before you respond. it might lend some resemblance of intelligence to you.

Amusing since you are the one putting words into people's mouths, who is going off on nothing, and who is flaming more than not. Hypocrisy is amusing, no?

I suggest you actually read people's responses before you respond. it might lend some resemblance of intelligence to you.



First you say i am flaming and then you flame me, Who is the hypocrite now? Go away!

There is very little anti-Americanism in Europe. A lot of us hate George Bush. Is that anti-Americanism? I don't think so. You also speak as if European governments stir up and encourage anti-American feelings in their peoples. This is pretty rich coming from a place where the government openly condemned the entire French nation and all its people, and incited hatred for France.

I don't think that most Europeans envy America either. Europeans regard the American people with pity a lot of the time. We hear that there is very little media and public debate or political dissent. We hear that corporations dominate life. We hear that there are few government services. We hear that there is huge social inequality. We know that workers in America get far fewer public holidays than us. I don't know if all of these things are true, but we are not jealous of them.

I see you are talking about the myth (and that's all it is) that Europe has no military and no ability to defend itself. We are not weak. Huge military overspending is just not very popular here.

Have you ever considered that in your country, government-sanctioned Anti-Europeanism only distracts from the problems of America and is an instrument to distract people over there from them?


My sentiments exactly.

There is very little anti-Americanism in Europe. A lot of us hate George Bush. Is that anti-Americanism? I don't think so. You also speak as if European governments stir up and encourage anti-American feelings in their peoples. This is pretty rich coming from a place where the government openly condemned the entire French nation and all its people, and incited hatred for France.
I don't think that most Europeans envy America either. Europeans regard the American people with pity a lot of the time. We hear that there is very little media and public debate or political dissent. We hear that corporations dominate life. We hear that there are few government services. We hear that there is huge social inequality. We know that workers in America get far fewer public holidays than us. I don't know if all of these things are true, but we are not jealous of them.
I see you are talking about the myth (and that's all it is) that Europe has no military and no ability to defend itself. We are not weak. Huge military overspending is just not very popular here.
I´m an European myself and I have to strongly disagree with you. France is not very popular in many countries. For example in Britain and although of the Franco-german partnership its popularity in Germany is limmitted as well.
It is not unusal that great powers or former great powers are not popular. France isn´t, Britain isn´t, Germany isn´t, Russia isn´t, Japan isn´t and todays greatest power the USA isn´t popular as well.
Some European governments have used and use anti-americanism for their purposes. The German government used it in the election campaign in autum 2002 to turn around the election (which it otherwise would have lost).
As a matter of fact: the America economy grows much faster than the European economy since the 1990s. Just look to the figures. While the American economy is having a strong recovery France, Germany, Italy and others have alomost no growth. Especially Germany - once the economic locomotive of Europe - has developed to the sick man of Europe.
There is more social inequality in Europe. But the economy is stronger. And btw the inequality in Europe is increasing as well. A market economy always creates inequality: you have to make a choice: either a strong market economy with huge inequalities or an more equality but on a lower level with a weak economy. I would always choose the first option since it is better for all. A weak economy can never lead to the benefit of all: it may led to more equality but on a lower level.

Furthernmore the US is not overspending in the military field. The US hardly spents 5% of its GDP in the military field. Overspending would be if a country spends much more than 10% or even 20% in its military budget. The Soviet Union spent about 20% of its GDP on it in the 1970s and 1980s. That was one reason for the economic collapse of their economic and political system.
But 5% is far away from that number.
As a matter of fact European countries have a massive military underspending. Especially Germany is doing to little for the defense sector by spending only about 1% of the GDP in it.
It is no wonder that Europe becomes irrelevant in the military field. It doesn´t have modern equipment like the US. Even Britain has huge problems to cooperate with the US due to the technological gap to the US.
In future it may be impossible for european countries to work together with the US because of their lack of technology. For the US it is already easier to do things alone. The US doesn´t need allies to fight a successful war.
The European allies become more and more irrelevant because of there limitted military capacities.

They're horribly horribly lazy and very self centered, and they pollute and smell bad, and they think they're better than any other nationality know to man, and they blindly follow their govronment even though they don't think/know that they are doing it... And they have this... Screw-everyone-else, looking-for-the-quick-fix sort of being...

Oh wait... I'm American...

Errr... Yay.. For the... uh.. Colonies!

They're horribly horribly lazy and very self centered,....., and they think they're better than any other nationality know to man, and they blindly follow their govronment even though they don't think/know that they are doing it... And they have this... Screw-everyone-else, looking-for-the-quick-fix sort of being...

Are you talking about the arrogant French or the arrogant Europeans in general.

An arrogant anti-arrogant European

I was actually talking about Americans... Sadly enough

Texas, that's the new Iraqi flag...man, you don't know shit do you?

Really, is it the new Iraqi flag!? Holy Cow! I guess that's why I said someone forgot to tell the Occupational Government that it isn't polite to redesign another nations flag (especially when the end result is similar to that nations enemy) and then linked to this site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3670001.stm to back-up this statement: When the (one nation)Coalition unveiled that horrendous flaunting of Imperial prowess, the outrage was unanomious - including that of the Interim Council. So I guess you can say that I "don't know shit" -- but atleast I can read.

And it isn't fake, I know the guy who does the site, he showed it to me in Iraq.

Really, where were you in Iraq and when? What unit were you in and why were you allowed to fraternize with the population? I guess you've got some time to do your homework and "remember" all of these things, so I'll look forward to your "recollections."

The only people I've heard expressing such sentiments are Americans, the British, and the French. The flags of all three countries are composed of blue, white and red. Coincidence?

This kind of rabid nationalism (it's different from patriotism) is dangerous. It leads people who consider themselves "patriotic" to denounce others for allegedly being less so.
The Nazis denounced Jews as less German than the blondes.
Today, the Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs of America denounce liberals as "unpatriotic" for their dissenting political opinions.

I have never heard such a load of clap-trap in my life. The Nazi's didn't denounce Jews they murdered them!!!

I am Brititish and yes I am proud of my country not least for it's influence on western democracy and society. We had the first democratically elected leader. The first parliament & most of the western world speaks English. The main problem I have with America is most American's blinkered views and beliefs about how great they are, take the whole war of independance thing, the British gave you your country back, you didn't win any war it just suited the British purpose (and pocket) not to have to have a military presence in America as it was too busy with other areas in the world (India/Pakistan & Hong Kong for example). It still maintained it's trade routes (mostly cotton at the time) without having to pay for an army, indeed most of the founding Americans were of British or Irish descent (Washington DC - little town in North East of England is 600 years older a la New York and York - the Minster at York is older. Your government is the most secretive, corrupt bunch of useless incompetent politicians in the world!! The trouble with your average American is that they will elect the person who delivers speeches with the most Pomp and razmatazz - Arnie the governor California the biggest purse strings in America - it beggars belief.

I just want to let all of our neighbours to the south know that the majority of Canada has no problem with the majority of Americans. I personally think you guys deserve a leader with a brain and some morals, but that's besides the point. Anyways, out of the dozens of Americans I've met, I have only met one that's a jerk, so you guys actually have a better track record for me than my fellow Canadians. We love you!!!

I have no problem with Americans. I feel that the title of this thread is too generalised to allow me to give any answer other than that.

The American accent is appealing to me. (I know accents vary, and the only one I find annoying is the new york accent. Sorry New yorkers)
The American 'arrogance' is known world-wide. However, i don't see it as arrogance. I see it more as pride and patriotism. There is nothing wrong with being patriotic.
Someone claimed that Americans are lazy.... Is this true? Or is this just a generalised remark with no reasonable evidence to support it. I would like to point out that unemployment figures are quite high in the majority of countries, so if this is what you base your 'laziness theory' upon, then the world is lazy, not just americans.

What do i have a problem with?
I have a problem with ANY PERSON, not just americans, who think it is great to force their opinions and views upon another person but have no intention of listening to the response. Bullies can be defined like this.
I have a problem with violence, racism, sexism, homophobia, war, terrorism, guns, swearing, pornography and spam. If this is beginning to sound like america, then I guess that I have more of a problem with americans han i thought.

However, being English and never having visited America, I have not met many americans. I can say though, that every American that i have met... I have liked.

If this thread was renamed What is your problem with the FRENCH. Oh, then i would have a lot to say. (kidding)

If you want some insight into how many europeans think, I think you should read this article Bruce Bawer: Hating America (http://www.hudsonreview.com/BawerSp04.html)

It's a long article, and it's not written by an european but an american who has been to Europe for some time. Among other places Norway, where I am from. And as a norwegian, right wing and not hating america, I thing Bawer's observations are very good.

He is a bit lightweight and quick in some of his arguments, but the article as a whole I think should give very good insight. And some of the comments are spot on!

Not directly related to the article, but still on topic. Some of you complain that Bush did not have the majority of votes. Well, in Norway we have a different parlamentarian system. Instead of a president, we have a king (with no real power) and a government consiting of a coalition of three parties. One of these parties are really small, only got around 5% of the votes. Guess which party our prime minister represents? :headbang:

Yes, I know there's a big difference between a prime minsiter and a president. But the point is, the number of votes are not the only thing affecting who you leader will be. It's the whole system. In Norway votes count differently according to where a person lives. In rural areas votes count more, in order to not let densly populated areas overrun the rural areas. As far as I understand you have some similar stuff in the US too. No system is perfect, neither yours or ours. So the conclusion is, you can complain all you want, but still Bush was elected through your democratic system such as it is. That makes Bush your proper president. Accept it and deal with it. If you can't, consentrate on fixing the system instead of complaining about the past.

nice to read some sense instead of nonsense! :)

I don't know what everbody's problem with america is, which is probably because I couldn't be bothered reading everyone elses posts... :headbang:
I'm Australian, but I know some Americans and I have no problems with them, and America has produced some pretty awesome stuff.

So the conclusion is, you can complain all you want, but still Bush was elected through your democratic system such as it is. That makes Bush your proper president. Accept it and deal with it. If you can't, consentrate on fixing the system instead of complaining about the past.


Actually, I think you are missing the point.

The governor of Florida is George Bush's brother, Jeb Bush. The Secretary of State in Florida was Karthren Harris. Part of Mrs. Harris's job as SoS was to oversee the election, but Mrs. Harris was also the chair of the Bush Election campaign in Florida.

Since the election, it has been proven that Jeb Bush faxed a list of some thousands of african-americans (who predominantly vote for Democrats) to Mrs. Harris with orders to illegally add them to the list of ineligable voters.

Even still, the majority vote in Florida was called in Bush's favor within 1/2 of 1% The Florida State Constitution requires that the State recount all votes by hand when the margin is withing 1/2 of 1%

Bush's legal team took the case against Gore to the Supreme Court, which decided along partison lines in a 5-4 vote that the recount was unflawful.

This was not a lapse in the democratic process -- I can deal with a president winning an election without winning the popular vote -- I can not, however, accept the results of the political coup of 2000.

I have never heard such a load of clap-trap in my life. The Nazi's didn't denounce Jews they murdered them!!!

I am Brititish and yes I am proud of my country not least for it's influence on western democracy and society. We had the first democratically elected leader. The first parliament & most of the western world speaks English. The main problem I have with America is most American's blinkered views and beliefs about how great they are, take the whole war of independance thing, the British gave you your country back, you didn't win any war it just suited the British purpose (and pocket) not to have to have a military presence in America as it was too busy with other areas in the world (India/Pakistan & Hong Kong for example). It still maintained it's trade routes (mostly cotton at the time) without having to pay for an army, indeed most of the founding Americans were of British or Irish descent (Washington DC - little town in North East of England is 600 years older a la New York and York - the Minster at York is older. Your government is the most secretive, corrupt bunch of useless incompetent politicians in the world!! The trouble with your average American is that they will elect the person who delivers speeches with the most Pomp and razmatazz - Arnie the governor California the biggest purse strings in America - it beggars belief.

I see, so the American revolution was unnecessary because the British were leaving anyway to go to Hong Kong etc? They must have slow ships because Hong Kong did not become a British Colony until the late 1800's. I guess all those battles (Saratoga, Yorktown etc) were just games that the British were playing. Poor Cornwallis, he did try to surrender to Lafayette, but was directed toward Washington instead. I guess you will tell me that did not happen either. Face it, you do not know much about US history, or even your own for that matter. Then again, MOST who denounce the US for one reason or another do not KNOW the US except by what they see in their own press or in movies. :rolleyes:

Actually, I think you are missing the point.

The governor of Florida is George Bush's brother, Jeb Bush. The Secretary of State in Florida was Karthren Harris. Part of Mrs. Harris's job as SoS was to oversee the election, but Mrs. Harris was also the chair of the Bush Election campaign in Florida.

Since the election, it has been proven that Jeb Bush faxed a list of some thousands of african-americans (who predominantly vote for Democrats) to Mrs. Harris with orders to illegally add them to the list of ineligable voters.

Even still, the majority vote in Florida was called in Bush's favor within 1/2 of 1% The Florida State Constitution requires that the State recount all votes by hand when the margin is withing 1/2 of 1%

Bush's legal team took the case against Gore to the Supreme Court, which decided along partison lines in a 5-4 vote that the recount was unflawful.

This was not a lapse in the democratic process -- I can deal with a president winning an election without winning the popular vote -- I can not, however, accept the results of the political coup of 2000.

My point is still the same. The system (through the supreme court, which is a part of the system) handled the situation as it occured through the means it had.

Can you or anyone else prove that the system (the supreme court) was hijacked in any way? Is this hijacking a fact, or at least something that can be tested in court? Then why isn't Jeb Bush on trial if he took part in it? Or are you just not happy about the way the system did handle it?

@Buggard,

a very interesting article. Very long indeed and partly a bit exaggerated. But still it contains many truths.
However I think he misses one very important point. There is an American nation, an american identity and an american media and an american media audiance, but there is not such a thing in Europe. There is a british (if you count them as part of Europe- they are themself not shure about that as a matter of fact), a french, a spanish, an Italian, a Norwegian, a Polish, a German - well every courntry has its national identity and media and its pretty self-centred around it.
Stereotypical views about America have unfortunately a basis in many European countries. But stereotypical views have as well a basis between European countries.
The historic burden, the wars, the suffering and the cruelty of the past two centuries since the French revolution still play a role in the national memory, although often hidden behind "political correctness".
The European great powers were not only the most
imperialists nations but the most cynical one as well and the most power-hungry: France attempted under Napoleon the hegemony in Europe - leading to much anti-French sentiment up till now. Germany tried the same - more cruel, much more murderous - leading to much anti-German sentiment up till now and latter the Russians achieved dominance over huge parts of Europe leading to much anti-Russian sentiment up till now. On the other hand there is a feeling of supremacy by bigger nations towards the smaller, especially of course if they don´t follow them. Anti-Polish sentiment in France and Germany is an example for that. Or the traditional anti-British sentiment in France and the anti-French sentiment in Britain.
Asides of the traditional stereotypes which exists for centuries and are still alive.
So: I would say the situation is partly even worse than he thinks because he only focuses on European anti-americanism. But as a matter of fact there are so many anti-other Europeans feelings that it is eroneous to belive that in any foreseable time (or even ever) such a thing like a common european identity would develop.


I personally assume that anti-americanism is an instrument by parts of the political class (many of the European left and France) to unite European and to create a common identity. After all: identities are very often formed in order to unite against sombody else. We just need to go back a bit in history to find many examples for that. Islamic extremists use the "West" as their enemy to unite muslim people around them, some West European politicans present America as the threat and biggest danger to world peace.
I just have to say that I don´t know why we are so incredible stupid. Well: If I look back to our history I´m not so surprised about that actually. Some of our ancestors were even more stupid then we are today, however some have been smarter as well.

I`m happy that this attempt however didn´t work as a matter of fact.

@Kybernetia

Good post. What our European friends forget is that the US was dragged into world affairs. European powers, being the most powerful on earth in the 18th-19th centuries, spread their influence throughout the world to the chagrin of those who fell under their bootheels.

The middle east was created by the British, who set up every country there as a way of controlling their "colonies." Their idea was sound at the time, divide and conquer worked well as they had the Arabs fighting each other and not them. However, Winston Churchill said that "There will never be peace in the Middle East" due to the random borders created by the British administrators. He was right.

Africa is what it is today because of the "colonial masters." French, British, Dutch, Belgian, Italian, German and Portugese colonies were carved out of the continent without regard to the tribes that were living there. Tribal lands were taken away, tribes were split between colonies. Now look at what we have there? Rwanda is a DIRECT result of European arrogance in creating colonies out of someone elses land.

The US tried to stay out of European affairs AND keep Europeans out of the Americas with the Monroe Doctrine. This document kept us out of the spiderweb that is Europe until we were dragged into WWI. Then WWII was thrust upon us with the resulting decades of having to protect our friends from Stalin, who surely would have marched across Europe had he been given the chance. Yet for all that....the US is seen by many Europeans as a threat to peace. I would like to see all of our troops brought home from Europe. They contribute too much to the economies there. The Phillippines demanded that the US Navy leave and once it did...they lost a large portion of their economy and tried to get the Navy to come back. I imagine our European friends would do the same if the billions of dollars our troops bring to their economies suddenly dried up.

@Kybernetia
The US tried to stay out of European affairs AND keep Europeans out of the Americas with the Monroe Doctrine. This document kept us out of the spiderweb that is Europe until we were dragged into WWI. Then WWII was thrust upon us with the resulting decades of having to protect our friends from Stalin, who surely would have marched across Europe had he been given the chance. Yet for all that....the US is seen by many Europeans as a threat to peace. I would like to see all of our troops brought home from Europe. They contribute too much to the economies there. The Phillippines demanded that the US Navy leave and once it did...they lost a large portion of their economy and tried to get the Navy to come back. I imagine our European friends would do the same if the billions of dollars our troops bring to their economies suddenly dried up.
Well: The US has traditionally two different - actually contradicting tendencies. An isolationist one - however portraying its political system as an example - and an interventionist one - spreading the believe in the American values.
Those two tendencies existed aside each other. After all - I think I remember - that the US in its early days tried to "liberate" Canada from the British colonial power but suffered an humiliting defeat by the British.
And in World War I it was supporting Britain through loans and weapons sells before it entered the war.
However, the US was very reluctant to actively step in and after the war it withdrew from European affairs which was certainly a mistake by the US - which it did against the will of President Wilson btw.
At the end it was forced to intervene again in World War II.
I agree completly regarding your statements about Stalin. After all: In August 1939 the Hitler-Stalin pact was made (also called Molotov-Ribbentrop-pact (the two foreign ministers) in which both divided Eastern Europe between themself.
Stalin would certainly have liked to take over at least entire continental Europe (well: the British were last conquered in 1066; all attempts since them (French, German) have failed. Whether the Soviets would have been successful is a hypothetical question). Without the US that would certainly have happend.
And even today Europe needs the US for its security. The author correctly points out that Europe is not willing to spent enough to protect itself. That is less true for Britain and France (who have quite modern weapons and who have both nukes), but much more for others, especially the biggest economy in Europe: The Federal Republic of Germany.


Regarding US troops: they are already much, much less there then during the Cold War. Some cities and regions suffered from that economically. However it is not that the economy of any country in Europe depends on US military presence. It is the security which depends on it - and that is in a way even more important since without security and a strong defense someone becomes more vulnerable to attacks - under which the economy would of course suffer as well.
Today there are only 110.000 American troops in Europe (compared to millions during the cold war). Most of them (74.000) in Germany. They are going to be reduced to 37.000 in the next years due to a recent decision by the secretary of defense Donals Rumsfeld.

At the end a general remark to foreign policy: The US has to be interventionists. It has no choice not to. The security of the US and Europe as well (actually Europes security even more) depends on reaching more stability in the Wider Middle East (Middle East, North Africa, Caucasus, Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan).
Passivity can not be the answer to the problems and threads which come from that region and which we saw in many acts of terror before 9/11 and after 9/11.
I wonder what it needs to wake up parts of the political class in Europe and of the population to see that the thread is coming from a fanatic islamist ideology which wants to repress the world and that this threat can only be fought against together with the US.
I think given the threads that exist and which - as we have to assume given the facts- are unfortunatley going to increase in the next years and probably even decades it is out of the utmost stupidity to damage the only alliance European countries have to fight against this thread.

That is all I have to say about it.

Lets not forget that France is already 10% Muslim and that number is growing. Soon France will no longer be French. Europe does need the US more than the US needs them. We have our disagreements, but what has been going on the past 3 years is just over the top.

Lets not forget that France is already 10% Muslim and that number is growing...

True: and not only muslim but arab (Algerians). The problems over there are generally known I think.
And that there are many problems with them is true.
Quite honestly as an European - which I´m - I sometimes wonder about the opinion in the US about immigration. It seems to be pretty open in comparison to Europe. I tend to thing that is also because muslim immigrants are an insignificant group among your immigrants and the US population in general. That´s actually a point where I disagree with the author because he - in my opinion- presents the failure of integrating this minority as an European fault.
But probably that is the case because many members of this minority don´t want to be integrated????

Having said that I also state that the US is better in the integration of migrants. The reason for that: The US is historically a nation of immigrants, while the people were actually leaving the - always high-populated Europe.

However: you would be mistaken that this problem is limitted to France. It is as well there in Spain, in Britain, in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, e.g. to some degree - also of course influenced where the minorities originally come from and how strong fundamentalists tendencies are over there (the nationality of the minority differs between the countries: in Spain they are many Arabs, in Britain many Pakistani, in Germany and Austria Turks, e.g.).

I actually like some of the laws have passed recently - for example a ban of the scarf in public buildings and schools. That is going to make life harder for the fundamentalist.
In Germany it is considered to ban the scarf for teachers and other people in state service.
I think that are right steps to limit the room of the extremists. Also there are some attempts to crack-down on radical islamic instituitions.
Btw Al-Quaida has already reacted to that and threatend especially France- but Germany as well with terror.
I would rather see that as a sign that this steps are right. If they cry out and begin their threats they must be concerned that European countries finally wake up and try to crack down on radical Islamism.
Though of course to do that is more easily said than done.

True: and not only muslim but arab (Algerians). The problems over there are generally known I think.
And that there are many problems with them is true.
Quite honestly as an European - which I´m - I sometimes wonder about the opinion in the US about immigration. It seems to be pretty open in comparison to Europe. I tend to thing that is also because muslim immigrants are an insignificant group among your immigrants and the US population in general. That´s actually a point where I disagree with the author because he - in my opinion- presents the failure of integrating this minority as an European fault.
But probably that is the case because many members of this minority don´t want to be integrated????

Having said that I also state that the US is better in the integration of migrants. The reason for that: The US is historically a nation of immigrants, while the people were actually leaving the - always high-populated Europe.

However: you would be mistaken that this problem is limitted to France. It is as well there in Spain, in Britain, in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, e.g. to some degree - also of course influenced where the minorities originally come from and how strong fundamentalists tendencies are over there (the nationality of the minority differs between the countries: in Spain they are many Arabs, in Britain many Pakistani, in Germany and Austria Turks, e.g.).

I actually like some of the laws have passed recently - for example a ban of the scarf in public buildings and schools. That is going to make life harder for the fundamentalist.
In Germany it is considered to ban the scarf for teachers and other people in state service.
I think that are right steps to limit the room of the extremists. Also there are some attempts to crack-down on radical islamic instituitions.
Btw Al-Quaida has already reacted to that and threatend especially France- but Germany as well with terror.
I would rather see that as a sign that this steps are right. If they cry out and begin their threats they must be concerned that European countries finally wake up and try to crack down on radical Islamism.
Though of course to do that is more easily said than done.

Yes, I did limit my statement to France, as they tend to be the most against US culture infringing on theirs, yet they are being swallowed from within.

I too see the spread of Islam as a not so good thing. Here in the US it USED to be that immigrants did everything they could to fit in. Now it is not like that. We have a growing muslim population here as well, and they do not try to integrate themselves much either. Mosques and Islamic schools, funded by the Saudi's are poping up in many places. I was living in South Carolina in 2001 and there was a mosque in a very small town. On 9-11 there was a large crowd in the mosque very early in the morning. They remained in their "compound" all day and evening. 9-11 was a Tuesday, so it was not their holy day. I have no proof, but for some reason I am sure they knew what was going to happen beforehand.

Open societies are always easy to penetrate and I am certain that the next terrorist attack will come from some of our newest citizens.

As a citizen of Belgium and former member of its forces i disagree with many of the things said here.
Muslims make up 0.2% of our population(much less then the 0.7% Italians for instance). Their integration is not perfect but we are working on it. The muslim youth is quickly forgetting the Islam traditions (do i really need to post a pic of a mislum girl in a (rather short) skirt?), time will solve this issue.

The author in that article seems inti-European and just takes out some Anti-American books. I'm sorry but i dont like extremism.
For instance, he writes that liberals and left are opposites, how does that explain the Belgian government of leftists and liberals?
Maybe in Norway some farmers have a problem with a McDonalds, we have McDonalds' all over Belgium and we dont complain, i have a problem believing the man when i read that(especially if he thinks that happens in whole Europe).
I really believe you should, as we say, "take this article with some salt"(all lot of salt if you ask me).

I have nothing against Americans (except the 20% that voted for Bush) but please dont post any links like that, they will only make me your enemy (which i am not).

Also we dont need American in troops in Europe, you could have withdrawn those back in '75 without problems.

Last but not least: Belgium is quite safe when it comes to Al Qeada, even with Nato and all that in Brussels, the terrorists are not going to destroy there "door" to the west.

I was living in South Carolina in 2001 and there was a mosque in a very small town. On 9-11 there was a large crowd in the mosque very early in the morning. They remained in their "compound" all day and evening. 9-11 was a Tuesday, so it was not their holy day. I have no proof, but for some reason I am sure they knew what was going to happen beforehand.

They were probably scared for their lives and rightly so. When the 9-11 attacks happened everyone in the US was screaming bloody murder. I remember some news about attacks on arabs who had absolutely nothing to do with it and were respected member of the community. How could they know what the repercusion would be?

I think it was a sensible idea to remain in their "compound".

They were probably scared for their lives and rightly so. When the 9-11 attacks happened everyone in the US was screaming bloody murder. I remember some news about attacks on arabs who had absolutely nothing to do with it and were respected member of the community. How could they know what the repercusion would be?

I think it was a sensible idea to remain in their "compound".

Maybe I did not get this across correctly. They were in the mosque BEFORE the aircraft hit the WTC. I will never forget driving to work at 7:20 am...over an hour prior to the first aircraft and seeing all those cars parked inside the chain-link fence topped with barbed wire surrounding the mosque. Coincidence? Maybe....

"Yes, I did limit my statement to France, as they tend to be the most against US culture infringing on theirs, yet they are being swallowed from within."
I understand your feeling towards France. But if you are going a bit deeper in their history of the last 200 years you do understand better some of their actions.
I mean - quite honestly - it was easierfor Britain to become the junior partner to the US after their empire collapse. You speak the same language, have in principal the same legal system (common law) and lots of cultural and historic connections.
That was not the case for France and so they decided to go more their own way. They not only started a nuclear program - Britain did that as well (however together with the US) -, they did outside Nato and alone to underline independence. They even left the military integration of Nato in order to underline their desire to play a special role (under de Gaulle). However they have also done many good things in that time. The reconciliation with Germany after a long history (almost 160 years) where both had become arch-enemies. That would really be an example for other countries which are fighting each other.
They have for example supported the transport of new rockets to Europe in the 1980s and the first gulf war in 1990/91. And under Chirac the military cooperation with Nato and the US has increased actually. Chirac even considered to reintegrate France in the Nato military structure. That project is obviously over now.

The French are proud people - with a tendency to arrogance. They are proud of their language and therefore feel uneasy about the spread of the English language which is a resolut of globalisation. France resisted that very long. However I think they also begin to realize that they need to change there a bit as well. However they try to limmit its use in their own country. On the other hand: you are going to find many Mc Donalds in France.
Globalisitation is a huge challenge for all - and especially also for non-English speaking countries. An for a country like France who had great ambitions in the past it is even more difficult than for others.

One word to the immigration issue: in Britain and France it began after all due to their colonial empires while Germany, Austria, Switzerland needed workers and invited so called guest-workers. Well: the guest have stayed. We wanted workers but we got people and the societies where never prepared for that.
I actually thing that only in the last few years there are serious thoughts to deal with the issue of integration.
And that is pretty late indeed.
As to your statement of being swallowed from within: I don´t think that happens to France. Not that I say that the there a big threads for the country due to islamism. But the French are proud people with an unbroken national pride. And they really try no the swallow this group through using such laws - as mentioned above - and moderate muslim leaders.

I would see the situation differently in Germany, where I´m from. Well, the problem may not be that severe since we have a turkish minority. However by having them we have imported the turkish-kurd conflict. And there is some islamism among this group as well.
If laws are suggested the parts of the political left start to wine and to use the political correctness as an instrument to stop those laws, like they try with the ban of the scarf.
I mean: What do they want: Tolerance is good but not against the intolerant. Otherwise we have at the to tolerate a female teacher wearing the burqua while she is teaching. Or why not going further and make the Burqa compulsory like in Afghanistan (under the Taliban) to prevent "discrimination" against muslim women???
Sorry for my polemic, but sometimes .....

Fortunately that is a state issue and conservative governed state have already passed or are passing such laws (like France did - by the way supported by the socialists opposition). Surprisingly by the way even the state of Berlin which is ruled by a left-wing government wants to do it (it is actualy a government of red-red (socialists and communists - but no greens- with them it wouldn´t be possible). That it however an exception. Fortunately: there are not many states ruled by the reds and the greens (the greens are the most stupid regarding this issue)anymore.
I can only welcome if there is at least somewhere a little wisdom on the side of the political left.

I'd have to write a book about it.

As a citizen of Belgium and former member of its forces i disagree with many of the things said here.
Muslims make up 0.2% of our population(much less then the 0.7% Italians for instance). Their integration is not perfect but we are working on it. The muslim youth is quickly forgetting the Islam traditions (do i really need to post a pic of a mislum girl in a (rather short) skirt?), time will solve this issue.

The author in that article seems inti-European and just takes out some Anti-American books. I'm sorry but i dont like extremism.
For instance, he writes that liberals and left are opposites, how does that explain the Belgian government of leftists and liberals?
Maybe in Norway some farmers have a problem with a McDonalds, we have McDonalds' all over Belgium and we dont complain, i have a problem believing the man when i read that(especially if he thinks that happens in whole Europe).
I really believe you should, as we say, "take this article with some salt"(all lot of salt if you ask me).

I have nothing against Americans (except the 20% that voted for Bush) but please dont post any links like that, they will only make me your enemy (which i am not).

Also we dont need American in troops in Europe, you could have withdrawn those back in '75 without problems.

Last but not least: Belgium is quite safe when it comes to Al Qeada, even with Nato and all that in Brussels, the terrorists are not going to destroy there "door" to the west.

I did not read the link, nor do I know enough about Belgium other than I want to go back there someday. What I DO know about is France and their worry about encroaching American culture. I read a few years ago that they had passed a law that said the number of American made films shown in French theatres was to be limited and that theatres were to be required to show more French made films. Also, McDonalds was singled out as having a negative influence on French cuisine. Other than that, the only real anti-American sentiment has come from the European governments, not the people. Now those of us who voted for Bush, the American president, not the French, Belgian, or whatever are neither ignorant, arrogant nor naive. They voted for the man they thought would do the best job. Al Gore would have been an even greater disaster. Kerry is losing ground now, his numbers in the polls are dropping, right in the middle of the DEM convention.

"Yes, I did limit my statement to France, as they tend to be the most against US culture infringing on theirs, yet they are being swallowed from within."
I understand your feeling towards France. But if you are going a bit deeper in their history of the last 200 years you do understand better some of their actions.
I mean - quite honestly - it was easierfor Britain to become the junior partner to the US after their empire collapse. You speak the same language, have in principal the same legal system (common law) and lots of cultural and historic connections.
That was not the case for France and so they decided to go more their own way. They not only started a nuclear program - Britain did that as well (however together with the US) -, they did outside Nato and alone to underline independence. They even left the military integration of Nato in order to underline their desire to play a special role (under de Gaulle). However they have also done many good things in that time. The reconciliation with Germany after a long history (almost 160 years) where both had become arch-enemies. That would really be an example for other countries which are fighting each other.
They have for example supported the transport of new rockets to Europe in the 1980s and the first gulf war in 1990/91. And under Chirac the military cooperation with Nato and the US has increased actually. Chirac even considered to reintegrate France in the Nato military structure. That project is obviously over now.

The French are proud people - with a tendency to arrogance. They are proud of their language and therefore feel uneasy about the spread of the English language which is a resolut of globalisation. France resisted that very long. However I think they also begin to realize that they need to change there a bit as well. However they try to limmit its use in their own country. On the other hand: you are going to find many Mc Donalds in France.
Globalisitation is a huge challenge for all - and especially also for non-English speaking countries. An for a country like France who had great ambitions in the past it is even more difficult than for others.

One word to the immigration issue: in Britain and France it began after all due to their colonial empires while Germany, Austria, Switzerland needed workers and invited so called guest-workers. Well: the guest have stayed. We wanted workers but we got people and the societies where never prepared for that.
I actually thing that only in the last few years there are serious thoughts to deal with the issue of integration.
And that is pretty late indeed.
As to your statement of being swallowed from within: I don´t think that happens to France. Not that I say that the there a big threads for the country due to islamism. But the French are proud people with an unbroken national pride. And they really try no the swallow this group through using such laws - as mentioned above - and moderate muslim leaders.

I would see the situation differently in Germany, where I´m from. Well, the problem may not be that severe since we have a turkish minority. However by having them we have imported the turkish-kurd conflict. And there is some islamism among this group as well.
If laws are suggested the parts of the political left start to wine and to use the political correctness as an instrument to stop those laws, like they try with the ban of the scarf.
I mean: What do they want: Tolerance is good but not against the intolerant. Otherwise we have at the to tolerate a female teacher wearing the burqua while she is teaching. Or why not going further and make the Burqa compulsory like in Afghanistan (under the Taliban) to prevent "discrimination" against muslim women???
Sorry for my polemic, but sometimes .....

Fortunately that is a state issue and conservative governed state have already passed or are passing such laws (like France did - by the way supported by the socialists opposition). Surprisingly by the way even the state of Berlin which is ruled by a left-wing government wants to do it (it is actualy a government of red-red (socialists and communists - but no greens- with them it wouldn´t be possible). That it however an exception. Fortunately: there are not many states ruled by the reds and the greens (the greens are the most stupid regarding this issue)anymore.
I can only welcome if there is at least somewhere a little wisdom on the side of the political left.

After reading about how things are done in Europe....how can ANYONE complain about how we do things? So many parties...coalitions between them, Greens and Reds...Socialists and Democrats...and Social Democrats, Conservative Democrats, left wing, right wing.....it boggles the mind. How do they find the time to get anything done?

Yes the French people are a proud people...but they have also done things they should not have. They resumed nuclear testing against the will of the entire world, they attacked and sank the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand, thus violating the sovereignty of another nation. I am not really worried about anti-Americanism in Europe because I see so many tourists here in my hometown of Orlando Florida. I have met people from all over Europe here and they are very friendly. I cannot imagine anyone being anit-American and coming here to visit. If I was anti something I would not give it any support at all. I know for a fact that there are individuals in Europe that absolutely hate the US. No matter what we do, we are always wrong in their eyes, but they are a minority and not indicative of the whole.

@Biff Pileon

" So many parties...coalitions between them, Greens and Reds...Socialists and Democrats...and Social Democrats, Conservative Democrats, left wing, right wing.....it boggles the mind. How do they find the time to get anything done?"
Sorry, I should have explained that.
There a different voting systems in different countries: the majority voting in constituancies (like in the US, Britain, France) and a so-called partial proportionate system. With the latter system you vote parties (not candidates in constituancies like in the US).
This voting system offers more opportunity for small parties since the representation in parliament depends on the number of vote it receives. However there is the risk that to many parties come into parliament. In order to avoid that many nations have establish barriers. In Germany a party has to reach 5% of the votes to get into parliament.
There four parties which are in the federal parliament:
two big parties and two small:
The big parties:
SPD (Social democrat) - left-wing - often refered as the reds
CDU/CSU (Christian democrat Union(CDU - all states except Bavaria), Christian Social Union (CSU - only in Bavaria) - the form one fraction in parliament) - refered to as the blacks

The small parties
FDP - Freedom Democrats - liberal party, especialy for a free economy - refered to as the yellows
Greens - Left-wing, environmentalists - referred to as the greens.

That are the parties currently in the federal parliament.
That are the traditional west german parties.
In East Germany however the Greens are very weak (almost non existent) and the liberals as well. However the Communists are still quite strong (like in other former communists countries: They call themself now PDS - party of democratic socialism.
As mentioned: failed the 5% barrier at the last general election.

Since the 1980s the are actually two blocks fighting each other:
Red-Green (SPD, Green) versus Black-Yellow (CDU/CSU, FDP).
So: although we don´t have a two party system there are in fact two blocks: Centre-Right versus the Left if you want to put it that way.
Before 1980 the Greens didn´t exist. Between 1960-1980 there was actually a three party system. CDU/CSU on the right and the SPD on the left.
The small FDP (Liberals) was in the middle and mainly decided who should rule (from 1949-66 Conservative-liberal governments, 1966-69 Great Coaltion (CDU/CSU, SPD), 1969-82 Left-liberal government (SPD, FDP), 1982-1998 Conservative-liberal (CDU/CSU, FDP),
With the appearance of the Greens the FDP actually lost its position of King maker: since them there is a block-system - as mentioned: Black-yellow versus Red-Green.
Since 1998 Left-wing government (SPD, Greens)
Not that complicated actually: only four parties.
Other countries have much more.
And you now due to their statements what coalition they want.

Yes the French people are a proud people...but they have also done things they should not have. They resumed nuclear testing against the will of the entire world, they attacked and sank the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand, thus violating the sovereignty of another nation. I am not really worried about anti-Americanism in Europe because I see so many tourists here in my hometown of Orlando Florida. I have met people from all over Europe here and they are very friendly. I cannot imagine anyone being anit-American and coming here to visit. If I was anti something I would not give it any support at all. I know for a fact that there are individuals in Europe that absolutely hate the US. No matter what we do, we are always wrong in their eyes, but they are a minority and not indicative of the whole.


Well, that´s true. That actually shows that President Chirac and President Bush have many things in common. He declared the UN irrelevant if it doesn´t approve to his wishes the other declared (more or less privat not private) to the criticism of the UN regarding the French nuclear tests in 1995 "Je pisse de UNO" - meaning - I give a shit or actually I piss on the UN.
Yes: they are many people who hate the US, but not just in Europe, regardless what it does. But there are also many people who hate France regardless of what it does or Britain or Germany regardless of what it does.
The US is in the position of the only remaining super power. Due to that it has a lot of opportunities but it also (regardless of what it does) draws more hatred against it. Even much more than during the Cold War because then it was still possible to hate the USSR as well. But the USSR is no more. To US is left as the only super power.

@Kybernetia

Wow, that is a very different system. I bet it makes for some lively debates.

We also have a Green Party as well as Communist party, but neither is of any significance. The Rebublicans and Democrats have a stranglehold on power and make it very hard for others to get on state ballots.

In order to get on the ballot, a petition must be presented that contains a certain number of signatures. The number depends on the state requirements, all are different. The signatures must be of registered voters who are NOT registered Republicans or Democrats and did NOT vote in the states primary. Imagine having to have 250,000 signatures and providing such proof for each one. The Republicans and Democrats do not have to go through this and are automatically on the ballot. Hardly fair is it?

I hope that one day people here will wake up and realize that the 2 party system is flawed. We need to take OUR government back.

Well, that´s true. That actually shows that President Chirac and President Bush have many things in common. He declared the UN irrelevant if it doesn´t approve to his wishes the other declared (more or less privat not private) to the criticism of the UN regarding the French nuclear tests in 1995 "Je pisse de UNO" - meaning - I give a shit or actually I piss on the UN.
Yes: they are many people who hate the US, but not just in Europe, regardless what it does. But there are also many people who hate France regardless of what it does or Britain or Germany regardless of what it does.
The US is in the position of the only remaining super power. Due to that it has a lot of opportunities but it also (regardless of what it does) draws more hatred against it. Even much more than during the Cold War because then it was still possible to hate the USSR as well. But the USSR is no more. To US is left as the only super power.

It is funny how one government can decry another for doing the same thing. Individuals can come to terms on many things, governments do not seem to have that ability for some reason. The US will always be hated by some and loved by others no matter what we do. Such is life. Personally I wish we were not a superpower so other countries would not always look to us for an answer and then bitch at us because they don't like it. ;)

It is funny how one government can decry another for doing the same thing. Individuals can come to terms on many things, governments do not seem to have that ability for some reason. The US will always be hated by some and loved by others no matter what we do. Such is life. Personally I wish we were not a superpower so other countries would not always look to us for an answer and then bitch at us because they don't like it.


I would certainly not like to change with the US. The position of being the only super power is a very difficult one.
But you are in that position. Why the US??? Some would argue because it is the best, the greatest or whatsoever or even the mercy of God. But it is a mercy or a curse to be in that position?? I don´t know.
I like the answer of Blair why the US is the super power and therefore has also a lot of responsiblities (much more than others): "Why you: Because history put you in this place".
After the fall of the British Empire (completly after World War II) it became the leading power of the "western world" and since the collapse of the other super power in 1991 it is the only leading power of the whole world.

God Bless America !!!

@Biff Pileon,

due to our different voting system small parties have a bigger chance. However: they need as mentioned 5%. In the begining of the Republic (1949 following) the number of parties reaching that barrier decreased dramaticly. At 1960 only three parties were left (on the federal level).
The Greens were the only new party who manage to spring over this barrier on a nation wide election. However on the state level the situation was sometimes different: however: except the greens all other new parties fall apart, lost support or were not reelected.
The communists have no support (or almost no) in the west but still significant in the east and are also part of two state governments (Berlin (which is also a state) and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (all East Germany).
They are actually close to the 5% on the federal level.


A short comment on the French system. They have actually the same system as you (constituencies, e.g.).
However they have two rounds of voting. First round the candidate needs 50% to be elected. In the second round only candidates with more than 12,5% can candidate. Winner is the candidate with a relative majority. What is the sense of that??? Well: smaller parties have the opportunity to negotiate with others. For example on the political left the parties either agree before the election or they form alliances afterwards like: We withdraw our candidate in this constituency if you do it in that and that one.
France has actually also a two-block sytem.
Especially the left is pretty fragmented (Socialist (biggest party there), Communists, Greens). The conservative were fragmanted in the past (three or even more parties). However at the last parliament election in 2002 (shortly after the very surprising presidential election (the estreme right: the Front National with their candidate Jean Marie Le Pen) came in the second round - the left failed) President Chirac was able to unite the conservative parties behind him and united them into the party UMP (Union pour la majorité presidentiel - Union for the majority of the president) which won the parliament election.

I would certainly not like to change with the US. The position of being the only super power is a very difficult one.
But you are in that position. Why the US??? Some would argue because it is the best, the greatest or whatsoever or even the mercy of God. But it is a mercy or a curse to be in that position?? I don´t know.
I like the answer of Blair why the US is the super power and therefore has also a lot of responsiblities (much more than others): "Why you: Because history put you in this place".
After the fall of the British Empire (completly after World War II) it became the leading power of the "western world" and since the collapse of the other super power in 1991 it is the only leading power of the whole world.

It actually had more to do with the end of WW2 and being the ONLY participant that was not destroyed. Our industry was really the only functioning industry in the world. Europe was utterly destroyed. Russia was a wasteland. The British, although not out completely, were down and never recovered so they lost their empire. Thus the US found itself, by virtue of being seperated by two oceans, the lone power in the world besides the Russian army. We could have defeated the Russians at that point, but the world was too tired of fighting. So we find ourselves here with the rest of the world taking pot shots at us at every turn. Our president is always ridiculed. Even some of our domestic laws are called into question. Why some decry our laws when they do not affect them in any way is a mystery to me, but they do.

I have travelled throughout Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Central and South America. I have seen many things and met many people. 99.9% are friendly toward us Americans, but there is always that group that dislikes us for one reason or another. I asked one fellow in England that had a problem with America if he had ever been here. He had not of course, but he assured me that he KNEW what the US was like and about. I suspect the same is true of those on this forum who berate and cajole. They have never been here and have no idea of what the US is like at all. We will elect our next president in a few months and if it turns out to be Bush again, I expect the rhetoric here to become even more vile. If it is Kerry, then I expect it to quiet down for maybe a month...then start in on him too. :rolleyes: Such is life in the US.

"It actually had more to do with the end of WW2 and being the ONLY participant that was not destroyed. Our industry was really the only functioning industry in the world. Europe was utterly destroyed. Russia was a wasteland. The British, although not out completely, were down and never recovered so they lost their empire. Thus the US found itself, by virtue of being seperated by two oceans, the lone power in the world besides the Russian army. We could have defeated the Russians at that point, but the world was too tired of fighting. So we find ourselves here with the rest of the world taking pot shots at us at every turn. Our president is always ridiculed. Even some of our domestic laws are called into question. Why some decry our laws when they do not affect them in any way is a mystery to me, but they do."
Well: they was one historian (forget his name) who predicted at the end of the 19 th century the rise of the US and Russia: Reasons he gave were the enormous size and resources of the country.
Today the USSR is no more, Russia has a much smaller territory and much, much less people.
The were your allies in World War II. And at first the US tried to reach a consensus about a new european order: But than that failed. By the way: since 1948 the USSR has nukes as well. Since that is the case the prospect of a conflict was indeed very dangerous. Given the enormous size of Russia such a war wouldn´t be pretty stupid. Russia was never conquered. The attempts by Napoleon and Hitler failed in the russian winter dramaticly.

The only country which in Future - theoretically may one day able to challenge the US seriously - is China.

Regarding Europe: it was a British historian who wrote at the outbreak of World War I: "The lights in Europe are switched of and it will take long before we can switch them on again." Actually: after two world wars with together 50 million deads in Europe only and an iron curtain for almost fithy years which devided the continent it is actually only today that the lights are been slowly - step by step - switched on again. The enlargement of the EU is actually one important step in that direction.

Regarding laws: I agree that domestic laws are a domestic affair. But there are US laws which are interfering to trade relations of other countries - like the Helms-Burton-Act.
I know, there are also things the US is unhappy about in regard to the EU.
But those tiny dispute draw away attention to the real facts: and they are that 98% of trade between the US and the EU is DISPUTE FREE.

"It is funny how one government can decry another for doing the same thing."
The French would of course say that is a different thing to test nukes on a remote island in the pacific - which is after all part of their territory - than to conquer and occupy a country with 25 million people.

However: I don´t want to open that topic. I understand the US decision to go for regime change in Iraq.

Nationalism, blind patriotism, imperialism, sheer arrogance, racism, Christian fundamentalism, ignorance, stupidity, brutal capitalist wars... To name a few.

Go to www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog. Read their discussions.

They may be in the minority, but these are the type of people who have hijacked America lately and turned it exactly the opposite of what it was intended to be.

Nationalism, blind patriotism, imperialism, sheer arrogance, racism, Christian fundamentalism, ignorance, stupidity, brutal capitalist wars... To name a few.

Go to www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog. Read their discussions.

They may be in the minority, but these are the type of people who have hijacked America lately and turned it exactly the opposite of what it was intended to be.

America has been hijacked? No, I think it is more that America has been mugged by many of it's "allies" and resents it. Life is great here, otherwise people would not be risking their lives to get here.

America has been hijacked? No, I think it is more that America has been mugged by many of it's "allies" and resents it. Life is great here, otherwise people would not be risking their lives to get here.

People risk their lives to get into the UK too, not because life is great, no ... just because once they are there, they cant be thrown out again(if if they have no identification whatsoever). Life may be great in the US, but so is life in European nations. Only most European nations throw you out if you dont have identification-papers.

People risk their lives to get into the UK too, not because life is great, no ... just because once they are there, they cant be thrown out again(if if they have no identification whatsoever). Life may be great in the US, but so is life in European nations. Only most European nations throw you out if you dont have identification-papers.

Oh, we deport plenty of people from here too. One thing I have found interesting and was on the news here last night. Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe again, especially in France where many Jews are leaving to go to Israel. Ariel Sharon was on the news encouraging them to leave Europe. With Europe allowing so many Muslims to come in, France has 5 million Muslims and 500,000 Jews it is no wonder this is happening. London is hardly an English city anymore. Here, Detroit is becoming a muslim city. Oh, we have idiots here to that commit anti-semitic acts, but never to the point that anyone would leave the country.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5540227/