NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok... I have to say I'm getting fairly irritated by the number of Americans who poke their head into this conversation saying something to the effect of;

"You don't speak German? You're welcome", or some other snide remark about "saving the day in WWII".

**exerts some self control**

Ok. No one doubts the effort and lives of Americans significantly aided in the rapid defeat of Hitler in WWII. However, by the time the Americans arrived in the war officially, German was already fighting a war on two fronts, had lost air supriority and was rapidly losing the mercantile and production war.

On the sheer basis of production power alone Hitler was destined to lose. The Allied forces could simply produce more arms, more men faster than Germany could produce/replace the ones they lost. Hitler lost the war the moment he attacked Russia. Simple as that.

So, Americans did not "save the day". I know all you Americans like to consider yourselves John Wayne style heroes, with the flapping flag and the hand over your heart, but that's simply not the case.

However - America was a big part in ending the war against Hitler a LOT faster than it would have otherwise resolved itself. Without the Americans, D-Day may not have been at all successful, their man-power and war machine was more than necessary to provide the Allied forces with regaining a foothold on Europe itself. American intervention very likely saved hundreds of thousands of more European lives from being lost due to an extended WWII. There is no way Europeans can deny this fact either.

Thus... Stop Harping On WWII.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurya
ONE MORE AND VERY IMPORTANT THING: in Spain we're still waiting for the USA help to defeat Franco's forces, as we're still waiting for the USA help during the afterwar. Remember that the war against the fascism started in 1936 in Granada (Andalucía)...


Well, you did that yourself after all. And that is always better that someone liberates itself than being liberated (because being liberated means also to be occupied). I don´t say the US are angles. They are not. They also do mistakes. And I also can get annoyed by continued statements like "we are the best, we are the greatest, we are superior", " we are gods own country" e.g.
Those statements after all imply that all others are the opposite (like the worst, inferior, and devils country or so).
But none the less the US is a great country with after all good people. And the US did many good things for the world and is still doing so. So, the world needs the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurya
.the same manner that Argentina can't ever forgive USA their help to UK during the Malvinas (Falkland Islands) war.


I disagree with you here. Argentina started a war of agression by occupying the Falklands against the will of the Falkland people. Britain had the right to defend itself against this agression of the military dictatorship of Argentina. By the way: after the defeat the dictatorship collapsed - and Argentina became a democracy.

Nice answers, kyber. Just remeber that Falkland Islands population was mainly UK convicts who his government had given a second chance. So it's true that they obviusly weren't pro-Argentina. In any case, it's also true that even the Argentinan people think about that as a mistake, starting a war versus such powerful army as the UK had. But you haven't answered my question: why did USA helped UK? I think there was no need to do so...

In the case of Spain, the theme is more complex. Spain achieved democracy after forty years of dictatorship, and not precisely a soft one. Everybody knows that Franco was a fascist (the people that says that he was benevolent are the same that says that the Holocaust was lie) the same manner that is also known that the Republic Forces ("the good ones", those defending the democracy) couldn't win the Civil war, just win time to get help, help that never arrived, nor from France or UK nor from the States nor even from Russia...after the WW II, everybody was a consumated anti-fascist, but when fascism really started there were only a few who dared to rise arms against it.
I don't know if USA would have occupied Spain after an hipothetycal victory agains't Franco Army (who had a loooot of help from his friend Adolf) ...but it's worth to think about it.

And know? What do you think that must USA do all over the world? Should USA continueing helping poor countries with rich resources?
How do you think that USA can help the world???
(Maybe It should be better if I started a new thread with this question...I don't know).

Un-American means that an individual wasn't born in America or isn't a citizen. Because somebody disagrees with America doesn't make them un-American. Infact there's a wonderful quote that I would like you to read "I may hate what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." America is supposed to be about having your own opinions and having the freedom to express them, so I think it's a bit disconcerning when somebody expresses an opinion that doesn't match the American opinion of the week they're looked upon as being un-American. My two pennies.

Ive seen several posts on this but havent seen a Non-American say exactly why they hate the United States so much. So this goes out to all others that are not Americans. What is it that you hate about America?

i don't hate america.

i don't like how many americans seem to think that they saved everyone's ass in ww2... that's a bit of an innacuracy.

The US is the west. Period.
Thats why it is so bad.

Unlike Canada that is so touchy feel good that there is no such thing as a "Canadian" anymore.


wtf? i'm a canadian...

help that never arrived, nor from France or UK nor from the States nor even from Russia...after the WW II, everybody was a consumated anti-fascist, but when fascism really started there were only a few who dared to rise arms against it.

There always were the International brigades.

I think at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter whether or not the rest of the world likes the United States of America or not. The USA has been the only country to ever use atomic weapons. And, on a civilian population. Just remember, when the USA adopts the "with us or against us" mentality, the "with us" folks are the ones who won't get nuked.

Love them or hate them, the Americans play for keeps if you push them too far. Forewarned is forearmed.

Allowing people to choose their own government is preferrable to having one forced on them

So, when did the people the USA bombed make a choice that they wanted their country to be invaded and a new regime APPOINTED by an occupying force? Tell yourself that elections are coming in these countries (eventually), so that makes it alright to have murdered all those innocent people, and to continue to kill insurgents who are fighting for their nation's sovereignty, and right to self-determination, which the United States violated. Think they hate you for imposing your views on them and likely killing some of their friends and relaitives because you didn't like the way their president was doing things? Yes, they probably do. You think democracy is the best system in the world, and maybe it is, but how is it democratic to force your system on other nations? Go starve some Cubans, because they don't agree with you either.


Unlike Canada that is so touchy feel good that there is no such thing as a "Canadian" anymore.

Oh, so it's a BAD thing to respect other people's cultures and views? They should all be like you? You're "Better" maybe? A superior attitude like that doesn't really encourage friendliness towards the United States. If we can take your attitude to be indicative of the way all Americans feel, I can only wonder why more people don't hate you. Because this is more or less the impression those who do hate America get, can you really blame them?
By the way, Canadians are those that have citizenship. Is there a specific way a Canadian should act, talk, or think? Hell no. Everyone in this nation is free to live according to whatever culture he or she wants to, and to hold any political beliefs. You might call that crazy, but I call it democracy. (You know, that thing you were praising and defending your right to impose on others a little while ago?)

Everyone in this nation is free to be live according to whatever culture he or she wants to, and to hold any political beliefs. You might call that crazy, but I call it democracy. (You know, that thing you were praising and defending your right to impose on others a little while ago?)

That isn't necessarily democracy. Democracy is defined by having decisions made by a vote of people eleigible to do so. Democracy in theory could vote to have all citizens be required to live in a rigidly defined way, and possibly even to have no freedom of speech(!) about things that had been voted against. Historically, until about 200 years ago (give or take fifty years, I'm not an expert,) every democratic governmental approach in the world had supported slavery. Traditionally (not modern) democracy has usually limited the voting to upper class men. I believe Britain was a trendsetter in getting the "common man" into the process.

Democracy has nothing to with this so-called "live according to whatever culture he or she wants to, and to hold any political beliefs" stuff, so i guess that makes Marxlan crazy :)

So, when did the people the USA bombed make a choice that they wanted their country to be invaded and a new regime APPOINTED by an occupying force? Tell yourself that elections are coming in these countries (eventually), so that makes it alright to have murdered all those innocent people, and to continue to kill insurgents who are fighting for their nation's sovereignty, and right to self-determination, which the UNited States violated. Think they hate you for imposing your views on them and likely killing some of their friends and relaitives because you didn't like the way their president was doing things? Yes, they probably do. You think democracy is the best system in the world, and maybe it is, but how is it democratic to force your system on other nations? Go starve some Cubans, because they don't agree with you either.

You might want to ask some Kurds, some marsh Arabs and even some Shiite muslims in Iraq about that. Oh, and as for Cuba? Where do the people from there flee to when they escape? Would YOU run to a country that you felt was oppressing you? I know I would not. Maybe you are not old enough to really remember the cold war. Or, maybe as a Canadian, you feel that other countries should be more like Canada? Sorry, not everyone wants that either.

Oh, so it's a BAD thing to respect other people's cultures and views? They should all be like you? You're "Better" maybe? A superior attitude like that doesn't really encourage friendliness towards the United States. If we can take your attitude to be indicative of the way all Americans feel, I can only wonder why more people don't hate you. Because this is more or less the impression those who do hate America get, can you really blame them?

Have I EVER stated that the US is BETTER than other countries? Having lived in both Europe and Asia for a number of years and travelling extensively through both and the middle east I can safely say that for me, the US is the best place to live. As for people hating the US, do you care if people hats Canada? So what, peoples feelings change all the time and most of those who say they hate the US for one reason or another have never even been here.

By the way, Canadians are those that have citizenship. Is there a specific way a Canadian should act, talk, or think? Hell no. Everyone in this nation is free to be live according to whatever culture he or she wants to, and to hold any political beliefs. You might call that crazy, but I call it democracy. (You know, that thing you were praising and defending your right to impose on others a little while ago?)

Good point, however, if I may ask, what is the Canadian identity? Is it French, English, Chinese? I know, the same question can be asked of the US, but we don't have a minority directing our actions and threatening us with seccession if we don't comply. Quebec is a strange situation that I find fascinating.

* capitalism


Capitialism allows men to make their own choices and to suffer the consequences from doing so. Communism and Socialism do not.
Communism and Socialism are some of the greatest evils ever to be brought fouth upon the world.

P.S. Sadly, the US is not a capitialistic country.

Everyone in this nation is free to be live according to whatever culture he or she wants to, and to hold any political beliefs.

This is not quite true. According to a lot of Canadians, it is not allowed at all to live according to American culture or hold any political beliefs that Americans hold (or are said to hold).

Good point, however, if I may ask, what is the Canadian identity? Is it French, English, Chinese? I know, the same question can be asked of the US,

started off as native, then came the british and french, then came other european immigrants, then came immigrants from other places. same deal as the states pretty much, except we don't have a lot of mexicans and i think the black population might be a smaller percentage here, we weren't really importing slaves so much...

but we don't have a minority directing our actions and threatening us with seccession if we don't comply. Quebec is a strange situation that I find fascinating.

quebec would never leave, and in all fairness, they do have a sizable chunk of population. and they don't really dictate our actions. the bloc quebecois have similar stances in terms of politics as the liberals and the ndp, except that they're more concerned about the good of their own province. i can't think of anything where ducep (or any other bq leader) said "if you don't do this, we leave" or something to that effect.

but yeah, if they ever voted for separation in a referendum, half the province would stay behind anyways, the northern part of the province is mostly native, and they tend to vote against separation.

This is not quite true. According to a lot of Canadians, it is not allowed at all to live according to American culture or hold any political beliefs that Americans hold (or are said to hold).

...right... that's it...

Out of curiosity, is there anyone out there that really hates America, like the ones that non-Americans describe as anti-American?

I think most non-Americans dislike the states so much because of (as has been already said) the arrogance and ignorance.

And why the f*ck do all Americans expect that every living soul on this planet has just one dream, and that is to live in the States, the cradle of democracy and high standard of living. Sorry, the place is not for me. Where I live, I get practically free health care, free (high quality) university education... The country is safe, not in any sort of war with anyone and even the civilians can detain themselves from going around shooting people. Plus, in our democracy, the people who get the most votes actually win the election, and you don't even have to register or anythin. Just show up with an ID, and you can vote.

It also annoys many that the US doesn't want to have the people of the rest of the world to be considered equal to Americans, as the administration expects that international law shouldn't apply on US citizens...

The states could also probably finally afford to pay their UN membership fee (or have they, if they finally have, yay!), and try to become a part of the international community, instead of thrying to be the thing that the international community has to fight against on things such as the Kyoto treaty (I know, the US isn't the only one that didn't sign, but they could have tried to set an example...).

These are just examples of the sort of thing that annoys many. They are not the sole reasons, but just examples of what sort of stuf he rest of us see, notice and remember. It's the attitude you show to the erst of the world.

It makes me sad to see that a nation that must have hundreds of thousands, or more likely, millions of completely nice and likable citizens, gives out such a poor image of itself.

p.s. Stop the WWII stuff. so okay, the nazis lost, and the communists prevailed. History works it's stuff, and it's stupid to just say if and if. Were here now, and we just can't say for sure what would the world be like if Hitlers mom would have had her period just when his daddy was trying to get it on.

Well, I've got a question for self righteous, holier than thou America:

Why do you trade with "Communist" China, but not with Communist Cuba?.....

Could it be that your "free" market loves it when a government turns it's maufacturing sector into a bunch of oppressed, state dependent slaves, but hates it when a ruler tries to raise his people's standard of living with free education, free healthcare, and programs for the poor?

Hmmmmmm....that doesn't sound like a very Democratic way of doing things to me.......

(America storms off in a huff.....back to trying frantically to topple Chavez....)

started off as native, then came the british and french, then came other european immigrants, then came immigrants from other places. same deal as the states pretty much, except we don't have a lot of mexicans and i think the black population might be a smaller percentage here, we weren't really importing slaves so much...



quebec would never leave, and in all fairness, they do have a sizable chunk of population. and they don't really dictate our actions. the bloc quebecois have similar stances in terms of politics as the liberals and the ndp, except that they're more concerned about the good of their own province. i can't think of anything where ducep (or any other bq leader) said "if you don't do this, we leave" or something to that effect.

but yeah, if they ever voted for separation in a referendum, half the province would stay behind anyways, the northern part of the province is mostly native, and they tend to vote against separation.
If that happened, though, I've heard from a few places that it might be the end of the Canadian federation. Does that have any truth to it?

If that happened, though, I've heard from a few places that it might be the end of the Canadian federation. Does that have any truth to it?

if it happened, quebec would probably rejoin after a year or two. they've already mentioned using the same currency...

if it happened, quebec would probably rejoin after a year or two. they've already mentioned using the same currency...
Oh. One of those places that lives off the federal government, I guess. If they did, and I was Canadian, I'd want Quebec's seccession and no reentry.

Oh. One of those places that lives off the federal government, I guess. If they did, and I was Canadian, I'd want Quebec's seccession and no reentry.

nah, they should be let back, if only so we don't have to leave the country to get to the maritimes (though cutting through the states is quicker than going through quebec) but yeah, if they came back, they'd just feel like asses and maybe shut up about leaving.

nah, they should be let back, if only so we don't have to leave the country to get to the maritimes (though cutting through the states is quicker than going through quebec) but yeah, if they came back, they'd just feel like asses and maybe shut up about leaving.
True. BTW, if you mean getting through the St. Lawrence seaway, it's not quicker to go through America. It's impossible. The main route from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic through the US is the Erie Canal, which happens to run through my town. It's been out of commercial use for over a century, as it is only about 12ft deep, and just 30ft wide. That's hardly enough room for a barge, let alone a supertanker. There's a railroad that runs alongside it, but I imagine that's more expensive than shipping.

[QUOTE=Tom Joad]

World War Two
Total Deaths : 61 Million
.
.
.
Denmark : 4,000

As a Dane, I feel obligated to make a point. The vast majority of those 4,000 died on the Eastern front. In total, 7,000 Danes volunteered for service under the flag of Freikorps Dänemark, a kind of Danish SS-branch.
After the war, the survivors were either sentenced to prison....or, in special cases, to death.

I certainly find it inappropriate to suggest that Denmark "sacrificed" 4,000 military personnel, when most of them died serving Hitler.

Well, I've got a question for self righteous, holier than thou America:

Why do you trade with "Communist" China, but not with Communist Cuba?.....

Could it be that your "free" market loves it when a government turns it's maufacturing sector into a bunch of oppressed, state dependent slaves, but hates it when a ruler tries to raise his people's standard of living with free education, free healthcare, and programs for the poor?

Hmmmmmm....that doesn't sound like a very Democratic way of doing things to me.......

(America storms off in a huff.....back to trying frantically to topple Chavez....)

Actually.....we do trade with Cuba. Only on a cash basis though.

Our problems with Cuba are the makings of Castro. Castro proclaimed himself a non-communist when he was fighting the batisita regime. However, as soon as he took over, he turned to the Soviet Union. He confiscated the property of US companies doing business in Cuba and nationalized all commerce, thus turning his people into slaves.

He then persuaded the USSR to position nuclear weapons in Cuba and during the resulting missle crisis he urged their use against the US. Kruschev (sp) was al least not that crazy, even though Castro was. Castro also tried to create revolutions throughout Central and South America. Not to mention sending troops to Angola and other African nations to fight in various civil wars there.

Yes, Castro has created free education and healthcare for his people...but they STILL float up in innertubes on our shores. Do free people do that?

Which resolution are you referring to???
Resolution 660 of 1991 authorized "all means" (that includes the use of force) to free Kuwait.
Whether resolution 1441 (2002) authorises it is a disputed question. IT DOESN`T INCLUDE THE WORDING "ALL MEANS" which is traditionally the only wording that authorizes the use of force.
Me, personally, don´t care so much about the UN. After all, Nato took action against Jugoslavia in 1999 without an UN mandate as well.
The real question is: Were there good arguments for going to war. In 1999 they were - a current campaign of ethnic cleansing and a limmitted strategy. In 2003 the argument in the international debate was the thread of Iraq due to its WMD. And that argument didn´t turn out to be that strong, though. And that has indeed damaged the credibilty of the US.
And that is not good. The world needs a strong US in my view. But when the US loses credibilty it is bad for it, is allies and the west as a whole.

While UNSCR 1441 doesn't in itself authorise the use of force, it does mention those other resolutions related to Iraq, among them UNSCR 660. And a UNSCR remains effective and valid until it is declared invalid by the UNSC, an event that happens very rarely.
Besides, UNSCR 1441 says that Iraq must suffer most severe consequences if not complying with UNSC demands. By using that phrase - "severe consequences", while recalling all previous resolutions, one of which authorises the use of force to establish law and order, it is difficult to see how 1441 can be understood as anything but a prelude to war. The question was not whether or not to go to war, but when to do it. This was the matter the parties involved to sought to resolve in a final resolution...which never came to be.

And what I read here in Canadian newspaper is that those dialogue didn't get very far. Last I heard, Al-qaeda wanted to put training camps in Iraq and Hussein didn't want to. Also, various intellingence says that Al-qaeda reproached Iraq not to be an islamist regime like the taliban. Not what I would call the closest friends.

Concerning connections to terrorists, how about Saddam Hussein's financial compensation to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers? I remember figures around USD 10-12,000...

Concerning connections to terrorists, how about Saddam Hussein's financial compensation to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers? I remember figures around USD 10-12,000...

I think it was $25,000 for the families of each suicide bomber that killed an Israeli.

If you really want to know why America is hated so, try getting out into the real world to ask people. Anything you see or read online is skewed. Most of the planet aren't online. And the huge whopping majority of people online aren't reading and writing in English, let alone contributing to a NationStates thread. Of those contributing to a NationStates thread, or any thread for that matter, you can count on a certain percentage to take any side simply to antagonize the other. So, what's the point in asking in an online thread? All you'll get is skew, spin, and sputum- and even that much is suspect.

Concerning connections to terrorists, how about Saddam Hussein's financial compensation to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers? I remember figures around USD 10-12,000...
Well, you're talking of another organisation than Al-Qaeda, then. Do not confound the hate of most middle-easern countries towards Israel with an attack on American soil. They are 2 differents issues.

Well, you're talking of another organisation than Al-Qaeda, then. Do not confound the hate of most middle-easern countries towards Israel with an attack on American soil. They are 2 differents issues.

Yes on one hand.....but they have killed a number of Americans in Israel too.

I think a lot of people hate the USA because it's easy. As the most powerful country in the world it can do, and probably does, more damage (environmentally, internationally) than most; it could if it wanted to do a lot of good. It does seem to be slightly more self-serving wrt the environment (c.f. Kyoto treaty) and trade policies than most other rich countries, but most if not all of the richer countries shit on the poorer countries. It's a flaw with democracy as far as I can see. The problem is that most people are selfish, most people are pretty uninformed about the world, and a lot of people are thick (I know how that sounds, but it is true). And so rich governments have to be self-serving because if (and i'm not saying they want to, but hypothetically if) they implement too many policies that reduce their country's exploitation of poorer countries then their own people would have less disposable income and they would get voted out. In a democracy a selfish and thoughtless person's vote is worth as much as an enlightened vote, and enlightened people are vastly outnumbered. In a just world all trade would be fair, all meat would be produced to the standards of the real meat company, the ethically dubious practises of supermarkets would be outlawed, and so on and so forth. But it seems inevitable that a reduction in exploitation (of poor countries, of the environment, of animals) would mean that I, and others living in rich countries, would have less money to play with. And not so many people will vote for that. So (to try to make this seem like less of a tangent) the USA is a rich country that is selfish, just like the others, but does more damage and hence is disliked more because it is more powerful.

There are other issues of course. It is really very difficult to understand the USA backing of Israel. Israel occupies land illegally, destroys property illegally, and appears to turf Palestinian people who have nowhere else to go off their own land so that Jewish people who have never had any problems with antisemitism can immigrate. I appreciate that it is a complex issue, I really do. But I think that the Israel issue is one that the majority of the world sees as proof of hypocrasy in USA foreign policy.

The culture issue - to an extent I agree that if you don't like it don't buy it, but this goes back to the unthinking majority who are convinced by adverts and agressive marketing policies (c.f. Starbucks, who subsidise their new cafes until their oppositions go out of business and then put the prices up, trying to find a link to where I read about this, maybe next week), and it becomes difficult to avoid "american" culture.

there are several other things but it's friday and i'm going home.

Well, you're talking of another organisation than Al-Qaeda, then. Do not confound the hate of most middle-easern countries towards Israel with an attack on American soil. They are 2 differents issues.

Sponsoring terrorism is...well, sponsoring terrorism. In my opinion, rewarding suicide bombers financially (albeit indirectly) is no less of an offense than the offense it would have been to allow Al-Queda training camps to be established.

There are other issues of course. It is really very difficult to understand the USA backing of Israel. Israel occupies land illegally, destroys property illegally, and appears to turf Palestinian people who have nowhere else to go off their own land so that Jewish people who have never had any problems with antisemitism can immigrate. I appreciate that it is a complex issue, I really do. But I think that the Israel issue is one that the majority of the world sees as proof of hypocrasy in USA foreign policy.


The US support of Israel stems in all probability from the oft-referred military conflict in the late 30's and early 40's, which is also often associated with an event collectively called the "Holocaust" in which a majority ethnicity attempted to purge people of Jewish descent as a matter of government program. Apparently there was an ideal of "Never Again" associated with the US protectionism of the Jewish state, but this ideal has apparently not transferred over to populations that do not have a significant Western European or American populations. Kosovo or Rwanda, anyone?

Why do you trade with "Communist" China, but not with Communist Cuba?

Erm, because China has integrated the free market into its economy. They recognised that in order to survive, they had to adapt to free market conditions and so they invited the US to trade with them. China is now rapidly becoming one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

Unlike Cuba, China has not tried to start a war with the United States by inviting hostile nations to place offensive nuclear missile sites on its territory. Unlike Cuba, China does not go around the world stage denouncing the United States at every opportunity it gets. Unlike Cuba, China does not blame all its problems on the "evil Americans", and then wonder why the US won't trade with them.

The US support of Israel stems in all probability from the oft-referred military conflict in the late 30's and early 40's, which is also often associated with an event collectively called the "Holocaust" in which a majority ethnicity attempted to purge people of Jewish descent as a matter of government program. Apparently there was an ideal of "Never Again" associated with the US protectionism of the Jewish state, but this ideal has apparently not transferred over to populations that do not have a significant Western European or American populations. Kosovo or Rwanda, anyone?

It wasn't the US that didn't intervene in Rwanda and Kosovo, it was the UN. The UN always drags its heels when it comes to genocide, ehtnic cleansing or whatever you want to call it. It dragged its heels and did nothing in Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo and is dragging its heels now over the ethnic cleansing that's going on in Sudan. (Sudan recently been elected to the UN Commission on Human Rights. What a joke!)

The US DID intervene in Kosovo. It intervened militarily, at great risk, along with NATO. It also intervened WITHOUT the backing of the UN, because the UN was refusing to do anything. It was harrassed to go in without the UN by the very same people who are now slating the US for not going to Iraq through the UN (Double-standards are unsurprisingly common amongst the whinging Left I find).

The US support of Israel stems in all probability from the oft-referred military conflict in the late 30's and early 40's, which is also often associated with an event collectively called the "Holocaust" in which a majority ethnicity attempted to purge people of Jewish descent as a matter of government program. Apparently there was an ideal of "Never Again" associated with the US protectionism of the Jewish state, but this ideal has apparently not transferred over to populations that do not have a significant Western European or American populations. Kosovo or Rwanda, anyone?

It really doesn't stem from the Second World War, until the 70's, the US largely ignored Israel. During it's early life Israel's main partners on the international stage were France and Great Britain.

It wasn't the US that didn't intervene in Rwanda and Kosovo, it was the UN. The UN always drags its heels when it comes to genocide, ehtnic cleansing or whatever you want to call it.

That's because generally one of the veto five powers on the UN is allied with whoever is doing the killing. IMHO, the great flaw of the UN is its inability to override a veto.

The US DID intervene in Kosovo. It intervened militarily, at great risk, along with NATO. It also intervened WITHOUT the backing of the UN, because the UN was refusing to do anything. It was harrassed to go in without the UN by the very same people who are now slating the US for not going to Iraq through the UN (Double-standards are unsurprisingly common amongst the whinging Left I find).

I call BS here - quite a bit of the Left was critical of the Kosovo intervention.

http://free.freespeech.org/evolution/zinnkosovo.htm

What is happening to the Kosovo people is heartrending, and and now with the bombing we are adding Serbian victims to the lists of casualties. I think the only solution is a diplomatic one, forgetting the treaty the U.S. tried to force on Serbia. It will take a new agreement, in which the Kosovites will have to settle for some form of autonomy, but no guarantee of independence. A compromise in order to have peace. The only way this diplomatic solution can come about is through the intercession of Russia, which is the only important power with influence over the Serbs.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=1999-04-15

[...] bombing the people of his country is exactly the wrong way to stop him. In fact, it has only strengthened him. There was a growing dissident movement in Yugoslavia before the war, and every letter I get from these brave souls tells me that the bombing has set back their struggle so incredibly far that they worry they will now be stuck with Milosevic for a long time. They are pleading with us to stop it. The bombing has made him a hero at a time when nearly half of the country was very unhappy with his leadership. We did not consult the anti-Milosevic movement in advance to see if they would like our help in the form of 10,000 bombing sorties. We just went off half-cocked on our own, and started killing the very people we were claiming to save. Anyone who remembers Vietnam knows that sordid logic and insanity. We have strengthened Milosevic and destroyed his opposition. Happy now?


http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/kosovo.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/biglie.html

The hypocrisy comes from the right, who claimed in Kosovo that one could support the troops while attacking the President, and now recognize no such capability.

It really doesn't stem from the Second World War, until the 70's, the US largely ignored Israel. During it's early life Israel's main partners on the international stage were France and Great Britain.

I'm reading Daniel Ellsberg's "Secrets" - while in the Marine Corps, he was in the Mediterranean during the Suez Canal ruckus. I was struck that no one knew which way the US was going to come down - He was assigned to plan a landing in Haifa, and his fellow captain was assigned to plan a landing in Alexandria.

Edit - typo

I call BS here - quite a bit of the Left was critical of the Kosovo intervention.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=1999-04-15

The hypocrisy comes from the right, who claimed in Kosovo that one could support the troops while attacking the President, and now recognize no such capability.

Ah yes, Michael Moore, crank, internationally reknowned idiot and Stupid White Man (he is guilty of many of the 'crimes' that he accuses the "evil fat cats" of in his books). I was wondering when he would turn up.

Yes, quite a lot of the Left did criticise the Kosovo intervention, but my point is that an equally large number called for it in the first place.

My point about the Left (particularly the far-left) is that they are about as decisive as John Kerry. Kosovo and Iraq are good examples of the indecisiveness of Lefty-criticism. In Kosovo, the Left was calling on Clinton to intervene militarily to stop Milosevic's forces from killing the Kosovar Albanians, but when he actually did intervene (like they had been calling for) they were up in arms complaining, saying that they were "bombing innocent people" and that Clinton was only doing it to draw attention away from the Lewinsky scandal.

As far as Iraq goes, for years, elements of the Left (quite large ones too) have been calling on the United States and the UN to intervene in Iraq and stop Saddam Hussein from a) developing WMD and b) from oppressing and murdering his own people. A large portion of these people complained that George Bush Snr didn't "finish the job" in 1991. The UN, of course, dragged its heels, and when the US and Britain actually go and DO something, surprise surprise, we see the Left up in arms complaining about it.

I'll admit that there are hypocritical elements within the Right who are unable to realisitcally look at situations such as Kosovo (as Upright Monkeys describes). However, the same is definitely true of the Left. There are great numbers of people on the Left (many of whom I've actually spoken to) who honestly believe that if we were to pull out of Iraq now, then all the various militias would lay down their weapons and work peacefully together to rebuild their country democratically.

Anyone with even the faintest grasp of either a) reality or b) history will know that this is simply not going to happen. If we were to pull out of Iraq now, the various militias would turn on each other and beat seven shades of shit out of each other. There would be Sunni vs Shia vs Kurd, and bloodshed on a massive scale. In the end, some nutter like Al Sadr would end up in control, and we'd have a Fundamentalist Islamic state in the same vein as Iran, where the Iraqi people are back under an oppressive dictatorship. Whether the war was right or wrong is no longer relevent. What is important now is securing the future of the Iraqi people, and making sure that they have a safe and secure future. This will take time, and as we can see now it will not always go smoothly, but surely the future of the Iraqi population is what we, whether on the Left or the Right, need to focus on?

Originally posted by Bobghanistan : Anyone with even the faintest grasp of either a) reality or b) history will know that this is simply not going to happen. If we were to pull out of Iraq now, the various militias would turn on each other and beat seven shades of shit out of each other. There would be Sunni vs Shia vs Kurd, and bloodshed on a massive scale. In the end, some nutter like Al Sadr would end up in control, and we'd have a Fundamentalist Islamic state in the same vein as Iran, where the Iraqi people are back under an oppressive dictatorship. Whether the war was right or wrong is no longer relevent. What is important now is securing the future of the Iraqi people, and making sure that they have a safe and secure future. This will take time, and as we can see now it will not always go smoothly, but surely the future of the Iraqi population is what we, whether on the Left or the Right, need to focus on?

I'm a bit intrigued. Whilst I agree that leaving Iraq to it now would in all likelihood result in bloodshed, and that the future of the Iraqi population is (or should be) the most important thing, well, how do you think it can all be resolved peacefully? It's all very well to be morally opposed to dictatorships (and I certainly wouldn't argue that they are morally or ethically desirable) but in a vastly and violently heterogenous country, what is the best alternative?

Originally posted by Thanth : The US support of Israel stems in all probability from the oft-referred military conflict in the late 30's and early 40's, which is also often associated with an event collectively called the "Holocaust" in which a majority ethnicity attempted to purge people of Jewish descent as a matter of government program.

Hmmm, you seem more patronising here than strictly necessary. And although the holocaust doubtlessly increased international acceptance of the creation of a Jewish state at the time, the holocaust neither preceeded nor explains the zionist movement (for a more detailed history of israel check out: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html#intro ). Crucially, your post does nothing to explain why the USA is still backing the illegal occupation of Palestinian land. Does anyone actually have a good reason for this?

I posted several links to people on the left criticizing the Kosovo bombings, and you responded by asserting that just as many supported it, without any evidence, backups, or even an example. I'm particularly interested in an example of anyone who called for a military intervention and then criticized it.

Whether the war was right or wrong is no longer relevent. What is important now is securing the future of the Iraqi people, and making sure that they have a safe and secure future. This will take time, and as we can see now it will not always go smoothly, but surely the future of the Iraqi population is what we, whether on the Left or the Right, need to focus on?

You're making a common assumption, and with completely no evidence - that we're heading in the right direction. Check the gallup polls in Iraq about how they feel about the Americans. Of the Iraqis who feel that if the US leaves, the country will be less safe, a clear majority still want us out. (This was even a couple of attacks on Najaf ago.)

If we're moving in the wrong direction - and this crowd is both pretty damned incompetent and prone to micromanaging - then the longer we stay, the worse the ensuing struggle will be. IMHO, the naivete comes from those who believe that doing the same thing over and over again will finally be successful.

Originally Posted by Lemurya
help that never arrived, nor from France or UK nor from the States nor even from Russia...after the WW II, everybody was a consumated anti-fascist, but when fascism really started there were only a few who dared to rise arms against it.


Quote:von witzleben

There always were the International brigades.

Yes, I know. In fact there are a lot of memorial statues in Spain dedicated to the Brigades...(Hemingway between them, don't forget it), I think that the Brigades were something that the people of USA can be proud of, but a lot of them were accused of Communism when they return to the USA...was that the way to reward those heroes?. Russia also sent obsolete weapons and technology to fight the dictatorship...In resume, you what kind of help are we talking about. Luckly is something past, but I suppose that there must be more cases like this, not only along WW II, but also since WW II.

There is a reason the US continues to back Israel, but it is up to the individual reader to decide if it is "good." It would seem that the US has adopted a policy of supporting Israel. When Israel starts doing things illegally, there is no reason to stop supporting them. It would seem from some of the postings in this thread that the US is woefully disregardful of international law in many cases. Perhaps the US just doesn't care that Israel is acting illegally?

I posted several links to people on the left criticizing the Kosovo bombings, and you responded by asserting that just as many supported it, without any evidence, backups, or even an example. I'm particularly interested in an example of anyone who called for a military intervention and then criticized it.

You're making a common assumption, and with completely no evidence - that we're heading in the right direction. Check the gallup polls in Iraq about how they feel about the Americans. Of the Iraqis who feel that if the US leaves, the country will be less safe, a clear majority still want us out. (This was even a couple of attacks on Najaf ago.)

Please don't patronise me, it is incredibly annoying and extremely rude. I haven't provided examples, because although I have time to do this, I do not have time to hunt around the internet trying to dredge up articles and quotes from 5 years ago, because I have a university dissertation on American Air Power to prepare. Also, a lot of what I have said has come from lectures at university about US Foreign Policy and its relation to current world events. Not something I can quote with links to articles.

I've seen many polls that have been taken in Iraq. Its funny how they all seem to differ depending on who is actually publishing them. The one you quote, along with a couple of similar ones have been quoted in The Independent and The Mirror in this country (both vehemently anti-war papers, one of which has a habit of lying through its teeth). There was another one in the Telegraph (and another quoted on BBC News) that said the majority of Iraqis questioned supported what the Americans were doing against Al Sadr and his terrorists, and that the majority of the Shia population were behind the Americans rather than Al Sadr. Ayatolla Al Sistani (apologies if my spelling is incorrect), the spiritual leader of the Iraqi Shia population was quoted in yesterday's Daily Telegraph as believing Al Sadr to be a rogue who must be stopped.

Please don't patronise me again. I do not take kindly to it. Just because I do not have time to dredge up old articles as evidence does not give you the right to dismiss my arguments and talk down to me like I'm some kind of idiot.

It seems that this thread has already finished. As a conclusion, just a few kind words to all North American players:

- First at all, thanks to Cherion and the other American players who asked "why do you think that the USA are hated?" Maybe it wasn't the correct question, I think it would be better something like "what do you you think about USA?" or something like that. In any case, that question well was worth an answer. It's true that there's something wrong with the international view, and it's nice to see that there are USA citizens interested about that.

- I will always distinguish between USA government and USA people. But it's also true that governments don't change by themselves. You, the USA citizens, are who must change your gov according your needs and will, and that includes the point of view your gov has about international affairs.

- People of USA, please! Don't trust everything said by the media! Remember that the news you receive in USA aren't always the same we receive in EU. I think that ours are more reliable, but I promise to ask to an American if I think that I have seen or read a new not very trustworthy about USA or its people.

- Remember to be kind when you are outside USA. Other countries have their own culture, costumes, history, folklore and language, and are as proud of them as you are with your American culture. USA were born in 1776, so don't get surprised if you are seen by European (or any other as, exempli gratia, Chinese) as "children". Just it, be respectful and you will be respected (I know it's obvious, but I've never met an American trying to speak Spanish or learning something about our culture beyond the damned bullfighting or the paella.)

- Equally, I'm sure that there are things in USA far better than the NBA, the maxi-big burguers, the un-understandable rap songs or gangsters. Stop showing this pityful image of yourselves and start to export your painters, your poets and your theatre, for example. Don't let Hollywood give us the feel that you are all the days shooting to each other! (and please, stop making movies about other countries History. You don't even have an idea of how much harm you do to real History. Remake your Civil war so many times you want, it's yours, but not Hellenic's, nor Spanish nor any other war. The same goes for the History channel.)

- I suppose that I forget something important, but I think that the most important has been already said. We have always respected USA people and we have a lot of things to learn from each other.

- There is all a world beyond USA frontiers. The NASA will find a lot of intelligent life there. ¡LOL!


From Barcelona. As always, I'm trying to improve my English level. Excuse me if anything is misunderstood.

Yes, I forgot something:

Ban death penalty in all the states!!!! The whole world is watching!!!
.
.

America and American people are ok in general but:

-I hate Mr Bush, especially since his "the EU has to give u a date..." BS in Turkye.
-No offense but There's not enough life in most American towns, places. I've been there a couple years ago. It was really fun in the cities cause atleast there you can have fun after 2200h.
-My former boss was in the US for his job, he didnt go to church very often, his neighbours refused to talk to him because of it.

Thats all.

as an american I say

to the first "I hate Mr. Bush" ... So does any American with any form of a brain.

not enough life in most American towns-
well, that all depends.. (cities are made for people to be all over, the country is made for those who like the quiet and no neighbors) I personally like the middle, not in the middle of the city around idiots, and not in the middle of nowhere...

and to the third thing- that is because the MAJORITY (not all ) of christians are fundamentalist idiots who can't accept anything different than them.
personally, I think they should pull the sticks out of their asses and get a clue.

Well, I'm from San Francisco California in the US, but I don't consider that American (since 2000).
I love the US but this is what I don't like:
-Bush administration
-Racism
-Gun nuts
-Bigots
-Religous right
-Obesity
-Belligerence
-People refusing to believe that we (the US) are almost entirely responsable for the environment going to hell.

Please don't patronise me again. I do not take kindly to it. Just because I do not have time to dredge up old articles as evidence does not give you the right to dismiss my arguments and talk down to me like I'm some kind of idiot.

I wasn't trying to be patronizing, just to point out that staying the course only works if you're on the right course. That point seems to be lost in your righteous outrage.

I consider it rude and annoying to dismiss evidence while not offering counter evidence; if you don't have time to back up your claims, it's not worth my time to discuss things with you.

I consider it rude and annoying to dismiss evidence while not offering counter evidence; if you don't have time to back up your claims, it's not worth my time to discuss things with you.

I was not dismissing your evidence. My comments about Michael Moore were not a dismissal of your evidence, but my own personal opinion of him. I personally find him annoying, and hippocritical and his writing incredibly offensive, but that's just my own opinion. I was not trying to dismiss your evidence, and if that is what you thought I was doing then I apologise.

To add my two cents, Canada (where I live) does not hate Americans. We just don't like Bush. Canada would be considered a strong Democrat area, and we are so much like the Americans that it would be hard to tel us apart. There are some regional differences, but most Canadians live close to the US border and are very similar to those Americans just across the border. Sure, there are some American individuals that we don't like. There are some Americans that the Americans don't like. Like there are some Canadians that I don't like. That does not mean that we don't like each other as a nation.

Bush has done more to cause damage to the United States than any other US president ever, including Madison. The next US president will have a huge task in repairing the damage that Bush has done, and when Bush is removed from office, I hope the world will try to mend fences with the new president and help bring about world peace. Certainly no hope of that with this President who is bent on making enemies and war.