NationStates Jolt Archive

Shouldn't there be a thread where Americans could voice out how much they hate EU(ropeans)? Yes there should, and now is! Cos afterall, we all know how creepy bunch of pussies all the Euros are, no matter from which of the 25 countries of the EU they come from. In this thread - let's boldly name it "To Americans" - one could treat the whole continent as it was one big France. Don't hold back, let us have it.

Don't forget to mention how many times you have saved our asses, how much we would suffer if you took McDonalds away from us, and how we envy the US.

The rule is pretty much the same as in Cherion's "To non-Americans" thread: What is it (specifically) that you hate about The EU(ropeans). I would hope in this thread non-Americans could just shut up and observe. Me, I'm gonna open up a beer and lean back. Let it flame!

Ugh. Nationalist drivel.

Shouldn't there be a thread where Americans could voice out how much they hate EU(ropeans)? Yes there should, and now is! Cos afterall, we all know how creepy bunch of pussies all the Euros are, no matter from which of the 25 countries of the EU they come from. In this thread - let's boldly name it "To Americans" - one could treat the whole continent as it was one big France. Don't hold back, let us have it.

Don't forget to mention how many times you have saved our asses, how much we would suffer if you took McDonalds away from us, and how we envy the US.

The rule is pretty much the same as in Cherion's "To non-Americans" thread: What is it (specifically) that you hate about The EU(ropeans). I would hope in this thread non-Americans could just shut up and observe. Me, I'm gonna open up a beer and lean back. Let it flame!

NYET

Hehe, the difference is we don't hate Europeans (well, maybe the French :p ).

I don't hate the EU.

They have dumbshit politicians just like we do.

They have youngsters that "speak" for everybody in the EU, just like we do.

Hmmm.....

Is rampet nationalism a precursor to war?

Ugh. Nationalist drivel.

That's exactly what I want to see... but only in this thread.

I love you France and Birtan and JERMANY

Well, thats a bit harsh. I do not hate the Europeans.

I do not HATE the individuals who threw rocks at me in the UK demanding that I "go home."

I do not hate the two guys in Spain who attacked a friend and I because we were not speaking Spanish. :rolleyes:

I do not hate the Italian protesters who were chanting "DOWN WITH USA" while I was visiting their country.

I do however dislike the deals the French and Germans who were dealing with Saddam behind our backs. Their actions made military action more necessary, not less.

I do dislike those who feel compelled to instruct me who to vote for because they do not like our president. However, I do like that they are interested.

I do dislike the French on general principle. Afterall, they are French.

I wanna go back to the UK.

I am an american and i have to say i do not hate any country is europe. I do resent certain elitist attitudes that many in those areas hold. especialy recently.
facts that make europe dispapointing in my opinion:
the vote in the security council of the UN decided by germany and france that made it so the united nations could not enforce it's own resolutions
opposition to the iraq war when it was legaly justified and set 24 million people free of a currupt dictatorship.
attitude that americans have a bad system that needs to be changed like so many have been in europe. america has the largest and fastest growing gnp in the world and about half the unemployment rate of france.
the attitude that europe can choose our foreign policy for us and has the right to get angry when they cannot.
I dont hate europe, i am just disapointed in that the zeal that was once used in fighting for freedom in the past is so very lacking today.

In a word? No.

I'm American, I admire the EU - and FRANCE!!!

Love to all my European brothers and sisters -

Nationalism kills. The US needs to realize that it's not the voice of reason for the rest of the world. Europeans don't always agree with us and that's awesome, they shouldn't. Go Europe!!!!!!

I do dislike the French on general principle. Afterall, they are French.
It is great to see how the US (citizens and in general) seem to have something against the French, the same French who saved their asses during the independence war from the UK...

Well, thats a bit harsh. I do not hate the Europeans.

I do not HATE the individuals who threw rocks at me in the UK demanding that I "go home."

I do not hate the two guys in Spain who attacked a friend and I because we were not speaking Spanish. :rolleyes:

I do not hate the Italian protesters who were chanting "DOWN WITH USA" while I was visiting their country.

I do however dislike the deals the French and Germans who were dealing with Saddam behind our backs. Their actions made military action more necessary, not less.

I do dislike those who feel compelled to instruct me who to vote for because they do not like our president. However, I do like that they are interested.

I do dislike the French on general principle. Afterall, they are French.

Did all that really happen to you? You must be arsehols

It is great to see how the US (citizens and in general) seem to have something against the French, the same French who saved their asses during the independence war from the UK...

Right - o, mate. Spot on!

Shouldn't there be a thread where Americans could voice out how much they hate EU(ropeans)? Yes there should, and now is! Cos afterall, we all know how creepy bunch of pussies all the Euros are, no matter from which of the 25 countries of the EU they come from. In this thread - let's boldly name it "To Americans" - one could treat the whole continent as it was one big France. Don't hold back, let us have it.

Don't forget to mention how many times you have saved our asses, how much we would suffer if you took McDonalds away from us, and how we envy the US.

The rule is pretty much the same as in Cherion's "To non-Americans" thread: What is it (specifically) that you hate about The EU(ropeans). I would hope in this thread non-Americans could just shut up and observe. Me, I'm gonna open up a beer and lean back. Let it flame!


As an American I have to say no. What is going on with the hatred isn't right and for us to fight back in the same manner isn't the answer.

Sorry, we are not listening, we are all far too busy burning American flags because we can't stand you; we only watch your films, listen to you music, visit McDonalds and go on holiday to Florida to prove our uter hatred of all things American! :rolleyes:

I'm an American

I acknowledge that a bunch of people from the EU hate the U.S.

I accept it

But I do not do the same.

Because I am superior to them, because I do not let stereotypes, governments, and the culture of a people decide whether I like or dislike a country, or a union for this matter.

And so should you be.


Although, it's tough. I know. I've been on that path...oh.....24 times this year. Took me awhile to figure it out, that they are inferior. Just keep thinking it. "They are inferior...I am a proud American...they are inferior..."

you forget the same france that gave us the ability for a certian purchase that was a big waste of 15 mill

It is great to see how the US (citizens and in general) seem to have something against the French, the same French who saved their asses during the independence war from the UK...
yes, thank god they did that...........in 1777. um, yeah, that was a long time ago. even I wasnt around then. and since we are ( or at least I was) talking about modern events that is what we should be paying attention to huh.

Sorry, we are not listening, we are all far too busy burning American flags because we can't stand you; we only watch your films, listen to you music, visit McDonalds and go on holiday to Florida to prove our uter hatred of all things American! :rolleyes:

never said that. I think europe is misguided about certain foreign policy aspects of the usa. I dont think they are bad people ,in fact, the complete reverse.

It is great to see how the US (citizens and in general) seem to have something against the French, the same French who saved their asses during the independence war from the UK...
It's great to see how the EU (citizens and in general) seem to have something against the Americans, the same Americans who saved their asses during World War Two, to keep their independence from Nazi Germany.


Oh, and it was only 60 years ago, not 228 years ago too.


(Remember, I am superior. This kind of argument just proves it.)

I'm an American

I acknowledge that a bunch of people from the EU hate the U.S.

I accept it

But I do not do the same.

Because I am superior to them, because I do not let stereotypes, governments, and the culture of a people decide whether I like or dislike a country, or a union for this matter.

And so should you be.


Although, it's tough. I know. I've been on that path...oh.....24 times this year. Took me awhile to figure it out, that they are inferior. Just keep thinking it. "They are inferior...I am a proud American...they are inferior..."

SO... you don't hate the european people you just think that you are superior? Have you ever wondered why they hate you? BECAUSE YOU THINK YOUR SUPERIOR

SO... you don't hate the european people you just think that you are superior? Have you ever wondered why they hate you? BECAUSE YOU THINK YOUR SUPERIOR
Well done, you've proven my point. That I am superior :)

Someone please explain...

I don't understand why it is that Americans (and I am one) always feel they need to find someone to "hate." This is absolutely rediculous (as is this entire thread). Stop pointing fingers, stop hating people. Maybe if you stopped hating people - we wouldn't be in so many goddamn wars. I mean, Jesus Christ. Is everyone that upset that now our big-dick position has been a little shaken because a bunch of our brothers and sisters in Europe decided to ban together in a show of unity that you'de never see here? Get off it. Throw away your hate and look for some common ground. Tards.

SO... you don't hate the european people you just think that you are superior? Have you ever wondered why they hate you? BECAUSE YOU THINK YOUR SUPERIOR


That and the me first attitude most americans I am sorry to say have about everything. We are not superior. No nation is superior to another. People may think that but each nation has something that is of value that other nations wish they had.

Someone please explain...

I don't understand why it is that Americans (and I am one) always feel they need to find someone to "hate." This is absolutely rediculous (as is this entire thread). Stop pointing fingers, stop hating people. Maybe if you stopped hating people - we wouldn't be in so many goddamn wars. I mean, Jesus Christ. Is everyone that upset that now our big-dick position has been a little shaken because a bunch of our brothers and sisters in Europe decided to ban together in a show of unity that you'de never see here? Get off it. Throw away your hate and look for some common ground. Tards.

Becuase its the cool thing to do duh :P

It is great to see how the US (citizens and in general) seem to have something against the French, the same French who saved their asses during the independence war from the UK...

Bollocks! You arrived way to late, we had surrendered but you continued to attack our ships

look , the united states is superior in many many ways as compared to the average country in europe. this is backed up by facts. gnp, unemployment, gross income earned on average, military strength, we also had the courage to enforce the very resolutions against iraq that the europeansin the UN wanted. now all there I hear is complaints.

It is great to see how the US (citizens and in general) seem to have something against the French, the same French who saved their asses during the independence war from the UK...

They did not do so out of a desire to help the colonists...they did so to get at the British and weaken them because they too had colonies in America. By running the british out, THEY would be the dominant power here. They tried to control the negotiations at the treaty of Paris talks, but Franklin outsmarted them. ;)

Well done, you've proven my point. That I am superior :)

Keyword Colodia THINK not are THINK

Well done, you've proven my point. That I am superior :)
EwEwEwEwEwEwEwEwEwEwEwEwEwEwEwEw
That's so sleazy.

I was talking to a girl from France some time ago, and she said that they never made fun of/criticized Americans. They DO make fun of bush. Rather than saying "all Americans are fat slobs" (as so many people here say "all Frogs are cowards") they only malign our leaders (or so she said). BAM, now they're superior. How does that make you feel?

Oh BTW: NEITHER OF YOU ARE REALLY SUPERIOR THAT WAS SARCASM

Here in Europe there is a large group of people who strongly dislike and find distasteful many of the actions of the current American government (eg President George Bush Jnr and co). We also find distasteful some American policies such as the death penalty, the invasion of Iraq, the stifling of the Kyoto treaty etc.

However, this is often confused by some Americans that because we dislike the actions of your government, this means we hate you.

IT DOES NOT.

I admit I dislike those things I mentioned above, but I like Americans, I like your country, and I often watch American movies. I find some of the actions of the Italian government, the British government, and my own government distasteful - but that doesn't make me an anti-European European!

Europeans are smelly. I saw this European once. He was smelly.

Someone please explain...

I don't understand why it is that Americans (and I am one) always feel they need to find someone to "hate." This is absolutely rediculous (as is this entire thread). Stop pointing fingers, stop hating people. Maybe if you stopped hating people - we wouldn't be in so many goddamn wars. I mean, Jesus Christ. Is everyone that upset that now our big-dick position has been a little shaken because a bunch of our brothers and sisters in Europe decided to ban together in a show of unity that you'de never see here? Get off it. Throw away your hate and look for some common ground. Tards.

what do you mean by always find someone to hate. that isnt true. we have saved more people than the rest of the world combined if you read our history. Let me tell you americans hate evil and those who make excuses for its existance. that isnt a bad thing. it saves lives in the long run. also, the united states does not cause conflicts. it ends them. Also, your hurling of an insult makes you look foolish and petty. Please do not do that again as it makes you look bad.

Hey, I must just point out that most of the people I know dislike many things about America, but American people are generally seen in the U.K as being very friendly, warm, generous people who are in love with our english accents. Sure we laugh at them a bit, but thats just cos we're british. We laugh at everyone, most of all at ourselves.

Someone please explain...

I don't understand why it is that Americans (and I am one) always feel they need to find someone to "hate." This is absolutely rediculous (as is this entire thread). Stop pointing fingers, stop hating people. Maybe if you stopped hating people - we wouldn't be in so many goddamn wars. I mean, Jesus Christ. Is everyone that upset that now our big-dick position has been a little shaken because a bunch of our brothers and sisters in Europe decided to ban together in a show of unity that you'de never see here? Get off it. Throw away your hate and look for some common ground. Tards.

Bravo.
The grand idea behind asking the non-Americans to shut up was to see how long you guys could keep on hating us amongst yourselves. Unfortunately some of us Euro-scum jumped in and ruined it. If we try to counter your posts, it will go on for years. I strongly believe we are so dependent on each other we can't even hate eachother without little help from across the pond.

look , the united states is superior in many many ways as compared to the average country in europe. .

They maybe so but you have 10x the gun crime rate that any european country. We're not rich but we're not getting shot either.

you forget the same france that gave us the ability for a certian purchase that was a big waste of 15 mill


I don't think it was a waste. It has oil and other natural resources. But Alaska from the Russians was the better deal :)

iraq set 24 million people free and gave them civil rights and I am shocked that europe did not stand behind such a good action that was legaly justified and completely logical.
the death penalty? is that the problem they have with our government? we have the death penalty. we better change that so they are more friendly to us. god, that logic is confusing.

Why is it that European patriotism and nationalism is something to be celebrated but American patriotism and nationalism is something to be loathed?

what do you mean by always find someone to hate. that isnt true. we have saved more people than the rest of the world combined if you read our history. Let me tell you americans hate evil and those who make excuses for its existance. that isnt a bad thing. it saves lives in the long run. also, the united states does not cause conflicts. it ends them. Also, your hurling of an insult makes you look foolish and petty. Please do not do that again as it makes you look bad.


here we go again. This is the attitude that Europe hates. Everything is about how wonderful the U.S.A is. Try a little humility and you might get friendlier responses.

They maybe so but you have 10x the gun crime rate that any european country. We're not rich but we're not getting shot either.

oh so thats what makes europe equal to us. they have dismal economis compared to the usa, dismal tax rates, dismal military stengths, dismal manufacturing rates, dismal incomes, but in america.......some people get shot. oh that negates everything. all well. again, the logic is confusing.

Anyone want some freedom fries or freedom toast, or would anyone like to freedom kiss?

I don't hate anyone from other countries. Last year a foreign exchange student from Italy came to my school and he was one of the funniest s.o.b.'s I knew. I don't know any germans, french, english or any other europeans and I have never left the U.S. So I cannot hate someone I dont know.

I do not agree with some of the polocies that Europe has, I think they are too liberal, but other than that I gots no beef.

Why is it that European patriotism and nationalism is something to be celebrated but American patriotism and nationalism is something to be loathed?

Could you explain this one? I don't understand. What is European patriotism? We are lots of countries, it's only a few federalists at the European Commission in Brussels that have a European patriotism? I'm confused.

Why is it that European patriotism and nationalism is something to be celebrated but American patriotism and nationalism is something to be loathed?

Patriotism is to be celebrated. Nationalism = ethnocentrism = to be loathed from any source. Maybe because we're so ethnocentric about ourselves...might be a start.

here we go again. This is the attitude that Europe hates. Everything is about how wonderful the U.S.A is. Try a little humility and you might get friendlier responses.
where did i say that anyone in europe hates america? where did i say it? and the usa is wonderfull and im not going to lie and say otherwise to make people give me "friendly responses" but thanks for the idea.

Why is it that European patriotism and nationalism is something to be celebrated but American patriotism and nationalism is something to be loathed?

Amen.

you forget the same france that gave us the ability for a certian purchase that was a big waste of 15 mill

Yeah....Napoleon had a war to wage and needed money to fight it. Plus keeping troops there was expensive as well. So he sold the land to us to support his war, NOT out of some grand gesture as you imply.

You guys are taking my words too hard.


I was merely copying what I saw some random n00b speak on another thread. I lost the link, but I saw a couple people rallying behind him.


So my hypothese was correct.

If you have a thread in which compliments the EU over America, people will agree with you.

If you have a thread in which compliments America over the EU, people will DIS-agree with you.


Well done, hypocriscy at it's best. Someone tries to give the American-bashers what they deserve to hear, and everyone gets him for it.

:) Then again...I am superior...

...


.....

..


..


Okay, you know that was a joke this time.

Hey, I must just point out that most of the people I know dislike many things about America, but American people are generally seen in the U.K as being very friendly, warm, generous people who are in love with our english accents. Sure we laugh at them a bit, but thats just cos we're british. We laugh at everyone, most of all at ourselves.

I love the british. many of my reletives are. they are so cool.

Nationalism kills.

What about "continentalism"? Wouldn't that be kinda the same thing?

The US needs to realize that it's not the voice of reason for the rest of the world.

Doesn't EUrope need to realize the same thing?

Yeah....Napoleon had a war to wage and needed money to fight it. Plus keeping troops there was expensive as well. So he sold the land to us to support his war, NOT out of some grand gesture as you imply.

I implied no such thing i know why he sold it to us but if they didnt have to goto war with austria then we would never have gotten it and then we would never had the means to get texas and the world would have been a much better place.

oh so thats what makes europe equal to us. they have dismal economis compared to the usa, dismal tax rates, dismal military stengths, dismal manufacturing rates, dismal incomes, but in america.......some people get shot. oh that negates everything. all well. again, the logic is confusing.

that statement really does depend on your opinion of what society should be. If by "dismal tax rates", you mean higher tax rates, then yes, in the case of at least my country, Sweden, you would be correct, we have higher tax rates. But, this is our choice. We pay these in order to support the welfare state and promote social equality. If you look at the gap between rich and poor in Sweden and then in the USA, you will see a graphic example of why we choose this. America has more of an individualist attitude. I'm not saying either methodology is more correct or superior, you just have to acknowledge that tax rates aren't a far way of measuring a country without context.

that statement really does depend on your opinion of what society should be. If by "dismal tax rates", you mean higher tax rates, then yes, in the case of at least my country, Sweden, you would be correct, we have higher tax rates. But, this is our choice. We pay these in order to support the welfare state and promote social equality. If you look at the gap between rich and poor in Sweden and then in the USA, you will see a graphic example of why we choose this. America has more of an individualist attitude. I'm not saying either methodology is more correct or superior, you just have to acknowledge that tax rates aren't a far way of measuring a country without context.

And to THAT I say...AMEN!

Could you explain this one? I don't understand. What is European patriotism? We are lots of countries, it's only a few federalists at the European Commission in Brussels that have a European patriotism? I'm confused.

Well, someone from France would be patriotic about France, someone from Germany would be patriotic about Germany, someone from the Netherlands would be patriotic of the Netherlands, someone from the UK would be patriotic about the UK, etc. etc.

where did i say that anyone in europe hates america? where did i say it? and the usa is wonderfull and im not going to lie and say otherwise to make people give me "friendly responses" but thanks for the idea.

Look I'm not saying the U.S.A is not wonderful. I'm just saying the whole superior attitude is what pisses people off. People talk down America to make Americans realise that they are not superior to the rest of us. Btw I know alot of Americans don't take this attitude so sorry to generalise.

sure, now im going to compare sweden to the united states once i get proper facts. I cant now though. Oh, and to the person who said that I think europeans hate america......show me where i said that. I did not say it.

I implied no such thing i know why he sold it to us but if they didnt have to goto war with austria then we would never have gotten it and then we would never had the means to get texas and the world would have been a much better place.

We did not GET Texas. Texas was an independent republic that secceeded from Mexico. The Texans won their independence from Mexico and later voted to become part of the US. They did not have to do so.

There is no european patriotism. There are 25 countries, 25 patriotisms, 25 governments, 25 foreign policies (or almost), 25 militaries, and even more languages.
And regarding the ecomomic development. Sweden and Luxemburg are leading in the world regarding their life standard. Others are also in leading positions. Others aren´t. The life standard in the US also differs between Maine and Alabama if I´m not mistaken.

I don't hate Europe. I do resent their foreign policy a bit, though. Instead of supporting democracy and freedom in the world, and opposing dictators (not asking you to go to war here), they seem to do whatever can get them a buck or, worse, weaken America relative to Europe. One example is this bullshit scandal the French and Germans apparently had in Iraq. More than that, they'll send weapons to fucking anyone. Right now they're trying to scrap their self-imposed ban on selling weapons to China, even though they know damn well that those weapons are for invading Taiwan, and possibly going to war against America (and allies) in the process. Meanwhile, the U.S. witholds arms from most such nations and backs up Taiwan militarily, though we do it quietly to keep China happy (we're not perfect ourselves). Europe might as well just stop pretending entirely and play the Russian way: guns for any regime with the cash, no questions asked.

Well, someone from France would be patriotic about France, someone from Germany would be patriotic about Germany, someone from the Netherlands would be patriotic of the Netherlands, someone from the UK would be patriotic about the UK, etc. etc.
Thanks. It's not the same thing as being patriotic about Europe as a whole here. The EU is trying to make us feel more European, but when it comes to patriotism, people still tend to rate their home country above Europe as a whole. Sorry... this is a side issue for a debate about the merits of the EU!! So, I will stop now!

I don't hate Europe. I do resent their foreign policy a bit, though. Instead of supporting democracy and freedom in the world, and opposing dictators (not asking you to go to war here), they seem to do whatever can get them a buck or, worse, weaken America relative to Europe. One example is this bullshit scandal the French and Germans apparently had in Iraq. More than that, they'll send weapons to fucking anyone. Right now they're trying to scrap their self-imposed ban on selling weapons to China, even though they know damn well that those weapons are for invading Taiwan, and possibly going to war against America (and allies) in the process. Meanwhile, the U.S. witholds arms from most such nations and backs up Taiwan militarily, though we do it quietly to keep China happy (we're not perfect ourselves). Europe might as well just stop pretending entirely and play the Russian way: guns for any regime with the cash, no questions asked.

This is off topic, but China will never go to war with America, and America is slowly withdrawing support for Taiwan.

sure, now im going to compare sweden to the united states once i get proper facts. I cant now though. Oh, and to the person who said that I think europeans hate america......show me where i said that. I did not say it.

I never said you said that! I'm just saying that many Americans wonder why Europeans hate America and that this is one reason why. Relax!

Btw it was also me that mentioned how friendly, warm etc I generally find Americans.

that statement really does depend on your opinion of what society should be. If by "dismal tax rates", you mean higher tax rates, then yes, in the case of at least my country, Sweden, you would be correct, we have higher tax rates. But, this is our choice. We pay these in order to support the welfare state and promote social equality. If you look at the gap between rich and poor in Sweden and then in the USA, you will see a graphic example of why we choose this. America has more of an individualist attitude. I'm not saying either methodology is more correct or superior, you just have to acknowledge that tax rates aren't a far way of measuring a country without context.


You are very much correct about this. Tax rates mean nothing. One needs to view the tax rate, the poverty rate and so on. Measuring something on one stat alone is fool hardy.

Thanks. It's not the same thing as being patriotic about Europe as a whole here. The EU is trying to make us feel more European, but when it comes to patriotism, people still tend to rate their home country above Europe as a whole. Sorry... this is a side issue for a debate about the merits of the EU!! So, I will stop now!

No, but I was saying that people from Europe are damn proud of their patriotism, but anytime any American starts showing their patriotism, they all scream and moan that America isn't better than the rest of the world.

We did not GET Texas. Texas was an independent republic that secceeded from Mexico. The Texans won their independence from Mexico and later voted to become part of the US. They did not have to do so.

Yeah but becuase of our little addition people migrated over there and down to texas i mean look at the alamo they where all white men.

I don't hate Europe. I do resent their foreign policy a bit, though. Instead of supporting democracy and freedom in the world, and opposing dictators (not asking you to go to war here), they seem to do whatever can get them a buck or, worse, weaken America relative to Europe. One example is this bullshit scandal the French and Germans apparently had in Iraq. More than that, they'll send weapons to fucking anyone. Right now they're trying to scrap their self-imposed ban on selling weapons to China, even though they know damn well that those weapons are for invading Taiwan, and possibly going to war against America (and allies) in the process. Meanwhile, the U.S. witholds arms from most such nations and backs up Taiwan militarily, though we do it quietly to keep China happy (we're not perfect ourselves). Europe might as well just stop pretending entirely and play the Russian way: guns for any regime with the cash, no questions asked.

If you only knew just how hypocritical that paragraph just was, you'de choke on your own toung. I reccommend you read "The Eagle's Shadow: Why American Fascinates and Infuriates the World" by Mark Hertsgaard. Pfft.

yes, thank god they did that...........in 1777. um, yeah, that was a long time ago. even I wasnt around then. and since we are ( or at least I was) talking about modern events that is what we should be paying attention to huh.
Well, to reverse this statement:
"WW2 was a long time ago. Even I wasn't around then. And since we are talking about modern events that is what we should be paying attention to."
And you have proven a point I wanted to make about how the "US in general". Some other people here seem to think that we "Europeans" cannot criticize the US because you helped us out in WW2. Bullshit, we (or at least I) are very thankfull for the help you gave us then, but that doesn't mean we should bow down to your every whim (as the US government also tried with their "If you are not with us, you are against us"-foreign policy)!

And for the record, I am not from France, I am from The Netherlands.

This is off topic, but China will never go to war with America, and America is slowly withdrawing support for Taiwan.

True on all counts. Just thinking about a war with China is a nightmare itself.

Yeah but becuase of our little addition people migrated over there and down to texas i mean look at the alamo they where all white men.

Thats possible....most of those at the alamo were from further east than Louisiana Purchase territory. The French helped to colonists in order to get the British out of America so they could then take over. However, the French revolution, inspired in some part by the American revolution ended that idea.

True on all counts. Just thinking about a war with China is a nightmare itself.

Neither nation can afford to lose the other as a trading partner. And a war between China and America would be a bankrupting exercise in futility.

Well, to reverse this statement:
"WW2 was a long time ago. Even I wasn't around then. And since we are talking about modern events that is what we should be paying attention to."
And you have proven a point I wanted to make about how the "US in general". Some other people here seem to think that we "Europeans" cannot criticize the US because you helped us out in WW2. Bullshit, we (or at least I) are very thankfull for the help you gave us then, but that doesn't mean we should bow down to your every whim (as the US government also tried with their "If you are not with us, you are against us"-foreign policy)!

And for the record, I am not from France, I am from The Netherlands.

And i there are still people from ww2 around so when the last one dies off thats when we can end talking bout that as an example

Neither nation can afford to lose the other as a trading partner. And a war between China and America would be a bankrupting exercise in futility.


Not to mention the untold millions that would die, because I think it would go Nuclear.

Well, to reverse this statement:
"WW2 was a long time ago. Even I wasn't around then. And since we are talking about modern events that is what we should be paying attention to."
And you have proven a point I wanted to make about how the "US in general". Some other people here seem to think that we "Europeans" cannot criticize the US because you helped us out in WW2. Bullshit, we (or at least I) are very thankfull for the help you gave us then, but that doesn't mean we should bow down to your every whim (as the US government also tried with their "If you are not with us, you are against us"-foreign policy)!

And for the record, I am not from France, I am from The Netherlands.
Some people here seem to think that we "Americans" cannot criticize France because they helped us out in the War for Independence. Bullshit, we (or at least, I) are very thankful for the help you have us then, but that doesn't mean we should bow down to your every whim.

And US government =/= Americans

Well, to reverse this statement:
"WW2 was a long time ago. Even I wasn't around then. And since we are talking about modern events that is what we should be paying attention to."
And you have proven a point I wanted to make about how the "US in general". Some other people here seem to think that we "Europeans" cannot criticize the US because you helped us out in WW2. Bullshit, we (or at least I) are very thankfull for the help you gave us then, but that doesn't mean we should bow down to your every whim (as the US government also tried with their "If you are not with us, you are against us"-foreign policy)!

And for the record, I am not from France, I am from The Netherlands.

\ I never said europe was not grateful for our help. and you put words in my mouth. dont do that to me.

However, this is often confused by some Americans that because we dislike the actions of your government, this means we hate you.

IT DOES NOT.
Just give it some time.
Europeans are finally coming out of hybernation.

oh so thats what makes europe equal to us. they have dismal economis compared to the usa, dismal tax rates, dismal military stengths, dismal manufacturing rates, dismal incomes, but in america.......some people get shot. oh that negates everything. all well. again, the logic is confusing.
This isn't quite the stupidest thing I've ever heard, but it's close to the top. Dismal tax rates? Ever consider why they have higher taxes? BECUASE THEY DON'T PAY FOR HEALTHCARE OR SECONDARY EDUCATION! Dismal military strengths? MAYBE IF YOU LEFT OTHER SOVEREIGN NATIONS ALONE YOU WOULDN'T NEED SUCH A HUGE MILITARY BUDGET!
I agree with you on one count: people not getting shot does NOT negate all of those things; it SURPASSES THEM! The death of citizens is incomparable to tax rates, military size, minimum wage (and by the way, I'd rather be poor in Europe than poor in America; they have REAL aid from the government. More from those evil taxes)!

You know, much as I usually disagree with Biff, he made one very important point. Why do Europeans feel compelled to tell Americans how we should vote in our elections? I've heard the arguments about this being a global society and normally I'd agree but I see an inherent flaw in that thinking. Europeans become extremely agitated and sometimes downright hostile when Americans do the same to them. If I made a thread telling Germans that they shouldn't vote for Gerhard Schroeder as their Chancellor, I would get some pretty nasty replies about how as an American, its none of my business to tell them how to vote.

It doesn't seem to be that way with the English or Canadians, generally speaking, but continental Europeans seem to take great offense to American "intervention." I generally appreciate interest in the American system by non-Americans and I don't have problems with English or Canadian citizens encouraging voting here, because it doesn't seem to be a double standard to them.

I never said you said that! I'm just saying that many Americans wonder why Europeans hate America and that this is one reason why. Relax!

Btw it was also me that mentioned how friendly, warm etc I generally find Americans.

yes you did. but thats ok, i dont think you realize that you did. it probably want on purpose so i wont go digging back to find it. I am relaxed. I hope you all are too. people tend to get a little heated and that is truely silly.

Well, to reverse this statement:
"WW2 was a long time ago. Even I wasn't around then. And since we are talking about modern events that is what we should be paying attention to."
And you have proven a point I wanted to make about how the "US in general". Some other people here seem to think that we "Europeans" cannot criticize the US because you helped us out in WW2. Bullshit, we (or at least I) are very thankfull for the help you gave us then, but that doesn't mean we should bow down to your every whim (as the US government also tried with their "If you are not with us, you are against us"-foreign policy)!

And for the record, I am not from France, I am from The Netherlands.


You know. I never did like when Bush said that. It must have really pissed off alot of countries.

If you only knew just how hypocritical that paragraph just was, you'de choke on your own toung. I reccommend you read "The Eagle's Shadow: Why American Fascinates and Infuriates the World" by Mark Hertsgaard. Pfft.
Maybe instead of citing some random (and probably biased, but we'll leave that for later) book as so many seem to do here you should actually say your argument. Do you really expect me to go out and buy that book now, along with every other title mentioned here? I did say that America's not perfect either. I know that we're less pro-Taiwan than we used to be, but our main protection remains, and we're at least sticking with them more than Europe is, and not selling arms to a country that is simultaneously dictatorial, expansionist, and the second greatest power in the world.

You know. I never did like when Bush said that. It must have really pissed off alot of countries.
and his own country too, in the long run

And i there are still people from ww2 around so when the last one dies off thats when we can end talking bout that as an example

I am not French but I believe their response would be:-

you saved our grandparents, we saved your great great great etc grandparents. Whats the difference?

And I would like to point out that America entered the war only when it was attacked. Other countries entered because they saw what Germany and Japan was doing was wrong.

You know, much as I usually disagree with Biff, he made one very important point. Why do Europeans feel compelled to tell Americans how we should vote in our elections? I've heard the arguments about this being a global society and normally I'd agree but I see an inherent flaw in that thinking. Europeans become extremely agitated and sometimes downright hostile when Americans do the same to them. If I made a thread telling Germans that they shouldn't vote for Gerhard Schroeder as their Chancellor, I would get some pretty nasty replies about how as an American, its none of my business to tell them how to vote.

It doesn't seem to be that way with the English or Canadians, generally speaking, but continental Europeans seem to take great offense to American "intervention." I generally appreciate interest in the American system by non-Americans and I don't have problems with English or Canadian citizens encouraging voting here, because it doesn't seem to be a double standard to them.

This hasn't been my experience. They are open to discussing their politics with me if I will discuss my politics with them.

This isn't quite the stupidest thing I've ever heard, but it's close to the top. Dismal tax rates? Ever consider why they have higher taxes? BECUASE THEY DON'T PAY FOR HEALTHCARE OR SECONDARY EDUCATION! Dismal military strengths? MAYBE IF YOU LEFT OTHER SOVEREIGN NATIONS ALONE YOU WOULDN'T NEED SUCH A HUGE MILITARY BUDGET!
I agree with you on one count: people not getting shot does NOT negate all of those things; it SURPASSES THEM! The death of citizens is incomparable to tax rates, military size, minimum wage (and by the way, I'd rather be poor in Europe than poor in America; they have REAL aid from the government. More from those evil taxes)!

america has a different philosophy than you do. that doesnt make you wrong. it doesnt make us wrong. But you do sound very .......exited about your beliefs so i dont think i should adress them. I think you need a cool drink. I am glad that a person with such pilosophy thinks that somthing that i said is the stupidist thing they ever heard. In fact, i am honered.

in forums, the f is for friendly.

I am not French but I believe their response would be:-

you saved our grandparents, we saved your great great great etc grandparents. Whats the difference?

And I would like to point out that America entered the war only when it was attacked. Other countries entered because they saw what Germany and Japan was doing was wrong.

and america had that stupid policy of waiting to get attacked and it caused a lot of trouble, death, and strife. Please tell me nobody wants to go back to that. Oh wait, you cant. many people on this very forum would like to see a return to that. how sad.

and his own country too, in the long run


True but I still think he gets another 4 years.

yes you did. but thats ok, i dont think you realize that you did. it probably want on purpose so i wont go digging back to find it. I am relaxed. I hope you all are too. people tend to get a little heated and that is truely silly.

Thank you, sorry for any offence and btw I'm adding lots of typical European views in this thread just so people can see why they get annoyed with America. It does not neccessarily mean I agree with all of them.

america has a different philosophy than you do. that doesnt make you wrong. it doesnt make us wrong. But you do sound very .......exited about your beliefs so i dont think i should adress them. I think you need a cool drink. I am glad that a person with such pilosophy thinks that somthing that i said is the stupidist thing they ever heard. In fact, i am honered.

in forums, the f is for friendly.
Oh very well, I'll calm down but dismal was the wrong adjective to use in reference to those European attributes. BTW I am an American. And saying that our stronger military negates (or overrides) the negative attribute of high gun crime is (to me) about the most despicable thing anyone could ever say.

bigots on both sides, bigots

"PEEEEOOOOOPPLLLEEEEEEEE...

LEETTTTSSSSS STOOOOPPP THEEE WAAAAAAAARRR"

grand funk railroad.

live on comrades :fluffle:

I am not French but I believe their response would be:-

you saved our grandparents, we saved your great great great etc grandparents. Whats the difference?

And I would like to point out that America entered the war only when it was attacked. Other countries entered because they saw what Germany and Japan was doing was wrong.

what? we're evil for not wanting to rush ourselves into a war and lose thousands of American lives?

Buddy, that was the last time we ever did that in future wars. What do you think happened after WW2? Vietnam, Korea, and the Persian Gulf.

I am not French but I believe their response would be:-

you saved our grandparents, we saved your great great great etc grandparents. Whats the difference?

And I would like to point out that America entered the war only when it was attacked. Other countries entered because they saw what Germany and Japan was doing was wrong.

China entered because it was attacked.
Russia entered because it was attacked.
France and Britian entered because their ally was attacked.

There were no noble intentions for starting WWII. If other countries entered because they saw what Germany and Japan was doing was wrong, then why didn't they stop Germany from taking Czechoslovakia or Austria, or Japan from taking China and Korea, or even Italy from taking Albania and Ethiopia?

This hasn't been my experience. They are open to discussing their politics with me if I will discuss my politics with them.

Well, I'm glad that its just been my experience then and not everyone else's. If that's the case most everyone else as well, I gladly retract my initial statement.

and america had that stupid policy of waiting to get attacked and it caused a lot of trouble, death, and strife. Please tell me nobody wants to go back to that. Oh wait, you cant. many people on this very forum would like to see a return to that. how sad.
Ah yes, lets equate pre-emptive war against a nation that couldn't have touched us with even its most advanced weaponry with a war against a nation that was our equal (or our superior) in all military regards in 1942. Brilliant.

Oh very well, I'll calm down but dismal was the wrong adjective to use in reference to those European attributes. BTW I am an American. And saying that our stronger military negates (or overrides) the negative attribute of high gun crime is (to me) about the most despicable thing anyone could ever say.

without our strong military we could not have set 50 million middle easterners free and given them civil rights. 50 million. hmmmm, guns, ugh, whatever.

No, but I was saying that people from Europe are damn proud of their patriotism, but anytime any American starts showing their patriotism, they all scream and moan that America isn't better than the rest of the world.
Well, Dutch patriotism is mostly:
Wearing orange and drinking lots of beer (or other (non)alcoholic beverages) and eating lots of kroketten and patat on the following occasions:
Dutch Soccer (or any other sports) team playing (winning is an option), Queen's day, Liberation day, marriages of members of the royal family and other occassions that give way to a lot of alcohol and the opportunity to wear orange.
Oh and of course making fun of the prime minister (who looks like Harry Potter) and his cabinet and of course: the royal family

Where as (observed from way over here, so probably tainted) American patriotism is more like:
- My country is the greatest
- God bless my country
- I need to wave my flag at every possible occassion
- My government/country/whatever is infallible and everyone saying otherwise is an infidel, a terrorist or a danger to the state

As I said, my observation is tainted, as is everyone else's, however the main observation is that some countries (like the US) are overzealous in their patriotism, while other countries (like The Netherlands) just think of it as just another party.

Well, I'm glad that its just been my experience then and not everyone else's. If that's the case most everyone else as well, I gladly retract my initial statement.
To be fair, the people I talked to all agree with me on the anti-Schroeder and anti-bush stances. Maybe taht had something to do with it. Although not that many people support Schroeder anymore, I gather.

what do we win
if through war we sin

can i tell you this
i have to take a pi**

Ah yes, lets equate pre-emptive war against a nation that couldn't have touched us with even its most advanced weaponry with a war against a nation that was our equal (or our superior) in all military regards in 1942. Brilliant.

i was not speaking of iraq i was speaking in general.

I am not French but I believe their response would be:-

you saved our grandparents, we saved your great great great etc grandparents. Whats the difference?

And I would like to point out that America entered the war only when it was attacked. Other countries entered because they saw what Germany and Japan was doing was wrong.

Britain and France only went to war after Poland was invaded. They did not do anything except slap him verbally for annexing ummm Austria was it?

bigots on both sides, bigots

"PEEEEOOOOOPPLLLEEEEEEEE...

LEETTTTSSSSS STOOOOPPP THEEE WAAAAAAAARRR"

grand funk railroad.

live on comrades :fluffle:
Silence, Pinko
;)

The one thing that I don't like about Western Europe is that now that the Soviet Union is gone they have turned on us. While we were protecting them they acted like they were our friends and that Western Europe and The United States were big buddies in the world and now that we don't have to protect their asses from the big bad Soviets they stab us in the back by dealing with Anti-American warlords and dictators in the Third-World and propose and voting for Anti-American resolutions in the United Nations. Most of this anti-Americanism in the world geo-political stage is lead by France and Germany who used to be our closest NATO allies. So that is one reason why I have a really dislike, hates a little to strong of a world, for some of the Nations of 'Old Europe'. Another thing, ya France helped us in the Revolutionary War but that was over 200 years ago and we have certainly paid them back for their little move to sucker punch the British. Lets see, the US helped France in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. WWI the American Expeditionary Force lead by Gen. 'BlackJack' Pershing relieved beligured Allied units and helped get the extra men on the field that the allies needed to achieve breakthrough. WWII, rather self explanitory. Cold War, we saved France and Germany from being attacked by the Soviet Union and falling under the red flag of Communism by keeping a large military force in both countries. Old Europe has forsaken their allies and instead of working with the US they would rather stomp on it and work behind the US's back to bring it down. And also no one can tell me that the Europeans aren't envious of American power. Watch a meeting of the UN Security Council or look at the lead up to the Iraq War. You had France trying to play the role of a counter-superpower to the United States. It obviously relished the thought of becoming a counter-weight to the United States and achieving the power that the United States no has. These are just a few ideas and throughts that needed to be put down.

la la la la la

(btw i hate war, there is no good in it, and as long as we find excuses to promote or justify it we will never overcome it)

\ I never said europe was not grateful for our help. and you put words in my mouth. dont do that to me.
First of all: there is no friendship between countries just common interests. Secondly countries act selfish and act in a way that is most in their interest or/and in the interest of their current government of course.
Alliances can change, they can weaken, they can reform themself, e.g. We are not at the end of history. So why should any nation allow its history to determine its present policy and not its current national interests????

And by the way: I don´t care who you vote.
I expect however Bush to win, but quite frankly spoken I don´t care who wins.
However since this is a political thread you have to be aware that political junkies or at least highly interested people are interested in it. They are a small group and in no way representative. Most people in Europe have other things to do than to bother about it. The main topics are always domestic politics. So, you don´t dominate every news or discussions as you may think.
Furthernmore it is no secret that there is a bias towards the political left in internet usage. So, don´t see the comments as representative.

Where as (observed from way over here, so probably tainted) American patriotism is more like:
- My country is the greatest
- God bless my country
- I need to wave my flag at every possible occassion
- My government/country/whatever is infallible and everyone saying otherwise is an infidel, a terrorist or a danger to the state

As I said, my observation is tainted, as is everyone else's, however the main observation is that some countries (like the US) are overzealous in their patriotism, while other countries (like The Netherlands) just think of it as just another party.
hot damn that was tainted....

My patriotism:
- Your country is not better than mine
- My flag deserves to fly as high as it possibly can
- My government is my choice

Although, that's just me. There are others that are close to your observation, but are not that sick.

Where as American patriotism is more like:
- My country is the greatest
- God bless my country
- I need to wave my flag at every possible occassion
- My government/country/whatever is infallible and everyone saying otherwise is an infidel, a terrorist or a danger to the state

Thats pretty accurate.

i was not speaking of iraq i was speaking in general.
Then how would you have handled the Pre-Pearl Harbor period?

Well, Dutch patriotism is mostly:
Wearing orange and drinking lots of beer (or other (non)alcoholic beverages) and eating lots of kroketten and patat on the following occasions:
Dutch Soccer (or any other sports) team playing (winning is an option), Queen's day, Liberation day, marriages of members of the royal family and other occassions that give way to a lot of alcohol and the opportunity to wear orange.
Oh and of course making fun of the prime minister (who looks like Harry Potter) and his cabinet and of course: the royal family

Where as (observed from way over here, so probably tainted) American patriotism is more like:
- My country is the greatest
- God bless my country
- I need to wave my flag at every possible occassion
- My government/country/whatever is infallible and everyone saying otherwise is an infidel, a terrorist or a danger to the state

As I said, my observation is tainted, as is everyone else's, however the main observation is that some countries (like the US) are overzealous in their patriotism, while other countries (like The Netherlands) just think of it as just another party.

contaray to popular belief most americans are not very patriotic at all. maybe for like a month after 911 but not really after that. It is actualy very disapointing.

Silence, Pinko
;)
as left as i can be right in doing so my comrade!

learn to love, live to learn

oh so thats what makes europe equal to us. they have dismal economis compared to the usa, dismal tax rates, dismal military stengths, dismal manufacturing rates, dismal incomes, but in america.......some people get shot. oh that negates everything. all well. again, the logic is confusing.


I would rather have all that "dismal" stuff and still be alive, thank you very much.

The one thing that I don't like about Western Europe is that now that the Soviet Union is gone they have turned on us. While we were protecting them they acted like they were our friends and that Western Europe and The United States were big buddies in the world and now that we don't have to protect their asses from the big bad Soviets they stab us in the back by dealing with Anti-American warlords and dictators in the Third-World and propose and voting for Anti-American resolutions in the United Nations. Most of this anti-Americanism in the world geo-political stage is lead by France and Germany who used to be our closest NATO allies. So that is one reason why I have a really dislike, hates a little to strong of a world, for some of the Nations of 'Old Europe'. Another thing, ya France helped us in the Revolutionary War but that was over 200 years ago and we have certainly paid them back for their little move to sucker punch the British. Lets see, the US helped France in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. WWI the American Expeditionary Force lead by Gen. 'BlackJack' Pershing relieved beligured Allied units and helped get the extra men on the field that the allies needed to achieve breakthrough. WWII, rather self explanitory. Cold War, we saved France and Germany from being attacked by the Soviet Union and falling under the red flag of Communism by keeping a large military force in both countries. Old Europe has forsaken their allies and instead of working with the US they would rather stomp on it and work behind the US's back to bring it down. And also no one can tell me that the Europeans aren't envious of American power. Watch a meeting of the UN Security Council or look at the lead up to the Iraq War. You had France trying to play the role of a counter-superpower to the United States. It obviously relished the thought of becoming a counter-weight to the United States and achieving the power that the United States no has. These are just a few ideas and throughts that needed to be put down.

So what you're saying is that you're upset that European nations have their own agendas and interests that sometimes conflict with our own interests and it upsets you that they are doing what is best for their citizens instead of what we think is best for our citizens?

Thats pretty accurate.


I agree with you. It is accurate on how most Americans view America.

as left as i can be right in doing so my comrade!

learn to love, live to learn
Want to have a who-is-further-left competition? I'm the most extreme at my school, but you might still be ahead...
There are very few of us who have heard of (let alone read!) any Marx.

China entered because it was attacked.
Russia entered because it was attacked.
France and Britian entered because their ally was attacked.

There were no noble intentions for starting WWII. If other countries entered because they saw what Germany and Japan was doing was wrong, then why didn't they stop Germany from taking Czechoslovakia or Austria, or Japan from taking China and Korea, or even Italy from taking Albania and Ethiopia?

France and Britain entered cos Poland was attacked, so that proves my point. They were not attacked themselves till then. Hitler actually had great respect for the English and wanted them to join him.
Anyway I'm not saying that America was terrible for not entering the war till late, I am just saying that before people start with 'we saved your asses!' you should realise that the reason you entered was to save your own asses.

What I'm saying is that selling weapons to America's enemies, people like Saddam Hussein, is not an action that an ally of the United States would take.

From what I've seen, most Europeans don't care too much for the French either but the French could care less. So they pick on the US because they know we still care what people think of us.
Interesting in Iraq, the East Europeans, especially Poland, got on board with
the US right away. I am of part Polish descent and I honor them for it. Granted, part of it was probably just to give a raspberry to Germany and Russia, but Poland also has bitter historical experience of dictators with mustaches and what happens if they are not stopped.

Then how would you have handled the Pre-Pearl Harbor period?

as soon as germany entered poland it would have been time for the united states to take action as an aid to our allies and to save lives in europe ( yes we like you folks that much). japan was a suprise. Nothing would have taken place until pearl harbor i think with me in charge.

France and Britain entered cos Poland was attacked, so that proves my point. They were not attacked themselves till then. Hitler actually had great respect for the English and wanted them to join him.
Anyway I'm not saying that America was terrible for not entering the war till late, I am just saying that before people start with 'we saved your asses!' you should realise that the reason you entered was to save your own asses.

But that's the reason everyone else joined the war. It's not like America was alone in joining the war to save themselves. No one stood up to Germany and Japan until they themselves were in jeopardy of the Axis' actions.

And for the "well France saved America's ass in the American Revolution", they didn't help us because they appreciated our desire for independence. They helped us to weaken their rival Britain.

What I'm saying is that selling weapons to America's enemies, people like Saddam Hussein, is not an action that an ally of the United States would take.

whoaaaaaaa now..... Remember.. the USA sold Saddam weapons. We are just as guilty. We kept him in power for years. Sad but true.

What I'm saying is that selling weapons to America's enemies, people like Saddam Hussein, is not an action that an ally of the United States would take.
Ah, the same Saddam that the US sold weapons to until they got embroilled somewhere at the beginning of the '90s

What I'm saying is that selling weapons to America's enemies, people like Saddam Hussein, is not an action that an ally of the United States would take.

Have you not seen the photos of your current defence minister Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad?
USA supplied just as many, if not more, weapons to Iraq. In fact, USA was on Iraq's side in the Iraq-Iran war (of course, not actually taking part, but diplomatically) . Unfortunately, all of us are to blame with supplying weapons to Hussein's regime.

And for the "well France saved America's ass in the American Revolution", they didn't help us because they appreciated our desire for independence. They helped us to weaken their rival Britain.
Some say that the US finally joined in to keep the communists out, because communism was the greatest evil on Earth...

France and Britain entered cos Poland was attacked, so that proves my point. They were not attacked themselves till then. Hitler actually had great respect for the English and wanted them to join him.
Anyway I'm not saying that America was terrible for not entering the war till late, I am just saying that before people start with 'we saved your asses!' you should realise that the reason you entered was to save your own asses.

tell my grandmothers best friend who lost 90% of her hearing in the blitz that hitler wanted to be buddy buddy with britain. and I think that many of the same arguments that are bad today could have been made back then in 1939. what did hitler ever do to us? how is it our business? we shouldnt mess with other sovereign nations. well, it seems europe was happy to see us help out when it was their own people dying. shame it couldnt when other people were dying in iraq.

What I'm saying is that selling weapons to America's enemies, people like Saddam Hussein, is not an action that an ally of the United States would take.

Sort of like when Saddam was our ally and we were aiding Iran even when our ally was at war with them?

So what you are saying is that as Americans, we have a right to tell another country's manufacturing industry whom they can and can't sell their products to? We have the right to tell a sovereign nation's industry what they are allowed to do? Does this then give other nations the right to demand that we end the embargo against Cuba?

Saddam I might add was at war with Iraq at the time we sold him weapons. Actually we sold weapons to both the Iraqis and Iranians so that they destroyed both of their armies and countries so they wouldn't be a threat to the United States. France sold weapons to Iraqi after the Gulf War in violation of several UN Resolutions. Their is evidence that they sold weapons to Saddam Hussein up to the beginning of the war. Now does that sound like something an ally of the United States should be doing?

Saddam was never our ally. He was just fighting another enemy at the time.

as soon as germany entered poland it would have been time for the united states to take action as an aid to our allies and to save lives in europe ( yes we like you folks that much). japan was a suprise. Nothing would have taken place until pearl harbor i think with me in charge.
Bearing in mind that at the time a minority of Americans favoured entry intot he war and you'd need Congress to allow it. Me, I would have joined the war at the first news of the Holocaust.

Lets not forget who supported the Taliban once.

Well: I´m actually for a transatlantic Europe but given the practise of the US policy you shouldn´t really point with fingers on others. The US is still the single largest weapons seller in the world.

Have you not seen the photos of your current defence minister Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad?
USA supplied just as many, if not more, weapons to Iraq. In fact, USA was on Iraq's side in the Iraq-Iran war (of course, not actually taking part, but diplomatically) . Unfortunately, all of us are to blame with supplying weapons to Hussein's regime.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT POSITION RUMSFELD HAD WHEN HE VISITED IRAQ? HE WAS THE SPECIAL UNITED STATES ENVOY TO THE MIDDLE EAST ON DISARMAMENT. DISARMAMENT. HE WAS BROKERING DEALS TO STOP THE SUPPLY OF THE WEAPONS. it is true we should never have done it looking back but i am sick of this ignorance about rumsfeld with hussein.

Bearing in mind that at the time a minority of Americans favoured entry intot he war and you'd need Congress to allow it. Me, I would have joined the war at the first news of the Holocaust.

that would work also

[B]ut that doesn't mean we should bow down to your every whim (as the US government also tried with their "If you are not with us, you are against us"-foreign policy)!

That statement was made in regard to the War on Terrorism, and it's appropriate. A country can either oppose terrorism, by sharing intelligence, cutting off financial support, and protecting itself from terrorism by arresting terrorists and their supporters (because they're all targets, not just the U.S.). Or, it can support terrorism by allowing terrorists safe harbor, training camps, avenues for financial transactions, and moral support. It really is pretty clear cut, and it doesn't mean you have to "bow down to [our] every whim." It's in EVERY country's best interest to oppose terrorists.

tell my grandmothers best friend who lost 90% of her hearing in the blitz that hitler wanted to be buddy buddy with britain. and I think that many of the same arguments that are bad today could have been made back then in 1939. what did hitler ever do to us? how is it our business? we shouldnt mess with other sovereign nations. well, it seems europe was happy to see us help out when it was their own people dying. shame it couldnt when other people were dying in iraq.

Actually Britain did. Everyone criticised Tony Blair for it and called him Bush's lapdog

Saddam I might add was at war with Iraq at the time we sold him weapons. Actually we sold weapons to both the Iraqis and Iranians so that they destroyed both of their armies and countries so they wouldn't be a threat to the United States. France sold weapons to Iraqi after the Gulf War in violation of several UN Resolutions. Their is evidence that they sold weapons to Saddam Hussein up to the beginning of the war. Now does that sound like something an ally of the United States should be doing?

Saddam was never our ally. He was just fighting another enemy at the time.

So what you're now saying is that we gave a country that wasn't our ally some of the most deadly toxins and chemical weaponry known to mankind and spent billions of taxpayers' dollars on a country not allied to us?

So that means that even though we weren't allies, we took Iraq off the list of countries that support terrorism to further provide aid to a country we weren't allied to?

Actually Britain did. Everyone criticised Tony Blair for it and called him Bush's lapdog

what do you mean by 'everyone'?

tell my grandmothers best friend who lost 90% of her hearing in the blitz that hitler wanted to be buddy buddy with britain. and I think that many of the same arguments that are bad today could have been made back then in 1939. what did hitler ever do to us? how is it our business? we shouldnt mess with other sovereign nations. well, it seems europe was happy to see us help out when it was their own people dying. shame it couldnt when other people were dying in iraq.

Actually, Hitler did like the British. He thought his Continental Empire would not conflict with Britains Maritime Empire, and that he could join forces with them against Bolshevism.

So what you're now saying is that we gave a country that wasn't our enemy some of the most deadly toxins and chemical weaponry known to mankind and spent billions of taxpayers' dollars on a country not allied to us?

So that means that even though we weren't allies, we took Iraq off the list of countries that support terrorism to further provide aid to a country we weren't allied to?

so where does anyone say that the united states sent "billions" of aid to iraq during the iran iraq war?

Me, I would have joined the war at the first news of the Holocaust.

In that case, the U.S. would have entered WWII even later than it did.

so where does anyone say that the united states sent "billions" of aid to iraq during the iran iraq war?

No one says that. I was resonding to someone else's post. Thank you.

Or how about we start a thread for Americans who like Europe and think that Bush's foreign policy is stupid.....maybe then we could avoid some generalizations about Americans being ignorant and actually try to get along with people from other nations unlike our current president who has alienated the world, especially Europe.

shame it couldnt when other people were dying in iraq.
Most of Europe is not against freeing Iraq, it is however against attacking a sovereign country under false pretenses (the so called weapons of mass destruction that are still nowhere to be found and the so called "Saddam-Al-Quaeda"-connection that did not exist) and without UN approval.
If there had been real proof of weapons of mass destruction (which could not be found by UN inspectors, but US intelligence was able to fabricate them) and of a Saddam-Al-Quaeda connection and if there had been UN approval I would have been in favor of the war.
Hell, the US could have gone to the UN and given proof of all violations of human rights and requested approval of the UN, it would have been given and most Arab and European nations would have been in favor.

As it stands, the Bush administration was already planning for invading Iraq before 9/11 and tried to pin 9/11 on Iraq so they could invade (just like the previous Spanish government tried to pin the Madrid bombing on ETA to influence the elections). And it is not for humanitarian of idealistic reasons, but purely economic.

BTW: Our government also supported the invasion against the will of the majority of the people and we are also now in Iraq to keep the peace, so what are you blabbering about "old europe" and no support.

And on another note: this problem would not have existed if the US and allies had move on to Baghdad during the Gulf War.

In that case, the U.S. would have entered WWII even later than it did.
Well, I would have entered at the attack on Pearl Harbor of course. I wasn't sure just when the details began to surface (probably not until 1944, I guess).

No one says that. I was resonding to someone else's post. Thank you.

good

Most of Europe is not against freeing Iraq, it is however against attacking a sovereign country under false pretenses (the so called weapons of mass destruction that are still nowhere to be found and the so called "Saddam-Al-Quaeda"-connection that did not exist) and without UN approval.
If there had been real proof of weapons of mass destruction (which could not be found by UN inspectors, but US intelligence was able to fabricate them) and of a Saddam-Al-Quaeda connection and if there had been UN approval I would have been in favor of the war.
Hell, the US could have gone to the UN and given proof of all violations of human rights and requested approval of the UN, it would have been given and most Arab and European nations would have been in favor.

As it stands, the Bush administration was already planning for invading Iraq before 9/11 and tried to pin 9/11 on Iraq so they could invade (just like the previous Spanish government tried to pin the Madrid bombing on ETA to influence the elections). And it is not for humanitarian of idealistic reasons, but purely economic.

BTW: Our government also supported the invasion against the will of the majority of the people and we are also now in Iraq to keep the peace, so what are you blabbering about "old europe" and no support.

And on another note: this problem would not have existed if the US and allies had move on to Baghdad during the Gulf War.





ok, i have not used to phrase old europe so you made that part up. The rest i cant understand exept the part about the gulf war. that is very very true.

good

Glad you approve. I was sweating it out waiting for a reply. WHEW!

ok i have to go. I have one more thing to say. It is interesting that so much bitterness is in this discussion. I cant understand it.
good bye all.

Here you go Morathania. I hope you enjoy the movie....its brief...
http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

I don't hate Europe. I do resent their foreign policy a bit, though. Instead of supporting democracy and freedom in the world, and opposing dictators (not asking you to go to war here), they seem to do whatever can get them a buck or, worse, weaken America relative to Europe. One example is this bullshit scandal the French and Germans apparently had in Iraq. More than that, they'll send weapons to fucking anyone. Right now they're trying to scrap their self-imposed ban on selling weapons to China, even though they know damn well that those weapons are for invading Taiwan, and possibly going to war against America (and allies) in the process. Meanwhile, the U.S. witholds arms from most such nations and backs up Taiwan militarily, though we do it quietly to keep China happy (we're not perfect ourselves). Europe might as well just stop pretending entirely and play the Russian way: guns for any regime with the cash, no questions asked.
As an American, I can safely call that hypocritical. We have given weapons to lots of people who we would now consider "evil". Let's see... Stalin, because he was killing Germans, Osama because he was killing Russians, the Northern Alliance because he was killing Osama's people... jeez. Also, we got into WWI because we were selling arms to everyone and the Germans got mad. Let's see... other times? How about Saudi Arabia? Get real. We just pick different evil dictatorships.

So what you're now saying is that we gave a country that wasn't our ally some of the most deadly toxins and chemical weaponry known to mankind and spent billions of taxpayers' dollars on a country not allied to us?

So that means that even though we weren't allies, we took Iraq off the list of countries that support terrorism to further provide aid to a country we weren't allied to?

There was no list of countries that support terrorism then. That was in 1980 and Saddam was fighting Iran. We saw his secular government as a better alternative to the rising threat of Islam in Iran. Had Saddam played ball he could have become the leading Arab statesman, but he let power cloud his judgement.

What I'm saying is that selling weapons to America's enemies, people like Saddam Hussein, is not an action that an ally of the United States would take.
Well doing business (and partially evading the oil-embargo) with Iraq was not too much for the corporation (can't remember the name) your current vice president worked for. The same corporation that overcharged supplies and oil for the US troops during the Gulf war.

ok i have to go. I have one more thing to say. It is interesting that so much bitterness is in this discussion. I cant understand it.
good bye all.

Well, I asked for bitterness. Still, I'm really dissappointed (as i stated in post #36). Where's the envy angle!? At this rate this thread is going to be another "aww Bush!", or "Iraq this Saddam that" thread. so sad...sad

ok, i have not used to phrase old europe so you made that part up. The rest i cant understand exept the part about the gulf war. that is very very true.
Ok, maybe I am confusing posts :headbang:

I agree with you. It is accurate on how most Americans view America.
congratulations, you know jack-shit!

If you actually KNEW how patriotic Americans usually are, you would've kept your mouth shut.

That wasn't a flame.

Here you go Morathania. I hope you enjoy the movie....its brief...
http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
I'd seen that before, brilliantly done.

There was no list of countries that support terrorism then. That was in 1980 and Saddam was fighting Iran. We saw his secular government as a better alternative to the rising threat of Islam in Iran. Had Saddam played ball he could have become the leading Arab statesman, but he let power cloud his judgement.

There was no public list of countries that support terrorism. However, it was widely known that Hussein supported Abu Nidal. And yet, we dismissed that fact. :) We're both right. And I agree with you about Saddam playing the ball right. He was in position to become a leading Arab statesman but royally screwed that pooch.

Hell, the US could have gone to the UN and given proof of all violations of human rights and requested approval of the UN, it would have been given and most Arab and European nations would have been in favor.

How do you know that?

And it is not for humanitarian of [sic] idealistic reasons, but purely economic.

What economic gain did the U.S. get out of the liberation of Iraq?

And on another note: this problem would not have existed if the US and allies had move on to Baghdad during the Gulf War.

That would have been outside the UN mandate. They only approved the liberation of Kuwait, not regime change in Iraq. Also, there was a world outcry that the coalition was being "too mean" and calls for cessation of hostilities.

what do you mean by 'everyone'?

By everyone I mean many politicians and lots of the British public

There was no public list of countries that support terrorism. However, it was widely known that Hussein supported Abu Nidal. And yet, we dismissed that fact. :) We're both right. And I agree with you about Saddam playing the ball right. He was in position to become a leading Arab statesman but royally screwed that pooch.

Abu Nidal by that time was largely retired. His usefulness was pretty much past him. Saddam had the world in his hands and he blew it big time. One can only wonder what he could have done with all that oil flowing out and money flowing in.

That would have been outside the UN mandate. They only approved the liberation of Kuwait, not regime change in Iraq. Also, there was a world outcry that the coalition was being "too mean" and calls for cessation of hostilities.
Not to forget of the concern that there might be an Iraqi civil war and pro-Iranian shiite factions try to take over or the Kurds try to seperate "forcing" Turkey to intervene. Those concerns were quite realistic and are still realistic today. However in contrast to 1991 the US government thought in 2003 it was worth taking that risk. Whether this was really the case is going to be shown by the future.

congratulations, you know jack-shit!

If you actually KNEW how patriotic Americans usually are, you would've kept your mouth shut.

That wasn't a flame.


I am an American and it is true on how we view things. So grow up please. Where were all the flags before 9/11? SURE AS HELL NOT FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE.

I am an American and it is true on how we view things. So grow up please. Where were all the flags before 9/11? SURE AS HELL NOT FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE.

Mine sure as hell was flying before 9/11.

I am an American and it is true on how we view things. So grow up please. Where were all the flags before 9/11? SURE AS HELL NOT FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE.
erm....I can't tell if your agreeing with me...

I was implying that there was a lack of patriotism, then and now.

.

Mine sure as hell was flying before 9/11.


So was ours and my neighbors but you must admit. Until that day most Americans didn't give it a second thought. It is sad but true.

How do you know that?
Editorials in newspapers, opinionpolls etc etc

What economic gain did the U.S. get out of the liberation of Iraq?
1) Your weapons industry is back on production and funding after having been royally screwed with defence funding cuts after the Gulf war
2) Most Iraq-restoration-contracts have already been awarded to US companies
3) US will most likely make deals with the Iraqi interim government to award (cheap) oil contracts to US companies
Maybe it is not an economic gain for the whole of US, but strangely enough, almost all sectors (and even companies) positively affected have been former employers of members of the current administration.

That would have been outside the UN mandate. They only approved the liberation of Kuwait, not regime change in Iraq. Also, there was a world outcry that the coalition was being "too mean" and calls for cessation of hostilities.
True, but in the heat of the moment, most countries would have forgiven the US for liberating Iraq as well, instead of now affronting most countries by doing it on false pretenses.

erm....I can't tell if your agreeing with me...

I was implying that there was a lack of patriotism, then and now.


ohhhhh okay.. then we do agree.. there is a lack of real patriotism.

Since most people seem to be unaware of this, i'm copying a summary of an article of US regional interventions from '45 to '99.

A Brief History of U.S. Interventions:
1945 to the Present
by William Blum
Z magazine , June 1999



The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
* making the world safe for American corporations;
* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;
* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."

This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.

The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.

China, 1945-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.

Italy, 1947-48:
Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.

Greece, 1947-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.

Philippines, 1945-53:
U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.

South Korea, 1945-53:
After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.

Albania, 1949-53:
The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.

Germany, 1950s:
The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.

Iran, 1953:
Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.

Guatemala, 1953-1990s:
A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.

Middle East, 1956-58:
The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism." The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "Communist." In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.

Indonesia, 1957-58:
Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United States could not abide. He took neutralism in the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. He refused to crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas." The CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phony sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.

British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64:
For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist-more so than Sukarno or Arbenz-his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics-from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U. S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.
One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.

Vietnam, 1950-73:
The slippery slope began with siding with ~ French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of Communist. He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with ..." But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of Communist.
Twenty-three years and more than a million dead, later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington had achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.

Cambodia, 1955-73:
Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.
Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery on this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.

The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65:
In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a "Communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.
Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.

Brazil, 1961-64:
President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual crimes: He took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man was no radical. He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who wore a medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup which had deep, covert American involvement. The official Washington line was...yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown in Brazil...but, still, the country has been saved from communism.
For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship that Latin America has come to know were instituted: Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended, criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned down, priests were brutalized...disappearances, death squads, a remarkable degree and depravity of torture...the government had a name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.
Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin America.

Dominican Republic, 1963-66:
In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-Communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought " showcase of democracy " that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took office.
Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform, low-rent housing, modest nationalization of business, and foreign investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country and other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such, were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.
A number of American officials and congresspeople expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.
In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did nothing.
Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it.
Cuba, 1959 to present:
Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations...Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in Latin America.
The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent were all there. But we'll never know. And that of course was the idea.

Indonesia, 1965:
A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately-of Communists, Communist sympathizers, suspected Communists, suspected Communist sympathizers, and none of the above-was called by the New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.
It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of "Communist" operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment. "

Chile, 1964-73:
Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than a Marxist in power-an elected Marxist in power, who honored the constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very foundation stones on which the anti-Communist tower was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.
After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process.
They closed the country to the outside world for a week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers opened for business; the subversive books were thrown into bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that "In Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor returned to their natural state; and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of international finance opened up their check- books. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared.

Greece, 1964-74:
The military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the campaign for j national elections was to begin, elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save the nation from a "Communist takeover." Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for the young would be compulsory.
It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that "a conservative estimate would place at not less than two thousand" the number of people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States.
Becket reported the following: Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: "You make yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else. What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S. You can't fight us, we are Americans."
George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal anti-Communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take Greece out of the Cold War, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or at least as a satellite of the United States.

East Timor, 1975 to present:
In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had relinquished control of it. The invasion was launched the day after U. S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American arms, which, under U.S. Iaw, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia was Washington's most valuable tool in Southeast Asia.
Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States consistently supported Indonesia's claim to East Timor (unlike the UN and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at the same time supplying Indonesia with all the military hardware and training it needed to carry out the job.

Nicaragua, 1978-89:
When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well be that long-dreaded beast-"another Cuba." Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious National Guard and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be no revolution in Nicaragua.

Grenada, 1979-84:
What would drive the most powerful nation in the world to invade a country of 110,000? Maurice Bishop and his followers had taken power in a 1979 coup, and though their actual policies were not as revolutionary as Castro's, Washington was again driven by its fear of "another Cuba," particularly when public appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other countries of the region met with great enthusiasm.
U. S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in October 1983 met minimal resistance, although the U.S. suffered 135 killed or wounded; there were also some 400 Grenadian casualties, and 84 Cubans, mainly construction workers.
At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by a man supported by the Reagan administration. One year later, the human rights organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, reported that Grenada's new U.S.-trained police force and counter-insurgency forces had acquired a reputation for brutality, arbitrary arrest, and abuse of authority, and were eroding civil rights.
In April 1989, the government issued a list of more than 80 books which were prohibited from being imported. Four months later, the prime minister suspended parliament to forestall a threatened no-confidence vote resulting from what his critics called "an increasingly authoritarian style."

Libya, 1981-89:
Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state of Washington. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would have to be punished. U.S. planes shot down two Libyan planes in what Libya regarded as its air space. The U. S . also dropped bombs on the country, killing at least 40 people, including Qaddafi's daughter. There were other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to overthrow him, a major disinformation campaign, economic sanctions, and blaming Libya for being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without any good evidence.

Panama, 1989:
Washington's bombers strike again. December 1989, a large tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left homeless. Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian forces, 500-something dead was the official body count, what the U.S. and the new U.S.-installed Panamanian government admitted to; other sources, with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died; 3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324 wounded.
Question from reporter: "Was it really worth it to send people to their death for this? To get Noriega?"
George Bush: "Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer, yes, it has been worth it."
Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years until he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only motive for the attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the people of Nicaragua, who had an election scheduled in two months, that this might be their fate if they reelected the Sandinistas. Bush also wanted to flex some military muscle to illustrate to Congress the need for a large combat-ready force even after the very recent dissolution of the "Soviet threat." The official explanation for the American ouster was Noriega's drug trafficking, which Washington had known about for years and had not been at all bothered by.

Iraq, 1990s:
Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights, against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial onslaught in the history of the world; depleted uranium weapons incinerating people, causing cancer; blasting chemical and biological weapon storage and oil facilities; poisoning the atmosphere to a degree perhaps never matched anywhere; burying soldiers alive, deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on health; sanctions continued to this day multiplying the health problems; perhaps a million children dead by now from all of these things, even more adults.
Iraq was the strongest military power among the Arab states. This may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: "It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price. "

Afghanistan, 1979-92:
Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total about half the population.

El Salvador, 1980-92:
El Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the system. But with U.S. support, the government made that impossible, using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protesters and strikers. In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.
Officially, the U.S. military presence in El Salvador was limited to an advisory capacity. In actuality, military and CIA personnel played a more active role on a continuous basis. About 20 Americans were killed or wounded in helicopter and plane crashes while flying reconnaissance or other missions over combat areas, and considerable evidence surfaced of a U.S. role in the ground fighting as well. The war came to an official end in 1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the U.S. Treasury depleted by six billion dollars. Meaningful social change has been largely thwarted. A handful of the wealthy still own the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to fear right-wing death squads.

Haiti, 1987-94:
The U.S. supported the Duvalier family dictatorship for 30 years, then opposed the reformist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Meanwhile, the CIA was working intimately with death squads, torturers, and drug traffickers. With this as background, the Clinton White House found itself in the awkward position of having to pretend-because of all their rhetoric about "democracy"-that they supported Aristide's return to power in Haiti after he had been ousted in a 1991 military coup. After delaying his return for more than two years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide to office, but only after obliging the priest to guarantee that he would not help the poor at the expense of the rich, and that he would stick closely to free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would continue to be the assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its workers receiving literally starvation wages.

Yugoslavia, 1999:
The United States is bombing the country back to a pre-industrial era. It would like the world to believe that its intervention is motivated only by "humanitarian" impulses. Perhaps the above history of U.S. interventions can help one decide how much weight to place on this claim.

Americans love their country, europeans love their government entitled benefits.

Since most people seem to be unaware of this, i'm copying a summary of an article of US regional interventions from '45 to '99.

A Brief History of U.S. Interventions:
1945 to the Present
by William Blum
Z magazine , June 1999



The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
* making the world safe for American corporations;
* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;
* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."

This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.

The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.

China, 1945-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.

Italy, 1947-48:
Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.

Greece, 1947-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.

Philippines, 1945-53:
U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.

South Korea, 1945-53:
After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.

Albania, 1949-53:
The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.

Germany, 1950s:
The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.

Iran, 1953:
Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.

Guatemala, 1953-1990s:
A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.

Middle East, 1956-58:
The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism." The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "Communist." In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.

Indonesia, 1957-58:
Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United States could not abide. He took neutralism in the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. He refused to crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas." The CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phony sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.

British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64:
For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist-more so than Sukarno or Arbenz-his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics-from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U. S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.
One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.

Vietnam, 1950-73:
The slippery slope began with siding with ~ French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of Communist. He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with ..." But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of Communist.
Twenty-three years and more than a million dead, later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington had achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.

Cambodia, 1955-73:
Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.
Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery on this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.

The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65:
In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a "Communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.
Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.

Brazil, 1961-64:
President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual crimes: He took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man was no radical. He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who wore a medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup which had deep, covert American involvement. The official Washington line was...yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown in Brazil...but, still, the country has been saved from communism.
For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship that Latin America has come to know were instituted: Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended, criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned down, priests were brutalized...disappearances, death squads, a remarkable degree and depravity of torture...the government had a name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.
Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin America.

Dominican Republic, 1963-66:
In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-Communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought " showcase of democracy " that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took office.
Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform, low-rent housing, modest nationalization of business, and foreign investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country and other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such, were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.
A number of American officials and congresspeople expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.
In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did nothing.
Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it.
Cuba, 1959 to present:
Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations...Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in Latin America.
The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent were all there. But we'll never know. And that of course was the idea.

Indonesia, 1965:
A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately-of Communists, Communist sympathizers, suspected Communists, suspected Communist sympathizers, and none of the above-was called by the New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.
It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of "Communist" operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment. "

Chile, 1964-73:
Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than a Marxist in power-an elected Marxist in power, who honored the constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very foundation stones on which the anti-Communist tower was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.
After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process.
They closed the country to the outside world for a week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers opened for business; the subversive books were thrown into bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that "In Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor returned to their natural state; and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of international finance opened up their check- books. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared.

Greece, 1964-74:
The military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the campaign for j national elections was to begin, elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save the nation from a "Communist takeover." Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for the young would be compulsory.
It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that "a conservative estimate would place at not less than two thousand" the number of people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States.
Becket reported the following: Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: "You make yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else. What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S. You can't fight us, we are Americans."
George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal anti-Communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take Greece out of the Cold War, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or at least as a satellite of the United States.

East Timor, 1975 to present:
In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had relinquished control of it. The invasion was launched the day after U. S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American arms, which, under U.S. Iaw, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia was Washington's most valuable tool in Southeast Asia.
Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States consistently supported Indonesia's claim to East Timor (unlike the UN and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at the same time supplying Indonesia with all the military hardware and training it needed to carry out the job.

Nicaragua, 1978-89:
When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well be that long-dreaded beast-"another Cuba." Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious National Guard and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be no revolution in Nicaragua.

Grenada, 1979-84:
What would drive the most powerful nation in the world to invade a country of 110,000? Maurice Bishop and his followers had taken power in a 1979 coup, and though their actual policies were not as revolutionary as Castro's, Washington was again driven by its fear of "another Cuba," particularly when public appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other countries of the region met with great enthusiasm.
U. S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in October 1983 met minimal resistance, although the U.S. suffered 135 killed or wounded; there were also some 400 Grenadian casualties, and 84 Cubans, mainly construction workers.
At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by a man supported by the Reagan administration. One year later, the human rights organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, reported that Grenada's new U.S.-trained police force and counter-insurgency forces had acquired a reputation for brutality, arbitrary arrest, and abuse of authority, and were eroding civil rights.
In April 1989, the government issued a list of more than 80 books which were prohibited from being imported. Four months later, the prime minister suspended parliament to forestall a threatened no-confidence vote resulting from what his critics called "an increasingly authoritarian style."

Libya, 1981-89:
Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state of Washington. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would have to be punished. U.S. planes shot down two Libyan planes in what Libya regarded as its air space. The U. S . also dropped bombs on the country, killing at least 40 people, including Qaddafi's daughter. There were other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to overthrow him, a major disinformation campaign, economic sanctions, and blaming Libya for being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without any good evidence.

Panama, 1989:
Washington's bombers strike again. December 1989, a large tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left homeless. Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian forces, 500-something dead was the official body count, what the U.S. and the new U.S.-installed Panamanian government admitted to; other sources, with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died; 3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324 wounded.
Question from reporter: "Was it really worth it to send people to their death for this? To get Noriega?"
George Bush: "Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer, yes, it has been worth it."
Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years until he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only motive for the attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the people of Nicaragua, who had an election scheduled in two months, that this might be their fate if they reelected the Sandinistas. Bush also wanted to flex some military muscle to illustrate to Congress the need for a large combat-ready force even after the very recent dissolution of the "Soviet threat." The official explanation for the American ouster was Noriega's drug trafficking, which Washington had known about for years and had not been at all bothered by.

Iraq, 1990s:
Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights, against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial onslaught in the history of the world; depleted uranium weapons incinerating people, causing cancer; blasting chemical and biological weapon storage and oil facilities; poisoning the atmosphere to a degree perhaps never matched anywhere; burying soldiers alive, deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on health; sanctions continued to this day multiplying the health problems; perhaps a million children dead by now from all of these things, even more adults.
Iraq was the strongest military power among the Arab states. This may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: "It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price. "

Afghanistan, 1979-92:
Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total about half the population.

El Salvador, 1980-92:
El Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the system. But with U.S. support, the government made that impossible, using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protesters and strikers. In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.
Officially, the U.S. military presence in El Salvador was limited to an advisory capacity. In actuality, military and CIA personnel played a more active role on a continuous basis. About 20 Americans were killed or wounded in helicopter and plane crashes while flying reconnaissance or other missions over combat areas, and considerable evidence surfaced of a U.S. role in the ground fighting as well. The war came to an official end in 1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the U.S. Treasury depleted by six billion dollars. Meaningful social change has been largely thwarted. A handful of the wealthy still own the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to fear right-wing death squads.

Haiti, 1987-94:
The U.S. supported the Duvalier family dictatorship for 30 years, then opposed the reformist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Meanwhile, the CIA was working intimately with death squads, torturers, and drug traffickers. With this as background, the Clinton White House found itself in the awkward position of having to pretend-because of all their rhetoric about "democracy"-that they supported Aristide's return to power in Haiti after he had been ousted in a 1991 military coup. After delaying his return for more than two years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide to office, but only after obliging the priest to guarantee that he would not help the poor at the expense of the rich, and that he would stick closely to free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would continue to be the assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its workers receiving literally starvation wages.

Yugoslavia, 1999:
The United States is bombing the country back to a pre-industrial era. It would like the world to believe that its intervention is motivated only by "humanitarian" impulses. Perhaps the above history of U.S. interventions can help one decide how much weight to place on this claim.


wow.

Wow indeed!!! :eek:

Want to have a who-is-further-left competition? I'm the most extreme at my school, but you might still be ahead...
There are very few of us who have heard of (let alone read!) any Marx.


ah yes, marx

that was the beginning, to read into the start a little more - read hemmingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls" now that my comrade is interesting.

in the end both sides are really fighting for the same thing are they not??

Ever heard ot the project for a new american century (PNAC - http://www.newamericancentury.org/ )?
It constitutes the major think-tank of the Bush administration. Here are some of the founding members (do any of the names ring any bells?):

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Read their statement of principles:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

And the true motives are here:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Americans love their country, europeans love their government entitled benefits.


Ouch.. that was a little bit harsh.

Ever heard ot the project for a new american century (PNAC - http://www.newamericancentury.org/ )?
It constitutes the major think-tank of the Bush administration. Here are some of the founding members (do any of the names ring any bells?):

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Read their statement of principles:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

And the true motives are here:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

be afraid - be very afraid. :(

Ever heard ot the project for a new american century (PNAC - http://www.newamericancentury.org/ )?
It constitutes the major think-tank of the Bush administration. Here are some of the founding members (do any of the names ring any bells?):

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Read their statement of principles:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

And the true motives are here:
[url]http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf[/ur

l]


Marked it for later reading.

Ouch.. that was a little bit harsh.

i agree tirelessly

*sigh*
--old bozzy-wozzy--

Nice to see youre as ignorant as yesterday old chap.

Perhaps you should wait until you are out of grammar school before you start spewing this trash. Really, it makes you sound quite immature my friend.

im sure you are intelligent enough to come up with better than this. :rolleyes:

i agree tirelessly

*sigh*
--old bozzy-wozzy--

Nice to see youre as ignorant as yesterday old chap.

Perhaps you should wait until you are out of grammar school before you start spewing this trash. Really, it makes you sound quite immature my friend.

im sure you are intelligent enough to come up with better than this. :rolleyes:


Thanks you made me laugh :)

Americans love their country, europeans love their government entitled benefits.

Ouch.. that was a little bit harsh.

Ouch, that was a bit rich. Some of us had to fight for those. The US didn't save all asses in Europe, you know. Sure, my grandfathers had american spam addressed for the soviets dropped to their heads, but that was it help-wise. ;)

Thanks you made me laugh :)

any time comrade, any time at all! :p

Germany, 1950s:
The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.

What? You mean apart from East Germans crossing the border to West Germany and making the Communists look bad?

Ouch, that was a bit rich. Some of us had to fight for those. The US didn't save all asses in Europe, you know. Sure, my grandfathers had american spam addressed for the soviets dropped to their heads, but that was it help-wise. ;)


HOLY SHIT!! NO WONDER WE ARE SO HATED.... SPAM??? FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! hehehehe

Ouch, that was a bit rich. Some of us had to fight for those. The US didn't save all asses in Europe, you know. Sure, my grandfathers had american spam addressed for the soviets dropped to their heads, but that was it help-wise. ;)

Lest we forget how long it took them to join the first world war??

I do believe they still took a lot of credit though did they not?
As well perhaps some of the spoils??

Nothing against the valiant efforts of those on any side, but do not crow too loudly my friends, or thou shalt be shot by the farmer!! :)

Lest we forget how long it took them to join the first world war??

I do believe they still took a lot of credit though did they not?
As well perhaps some of the spoils??

Nothing against the valiant efforts of those on any side, but do not crow too loudly my friends, or thou shalt be shot by the farmer!! :)


All true. Cannot deny that.

HOLY SHIT!! NO WONDER WE ARE SO HATED.... SPAM??? FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! hehehehe

hehe... canned meat...not e-mail trash (although i consider that worse).
And yes, Finland in case you were wondering. ;)

Perhaps if people worked as hard at peace as at war, we would not be having this conversation hmmm.

fighting for peace is like Fuc*#$@ for virginity - :) to coin a phrase.

I wonder sometimes, the results that would ensue if these militant nations spent half as much on education as on armament?

Its a nice thought, but perhaps we are as of yet not ready for this stage, the world it seems is still adolescent in its thinking on these topics.

Besides, I suppose much of that education would end up back in the hands of those developing the technology to kill, a sad sad thing indeed comrades. :(

ah yes, marx

that was the beginning, to read into the start a little more - read hemmingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls" now that my comrade is interesting.

in the end both sides are really fighting for the same thing are they not??
That depends... The Haves tend not to be fighting for the same things as the have-nots.
"This is an impressive crowd: the haves, and the have-mores!"
-george bush II, at a political fundraiser

Maybe instead of citing some random (and probably biased, but we'll leave that for later) book as so many seem to do here you should actually say your argument. Do you really expect me to go out and buy that book now, along with every other title mentioned here? I did say that America's not perfect either. I know that we're less pro-Taiwan than we used to be, but our main protection remains, and we're at least sticking with them more than Europe is, and not selling arms to a country that is simultaneously dictatorial, expansionist, and the second greatest power in the world.

"The 1980s saw Iran and Iraq go to war. America and Iraq were allies, sharing intelligence and American resources supported the Iraqis. During this, seven American citizens are captured and held hostage in Lebanon by extremist Islamic terrorists who have connections with Iran. The Israelis, understanding the political significance of hostages for the American government, suggested selling weapons to Iran in order to free the hostages. Thus, covertly, the Reagan Administration commenced selling weapons, in doing so breaking its own regulations and declared stance against Iran, a state that they had declared a terrorist nation, an enemy of the American State and all the while, they maintained their alliances with Iraq."

http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/arms/

That's what I'm talking about, sweetheart. And, of course, let's not talk about the dictators that the US (CIA) put in power in South America.

And, for the record. I'm a student studying political science for the purpose of going into international human rights litigation. Not some average joe flinging poo at you. :)

hehe... canned meat...not e-mail trash (although i consider that worse).
And yes, Finland in case you were wondering. ;)


man.. my father likes the stuff but my dogs will not touch it.

That depends... The Haves tend not to be fighting for the same things as the have-nots.
"This is an impressive crowd: the haves, and the have-mores!"
-george bush II, at a political fundraiser


At the outset that might seem true, but is it not that all we truly seek as human beings is to be content with our state of hapiness - and thus to preserve whatever means we believe brings us said happiness?

It is simply that different people have different values and as such different methodology in as much as preserving this happiness. No matter how skewed the values at first might seem, they are all functioning towards the same end. If only it were that we could establish which really was the more valid.

To those in either group it is obvious that theirs is the only right and true path, and when that becomes threatened, they, we, thou - all lash out in our own ways. :(

I, as left as i am, can accept the fact that even my views in conflicting with others prevent them from their goals, if only we could find a way to work together, and to avoid this needless bloodshed.

I find it interesting that according to this thread Americans may be hated by the Europe and the rest of the world, but most Americans aren't haters. Hmmmm.....if that's true, does America really DESERVE to be hated?

Anyway, why do I hate Europe? Well, I don't hate Europe, but I hate certain things about it. I hate really strong British and French accents because I can't understand a word that people with those accents are saying. Really strong German accents are difficult too.

I find it interesting that according to this thread Americans may be hated by the Europe and the rest of the world, but most Americans aren't haters. Hmmmm.....if that's true, does America really DESERVE to be hated?

Anyway, why do I hate Europe? Well, I don't hate Europe, but I hate certain things about it. I hate really strong British and French accents because I can't understand a word that people with those accents are saying. Really strong German accents are difficult too.


...and perhaps cornhusker, it is that they cannot understand thee. ;)

man.. my father likes the stuff but my dogs will not touch it.

That must be why you (US) regularly dropped the Russkies that vile stuff. I take it all back... you were just trying to help us.

Oooookay. I'm not big on the history lesson so pardon I didn't read it. However, upon the few comments about not finding the weapons of mass destruction. I have to say a thing or two on that. First off. Saddam hindered the inspections greatly, and if I remember correctly, he did not allow them at all. Der. Next one, he had moved his weapons out to other places. I don't remember right now where he moved them but my dad was telling me about it. And. because our liberal media is Democractic, we don't hear about those kinda things. I'm not saying I hate Europeans, and I don't hate America, I'm an American and I'm proud to be one. So sue me. I can be proud if I want. But I'm not better then anyone else and no one is better then me. I don't hate anyone really. Except for people that bash on others even though this is just text on a screen. We all have our opinions, true. But, the hate I feel while reading this thread is retarded. I'm with Bush. I don't care. He was a good president. I mean, you bash on him for freeing millions of people, but you turn the blind eye to Clinton and his affairs. He was the only the second president to be impeached. Granted, he wasn't taken out of office, but he was impeached. And, I'm just a teenager and I know this stuff. oO And, I never pay attention in school. Amazing what I learn. I'm done for now.

...and perhaps cornhusker, it is that they cannot undertand thee. ;)

Undertand?

"freeing millions of people"

Lets not get carried away here.
LOL :p

Undertand?


thank you.

That must be why you (US) regularly dropped the Russkies that vile stuff. I take it all back... you were just trying to help us.


yeah get them all sick :)

tell my grandmothers best friend who lost 90% of her hearing in the blitz that hitler wanted to be buddy buddy with britain. and I think that many of the same arguments that are bad today could have been made back then in 1939. what did hitler ever do to us? how is it our business? we shouldnt mess with other sovereign nations. well, it seems europe was happy to see us help out when it was their own people dying. shame it couldnt when other people were dying in iraq.
Whoa there... WWII we were right to enter. Iraq was not. Desert Storm was defending an ally from attack. That was justified. But then we decided to not actually invade Iraq because back then we were.... ach, what's the word... SMARTER. Anyway, perhaps we should have joined WWII (European theater at least) when the Czechs got invaded (we DID afterall have an agreement... or at least the UK did and we had an agreement with the UK...) but that's not the issue. Hitler taking poland was like Saddam taking Kuwait. And so we took Kuwait back. But Saddam sitting there minding his own business is nothing like, say, Hitler invading France and the Netherlands.

thank you.

You're wecome!

I find it interesting that according to this thread Americans may be hated by the Europe and the rest of the world, but most Americans aren't haters. Hmmmm.....if that's true, does America really DESERVE to be hated?

Anyway, why do I hate Europe? Well, I don't hate Europe, but I hate certain things about it. I hate really strong British and French accents because I can't understand a word that people with those accents are saying. Really strong German accents are difficult too.

Well, go check the other threads... I created this one just to see if I could make a list why american people IN THIS TINY SITE dislike EU(ropeans). I was able to make notes in the "To Non-Americans" thread... but us euros were too keen to jump in on this thread. It would have been nice to see the other side of the coin... but now it's just too late.

What's interesting is that in that other thread Europeans in general were liking Americans until an American had to have his say... go figure.

Actually...I rather love Europe and Canada. I've no qualms with 'em.

That depends... The Haves tend not to be fighting for the same things as the have-nots.
"This is an impressive crowd: the haves, and the have-mores!"
-george bush II, at a political fundraiser

Actually that was a charity event...held before the 2000 election. Al Gore was there and took credit for inventing the charity even though it was older then him. The speakers are encouraged to make self-deprecating jokes.

You really should pay attention to other things than Michael Moore. :rolleyes:

You're wecome!

now tahts what I like to see
a little fun now and again - not to get to serious hmm...

LOL :p

now tahts what I like to see
a little fun now and again - not to get to serious hmm...

LOL :p

It was fun all the time at the old forum. Things have gotten way too serious. Hopefully after the election people will lay off a little bit.

Actually...I rather love Europe and Canada. I've no qualms with 'em.

Well as a Canadian, I must admit thats a refreshing thing to have heard!

At some points I wonder just how loved Canada is in the eyes of our southern counterparts - of course we are very different when it comes to foreign policy, but as brothers the same.

(PS, sorry about the first White House, I think that was really Donny Whalberg's great great grandfather and it somehow was blamed on us. :p

(just a joke mind you) LOL

Ookay. Beg yer pardon for not reading the huge history lesson there. I may be just a teenager, but I know Saddam had the weapons. Think back now, remember when he wouldn't let the inspectors search certian things? Remember how he personally hindered the inspection team? Hm? Der. He had his weapons moved. To what country, I dunno right now. I forgot. Bite me. 'Nother thing. You sit there and critize Bush (Not everyone, but it applies to the people that do) for what he's done. But look at Clinton. He's nothing but a lying cheater. (I ran out of words again.) He commited treason against his own country. (I remember my dad telling me that once.) He had affairs while in the White House, and yet you turn the blind eye to that kinda behavior. He was the second president to be impeached. No, they didn't take him out of office because of the Senate. I curse the Senate. You yell at Bush for liberating people in a country, but you cast aside the imformation about Clinton getting it on with some stupid intern? And he lied to a federal grand jury if I remember correctly. The media doesn't tell us shyt because they are so freaking liberal. I don't believe in that. That is why I'm a Republican. Bush is doing a great job in office and if I was old enough to vote, I'd vote him back in. I'm proud of my country. I grew up being proud of my country. My dad was a Navy personal. He taught me the country is something to be proud of. I don't hate any group of people, or any country. I'm proud to be an American. I'm not better then anyone, and no one is better then me. We were created equal. Yes, Americans are kinda egotistic, but others do it too. I may be just a teenager, but I know that we all saved each other's asses. Natural fact of life. If we put our detest for each other behind us, we can all be friends. Just my opinion.

Ookay. Beg yer pardon for not reading the huge history lesson there. I may be just a teenager, but I know Saddam had the weapons. Think back now, remember when he wouldn't let the inspectors search certian things? Remember how he personally hindered the inspection team? Hm? Der. He had his weapons moved. To what country, I dunno right now. I forgot. Bite me. 'Nother thing. You sit there and critize Bush (Not everyone, but it applies to the people that do) for what he's done. But look at Clinton. He's nothing but a lying cheater. (I ran out of words again.) He commited treason against his own country. (I remember my dad telling me that once.) He had affairs while in the White House, and yet you turn the blind eye to that kinda behavior. He was the second president to be impeached. No, they didn't take him out of office because of the Senate. I curse the Senate. You yell at Bush for liberating people in a country, but you cast aside the imformation about Clinton getting it on with some stupid intern? And he lied to a federal grand jury if I remember correctly. The media doesn't tell us shyt because they are so freaking liberal. I don't believe in that. That is why I'm a Republican. Bush is doing a great job in office and if I was old enough to vote, I'd vote him back in. I'm proud of my country. I grew up being proud of my country. My dad was a Navy personal. He taught me the country is something to be proud of. I don't hate any group of people, or any country. I'm proud to be an American. I'm not better then anyone, and no one is better then me. We were created equal. Yes, Americans are kinda egotistic, but others do it too. I may be just a teenager, but I know that we all saved each other's asses. Natural fact of life. If we put our detest for each other behind us, we can all be friends. Just my opinion.

Before we get too far lets not forget how he (Saddam) got to where he was situated in the first place, you might want to ask your father about that as he certainly seems a well learned individual. ;)

Ookay. Beg yer pardon for not reading the huge history lesson there. I may be just a teenager, but I know Saddam had the weapons. Think back now, remember when he wouldn't let the inspectors search certian things? Remember how he personally hindered the inspection team? Hm? Der. He had his weapons moved. To what country, I dunno right now. I forgot. Bite me. 'Nother thing. You sit there and critize Bush (Not everyone, but it applies to the people that do) for what he's done. But look at Clinton. He's nothing but a lying cheater. (I ran out of words again.) He commited treason against his own country. (I remember my dad telling me that once.) He had affairs while in the White House, and yet you turn the blind eye to that kinda behavior. He was the second president to be impeached. No, they didn't take him out of office because of the Senate. I curse the Senate. You yell at Bush for liberating people in a country, but you cast aside the imformation about Clinton getting it on with some stupid intern? And he lied to a federal grand jury if I remember correctly. The media doesn't tell us shyt because they are so freaking liberal. I don't believe in that. That is why I'm a Republican. Bush is doing a great job in office and if I was old enough to vote, I'd vote him back in. I'm proud of my country. I grew up being proud of my country. My dad was a Navy personal. He taught me the country is something to be proud of. I don't hate any group of people, or any country. I'm proud to be an American. I'm not better then anyone, and no one is better then me. We were created equal. Yes, Americans are kinda egotistic, but others do it too. I may be just a teenager, but I know that we all saved each other's asses. Natural fact of life. If we put our detest for each other behind us, we can all be friends. Just my opinion.

You talk to much :)

Hey.

I haven't read half of these pages because I don't have the time at the moment. But from the stuff I have read, this topic seems to be divided into a few parts, mainly the people who are for America and the people who are against it.

Coming from a New Zealand perspective (yes I live in New Zealand), having some experiences in America and seeing all the stuff that the media produces I would say that our country is mostly against America, but no one seems to care.

However I do.

On the political side of things, my view is that America is run by people who care nothing about their country. The things that your leaders have done are not great things, they are not liberating things, they are selfish actions, ruthless and above all, they prove that they are greedy for power and money. They have used propaganda and American history to fool the public and most of the military soldiers into thinking that what they are doing is right and that they will always win every time in any conflict. Some of this propaganda is twisting everyone into a state of constant fear of terroism and forcing everyone to be constantly patriotic.

On the social side of things, Americans are seen as rich, stupid and arrogant. Those three words basically describe the stereotypical American in New Zealand. One example of this is when I went overseas. When I was in a taxi, the driver asked where I was from and when I replied 'New Zealand'. He then said 'Oh, New Zealand - that's a lovely country. My parents went there and they said that it was the best place they had ever seen in Europe.' For those of you who don't know, New Zealand is just below Australia. And from the things we see on television, the stories we hear and our actual experiences, most other Americans seem to be like this.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't hate the American people. Many of you are really nice and great. It's just when someone starts saying things like 'Weapons of Mass Destruction or not, i'm glad we went over there and fought' that really pisses me off. (I recently heard that).

Yeah.

You talk to much :)

I think though, at times we all are guilty of that comrade.

We should all have listened to our instructors when they told us not just to hear, but to listen.

Ookay. Beg yer pardon for not reading the huge history lesson there. I may be just a teenager, but I know Saddam had the weapons. Think back now, remember when he wouldn't let the inspectors search certian things? Remember how he personally hindered the inspection team? Hm? Der. He had his weapons moved. To what country, I dunno right now. I forgot. Bite me. 'Nother thing. You sit there and critize Bush (Not everyone, but it applies to the people that do) for what he's done. But look at Clinton. He's nothing but a lying cheater. (I ran out of words again.) He commited treason against his own country. (I remember my dad telling me that once.) He had affairs while in the White House, and yet you turn the blind eye to that kinda behavior. He was the second president to be impeached. No, they didn't take him out of office because of the Senate. I curse the Senate. You yell at Bush for liberating people in a country, but you cast aside the imformation about Clinton getting it on with some stupid intern? And he lied to a federal grand jury if I remember correctly. The media doesn't tell us shyt because they are so freaking liberal. I don't believe in that. That is why I'm a Republican. Bush is doing a great job in office and if I was old enough to vote, I'd vote him back in. I'm proud of my country. I grew up being proud of my country. My dad was a Navy personal. He taught me the country is something to be proud of. I don't hate any group of people, or any country. I'm proud to be an American. I'm not better then anyone, and no one is better then me. We were created equal. Yes, Americans are kinda egotistic, but others do it too. I may be just a teenager, but I know that we all saved each other's asses. Natural fact of life. If we put our detest for each other behind us, we can all be friends. Just my opinion.

I think you have a really good point about getting each other out of trouble. And this is beside the point but it isn't shyt it's shit.

they are greedy for power and money

Well, with the exception of Pre-China Tibet, perhaps you can find me a country that is not guilty of this? let alone a nation including all of its occupants?

I think you have a really good point about getting each other out of trouble. And this is beside the point but it isn't shyt it's shit.


Perhaps he is of Irish descent??
LOL :p

Hey.

On the social side of things, Americans are seen as rich, stupid and arrogant. Those three words basically describe the stereotypical American in New Zealand. One example of this is when I went overseas. When I was in a taxi, the driver asked where I was from and when I replied 'New Zealand'. He then said 'Oh, New Zealand - that's a lovely country. My parents went there and they said that it was the best place they had ever seen in Europe.' For those of you who don't know, New Zealand is just below Australia. And from the things we see on television, the stories we hear and our actual experiences, most other Americans seem to be like this.

Yeah.


Taxi drivers always talk about things so you leave a better tip.

I didn't feel like swearing okay. Pardon me for being half way polite. Next time I'll say the word without a second thought. Kay? Fine by me. *Thwaps Knights of the Round.* I do not talk to much. >=\ I just felt like typing that out. Sue me. 'Sides, someone had to point out how liberal our media is. And how they seem to favor Democrats. Oh, I'm not a guy by the way. I'm a girl. And yeah, I am of Irish decent. Along with Scottish, German, Dutch and English. Gonna sue me for it?

I don't think all europeans hate americans, and frankly, other than the french, Americans do not hate Euros or are basically apathetic to Europeans. Europeans tend not to understand Americans at all, only get their information from often times biased sources. Remember, most Americans are the cast offs of Europe, and here we go, 200 years later, daring to build a society that went and got to be the world's only superpower. there are always people who envy and oppose strenght or the powerful side of anything. I tend to ignore those people, they really aren;t worth paying attention to, and the European left seems to be afflicted with that badly. i wouldn;t trade my economic freedom in the US for anything, the reason immigrants are beating down our doors (16% of them from Europe, in 2002!) is because you still truly can, if talented and hard working, make yourself much better off than your previous generation (as i have). i wouldn't trade our diversity for anything, the source of our strength. i wouldn't trade the individualism and rights of the individual for anything, i am responsible for myself and my family and relish that responsibility. I am a fighter, try to harm me, mine, or my country, (in the vernacular of the majority) "i ain;t debatin' anything, it's time for some ass whoopin' (see-Afghanistan and Iraq, quickly defeated with unprecedented ease and speed.) When i get told i am hated for what nationality i am, i can say honestly "f%% you. you can;t do a damn thing to me, other than talk all mad and pissy (ie, feeble minded and bodied European left)". The fact is, i would much rather as would a vast majority of my countrymen get along with our historical allies.....It could be far, far worse that having the US being the sole superpower, but it could be better, but remember we are a young nation and we will make mistakes, but the current undertone in many Europeans is not going to get anyone the result they desire. We will never adopt the social programs of Europe, see where it has gotten france, Germany, etc., their economies (flat productivity for 15 years, high unemployment, benefit system unfeasible, france, Italy, and more with with a birth rate that makes entire system on the verge of collapse without major reform...ie less socialistic, more productive.) One thing i guess Europe needs to get is we will not ask or need your permission to protect ourselves....Trying to force through a veto on the security council of the UN will only get you ignored.....being a friend with more foreign policy experience (yeah, you know, you colonists) working with the US will go much farther than getting pissy yet impotent to truly do anything about it. Frankly, we like you. But we are not like you. we need to find a way to work together, and use each others' strengths to make a better world. But we will never become more like you or follow your orders. already left that stable. Let's try a new question...How can America/Americans work better with our historical friends and shared heritage, Europe/Europeans?

by the way, the french don't count. lol

i find this funny. why would one think that i hate the EU because i was born in america? and why would the EU hate me for that reason? It's not my fault a monkey with a brain the size of a rat turd stole the presidency. Go ahead, hate my government, but don't hate me. I hate my government. I'm ebaressed when in other coutries i see my fellow american tourists yelling louder than anyone else, asking for "french fries" in france, getting pissed because they think everyone in the world should speak english, and making general donkeys of themselves. I'm embarressed to be an american. i want to move to Canada or ireland or somewhere else NOT in the us. :headbang:

I didn't feel like swearing okay. Pardon me for being half way polite. Next time I'll say the word without a second thought. Kay? Fine by me. *Thwaps Knights of the Round.* I do not talk to much. >=\ I just felt like typing that out. Sue me. 'Sides, someone had to point out how liberal our media is. And how they seem to favor Democrats.


You know I am kidding :)

I didn't feel like swearing okay. Pardon me for being half way polite. Next time I'll say the word without a second thought. Kay? Fine by me. *Thwaps Knights of the Round.* I do not talk to much. >=\ I just felt like typing that out. Sue me. 'Sides, someone had to point out how liberal our media is. And how they seem to favor Democrats.


After the floridian involvment in the Bush election scandal and how quickly all networks swayed you really believe that? :(

I'm not better then anyone, and no one is better then me. We were created equal.... I may be just a teenager, but I know that we all saved each other's asses. Natural fact of life. If we put our detest for each other behind us, we can all be friends. Just my opinion.

Let's hug.

After the floridian involvment in the Bush election scandal and how quickly all networks swayed you really believe that? :(


HAHA! You got told Immortal Innocent.


*runs away since you know where I live.*

I'm from the EU I'm a EU citizen for like 3 month and a little and well i can say to you all americans that nobody hates america (maybe they don't agree with it's policy neither i do but don't hate) ok some very nationalist people in my country ok they do hate...but...i wrote it becouse i've read that you think that people from the EU are against america...but maybe you don't really know but for example from here (Hungary) America is the place where dreams come true...i think it1s very positive...

northern gimpland i have always wanted to go to new zealands thats my dream vacation most beautiful country anywhere and i knew it was near australia(who doesnt know that?) and i have to respectfully disagree with you on the war though saddam had to be thrown from power hes killed THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF HIS OWN PEOPLE NOT TO MENTION KUWAITIS AND THEN WHEN HE SENT CHEMICAL WEAPONS INTO IRAN he deserves to die and i got nothing against europeans except france germany and russia is full of jerks who want to keep a killer in power and your opinion about americans doesnt really matter because you know nothing about us only what the news says we care about our country and we would do anything for it and i am glad we went over their and fought it was nessacary
to overthrow a ruthless murdering dictator

I'm from the EU I'm a EU citizen for like 3 month and a little and well i can say to you all americans that nobody hates america (maybe they don't agree with it's policy neither i do but don't hate) ok some very nationalist people in my country ok they do hate...but...i wrote it becouse i've read that you think that people from the EU are against america...but maybe you don't really know but for example from here (Hungary) America is the place where dreams come true...i think it1s very positive...


Thank you for not hating.

I'm from the EU I'm a EU citizen for like 3 month and a little and well i can say to you all americans that nobody hates america (maybe they don't agree with it's policy neither i do but don't hate) ok some very nationalist people in my country ok they do hate...but...i wrote it becouse i've read that you think that people from the EU are against america...but maybe you don't really know but for example from here (Hungary) America is the place where dreams come true...i think it1s very positive...

Hang on there pal, it's only after 5 months in the EU you realize that it's EU where the dreams come true. ;)

i find this funny. why would one think that i hate the EU because i was born in america? and why would the EU hate me for that reason? It's not my fault a monkey with a brain the size of a rat turd stole the presidency. Go ahead, hate my government, but don't hate me. I hate my government. I'm ebaressed when in other coutries i see my fellow american tourists yelling louder than anyone else, asking for "french fries" in france, getting pissed because they think everyone in the world should speak english, and making general donkeys of themselves. I'm embarressed to be an american. i want to move to Canada or ireland or somewhere else NOT in the us. :headbang:

We will welcome you with open arms in Canada comrade, but please, no generalized bashing. You should not be ashamed of being an American, you are what you are, and if you are a good american - as many are - then there is no cause for regret to that end. Although I most certainly do not support the actions of your leaders up to the present, with the amount of corruption in modern government that should no way stand as a testament to the likes of people in said nation. Not all germans wanted to kill during the war, but because of a fierce patriotism, and faith in an all too intelligent although twisted leader - a lot did. Does the world still hold those actions against Germans or Germany? I dont think that they do, and if so the fallout is slowly dissipating (thankfully). All countries have to learn to resolve problems more peacefully, and all people in these nations, all epochs, have room for growth and improvment as far as their own values, beliefs and inherent actions.

I didn't feel like swearing okay. Pardon me for being half way polite. Next time I'll say the word without a second thought. Kay? Fine by me. *Thwaps Knights of the Round.* I do not talk to much. >=\ I just felt like typing that out. Sue me. 'Sides, someone had to point out how liberal our media is. And how they seem to favor Democrats. Oh, I'm not a guy by the way. I'm a girl. And yeah, I am of Irish decent. Along with Scottish, German, Dutch and English. Gonna sue me for it?

You took that post the wrong way.

i find this funny. why would one think that i hate the EU because i was born in america? and why would the EU hate me for that reason? It's not my fault a monkey with a brain the size of a rat turd stole the presidency. Go ahead, hate my government, but don't hate me. I hate my government. I'm ebaressed when in other coutries i see my fellow american tourists yelling louder than anyone else, asking for "french fries" in france, getting pissed because they think everyone in the world should speak english, and making general donkeys of themselves. I'm embarressed to be an american. i want to move to Canada or ireland or somewhere else NOT in the us. :headbang:

Yes, some American tourists do exemplify the arogant stereotype at times. I was in Finland a couple of months ago, in a souvenir shop where some American's were paying at the till. Of course, the American insisted on paying in American dollars, and the shop accepted this, but when they gave her her change in euro, she shouted at them asking them how she was supposed to "get rid of this shit". That's exactly how she termed it. The shop assistant was clearly shocked, but the tourist's husband backed her up and just stood their shouting. I've noticed this in many places, Americans often insist on paying in dollars? If I were to go to America and insisted in paying in euro, or British pounds or Swedish crowns what kind of reception would I get, I wonder?
Obviously, these American tourists don't represent the whole of their country... but it doesn't give their compatriots a good name.

hey immortal GO IRISH! im irish-american :)

immortal,

I was making reference to the spelling of "shyt"

nothing against being Irish whatsoever comrade.
LOL

all tourists are assholes......even when their touring an american city i hate tourists period.......

Yes yes, Knights of the Round. Run. Run with all your might. Actually, I never watched the news during that. But I don't believe Bush did anything wrong. He won, he's president. Get over it. The 9/11 attacks would have happened anyway. Oh, and The Fox Trail, if you don't like the U.S. get the hell out. We don't want you either if this is what you believe about our country. One of my ex boyfriends tried telling me what a horrible country this is, and when I told him to get out he told me no because he's free here. Guess what. If you hate the country, leave it. And, about the whole world speaking English thing, I don't think that. But I think if they live in America they should speak it as it is our nations language.

Yes, some American tourists do exemplify the arogant stereotype at times. I was in Finland a couple of months ago, in a souvenir shop where some American's were paying at the till. Of course, the American insisted on paying in American dollars, and the shop accepted this, but when they gave her her change in euro, she shouted at them asking them how she was supposed to "get rid of this shit". That's exactly how she termed it. The shop assistant was clearly shocked, but the tourist's husband backed her up and just stood their shouting. I've noticed this in many places, Americans often insist on paying in dollars? If I were to go to America and insisted in paying in euro, or British pounds or Swedish crowns what kind of reception would I get, I wonder?
Obviously, these American tourists don't represent the whole of their country... but it doesn't give their compatriots a good name.

Just another little story, but the same idea... A friend of mine was on vacation in England one time, on the 4th of July. That ngiht, he overheard another American tourist talking to a local, saying "Where are all the fireworks?"
People wonder why Americans are happy? Ignorance is bliss

i believe bush is a good president who was dealt a shity hand and i cant imagine what america would be doing is gore was in office......omg i cant even think of gore being president
*goes and pukes*

Yes yes, Knights of the Round. Run. Run with all your might. Actually, I never watched the news during that. But I don't believe Bush did anything wrong. He won, he's president. Get over it. The 9/11 attacks would have happened anyway. Oh, and The Fox Trail, if you don't like the U.S. get the hell out. We don't want you either if this is what you believe about our country. One of my ex boyfriends tried telling me what a horrible country this is, and when I told him to get out he told me no because he's free here. Guess what. If you hate the country, leave it. And, about the whole world speaking English thing, I don't think that. But I think if they live in America they should speak it as it is our nations language.

I didn't think USA had an official language? Although, clearly (American)English is the most dominant!

Ookay. Beg yer pardon for not reading the huge history lesson there. I may be just a teenager, but I know Saddam had the weapons. Think back now, remember when he wouldn't let the inspectors search certian things? Remember how he personally hindered the inspection team? Hm? Der. He had his weapons moved. To what country, I dunno right now. I forgot. Bite me. 'Nother thing. You sit there and critize Bush (Not everyone, but it applies to the people that do) for what he's done. But look at Clinton. He's nothing but a lying cheater. (I ran out of words again.) He commited treason against his own country. (I remember my dad telling me that once.) He had affairs while in the White House, and yet you turn the blind eye to that kinda behavior. He was the second president to be impeached. No, they didn't take him out of office because of the Senate. I curse the Senate. You yell at Bush for liberating people in a country, but you cast aside the imformation about Clinton getting it on with some stupid intern? And he lied to a federal grand jury if I remember correctly. The media doesn't tell us shyt because they are so freaking liberal. I don't believe in that. That is why I'm a Republican. Bush is doing a great job in office and if I was old enough to vote, I'd vote him back in. I'm proud of my country. I grew up being proud of my country. My dad was a Navy personal. He taught me the country is something to be proud of. I don't hate any group of people, or any country. I'm proud to be an American. I'm not better then anyone, and no one is better then me. We were created equal. Yes, Americans are kinda egotistic, but others do it too. I may be just a teenager, but I know that we all saved each other's asses. Natural fact of life. If we put our detest for each other behind us, we can all be friends. Just my opinion.

1. What would we do if someone from another country came here and demanded to search NORAD HQ for stuff they didn't like? You tell them to friendly off (bad reference, but i had to prove i'd read the thread somehow).
2. We don't know anything without the media. And the media, you say, is against Bush. How then, did you (or your dad, who you assume is God or something (btw i apologize if ur jesus (wow nested perens))) find out about the weapons? You say you know? Have you ever been to Iraq? Have you ever actually seen the weapons? Whatever, you feel confident about it and that's your choice. But you can't be certain. Nobody can be absolutely certain about anything, except for what they define.
3. Clinton lied about a blow job. Bush lied about why he invaded a sovereign nation.
4. Clinton screwed an intern. Bush raped a nation.
5. Clinton lied to a grand jury, but was acquitted by the "cursed Senate". Bush lied to said cursed Senate in his State of the Union.
6. If you don't like a liberal slant, you can have a conservative slant. Really up to you. Ever heard of Fox "News"? Anyway, different thread. Personally, I'd prefer spam.
7. Bringing this up again, how is an affair more important than international relations?
8. Treason? By doing what? (f.y.i. treason is only applicable in a time of war... either you dear old dad was hyperbolizing or he's been channelling Ann Coulter.
9. I'm proud of my country (USA) too. That's why I believe in my right to disagree with the President. A nation where you're not allowed to protest and disagree with the government is a dictatorship. Just thought I'd clear that up.
10. I greatly respect your father for choosing to serve his country in the Navy. It is not my planned career path, but it is a very honorable one. Please thank him for me. However, it is not a trump card when it comes to politics.
11. You don't hate anybody.... right... except for the liberal media, Bill Clinton, anyone who likes either of the first two, anyone who hates America, liberals... have I left anything out? You can't go on a rant and then claim to be P.C.
12. Wow! You finally made some sense! Yes, we all saved each others' @$$es, one time or another. History goes back too far to be nitpicky about who saved who the most. I personally believe in a no-strings-attached kind of benevolence, where we expect gratitude, not servitude.

Thank you for reading my entire babbling mess. You may do something useful now.

I didn't think USA had an official language? Although, clearly (American)English is the most dominant!

another piece of evidence that the world knows nothing about americans....

I didn't think USA had an official language? Although, clearly (American)English is the most dominant!

It doesn't have an official language, but yes, English is the most widely used.

all tourists are assholes......even when their touring an american city i hate tourists period.......

Hahahahaaa... I couldn't agree more! Make a generalisation based on tourist behaviour (or taxi drivers as suggested here) and you WILL end up hating the nation they are from.

(and don't worry Borgoa, that girls at the till is quite ok now, she got over it ;) )

Yes yes, Knights of the Round. Run. Run with all your might. Actually, I never watched the news during that. But I don't believe Bush did anything wrong. He won, he's president. Get over it. The 9/11 attacks would have happened anyway. Oh, and The Fox Trail, if you don't like the U.S. get the hell out. We don't want you either if this is what you believe about our country. One of my ex boyfriends tried telling me what a horrible country this is, and when I told him to get out he told me no because he's free here. Guess what. If you hate the country, leave it. And, about the whole world speaking English thing, I don't think that. But I think if they live in America they should speak it as it is our nations language.



Nice attitude. The thing is Americans think every country should speak english. American english to be exact. That isn't right at all. Not everyone here is from America. So telling them to leave does no good :)

You know what I mean. You are in a Chinese restaurant and you can't understand what they are saying.. You think to yourself. SPEAK ENGLISH MAN!

Yes yes, Knights of the Round. Run. Run with all your might. Actually, I never watched the news during that. But I don't believe Bush did anything wrong. He won, he's president. Get over it. The 9/11 attacks would have happened anyway. Oh, and The Fox Trail, if you don't like the U.S. get the hell out. We don't want you either if this is what you believe about our country. One of my ex boyfriends tried telling me what a horrible country this is, and when I told him to get out he told me no because he's free here. Guess what. If you hate the country, leave it. And, about the whole world speaking English thing, I don't think that. But I think if they live in America they should speak it as it is our nations language.

Errrr... Immortal incase you didn't know, America does not have an offical language. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by The Fox Trail
i find this funny. why would one think that i hate the EU because i was born in america? and why would the EU hate me for that reason? It's not my fault a monkey with a brain the size of a rat turd stole the presidency. Go ahead, hate my government, but don't hate me. I hate my government. I'm ebaressed when in other coutries i see my fellow american tourists yelling louder than anyone else, asking for "french fries" in france, getting pissed because they think everyone in the world should speak english, and making general donkeys of themselves. I'm embarressed to be an american. i want to move to Canada or ireland or somewhere else NOT in the us.


Freedom of movement, my friend, why DON'T you go to Canada? Youhate America because of a President and tourists? Sheesh. What are you, 14? Europe, if they let you immigrate there, would be a better fit for you among some of these people on this board. Yet, you can;t scream your hatred, you can criticize your president, and you are fre to move....A mojority of the world doesn;t enjoy those freedoms, American. Yet you "hate it". Well i can say no one would notice you leave, so go, or try to change it how you like it. Your free to do that in America too. But please, don;t hate us! the country won' be the same unless everyone likes us! lol

dumb.

I am american. I don't hate any European country or its people. Although I wasn't treated very nicely in France, my experience there was very limited and so I wouldn't attempt to generalize.

Most of the americans who say they hate European countries probably couldn't even point to the country they hate on a map. They hear that the president changed the name of french fries to freedom fries because he was mad that the French wouldn't approve his war-for-oil. How immensely childish is that? And how blindly the Bush supporters fall into lock-step.

I think the Europeans have good reason to hate American foreign policy. Heck, even I hate our foreign policy at the moment. If I decide to travel outside the US I will probably claim I am Canadian.

Nice attitude. The thing is Americans think every country should speak english. American english to be exact. That isn't right at all. Not everyone here is from America. So telling them to leave does no good :)

You know what I mean. You are in a Chinese restaurant and you can't understand what they are saying.. You think to yourself. SPEAK ENGLISH MAN!

dude only a retard would think every country speaks english thats totaly dumb..... im sure theirs dumb people from every country who think that

Hahahahaaa... I couldn't agree more! Make a generalisation based on tourist behaviour (or taxi drivers as suggested here) and you WILL end up hating the nation they are from.

(and don't worry Borgoa, that girls at the till is quite ok now, she got over it ;) )

Yeah, it's true, tourists are never their country's best ambassadors, but still, I think europeans do at least bother to change their currency!

And phew... that's a relief she's ok now!! I was about to arrange another trip there to check.

Yes, some American tourists do exemplify the arogant stereotype at times. I was in Finland a couple of months ago, in a souvenir shop where some American's were paying at the till. Of course, the American insisted on paying in American dollars, and the shop accepted this, but when they gave her her change in euro, she shouted at them asking them how she was supposed to "get rid of this shit". That's exactly how she termed it. The shop assistant was clearly shocked, but the tourist's husband backed her up and just stood their shouting. I've noticed this in many places, Americans often insist on paying in dollars? If I were to go to America and insisted in paying in euro, or British pounds or Swedish crowns what kind of reception would I get, I wonder?
Obviously, these American tourists don't represent the whole of their country... but it doesn't give their compatriots a good name.


Holy Crap. How stupid was this woman? Just so you know Americans hate taking in Canadian money at a store. It is such pretty money though :)

war-for-oil. How immensely childish is that? And how blindly the Bush supporters fall into lock-step.
Speaking of followers of an ideology believing what the want.

How has this war been for oil? Some help, please. Gas prices? Up since the war. Iraq? Still a part of OPEC. Sure helping Iraq's oil industries are important because Saddam didn't really leave it with any sort of infrastructure, which is why we're focusing on it a lot, but we're not exactly shipping oil onto tankers or giving US buyers of Iraq oil 2 cent-a-gallon deals.

There are so many dialects of English in the US (southern, new yawk, redneck, lol) we can;t have an official language. But if you want to particpate fully in the society econmoically and socially, you have to learn it. Not to is as respectful as the american tourist in freance demanding that everyone speak english for them. not that anyone should be touring in france. lol :sniper:

I am american. I don't hate any European country or its people. Although I wasn't treated very nicely in France, my experience there was very limited and so I wouldn't attempt to generalize.

Most of the americans who say they hate European countries probably couldn't even point to the country they hate on a map. They hear that the president changed the name of french fries to freedom fries because he was mad that the French wouldn't approve his war-for-oil. How immensely childish is that? And how blindly the Bush supporters fall into lock-step.

I think the Europeans have good reason to hate American foreign policy. Heck, even I hate our foreign policy at the moment. If I decide to travel outside the US I will probably claim I am Canadian.

even if you hate our president or our foreign policy no reason to be ashamed of your country presidents and policys disapear all the time if you look back at history and the president didnt change the name to freedom fries a few american restaurants did and not even that many

dude only a retard would think every country speaks english thats totaly dumb..... im sure theirs dumb people from every country who think that


I never said every country speaks english. Americans just want it that way. We don't really bother to learn other languages.

Yes yes, Knights of the Round. Run. Run with all your might. Actually, I never watched the news during that. But I don't believe Bush did anything wrong. He won, he's president. Get over it. The 9/11 attacks would have happened anyway. Oh, and The Fox Trail, if you don't like the U.S. get the hell out. We don't want you either if this is what you believe about our country. One of my ex boyfriends tried telling me what a horrible country this is, and when I told him to get out he told me no because he's free here. Guess what. If you hate the country, leave it. And, about the whole world speaking English thing, I don't think that. But I think if they live in America they should speak it as it is our nations language.

He's a retard. Nuff said. Elected by the supreme court. No liberal thinks this is a horrible country. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with exercising one's democratic charge to argue about government - to not stand by idle while dip$hit does his thing in the white house. And to address an earlier point:

"The biggest joke in America is that we have a liberal press. It's a joke taken seriously by a surprisingly large number of people, including the nation's sizable right-wing minority. (approximately 1 out of every 4 voters). Their purchases propelled a book reitterating the myth, Bernard Goldberg's "Bias," to the top of America's best seller lists in early 2002. The notion of a liberal press was injected in the national consciousness thirty years ago by Richard Nixon, who blamed the press for losing the Vietnam war and inflating what he dismissed as "third-rate burglary" into the Watergate scandal. Ever since, the myth of the liberal press has served as a political weapon for conservative and right wing forces eager to discourage critical coverage of the government and corporate power. And journalists and their supervisors have fallen for the trick." Think about it...have you seen any negative coverage of the US government on the news lately?
- Mark Hertsgaard, The Eagle's Shadow
Shalom.

I think the Europeans have good reason to hate American foreign policy. Heck, even I hate our foreign policy at the moment. If I decide to travel outside the US I will probably claim I am Canadian.

I made the mistake of (unknowingly) asking a Canadian, "where abouts in America are you from" last week. Oops. Her reply was long!!