NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you nationalistic, do you think your nations right to exist excedes all the rest, and do you think your entitled to other nations land and resources. Are you Patriotic, would you support any war your nation got you in, or would you support genocide to save your countrymen(and women). I am an American and I would support my country in any situation as long as they stay capitalist and don't let the UN have any power in internal affairs and they keep a strong military. How do you feel.

Are you nationalistic, do you think your nations right to exist excedes all the rest, and do you think your entitled to other nations land and resources. Are you Patriotic, would you support any war your nation got you in, or would you support genocide to save your countrymen(and women). I am an American and I would support my country in any situation as long as they stay capitalist and don't let the UN have any power in internal affairs and they keep a strong military. How do you feel.

Translation from uneloquent rubbish:
Firstly I agreed that Iraq had WMD, but when it was clear they didn't, I supported it for 'humanitarian reasons' (as the reason had shifted), this means I am a hypocrite as I support humanitarian intervention (a buzz word for Imperialism) but condone abuse of human rights when my own country does it, based on the fact I am 'patriotic', this is because my IQ is extremely low.

Nationalism is a poor ideology, or more elequantly: N@7|0n@1|zm |z 73h b@k@!!!!!!!1111

N@7|0n@1|zm |z 73h b@k@!!!!!!!1111

Translation?

Translation from uneloquent rubbish:
Firstly I agreed that Iraq had WMD, but when it was clear they didn't, I supported it for 'humanitarian reasons' (as the reason had shifted), this means I am a hypocrite as I support humanitarian intervention (a buzz word for Imperialism) but condone abuse of human rights when my own country does it, based on the fact I am 'patriotic', this is because my IQ is extremely low.
Troll, his post had no mention of Iraq.

Translation?

Nationalism is a poor ideology.

Are you nationalistic, do you think your nations right to exist excedes all the rest, and do you think your entitled to other nations land and resources. Are you Patriotic, would you support any war your nation got you in, or would you support genocide to save your countrymen(and women). I am an American and I would support my country in any situation as long as they stay capitalist and don't let the UN have any power in internal affairs and they keep a strong military. How do you feel.

I love my country more than any other country in the world, but of course we're no better or worse as people than anyone else. I would support my country almost always, with only a few exceptions. I would not support genocide, corruption, imperialism, or crime. But of course, I love the original America (extremely limited government, states' rights, non-interventionist foreign policy, laissez faire, etc.) much more than the new one (big government, most power concentrated at the federal level, an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy, creeping socialism, etc.), but I'll always love my country no matter what.

Translation from uneloquent rubbish:
Firstly I agreed that Iraq had WMD, but when it was clear they didn't, I supported it for 'humanitarian reasons' (as the reason had shifted), this means I am a hypocrite as I support humanitarian intervention (a buzz word for Imperialism) but condone abuse of human rights when my own country does it, based on the fact I am 'patriotic', this is because my IQ is extremely low.

No I wouldn't care if we one day decided to go into some country kill every man, woman, and child for so much as killing an American.

No I wouldn't care if we one day decided to go into some country kill every man, woman, and child for so much as killing an American.

Then you would support mass-genocide against every country in the World? And how do you intend to carry out such an endeavour, your Military does not have the capability to take on the entire World.

but I'll always love my country no matter what.

Love your country?


Or love your Government.....

Then you would support mass-genocide against every country in the World? And how do you intend to carry out such an endeavour, your Military does not have the capability to take on the entire World.

Yes we do if we use nuclear weapons.

Then you would support mass-genocide against every country in the World? And how do you intend to carry out such an endeavour, your Military does not have the capability to take on the entire World.
I have to disagree with you, there. As we've seen, occupation and peacekeeping are different than conquest. The US excels at that.

I have to disagree with you, there. As we've seen, occupation and peacekeeping are different than conquest. The US excels at that.

You misunderstood my reply, he said he would gladly see his country commit genocide against any nation that ever killed an American. And I'm also surprised to see any lack of critiscm for the comments he is making, perhaps he struck a nerve? Most Americans are ultra-right?

You misunderstood my reply, he said he would gladly see his country commit genocide against any nation that ever killed an American. And I'm also surprised to see any lack of critiscm for the comments he is making, perhaps he struck a nerve? Most Americans are ultra-right?
I, for one, ignore him most of the time.

There is the position: "Right or wrong, my country."

But that doesn´t justify everything. There is after all the conscience of the individual. And that is the highest authority for me.
I wouldn´t support any action which I see as indefensible: like genocide, terrorism, or wars which aim to conquor other countries.
However: Fight against terrorism, interventions against governments who commit genocide (like against Jugoslavia in 1999) I see as justifiable.

One statement to the term nationalists: "A patriot is one who loves his country, a nationalists is one who hates the countries of others."
I don´t hate any other country. I´m not a nationalists.
Though I think a bit of patriotism exists in everybody: at least when the national team plays it comes out. So everybody is a bit patriotic, I´m as well.

Yes we do if we use nuclear weapons.

The French can destroy the world about 4 or 5 times (counting their arsenal), the UK 3 times. So you never can win a nuclear war against them. The world , being destroyed 1 time is enougn, so the reason that the US and Russia or China can destroy th eworld x-time more is irrelevant.

The French call this "La force de frape or / dissuassion" . wich means that if you destroy their country , their nuclear subs (heavier then the Uk ones) have the capacity to destroy the rest of the world (I like this, since we all know that the next US bashing will be against Europe) (5 yeras, 10 years, certainly with a Rep gov. in 20 years)

No. I don't support the US. Or it's troops. Or it's President. And so on.

No I wouldn't care if we one day decided to go into some country kill every man, woman, and child for so much as killing an American.
Don't you place any value on human life at all? You do realize that foreigners are humans, just as Americans are, don't you?

In response to the original post, I'm not nationalist. I don't undertand why my country's people have more rights that anyone else. I love my country, but I don't hate others.

I have read many of your posts. The majority of them promote genocide. Do you consider murder (where the victim is non-American) to be a crime?

I have to disagree with you, there. As we've seen, occupation and peacekeeping are different than conquest. The US excels at that.
At what? Peacekeeping? :D Things are still pretty peaceless in Iraq or Afghanistan. At least in the US controlled sectors. :D

Honestly, I think unchecked nationalism can lead to racism - that's not to say you can't have natn'l pride

The French can destroy the world about 4 or 5 times (counting their arsenal), the UK 3 times. So you never can win a nuclear war against them. The world , being destroyed 1 time is enougn, so the reason that the US and Russia or China can destroy th eworld x-time more is irrelevant.

The French call this "La force de frape or / dissuassion" . wich means that if you destroy their country , their nuclear subs (heavier then the Uk ones) have the capacity to destroy the rest of the world (I like this, since we all know that the next US bashing will be against Europe) (5 yeras, 10 years, certainly with a Rep gov. in 20 years)
I disagree with you completly. The US IS NOT THE PROBLEM OF THE WORLD.
It lays today in the muslim world (terrorism, islamism). In the future there might be a confrontation between the US and China in the Asian-pacific region.
There is not going to be a confrontation with Europe. First of all there is no reason for that. Europe can´t stop the US anyway. Secondly half of Europe supports the US (UK, Eastern Europe, Italy). So there are at least two or even more different policies (transatlantic, french, neutral).
And the French strategy is French. Germany is traditionally in a middle position (between France and the US), and is likely to return to that (actually steps in that direction where already taken), especially if there is regime change in Germany in 2006.

The French-US rivalry is an interesting thing. But aside the rhetoric it is a fact that France and the US never went to war against each other. In contrast to the US and Britain who fought two wars. Firstly the war of independence and another one in 1812.

No I wouldn't care if we one day decided to go into some country kill every man, woman, and child for so much as killing an American.

Do you hold the same position with regard to different states in the US? - assume for the moment that you are from California, would you feel the same if the people of your state marched into... say... Rhode Island and killed every man woman and child in order to avenge the killing of a Californian there? If not, why?

I disagree with you completly. The US IS NOT THE PROBLEM OF THE WORLD.
It lays today in the muslim world (terrorism, islamism). In the future there might be a confrontation between the US and China in the Asian-pacific region.
There is not going to be a confrontation with Europe. First of all there is no reason for that. Europe can´t stop the US anyway. Secondly half of Europe supports the US (UK, Eastern Europe, Italy). So there are at least two or even more different policies (transatlantic, french, neutral).
And the French strategy is French. Germany is traditionally in a middle position (between France and the US), and is likely to return to that (actually steps in that direction where already taken), especially if there is regime change in Germany in 2006.

The French-US rivalry is an interesting thing. But aside the rhetoric it is a fact that France and the US never went to war with each other. In contrast to the US and Britain who fought two wars. Firstly the war of independence and another one in 1812.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't we fight an undeclared war with France once?

There is not going to be a confrontation with Europe. First of all there is no reason for that. Europe can´t stop the US anyway. Secondly half of Europe supports the US (UK, Eastern Europe, Italy).

Oh, don't count on it, most of thier populaces are very Anti-American. And Europe is more and more becoming a counterbalancing force to the US, with a single voice. Saying its not the case doesn't make it so.

The US IS NOT THE PROBLEM OF THE WORLD.
Here. Let me help you dry your brain. :fluffle: Hmm..at least they used Persil.

Nationalism is the last escape (or first) for a scoundrell.

Like i posted before, but some ignorant rightwingers allways bring it back :confused:

Don't you place any value on human life at all? You do realize that foreigners are humans, just as Americans are, don't you?

In response to the original post, I'm not nationalist. I don't undertand why my country's people have more rights that anyone else. I love my country, but I don't hate others.

I have read many of your posts. The majority of them promote genocide. Do you consider murder (where the victim is non-American) to be a crime?

I don't support just going out to kill people unless its needed. But I do consider American lives much more important than foreign lives and I expect others to feel the same about their countrymen, I expect British to place a higher value on British lives and Russians to place a higher value on Russian lives. Yes, I consider the unprovoked murder of a foreigner a crime. I do not support starting wars unless it is nessecary to keep Americans safe I am more a supporter of isolationism except in trade.

Do you hold the same position with regard to different states in the US? - assume for the moment that you are from California, would you feel the same if the people of your state marched into... say... Rhode Island and killed every man woman and child in order to avenge the killing of a Californian there? If not, why?

No, Americans are Americans in America.

No, Americans are Americans in America.

I thought your whole point was that United States citizens were United States citizens outside the United States of America?

So you care not a jot about what United States citizen it may be that is killed outside the United States, then - all that matters is the fact that they have a birth certificate or passport which labels them as a United States citizen?

Does the United States have the right to kill its our citizens?

Does your feeling of nationalism also include Puerto Ricans?

No, Americans are Americans in America.

Flawless Logic.....

Flawless Logic.....

Possibly, but also ambiguous... does 'America' refer to Canada here? does 'Americans' refer to Nicaraguans?

I thought your whole point was that United States citizens were United States citizens outside the United States of America?

So you care not a jot about what United States citizen it may be that is killed outside the United States, then - all that matters is the fact that they have a birth certificate or passport which labels them as a United States citizen?

Does the United States have the right to kill its our citizens?

Does your feeling of nationalism also include Puerto Ricans?

No, I was saying that all Americans are equal, no the United States has no right to kill citizens, and no I don't like puerto rico.

Possibly, but also ambiguous... does 'America' refer to Canada here? does 'American' refer to Nicaraguans?
Not untill they are assimilated into the collective. And their culture is added to serve theirss.

Possibly, but also ambiguous... does 'America' refer to Canada here? does 'Americans' refer to Nicaraguans?

No, when I say Americans it only mean citizens of the good old USA.

No, when I say Americans it only mean citizens of the good old USA.

Well, Puerto Ricans are legally U.S. citizens.

Oh, don't count on it, most of thier populaces are very Anti-American. And Europe is more and more becoming a counterbalancing force to the US, with a single voice. Saying its not the case doesn't make it so.

Stop, things were OK with the US before the regime. But yes, people like Pearl and Rumsfeld are doing their best (with their FOX channel) to attack the EU. 90% of the world sees it like this, just the extreme Repubublicans think that they can go on warspreading and bashing their allies, not vice versa!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, Puerto Ricans are legally U.S. citizens.

I thought they were just US nationals.

No, I was saying that all Americans are equal, no the United States has no right to kill citizens, and no I don't like puerto rico.

So you are against the death penalty in the US then?

So, you apply this standard of nationalist fervour to all US citizens, except for those US citizens in Puerto Rico?

No, when I say Americans it only mean citizens of the good old USA.

Well then you should be more specific, because I for one who live in the largest country in America,(Canada) don't want my nation confused with your very strange logic.

I thought they were just US nationals.

Nope. Good thing you didn't march in there and kill them all, eh?

Stop, things were OK with the US before the regime. But yes, people like Pearl and Rumsfeld are doing their best (with their FOX channel) to attack the EU. 90% of the world sees it like this, just the extreme Repubublicans think that they can go on warspreading and bashing their allies, not vice versa!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is FOX now attacking the EU? Bah!

Thier just scared shitless of the growing economic power from the centralisation of European Nations. We should take it as a compliment :D

Oh, don't count on it, most of thier populaces are very Anti-American. And Europe is more and more becoming a counterbalancing force to the US, with a single voice. Saying its not the case doesn't make it so.
No, they are not. And since I´m one of them I know that. Probably 20-30% are Anti-American. That is a minority.
Not everybody dissenting with certain aspects of American policy is anti-American.
I´m not Anti-American. And I think the US has the right to do what it wants in the Middle East. We should stay out of that if we think it is not worth it. After all the US does not force anbody to participate in their interventions. The Bush administration is very flexible in that field and forms coalition of the willing. Nobody is forced to participate in it. And since that is the case I think governments which decide not to participate should stay out and just shut up rather than yell at the US.

After all the US does not force anbody to participate in their interventions.


You left out one group: THEM WHOM ARE INTERVENED UPON.


(emphasis, not shouting or flaming)

I think it's important to separate the USA government from their people. I do believe it's the minority of people who are anti-american people. However, I think the majority of people in the free world and in most other parts are anti-american government at least at the moment.

So you are against the death penalty in the US then?

So, you apply this standard of nationalist fervour to all US citizens, except for those US citizens in Puerto Rico?

No, when the death penalty is applied its that the have killed another America so therefore have broken the rule so we can break the rule on them.

Are you sure puerto ricans are American Citizens, I just thought they were US nationals but I might be wrong.

No, when the death penalty is applied its that the have killed another America so therefore have broken the rule so we can break the rule on them.

no the United States has no right to kill citizens

So, do those executed in the USA cease to be citizens before they are executed, or is this a fatal flaw in your position?

Are you sure puerto ricans are American Citizens, I just thought they were US nationals but I might be wrong.

I am as sure of this fact as the CIA who present it as one in the CIA World Factbook.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rq.html



More importantly: isn't it stunning how this single piece of information changes (if you are going to be consistent) the value that you place on their lives.. do you not find anything a trifle odd about this?

No, they are not. And since I´m one of them I know that. Probably 20-30% are Anti-American. That is a minority.
Not everybody dissenting with certain aspects of American policy is anti-American.

Then what are you trying to prove? The point I was making was that they disagreed with your policies in majority. Which means that they are not necessarily your 'long term allies'.

You left out one group: THEM WHOM ARE INTERVENED UPON.
(emphasis, not shouting or flaming)
Sorry, but I DON`T CARE ABOUT DICTATORIAL REGIMES WHO SPREAD ANTI-WESTERN IDEOLOGY. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea. There are probably 5-6 countries the US would consider to intervene. Though I don´t believe in an intervention in North Korea or Libya.
And that are governments who are dictatorial regimes. Whether it would be smart is another question. After all it would be extremly difficult to secure all those countries. And the process of nation building requires time. Their could be an imperial overstretch of the US.
But that would be an US problem. That is their choice.

Sorry, but I DON`T CARE ABOUT DICTATORIAL REGIMES WHO SPREAD ANTI-WESTERN IDEOLOGY.

Your not caring and your making misleading statements are two different things.

Question: do you care about those that live under such regimes, but have no power within them?

So, do those executed in the USA cease to be citizens before they are executed, or is this a fatal flaw in your position?



I am as sure of this fact as the CIA who present it as one in the CIA World Factbook.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rq.html



More importantly: isn't it stunning how this single piece of information changes (if you are going to be consistent) the value that you place on their lives.. do you not find anything a trifle odd about this?

Well I didn't know they were US citizens but I still like the continental US better than puerto rico but I like them better than other countries anyway. Executed people do not legally lose citizenship but they should.

Then what are you trying to prove? The point I was making was that they disagreed with your policies in majority. Which means that they are not necessarily your 'long term allies'.
Well, I´m from Europe myself. So you mean a disproval with American policy. But to be accurate. It was one about the Iraq policy. The Afghanistan intervention was supported by a majority. And in Britain there was at the end a majority in favour of the intervention.
And the political class in Britain and in East European countries stands firm behind the US, because the see the alliance with the US as in the utmost of their national interests. And that is not going to change in the foreseable future at least.

Sorry, but I DON`T CARE ABOUT DICTATORIAL REGIMES WHO SPREAD ANTI-WESTERN IDEOLOGY.

You mean regimes that you support when it ties in with your interests? After all, the US has supported many a dictatorial regime over the years. Some have committed mass genocide in the tens of thousands, others in the thousands, but they have always been funded and armed by the US.

do you think your nations right to exist excedes all the rest

No.

and do you think your entitled to other nations land and resources.

No.

would you support any war your nation got you in

No.

or would you support genocide to save your countrymen(and women).

No.

It's pretty much "no" across the board.

Well, I´m from Europe myself. So you mean a disproval with American policy. But to be accurate. It was one about the Iraq policy. The Afghanistan intervention was supported by a majority. And in Britain there was at the end a majority in favour of the intervention.
And the political class in Britain and in East European countries stands firm behind the US, because the see the alliance with the US as in the utmost of their national interests. And that is not going to change in the foreseable future at least.

Exactly, it is in thier national Interests to support the US. But popular dissent is still there. And as for Britain and E. Europe, they are just puppets of the US when it comes down to it. Britain has always been a 'Junior Partner' (as described by an advisor to Roosevelt) to the US. And it's most likely to change in the forseeable future as the power of the EU grows.

Your not caring and your making misleading statements are two different things.

Question: do you care about those that live under such regimes, but have no power within them?
They are after all liberated by such interventions. I would rather like to see reforms in those countries and the people liberating themselves (which happened in Eastern Europe for example).
But if those regimes do mischief and support terrorism against the US I don´t oppose the US overthrowing them if it considers that as in their national interests.

Well I'm going to bed.

Enodscopia, (or can I call you 'Enod'?) you support the right of your country to butcher the entire population of another country if they were to kill a US citizen. Do you also support the right of another country to butcher the entire population of the US if the US were responsible for the death of a single one of their citizens?

No, when I say Americans it only mean citizens of the good old USA.

So you don't consider US-Citizens from California, Texas or Oregon as Americans? In fact these states weren't part of the 13 colonies the US were made of.
At last, "American" is just a combination of letters printed with cheap ink on a cheap sheet of paper. No, I don't believe in some strange philosophical ideas sof freedom and democracy that define real Americans. It's crap. What does a guy from California have in common with a guy from Boston? They talk a different way, their local world is completely different. And what do they have in common with some fat guy living down in the swamps of Mississippi?
American patriots always talk of the USA as the land of the free, the land of the individuals, where everybody can become happy the way he or she is. You most obviously have nothing more in common with american citizens far across the country than with citizens from other countries far far away.

Well I'm going to bed.

Sleep tight. Don't let the dreams of my countrymen and women laying waste to your country and populace in fitting bloody vengeance for the death of one of our own at the hands of the USA interrupt your pleasent slumbers.

You mean regimes that you support when it ties in with your interests? After all, the US has supported many a dictatorial regime over the years. Some have committed mass genocide in the tens of thousands, others in the thousands, but they have always been funded and armed by the US.
The US didn´t bring the Ayatollahs to power in Iran (remember Khomeini was in exil IN FRANCE), nor the baathist regime in Syria (after all the Baath party is arab nationalists and socialist, Syria was traditionally an ally of the Soviet Union), nor the regime in North Korea or in Saudi-Arabia. Only the last one is one the US has close ties with. But we all have. If there is mischief going on in Saudi-Arabia and the oil suplies are disrupted THE WORLD ECONOMY COLLAPSES.
We all have interests in the region. So we shouldn´t point FINGERS and say: OH, the evil US. That is hypocritical.

The US didn´t bring the Ayatollahs to power in Iran (remember Khomeini was in exil IN FRANCE), nor the baathist regime in Syria (after all the Baath party is arab nationalists and socialist, Syria was traditionally an ally of the Soviet Union), nor the regime in North Korea or in Saudi-Arabia. Only the last one is one the US has close ties with. But we all have. If there is mischief going on in Saudi-Arabia and the oil suplies are disrupted THE WORLD ECONOMY COLLAPSES.
We all have interests in the region. So we shouldn´t point FINGERS and say: OH, the evil US. That is hypocritical.

Yes but they supported the Shah, a far more corrupt dictator who left his people living in Squalor. And as for the Ayatollah, at the time, the majority of the populace wanted him to become leader.

Executed people do not legally lose citizenship but they should.

They would then become non-US citizens, and as such their execution by the US would become an extremely dangreous international sticking point: all it would need would be for another country to issue them citizenship as soon as their US citizenship is rescinded and you are then left with either sending them to their 'home' land to face justice or murdering a foreign national.

The US didn´t bring the Ayatollahs to power in Iran (remember Khomeini was in exil IN FRANCE), nor the baathist regime in Syria (after all the Baath party is arab nationalists and socialist, Syria was traditionally an ally of the Soviet Union), nor the regime in North Korea or in Saudi-Arabia. Only the last one is one the US has close ties with. But we all have. If there is mischief going on in Saudi-Arabia and the oil suplies are disrupted THE WORLD ECONOMY COLLAPSES.
We all have interests in the region. So we shouldn´t point FINGERS and say: OH, the evil US. That is hypocritical.

Well, in the case of North Korea, we had something to do with it. Read, for example, America's Retreat From Victory: The Career of George Catlett Marshall.

Exactly, it is in thier national Interests to support the US. But popular dissent is still there. And as for Britain and E. Europe, they are just puppets of the US when it comes down to it. Britain has always been a 'Junior Partner' (as described by an advisor to Roosevelt) to the US. And it's most likely to change in the forseeable future as the power of the EU grows.
Europe is not only France and Germany. And in Germany the opposition which is likely to take over in 2006 had another opinion anyway.
There were only four governments in the EU who opposed the US: France, Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg.
18 governments signed letters of support for the US. And others remained neutral (Ireland, Austria, Sweden, Finnland).
So: I don´t see that their is going to be a turn around in all those 18 countries any time soon. It is rather likely that the French position gets weakened after a regime-change in Germany in 2006.
Anyway: I ashure you: we are never going to humiliate France. But France would need to take a more cooperative position towards the US.

Europe is not only France and Germany. And in Germany the opposition which is likely to take over in 2006 had another opinion anyway.
There were only four governments in the EU who opposed the US: France, Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg.
18 governments signed letters of support for the US. And others remained neutral (Ireland, Austria, Sweden, Finnland).
So: I don´t see that their is going to be a turn around in all those 18 countries any time soon. It is rather likely that the French position gets weakened after a regime-change in Germany in 2006.
Anyway: I ashure you: we are never going to humiliate France. But France would need to take a more cooperative position towards the US.
Shs! Don't tell NWV that. Let him here what he wants to here.

Europe is not only France and Germany. And in Germany the opposition which is likely to take over in 2006 had another opinion anyway.
There were only four governments in the EU who opposed the US: France, Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg.
18 governments signed letters of support for the US. And others remained neutral (Ireland, Austria, Sweden, Finnland).
So: I don´t see that their is going to be a turn around in all those 18 countries any time soon. It is rather likely that the French position gets weakened after a regime-change in Germany in 2006.
Anyway: I ashure you: we are never going to humiliate France. But France would need to take a more cooperative position towards the US.

Wher do you get your numbers? :confused: From the republican party I guess.
Just to proove you are wrong, the EU counted 15 members at that moment. And most of them did not sign that blackmail letter. Only the cowards that were afraid to opose the US and it's violation of almost everything in International rights. Hope the US willsend a letter about their friend in the Middle East that has won all gold medals in history in violating UN resolutions. (please don't buy them out lik eya did with some poor East EU, wich had as only ground to create diversity in the EU).
For me, all those east EU countries should join the US and let the US pay for them instead of our € (we pay 3 times the amount of the US in the development of those countries, lets make Poland a US state, wee what happens then)

Well, in the case of North Korea, we had something to do with it. Read, for example, America's Retreat From Victory: The Career of George Catlett Marshall.
Via the use of nukes and the risk of nuclear war?
No, the US was to smart for that.
The deal was fine to avoid such an escalation of the war.
The situation today however is different. During the cold war a direct confrontation was never an option (rather little indirect interventions or repleacement wars), due to the nucler overkill capacity. Today the situation is different. The US could go for regime change in any of the "problematic" countries. However a cost-risk evaluation is needed to decide about it.
It is the choice and the risk of the US and those countries who follow it.

Wher do you get your numbers? :confused: From the republican party I guess.
Just to proove you are wrong, the EU counted 15 members at that moment. And most of them did not sign that balckmail letter. Only the cowards that were afraid to opose the US and it's violation of almost everything in International rights. Hope the US willsend a letter about their friend in the Middle East that has won all gold medals in history in violating UN resolutions.
5 of the old EU members signed it and additionally the Netherlands tended to agree to it (however didn´t sign because it saw it as back-stabbing).
Anyway. Europe was and is divided. That is what I wanted to point out.
And by the way: UN resolutions are ONLY BINDING IF THEY ARE APPROVED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL. Other resolutions are NOT BINDING.
There are not many resolutions by the Security Council regarding Israel. In contrast to Iraq of course.

ONLY BINDING IF THEY ARE APPROVED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL. .

Ever heared of 242?
BTW when all countries in the world vote something about Israel, the uS is the only nation to abuse it's veto. Or are all those countries (Canada, Australia, Nz, the EU ones, Latin Am. , Africa) antisemite (like the Republican regime thinks and its propaganda spreads out)? You are wrong and you know it since the vast majority of your own populatian does not agree with your regime and follows the free world.(Canada, EU and other W. democracies)

Ever heared of 242?
BTW when all countries in the world vote something about Israel, the uS is the only nation to abuse it's veto. Or are all those countries (Canada, Australia, Nz, the EU ones, Latin Am. , Africa) antisemite (like the Republican regime thinks and its propaganda spreads out)? You are wrong and you know it since the vast majority of your own populatian does not agree with your regime and follows the free world.(Canada, EU and other W. democracies)
I´m not American.
And by the way. The UN has rules. And one is that every permanent members has veto rights. THERE IS NO UNREASONABLE VETO. Or shall I poin out the number of resolutions who just failed because of a British, French, Russian or Chinese veto???

Are you nationalistic, do you think your nations right to exist excedes all the rest, and do you think your entitled to other nations land and resources. Are you Patriotic, would you support any war your nation got you in, or would you support genocide to save your countrymen(and women). I am an American and I would support my country in any situation as long as they stay capitalist and don't let the UN have any power in internal affairs and they keep a strong military. How do you feel.

I'm nationalist, believing in one and only one China, which includes China proper, Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia (if not Outer as well), Manchuria and Taiwan. I believe the right for China to exist as a sovereign nation free of other countries' meddling in our internal affairs. I do not, however, believe that communism and current lack of civil rights in China is best for the country in the long-term, but due to circumstances changes towards that direction must be taken slowly. If China enters a war with Taiwan to win reunification I will wince because I believe in peace. If China enters a war with Japan or India to invade or colonise I will protest fervently. How genocide will save my countrypeople I do not know...

I love my country more than any other country in the world, but of course we're no better or worse as people than anyone else. I would support my country almost always, with only a few exceptions. I would not support genocide, corruption, imperialism, or crime. But of course, I love the original America (extremely limited government, states' rights, non-interventionist foreign policy, laissez faire, etc.) much more than the new one (big government, most power concentrated at the federal level, an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy, creeping socialism, etc.), but I'll always love my country no matter what.

Nuff Said

I'm nationalist, believing in one and only one China, which includes China proper, Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia (if not Outer as well), Manchuria and Taiwan. I believe the right for China to exist as a sovereign nation free of other countries' meddling in our internal affairs. I do not, however, believe that communism and current lack of civil rights in China is best for the country in the long-term, but due to circumstances changes towards that direction must be taken slowly. If China enters a war with Taiwan to win reunification I will wince because I believe in peace. If China enters a war with Japan or India to invade or colonise I will protest fervently. How genocide will save my countrypeople I do not know...

Interesting, seeing as the Communist party seized power in China in a violent coup. Taiwan has been the last remaining vestige of Chinese Democracy for years, and even now mainland China insists on plotting to blot out this shining example of how good the Chinese people COULD have it. Much as North Korea wants to take out South Korea. I tell you honestly, you may never know just how good you could have it if you weren't trapped under the heel of one of the most unbelievably ethnocentric and cruel governments left in this world. However, what I DO know is that it won't be long before China decides to attack Taiwan, probably shortly after war erupts in Korea again (which could happen any day). In this case I ask you, would you support your government in this action, and more importantly, would it (your government) give you a choice?

This is not meant to attack you personally, but is only out of my interest in your views.

Interesting, seeing as the Communist party seized power in China in a violent coup. Taiwan has been the last remaining vestige of Chinese Democracy for years, and even now mainland China insists on plotting to blot out this shining example of how good the Chinese people COULD have it. Much as North Korea wants to take out South Korea. I tell you honestly, you may never know just how good you could have it if you weren't trapped under the heel of one of the most unbelievably ethnocentric and cruel governments left in this world. However, what I DO know is that it won't be long before China decides to attack Taiwan, probably shortly after war erupts in Korea again (which could happen any day). In this case I ask you, would you support your government in this action, and more importantly, would it (your government) give you a choice?

This is not meant to attack you personally, but is only out of my interest in your views.

Well said, my friend. :)

Interesting, seeing as the Communist party seized power in China in a violent coup. Taiwan has been the last remaining vestige of Chinese Democracy for years, and even now mainland China insists on plotting to blot out this shining example of how good the Chinese people COULD have it. Much as North Korea wants to take out South Korea. I tell you honestly, you may never know just how good you could have it if you weren't trapped under the heel of one of the most unbelievably ethnocentric and cruel governments left in this world. However, what I DO know is that it won't be long before China decides to attack Taiwan, probably shortly after war erupts in Korea again (which could happen any day). In this case I ask you, would you support your government in this action, and more importantly, would it (your government) give you a choice?

This is not meant to attack you personally, but is only out of my interest in your views.

Yes, no offence taken. Interestingly, do you know why the Communists were able to seize power in 1949? It was because they captured the hearts and souls of the Chinese peasants, which was about 80 - 90% of the population at the time. The Nationalists then were a bunch of rich, capitalist, greedy, corrupt morass of a government - and hardly democratic. They completely lost much of the population's confidence and trust and were against the ideals of the Republic's founder, Dr. Sun Yat-sen. The Communist takeover was not a minority thing - the entire nation of peasants was for the revolution. It was only when Mao Zedong became fanatic did communism begin to look bad. Even Taiwan was not fully democratised until as late as 1990. Before that it was ruled over by the Jiang (Chiang) family with the Nationalist party as the only legitimate party. Interestingly, in your last beacon of democracy in China, there was a near assassination attempt of the president Chen Shui-bie rumoured to be part of a self-directed and self-played act, or that underground gamblers are trying to assassinate Chen so the stakes will be higher. If democracy in China is going to slide into such disgusting proportions, no thank you.
You don't know that China is going to attack Taiwan. Some say that Beijing thinks 2006 is the right time to invade, and ex-President Jiang Zemin has stated clearly for reunification to happen before 2020. Logical to plan, isn't it? But for now, if President Chen of Taiwan stop fidgeting about constitutions and independence movements, perhaps we shall see some more years of peace.
But I do think that China might take advantage of the war in Korea if it ever breaks out. Frankly, even Beijing is gradually getting sick of Pyongyang. Perhaps Beijing will negotiate with Washington to have Seoul reunite Korea while Washington turns a blind eye to China's invasion of Taiwan. I hope it's obvious enough to the leaders that direct armed confrontation between China and the United States can mean the end of the world. I will support an armed reunion - as long as all other possible means of peaceful negotiations are over, and that Taiwan has planned a set date to proclaim independence. I'm sure Bush did not give Americans any choice in waging war with Afghanistan or Iraq. There is no government in the world that listens to its people during wartime.

Shs! Don't tell NWV that. Let him here what he wants to here.

You spelt 'hear' wrong.

And most Eastern European countries are puppets of the US anyway. As is the new President of The Commission. But the support among the people in Continental Europe is mainly towards Germany and France. Most people respect them for the decision they made, and basically all polls showed Europe as whole viermontly opposing the War in Iraq. Just goes to show that we don't have real democracy - we elect a leader ever 4 or 5 years and then take a spectators role to the policies that he envokes. And you seem to take the fact Right Wing Eastern European Governments support the US as a sign that the the populace feels the same way - should we therefore equate everything George Bush does with the popular consent of the American people? By your logic I'm sure we should.

And you forgot to mention Spain, the nation which kicked out it's Government based on the War - Due to what? Popular opinion, thats what. And expect it to happen with some of those Eastern European countries as well.

Kind of reminds me of The headline of the Daily Mirror after France announced they would veto any move for a new UN Resolution (What the US has been doing for years where Israel is concerned), there was a picture of an American tabloid with the headline "Old Europe". And what did the Mirror do? A massive headline with the EU Stars saying "Bold Europe!"

But France would need to take a more cooperative position towards the US.
Cooperative? You mean docile don't you?

i've never understood nationalist my grandparents were imigrants to south africa and my parents are both imigrants to the uk both from different backgrounds so i don't really feel i have any national identity. in my oppinion nationalism encourages intolerance of other cultures because it seems to run on the pretence the your country is the best the in the world therefore your values, culture and customs are right and every one else is wrong provoking intolerence, prejudice and racism

Are you nationalistic, do you think your nations right to exist excedes all the rest, and do you think your entitled to other nations land and resources. Are you Patriotic, would you support any war your nation got you in, or would you support genocide to save your countrymen(and women). I am an American and I would support my country in any situation as long as they stay capitalist and don't let the UN have any power in internal affairs and they keep a strong military. How do you feel.
No, I am not.

I am this:
Main Entry: na·tion·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'nash-n&-"li-z&m, 'na-sh&-n&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: loyalty and devotion to a nation;
I support my nation, I am loyal.
I am a patriot, ergo, Istrongly distrust my government, to call yourself a true American patriot you must distrust your government.
Or you should learn to goose-step.