NationStates Jolt Archive

America is bad and unjust. Every other country is good and righteous, if they weren't so abused by nasty americans and their corrupt policies.

That seems to be the consensus. Why? I don't complain about your countries! Even when they don't participate in anything, or do for a price.

Feh - while I don't think Europe is full of racist or biased people anymore, I offer a small rebuttal.

It took the US less than 228 years to erase most of the racial/religious biases that Europe was doping itself with for the last 1500 years (ooh, Europe got pwned!).

Nobody blames America for every world problem; people are just very pissed off at us right now because of our foreign policy.

However, many difficulties world-wide are, in fact, our fault. Many harsh dictators have risen to power through history because of our actions; one good example is Pol Pot in Cambodia during/after Vietnam. Our fault... OOPSIES!!!

Uh...that doesn't prove anything. American is composed of Europeans. It took the social expirement that is America to erase that. Not Americans.

Yeah.

I'm not saying America doesn't have problems. I love my country and despise some of the decisions we have made. It's just that the argument of "America sucks" is so tired and old. People should find a new distraction from their own house to focus on.

Actually, no. Political power hungriness erased all those problems: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=352141

Uh...that doesn't prove anything. American is composed of Europeans. It took the social expirement that is America to erase that. Not Americans.

Not exactly. America is composed of people who didn't agree with, and no longer wanted to be, Europeans.

Because you ARE to blame for everything bad in the world







joking joking

Some hate Americans. Most dislike the government, and think that just because a couple (ok maybe more) Americans are stupid, and don't know what they're talking about. That's what I think.

Not exactly. America is composed of people who didn't agree with, and no longer wanted to be, Europeans.
But Europeans nonetheless.

Yes, right now, most hate is directed at the government and foreign policies, although people say "I hate America." It's just a misused term.

Actually, change that to: some dislike the government, and therefore blame all americans for the problems.

One of the chief complaints I hear is that Americans keep to their own country and know nothing at all about anything else, which renders them culturally illiterate.

Yet, most of the "america sucks" rhetoric I hear is simply a more colorful repeat of a common anti-american stance.

Is it possible that some of them are just as guilty of cultural ignorance as they accuse americans of being?

But Europeans nonetheless.

How are we Europeans? My ancestry is native american, with some french (from nova scotia) thrown in.

The last of my ancestors to come from Europe, possibly, occured over 200 years ago.

The fact is, the majority of Americans ARE culturally ignorant. A very large percentage of Americans have never been out of the country; and many of those who have just go to Canada. Thus, it's a miniscule amount of people who actually have experienced some other very different culture.

Err, well, mostly Europeans

This argument is essentially pointless, but the point I am making is this: even if you are racist, to say Europe is better than American or vice versa has no logic behind it.

I never mentioned anything that would lead one to believe that I am racist. In fact, I happen to love western Europe, and central Asia, because I have spent a lot of time there. Also, I DO NOT think that America is better or vice versa.

And speaking of racism....I lived in Arkansas for a while. Wow.

I didn't mean you specifically; I meant you generally and collectively.

... And methaphysically, emotionally, emphatically.

I didn't mean you specifically; I meant you generally and collectively.

I understand. Sorry about the misconception.

Oh, and before you get offended over the Arkansas comment...I grew up in Louisiana...

And speaking of racism....I lived in Arkansas for a while. Wow.
I hope by that you are not implying that I am racist.

I understand. Sorry about the misconception.

Oh, and before you get offended over the Arkansas comment...I grew up in Louisiana...

Louisiana? Wow....not as bad as Mississippi, now THAT is Darwins waiting room there.

I guess I was too late to prevent you being offended...

...wasn't implying at all that you are a racist. I don't know you.

What I meant was that I grew up in Louisiana, and lived in Arkansas for 5 years....I witnessed more racism in those two states than anywhere else I've ever been....and I've been to LOTS of places....

Nobody blames America for every world problem; people are just very pissed off at us right now because of our foreign policy.

However, many difficulties world-wide are, in fact, our fault. Many harsh dictators have risen to power through history because of our actions; one good example is Pol Pot in Cambodia during/after Vietnam. Our fault... OOPSIES!!!
you forgot a certain mr hussein, and the cia's involvement with a man named osama

Well there you go. See, we fuck up a lot of things. That's why we suck.

By the way, I just wanted to add a comment. Don't expect to assume any sort of leadership role if you can't handle all the responsibilities that come with it. If you want to be the world leader, you're responsible for the world's problem. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen and let the EU chefs take care of business.

you forgot a certain mr hussein, and the cia's involvement with a man named osama


See. That's just what I'm talking about. We didn't create Hussein. The CIA DID help Osama during the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan...and in retrospect, that probably wasn't the brightest idea...

But we weren't the ONLY people who did that. Just the only ones blamed.

See. That's just what I'm talking about. We didn't create Hussein. The CIA DID help Osama during the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan...and in retrospect, that probably wasn't the brightest idea...

But we weren't the ONLY people who did that. Just the only ones blamed.
By the way, I just wanted to add a comment. Don't expect to assume any sort of leadership role if you can't handle all the responsibilities that come with it. If you want to be the world leader, you're responsible for the world's problem. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen and let the EU chefs take care of business.
...

The fact is, the majority of Americans ARE culturally ignorant. A very large percentage of Americans have never been out of the country; and many of those who have just go to Canada. Thus, it's a miniscule amount of people who actually have experienced some other very different culture.

I'd like to talk about this. I think Americal is large enough to justify talking about multiple cultures within its borders. I also notice America being compared to the "EU" instead of individual countries. This being the case, I'd suggest that most of you are ignorant of cultures outside of the EU. What do you know of Poland, Turkey, and countries not in Europe. Before you start talking history, I had those classes also. What of their modern culture and beliefs?

If I could drive an hour or two and be in a new country....great. I can't drive all day and get across Texas.

All i can really gather about this myth is most Americans (myself included) are not bi or multi-lingual. If that is the criterion for "knowing" another countries culture, you are mistaken.

to the original topic of this thread: Right or wrong, we took on the role of world police. Therefore, we must accept blame when things go wrong. At the same time, a better adminstration could highlight the good we do alot better.

By the way, I just wanted to add a comment. Don't expect to assume any sort of leadership role if you can't handle all the responsibilities that come with it. If you want to be the world leader, you're responsible for the world's problem. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen and let the EU chefs take care of business.

Two problems with that.

1) The EU Chiefs are already pissed off that we're even considering getting out of Europe a little bit...(the 60,000 troop withdrawal).

2) The US seems to be held to a different standard of leadership than other countries.

I'd like to talk about this. I think Americal is large enough to justify talking about multiple cultures within its borders. I also notice America being compared to the "EU" instead of individual countries. This being the case, I'd suggest that most of you are ignorant of cultures outside of the EU. What do you know of Poland, Turkey, and countries not in Europe. Before you start talking history, I had those classes also. What of their modern culture and beliefs?

If I could drive an hour or two and be in a new country....great. I can't drive all day and get across Texas.

All i can really gather about this myth is most Americans (myself included) are not bi or multi-lingual. If that is the criterion for "knowing" another countries culture, you are mistaken.

to the original topic of this thread: Right or wrong, we took on the role of world police. Therefore, we must accept blame when things go wrong. At the same time, a better adminstration could highlight the good we do alot better.
Poland is in the EU

And you can drive across Texas in one day...but it's like the size of western Europe.

true, just armed him...then (apparently) virtually gave saddam permission to invade iraq in 1991....

true, just armed him...then (apparently) virtually gave saddam permission to invade iraq in 1991....
We didn't build him a nuclear breeder reactor though.

I'd like to talk about this. I think Americal is large enough to justify talking about multiple cultures within its borders. I also notice America being compared to the "EU" instead of individual countries. This being the case, I'd suggest that most of you are ignorant of cultures outside of the EU. What do you know of Poland, Turkey, and countries not in Europe. Before you start talking history, I had those classes also. What of their modern culture and beliefs?

If I could drive an hour or two and be in a new country....great. I can't drive all day and get across Texas.

All i can really gather about this myth is most Americans (myself included) are not bi or multi-lingual. If that is the criterion for "knowing" another countries culture, you are mistaken.

to the original topic of this thread: Right or wrong, we took on the role of world police. Therefore, we must accept blame when things go wrong. At the same time, a better adminstration could highlight the good we do alot better.


I am bi-lingual (I speak fluent russian). I've been to all of the above. It has been my experience that misperceptions due to american ignorance are mirrored outside of America due to following rhetoric.

I love Europe and Asia. I try to learn as much as I can about their cultures. It just makes me sad when most of them seem to be screaming at me about mine.

Feh - while I don't think Europe is full of racist or biased people anymore, I offer a small rebuttal.

It took the US less than 228 years to erase most of the racial/religious biases that Europe was doping itself with for the last 1500 years (ooh, Europe got pwned!).

And strangely enough it was European emigrants that did it during the same time as their brothers in Europe, and as I have said before, my country (Sweden) banned all slavery in 1252 (when our nation was like 100 years old), using that dumb and totally unlogical argument only tension your relation to antiamerican lefters on this forum, please stop it.

It has been my experience that misperceptions due to american ignorance are mirrored outside of America due to following rhetoric.

What does that mean?

but what gives anyone the right to tell someone they can't have one when you have plenty?

That right is actually granted to the International Atomic Energy Agency. They determine who is responsible enough, and safe enough, to explore nuclear power in a peaceful manner, and to a peaceful end.

anyway, the us is not to blame for all the worlds' problems, and i can't understand people just putting all the blame on one nation when there are so many others involved..

By the way, I just wanted to add a comment. Don't expect to assume any sort of leadership role if you can't handle all the responsibilities that come with it. If you want to be the world leader, you're responsible for the world's problem. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen and let the EU chefs take care of business.

That is the justification. If Americans can't understand why America is blamed for everything, then look at how Americans always blame their leader...

What does that mean?

Ok. Here's what I mean.

Americans are accused of cultural ignorance. To a large degree, americans are ignorant of foreign cultures. I have witnessed that.

I have ALSO witnessed something different in Germany, France, Austria, Hungary, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Poland, Turkey, Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and any other country I have been in. In most cases, I feel that the people I talked with in those countries were just as ignorant of American culture (and yes, we do have one). Most things that they said to me were near mirror repeats of the day's headlines.

"America sucks". They say. "Why?" I ask. "because America sucks". They respond.

Of course there are many exceptions to this, but that is the most common response I get. I truly love all the countries I mentioned, and have friends in most of them. I don't mean disrespect. I simply mean that America is not alone in being uninformed.

See. That's just what I'm talking about. We didn't create Hussein. The CIA DID help Osama during the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan...and in retrospect, that probably wasn't the brightest idea...

But we weren't the ONLY people who did that. Just the only ones blamed.

Yes you helped Saddam against Iran, I you hadn't Iraq would have belonged to Iran by now, but as Khoymeini was there I think it was totally logical (see why people think Americans don't know anything about the outside world, when a 14 year old Swede knows more about your foreign politics during the 80: it is time to get worried (this is personal criticism, I doubt that the american people on the whole is like this guy)). And might I ask whichEuropean countries that helped dictators during the 80:s? The only ones I can recall is the french, and that was long before this...

anyway, the us is not to blame for all the worlds' problems, and i can't understand people just putting all the blame on one nation when there are so many others involved..
Who and When did anyone blame ALL the worlds problems. I only blame America when there is good reason to.

Yes you helped Saddam against Iran, I you hadn't Iraq would have belonged to Iran by now, but as Khoymeini was there I think it was totally logical (see why people think Americans don't know anything about the outside world, when a 14 year old Swede knows more about your foreign politics during the 80: it is time to get worried (this is personal criticism, I doubt that the american people on the whole is like this guy)). And might I ask whichEuropean countries that helped dictators during the 80:s? The only ones I can recall is the french, and that was long before this...
smells like a conspiracy, arm iraq, let them invade quwait, then blow the shit out of them

Yes you helped Saddam against Iran, I you hadn't Iraq would have belonged to Iran by now, but as Khoymeini was there I think it was totally logical (see why people think Americans don't know anything about the outside world, when a 14 year old Swede knows more about your foreign politics during the 80: it is time to get worried (this is personal criticism, I doubt that the american people on the whole is like this guy)). And might I ask whichEuropean countries that helped dictators during the 80:s? The only ones I can recall is the french, and that was long before this...

*chuckle*

If you think you know more, then that's your right. I'm not going to debate your knowledge of history or foreign politics.

I know we assisted Iraq against Iran. What I mean, young 'un, is that we didn't create Hussein's dictatorial tendencies.

...and as to my knowledge of foreign policy, and in particular, foreign cultures....I've travelled in most of the countries you've read about...

But thanks for the insult, nonetheless...

Yes you helped Saddam against Iran, I you hadn't Iraq would have belonged to Iran by now, but as Khoymeini was there I think it was totally logical (see why people think Americans don't know anything about the outside world, when a 14 year old Swede knows more about your foreign politics during the 80: it is time to get worried (this is personal criticism, I doubt that the american people on the whole is like this guy)). And might I ask whichEuropean countries that helped dictators during the 80:s? The only ones I can recall is the french, and that was long before this...
Then they could be geting 2 oil birds with one Army stone instead of just Iraq.

anyway, the us is not to blame for all the worlds' problems, and i can't understand people just putting all the blame on one nation when there are so many others involved..

Can you give me one example of this from the forum? The thread agaisnt Americas relation to the Kyoto treaty is not, according to scientists America uses up two fifts of the global resources...

Who and When did anyone blame ALL the worlds problems. I only blame America when there is good reason to.
i was just generalising, the question wasn't very specific....and i agree there is reason to now...the world becomes a more dangerous place when 1 nation decides to police it, without permission i might add, and for what goal? the black stuff perhaps?

I like how everyone ignores my logical answer.

Can you give me one example of this from the forum? The thread agaisnt Americas relation to the Kyoto treaty is not, according to scientists America uses up two fifts of the global resources...

Would you mind rephrasing? I don't understand what you mean...(the english, I mean).

I like how everyone ignores my logical answer.

I must not have been keeping up...

which answer was that?

That is the justification. If Americans can't understand why America is blamed for everything, then look at how Americans always blame their leader...
Great answer. Happy now?? :)

I posted it...then posted it again...this will be the last time...

By the way, I just wanted to add a comment. Don't expect to assume any sort of leadership role if you can't handle all the responsibilities that come with it. If you want to be the world leader, you're responsible for the world's problem. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen and let the EU chefs take care of business.

Yes you helped Saddam against Iran, I you hadn't Iraq would have belonged to Iran by now, but as Khoymeini was there I think it was totally logical (see why people think Americans don't know anything about the outside world, when a 14 year old Swede knows more about your foreign politics during the 80: it is time to get worried (this is personal criticism, I doubt that the american people on the whole is like this guy)). And might I ask whichEuropean countries that helped dictators during the 80:s? The only ones I can recall is the french, and that was long before this...


We also helped Iran against Iraq as did numerous other countries....And what is the theme of this thread?? LOL

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/iraniraq.htm

So either you DID know that other countries worked both sides OR you chose to just fix blame to the US and convieniently ignore the actions of other countries.....

Damn that sounds familiar!

Yes you helped Saddam against Iran, I you hadn't Iraq would have belonged to Iran by now, but as Khoymeini was there I think it was totally logical (see why people think Americans don't know anything about the outside world, when a 14 year old Swede knows more about your foreign politics during the 80: it is time to get worried (this is personal criticism, I doubt that the american people on the whole is like this guy)). And might I ask whichEuropean countries that helped dictators during the 80:s? The only ones I can recall is the french, and that was long before this...



I first have to say I like the argument so far … good points so far

But here I want to point out one of the troubles latly about arguing anything about things like this (Europe V.S America)


Namely one thing that throws me off … when comparing economies all the sudden it is the EU V.S US
But when it comes to bad thing

(such as the previous statement about the French helping future dictators/whatnot) it is carefully pointed out that it was the French

Now that was just an example. But it is hard to argue anything, specially when it benefits one team to … the group countries … and when it doesn’t they point out that they are a different government.

If that is the case the US should be allowed to argue by a state by state basis not over all. Because if we from the US stereotype the whole EU you are very careful to point out the country differences.

I mean France and Germany may have different values and opinion … but for that matter so does my home state of Minnesota V.S lets say Florida

(Sorry I am babbling … lack of sleep … sure I will get slammed on some ill thought out statement that I forgot to clarify)

*chuckle*

If you think you know more, then that's your right. I'm not going to debate your knowledge of history or foreign politics.

I know we assisted Iraq against Iran. What I mean, young 'un, is that we didn't create Hussein's dictatorial tendencies.

Of course you didn't create the dictorial tendencies, but before the US arming of Iraq he didn't have the power to actually rule Iraq, there is a big difference between sitting in Bagdad drewing nails through the head of the Iraqi grand-ayatollah and have authority over the Shia-moslems and Kurds.

As an American, I have to say I am rather disappointed in our foreign policy/ actions since about the 40's. America used to stand for something moralistically. But now, the ends seem to justify the means... Up until the turn of the century, America didn't stick it's nose where it wasn't wanted near as much as we have since WWII. Overall though, good has been done and the intention true, regardless of what some of those who have no real firsthand knowledge might think.

I posted it...then posted it again...this will be the last time...


oh...that one. I actually responded to that. You must've missed it.

The US doesn't want to solve all the world's problems. Never have. We want to protect our interests as much as we can, solve problems IF we can, and generate as many partnerships AS we can.

One of the chief complaints I hear is that Americans keep to their own country and know nothing at all about anything else, which renders them culturally illiterate.

Blah, we're not Europeans. We are not surrounded by other nations. We have two neighbors, and one is amazingly similar to us in most respects. It's not ignorance, it's geography. I bet if we quized most Europeans on the going's on and cultures of North America, they'd fail miserably other than areas that the were involved (early wars), and areas of our history and culture made popular by Hollywood.

Can you give me one example of this from the forum? The thread agaisnt Americas relation to the Kyoto treaty is not, according to scientists America uses up two fifts of the global resources...
i totally agree, the lack of support for the kyoto treaty shows the short-sightedness of the us, the effect of global warming will affect us all, including the us...yet they secure more and more oil reserves to feed the need, by force if necessary..and when things get really bad we know who to blame don't we?

Now that was just an example. But it is hard to argue anything, specially when it benefits one team to … the group countries … and when it doesn’t they point out that they are a different government.

If that is the case the US should be allowed to argue by a state by state basis not over all. Because if we from the US stereotype the whole EU you are very careful to point out the country differences.

I mean France and Germany may have different values and opinion … but for that matter so does my home state of Minnesota V.S lets say Florida

(Sorry I am babbling … lack of sleep … sure I will get slammed on some ill thought out statement that I forgot to clarify)

But Eu is NOT a country. The US states are acting cooporatively, Eu is do not. I hope that I can trust swedish media so much that I they don't lie when they tell you that US sends troops and not some states.

Two problems with that.

1) The EU Chiefs are already pissed off that we're even considering getting out of Europe a little bit...(the 60,000 troop withdrawal).

2) The US seems to be held to a different standard of leadership than other countries.
The US is in a position of being a standalone superpower (I think it's crumbling) and therefore should be held to a higher standard of leadership (at least while we're still on top). The US wasn't held to any of these standards during the 19th century because the US wasn't a superpower. We've assumed the role of world leader and we have to assume the responsibilities that come with that role.

As far as 1 goes, I was speaking metaphorically and said "chef" and it doesn't matter if they're pissed or not. If they want to take on a role of leadership in the world, they've got to start assuming more responsibilities. American can't handle all the responsibilities so we need another world leader up here with us (if not ahead of us).

oh...that one. I actually responded to that. You must've missed it.

The US doesn't want to solve all the world's problems. Never have. We want to protect our interests as much as we can, solve problems IF we can, and generate as many partnerships AS we can.

Atleast that's the idea, sometimes I wonder depending on the administration.

Blah, we're not Europeans. We are not surrounded by other nations. We have two neighbors, and one is amazingly similar to us in most respects. It's not ignorance, it's geography. I bet if we quized most Europeans on the going's on and cultures of North America, they'd fail miserably other than areas that the were involved (early wars), and areas of our history and culture made popular by Hollywood.

While I agree with your statement on Geography, I must sadly disagree with your statement of quizzing Europeans on North American history.

North American history is widely studied in most, if not all, asian and european nations. They would most probably answer as well as, if not better than, your average North American. Trust me. I know.

Americans are culturally ignorant, they're too overrun with the concept of Christianity, Bush is an idiot (I shouldn't have to explain that one), the US has too much power over the world (I think the world would do better if everyone worked together, instead of the stinky US being the world dictator, and Americanizing/Christianizing everything)

I could go on, but I'm too tired to.

Americans are culturally ignorant, they're too overrun with the concept of Christianity, Bush is an idiot (I shouldn't have to explain that one), the US has too much power over the world (I think the world would do better if everyone worked together, instead of the stinky US being the world dictator, and Americanizing/Christianizing everything)

I could go on, but I'm too tired to.
You generalize Americans too much. Also, American has the most power because we take on a lot of responsibility. Right now we're starting to fall back on the responsibilities and thus, fall back on the power (of diplomacy).

The US is in a position of being a standalone superpower (I think it's crumbling) and therefore should be held to a higher standard of leadership (at least while we're still on top). The US wasn't held to any of these standards during the 19th century because the US wasn't a superpower. We've assumed the role of world leader and we have to assume the responsibilities that come with that role.

As far as 1 goes, I was speaking metaphorically and said "chef" and it doesn't matter if they're pissed or not. If they want to take on a role of leadership in the world, they've got to start assuming more responsibilities. American can't handle all the responsibilities so we need another world leader up here with us (if not ahead of us).

Point taken, but not conceded. I do believe that regardless of status, there should only be one standard to which all nations are held accountable.

I have to go now, any lack of replies do not maen that I am out of arguments.:)

I'm tired of people calling Americans ignorant and stupid. So what if 60% of Americans can't find Germany on a map? What about the 87% of us that can?

But Eu is NOT a country. The US states are acting cooporatively, Eu is do not. I hope that I can trust swedish media so much that I they don't lie when they tell you that US sends troops and not some states.
However, the way the US is suppost to work, states should be very independent. The Texas national guard is called into service for troop selection and deployment on a national level. The national level takes from the regional level, etc. A lot of this, I think comes from a lack of understanding of how America works. Which I don't blame anyone for that, more Americans are not aware how much the federal government is imposing on their regional rights....

Americans are culturally ignorant, they're too overrun with the concept of Christianity, Bush is an idiot (I shouldn't have to explain that one), the US has too much power over the world (I think the world would do better if everyone worked together, instead of the stinky US being the world dictator, and Americanizing/Christianizing everything)

I could go on, but I'm too tired to.

Wow.

*takes deep breath*...

1) Americans as a whole are not culturally ignorant, although many of them are.

2)Christianity was brought here from Europe, where it still exists, and does not overrun this country, although I WILL agree that religion is too prominent.

3) Contrary to popular belief, GW Bush is actually very well educated, a successful businessman, and pretty intelligent. He is a poor public speaker (very poor, at that) and is very staunch in his beliefs.

4) Some people want us to have that power.

5) We can't force America on you. You have to see America, then take it for yourselves (fashion, music, sports, etc...)

Point taken, but not conceded. I do believe that regardless of status, there should only be one standard to which all nations are held accountable.
Maybe, but maybe not. At least nations are judged according to the role they play in the international community and not just off nothing, right? If American were to fall apart, the world would be holding the countries of the EU to an extremely high standard and the countries of the EU would be forced to start filling some of the roles that the US used to fill.

I'm tired of people calling Americans ignorant and stupid. So what if 60% of Americans can't find Germany on a map? What about the 87% of us that can?
what's with the sums :)

I'm tired of people calling Americans ignorant and stupid. So what if 60% of Americans can't find Germany on a map? What about the 87% of us that can?

ha ha....very funny. That's the other 86%...practice your math!

But Eu is NOT a country. The US states are acting cooporatively, Eu is do not. I hope that I can trust swedish media so much that I they don't lie when they tell you that US sends troops and not some states.


But my overall point that is in arguments the EU is only really used in the argument to member nations benefits … soon as it is not a benefit it is completely disbanded

And just because a lot of laws and economics are the same doesn’t mean all aspects.

We have everything from a completely different educational system (well mostly … completely different standards on just about anything) to different taxes … economics and such

Really we are quite different from each other

So when arguing about things like literacy

Cultural understanding

Heritage

Attitudes

Beliefs

(ALL which are argued on this forum)

When the EU wants diversity in those issues … they separate down to countries … when they want economics they group
This is VERY similar to states in the US but we are kind of herded into one category because we have the same country title

However, the way the US is suppost to work, states should be very independent. The Texas national guard is called into service for troop selection and deployment on a national level. The national level takes from the regional level, etc. A lot of this, I think comes from a lack of understanding of how America works. Which I don't blame anyone for that, more Americans are not aware how much the federal government is imposing on their regional rights....
This issue was resolved about 140 years ago.

Maybe, but maybe not. At least nations are judged according to the role they play in the international community and not just off nothing, right? If American were to fall apart, the world would be holding the countries of the EU to an extremely high standard and the countries of the EU would be forced to start filling some of the roles that the US used to fill.
I think the point was that just because that would happen, that doesn't make it right...

Wow.

*takes deep breath*...

1) Americans as a whole are not culturally ignorant, although many of them are.

2)Christianity was brought here from Europe, where it still exists, and does not overrun this country, although I WILL agree that religion is too prominent.

3) Contrary to popular belief, GW Bush is actually very well educated, a successful businessman, and pretty intelligent. He is a poor public speaker (very poor, at that) and is very staunch in his beliefs.

4) Some people want us to have that power.

5) We can't force America on you. You have to see America, then take it for yourselves (fashion, music, sports, etc...)
I disagree with number 3. He only got 900something on his SAT tests. I got 1390 and I took them at 8:30 am after staying up until 3:00 am the preceeding day loading and unloading trucks at a warehouse.

ha ha....very funny. That's the other 86%...practice your math!
of what?, always worked with 100% not146

This issue was resolved about 140 years ago.
Unfortunately not, it was cheaply resolved, and the wrong solution applied.

what's with the sums :)
American math.

You all think that all Americans are bad just becuase we try to resolve world wide conflicts that effects the whole world. You all are full of S***. You can't judge every American by the way our president acts. Buch is just one bad egg out off a billion. And most of us aren't all about Christianity. I'm an Athiests. You guys should just shut up and stop bad mouthing us! If you think you're all better than us, then why don't you all try beating us in sports? Lance Armstrong has dominated Le Tour De France for six years now. When was the last time a french man has won it? Since Bernard Hinualts last tour? Cycling isn't even an American sport to begin with and we still beat everyone else. You guys are just full of it. We Americans are sick and tired of being bad mouthed by you losers just because be work harder and do what is right. You are the ones that are ignorant. If you got anything to say to this proud American, Telegram me!

I disagree with number 3. He only got 900something on his SAT tests. I got 1390 and I took them at 8:30 am after staying up until 3:00 am the preceeding day loading and unloading trucks at a warehouse.
He got a 1200 something, which still isn't great.

Unfortunately not, it was cheaply resolved, and the wrong solution applied.
Until you want to take this to the Civil War thread that is roughly about this issue, you're wrong.

Maybe, but maybe not. At least nations are judged according to the role they play in the international community and not just off nothing, right? If American were to fall apart, the world would be holding the countries of the EU to an extremely high standard and the countries of the EU would be forced to start filling some of the roles that the US used to fill.


Possibly, after the global catastrophe that would ensue following and American collapse.

DACOWOOKIES: IT was a joke.

You all think that all Americans are bad just becuase we try to resolve world wide conflicts that effects the whole world. You all are full of S***. You can't judge every American by the way our president acts. Buch is just one bad egg out off a billion. And most of us aren't all about Christianity. I'm an Athiests. You guys should just shut up and stop bad mouthing us! If you think you're all better than us, then why don't you all try beating us in sports? Lance Armstrong has dominated Le Tour De France for six years now. When was the last time a french man has won it? Since Bernard Hinualts last tour? Cycling isn't even an American sport to begin with and we still beat everyone else. You guys are just full of it. We Americans are sick and tired of being bad mouthed by you losers just because be work harder and do what is right. You are the ones that are ignorant. If you got anything to say to this proud American, Telegram me!


*sigh....

I'm tired of people calling Americans ignorant and stupid. So what if 60% of Americans can't find Germany on a map? What about the 87% of us that can?LOL

3) Contrary to popular belief, GW Bush is actually very well educated, a successful businessman, and pretty intelligent. He is a poor public speaker (very poor, at that) and is very staunch in his beliefs.

4) Some people want us to have that power.

[QUOTE=Joey P]
I disagree with number 3. He only got 900something on his SAT tests. I got 1390 and I took them at 8:30 am after staying up until 3:00 am the preceeding day loading and unloading trucks at a warehouse.

on 3 He also was not a good bussiness man
4) WHO Huh

Of course you didn't create the dictorial tendencies, but before the US arming of Iraq he didn't have the power to actually rule Iraq, there is a big difference between sitting in Bagdad drewing nails through the head of the Iraqi grand-ayatollah and have authority over the Shia-moslems and Kurds.


The USSR is where Iraq recieved the majority of it's military ordinance. Iraq had a "trade" treaty with the USSR since '72. Negotiated by Saddam himself!

Until you want to take this to the Civil War thread that is roughly about this issue, you're wrong.
The constitution still stands, and it says that states have rights, sorry, until you change the constitution, you are wrong. The solution that was applied was suppost to work until the country could get back where it was suppost to be.

The constitution still stands, and it says that states have rights, sorry, until you change the constitution, you are wrong. The solution that was applied was suppost to work until the country could get back where it was suppost to be.
It does say "States have rights" but thats not the complete phrase, so until you read the constitution, I guess you're right.

The USSR is where Iraq recieved the majority of it's military ordinance. Iraq had a "trade" treaty with the USSR since '72. Negotiated by Saddam himself!
was that trade in oil perhaps?

LOL
[QUOTE]
3) Contrary to popular belief, GW Bush is actually very well educated, a successful businessman, and pretty intelligent. He is a poor public speaker (very poor, at that) and is very staunch in his beliefs.

4) Some people want us to have that power.


on 3 He also was not a good bussiness man
4) WHO Huh

1) THE MATH THING WAS A JOKE!!!! GEEZ....

2) ON business, he must've done something right, at least by not LOSING his fortune.

3) Any country that can't protect itself or its interests would love for us to do it for them. (almost any...)

You all think that all Americans are bad just becuase we try to resolve world wide conflicts that effects the whole world. You all are full of S***. You can't judge every American by the way our president acts. Buch is just one bad egg out off a billion. And most of us aren't all about Christianity. I'm an Athiests. You guys should just shut up and stop bad mouthing us! If you think you're all better than us, then why don't you all try beating us in sports? Lance Armstrong has dominated Le Tour De France for six years now. When was the last time a french man has won it? Since Bernard Hinualts last tour? Cycling isn't even an American sport to begin with and we still beat everyone else. You guys are just full of it. We Americans are sick and tired of being bad mouthed by you losers just because be work harder and do what is right. You are the ones that are ignorant. If you got anything to say to this proud American, Telegram me!
Well actually if I wanted to I could because he is your elected representitive. You have 300million not a billion
Its great when someone ignorent calls you ignorent.

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

From Article Two of the Constitution of the United States of America:
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Well actually if I wanted to I could because he is your elected representitive. You have 300million not a billion
Its great when someone ignorent calls you ignorent.

Sir Stevie does not speak for me.....whew....

...we are all ignorant. Ignorant does not mean "stupid"...it simply means that there is something you do not know.

It does say "States have rights" but thats not the complete phrase, so until you read the constitution, I guess you're right.
Ok, fine, all powers not directly given to the federal government within the constitution are given to the states, or the people. This means if the federal government is not listed in the constitution as having the authority to do something, then it is a state power. then it goes down on a regional level; State, county, city.... This does not mean that the "people" can authorize the president, like the arguement tends to go....

Ok, fine, all powers not directly given to the federal government within the constitution are given to the states, or the people. This means if the federal government is not listed in the constitution as having the authority to do something, then it is a state power. then it goes down on a regional level; State, county, city.... This does not mean that the "people" can authorize the president, like the arguement tends to go....
The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

From Article Two of the Constitution of the United States of America:
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
I think this is why Americans get the bad wrap on ignorance...

I'm tired of people calling Americans ignorant and stupid. So what if 60% of Americans can't find Germany on a map? What about the 87% of us that can?

I fear for the future of our country...Since we're not doing anything odd with ratios, this should be simple addition. 87%+60%=147% That doesn't work for me... I don't understand the whole "America is Christian" BS that's been spewed around the forum. There are those who want that to be true but there are those who know it isn't and are making sure it doesn't become true. As for all Americans being stupid/uncultured/ignorant/fat/etc, that's not true either. All countries have they're highly annoying, stupid, ignorant people but you can't just say the whole country is full of them. You say that Americans are stupid for following Bush. Most Americans didn't even vote for Bush. Gore got more votes as far as we know. With the voting system, we'll never know... Back to the ignorant part, it's not my fault I'm too poor to get to Europe. I made it a point to take a class in European history in high school and I'm sure I can learn more in clooege. Does it really matter how much a person knows about other countries anyway? As long as you don't start bashing other countries out of ignorance, it doesn't really matter. That's what I see most on these forums. Grudge matches between ignorant people. People blasting other people/nations for no apparent reason. It's all rather pointless.

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

From Article Two of the Constitution of the United States of America:
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Ok, how does this help your arguement? This says exactly what I've been saying. It does not give the power to the federal government to make general decisions for states, unless it is specifially stated in the constitution (delegated). And Article II doesn't give him that power either.

i disagree with bush being intelligent, in what way?.....all i have seen is a stupid, bumbling idiot...his advisors must love it, tell him to do something and he does it, bush senior must be soooooo proud :)

I agree with UpwardThrust. Anytime someone tries to pin down a European about who did what and who could/would have done better, they point at one of their own and say it's not their fault that something bad happened. The more I've studied and observed the news and history in general is that once the hard work is done, suddenly everyone else wants to join in on the victory. Using the fall of the Soviet Union as an example, many are quick to claim that they fell because of economic collapses or revolts or some other excuse while intentionally ignoring the fact that world leaders like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, John Paul II and others pressured the Soviets whenever and wherever they could, which triggered its collapse.

I've heard too many times that America must help here and there and frankly, I'm tired of it. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't, so if you don't like the way we do things, we're not suprised! As far as the Kyoto treaty goes, I admit as to not knowing the specifics on it, but too many people have agreed (liberal and conservatives alike) that it would cripple industrial nations (including Russia, China, the US, and many others), so stop thinking that bringing the Kyoto treaty up adds anymore weight to your argument.

This is merely one post to let me get a few things off my chest. I'm tired of hearing socialists, liberals, environmentalists, Bush-haters, athiests, and Non-Americans think they have the upper hand simply because they outnumber us in the blogs. And yes, I've just identified what I am: a white (Italian-Irish) Catholic middle-class suburban conservative Republican. Eep! And despite what you think, no I am not a sheep.

P.S. I'm a Dittohead too (Rush Limbaugh fan, for those who may not know) and I know sever flaming will most likely follow so, in the words of the preumtive, assumed, hopeful Democratic candidate, John Kerry, "BRING IT ON!" :upyours:

He got a 1200 something, which still isn't great.
that's not what I heard. What did he take it multiple times? I know it's allowed, but it seems like cheating to me.

was that trade in oil perhaps?

for........Migs, AK-47s, RPGs, T-72s...

Ok, how does this help your arguement? This says exactly what I've been saying. It does not give the power to the federal government to make general decisions for states, unless it is specifially stated in the constitution (delegated). And Article II doesn't give him that power either.
You were talking about the Texas National Guard being called to active duty. Article Two grants the President that right.

i disagree with bush being intelligent, in what way?.....all i have seen is a stupid, bumbling idiot...his advisors must love it, tell him to do something and he does it, bush senior must be soooooo proud :)


I think that was covered under the “bad public speaker” portion

I fear for the future of our country...Since we're not doing anything odd with ratios, this should be simple addition. 87%+60%=147% That doesn't work for me... I don't understand the whole "America is Christian" BS that's been spewed around the forum. There are those who want that to be true but there are those who know it isn't and are making sure it doesn't become true. As for all Americans being stupid/uncultured/ignorant/fat/etc, that's not true either. All countries have they're highly annoying, stupid, ignorant people but you can't just say the whole country is full of them. You say that Americans are stupid for following Bush. Most Americans didn't even vote for Bush. Gore got more votes as far as we know. With the voting system, we'll never know... Back to the ignorant part, it's not my fault I'm too poor to get to Europe. I made it a point to take a class in European history in high school and I'm sure I can learn more in clooege. Does it really matter how much a person knows about other countries anyway? As long as you don't start bashing other countries out of ignorance, it doesn't really matter. That's what I see most on these forums. Grudge matches between ignorant people. People blasting other people/nations for no apparent reason. It's all rather pointless.

87%+60%=147%
JESUS....
THE MATH THING WAS A JOOOOOOKKKKKEEEEEE......

As to the rest of your post, I'm inclined to agree...

1) THE MATH THING WAS A JOKE!!!! GEEZ....

2) ON business, he must've done something right, at least by not LOSING his fortune.

3) Any country that can't protect itself or its interests would love for us to do it for them. (almost any...)
His failing businesses were rescued by saudi money. He actually was a piss-poor oil man.

Blah, we're not Europeans. We are not surrounded by other nations. We have two neighbors, and one is amazingly similar to us in most respects. It's not ignorance, it's geography. I bet if we quized most Europeans on the going's on and cultures of North America, they'd fail miserably other than areas that the were involved (early wars), and areas of our history and culture made popular by Hollywood.

*cough* Please feel free to share some examples of your knowledge of Canada and Mexico then, or of relations between them and the US.

As you point out, it's one thing not to know much about nations on the other side of the world, it's another not to know your neighbours. And yet there are a surprising number of Americans who don't know the names of the Prime Minister of Canada or the President of Mexico.

And no, I don't blame the Americans for every bad thing in the world today, any more than I blame Britain for all the bad things in the world 150 years ago.

You were talking about the Texas National Guard being called to active duty. Article Two grants the President that right.


That wasn't part of the arguement at all, you must have misunderstood my original point, which stated that's how it works (the national guard being called into duty), and that while it is suppost to work one way, the federal government has taken more than their fair share of power. I was trying to clairify for those who didn't understand how the states are suppost to have a lot of rights...

that's not what I heard. What did he take it multiple times? I know it's allowed, but it seems like cheating to me.


http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html

each earned respectable scores on the SAT college admissions test (a total of 1355 of 1600 for Gore and 1206 for Bush)

Then please explain to me what rights the states are supposed to have but are being stripped of?

The fact is, the majority of Americans ARE culturally ignorant. A very large percentage of Americans have never been out of the country; and many of those who have just go to Canada. Thus, it's a miniscule amount of people who actually have experienced some other very different culture.

A lot of my countrymen don't even know where these countries that are criticising our government are. I think this is definitely a problem, and that we need to somehow rectify it so that Americans in general have at least basic knowledge of the rest of the world.

As far as the Kyoto treaty goes, I admit as to not knowing the specifics on it, but too many people have agreed (liberal and conservatives alike) that it would cripple industrial nations (including Russia, China, the US, and many others), so stop thinking that bringing the Kyoto treaty up adds anymore weight to your argument.


and if you don't, the whole world is fucked!!!!...seems like no-one wants to look to the future, just for today

http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html
I stand corrected. I was given bad info.

His failing businesses were rescued by saudi money. He actually was a piss-poor oil man.

Where do you get that?

http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html
he's a thick twat, just admit it....

Where do you get that?
F9/11 probably.

87%+60%=147%
JESUS....
THE MATH THING WAS A JOOOOOOKKKKKEEEEEE......

As to the rest of your post, I'm inclined to agree...

Sorry, when I started typing that thing, I thought he was serious. I hope he wasn't serious. It's hard to detect sarcasm through text...

that's not what I heard. What did he take it multiple times? I know it's allowed, but it seems like cheating to me.

I'm not sure, I know you can, and he got like a 1260 or something, I remember because it was news when I was taking my SAT's...

Where do you get that?
NPR

Then please explain to me what rights the states are supposed to have but are being stripped of?
Or...ignore my posts which I view as admitting defeat.

he's a thick twat, just admit it....


Not defending him ... there was just an argument about SAT scores

Just wanted to point out what the “Correct” scores were (not quite as bad as 900 :-P )

Sorry, when I started typing that thing, I thought he was serious. I hope he wasn't serious. It's hard to detect sarcasm through text...

's okay. It's just that you're not the first person to point out that 60 and 87 don't equal 100....I got hit lots on that one...

he's a thick twat, just admit it....
His main problem is he doesn't seem to know how to think problems through. He has a picture of how things will work, and selects evidence to fit his model. He should be gathering all available evidince and building a model on that.

NPR


Ok....so....where did NPR get it?

Ok....so....where did NPR get it?
Interview with the guy who wrote house of bush/house of saud

Not defending him ... there was just an argument about SAT scores

Just wanted to point out what the “Correct” scores were (not quite as bad as 900 :-P )
my ex wife did sats, did well, and she is pretty stupid...

His main problem is he doesn't seem to know how to think problems through. He has a picture of how things will work, and selects evidence to fit his model. He should be gathering all available evidince and building a model on that.
but don't you think a leader of a superpower should be able to hold a press conference with his own speeches?.....would be a hoot

Interview with the guy who wrote house of bush/house of saud

Which is...of course...a valid "historical document" proving your theory...

That's like saying the Cubs are the best team because their coach says so.

Then please explain to me what rights the states are supposed to have but are being stripped of?

I was speaking in reference to how people outside the US tend to not understand that states are suppost to be independent, with powers of their own, not just a part of the US, like it is pretty much everwhere else. Specifically in reference to the EU and the US and the parallels there. I was trying to explain to that person that the US doesn't call on a federal reserve of troops, but goes to the local level, i.e. Texas National Guard, more examples of how the states have a large role in things.

But as for right states have that are being stripped, there are lots, the federal government doesn't have the right to talk about marriage for one, or tell a state what is legal drug wise, or prostitution. There a lots of things that the federal government doesn't have the right to decide, but it does anyway.

Anyway, this appears to be a misunderstanding, I did not mean in any way that the pres. didn't have the right to call on troops. Instead my post was talking more about how foreigners, and many americans, don't know how the state is suppost to interact with the federal government.

Which is...of course...a valid "historical document" proving your theory...

That's like saying the Cubs are the best team because their coach says so.
Actually, the Cubs are the best team because if you put an "an" in there, they are the Cubans, and everyone knows all the good baseball players come from Latin America.

Or...ignore my posts which I view as admitting defeat.
Geez, give me a minute man....

Which is...of course...a valid "historical document" proving your theory...

That's like saying the Cubs are the best team because their coach says so.
I'm going to assume he got it from valid sources unless you can show me differently. I'm not unreasonable. Note my previous post where I admitten I had the facts wrong with regard to his SAT score.

Actually, the Cubs are the best team because if you put an "an" in there, they are the Cubans, and everyone knows all the good baseball players come from Latin America.

tee hee....

at least there's an "america" in there, somewhere...

I'm going to assume he got it from valid sources unless you can show me differently. I'm not unreasonable. Note my previous post where I admitten I had the facts wrong with regard to his SAT score.

Previous post duly noted.

It's just that I can take any collection of facts + rumors and make them equal whatever I want them to. I can't say that the book is wrong, but the book can't prove that IT is right, either...

I was speaking in reference to how people outside the US tend to not understand that states are suppost to be independent, with powers of their own, not just a part of the US, like it is pretty much everwhere else. Specifically in reference to the EU and the US and the parallels there. I was trying to explain to that person that the US doesn't call on a federal reserve of troops, but goes to the local level, i.e. Texas National Guard, more examples of how the states have a large role in things.

But as for right states have that are being stripped, there are lots, the federal government doesn't have the right to talk about marriage for one, or tell a state what is legal drug wise, or prostitution. There a lots of things that the federal government doesn't have the right to decide, but it does anyway.

Anyway, this appears to be a misunderstanding, I did not mean in any way that the pres. didn't have the right to call on troops. Instead my post was talking more about how foreigners, and many americans, don't know how the state is suppost to interact with the federal government.
"suppost" is really spelled "supposed"
The US is like the EU in no way. The states are tightly bound. This is not a loose come and go as you please alliance.
As far as talking about laws, they can do all the talking they want, they just don't have the right to pass laws.
As far a drugs go, I am pretty sure that it is up to states (which is why different states have slightly different laws), it's just that all the states are pretty uniform. The national government does however have the right to bust dealers trying to cross international boundaries or non-citizens trying to do something with drugs.
And are you sure that prostitution is a federal law? Are you positive it's not just a uniform state law that all states just happen to agree on?
You need to make sure you're not confusing federal laws with state laws applied in all states.

"suppost" is really spelled "supposed"
The US is like the EU in no way. The states are tightly bound. This is not a loose come and go as you please alliance.
As far as talking about laws, they can do all the talking they want, they just don't have the right to pass laws.
As far a drugs go, I am pretty sure that it is up to states (which is why different states have slightly different laws), it's just that all the states are pretty uniform. The national government does however have the right to bust dealers trying to cross international boundaries or non-citizens trying to do something with drugs.
And are you sure that prostitution is a federal law? Are you positive it's not just a uniform state law that all states just happen to agree on?
You need to make sure you're not confusing federal laws with state laws applied in all states.

I'd like to address this one.

States have the right to pass laws. Federal law supercedes state law.

Drug laws differ from state to state. Federal law supercedes state law. It becomes a federal matter in "interstate" drug trafficking. That is, if someone carries marijuana from California to Nevada, it becomes a Federal AND a State crime.

Prostitution is a state matter. It is legal in Nevada.

"suppost" is really spelled "supposed"

Do you know that you are the first person in a year and a half to meantion that to me... thanks.


As far a drugs go, I am pretty sure that it is up to states (which is why different states have slightly different laws), it's just that all the states are pretty uniform.

Wrong, remember California a couple fo years ago... There is so much more here.. I can't even begin (mostly cause it's time for me to leave :D )

And are you sure that prostitution is a federal law? Are you positive it's not just a uniform state law that all states just happen to agree on?
No, it's not a federal law, but the federal government was trying to stop Nevada from legalizing it about a decade ago... They failed thank god, but they keep other states from trying. Bully tactics

You need to make sure you're not confusing federal laws with state laws applied in all states.
I'm not, you just aren't listening to what I'm saying, but instead what you want to hear.

My father works for the EU in Luxembourg, where I am originally from, and I wish to shout out loud that the EU is nowhere near like the USA. The EU is a group of close nations under one economic structure. The EU sets limitations on social spending and all government spendings. It is not like a government governing states. Considering the states here in the US have less power than the central government, the EU is completely different, where the nations all have supposedly equal say in the EU governing parliament. I would say the EU is better than the USA. Hail Europe, my homeland!

On the subject on drugs annd most laws, only the nations in the EU may set into actions any such laws. The EU may set economic laws and social laws. If a nation has a deficit of more than 3% of their GDP, they will have to pay a fine to the EU. Basically it is to show the world that Europe has the potential to become an economic power.

I'd like to address this one.

States have the right to pass laws. Federal law supercedes state law.

Drug laws differ from state to state. Federal law supercedes state law. It becomes a federal matter in "interstate" drug trafficking. That is, if someone carries marijuana from California to Nevada, it becomes a Federal AND a State crime.

Prostitution is a state matter. It is legal in Nevada.

You are correct, however, according to the constitution, the federal government doesn't have any right to regulate drug laws, so no law supercedes state law in that catagory. The only areas the federal gov't has the right to intervein in are the ones specifically meantion in the constitution. If there needs to be something else, the constitution is to be changed.

Wrong, remember California a couple fo years ago... There is so much more here.. I can't even begin (mostly cause it's time for me to leave :D )Why is medical marijuana a state issue? And you can't just bring up something without pointing out anything and expect the argument to shift in your direction.
No, it's not a federal law, but the federal government was trying to stop Nevada from legalizing it about a decade ago... They failed thank god, but they keep other states from trying. Bully tacticsThey failed because the constitution worked dipshit. Show me an instance where the federal government wrongfully (but successfully) interfered with a state's rights.
I'm not, you just aren't listening to what I'm saying, but instead what you want to hear.
No...you just aren't saying everything until after I comment on them...

You are correct, however, according to the constitution, the federal government doesn't have any right to regulate drug laws, so no law supercedes state law in that catagory. The only areas the federal gov't has the right to intervein in are the ones specifically meantion in the constitution. If there needs to be something else, the constitution is to be changed.
The supreme court (part of the federal government) has jurisdiction when there is a conflict between states....

"meantion" is actually spelled "mention"

It is not like a government governing states. Considering the states here in the US have less power than the central government, the EU is completely different, where the nations all have supposedly equal say in the EU governing parliament. I would say the EU is better than the USA. Hail Europe, my homeland!


The US is not supposed to work like this, the states are suppose to have a lot more rights, not as far as the EU goes, only because, like has been mentioned, the states here are not free to enter and leave and will.

The US is not supposed to work like this, the states are suppose to have a lot more rights, not as far as the EU goes, only because, like has been mentioned, the states here are not free to enter and leave and will.
No...this issue was cleared up 140 years ago.

My father works for the EU in Luxembourg, where I am originally from, and I wish to shout out loud that the EU is nowhere near like the USA. The EU is a group of close nations under one economic structure. The EU sets limitations on social spending and all government spendings. It is not like a government governing states. Considering the states here in the US have less power than the central government, the EU is completely different, where the nations all have supposedly equal say in the EU governing parliament. I would say the EU is better than the USA. Hail Europe, my homeland!

On the subject on drugs annd most laws, only the nations in the EU may set into actions any such laws. The EU may set economic laws and social laws. If a nation has a deficit of more than 3% of their GDP, they will have to pay a fine to the EU. Basically it is to show the world that Europe has the potential to become an economic power.

How is that structure much different that the US?

We have equal state representation in the US Congress, based both on two per state in the Senate, and on population ratios in the House of Representatives.

As for paying a fine to the EU for more than a 3% deficit...is that one economic structure?

And as for "equal representation" in the EU...their representation is only as equal as they can afford to buy.

Ready for an American's long-winded riposte and parry to many of the arguments put forward, as well as the occasional new lunge? (Gotta love the fencing imagery).

Bush...

What many people don't realize about Mr. Bush, is that despite his obvious shortcomings, be it his public speaking, or his poor record in business, he does have some qualities that are quite good in a leader. He is staunch in his beliefs, and has the ability (lessened by controversy now) to inspire his nation at need. Unfortunately, his beliefs (despite what his election stance may have been) have gone increasingly Pseudo-Christian Right as his tenure has gone on. Rather than facing the issues he promised to work on, be they education reform, environmental protection, and the rest, Mr. Bush has unfortunately been swayed by that dastardly demographic known as the Deep South. From here we find the first problem with Anti-American sentiment.

Generalities...

The Deep South grants us a major jumping point in problems with generalizing the US. Following the Civil War, the Deep South was devastated, its upper class lost major assets in Sherman's march to the Sea, and without any industry to rebolster its economy (think Germany pre-WW2), it has never recovered. This also grants us to look at the multi-cultural aspects of America. From the founding of the Chesapeake colonies, the South has had a dramatically different structure from the North. With towns and homes built far away, communities had weaker links, and education, unlike in the tight-knit and protestant north, never was that important. That attidude has never changed, and coupled with an economy that is only now beginning to truly pick up an industrial base (or so immigration/job position demographics would lead us to believe) the South instead has remained a State unto itself.

Coming from a family with various origins, one side being half Southern anglicans, German based, and a little Native American to boot, half-Eastern European Immigrant, the other side being older Irish immigrants, I have seen much of the differences of American culture. Instead what one finds is a nation wherein culture may be the same for thousands of miles, such as the Mid-West, or a place where the culture is immensely different in only a handful of miles, such as Boston where one finds an immigrant culture in the city, with a 50s-esque middle class culture in the sub-urbs, to a near Mid-Western culture in the Western side of the state. The fact is that America with its far-ranging differences cannot be grouped into a single mass of common beliefs.

However, returning to the South, and Mid-West as well, we must again look into education. Due to the lower levels of education in that area, and the larger povery levels, one again sees a common human trait. A throwback to religious fanaticism, and small-town attitudes. In fact, it could be said that the South and Mid-West are most closely indentifiable to areas such as the middle-east, in a kind of pseudo-echoing of each other's views, just swapped around.

However, I digress.

To move on to Kyoto, as I posted there, the economy of the US cannot at present handle the kind of demands made within that resolution. Those changes need time for a nation that is so highly developed as the US, that hundreds of billions of dollars in assets would suddenly become illegal, and need to be changed.

Yet again I digress.

To move on to American commitments world-wide, I ask you: What would you have us do?

As seen by the international reaction to Bush's pull-out plan, we cannot lower our level of commitment without major backlash, as we've seen already from EU resistance to the idea. So the question is, if we leave like people seem to want us to, can we? Who will take our place?

I mean sure, if the EU wants to build up a military and do it, great! We'd love that Defense money to go into our Domestic funds. Unfortunately, if you want us to stay, which it appears you do, your gonna have to quit griping, and realize that are protecting you hurts our economy, so we are making sacrifices for your sake, that your not willing to handle us leaving.

I won't go into the whole Americans know nothing than to state that I have been to Asia and Europe, will go to South America next year, I have family who visit Australia regularly, know many people whom have been to Africa, know speakers of almost every language from French to Swahili, and so on and so forth.

My father works for the EU in Luxembourg, where I am originally from, and I wish to shout out loud that the EU is nowhere near like the USA. The EU is a group of close nations under one economic structure. The EU sets limitations on social spending and all government spendings. It is not like a government governing states. Considering the states here in the US have less power than the central government, the EU is completely different, where the nations all have supposedly equal say in the EU governing parliament. I would say the EU is better than the USA. Hail Europe, my homeland!

On the subject on drugs annd most laws, only the nations in the EU may set into actions any such laws. The EU may set economic laws and social laws. If a nation has a deficit of more than 3% of their GDP, they will have to pay a fine to the EU. Basically it is to show the world that Europe has the potential to become an economic power.
Eastern Europe says hello.

I would say that from what your saying, that the EU is better than the USA, and your thereby being critical largely of its foreign policy. (Conjecture on my part).

However, here is a question for you, if America was to decide...oh I don't know...to give the EU control of the reins so to speak, and take over its commitments, do you think the EU could handle it? Considering the massive uproar against America pulling out troops, even troops IN GERMANY, what do you think would happen if we moved out everything, decided to Isolationist again? Do you think the EU, with its minimal military spending could handle that challenge?

America would love to see its Defence Spending, nearly 50% of the non-Social Security/Medicare budget, go down. More money for education, health, all those things Europe critics us on not having. So if your willing to take over our military commitments, and take over that responsibility, fine. We'd be happy to have all that money for the domestic budget.

But if you don't, if you'd rather us continue to be the peace-keeping force in the world, doing what we do now, then you can't complain. Unless you have an alternative, and are willing to fill our shoes, you cannot complain.

Socialism breeds domestic policies, not foreign ones. Just to conjecture for a moment, imagine America left all its foreign commitements, at the bequest of the EU. Now lets think about a country like Austria, with almost no military spending, being asked to suddenly police the North/South Korean border. Could they? What would happen to their budget? To the French if they had to take over the main US peace-keeping in the Balkans? To the Polish if they had to man the various outposts of the US in Africa?

I was speaking in reference to how people outside the US tend to not understand that states are suppost to be independent, with powers of their own, not just a part of the US, like it is pretty much everwhere else. Specifically in reference to the EU and the US and the parallels there. I was trying to explain to that person that the US doesn't call on a federal reserve of troops, but goes to the local level, i.e. Texas National Guard, more examples of how the states have a large role in things.

But as for right states have that are being stripped, there are lots, the federal government doesn't have the right to talk about marriage for one, or tell a state what is legal drug wise, or prostitution. There a lots of things that the federal government doesn't have the right to decide, but it does anyway.

Anyway, this appears to be a misunderstanding, I did not mean in any way that the pres. didn't have the right to call on troops. Instead my post was talking more about how foreigners, and many americans, don't know how the state is suppost to interact with the federal government.
"[The Congress shall have Power] . . . [t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

As this is now viewed, by the Supreme Court no less, the only legitimate interpreters, the Legislature can do everything its doing quite legally, and it does. If its illegal and encroaching on true State rights, then its unconstitutional. Unfortunately your echoing the dead dogma of Jefferson and the South, resoundingly defeated over a 100 years ago. Get over it.

Blah, we're not Europeans. We are not surrounded by other nations. We have two neighbors, and one is amazingly similar to us in most respects. It's not ignorance, it's geography. I bet if we quized most Europeans on the going's on and cultures of North America, they'd fail miserably other than areas that the were involved (early wars), and areas of our history and culture made popular by Hollywood.


Well Canadians, like me, tend to keep close ties to Europe because it IS the 'rest of the world' as far as politics goes (with Asia a growing part of todays world politic). Because of this we know plaenty about europe, easily more than americans, and we have only one neighbor.

Its easily noted that Canada has kept its close ties with Britain and this is true where the USA had severed its Britain ties with the War of Independance. However, it had very close ties with France as both countries coordinated their independance movements. This closeness carried out even in the early 80s when both were the main players in the Iran/Iraq and Afghanistan nonsense. The Statue of liberty is fench-made as well. Why France would choose to duck out now during the current Iraq conflict goes to show how serious the situation is. After all, such actions before were fine and they stood to make money regardless of who was in charge of Iraq so why bother protesting Bush's war?

Americans chose on a philisophical and political level to isolate themselves from other nations. That is echoed during the World Wars when they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into both conflicts. Charles Limburgh and the Fortress America movement were prominent conservative movements back then. After WWII however it was obvious they couldnt hide from other countries so I guess they decided to dominate instead. Since then there have been a number of bonehead imperialist move by the US. All of which haven't helped them very much. But then again, no one likes empires.

Sadly this is a pattern followed by democracies that are born out of violence. They turn into dictatorships bent on domination. France and Napolean, Germany and Hitler, Japan and Tojo...and many others most likely.

Since I hate war though I suggest 50 years of sanctions if America finally goes off the deep end.

Where's Omni Conglomerates when I need him? He's a good conservative debator that knows most of the small details that I usually forget to mention (and am usually attacked for not mentioning). Sorry to get off topic, but I know what I want to say about this whole debate, just can't seem to find the right words....

Something to the effect of..... :headbang: ....or some other good argument that will persuade no one.

As far as the Kyoto treaty goes, I admit as to not knowing the specifics on it, but too many people have agreed (liberal and conservatives alike) that it would cripple industrial nations (including Russia, China, the US, and many others), so stop thinking that bringing the Kyoto treaty up adds anymore weight to your argument.


and if you don't, the whole world is fucked!!!!...seems like no-one wants to look to the future, just for today

I'm all for looking to the future and having polution regulations, but not to the point that would criple the world economy...

Feh - while I don't think Europe is full of racist or biased people anymore, I offer a small rebuttal.

It took the US less than 228 years to erase most of the racial/religious biases that Europe was doping itself with for the last 1500 years (ooh, Europe got pwned!).


For one thing you have to subtract the time where there was no organized modern government of any kind for most of those years. subtract around 1100 years from at 1500.

Secondly I'll have you know that Britain ended slavery in all of its colonies before it was ended in the USA.

Furthermore its unfair to jumble all of the european nations in one basket on any issue. All have different people running it, a variety of political opinions and philosophies run the countries there and the history is much more vast than in the Americas. Lots more baggage on Europe's part. So establishing the EU, because like the UN it allows all these different points of view do come together to do some good instead of having them all do their own thing and piss each other off and start nasty trouble. And you can usualy tell who the jerks are going to be by how they impede these governing bodies.

For example Israel and the USA have an interesting voting record in the UN...

...how I wish the Kennedy's were in power. At least they knew how to use the UN to solve the most dangerous situations without firing a single bullet. Compare the attitude the USA had to the UN before Iraq started.

Bad times ahead.

The fact is, the majority of Americans ARE culturally ignorant. A very large percentage of Americans have never been out of the country; and many of those who have just go to Canada. Thus, it's a miniscule amount of people who actually have experienced some other very different culture.

And you base this on what?

Most people I know have left the continent or at least been to Central and South America.

To say a people are culturally ignorant is rather ignorant.

Well Canadians, like me, tend to keep close ties to Europe because it IS the 'rest of the world' as far as politics goes (with Asia a growing part of todays world politic). Because of this we know plaenty about europe, easily more than americans, and we have only one neighbor.

Its easily noted that Canada has kept its close ties with Britain and this is true where the USA had severed its Britain ties with the War of Independance. However, it had very close ties with France as both countries coordinated their independance movements. This closeness carried out even in the early 80s when both were the main players in the Iran/Iraq and Afghanistan nonsense. The Statue of liberty is fench-made as well. Why France would choose to duck out now during the current Iraq conflict goes to show how serious the situation is. After all, such actions before were fine and they stood to make money regardless of who was in charge of Iraq so why bother protesting Bush's war?

Americans chose on a philisophical and political level to isolate themselves from other nations. That is echoed during the World Wars when they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into both conflicts. Charles Limburgh and the Fortress America movement were prominent conservative movements back then. After WWII however it was obvious they couldnt hide from other countries so I guess they decided to dominate instead. Since then there have been a number of bonehead imperialist move by the US. All of which haven't helped them very much. But then again, no one likes empires.

Sadly this is a pattern followed by democracies that are born out of violence. They turn into dictatorships bent on domination. France and Napolean, Germany and Hitler, Japan and Tojo...and many others most likely.

Since I hate war though I suggest 50 years of sanctions if America finally goes off the deep end.
Sir I admire your attempts, however inept they are, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to radically dash your hopes, and prove you wrong.

So, lets do this in a methodical debunkment shall we?

France...

In historical reality, France has had a love hate relationship with the US since its creation. It took less than a decade for the original treaty between the two countries to fall apart, following the French Revolution, wherein the US remained firmly split in opinion over whether to support the French or not. This split finally was finally resolved with 3 events. The first was the Quasi-War with France as it was known. During this brief period in the early 19th century, American and French ships routinely attacked each other on the High Seas, though war was never declared by either side. This continued on, while domestically the Citizen Genet controversy exploded, as the Frenchmen...Genet...tried to recruit Americans to fight for France. Ultimately he was deported, and the Quasi-War continued. The war would ultimately end with Napoleon's decree to no longer stop neutral shipping, thereby nullifying the Continental Order, however he had only done this to take advantage of the American proposal to drop embargoes on the first nation to stop harassing neutral shipping. The decree was never enforced, but America had no choice but to accept the situation, ultimately resulting in the War of 1812 with Britain.

It was not until World War One that America would again find itself on France's side, and again would only find itself there when it was desperately needed in World War Two, the countries relations never having been very solid in the period between, and the same would happen after World War Two due to disagreements between DeGaulle and the US.

Nextly...the Democracies you named were never true democracies.

Napoleon...referendum makes him Emperor, never ruled truly democratically.
Hitler...was a Chancellor, thereby was appointed by the President, and his takeover made him an unelected leader.
Tojo...Leader of the Military Group that was the true power behind the throne of the Japanese EMPIRE!

Sorry buddy, but everything you stated was patently false, and in some cases disrespectful. To claim the US was dragged in "kicking and screaming" into the Great War...a war it had no reason to be involved in, and finally was forced to by attacks on neutral shipping, is patently absurd. To claim the same to World War Two where it was forced to enter by military attacks upon its soil, is even worse. Honestly man, how old are you? Seven? Go back to school.

I think I'm with Churchill on this one - You can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing - after they have tried every other option.

You might get some stick and encounter a few problems along the way, but you're doing the right thing. Keep up the good work lads.

Go back to school.
Well I just learned one thing about your propaganda lies and biass: think it is you that need a history class, never saw such bullshit and stupid comparisions. Europe for you is Hitler, Napoleon? Why not ad Stalin? Deneing the fact that Brittish ships attacked French ones under the US flag and using it as a anti EU propaganda says enough about yourself. What do you want? There are much US bashing Europe topics in NS, post there :rolleyes:

Wow, kid, think hat you've got much to learn about it, byw, no need to lie like this.

Guess that Upitatanium will speek for himself but your post was just a diarrhoea of words, nothing more.

Must smell at your place :upyours:

"[The Congress shall have Power] . . . [t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This separates congresses job into 2 catagories: To do what the constitution states (all other Powers vested by this Constitution), and to make laws to keep those things running (carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers).


As this is now viewed, by the Supreme Court no less, the only legitimate interpreters, the Legislature can do everything its doing quite legally, and it does. If its illegal and encroaching on true State rights, then its unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court rule differently on many issues, just because now they are ruling one way doesn't mean that's the right way. 1857, the Supreme Court ruled against Dread Scott. That was later over-turned. Only recently was sodomy ruled to not be illegal. Unfortunately, the Judiciary is set up where they can't do anything unless the proper complaint is taken up with the court. Also unfortunately, state have had so few rights, and to be fair used so few of them, for so long now they've forgotten what they are entitled to, and the Executive has gotten used to the extra power.

Unfortunately your echoing the dead dogma of Jefferson and the South, resoundingly defeated over a 100 years ago. Get over it.

So your saying the federal government is acting just as it should both here and abroad? You're saying we're putting our focus where it belongs? Everything is working perfect? No thanks, I'll keep working for the true vision of America, an American where everyone can exist. An America where the constitution is what our leaders look to and it's vision.

Well I just learned one thing about your propaganda lies and biass: think it is you that need a history class, never saw such bullshit and stupid comparisions. Europe for you is Hitler, Napoleon? Why not ad Stalin? Deneing the fact that Brittish ships attacked French ones under the US flag and using it as a anti EU propaganda says enough about yourself. What do you want? There are much US bashing Europe topics in NS, post there :rolleyes:

Wow, kid, think hat you've got much to learn about it, byw, no need to lie like this.

Guess that Upitatanium will speek for himself but your post was just a diarrhoea of words, nothing more.

Must smell at your place :upyours:
Um...are you attacking me, or are you attacking the Canadian I was countering? Honestly, no offense but what in gods name are you talking about? I countered his points about democracies by explaining that what he said wasn't valid. Stalin is another example of a dictator but I don't see what that has to do with anything. Are you saying he was democratically elected like the Canadian said Hitler was? If that is so, your sadly mistaken, Stalin gained power in a bloody struggle against Leon Trotsky after Lenin's death.

Then you refer to the war between Napoleon and England, wherein I was talking about French relations to the US, and bring up a valid point about British attacks with American flags...unfortunately its valid in another argument than the one I was making, and really just helps add to my point that American and French relations were terrible at that point in time.

So um...WTF are you talking about?

One of the chief complaints I hear is that Americans keep to their own country and know nothing at all about anything else, which renders them culturally illiterate.

Yet, most of the "america sucks" rhetoric I hear is simply a more colorful repeat of a common anti-american stance.

Is it possible that some of them are just as guilty of cultural ignorance as they accuse americans of being?

How do we know the Europeans aren't just ignorant to are cuture?

This separates congresses job into 2 catagories: To do what the constitution states (all other Powers vested by this Constitution), and to make laws to keep those things running (carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers).




The Supreme Court rule differently on many issues, just because now they are ruling one way doesn't mean that's the right way. 1857, the Supreme Court ruled against Dread Scott. That was later over-turned. Only recently was sodomy ruled to not be illegal. Unfortunately, the Judiciary is set up where they can't do anything unless the proper complaint is taken up with the court. Also unfortunately, state have had so few rights, and to be fair used so few of them, for so long now they've forgotten what they are entitled to, and the Executive has gotten used to the extra power.



So your saying the federal government is acting just as it should both here and abroad? You're saying we're putting our focus where it belongs? Everything is working perfect? No thanks, I'll keep working for the true vision of America, an American where everyone can exist. An America where the constitution is what our leaders look to and it's vision.
In other words your pro-states rights, anti-centralist, and in other words...100 years behind the times? Listen, we are one country, not a bunch of individual countries Confederated together. Would you rather North Dakota and South Dakota have individual armies? Ability to veto Federal Law? Honestly, what you want makes so little sense on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

So um...WTF are you talking about?

What where you talking about Since I just showed that your arguements to counter him where false.

And you base this on what?

Most people I know have left the continent or at least been to Central and South America.

To say a people are culturally ignorant is rather ignorant.

Well, where do you live?

In other words your pro-states rights, anti-centralist, and in other words...100 years behind the times? Listen, we are one country, not a bunch of individual countries Confederated together. Would you rather North Dakota and South Dakota have individual armies? Ability to veto Federal Law? Honestly, what you want makes so little sense on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.
No, I am pro states rights where they are given authority. The constitution makes very clear the job of different areas of the government, if they simply followed that, instead of their own ambitions or ideas of how america is suppose to run, things would run much better. America is more than just a bunch of states, or just one country, the constitution sets up a system that allows a federal government to regulate basic needs and to deal with foreign matters, while the states took most of the bulk. People could live however they liked, because a state could do whatever it wanted as long as it didn't violate federal law. Everyone could be happy, versus a system now that is trying to turn it into 50 identical states.

The constitution says exactly what it means, it says it's congress' job to legislate and regulates how, gives them a specific job and the power to continue to regulate everything within that (sec. 8 clause 18), gives specific things states cannot do, gives the president a specific job, as it does the judiciary. And after all those specific jobs it gives and specific areas, it ends the bill of right with "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It works, when the EU starts working, under much the same model (the only real difference is america works on a sliding model, when we are in bad times the government can come in and when we recover they are suppose to back off, much like the 'new deal' worked) we'll change our tune. Have you ever tried the government set up just like the constitution says? Historically, we haven't really, but the closer we get to the real vision (not the civil war b.s.), the better off we have been. When government has worked in the spirit of the constitution, society has benefited.

becuase was had states with such compleatly different ideas there was a civil war hence the trying to make it the same i mean we still let the southerners have their incest(sorry couldnt refuse)

well to the slavery thing i can make a point but it has nothing to really do with this the roman empire europe and more practiced slavery for almost 500 years becuase the other 500 years of slavery it was the roman republic.

Some hate Americans. Most dislike the government, and think that just because a couple (ok maybe more) Americans are stupid, and don't know what they're talking about. That's what I think.
Spoken like a true American.
The rest of the world exists outside your (vast) borders whether you believe so or not. And, astoundingly, we can make up our own minds about you, regardless of the fact you don't think we know what we're talking about.
We don't hate you. We can't stand you. America is seen as the big bully in the playground with the biggest stick, making sure everyone is playing by their rules and their rules alone.
And I can honestly say that most Americans I've met are ignorant of anything other than themselves and their own little world as I lived in the US for a while.
It would be ignorant of me to assume that just because I met an astounding number of ignorant Amercians whilst living there, that all Americans are ignorant. Given that I have lived in other places around the world, I found the ignorance, per capita, was certainly greater in the US than anywhere else.

France...



Lets ignore everything France was doing during the Napolean years as far as US/France relations go. Lets face it, it wasn't the normal state of affairs. And sadly, even when the guy who started the bad blood has been dealt with it can be damn hard for political ties between countries to become friendly again especially when one has messed with the other so efficiently. And then there's the French-ships-with-Non-French-flags issue. Napolean was a jerk who likely snookered the USA into a conflict with Britain in the war of 1812 to give him leverage against the Brits. The US and France did have strong enough ties to allow Louisiana to be purchased instead of taken over by force like they did to a good chunk of Mexico later on in the century. It was the only foreign neighbour the US didn't attack if memory serves me correctly. The French must have meant something to them.

(Anyways, I bet while things were cool politically; academics, artisans and others in France weren't that put-off by America. Hopefully, they weren't treated with too much suspicion. After all, Eiffel and his men managed to get in and build the Statue of Liberty (finished 1886). A good peace offering if I've ever saw one. It didn't have armed frenchmen hiding in it trojan-style or anything!)

Don't judge an entire nation because one arse snaked his way to the top. All countries have some number of fools and hot-heads in them. I wouldn't judge germans on Hitler, nor russians on Stalin or the americans on Bush Jr./Reagan/Nixon/whoever ( :D ).

(Personally, I liked Bush the First. He was treated horribly by even his own party for no reason other than making the right decisions. Wimp = Level-headed, apparently)

Strategically-placed propaganda, half-truths and easily believed outright lies can convince the trusting ignorant masses of ANY country to believe any kind of bull the government lays down. Especially when it reinforces what "they knew all along" like Germans are descendants of Atlantis or that America is the only nation in the world with 'true freedom' and both must impose their superior cultures on the unfortunate barbarian foreigners (not very delicate language but its how a lot of foreign countries see the American POV...so maybe there is some truth to it. At least the kind of truth that matters, the truth the foreigners perceive from the actions of the dominant power).

Britain had a similar line of thinking when they started to become an empire after all. Got rid of tossing widows on funeral pires in India but caused hell in a lot more areas. The bad things lasted oh-so-much longer than whatever good they tried or succeeded in doing because the British face was one of civility and dignity. Hey, they were only trying to help these primitives!


It was not until World War One that America would again find itself on France's side, and again would only find itself there when it was desperately needed in World War Two, the countries relations never having been very solid in the period between, and the same would happen after World War Two due to disagreements between DeGaulle and the US.


Political relations back in that gap period were likely cool because there was no need for them to be hot.

Funny how things change though since France was the main cohort other than the USA in the Afghanistan war and Iran/Iraq conflict in the early 80's. There had to be some love between them to trust each other with something so full of potential disaster. Or am I jumping too far ahead in modern times while comparing relations during the 1800s and early 1900s?

DeGaulle was a bit of a douche. He annoyed everyone. Whether the surrender was a bow to the Nazis or a sly plan to lure the Germans in (for spying purposes and/or to keep the precious art and history of Paris from destruction) is something best left for others better than me to discuss. I liked to think that keeping society and infrastructure intact and inviting the enemy in was a good way to keep spy/communication channels open and busy. There was a French underground against the Nazis wasn't there? If one existed, it may have been a happy accident without DeGaulle's endorsement. Like I said, "best left for others". This is just the romantic side of me talking.

No question on the despirately needed thing. Still you'd think the US would feel the need to get involved earlier. In hindsight certainly. At the time...

During WWII there was a 'feeling' (I hesitate to use 'movement') in america to get involved in the war (by the liberals no less!) but they were poo-pooed by Charles Lindbergh and like-minded conservatives of the Fortress America isolationist movement which certainly had more influence at the time. Most people in america were absolutely shocked at Hitler's treatment of...well...everybody...but there was still reluctance to get involved in a foreign war. Sore feelings after WWI kept them out of a new foreign war I guess. Still its boggling that they wouldn't get involved since they knew what was going on. What was the state of mind of America at that time? Some sort of mental block? Maybe everyone was too dim to grasp the true implications of what was going on. It was a foreign problem. Those kooky Middle-Eas...oops I mean...Europeans...always killing each other...why can't they be more like us.

I know it was on their minds given the reaction to "War of the Worlds". Orson Welles had an alterior motive methinks in getting people to think what foreign invasion felt like.

Then again Germans actually participated in world peace marches a few years before Hitler came to power. World's a funny place. Go figure.
:confused:


Nextly...the Democracies you named were never true democracies.

Napoleon...referendum makes him Emperor, never ruled truly democratically.
Hitler...was a Chancellor, thereby was appointed by the President, and his takeover made him an unelected leader.
Tojo...Leader of the Military Group that was the true power behind the throne of the Japanese EMPIRE!


Did I say they were true democracies? I apologize if I said that. But I will point out that they were SUPPOSED to be democracies who were subjugated one way or another by bastards thanks to ignorant or desperate governments/citizens.

Your definition of 'never a true democracy' must be made after the fact when a dictator-type gained control. The US seems to be nearing that point IMHO so it may join those ranks in another 20 years. Certainly they tried to be democratic but they collapsed when they allowed jerks to take the helm. The ability to let these guys assume power was present in the system before they made the power grab. Someone merely had to get into position and seize it. I think Nixon tried to do this but was forced to resign in disgrace (where did investigative journalists like those go. WE NEED YOU!), Reagan supporters tried and managed to succeed to a degree (why he's such a big hero to conservatives even though he was a so-so president who left a lot of controversy in his wake) and finally Bush Jr (Bush Sr was okay IMHO) who's supporters are doing scary things to the rights, freedoms and damn near everything else in america today.

Japan was totally westernized and got a parlament, organised police force, and structured school system to replace what we'd call a brutal government today (samurai could kill a person for being rude to him. Geez. Not even a trial.) that was defeated thanks to support from American and British Imperialists who wanted Japanese international trade doors opened that the previous regime slammed shut because foreigners were being pushy. The old brutal and economically stubborn regime was outsted and replaced by a more cooperative westernized prospect democracy. Actually, there are a lot of parallels between Meiji-era Japan and what's going on today in Iraq. I think Iraq will progress to an enemy of the US faster than Japan did. What do you think? Think about it: Old brutal regime ousted, sealed off economic windfall was opened up, new government styled after a western democracy, insurgents, asassinations and a highly nationalistic citizenry, economic trade contracts and courts unfairly pointed to the favour of the foreign power(s) who helped overthrow the last regime. Creepy. Recipe for disaster.

NOTE: There's still an emperor in Japan the last I checked but I wouldn't call Japan undemocratic and I certainly wouldn't call it a blood-thirsty empire either. Expensive, but a nice place. I wish the leaders of my country would bow for forgivness on live TV when they screw up.

Japan also makes a precident for the 'right-wing conspiracy' that America is accused of having. How a violence-indiffernet band of extremists, hidden in a blanket of patriotism/nationalism can creep their way to the highest position of power over decades, is outlined pretty well.

Douches can obtain total power even in 'true' democracies, if they can gather the support from the scared public or a scared government. (HINT HINT 9/11)

France's government was losing the respect of people to say the least, and it went nuts cutting the heads off the guys who actually FOUNDED the first attempt of democracy, so they hired Mr. Whiff-of-Grapeshot for hopes he'd stabilize something. Big mistake. You can look at the US today for this 'patriotism madness' as the french experienced during this period. The perception of being 'unpatriotic' is dangerous in a revolutionary society since revolutions find their strength in adherence to propaganda. Questioning it can make you an enemy of the revolution pretty quick. Yes, the revolution is as strong as ever in America even though the King of Britain has long lost interest. Heads will roll, so watch what you say Sen. Max Cleland, you ain't got much more to lose. (no offense Max)

Hitler himself gained some charisma and managed to worm his way up on a bed of insane nationalism, white christian superiority and cultural anti-semitism by the fear he managed to generate by lighting some buildings on fire and blaming it on Jews. Even people who weren't very inclined to anti-semitism adopted that characteristic when Hitler laid down some 'facts' for them.

A scared, nationalistic citizenry can be such suckers for this kind of flagellation; and revolutionary societies, as a movement, who have a charasmatic svengali at the helm (or at least a highly revered position, ie - Messiah, Ceasar, President) are especially succeptable (hey, miserable things have been done in the Lord's name). Its also much easier if the enemy is an ethnic group or at least foreign. All one has to do is attain this highly revered position, blame this group for all of society's ills, and their word is truth and completely moral, even if it would be considered amoral years earlier.

Now I'd never support the ludicrous idea or imply that Bush/GOP is behind 9/11 (remember Hitler, foreign group, destruction of a great buildings) regardless of what some conspiracy theorists say (Osama was supported by CIA in the past, he's still working for them now, they needed justification to make a power grab, buildings went boom, etc.). But he certainly milked it as justification to do whatever he thinks is necessary to fight 'evil people who hate our freedoms'. Not really true. They love their freedom, the actions of the USA are impinging on their freedoms, so they hate us for impinging their freedoms. Americans would do the same, no doubt, if they were in their shoes.

Actually you can Google the words "When Democracy Failed" by Thom Hartmann and you'll see an interesting article that draws out the similarities of Hitler's rise to power and Bush's. I found it eerie.

Japanese EMPIRE, British EMPIRE, French EMPIRE, German EMPIRE...some of these empires are around today. Many have been nerfed quite a bit since their heyday. All were supposed to be totally democratic before they were subjugated, and all remained democratic, at least to those who obeyed and agreed with the principles of the ruling party (Hey, even Baathist Iraq falls under this category. Too bad for them a 'true' democracy requires that there be more than one party). Everyone else was frigged. Often that meant being white and christian as well (nix Japan...Japanese and Shinto was likely the rule there. What is with these arses and 'racial purity'. Although Japan was pretty big on european-styled crap like its navy.) America hasn't had much of a dazzling history with non-whites and non-christians itself.

Violence and democracy just doesn't mix well and the USA will likely succumb to the neo-conservative movement that's been plaguing it since after the civil war (or at least the Alder Hiss trial...HELLOOOO NIXON!). It has to be related to the psychological makeup of a revolutionary movement including its after effects on the population ravaged by war and propaganda. Something about lots of people dying just attracts crazies like...well...crazy.


Sorry buddy, but everything you stated was patently false, and in some cases disrespectful. To claim the US was dragged in "kicking and screaming" into the Great War...a war it had no reason to be involved in, and finally was forced to by attacks on neutral shipping, is patently absurd. To claim the same to World War Two where it was forced to enter by military attacks upon its soil, is even worse. Honestly man, how old are you? Seven? Go back to school.

Well not entirely. "Kicking and screaming" is a bit harsh...how about "forced to enter the freys reluctantly". Tone can mean a lot.

I admit I could give a bye on WWI if we take it from the US's POV at the time. Retrospect is unfair at times. I'll stick to my guns on WWII though. America's government and the people both knew what was going on and did nothing to help, even though many good American souls wanted to go fight. Often these ones had (recent) european, jewish or catholic heritage. Sorta made it too easy for Lindbergh to dismiss them as self-serving lobbyists. Lindbergh...nice GERMAN name isn't it?

A little Lindbergh info. (odd source but it serves the purpose)

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/misc/lindbergh/

I won't give a bye for the US joining in when they were finally attacked by a 'democracy' that they tried to create for the sake of making money and later turned on them. What country wouldn't join a fight at that point? You want a cookie for joining in when you're attacked? YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO! Its the attitude that created that 2 year gap I'm upset about.

BTW thanks for mentioning in another post that only democracies count in this disscusion and not the communists. Wrong dynamic, even though some fragmentation has occurred post-revolution in China and Russia they were stomped down viciously, which was of course fine with communists and not so much democracies.

Geez, that was a lot of writing. For the love of sanity if you must quote, quote briefly! :p

Lets ignore everything France was doing during the Napolean years as far as US/France relations go. Lets face it, it wasn't the normal state of affairs. And sadly, even when the guy who started the bad blood has been dealt with it can be damn hard for political ties between countries to become friendly again especially when one has messed with the other so efficiently. And then there's the French-ships-with-Non-French-flags issue. Napolean was a jerk who likely snookered the USA into a conflict with Britain in the war of 1812 to give him leverage against the Brits. The US and France did have strong enough ties to allow Louisiana to be purchased instead of taken over by force like they did to a good chunk of Mexico later on in the century. It was the only foreign neighbour the US didn't attack if memory serves me correctly. The French must have meant something to them.

(Anyways, I bet while things were cool politically; academics, artisans and others in France weren't that put-off by America. Hopefully, they weren't treated with too much suspicion. After all, Eiffel and his men managed to get in and build the Statue of Liberty (finished 1886). A good peace offering if I've ever saw one. It didn't have armed frenchmen hiding in it trojan-style or anything!)

Don't judge an entire nation because one arse snaked his way to the top. All countries have some number of fools and hot-heads in them. I wouldn't judge germans on Hitler, nor russians on Stalin or the americans on Bush Jr./Reagan/Nixon/whoever ( :D ).

(Personally, I liked Bush the First. He was treated horribly by even his own party for no reason other than making the right decisions. Wimp = Level-headed, apparently)

Strategically-placed propaganda, half-truths and easily believed outright lies can convince the trusting ignorant masses of ANY country to believe any kind of bull the government lays down. Especially when it reinforces what "they knew all along" like Germans are descendants of Atlantis or that America is the only nation in the world with 'true freedom' and both must impose their superior cultures on the unfortunate barbarian foreigners (not very delicate language but its how a lot of foreign countries see the American POV...so maybe there is some truth to it. At least the kind of truth that matters, the truth the foreigners perceive from the actions of the dominant power).

Britain had a similar line of thinking when they started to become an empire after all. Got rid of tossing widows on funeral pires in India but caused hell in a lot more areas. The bad things lasted oh-so-much longer than whatever good they tried or succeeded in doing because the British face was one of civility and dignity. Hey, they were only trying to help these primitives!



Political relations back in that gap period were likely cool because there was no need for them to be hot.

Funny how things change though since France was the main cohort other than the USA in the Afghanistan war and Iran/Iraq conflict in the early 80's. There had to be some love between them to trust each other with something so full of potential disaster. Or am I jumping too far ahead in modern times while comparing relations during the 1800s and early 1900s?

DeGaulle was a bit of a douche. He annoyed everyone. Whether the surrender was a bow to the Nazis or a sly plan to lure the Germans in (for spying purposes and/or to keep the precious art and history of Paris from destruction) is something best left for others better than me to discuss. I liked to think that keeping society and infrastructure intact and inviting the enemy in was a good way to keep spy/communication channels open and busy. There was a French underground against the Nazis wasn't there? If one existed, it may have been a happy accident without DeGaulle's endorsement. Like I said, "best left for others". This is just the romantic side of me talking.

No question on the despirately needed thing. Still you'd think the US would feel the need to get involved earlier. In hindsight certainly. At the time...

During WWII there was a 'feeling' (I hesitate to use 'movement') in america to get involved in the war (by the liberals no less!) but they were poo-pooed by Charles Lindbergh and like-minded conservatives of the Fortress America isolationist movement which certainly had more influence at the time. Most people in america were absolutely shocked at Hitler's treatment of...well...everybody...but there was still reluctance to get involved in a foreign war. Sore feelings after WWI kept them out of a new foreign war I guess. Still its boggling that they wouldn't get involved since they knew what was going on. What was the state of mind of America at that time? Some sort of mental block? Maybe everyone was too dim to grasp the true implications of what was going on. It was a foreign problem. Those kooky Middle-Eas...oops I mean...Europeans...always killing each other...why can't they be more like us.

I know it was on their minds given the reaction to "War of the Worlds". Orson Welles had an alterior motive methinks in getting people to think what foreign invasion felt like.

Then again Germans actually participated in world peace marches a few years before Hitler came to power. World's a funny place. Go figure.
:confused:



Did I say they were true democracies? I apologize if I said that. But I will point out that they were SUPPOSED to be democracies who were subjugated one way or another by bastards thanks to ignorant or desperate governments/citizens.

Your definition of 'never a true democracy' must be made after the fact when a dictator-type gained control. The US seems to be nearing that point IMHO so it may join those ranks in another 20 years. Certainly they tried to be democratic but they collapsed when they allowed jerks to take the helm. The ability to let these guys assume power was present in the system before they made the power grab. Someone merely had to get into position and seize it. I think Nixon tried to do this but was forced to resign in disgrace (where did investigative journalists like those go. WE NEED YOU!), Reagan supporters tried and managed to succeed to a degree (why he's such a big hero to conservatives even though he was a so-so president who left a lot of controversy in his wake) and finally Bush Jr (Bush Sr was okay IMHO) who's supporters are doing scary things to the rights, freedoms and damn near everything else in america today.

Japan was totally westernized and got a parlament, organised police force, and structured school system to replace what we'd call a brutal government today (samurai could kill a person for being rude to him. Geez. Not even a trial.) that was defeated thanks to support from American and British Imperialists who wanted Japanese international trade doors opened that the previous regime slammed shut because foreigners were being pushy. The old brutal and economically stubborn regime was outsted and replaced by a more cooperative westernized prospect democracy. Actually, there are a lot of parallels between Meiji-era Japan and what's going on today in Iraq. I think Iraq will progress to an enemy of the US faster than Japan did. What do you think? Think about it: Old brutal regime ousted, sealed off economic windfall was opened up, new government styled after a western democracy, insurgents, asassinations and a highly nationalistic citizenry, economic trade contracts and courts unfairly pointed to the favour of the foreign power(s) who helped overthrow the last regime. Creepy. Recipe for disaster.

NOTE: There's still an emperor in Japan the last I checked but I wouldn't call Japan undemocratic and I certainly wouldn't call it a blood-thirsty empire either. Expensive, but a nice place. I wish the leaders of my country would bow for forgivness on live TV when they screw up.

Japan also makes a precident for the 'right-wing conspiracy' that America is accused of having. How a violence-indiffernet band of extremists, hidden in a blanket of patriotism/nationalism can creep their way to the highest position of power over decades, is outlined pretty well.

Douches can obtain total power even in 'true' democracies, if they can gather the support from the scared public or a scared government. (HINT HINT 9/11)

France's government was losing the respect of people to say the least, and it went nuts cutting the heads off the guys who actually FOUNDED the first attempt of democracy, so they hired Mr. Whiff-of-Grapeshot for hopes he'd stabilize something. Big mistake. You can look at the US today for this 'patriotism madness' as the french experienced during this period. The perception of being 'unpatriotic' is dangerous in a revolutionary society since revolutions find their strength in adherence to propaganda. Questioning it can make you an enemy of the revolution pretty quick. Yes, the revolution is as strong as ever in America even though the King of Britain has long lost interest. Heads will roll, so watch what you say Sen. Max Cleland, you ain't got much more to lose. (no offense Max)

Hitler himself gained some charisma and managed to worm his way up on a bed of insane nationalism, white christian superiority and cultural anti-semitism by the fear he managed to generate by lighting some buildings on fire and blaming it on Jews. Even people who weren't very inclined to anti-semitism adopted that characteristic when Hitler laid down some 'facts' for them.

A scared, nationalistic citizenry can be such suckers for this kind of flagellation; and revolutionary societies, as a movement, who have a charasmatic svengali at the helm (or at least a highly revered position, ie - Messiah, Ceasar, President) are especially succeptable (hey, miserable things have been done in the Lord's name). Its also much easier if the enemy is an ethnic group or at least foreign. All one has to do is attain this highly revered position, blame this group for all of society's ills, and their word is truth and completely moral, even if it would be considered amoral years earlier.

Now I'd never support the ludicrous idea or imply that Bush/GOP is behind 9/11 (remember Hitler, foreign group, destruction of a great buildings) regardless of what some conspiracy theorists say (Osama was supported by CIA in the past, he's still working for them now, they needed justification to make a power grab, buildings went boom, etc.). But he certainly milked it as justification to do whatever he thinks is necessary to fight 'evil people who hate our freedoms'. Not really true. They love their freedom, the actions of the USA are impinging on their freedoms, so they hate us for impinging their freedoms. Americans would do the same, no doubt, if they were in their shoes.

Actually you can Google the words "When Democracy Failed" by Thom Hartmann and you'll see an interesting article that draws out the similarities of Hitler's rise to power and Bush's. I found it eerie.

Japanese EMPIRE, British EMPIRE, French EMPIRE, German EMPIRE...some of these empires are around today. Many have been nerfed quite a bit since their heyday. All were supposed to be totally democratic before they were subjugated, and all remained democratic, at least to those who obeyed and agreed with the principles of the ruling party (Hey, even Baathist Iraq falls under this category. Too bad for them a 'true' democracy requires that there be more than one party). Everyone else was frigged. Often that meant being white and christian as well (nix Japan...Japanese and Shinto was likely the rule there. What is with these arses and 'racial purity'. Although Japan was pretty big on european-styled crap like its navy.) America hasn't had much of a dazzling history with non-whites and non-christians itself.

Violence and democracy just doesn't mix well and the USA will likely succumb to the neo-conservative movement that's been plaguing it since after the civil war (or at least the Alder Hiss trial...HELLOOOO NIXON!). It has to be related to the psychological makeup of a revolutionary movement including its after effects on the population ravaged by war and propaganda. Something about lots of people dying just attracts crazies like...well...crazy.



Well not entirely. "Kicking and screaming" is a bit harsh...how about "forced to enter the freys reluctantly". Tone can mean a lot.

I admit I could give a bye on WWI if we take it from the US's POV at the time. Retrospect is unfair at times. I'll stick to my guns on WWII though. America's government and the people both knew what was going on and did nothing to help, even though many good American souls wanted to go fight. Often these ones had (recent) european, jewish or catholic heritage. Sorta made it too easy for Lindbergh to dismiss them as self-serving lobbyists. Lindbergh...nice GERMAN name isn't it?

A little Lindbergh info. (odd source but it serves the purpose)

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/misc/lindbergh/

I won't give a bye for the US joining in when they were finally attacked by a 'democracy' that they tried to create for the sake of making money and later turned on them. What country wouldn't join a fight at that point? You want a cookie for joining in when you're attacked? YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO! Its the attitude that created that 2 year gap I'm upset about.

BTW thanks for mentioning in another post that only democracies count in this disscusion and not the communists. Wrong dynamic, even though some fragmentation has occurred post-revolution in China and Russia they were stomped down viciously, which was of course fine with communists and not so much democracies.

Geez, that was a lot of writing. For the love of sanity if you must quote, quote briefly! :p Ok, so I'm a psycho that enjoys the pain and misery of others, QUOTE! :sniper:

What's wrong with America? Nothing wrong with them. :mp5:

What's wrong with America? Nothing wrong with them. :mp5:
nothing wrong with the majority of decent, sensible people, just those who happen to hold the power...

America is bad and unjust. Every other country is good and righteous, if they weren't so abused by nasty americans and their corrupt policies.

That seems to be the consensus. Why? I don't complain about your countries! Even when they don't participate in anything, or do for a price.
Apologies if somebody already said this, but:

I didn't say it was your fault.
I SAID I was going to Blame you.

I don't blame the American people for their government's mistakes.
Look I'm English. My people's history has contributed alot to the world.

America isn't the cause of the world's problems, it's the cause of a few present problems.

Like it or lump it America is world's most powerful nation and it's help is always welcome. That's the fact some people don't like America, because they can't help as much as them.

Others believe it's a power-hungry, democracy-thundering machine. Which is true. But is it jealousy that makes the whole world turn nasty against American's once a crisis is over?

I'll leave that qeustion open for discussion.

apologies if this has been said but im not reading 12 pages im too dman lazy

let's face it, the media decided that the world should hate america, so the many ignorant sheep that live in every country (including mine) followed them begging for more reasons to hate them, and the reasons (true or not) are given

becuase was had states with such compleatly different ideas there was a civil war hence the trying to make it the same i mean we still let the southerners have their incest(sorry couldnt refuse)

Unfortunately, the civil war was more economics and legislation that moral ideology. Lincoln himself, in speeches to the south, spoke of trying to pass an amendment to keep slavery legal forever. Slavery was a point to the civil war, but only one of many. Unfair taraffs and an unproportunate tax burden was more of the issue.

link (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=607&fs=lincoln%27s+economic+legacy)Lincoln will probably be forever known as the "Great Emancipator" because of the Emancipation Proclamation. But every Lincoln scholar knows something that few Americans are aware of: The Emancipation Proclamation freed no one, because it specifically exempted those areas of the southern states that were at the time under the control of the federal armies while allowing slavery to exist in the "loyal" border states of Maryland and Kentucky and in Washington, D.C. itself.*

"The principle [of the Proclamation] is not that a human being cannot justly own another," the London Spectator*observed on October 11, 1862, "but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States" government.*

As Lincoln stated in a famous, August 22, 1862 letter to New York Tribune*editor Horace Greeley, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not*either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

The Emancipation Proclamation was a propaganda strategy designed to deter England from supporting the Confederacy. It came as a complete surprise to most*

Northerners, who thought they were fighting and dying by the tens of thousands to preserve the union. As a result, there were draft riots in New York City; a desertion crisis was created in the U.S. army, with some 200,000 deserters, according to historian Gary Gallagher; and war bond sales plummeted. According to James McPherson, the "dean" of "Civil War" historians, Union soldiers "were willing to risk their lives for the Union, but not for black freedom . . . . They professed to feel betrayed."
another link (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo58.html)
yet another link (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p319_Dickson.html)

And look up info about tariffs and taxation before the civil war, why is it that the south, with about half the population of the north (including slaves), was paying 95% of federal revenues through tariffs?

Ok, so I'm a psycho that enjoys the pain and misery of others, QUOTE! :sniper:

Don't worry Americans are not loonies, some of you are (at least potentially), just like the people of any other country in the world. The culture of fear and propaganda in America (stoked by the loonies) brings such ways of thinking to the forefront and those loonies use that to their advantage. Sadly, too many people in revolutionary countries just believe what their leader says without question. Svengali effect. People are so impressionable and trusting.

Even if things like CIA involvement with Osama or the number of dictators America has supported or the fact America accidently destroyed a few fellow democracies came generally known public knowledge, there will still be denail among some. Holocaust Deniers exists and Nazism and anti-semitism haven't exactly disappeared. A small part (very small) will likely think the sun will still shine out the president's backside and America can do no wrong. Loonies, go fig. They were probably not hugged enough as kids...but then again neither was I...

Violent histories abound in the world and I'm more concerned about so-called democracies founded by violent revolution that go nuts later on and become dictator-like.

And like the rise to power of all of those guys in all those countries, they gain power by people in the government who like how they think, how they present themselves or by people they know. And I think we can all agree that the election that got Bush to power was as crooked as the people who presided over it. You can only have so many family friends looking over an election before it becomes a cheat.

Look at it this way...Its just YOUR TURN to experience that many other revolutionary democracies have. Here's hoping everything turns out okay in the end.

And like the rise to power of all of those guys in all those countries, they gain power by people in the government who like how they think or how they present themselves.

Of course that's a generalization. Other factors can exist in their taking power, although these scumbags are famous for their ability to manipulate political opinion, their ability to scheme and are notoriously opportunistic.

Simple. The highest trees catch the most wind.

and we need to eat a lot of dem treez up in our head.

Dude, can you name a single leader of any nation other than Britain, Franch, China, Russia, North Korea and Israel?

Do you know who won the Spanish Election?

Do you know their parties?

I'll tell you what. Other nations follow our elections more closely than they even follow their own because if America stumbles, the earth tumbles to the ground, and if we fall, then they have long before become ashes. Face it, the world revolves around us, and a lot of the problems today ARE the fault of America, dirrectly or indirrectly.

I don't mean to be harsh, but I don't think you understand how much of an influence we have.

-R. S. of UC

Lets ignore everything France was doing during the Napolean years as far as US/France relations go. Lets face it, it wasn't the normal state of affairs. And sadly, even when the guy who started the bad blood has been dealt with it can be damn hard for political ties between countries to become friendly again especially when one has messed with the other so efficiently. And then there's the French-ships-with-Non-French-flags issue. Napolean was a jerk who likely snookered the USA into a conflict with Britain in the war of 1812 to give him leverage against the Brits. The US and France did have strong enough ties to allow Louisiana to be purchased instead of taken over by force like they did to a good chunk of Mexico later on in the century. It was the only foreign neighbour the US didn't attack if memory serves me correctly. The French must have meant something to them.
I do believe the French King offered Louisiana to the Americans instead of the vice versa that you imply, and it is only logical that he do so. Think about North America at that time. You've got the French in there, you've got the British in there. America is pretty friendly with both (not huge allies however), but France hates Britain and vice versa. If the French control Louisiana, they have to tie up a lot of troops to defend from a more likely British attack and for what? For a massive chunk of territory uninhabited (for the most part) by Europeans. By selling Louisiana to the adventorous Americans, you get money that you need desperately (since France was at war with Britain at the time), you decrease the chance of attack on that territory (Britain isn't at war with America), the land gets discovered and developed (Americans are more pioneer-esque), and you free up a lot of troops that you need desperately (remember, war). I think that the French knew that if they really wanted that land, they could easily take it back by force from the Americans (and if they did better against Britain, I wouldn't be suprised if this happened).

As a general consensus, most people in the world like Americans. It's the American government and foreign policy they hate.

Dude, can you name a single leader of any nation other than Britain, Franch, China, Russia, North Korea and Israel?

Do you know who won the Spanish Election?

Do you know their parties?

I'll tell you what. Other nations follow our elections more closely than they even follow their own because if America stumbles, the earth tumbles to the ground, and if we fall, then they have long before become ashes. Face it, the world revolves around us, and a lot of the problems today ARE the fault of America, dirrectly or indirrectly.

I don't mean to be harsh, but I don't think you understand how much of an influence we have.

-R. S. of UC

Uhm, what ground exactly is it the earth will be falling to and how do you define down in space? Additionally, the earth revolves around it's axis through the poles.

(Cleaning up American ignorance one post at a time.)

I do believe the French King offered Louisiana to the Americans instead of the vice versa that you imply, and it is only logical that he do so. Think about North America at that time. You've got the French in there, you've got the British in there. America is pretty friendly with both (not huge allies however), but France hates Britain and vice versa. If the French control Louisiana, they have to tie up a lot of troops to defend from a more likely British attack and for what? For a massive chunk of territory uninhabited (for the most part) by Europeans. By selling Louisiana to the adventorous Americans, you get money that you need desperately (since France was at war with Britain at the time), you decrease the chance of attack on that territory (Britain isn't at war with America), the land gets discovered and developed (Americans are more pioneer-esque), and you free up a lot of troops that you need desperately (remember, war). I think that the French knew that if they really wanted that land, they could easily take it back by force from the Americans (and if they did better against Britain, I wouldn't be suprised if this happened).

*taps on Opal's forehead, "Hello, McFly"*

The Louisiana Purchase took place in 1803. France did not have a king at that time. Some guy named Napoleon Bonaparte was ruling them. His country was deeply in debt because of his wars. He needed the money, so he decided to sell the Louisiana territory at a cheap price.

*taps on Opal's forehead, "Hello, McFly"*

The Louisiana Purchase took place in 1803. France did not have a king at that time. Some guy named Napoleon Bonaparte was ruling them. His country was deeply in debt because of his wars. He needed the money, so he decided to sell the Louisiana territory at a cheap price.
Aside from me not being positive about who was in charge of France, my post is accurate.

Aside from me not being positive about who was in charge of France, my post is accurate.

Aside from forgetting about Napoleon, your knowledge of history is quite good.

Aside from forgetting about Napoleon, your knowledge of history is quite good.
Well, I thought Napoleon, and almost put it, but I'd rather be generic and forget about something obvious instead of saying something precise and being way off mark. For example, I wouldn't want to talk about something that Clinton did during the LA purchase, I would rather say The President.

*taps on Opal's forehead, "Hello, McFly"*

The Louisiana Purchase took place in 1803. France did not have a king at that time. Some guy named Napoleon Bonaparte was ruling them. His country was deeply in debt because of his wars. He needed the money, so he decided to sell the Louisiana territory at a cheap price.

France wasn't deeply in debt, not far enough in debt anyway to sell such a huge chunk of territory to another country for such pittance. Opal Isle was correct in his original post (except as stated, by forgetting Napoleon).

Liousiana was not beneficial to the French Empire, after Haiti revolted Napoleon threw away his dreams of an American Empire, for a European one. Liousiana required troops that were far more beneficial on the Continent, or keeping the French West Indies under French control (The British and French have been see-sawing back and forth in this area for some time). Napoleon could not send enough soldiers to expand Liousiana into Spanish territory, uninhabited areas, or to fight the US, and all the troops that were in the area had been decimated in Haiti.

So Napoleon has this huge chunk of land, that he has no use for, other than a possible area for the British to attack his prestige in, where he cannot stop them easily. He also has this new republican nation right beside it, eager to expand it's power, and with a good mix of anglophobia/francophilia to agree. Also by giving them Liousiana, your expanding their power, and making sure the British have to keep an eye over their shoulders to watch their American colonial holdings. When Napoleon sold Liousiana to the US, he claimed "I have given England a rival that will sooner or later, overtake her in power and prestige"

I think its because america is considered a cocky little upstart nation.

even though it is in fact a big cocky upstart nation thats currently wearing a sherrifs badge and pretending to be John Wayne as far as foreign policy is concerned.

^the above is a personal opinion put forth to inspire laughter, please don't take it too seriously.

I think I'm with Churchill on this one - You can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing - after they have tried every other option.

You might get some stick and encounter a few problems along the way, but you're doing the right thing. Keep up the good work lads.


Funny how the Brits were the first to call Hitler what he was: evil. Reagan was the first to call the Soviets what they were: evil. And now, Britain and America stand side by side (with Italy, Poland and many others behind them) pointing to the new evil of the world: terrorism.

It's comforting to know that there still are level-headed people in the world, no matter how few they may seem :) Thanks for the show of support, FM.

Funny how the Brits were the first to call Hitler what he was: evil.

Actually, I think that was the Czechs, or the various ethnicities suppressed by him before 1939.

Reagan was the first to call the Soviets what they were: evil.

Actually..... I'm sure they were referred to as evil by the West following the Revolution, and definitely by Hitler and the Nazi's during the Second Great War (or Great Patriotic War if your a Soviet), and then Churchill alluded to it with his Iron Curtain speech.

3) Contrary to popular belief, GW Bush is actually very well educated, a successful businessman, and pretty intelligent. He is a poor public speaker (very poor, at that) and is very staunch in his beliefs.

I have to disagree slightly with the last sentence.

While Bush is not too good at reading a speech in front of a camera, he can hold an audience and talk to people. Did you ever see the impromptu speech he made to the cleanup crews at the World Trade Center shortly after September 11th? I think it'll probably be in the history books as one of the best presidential speeches, ranking up there with "Ask not what your country can do for you."

One of the chief complaints I hear is that Americans keep to their own country and know nothing at all about anything else, which renders them culturally illiterate.

Yet, most of the "america sucks" rhetoric I hear is simply a more colorful repeat of a common anti-american stance.

Is it possible that some of them are just as guilty of cultural ignorance as they accuse americans of being?

Exactly. In Canadian elementary schools, you learn about Hiroshima, but not the twenty million Chinese civilians the Japanese murdered purposefully.

but not the twenty million Chinese civilians .


Twenty million? Exageration is as bad as to denie the facts.

Twenty million? Exageration is as bad as to denie the facts.
It's true, though. The Japanese murdered 400,000 civilians in Nanjing in just a single day in 1937.

Twenty million? Exageration is as bad as to denie the facts.

Actual estimates run in the 30,000,000 region, not 20,000,000, Japanese Rice Offensives were devestating on the local population, as were their reprisals in the Occupied Zones. It was pretty much this way from 1938, when Japan effectively defeated Chiang Kai-Shek, until 1944, when they launched their Ichi-Go Offensive to dislodge the Nationalists from their stronghold.

(Second Battle of Svenskund post)

Actual estimates run in the 30,000,000 region, not 20,000,000, Japanese Rice Offensives were devestating on the local population, as were their reprisals in the Occupied Zones. It was pretty much this way from 1938, when Japan effectively defeated Chiang Kai-Shek, until 1944, when they launched their Ichi-Go Offensive to dislodge the Nationalists from their stronghold.

(Second Battle of Svenskund post)


Not to nitpick....
I was thinking 10 million.

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.html


Don't worry though. All the little anti-Americans will be googling to prove the US killed at least 5 million of those Chinese. :rolleyes:

Not to nitpick....
I was thinking 10 million.

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.html


Don't worry though. All the little anti-Americans will be googling to prove the US killed at least 5 million of those Chinese. :rolleyes:

As I stated, estimates run around the 30,000,000 area, a number taken from The Pacific War: 1931-1945. As far as I can discern to explain the difference between these two numbers is that the table you've quoted is not counting deaths in Manchuria from 1931-1937, and deaths that can be squarely attributed to enemy actions (in other words, not counting deaths caused by other Chinese, starvation from Chinese forces, or things like the flooding of areas by the retreating Chinese) and also does not include deaths post-war that can be attributed to the Japanese Invasion.

Those are the higher end estimates, like the numbers 12-20 million for the Holocaust, and are probably pretty far off, but the generally accepted casualty figure for China that I've ran into is around 18-25 million, usually depending on whether or not your at a convention focused on Europe, the Pacific, or balanced.

(Passing of the Bill of Rights post)

As I stated, estimates run around the 30,000,000 area, a number taken from The Pacific War: 1931-1945. As far as I can discern to explain the difference between these two numbers is that the table you've quoted is not counting deaths in Manchuria from 1931-1937, and deaths that can be squarely attributed to enemy actions (in other words, not counting deaths caused by other Chinese, starvation from Chinese forces, or things like the flooding of areas by the retreating Chinese) and also does not include deaths post-war that can be attributed to the Japanese Invasion.

Yeah it says 1937-1945 on that site.

At least America stops everyone in the world hating the english as enemy number one.Now only 99% of the planet hates us. ;)