NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.policyreview.org/DEC02/harris.html

Could it be that most America-bashers, especially intellectuals, are really disgruntled Marxists who wonder why communism has collapsed (were they really expecting to win the Cold War?), and who wonder why socialism hasn't taken off and succeeded in producing a nation that can contend with the United States?

Could they just be wishing that the US would fail - that the US would go away - and their fantasy would be fulfilled?

Or could it be that some people really just do disagree with many of the policy decisions of not your country as a whole but rather of your current administration?

Including.... ohhhh ... about 48% of Americans the last time they asked?



No wait, let's generalize and marginalize. That always makes it easier to dismiss opposing viewpoints out of hand.....

:rolleyes:

If by 'America bashers' (I have a feeling you might slip 'evil' onto the beginning of that phrase when you're thinking it to yourself) you mean 'people who exercise their right of free speech to disagree with the administration of the United States', then no. I disagree with the administration of the United States, and a lot of the laws and practices that are present in America, quite frequently, and I couldn't be a more zealous supporter of capitalism. This also brings to rise another important point you may or may not be aware of -- not every resident of Europe is a dippy-hippy nature-loving socialist.

Oh yes, and especially generalize the smart people who disagree with existing policy.



Commies...


They must all be commies.....

Yep, i'm an evil, mad communist.

Or could it be that some people really just do disagree with many of the policy decisions of not your country as a whole but rather of your current administration?

Including.... ohhhh ... about 48% of Americans the last time they asked?



No wait, let's generalize and marginalize. That always makes it easier to dismiss opposing viewpoints out of hand.....

:rolleyes:

Maybe you should read the article.

How about a summary of the article for those of us who don't want to pile through pages of McCarthyist anti-communist rants? Anti-communist rants are nearly as tedious as communist rants.

liberal arrogance...

http://www.policyreview.org/DEC02/harris.html

Could it be that most America-bashers, especially intellectuals, are really disgruntled Marxists who wonder why communism has collapsed (were they really expecting to win the Cold War?), and who wonder why socialism hasn't taken off and succeeded in producing a nation that can contend with the United States?

Could they just be wishing that the US would fail - that the US would go away - and their fantasy would be fulfilled?

( shrug ) At least it keeps them off the streets and out of trouble ... well, mostly. :D

Yeah, I'm socialist, so I hate America. Actually, I'm evil too, but I didn't have to add that, because everyone knows that all socialists are evil (and america-haters) by nature.^^

Oh yeah I suppose all those islamic terrorists are marxists.

The bashing will continue until assistance from the U.S is needed. Then it will resume with more force because the bashers will be angry that they needed help from the U.S.

Maybe you should read the article.

Maybe I did.

And maybe, just maybe, I think that somebody who takes the time to write a long treatise on the evolution of marxist ideology and then attempts to apply that to some amorphous blob of the various differences of opinion that people have had with specific US policies by lumping them all under the catch-phrase "america bashing" has completely abdicated his intellectual responsibilties.


As have you with your summary of the article.


First, lets hear a definition of "America Bashing", and second give specifics of who exactly is such a "basher" and how they can be proven to be marxists upset with the loss of the cold war. Now when you can find a large enough statistical sample that you can prove meet these criteria you can go ahead and apply it as a general statement to your well defined group.

In the meantime, as I said, this is just a prettied-up case of generalization and marginalization, which is a stupid - if sometimes effective - tactic.

must resist... to... post... argumets against... republicans... too easy... need... a challenge.

How about a summary of the article for those of us who don't want to pile through pages of McCarthyist anti-communist rants? Anti-communist rants are nearly as tedious as communist rants.

It's not that long. And it isn't McCarthyist. It's well worth reading.

I would say, however, that IMHO, most America bashing comes from an inability to comprehend the concept that nations act in their own self-interest - and if one nation gains an ability to act unhindered with little penalty, the other nations (whose own self-interest has been violated) will complain - but that's all they can do. The frustration builds until people are bashing.

As for the 48 percent of Americans - I doubt that 48 percent of Americans are America-bashers - you know, the people who say that nothing America does or has ever done has been good or right.

Show me proof that 48 percent of Americans "hate America" (which is not the same thing as disagreeing with current policy, or hating Bush, or not liking Republicans, or being a Democrat), and I would be surprised.

Countries that try to run the world will always have their critics. The Romans did. The Brits did. The Germans did.

Welcome to being unpopular global masters, America. Enjoy it while you can, it doesn't last long in the big scheme of things.

As a passionate anti-american I can say that it has nothing at all to do with communism.

Mainly, the vast stupidity and moral wrong of the american people coupled with their attitudes and the way these things are reflected in the government are what turn me against the US.

Now, while I REALLY hate people insulting my country, I don't call them Marxists/communists(unless they really ARE marxists/communists),because that would be going too far. These people have a right to an opinion, and if they don't want the U.S. to secure it's interests and in the process create a few extra democratic states, then fine by me. It IS a free country,y'know.

(Unless, of course, you live in a place like Venezuela, North Korea, China, and to a degree Russia...)

It's not that long. And it isn't McCarthyist. It's well worth reading.

I would say, however, that IMHO, most America bashing comes from an inability to comprehend the concept that nations act in their own self-interest - and if one nation gains an ability to act unhindered with little penalty, the other nations (whose own self-interest has been violated) will complain - but that's all they can do. The frustration builds until people are bashing.

As for the 48 percent of Americans - I doubt that 48 percent of Americans are America-bashers - you know, the people who say that nothing America does or has ever done has been good or right.

Show me proof that 48 percent of Americans "hate America" (which is not the same thing as disagreeing with current policy, or hating Bush, or not liking Republicans, or being a Democrat), and I would be surprised.
Own self interest... That is exactly why america is hated.
This is a fucking nation for god sake! We are human, not citizens.
How can you accept that a nation act only in its own self interest and doesn't even try to hide it? Are you that brain-washed? Nations are oppressive and nationalists (or call them patriots if you prefer) are fools.

It's not that long. And it isn't McCarthyist. It's well worth reading.

I would say, however, that IMHO, most America bashing comes from an inability to comprehend the concept that nations act in their own self-interest - and if one nation gains an ability to act unhindered with little penalty, the other nations (whose own self-interest has been violated) will complain - but that's all they can do. The frustration builds until people are bashing.


Understanding that there are "reasons of self interest" for a policy does not imply that people must agree with them nor fail to express their disaproval. Heck we might even believe that a course of action - even though thought to be in national interest - will turn out to have backfired and thus actually be contrary to your national interest.

Your argument only holds water if you assume that "national interest" is a well defined notion that always has a broad concensus. IT doesn't. It boils down to a given administrations opinion on what is in the national interest, and that opinion is open to debate.



As for the 48 percent of Americans - I doubt that 48 percent of Americans are America-bashers - you know, the people who say that nothing America does or has ever done has been good or right.


Frankly, you would have a hard time finding many people who then have that opinion of America. So perhaps your defined population of "America Bashers" WILL be small enough to allow you to generalize.

Show me proof that 48 percent of Americans "hate America" (which is not the same thing as disagreeing with current policy, or hating Bush, or not liking Republicans, or being a Democrat), and I would be surprised.

Show me all of these intellectuals who "hate america" in the context that you put it. Frankly, I think that you will find this group is much smaller than you think, and that these people are already marginalized by REAL intellectuals.

Which basicly means that your author made up a huge long diatribe about a small group of people that we don;t care about anyway.

Hardly seems worth it....

I would say, however, that IMHO, most America bashing comes from an inability to comprehend the concept that nations act in their own self-interest - and if one nation gains an ability to act unhindered with little penalty, the other nations (whose own self-interest has been violated) will complain - but that's all they can do. The frustration builds until people are bashing.

You're talking specifically about non-Americans who bash America. Quite so for some. But you're belittling them for the simple frustration and anger against America - why? You have simple love and pride for America - why? Is it right to lambast someone for feeling strongly about something? In any case, articles like that will change no one's mind because they tie in everything to communism. Fuck communism. all that will bring up is arguments about communism. What it is, what it "truly" is, what it isn't, why it's good, why it isn't, blah blah blah blah. Ad nauseum. Besides which, I have no doubt there is plenty of non-Marxist America bashing going on. No doubt whatsoever.

http://www.policyreview.org/DEC02/harris.html

Could it be that most America-bashers, especially intellectuals, are really disgruntled Marxists who wonder why communism has collapsed (were they really expecting to win the Cold War?), and who wonder why socialism hasn't taken off and succeeded in producing a nation that can contend with the United States?

Could they just be wishing that the US would fail - that the US would go away - and their fantasy would be fulfilled?

Could it be that most American cheerleaders, especially anti-intellectuals, are really disgruntled Fascists who wonder why everybody doesn't rush to forego their freedoms in order to establish a perfectly secure police state? (It must have ticked them off to have won the Cold War by default)

Could they just be wishing the rest of the world would go away, leaving them to fulfill their brownshirt fantasies?

Could it be that most American cheerleaders, especially anti-intellectuals, are really disgruntled Fascists who wonder why everybody doesn't rush to forego their freedoms in order to establish a perfectly secure police state? (It must have ticked them off to have won the Cold War by default)

Could they just be wishing the rest of the world would go away, leaving them to fulfill their brownshirt fantasies?
That would be my dream. Could we wear armbands too?

Own self interest... That is exactly why america is hated.
This is a fucking nation for god sake! We are human, not citizens.
How can you accept that a nation act only in its own self interest and doesn't even try to hide it? Are you that brain-washed? Nations are oppressive and nationalists (or call them patriots if you prefer) are fools.

What country are you from? Does your country not act primarily in its own self-interest?

It's not a matter of being brain washed. That's a specious argument if I ever heard one. Let's say that if someone disagrees with Psylos, then they must be brainwashed or a fool.

Use logic and evidence to show that your country doesn't primarily act in its own self-interest. Show that your country is primarily altruistic, and over the term of recent history (let's say the past 50 years) has never grossly violated that tenet.

First off, I don't buy one of the major premises of this article - that 9/11 was a case of the oppressed striking back at the oppressor. I don't think I'm the only one that thinks that had little to do with economics and great deal to do with religous ideology.

I also agree with previous posts that this article does a great deal of generalizing, so much so that it is entirely unclear who "America-bashers" are (except perhaps the assertion that they are all Marxists on some level - which is laughable).

It's not a matter of being brain washed. That's a specious argument if I ever heard one. Let's say that if someone disagrees with Psylos, then they must be brainwashed or a fool.

Kinda like if someone disagrees with the politics of the current American administration, they must be communists.

What country are you from? Does your country not act primarily in its own self-interest?

It's not a matter of being brain washed. That's a specious argument if I ever heard one. Let's say that if someone disagrees with Psylos, then they must be brainwashed or a fool.

Use logic and evidence to show that your country doesn't primarily act in its own self-interest. Show that your country is primarily altruistic, and over the term of recent history (let's say the past 50 years) has never grossly violated that tenet.


Fine, and granted. Now YOU show proof that this "self-interest" is always well-defined and fully agreed upon by the population of all countries, along with the best policies that are guaranteed to realize them.

Don't forget to include a sidebar on the political notion of quid pro quo as it relates to the difference between true national self interest, and the political self interest of the people involved. Explain how this never factors into the decision making process, or how, when it does, the policies always really focus on the national self interest as the first priority.

I have a problem with America, but it's generally not with Americans. I've worked in America several times and all the people I've worked with have been fantastic.

Here's some of my problems with America: -

1) The city organisers are too car orientated. You simply cannot walk anywhere, everyone must either drive or be driven. Roads should be smaller and more priority given to the pedestrian.

2) American TV is terrible. Every station has it's own generic version of late night chat show. Every decent program is repeated ad-infinitum. There are too many adverts, some ad breaks start immediately after the credits.

Don't get me wrong, some American programmes are the best in the world, SOAP, TAXI, CHEERS, FRASIER, FRIENDS etc. But I would never complain about paying my license fee after watching American TV.

3) Gluttony, everything has to be the biggest and the cheapest. Burgers have to have 3 different types of cheese. Food is literaly forced down your throat. Kudos to any slim Americans.

4) Apathy towards the environment. Little concern for global warming, GM food etc. The worlds greatest polluter is one of the only ones to not ratify the Kyoto protocol.

5) World Police, world bully more like. I didn't agree with the Iraqi regime but the Iraq war was Bush vindicating his father and improving oil supplies.

I'm sure a lot of American would agree with some of my critisisms.

Fine, and granted. Now YOU show proof that this "self-interest" is always well-defined and fully agreed upon by the population of all countries, along with the best policies that are guaranteed to realize them.

Don't forget to include a sidebar on the political notion of quid pro quo as it relates to the difference between true national self interest, and the political self interest of the people involved. Explain how this never factors into the decision making process, or how, when it does, the policies always really focus on the national self interest as the first priority.

The national interest is always defined by the primary power within each government - which rarely is as accurate as we might imagine, nor is it ever as representative as we might wish.

I guess you've never read any international relations theory. It's called realpolitik, and it's the usual method used to explain why nations act as they do. It has many more papers supporting it as a rational explanation for international behavior than any other theory.

It also explains why the average person (a person outside the powers that be) is upset by the behavior of another nation (or even their own). They can't see why it's happenning - and are unwilling to accept realpolitik as an explanation for why it happens.

You, Zepp, are the classic example.

The national interest is always defined by the primary power within each government - which rarely is as accurate as we might imagine, nor is it ever as representative as we might wish.

I guess you've never read any international relations theory. It's called realpolitik, and it's the usual method used to explain why nations act as they do. It has many more papers supporting it as a rational explanation for international behavior than any other theory.

It also explains why the average person (a person outside the powers that be) is upset by the behavior of another nation (or even their own). They can't see why it's happenning - and are unwilling to accept realpolitik as an explanation for why it happens.

You, Zepp, are the classic example.


I'm still waiting on your PROOF, Legs. That wasn't it.

What country are you from? Does your country not act primarily in its own self-interest?

It's not a matter of being brain washed. That's a specious argument if I ever heard one. Let's say that if someone disagrees with Psylos, then they must be brainwashed or a fool.

Use logic and evidence to show that your country doesn't primarily act in its own self-interest. Show that your country is primarily altruistic, and over the term of recent history (let's say the past 50 years) has never grossly violated that tenet.I hate my "country" as much as I hate yours. I'm from Occitany, invaded by France 1000 years ago.
I can't say "go France" when they're raping Africa in the name of "national interests" (or as you call it realpolitik).
The man who comes and says he is proud that France is doing nuclear tests in the pacific in order to protect France's national interests at the expense of everybody is such brain-washed I can't do anything for him anymore. The man who is waving american flags is the same. I feel sorry for them. If they could get that shit out of their head and travel outside of their shit it would make a better world.

Saying that countries act on their own best interest is true, but being proud of it and waving a flag of your country like you supported it as a human being means that your brain is not functioning correctly.

No, you don't understand, the new enemies are terrorists now! Commies are so 90'ies and don't even start with germans. http://67.18.37.16/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

most America bashing comes from an inability to comprehend the concept that nations act in their own self-interest - and if one nation gains an ability to act unhindered with little penalty, the other nations (whose own self-interest has been violated) will complain - but that's all they can do. The frustration builds until people are bashing.


Nations act in their own self-interest. Hmmm. Well, so do people. So if you're bleeding to death on an operating table, and the doctor thinks he has time to go off and scratch his lottery ticket with "little penalty", I guess you'll have no right to complain. Wouldn't want anybody to engage in doctor bashing.

Now, I know what you're thinking: this is only the act of one doctor, so bashing him wouldn't be bashing doctors as a whole, just that one.

Just like bashing one of the United States' policies is NOT U.S. bashing. It's the bashing of just one of the policies. It just so happens that America has a LOT of policies right now that most of the world doesn't agree with. We don't hate the country, we hate your government and your poor choice to continue with that government. (However, unlike the U.S., we allow you to make the poor choice, and don't go invading your country to kill ol' Dubya) And no, we don't hate your government because it's not a communist government. I love my own government, and it's not classified as communist.

As for quid pro quo, that only pertains in situations where either real negotiation is going on (real negotiation implies that both sides want something, and that both sides have something of value to trade).

China, France, Germany, and Russia never had any intention to really negotiate any aid in invading Iraq. They never wanted it to happen - not under any circumstances - and they have said so repeatedly. Even if WMD had been shown by Saddam and admitted by Saddam - they would never have agreed to any invasion for any reason.

So, in realpolitik, you can't have a quid pro quo when one side is clearly signaling that there won't be any real negotiations.

And, the US wasn't going to back down on invading. None of the nations who were in a clear position to say yea or nay were willing to negotiate and compromise in good faith. You can't say that it was only the United States acting in their own self-interest.

All of the nations in question were up to their ankles, head-down, in the wealth of Iraq. None of them were willing to give up the lucrative contracts, the secret deals, and none of them really cared about the poor Iraqis or that Saddam screwed his own people on a regular basis.

I hate my "country" as much as I hate yours. I'm from Occitany, invaded by France 1000 years ago.
I can't say "go France" when they're raping Africa in the name of "national interests" (or as you call it realpolitik).
The man who comes and says he is proud that France is doing nuclear tests in the pacific in order to protect France's national interests at the expense of everybody is such brain-washed I can't do anything for him anymore. The man who is waving american flags is the same. I feel sorry for them. If they could get that shit out of their head and travel outside of their shit it would make a better world.

Saying that countries act on their own best interest is true, but being proud of it and waving a flag of your country like you supported it as a human being means that your brain is not functioning correctly.

I'm not proud of all of it. I just have a hard time with people who hold up their own country and say, "it's so much better than America".

Yeah, it's hard to say "go France" unless you like killing members of Greenpeace without a trial.

I find it impossible to find a nation that seems to act in the best interests of the world. I can eliminate most nations without much fuss, because in order to really influence the world and correct problems as you find them, you have to be an economic and military superpower.

Most nations don't fall into this dual category. The EU could, but out of its own self-interest, it doesn't want to form a military that is capable of projecting power around the globe.

http://www.policyreview.org/DEC02/harris.html

Could it be that most America-bashers, especially intellectuals, are really disgruntled Marxists who wonder why communism has collapsed (were they really expecting to win the Cold War?), and who wonder why socialism hasn't taken off and succeeded in producing a nation that can contend with the United States?

Could they just be wishing that the US would fail - that the US would go away - and their fantasy would be fulfilled?
My favourite line is this:

But above all it is the America that is responsible for the evils of the rest of the world.
Very few people say that the US is responsible for all the evils in the world. They only say that the US is responsible for the evil it has itself committed (propping up dictators etc).

You want to know why so many are starting to think that America can't be fixed? Because all you project to the rest of the world is an unapologetic hypocrasy of "spreading democracy". If your government at least admitted to its past (and present) wrongs, and made any attempt to avoid future evil, it would go a long way to improving the opinions held around the world about your nation. That America continues to "care less what others say", all the while complaining that "no one loves us" is quite futile. Either you care, or you don't. Labelling all your detractors as "Marxists" is ridiculous name calling.

We don't expect you to be perfect, but it annoys us when you pretend you are. We don't expect you to never mess up, but it drives us mad that you point the finger always outward instead of at yourselves. Your assumption that American consumerism is the best system, and your tireless pressuring to get this system put into place in every nation on Earth is nothing short of colonialist in its aspirations. If you don't want the criticism, then stop trying to expand your influence so much. You can call us Marxists, or terrorists, or ignorant primitives if you wish, but it doens't change the fact that people in every nation have a legitimate reason to be discussing (positiviely or negatively) America and your politics...because there is not a single nation that is not affected by your policies to one extent or another.

As for quid pro quo, that only pertains in situations where either real negotiation is going on (real negotiation implies that both sides want something, and that both sides have something of value to trade).

China, France, Germany, and Russia never had any intention to really negotiate any aid in invading Iraq. They never wanted it to happen - not under any circumstances - and they have said so repeatedly. Even if WMD had been shown by Saddam and admitted by Saddam - they would never have agreed to any invasion for any reason.

So, in realpolitik, you can't have a quid pro quo when one side is clearly signaling that there won't be any real negotiations.

And, the US wasn't going to back down on invading. None of the nations who were in a clear position to say yea or nay were willing to negotiate and compromise in good faith. You can't say that it was only the United States acting in their own self-interest.

All of the nations in question were up to their ankles, head-down, in the wealth of Iraq. None of them were willing to give up the lucrative contracts, the secret deals, and none of them really cared about the poor Iraqis or that Saddam screwed his own people on a regular basis.Maybe no country cares, but people care. Why are you defending them? Can't you see they're full of shit?

All of the nations in question were up to their ankles, head-down, in the wealth of Iraq. None of them were willing to give up the lucrative contracts, the secret deals, and none of them really cared about the poor Iraqis or that Saddam screwed his own people on a regular basis.

...Which must've grated on the nerves of the US, seeing as how they used to be the ones with the lucrative contracts & secret deals. But back then, the US didn't care about the 'poor Iraqis', or how Saddam treated them. All that mattered was the oil.

And now they have unfettered access to someone else's resources. Sweet.


Got those lights running yet? How about the fresh water supply?

Poor Iraqis. At least under Saddam, they didn't have to burn candles to see, or walk half a mile for potable water...

must resist... to... post... argumets against... republicans... too easy... need... a challenge.

Seems to me that one challenge you should master first is that of spelling. Then, please do engage in argumeNts with folks like me. hehe

I completely accept and understand that most nations are acting in their own self-interest most of the time. It doesn't change the fact that people (who are often altruistic believe it or not) are going to take issue with that. Just because they disagree with American policies or even "bash" the country as a whole, doesn't mean that they lack an understanding of its basic motivations. In fact, it's probably this understanding that partially contributes to their disgust. The fact that people disagree with American policy does not make them stupid, incompetent, or mean that they are lacking insight in some way.

I'm not proud of all of it. I just have a hard time with people who hold up their own country and say, "it's so much better than America".

Yeah, it's hard to say "go France" unless you like killing members of Greenpeace without a trial.

I find it impossible to find a nation that seems to act in the best interests of the world. I can eliminate most nations without much fuss, because in order to really influence the world and correct problems as you find them, you have to be an economic and military superpower.

Most nations don't fall into this dual category. The EU could, but out of its own self-interest, it doesn't want to form a military that is capable of projecting power around the globe.
There is much american bashing going on because there are many people to defend it.
If I say Chirac is an ass in France, everybody will agree with me. In the UK it is the same, most people agree Blair is a pain in the ass. It is the same nearly everywhere.
I just can't understand why so many people are waving flags in the US when their country is such full of shit. How can so many people come here to defend the action of Bush and his minions?

Show me proof that 48 percent of Americans "hate America" (which is not the same thing as disagreeing with current policy, or hating Bush, or not liking Republicans, or being a Democrat), and I would be surprised.

Very few people blindly 'hate' America. Most people disagree with this policy or that, while liking another one...things are not black and white here. Most people don't hate Americans...but what they do hate is that their lives are being directly affected by the governments that Americans choose. You say, "Everyone acts in their own interests, deal with it", but you seem to think that means no one should criticise (which you call bashing) your administration. Tough luck. The criticism is merited.

...Which must've grated on the nerves of the US, seeing as how they used to be the ones with the lucrative contracts & secret deals. But back then, the US didn't care about the 'poor Iraqis', or how Saddam treated them. All that mattered was the oil.

And now they have unfettered access to someone else's resources. Sweet.


Got those lights running yet? How about the fresh water supply?

Poor Iraqis. At least under Saddam, they didn't have to burn candles to see, or walk half a mile for potable water...

Or do much aside from voicing dissent to receive an acid bath...

NOT PCP! hehe

...Which must've grated on the nerves of the US, seeing as how they used to be the ones with the lucrative contracts & secret deals. But back then, the US didn't care about the 'poor Iraqis', or how Saddam treated them. All that mattered was the oil.

And now they have unfettered access to someone else's resources. Sweet.


Got those lights running yet? How about the fresh water supply?

Poor Iraqis. At least under Saddam, they didn't have to burn candles to see, or walk half a mile for potable water...

Yes it did grate on the US. I've explained that's why the US acted as it did. And why the other nations acted as they did.

I don't buy the ethical/moral crap that I hear from a lot of people on this forum.

None of the nations involved acted or spoke from a sense of moral purpose or moral superiority. They were speaking and acting for the oil and the political control of land in the Middle East.

That means the US. It also means France, Germany, the UK, Italy, China, and Russia (let me know if I missed any who took one side or the other).

And people are free to bash America (as well as any of the others). I'm just saying I know why they bash it, why it is a useless gesture (especially if they are bashing for moral purposes and come from a nation that was involved and acted from a monetary urge and not a moral one), and why other nations to my mind are no better than the US.

And why, if they had the military power to change it back, they would.

The national interest is always defined by the primary power within each government - which rarely is as accurate as we might imagine, nor is it ever as representative as we might wish.

I guess you've never read any international relations theory. It's called realpolitik, and it's the usual method used to explain why nations act as they do. It has many more papers supporting it as a rational explanation for international behavior than any other theory.

It also explains why the average person (a person outside the powers that be) is upset by the behavior of another nation (or even their own). They can't see why it's happenning - and are unwilling to accept realpolitik as an explanation for why it happens.

You, Zepp, are the classic example.

Oh! *sees the light* It is only the ignorant masses who complain, not understanding that what the US does, in its own interests, also benefits ALL of mankind! I understand now! To criticise is to highlight one's ignorance as to the reality of the situation! How silly of me! I shall never criticise America again, until I get a PhD in Political Science, which of course would mean I was educated enough to see the truth, which would mean I wouldn't be criticising American anyway.

Thank you!

Or do much aside from voicing dissent to receive an acid bath...

Nah, you're right. Now voicing dissent will only get you a ticket to Abu Ghraib.

Nah, you're right. Now voicing dissent will only get you a ticket to Abu Ghraib.Depends on who you disagree with. You can have your throat cut if you disagree with the other side.
You're pretty fucked anyway in current chaotic Iraq.

The national interest is always defined by the primary power within each government - which rarely is as accurate as we might imagine, nor is it ever as representative as we might wish.

I guess you've never read any international relations theory. It's called realpolitik, and it's the usual method used to explain why nations act as they do. It has many more papers supporting it as a rational explanation for international behavior than any other theory.

It also explains why the average person (a person outside the powers that be) is upset by the behavior of another nation (or even their own). They can't see why it's happenning - and are unwilling to accept realpolitik as an explanation for why it happens.

You, Zepp, are the classic example.

You, Legs, are doing a wonderful job explaining why policies get made. Because a given administration feels that it is in their national or personal interest to do so.

I have never disputed that fact.

Where you fail miserably is in this notion that you seem to have that the rest of the world should just go "Oh well, no matter, I guess it's just 'in their national interest'" and abdicate discussion on a policy.


I mean really - that being the case, I suppose you should cancel all further elections in your country because the current administration "knows best" and is actively pursuing what all Americans feel is in their best nationa interest?

Or is national interest only a domestic concept that exists in a vacuum? That what your administration feels is in their interest regarding trade or foreign policy has no world impact and thus foreigners should have no opinions?


I've granted you the notion of "national interest", although your refusal to accept that politicians - being people - have personal interest as well is rather odd.

It is your extension of this concept to explaining how others do feel or should feel about your national interest that is, in my opinion, silly.

Yes it did grate on the US. I've explained that's why the US acted as it did. And why the other nations acted as they did.

I don't buy the ethical/moral crap that I hear from a lot of people on this forum.
The very fact that you call ethics and morals 'crap' speaks quite loudly of your values.

None of the nations involved acted or spoke from a sense of moral purpose or moral superiority. They were speaking and acting for the oil and the political control of land in the Middle East. No doubt. That doesn't mean the people themselves (who were not directly benefiting from this) aren't acting from a genuine belief that what you are doing is wrong. (or that what their own country is doing wrong, for that matter...do you really think people don't oppose their own government's policies? Do you really think they only talk about America? Isolated, aren't you?)



And people are free to bash America (as well as any of the others). I'm just saying I know why they bash it, why it is a useless gesture (especially if they are bashing for moral purposes and come from a nation that was involved and acted from a monetary urge and not a moral one), and why other nations to my mind are no better than the US.
Clearly you DON'T know why the 'bash' America.


People 'bashing' the US aren't doing so in the name of whatever nation they live in. I don't criticise the US in the name of Canada. I do so as a human being. People are quite aware of the political corruption going on in their own countries. Many countries are quite aligned with yours, despite the fact their own citizens aren't. Plenty of people also support you, even if their country doesn't. You can not reduce everyone down to a mindless pawn of their state...I don't blame all Americans for the American system.

I'm not saying you should stop whining about US policy.

But...

You can stop proclaiming that certain other nations who were involved in the whole affair (including many Security Council members who opposed the war) were doing so solely or even primarily out of some moral or ethical stance.

They were not. So get off the high horse.

Canada could probably make that claim - but certainly not the major players.

So, Zepp, since you're in Canada, go ahead and make the moral high ground claim.

As for the others who oppose US policy on a moral and ethical basis, and ARE from those countries who were fighting not to lose their own position of looting Iraq - either admit that what you're really after is the same thing that Halliburton wants, or that you need to vote your own government out of office at the next election because they are just as unethical as the US.

You can object to US policy all you like. Just be honest as to why you do so, and be very honest as to why your government does.

You may find that like the so-called "flag waving brainwashed" Americans, who support the war with claims of spreading liberty and freedom while the US is really there for an economic and political and geographical power play, most people who oppose the war in certain key countries do not oppose it for the same reasons that their government does. While one may be from France, for example, and oppose the war on a moral basis, and claim it is illegal, the French Government says the same thing - but their real reason for opposing it is the loss of lucrative military and oil deals.

So perhaps I should address this thread to the brainwashed, flag-waving French, German, Russian, and Chinese who actually believe what their government is telling them...

So perhaps I should address this thread to the brainwashed, flag-waving French, German, Russian, and Chinese who actually believe what their government is telling them...
Perhaps you should. I've yet to hear the argument that "My country is so much better than America, and that's why I criticise them". I think this new thread you may start will be a very quiet one.

Perhaps you should. I've yet to hear the argument that "My country is so much better than America, and that's why I criticise them". I think this new thread you may start will be a very quiet one.

I've heard the argument that Europeans (or Canadians) are so much more intelligent, educated, and so less brainwashed, and their media outlets are so much more accurate and unbiased - and that they AND their country were opposed to war from a moral and ethical standpoint.

I happen to believe that people who actually believe that they live in a country (we'll take Canada as an exception until proven otherwise) that opposed the war in the Security Council, who actually believe that their nation did so for moral reasons that had nothing to do with profits, who believe that their news sources are unimpeachably unbiased, and who ALSO think the war in Iraq was wrong are just as brainwashed as they say the Americans are.

For a neat spin on European news slanted by corporate ownership, I suggest France 2. Or is Thomson not a French Corporation (and France Telecom)?

So perhaps I should address this thread to the brainwashed, flag-waving French, German, Russian, and Chinese who actually believe what their government is telling them...
They exist in France, you see them usually at football matches and they love le pen. They're not worth adressing. You just have to let them talk to see them ridicule themselves. They are usually drunk and they end up fighting each other which is a good thing. I don't think they would be able to use a computer and post on your thread because their educational level is very low and they don't talk foreign languages.

I'm not saying you should stop whining about US policy.

But...

You can stop proclaiming that certain other nations who were involved in the whole affair (including many Security Council members who opposed the war) were doing so solely or even primarily out of some moral or ethical stance.

They were not. So get off the high horse.

Canada could probably make that claim - but certainly not the major players.

So, Zepp, since you're in Canada, go ahead and make the moral high ground claim.

As for the others who oppose US policy on a moral and ethical basis, and ARE from those countries who were fighting not to lose their own position of looting Iraq - either admit that what you're really after is the same thing that Halliburton wants, or that you need to vote your own government out of office at the next election because they are just as unethical as the US.

You can object to US policy all you like. Just be honest as to why you do so, and be very honest as to why your government does.

You may find that like the so-called "flag waving brainwashed" Americans, who support the war with claims of spreading liberty and freedom while the US is really there for an economic and political and geographical power play, most people who oppose the war in certain key countries do not oppose it for the same reasons that their government does. While one may be from France, for example, and oppose the war on a moral basis, and claim it is illegal, the French Government says the same thing - but their real reason for opposing it is the loss of lucrative military and oil deals.

So perhaps I should address this thread to the brainwashed, flag-waving French, German, Russian, and Chinese who actually believe what their government is telling them...

I'm British, and I'm entirely prepared to except that my government, along with that of the US invaded Iraq out of 'national self-interest' however since I'm not a shareholder in a company which stands to make alot of money out of Iraq, that 'national self interest' is not in my best interests, therefore I criticise my own government along with that of the US

I also accept that the French, Russian etc... acted out of 'National self interest' in opposing the war, but this doesn't really mean the same thing as in the interests of most french, russian etc... people.

I'm not a marxist BTW

Oh yeah I suppose all those islamic terrorists are marxists.

Read the fricken article, that way you won't sound so stupid. Or, if you can't be bothered to read it, please refrain from throwing in your two cents. The article spends about a page explaining why the islamic terrorists are actually working against the ideals of Marxism.

I happen to believe that people who actually believe that they live in a country (we'll take Canada as an exception until proven otherwise) that opposed the war in the Security Council, who actually believe that their nation did so for moral reasons that had nothing to do with profits, who believe that their news sources are unimpeachably unbiased, and who ALSO think the war in Iraq was wrong are just as brainwashed as they say the Americans are.I don't know if there are people naive enough to think Chirac opposed the war for humanitarian reasons, but I still know that I opposed this war because it was going to fuck up the middle east and kill many inocent people and yet bring nothing good aside filling the pockets of the greedy bastards in Texas.

For a neat spin on European news slanted by corporate ownership, I suggest France 2. Or is Thomson not a French Corporation (and France Telecom)?
You're talking about TF1 (owned by bouygues and Thomson).
France 2 is state owned.

I've heard the argument that Europeans (or Canadians) are so much more intelligent, educated, and so less brainwashed, and their media outlets are so much more accurate and unbiased - and that they AND their country were opposed to war from a moral and ethical standpoint.

I happen to believe that people who actually believe that they live in a country (we'll take Canada as an exception until proven otherwise) that opposed the war in the Security Council, who actually believe that their nation did so for moral reasons that had nothing to do with profits, who believe that their news sources are unimpeachably unbiased, and who ALSO think the war in Iraq was wrong are just as brainwashed as they say the Americans are.

For a neat spin on European news slanted by corporate ownership, I suggest France 2. Or is Thomson not a French Corporation (and France Telecom)?

There are idiots of every nationality, and those who do not question their own governments. That doesn't mean the rest of us don't have a right to criticise, or that we have anything in common with the flag-wavers.

Perhaps you should. I've yet to hear the argument that "My country is so much better than America, and that's why I criticise them". I think this new thread you may start will be a very quiet one.

So, if this is not the implied argument behind America bashing, then why engage in it? If Europeans think that their own countries are just as oppressive to the third world (if not more so) then why pick exclusivly on the United States? No, your argument makes no sense, Europeans attack America from a standpoint of percieved moral superiority.

I'm a British conserv and capitalist, but I oppose America's forgein policy, and that is why I 'bash' the administration. I am nor jealous nor a Marxist. So why do people like the topic starter persist in believing that anyone who dislikes America's adminiistration is one of the two?

I've heard the argument that Europeans (or Canadians) are so much more intelligent, educated, and so less brainwashed, and their media outlets are so much more accurate and unbiased - and that they AND their country were opposed to war from a moral and ethical standpoint.


Please allow me to be the first to parrot the usual knee-jerk reactionary response we've all come to expect from the neo-brownshirts:

PROVIDE ME A LINK.

Otherwise, you're just inflicting grief on the rest of us over what amounts to heresay.

There are idiots of every nationality, and those who do not question their own governments. That doesn't mean the rest of us don't have a right to criticise, or that we have anything in common with the flag-wavers.

I waved a flag once, it didn't make me any dumber.

Nah, you're right. Now voicing dissent will only get you a ticket to Abu Ghraib.
Except, it won't; so stop with the B.S.

I don't know if there are people naive enough to think Chirac opposed the war for humanitarian reasons, but I still know that I opposed this war because it was going to fuck up the middle east and kill many inocent people and yet bring nothing good aside filling the pockets of the greedy bastards in Texas.

You're talking about TF1 (owned by bouygues and Thomson).
France 2 is state owned.

The spin-up before the show for France 2 says it's brought to us by France Telecom and Thomson.

I've seen more than one interview with corporate bad boys from Thomson subsidiaries get a walk in the park interview on France 2. Makes what Fox does look subtle.

If I can understand the softball interview with my non-native French and no subtitles, then something is too obvious.

Read the fricken article, that way you won't sound so stupid. Or, if you can't be bothered to read it, please refrain from throwing in your two cents. The article spends about a page explaining why the islamic terrorists are actually working against the ideals of Marxism.
I've done it. This was about the coments of the first poster.

I waved a flag once, it didn't make me any dumber.
An american one? Why? Was it to show support?

The spin-up before the show for France 2 says it's brought to us by France Telecom and Thomson.

I've seen more than one interview with corporate bad boys from Thomson subsidiaries get a walk in the park interview on France 2. Makes what Fox does look subtle.

If I can understand the softball interview with my non-native French and no subtitles, then something is too obvious.Well I know France 2 is using much corporate funds. And that they were paid by Thomson doesn't surprise me. They may make Fox News looks subtle, but watch TF1, they even openly admit their job is to sell ready brain time to advertisers.

So, if this is not the implied argument behind America bashing, then why engage in it? If Europeans think that their own countries are just as oppressive to the third world (if not more so) then why pick exclusivly on the United States? No, your argument makes no sense, Europeans attack America from a standpoint of percieved moral superiority.

Wow, sounds like you really have your mind made up.

I didn't say that Europeans (or any one else...you don't really believe that only the Europeans have something to say about America, do you?) think their countries are just as or more oppressive to other countries. In most cases, that simply isn't true. I said only that very few people wholly support everything their government does. That means more than just this petty war in Iraq...it means domestic as well as foreign policy. Do I think Canada is morally superior to America? Not particularly...both our governments support neoliberalism, albeit to a different extent. Do I think my country has done less evil in the world than the US? Absolutely. Does that invalidate any argument I might make about the US? Don't be ridiculous.

This perceived moral superiority of which you speak is not a national one. Few, other than the very brainwashed, believe their government can do no wrong. However, as individuals or groups, we resist and criticise American policies. We don't do so from the pretext that Canadians are morally superior to Americans. We do so as humans, seeing a wrong, and wishing it to be rectified. I have not had a part personally in the installation of dictators in South America. Neither have most Americans. Nonetheless, the American government did. That my country did not protest these acts enough shames me. That won't stop me from protesting it myself.

Do you get the difference? National governments might project themselves as 'better', but the people themselves are the ones making the majority of the criticisms, and politicians sometimes ape them.

I waved a flag once, it didn't make me any dumber.
Taking this symbol of blind patriotism too literally might though....

Could it be that most America-bashers, especially intellectuals, are really disgruntled Marxists who wonder why communism has collapsed
No. You are wrong.

http://www.policyreview.org/DEC02/harris.html

Could it be that most America-bashers, especially intellectuals, are really disgruntled Marxists who wonder why communism has collapsed (were they really expecting to win the Cold War?), and who wonder why socialism hasn't taken off and succeeded in producing a nation that can contend with the United States?

Could they just be wishing that the US would fail - that the US would go away - and their fantasy would be fulfilled?


i think its more G W bashing. Even peops like me who are called "right" wing by other canucks tend to dislike what the usa is doing in Iraq.

The attitude I get when I meet americans on biz reguarding G W really bothers me though. " It voted for him on the sole basis that he doesnt care what the rest of the world thinks of him" <<< what the hell?

Umm ok? How about the mini nam hes got the states into? Those scumbag terrorists + criminals fighting you in iraq only need some solid backing to start shooting you up nam style....

Taking this symbol of blind patriotism too literally might though....


I have a canadian flag on my front porch, ;)

The attitude I get when I meet americans on biz reguarding G W really bothers me though. " It voted for him on the sole basis that he doesnt care what the rest of the world thinks of him" <<< what the hell?
Many American Bush supporters are xenophobes.

I don't hate America. I hate the Bush administration, neo-cons and fundies. They're the ones ruining this country, not liberals.

Just because a nation has it's own interests does mean it should have no morals.

http://www.policyreview.org/DEC02/harris.html

Could it be that most America-bashers, especially intellectuals, are really disgruntled Marxists who wonder why communism has collapsed (were they really expecting to win the Cold War?), and who wonder why socialism hasn't taken off and succeeded in producing a nation that can contend with the United States?

Could they just be wishing that the US would fail - that the US would go away - and their fantasy would be fulfilled?
It would nice if you could just wish away all the bad feelings directed toward the U.S. lately as the product of disgruntled Cold War Marxists who refuse to give up the ghost, wouldn't it?

But, the reality is that as much as some people absolutely refuse to brook any criticism of this country's leaders, much of the anti-American feeling is the direct result of American actions of the past three years.

Have you forgotten the headline of the liberal French newspaper, Le Monde, on 12 September? It proudly proclaimed, "We Are All Americans." German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said: "This is not only an attack on the United States but an attack on the civilized world." The European Union Commission President Romano Prodi, said that "in the darkest hours of European history, America stood close with us, today we stand close by America." The EU offered to defend the value of the dollar by intervening on money markets. Even Fidel Castro's Cuba offered airspace and airports to any aircraft from the United States or elsewhere that needed it.

What has happened to that outpouring of support and solidarity? You think it has been dissipated by a bunch of Marxist dead-enders? I'm afraid you are blinded by your loyalty to the person of George Bush and cannot see that the Emperor has no clothes.

American choices have brought about legitimate criticisms from people and countries around the world who disagree with those choices.

It is not anti-Americanism. It is anti-Bushism. Do not make the mistake of equating the person of George W. Bush with the ideals and values of the United States. The latter still has broad, deep support around the world, while the former is generally held in disdain.

Umm ok? How about the mini nam hes got the states into? Those scumbag terrorists + criminals fighting you in iraq only need some solid backing to start shooting you up nam style....

This is not true. These terrorists are totally outclassed by our troops. They have no proper training, are not good marksmen, and use suspect materials. They die at rates comparable to the VC in Vietnam. Meanwhile our casualty rates are so much lower compared to Vietnam.

I don't hate America. I hate the Bush administration, neo-cons and fundies. They're the ones ruining this country, not liberals.

Just because a nation has it's own interests does mean it should have no morals.

What exactly have the liberals done in this country, that has done any good at all in the past 30 years?

Have you forgotten the headline of the liberal French newspaper, Le Monde, on 12 September? It proudly proclaimed, "We Are All Americans." German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said: "This is not only an attack on the United States but an attack on the civilized world." The European Union Commission President Romano Prodi, said that "in the darkest hours of European history, America stood close with us, today we stand close by America." The EU offered to defend the value of the dollar by intervening on money markets. Even Fidel Castro's Cuba offered airspace and airports to any aircraft from the United States or elsewhere that needed it.

What has happened to that outpouring of support and solidarity? You think it has been dissipated by a bunch of Marxist dead-enders? I'm afraid you are blinded by your loyalty to the person of George Bush and cannot see that the Emperor has no clothes.




If you believe that these leaders really meant what they said, then you sir can purchase my oceanfront property in Arizona!

It would nice if you could just wish away all the bad feelings directed toward the U.S. lately as the product of disgruntled Cold War Marxists who refuse to give up the ghost, wouldn't it?

But, the reality is that as much as some people absolutely refuse to brook any criticism of this country's leaders, much of the anti-American feeling is the direct result of American actions of the past three years.

Have you forgotten the headline of the liberal French newspaper, Le Monde, on 12 September? It proudly proclaimed, "We Are All Americans." German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said: "This is not only an attack on the United States but an attack on the civilized world." The European Union Commission President Romano Prodi, said that "in the darkest hours of European history, America stood close with us, today we stand close by America." The EU offered to defend the value of the dollar by intervening on money markets. Even Fidel Castro's Cuba offered airspace and airports to any aircraft from the United States or elsewhere that needed it.

What has happened to that outpouring of support and solidarity? You think it has been dissipated by a bunch of Marxist dead-enders? I'm afraid you are blinded by your loyalty to the person of George Bush and cannot see that the Emperor has no clothes.

American choices have brought about legitimate criticisms from people and countries around the world who disagree with those choices.

It is not anti-Americanism. It is anti-Bushism. Do not make the mistake of equating the person of George W. Bush with the ideals and values of the United States. The latter still has broad, deep support around the world, while the former is generally held in disdain.
Words are cheap. The French have not acted as true allies to the US since the American Revolution.

What exactly have the liberals done in this country, that has done any good at all in the past 30 years?

The liberals have never been on office, democrats have, and most recently, very right-sided democrats.

And Clinton did plenty for my then-republican family. Made us some good cash when we sold our house, which was important for us to sell after Bush yoinked Fort Ord away from the area and tried to screw up the local economy.

What exactly have the liberals done in this country, that has done any good at all in the past 30 years?

Well, if you were a racist, you could say that the Democratic Party, from the Great Society program onwards, did more to impoverish African-Americans, more to isolate African-Americans, more to force African-Americans to prey on each other, more to destroy African-American families, more to raise African-American unemployment, and more to send African-Americans to jail instead of college than any other force in American politics.

But I digress...

This was about America-bashing.

Words are cheap. The French have not acted as true allies to the US since the American Revolution.

Not to the Republicans, no.

They didn't even help them lie about the WMDs. Those rat bastards and their actually having truthful politicians for once!

Though it should be noted, their revolution was right after ours: They guillotined the French who helped us.

This was about America-bashing.

The sport of Kings, proles and peasants alike.

Well, if you were a racist, you could say that the Democratic Party, from the Great Society program onwards, did more to impoverish African-Americans, more to isolate African-Americans, more to force African-Americans to prey on each other, more to destroy African-American families, more to raise African-American unemployment, and more to send African-Americans to jail instead of college than any other force in American politics.

But I digress...

This was about America-bashing.

Yep. Affirmative action. The worst thing you could ever do to a group is give them a crutch. Give'em a fish vs. teach'em to fish.

Part of why I don't make use of my native american bloodlines to get free money and such, I refuse to allow my racial background to have any effect on my life.

Everywhere I look, somebody's out to get a rise out of other people...

Can people not send their opinions out in unabrasive ways? Is that not possible for people around here?

Everywhere I look, somebody's out to get a rise out of other people...

Can people not send their opinions out in unabrasive ways? Is that not possible for people around here?

Hate and anger are always abrasive. Not to mention the slamming of intelligent minds against brick walls.

Squishy.

Everywhere I look, somebody's out to get a rise out of other people...

Can people not send their opinions out in unabrasive ways? Is that not possible for people around here?

In the old days, we used to call this "caucusing in the halls".

If you're not getting some sort of rise, it's not truly interesting. Still, you have to make some sort of cogent argument.

I wouldn't find it interesting to argue with a bland version of Zepp, for instance.

And, if you really care about some of the issues, or tend to think of them in ways developed in your area of the world, you're going to get a rise.

Yeah, I'm socialist, so I hate America. Actually, I'm evil too, but I didn't have to add that, because everyone knows that all socialists are evil (and america-haters) by nature.^^


Be careful, he might exercise his/her? apparently god-given right to shoot you...:P

Hate and anger are always abrasive. Not to mention the slamming of intelligent minds against brick walls.

Squishy.
Then hate and anger should not be a part of the way people post their opinions. That's logic.

In the old days, we used to call this "caucusing in the halls".

If you're not getting some sort of rise, it's not truly interesting. Still, you have to make some sort of cogent argument.

I wouldn't find it interesting to argue with a bland version of Zepp, for instance.

And, if you really care about some of the issues, or tend to think of them in ways developed in your area of the world, you're going to get a rise.
If you try, you can portray your belief in your opinions without being abrasive. It's extremely difficult to do, but it's worth try.

I have yet to obtain total unabrasiveness myself, but the pursuit's half the fun, no?

Words are cheap. The French have not acted as true allies to the US since the American Revolution.
Then don't worry about the criticism. It is only words.

Then hate and anger should not be a part of the way people post their opinions. That's logic.

Bloodless coups are sadly rare.

At present, as through all of human history, hatred rules above kindness.

Hatred has never shown to understand anything but its own kind.

And so the cycle goes on, because there is no beautiful, poetic twist to turn hatred in to love as one sees in storybooks.

Then don't worry about the criticism. It is only words.
Who said I was worried about the criticism?

If you want proof, go to any non-american news source, and see for yourself exactly how many thousand Americans have run to Canada....and the American *government* thinks it's better than every other nation, especially if they can just go and bomb them if anyone says boo...it's people don't think like that. :P Unfortunately, since there may be a draft a comin', lots more will be trying for refugee status....scary, eh?

Oh, by the way...calling them cowards doesn't change anything, they're still here....I'm sure they would be more likely to defend Canada than a nation run by a bigot. :P I think someone called it 'voting with their feet'....

It's not that long. And it isn't McCarthyist. It's well worth reading.

I would say, however, that IMHO, most America bashing comes from an inability to comprehend the concept that nations act in their own self-interest - and if one nation gains an ability to act unhindered with little penalty, the other nations (whose own self-interest has been violated) will complain - but that's all they can do. The frustration builds until people are bashing.

As for the 48 percent of Americans - I doubt that 48 percent of Americans are America-bashers - you know, the people who say that nothing America does or has ever done has been good or right.

Show me proof that 48 percent of Americans "hate America" (which is not the same thing as disagreeing with current policy, or hating Bush, or not liking Republicans, or being a Democrat), and I would be surprised.

I consider myself an intelligent person...and I prefer to debate my points with mostly logic, pushing away all bit a little emotion. It works for me, at least...just enough emotion to show my conviction, but not enough to allow myself to be hurt or (intentionally) cause hurt. May not work for anyone else, but it does for me.

That's all I find worth saying.

Could it be that most American cheerleaders, especially anti-intellectuals, are really disgruntled Fascists who wonder why everybody doesn't rush to forego their freedoms in order to establish a perfectly secure police state? (It must have ticked them off to have won the Cold War by default)

Could they just be wishing the rest of the world would go away, leaving them to fulfill their brownshirt fantasies?


WOW! Bravo!

You do realize that some people are able to curse and swear and insult while being calm, relaxed, and simply smirking?

Some of us are just outright honest. Doesn't prevent logical arguments. Just makes it that much more amusing when someone lacking any sort of emotional control spazzes.

http://www.policyreview.org/DEC02/harris.html

Could it be that most America-bashers, especially intellectuals, are really disgruntled Marxists who wonder why communism has collapsed (were they really expecting to win the Cold War?), and who wonder why socialism hasn't taken off and succeeded in producing a nation that can contend with the United States?

Could they just be wishing that the US would fail - that the US would go away - and their fantasy would be fulfilled?

Yes.

Here is another essay on the same subject.
http://www.europundits.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_europundits_archive.html#110785636767899582

If you want proof, go to any non-american news source, and see for yourself exactly how many thousand Americans have run to Canada....and the American *government* thinks it's better than every other nation, especially if they can just go and bomb them if anyone says boo...it's people don't think like that. :P Unfortunately, since there may be a draft a comin', lots more will be trying for refugee status....scary, eh?

Oh, by the way...calling them cowards doesn't change anything, they're still here....I'm sure they would be more likely to defend Canada than a nation run by a bigot. :P I think someone called it 'voting with their feet'....
Does Canada even have an army? The fact is Canada relies on the US for protection. If they actually had to pay for defense, they would not be able to afford all those socialist programs like free healthcare.

Good things the government does (or tries to) for us.

Headstart-cut by the neo-cons
AmeriCorps-cut
Clean water act-oops, cut
Medicare-Hmmm
Medicaid- cut
Ban on DDT and PCBs-will we keep that one
Consumer safety commission-Yeah, that'll last
Direct student loans-cut
GI bill-can we keep this one?
Mine Safety and Health Commission-funds cut
National parks-let's just save time and give them directly to the mining and timber companies
School lunches and breakfasts-cut
WIC-cut

Bush complimenting a program is the kiss of death. Right after he said something good about each of the following, he cut funding-Headstart, AmeriCorps,Mine Safety and school lunches.

If you want proof, go to any non-american news source, and see for yourself exactly how many thousand Americans have run to Canada....and the American *government* thinks it's better than every other nation, especially if they can just go and bomb them if anyone says boo...it's people don't think like that. :P Unfortunately, since there may be a draft a comin', lots more will be trying for refugee status....scary, eh?

Oh, by the way...calling them cowards doesn't change anything, they're still here....I'm sure they would be more likely to defend Canada than a nation run by a bigot. :P I think someone called it 'voting with their feet'....

Show me a link to where "thousands of Americans" have run to Canada.

I have a problem believing that. I heard a story on NPR, where the Canadian government said that it wasn't going to be accepting people just because they didn't want to be Americans anymore, or didn't like Bush as President.

I would bet that although some may want to run to Canada, most will not be accepted.

I could be wrong. But your link has to show "thousands" and not "hundreds" or fewer.

Does Canada even have an army? The fact is Canada relies on the US for protection. If they actually had to pay for defense, they would not be able to afford all those socialist programs like free healthcare.

Canada has an army.

It just sucks and is really small.

Depends on who you disagree with. You can have your throat cut if you disagree with the other side.
You're pretty fucked anyway in current chaotic Iraq.


Voicing your opinion of the Bush admin. will get you a ticket to Guantanamo Bay...I would rather have my throat slit..at least I'd be dead, not tortured beyond all human capability...

I haven't called anyone a coward. If you've been reading my posts, you'll know that I believe that cowardice (or bravery) has nearly nothing to do with victory in modern warfare.

Bravery, in fact, can almost be considered a negative factor - it radically increases your own casualty rate and eliminates you from the battle.

And what amount of bravery can stop a GPS guided 2000-lb bomb? Or smart munitions from a CBU-97 cluster dispenser?

How brave those two Iraqi divisions were who drove out from Baghdad right before the Americans began to reach the city. They moved out on the road, and began to spread into an attack formation. Sheer bravery!

And then three B-52s with 85,000 lbs each of CBU-97 cluster munitions made a single pass...

and in a few seconds, 32,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed or wounded in a blistering firestorm of intelligent little grenades seeking out metal and flesh in a hideous display of computer intelligence. 2000 tanks, APCs, and trucks were destroyed.

In a few seconds...

Despite their bravery.

Driving out of the city was the modern equivalent of committing suicide.

Voicing your opinion of the Bush admin. will get you a ticket to Guantanamo Bay...I would rather have my throat slit..at least I'd be dead, not tortured beyond all human capability...

I wouldn't mind the good looking woman in a thong giving me a lap dance...

I might know a lot of secrets then. I would be really resistant to interrogation.

They exist in France, you see them usually at football matches and they love le pen. They're not worth adressing. You just have to let them talk to see them ridicule themselves. They are usually drunk and they end up fighting each other which is a good thing. I don't think they would be able to use a computer and post on your thread because their educational level is very low and they don't talk foreign languages.


**crosses fingers, hoping for sarcasm...looking for smilies, seeing none...still hoping**

It's not that long. And it isn't McCarthyist. It's well worth reading.

I would say, however, that IMHO, most America bashing comes from an inability to comprehend the concept that nations act in their own self-interest - and if one nation gains an ability to act unhindered with little penalty, the other nations (whose own self-interest has been violated) will complain - but that's all they can do. The frustration builds until people are bashing.

There is another angle too. Marxism is essentially a conspiracy theory. Business / capitalists are keeping the workers down by any means necessary.

The modern far left is essentially still animated by similar conspiracy theory but it has evolved a bit (that worker thing has gone by the wayside). At times concerns about advertising, the environment, racism (which is really funny considering how racist the progressive movement used to be before grabbing this as an issue), sexism, et cetera come into play but all are basically used as tools to attack 'the system'.... which is classical liberalism.

But America gets involved because next to the Jews, but to lesser extent, there has always been an anti-Anglo-Saxon school of conspiratorial thought (also, like the Jews, tied to capitalism)... So, as British influenced waned, this mantle of evil Anglo-Saxon capitalist 'corporate / business' conspiratorial thought was shifted to the US.

So, I wouldn’t bother bashing your head against the way trying to reason with true believing anti-Americans. The Michael Moore fans, people who believe in ‘neocons’, et cetera… they’re not rational people. Others are but only get one side in their media and with a little discussion you can find some common ground (had a German friend visiting and after I gave him a few pro Bush and Iraq war arguments he said he had never heard any of these views before). But, you usually know which they are in first few exchanges…

I'm a British conserv and capitalist, but I oppose America's forgein policy, and that is why I 'bash' the administration. I am nor jealous nor a Marxist. So why do people like the topic starter persist in believing that anyone who dislikes America's adminiistration is one of the two?


Because it's easier to criticise others on your own terms, than those of reality...

Voicing your opinion of the Bush admin. will get you a ticket to Guantanamo Bay...I would rather have my throat slit..at least I'd be dead, not tortured beyond all human capability...

Funny how people actually believe this. I wonder why I'm not a Guantanamo. But hey, Americans are subordinate to the almighty such as yourself.

I don't hate America. I hate the Bush administration, neo-cons and fundies. They're the ones ruining this country, not liberals.

Just because a nation has it's own interests does mean it should have no morals.

You honestly can't believe that liberalism hasn't too contributed some bad things to this country?...

What exactly have the liberals done in this country, that has done any good at all in the past 30 years?


Uhm, how about getting rid of racism and slavery? To scratch the surface....

Uhm, how about getting rid of racism and slavery? To scratch the surface....

If you think that racism has been eliminated in the US, you must be smoking some major dope, and you're not sharing...

Uhm, how about getting rid of racism and slavery? To scratch the surface....
Oh racism is gone now? Did the government get rid of Affirmative Action and not tell anyone?

Uhm, how about getting rid of racism and slavery? To scratch the surface....

I was unaware that slavery in America existed in the 1970s.

Oh yes, and especially generalize the smart people who disagree with existing policy.



Commies...


They must all be commies.....

Calling me a communist be you daft? I am a McCarthyist (if spelt correctly)

My politcal party is Meikism (Seld made)

America to me is a land that hates every group at least once in a while and contradict themselves every so often (Check my posts at Why do you hate America)

America currently hates Catholics and Germans (trying to allow gay marriage which is anti Catholic and would probably turn into a Canada fining the clergy(Except Virginia( :) ))and teaching you about ww2 every year making Germany currently seem evil and ignoring the other genocides (all the spanish and even an American which was called relocation instead (Trail of Tears ring a bell))

American bashing is legal and according to Crane Brinton it shows that the society is healthy.

Meikism is a mixture of War communism, Fascism, Theocracism, Socialism by accepting some values and rejecting others. The exact rules aren't written yet and wont be unless asked

Then hate and anger should not be a part of the way people post their opinions. That's logic.


You simply can't ask a person to be non-emotional if a) it's a touchy subject and b) they're passionate about what they're saying and what they're position is c) if they're in denial :)

Uhm, how about getting rid of racism and slavery? To scratch the surface....

Hahahah. They didn't do either. The religious were the largest organised group against slavery. Early progressives were racists and supported eugenics, euthenasia, and abortion as means to weed out minorities.

Its all on the web. Google Sanger Eugenics or Progressives Eugenics...

Nice try at revisionism though. :)

Bloodless coups are sadly rare.

At present, as through all of human history, hatred rules above kindness.

Hatred has never shown to understand anything but its own kind.

And so the cycle goes on, because there is no beautiful, poetic twist to turn hatred in to love as one sees in storybooks.


In a global community, everyone is 'their own kind'..but American is still 'its' own kind because it barely knows anything beyond red, white and blue borders...'us against them' would mean America vs THE WHOLE FRICKIN WORLD! Do I have to play some Winston Churchill quotes, here? Think about this....

Could they just be wishing that the US would fail - that the US would go away - and their fantasy would be fulfilled?
If the purpose of the USA is to deliver high standards of living to its citizens, it has already failed.

If the purpose of the USA is to ensure peace in the world, it has already failed.

On the other hand, if the purpose of the USA is to slaughter thousands of innocents and possibly start World War 3, it is a smashing success. Keep up the good work!

If the purpose of the USA is to deliver high standards of living to its citizens, it has already failed.

If the purpose of the USA is to ensure peace in the world, it has already failed.

On the other hand, if the purpose of the USA is to slaughter thousands of innocents and possibly start World War 3, it is a smashing success. Keep up the good work!

In the US, we have the right to pursue happiness - we are not guaranteed happiness - so that first one is not the purpose of the US.

The second is not the purpose of the US, because that's not our job.

As for the third, it's a general accusation with no proof to back it up. We can start with the definition of innocent.

Actually, the US is acting in the best interest of the current government. As it always does.

Does Canada even have an army? The fact is Canada relies on the US for protection. If they actually had to pay for defense, they would not be able to afford all those socialist programs like free healthcare.


Yes, we like to care for our people...not send them to murder helpless countries for no reason. We actually give a shit about what the UN has to say.

As far as protection goes, perhaps I should remind you that your house is made out of Canadian lumber. We signed the Kyoto accord. Mostly because we value our wildlife and take care of it...you guys don't...therefore...you leech from us.

We really don't need an army...trust me, if came right down to it, I'd grab a frickin pitchfork and ram it down any American soldiers throat if they tried to do to me what they're already doing to America's citizens. Running around cities in the middle of the night, *without* permission from the city to be there...practising ignoring people yelling for civil rights...Google Alex Jones, and you can read about it and see it for yourself...

Having an army that does that to civilians is not something I would be proud of...

Oh, by the way...try using something other than crap army Canada has...we've heard it all before, it's nothing new to us. We can take care of ourselves better than you think we can...we're bigger and we're on top, that's all you need to know ;)

If the purpose of the USA is to deliver high standards of living to its citizens, it has already failed.

If the purpose of the USA is to ensure peace in the world, it has already failed.

On the other hand, if the purpose of the USA is to slaughter thousands of innocents and possibly start World War 3, it is a smashing success. Keep up the good work!

How America raised standards. Giving a reference table that gives every piece of information in the whole year that could be used on every test including the regents, cut out a chapter in chem, don't teach pv=nrt
Oh yes this is raising standards or at least in my area it is :)

How everyone else raise standards: Making the course very difficult.

America can't start WW3 they started WW2 (by pissing Germany off at Versailles or wherever WW1 treaty or whatever was signed), Serbia (currently yugoslavia or near it) started WW1 by killing the Austrian Archduke. If you noticed WW3 would logically be a strike/insult against Germany made from the north of it (started south then west) probably in or around Sweden or Finland unless it starts from the East with Russia, China or Hawaii.

Now how the hell would America defend the world? It is far away from Europe and the middle east. If you want to defend the world it should be Germany, PMCs (America uses these since it's own army is to advanced to do simple and complex missions alone), Russia or any other East European Country

Show me a link to where "thousands of Americans" have run to Canada.

I have a problem believing that. I heard a story on NPR, where the Canadian government said that it wasn't going to be accepting people just because they didn't want to be Americans anymore, or didn't like Bush as President.

I would bet that although some may want to run to Canada, most will not be accepted.

I could be wrong. But your link has to show "thousands" and not "hundreds" or fewer.

I figured that you'd be concerned enough to go and find it yourself..I'm not usually one to hand things to people on a silver platter...if you cared, you would look for it yourself. I realize that it's easier to bat away the hand that feeds you, rather than indulge a little curiosity...your loss.

Luckily for you, I'm not that shallow....

THE AMERICAN EMPIRE - LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT?
Foreign Pres Foundation - fpf@chello.nl
Holanda
Wednesday February 09, 2005 at 03:10 PM

Opposing the US Empire and the Pentagon's Dogs of War, a fast growing number of
Americans vote with their feet.

http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/263491.php


Read it :)

Sounds very interesting Jibea. Could you please elaborate a bit?

I haven't called anyone a coward. If you've been reading my posts, you'll know that I believe that cowardice (or bravery) has nearly nothing to do with victory in modern warfare.

Bravery, in fact, can almost be considered a negative factor - it radically increases your own casualty rate and eliminates you from the battle.

And what amount of bravery can stop a GPS guided 2000-lb bomb? Or smart munitions from a CBU-97 cluster dispenser?

How brave those two Iraqi divisions were who drove out from Baghdad right before the Americans began to reach the city. They moved out on the road, and began to spread into an attack formation. Sheer bravery!

And then three B-52s with 85,000 lbs each of CBU-97 cluster munitions made a single pass...

and in a few seconds, 32,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed or wounded in a blistering firestorm of intelligent little grenades seeking out metal and flesh in a hideous display of computer intelligence. 2000 tanks, APCs, and trucks were destroyed.

In a few seconds...

Despite their bravery.

Driving out of the city was the modern equivalent of committing suicide.

BECAUSE THEY WERE BOMBED!!!!

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

"they started WW2 (by pissing Germany off at Versailles or wherever WW1 treaty or whatever was signed)"

That was the sophisticated French. The US congress refused to ratify the treaty because it was too unfair.

I wouldn't mind the good looking woman in a thong giving me a lap dance...

I might know a lot of secrets then. I would be really resistant to interrogation.



LOL!

Unfortunately, I think you would be more likely to get a lap dance from some hairy guy with a scar on his face :P

Yes, we like to care for our people...not send them to murder helpless countries for no reason. We actually give a shit about what the UN has to say.

As far as protection goes, perhaps I should remind you that your house is made out of Canadian lumber. We signed the Kyoto accord. Mostly because we value our wildlife and take care of it...you guys don't...therefore...you leech from us.

We really don't need an army...trust me, if came right down to it, I'd grab a frickin pitchfork and ram it down any American soldiers throat if they tried to do to me what they're already doing to America's citizens. Running around cities in the middle of the night, *without* permission from the city to be there...practising ignoring people yelling for civil rights...Google Alex Jones, and you can read about it and see it for yourself...

Having an army that does that to civilians is not something I would be proud of...

Oh, by the way...try using something other than crap army Canada has...we've heard it all before, it's nothing new to us. We can take care of ourselves better than you think we can...we're bigger and we're on top, that's all you need to know ;)

I used to like Canada until they did two little things to piss me off. First they legalized gay marriag :mad: and are fining the Catholic clergy if they refuse to marry gay couples. Other then that you are better then America. Virginia is now my most favorite state. No gay marriage would ever happen there within the next ten years.

And what is Canada going to do with the men who sleep with lil boys (with their permission) after they left america for freedom in canada? Canada has to make that marriage or behaviour legal do to their laws or constitution or what ever you call it.

Maybe i should go to Italy, Ireland, the Vatican or Germany.

If the purpose of the USA is to deliver high standards of living to its citizens, it has already failed.

If the purpose of the USA is to ensure peace in the world, it has already failed.

On the other hand, if the purpose of the USA is to slaughter thousands of innocents and possibly start World War 3, it is a smashing success. Keep up the good work!
Thanks! ;)

Funny how people actually believe this. I wonder why I'm not a Guantanamo. But hey, Americans are subordinate to the almighty such as yourself.


I don't believe it, I know it...I actually research this kind of crap because I'm a skeptic...I find proof for myself because I give a shit...I don't just automatically deny or accept anything that comes to me...one would think that's the sign of human intelligence, but that's just me...

If you think that racism has been eliminated in the US, you must be smoking some major dope, and you're not sharing...


Well, how about I don't see 'whites only' all over the place anymore...or maybe it's just Canada...I tend not to visit the US anymore, irritates my asthma too much...

Could it be that most America-bashers, especially intellectuals, are really disgruntled Marxists who wonder why communism has collapsed (were they really expecting to win the Cold War?), and who wonder why socialism hasn't taken off and succeeded in producing a nation that can contend with the United States?

Could they just be wishing that the US would fail - that the US would go away - and their fantasy would be fulfilled?

hmm yes because smart people who object to the US foreign policy and to the general US policy are straight away commies, filthy commies. yawn.
Hmm mithinks that you should check your policy before you go on at filthy commies that want to ovethrow the US.

I was unaware that slavery in America existed in the 1970s.


so sorry, I was unaware that I was to stay within the confines of the timeline laid out to me... :P nit-picking...nice

Oh racism is gone now? Did the government get rid of Affirmative Action and not tell anyone?


Forgive my ignorance...but what exactly is Affirmative Action? I can vaguely recall the phrase used before, but I don't quite understand what it is....

Read it :)

I tried to google it, but didn't find anything. I already knew the thousands of applicants - but that doesn't mean thousands of successful applicants.

Fail in your application, and you'll end up back in the US.

Thanks for the link. So, why did the Canadian Ambassador say that yes, there were thousands of applicants, but it looks like Canada is unlikely to accept many of them?

Is the Canadian Ambassador to the United States part of a conspiracy set up by the United States Government?

Really?

I still don't see a draft either. Since it takes about a year to train a soldier from the time of induction to the time they can be deployed, you would think that if the government needed troops and was running short Now, they would have already started a draft.

You must not read the latest military journals. There's talk that there is no way that a draftee would be effective in combat. That people would be more likely to object to a war if there was a draft. That draftees would lower morale.

And, that the US military is becoming more effective against any foe, in any environment - even against an insurgency.

And - the first infantry combat robot under human control is already being used in Iraq against insurgents. They worked very well in Fallujah. The first fully autonomous infantry robot is scheduled within the year.

Will I need a draftee when I can buy a robot?

Can you capture a robot and put him on al-Jazeera?

Can a robot run away to Sweden?

Can a robot testify before Congress?

The people who object to this war still think we're in the 1960s - that the war is fought in the same way with the same losses - and that an insurgency cannot be beaten.

Unfortunately, you're wrong. When an insurgency can't stop an election - when an insurgency has to resort to kidnapping a GI Joe doll because they can't kidnap an American soldier - when they try a standup fight in Fallujah like the Viet Cong did on a regular basis (except that the men in Fallujah are wiped out and the Viet Cong melt back into the jungle), when the insurgents can't really drive out the Americans, when they can't control the whole country - just small parts near the center - when even if the Americans left, they are too weak to take the country over - that insurgency is dead.

Still moving around with futile little gestures - killing more Iraqis than anyone else. If they had read Mao's book, they would know that the Iraqis are the river and that the insurgents are the fish. It's not a good idea to hurt Iraqis if you are the insurgents.

The Iraqis might get mad and turn you in. Or kill you (there's a link elsewhere on this forum to just such an event).

Hahahah. They didn't do either. The religious were the largest organised group against slavery. Early progressives were racists and supported eugenics, euthenasia, and abortion as means to weed out minorities.

Its all on the web. Google Sanger Eugenics or Progressives Eugenics...

Nice try at revisionism though. :)

I always thought that the religious were the ones who wanted slavery...course, I'm not that great at American history....not that most Americans would be anyway, considering all the cuts to education...

If the purpose of the USA is to deliver high standards of living to its citizens, it has already failed.

If the purpose of the USA is to ensure peace in the world, it has already failed.

On the other hand, if the purpose of the USA is to slaughter thousands of innocents and possibly start World War 3, it is a smashing success. Keep up the good work!

I think it was Einstein who said 'I don't know how WW3 will be fought, but I do know how WW4 will be fought; with sticks and stones'

I probably qualify as an "America Hater". And I can tell you quite plainly, I am not a marxist.

In the US, we have the right to pursue happiness - we are not guaranteed happiness - so that first one is not the purpose of the US.

The second is not the purpose of the US, because that's not our job.

As for the third, it's a general accusation with no proof to back it up. We can start with the definition of innocent.

Actually, the US is acting in the best interest of the current government. As it always does.

No proof? No proof? Do you not watch the news??? :headbang:

In the US, we have the right to pursue happiness - we are not guaranteed happiness - so that first one is not the purpose of the US.

The second is not the purpose of the US, because that's not our job.

As for the third, it's a general accusation with no proof to back it up. We can start with the definition of innocent.

Actually, the US is acting in the best interest of the current government. As it always does.

Well then..if the interests of the current government involve stealing oil and bombing brown people...mission accomplished!

Wait, I shouldn't presume...what *are* the interests of the current government, if I can be so bold? And how are they being accomplished?

I always thought that the religious were the ones who wanted slavery...course, I'm not that great at American history....not that most Americans would be anyway, considering all the cuts to education...

The progressive movement was worldwide. You may have had an involuntary eugenics program too, may want to google it. :)

The last country to due away with an involuntary eugenics program was on so "right wing" Sweden (BTW)

Education has not been cut. That’s spin. The federal education budget has gone up 40% under Bush. This year they're proposing taking a little of that back... I guess technically it is a 'cut' but a cut in a huge increase... May want to google this also... and maybe question your sources of information more.

Cheers

No proof? No proof? Do you not watch the news??? :headbang:

Thousands of innocent civilians.

Show me the proof.

No one who was in the Iraqi army was an innocent civilian.

No one who is an insurgent is an innocent civilian.

Anyone killed by insurgents (especially if by explosives) is not killed by Americans.

Want to tally it up? I'm betting that the insurgents, in the last year, have killed more Iraqi innocent civilians than the Americans.

I'm also betting that the corrupt people in Oil For Food, and Saddam, who could have used that money to buy food and medicine for the Iraqi people, put that money in their own pockets. I'm betting that they are responsible for every child killed by malnutrition or lack of medicine.

Want to tally it up?

I used to like Canada until they did two little things to piss me off. First they legalized gay marriag :mad: and are fining the Catholic clergy if they refuse to marry gay couples. Other then that you are better then America. Virginia is now my most favorite state. No gay marriage would ever happen there within the next ten years.

And what is Canada going to do with the men who sleep with lil boys (with their permission) after they left america for freedom in canada? Canada has to make that marriage or behaviour legal do to their laws or constitution or what ever you call it.

Maybe i should go to Italy, Ireland, the Vatican or Germany.

Go to Germany, you'd probly fit in the 'old school' chaps who still deny the Holocaust ;)

"they started WW2 (by pissing Germany off at Versailles or wherever WW1 treaty or whatever was signed)"

That was the sophisticated French. The US congress refused to ratify the treaty because it was too unfair.

The legislative branch told the president not to sign it but the president did anyway which means he broke the law.

America started WW2 by pissing off the Germans. First America goes into a war illegally at first claiming to be neutral but broke the neutrality laws. Kaiser's unrestricted submarine warfare started sinking american ships which led america to announce that they would side with the allies against the central powers and they were the wedge that broke the stalemate. At Versailles America signed the treaty (illegally) splitting Germany into a fraction of what it has been (very small about half the size) and didnt allow it to have an army. At the same time Italy a member of the Allies didnt get any compensation for their efforts and got mad which helped get them to join the axis. Then they made Germany pay reperations which costed an equilivalent of about one trillion dollars.

An Austrian named Adolf tried to go to an art school owned by Jews but was refused (he was a lot better then ill ever be :( ) and said it was because they were Jewish, got involved in antisemitic newspapers, somehow got elected chancellor by blaming the Jews for Germany's defeat, had the storm troopers perform a coup d'etate to make him dictator. He then assassinated all the storm troopers and made a secret army (stored in trucks) and had one of his people go to Great Britain to see their new developement which they didnt use because they thought it was ineffective and later was known as the blitzkrieg.

Good things that came from WW2, Germany got out of depression faster, Rockets that later took man to space and the nuke

But the bad outweighs the good.

No i dont like Adolf.

To sum it up simply:
1. WW1 starts
2. America claims to be neutral but breaks the neutrality laws
3. Kaiser sinks American ships
4. America claims to be an ally to help defeat the stalemate
5. Versailles
6. Breaking down of Germany
7. Adolf refused to artschool
8. Blames WW1 lose on Jews
9. Got elected Chancelor
10. WW2 starts

If the allies didnt have america then WW2 would've possibly never happened since the europeans are nicer in their treaties (look at the treaty after napolean's defeat which i believe is the second treaty of paris)

I think it was Einstein who said 'I don't know how WW3 will be fought, but I do know how WW4 will be fought; with sticks and stones'

Was. I think that means WW3 will kill the humans and WW4 would be after the big crunch and the big bang and be the war of Neanderthals against cromagnums which if you use my logic then there were 3 wws

Go to Germany, you'd probly fit in the 'old school' chaps who still deny the Holocaust ;)

I dont deny the holocaust. I blame it on adolf, hienrich and Great britain for not stopping it after the czechs were annexed and they had the chance. Then there was the american nonaction, the deaths head division, french nonaction, italian allience.

Whispering Legs,

I read your article. You should check out this book for more info on the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300078277/qid=1108069427/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/103-1013144-5691822?v=glance&s=books

Third worldism is new to Marxism (re: the 50's) but not to socialism or fascism. Mussolini and Hitler ranted about their countries being abused by the more advanced ‘plutocracies’… While Lenin and Mao made similar noises.

Actually, the left’s adoption of the plight of the third world being the responsibility of the west probably traces it’s intellectual heritage back to Maoism more than Baran. A lot of lefties got into Maoism in the 60s. International Answer is run by Maoists...

Go to Germany, you'd probly fit in the 'old school' chaps who still deny the Holocaust ;)

I might fit better in ireland since i am irish, catholic and can speak english and old english

If the allies didnt have america then WW2 would've possibly never happened since the europeans are nicer in their treaties (look at the treaty after napolean's defeat which i believe is the second treaty of paris)

The pres can sign a treaty but it has no force of law...

Anyway, I'm waiting for the [/sarcasm] switch. Your kidding right?

Nice treaties? Like Trianon?

I tried to google it, but didn't find anything. I already knew the thousands of applicants - but that doesn't mean thousands of successful applicants.

Fail in your application, and you'll end up back in the US.

**That's because there are *too many* who want to come here**

Thanks for the link. So, why did the Canadian Ambassador say that yes, there were thousands of applicants, but it looks like Canada is unlikely to accept many of them?

**I'm not going to pretend to know the mind of the Canadian Ambassador, so I can't answer that**

Is the Canadian Ambassador to the United States part of a conspiracy set up by the United States Government?

Really?

I still don't see a draft either. Since it takes about a year to train a soldier from the time of induction to the time they can be deployed, you would think that if the government needed troops and was running short Now, they would have already started a draft.

**You know as well as I do that the american government doesn't 'kiss and tell'. A good friend of mine in Bangor was at work as usual, when some nice, polished looking military men came in to 'check up' on him. He had been in the reserves onece. They took his name, current address and all that, and made allusions to the possibility of a draft.**

You must not read the latest military journals. There's talk that there is no way that a draftee would be effective in combat. That people would be more likely to object to a war if there was a draft. That draftees would lower morale.

**I'm a distraction, I'm a distraction**

And, that the US military is becoming more effective against any foe, in any environment - even against an insurgency.

**Good for you, those cuts to healthcare and education are really paying off**

And - the first infantry combat robot under human control is already being used in Iraq against insurgents. They worked very well in Fallujah. The first fully autonomous infantry robot is scheduled within the year.

Will I need a draftee when I can buy a robot?

Can you capture a robot and put him on al-Jazeera?

Can a robot run away to Sweden?

Can a robot testify before Congress?

The people who object to this war still think we're in the 1960s - that the war is fought in the same way with the same losses - and that an insurgency cannot be beaten.

**Insurgency...interesting how I never heard that term used before GW**

Unfortunately, you're wrong. When an insurgency can't stop an election - when an insurgency has to resort to kidnapping a GI Joe doll because they can't kidnap an American soldier - when they try a standup fight in Fallujah like the Viet Cong did on a regular basis (except that the men in Fallujah are wiped out and the Viet Cong melt back into the jungle), when the insurgents can't really drive out the Americans, when they can't control the whole country - just small parts near the center - when even if the Americans left, they are too weak to take the country over - that insurgency is dead.

Still moving around with futile little gestures - killing more Iraqis than anyone else. If they had read Mao's book, they would know that the Iraqis are the river and that the insurgents are the fish. It's not a good idea to hurt Iraqis if you are the insurgents.

The Iraqis might get mad and turn you in. Or kill you (there's a link elsewhere on this forum to just such an event).

Ok, you're not making logical sense to me anymore...

The legislative branch told the president not to sign it but the president did anyway which means he broke the law.

America started WW2 by pissing off the Germans. First America goes into a war illegally at first claiming to be neutral but broke the neutrality laws. Kaiser's unrestricted submarine warfare started sinking american ships which led america to announce that they would side with the allies against the central powers and they were the wedge that broke the stalemate. At Versailles America signed the treaty (illegally) splitting Germany into a fraction of what it has been (very small about half the size) and didnt allow it to have an army. At the same time Italy a member of the Allies didnt get any compensation for their efforts and got mad which helped get them to join the axis. Then they made Germany pay reperations which costed an equilivalent of about one trillion dollars.

An Austrian named Adolf tried to go to an art school owned by Jews but was refused (he was a lot better then ill ever be :( ) and said it was because they were Jewish, got involved in antisemitic newspapers, somehow got elected chancellor by blaming the Jews for Germany's defeat, had the storm troopers perform a coup d'etate to make him dictator. He then assassinated all the storm troopers and made a secret army (stored in trucks) and had one of his people go to Great Britain to see their new developement which they didnt use because they thought it was ineffective and later was known as the blitzkrieg.

Good things that came from WW2, Germany got out of depression faster, Rockets that later took man to space and the nuke

But the bad outweighs the good.

No i dont like Adolf.

To sum it up simply:
1. WW1 starts
2. America claims to be neutral but breaks the neutrality laws
3. Kaiser sinks American ships
4. America claims to be an ally to help defeat the stalemate
5. Versailles
6. Breaking down of Germany
7. Adolf refused to artschool
8. Blames WW1 lose on Jews
9. Got elected Chancelor
10. WW2 starts

If the allies didnt have america then WW2 would've possibly never happened since the europeans are nicer in their treaties (look at the treaty after napolean's defeat which i believe is the second treaty of paris)
Where do you come up with this stuff? It was good for a laugh, but not worth the time to debate.

Thousands of innocent civilians.

Show me the proof.

No one who was in the Iraqi army was an innocent civilian.

No one who is an insurgent is an innocent civilian.

Anyone killed by insurgents (especially if by explosives) is not killed by Americans.

Want to tally it up? I'm betting that the insurgents, in the last year, have killed more Iraqi innocent civilians than the Americans.

I'm also betting that the corrupt people in Oil For Food, and Saddam, who could have used that money to buy food and medicine for the Iraqi people, put that money in their own pockets. I'm betting that they are responsible for every child killed by malnutrition or lack of medicine.

Want to tally it up?

Did you not hear about the wedding that was bombed? CHILDREN were killed...were they not innocent? I questioned it when I saw the bodies on the news with my own eyes, but it was truth....

Was. I think that means WW3 will kill the humans and WW4 would be after the big crunch and the big bang and be the war of Neanderthals against cromagnums which if you use my logic then there were 3 wws


technicalities..I was just trying to make a point :P

I dont deny the holocaust. I blame it on adolf, hienrich and Great britain for not stopping it after the czechs were annexed and they had the chance. Then there was the american nonaction, the deaths head division, french nonaction, italian allience.


I didn't say you deny the holocaust, I just said that you would fit in...

Ok, you're not making logical sense to me anymore...

How is it not logical?

I don't see a draft coming. I see a large trend towards unmanned machines doing the work that more humans would do.

In Afghanistan, from day one, we were using robots to carry extra gear and explore caves so that we didn't risk soldiers' lives.

In Iraq, in Fallujah, armed robots were used to clear rooms and enter places where armed insurgents were located.

Why will we need a draft?

The insurgents in Iraq are peculiarly ineffective in recent weeks in doing anything except killing Iraqis?

And where are the thousands of innocent civilians you claim? Killed by Americans?

Get me a link to a single source (I'll take the UN, or the ICRC as valid sources).

Did you not hear about the wedding that was bombed? CHILDREN were killed...were they not innocent? I questioned it when I saw the bodies on the news with my own eyes, but it was truth....

Thousands of children at a wedding?

I'm waiting for the proof that thousands, nay - hundreds of thousands - of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed by American soldiers.

Not by insurgents with bombs, or by any other cause.

Directly, and intentionally, and maliciously - by American soldiers.

Still waiting for that link from an authentic source.

The pres can sign a treaty but it has no force of law...

Anyway, I'm waiting for the [/sarcasm] switch. Your kidding right?

Nice treaties? Like Trianon?

How about the treaties of Paris, 1831 of belgium which made it a country. Those seem pretty leenent (probably spelt wrong) figuring what happened under napolean. Then of 1648 wasnt too bad. Europeans arent to bad to europeans.

Trianon was after ww1 and was also helped made by americans. I am not speaking of WW1 or WW2 treaties since a non european helped create it.

Where do you come up with this stuff? It was good for a laugh, but not worth the time to debate.

I wasn't trying to debate it just answering questions/comments about my post. I don't like to debate my opinions because people tend to dislike Catholics and based on some of my beliefs i they think that it is only catholic based.

I'll leave before i get hated by everyone even more.

Good bye.

Trianon was after ww1 and was also helped made by americans. I am not speaking of WW1 or WW2 treaties since a non european helped create it.

The American negotiator walked out of Trianon and we never ratified Versailles or Trianon.

We signed a separate peace with Austria and Hungary…

Dude, you’re really out in the intellectual wilderness with some of this stuff. The French screwed up the WWI peace treaty process, not the US.

Oh well, revisionism... what can ya do..

Ideology is blinders and it is clear that you have some kind of pan-euro thing / ideology going on...

I wasn't trying to debate it just answering questions/comments about my post. I don't like to debate my opinions because people tend to dislike Catholics and based on some of my beliefs i they think that it is only catholic based.
I am Catholic (not a practicing one) and I don't hate you. I just found the comments you made to be unfounded and absurb. I would have felt that way no matter what religion you are. Besides, do you really care if someone on the Internet doesn't like you?

Maybe i should go to Italy, Ireland, the Vatican or Germany
I must warn you, you will not like it in Germany. Gay marriages are allowed and we think of homosexuals not as abominations to God but as humans, which means that we don't shoot them on sight.

Could I point out that as well as civilians killed by US bombing (and don't pretend there wernt any- if you bomb a city you are going to kill civilians. This is because there are lots of them in cities) your damned "army" (more like mob of trigger-happy hooligans) attacked and destroyed a BBC convoy. There were few survivors. Several British soldiers have also been killed by this friendly fire. So perhaps a resentment of Americans isnt quite so misplaced.

Could I point out that as well as civilians killed by US bombing (and don't pretend there wernt any- if you bomb a city you are going to kill civilians. This is because there are lots of them in cities) your damned "army" (more like mob of trigger-happy hooligans) attacked and destroyed a BBC convoy. There were few survivors. Several British soldiers have also been killed by this friendly fire. So perhaps a resentment of Americans isnt quite so misplaced.

Glad to know the sober, calm, professional Brits have never had friendly fire incidents in large scale military operations.

I'm not proud of all of it. I just have a hard time with people who hold up their own country and say, "it's so much better than America".



I'm sorry, but really this is rather hypocritical.. USA is the country where some of its citizens and authorities are constantly exclaiming that USA is better than country x... or in fact every other country!

Could I point out that as well as civilians killed by US bombing (and don't pretend there wernt any- if you bomb a city you are going to kill civilians. This is because there are lots of them in cities) your damned "army" (more like mob of trigger-happy hooligans) attacked and destroyed a BBC convoy. There were few survivors. Several British soldiers have also been killed by this friendly fire. So perhaps a resentment of Americans isnt quite so misplaced.

Our army is truely trigger-happy, which is why 1 million iraqis have died... wait... so what's a so-called "army" in your mind? one that doesn't have any weapons? because the idea behind a military is to shoot the other side... but excuse my american ignorance.

I'm sorry, but really this is rather hypocritical.. USA is the country where some of its citizens and authorities are constantly exclaiming that USA is better than country x... or in fact every other country!
We are the only superpower.

I must warn you, you will not like it in Germany. Gay marriages are allowed and we think of homosexuals not as abominations to God but as humans, which means that we don't shoot them on sight.

I'm pretty sure most people with the exception of a few nutjobs believe the gays are human beings. I'm also pretty sure that we don't shoot them on sight. But hey, nice attempt at sarcasm, but it wasn't funny. But hey, nice attempt to generalize americans.

Yes, we like to care for our people...not send them to murder helpless countries for no reason. We actually give a shit about what the UN has to say.

As far as protection goes, perhaps I should remind you that your house is made out of Canadian lumber. We signed the Kyoto accord. Mostly because we value our wildlife and take care of it...you guys don't...therefore...you leech from us.

My home is made out of stone and was built in 1795. Where is the Canadian lumber, hippie?

We really don't need an army...trust me, if came right down to it, I'd grab a frickin pitchfork and ram it down any American soldiers throat if they tried to do to me what they're already doing to America's citizens. Running around cities in the middle of the night, *without* permission from the city to be there...practising ignoring people yelling for civil rights...Google Alex Jones, and you can read about it and see it for yourself...

Having an army that does that to civilians is not something I would be proud of...

Oh, by the way...try using something other than crap army Canada has...we've heard it all before, it's nothing new to us. We can take care of ourselves better than you think we can...we're bigger and we're on top, that's all you need to know ;)

How does one murder a helpless country? Last time I checked, I couldn't kill a mountain!

My home is made out of stone and was built in 1795. Where is the Canadian lumber, hippie?

You sound like a real brave Canadian internet warrior.

I think you need to stop eating the brown acid and try to get your head clear!

I'm pretty sure most people with the exception of a few nutjobs believe the gays are human beings. I'm also pretty sure that we don't shoot them on sight. But hey, nice attempt at sarcasm, but it wasn't funny. But hey, nice attempt to generalize americans.
Actually, I wrote that only in response to the guy I quoted (forgot his name) who said that it pisses him of that gay marriages are legalized in Canada, which in my eyes doesn't make him a very nice character.
No offense meant to your country in that case.

Actually, I wrote that only in response to the guy I quoted (forgot his name) who said that it pisses him of that gay marriages are legalized in Canada, which in my eyes doesn't make him a very nice character.
No offense meant to your country in that case.

Well okay. :)