NationStates Jolt Archive

Just curious. Answer.

The cold war.

The cold war.

You're right!

Next time the Russians surround Berlin, we'll let everyone starve. :rolleyes:

Well if you want to talk PHYSICAL harm, the U.S. did sort of pwn up on Germany in WWII and made a lot of craters and such.

You're right!

Next time the Russians surround Berlin, we'll let everyone starve. :rolleyes:

Or use them as buffers for half a century.

The cold war.
Let's blame that one more on the Russians. Hell, we'd have gladly left if those SOB's hadn't tried to put Western Europe back under the boot.

And, anyways, we gave Western Europe economic stimulus like none other through the Marshall Plan.

And then we put the stimulus of American military bases in Western Europe. You can't tell me that having a whole bunch of extra consumers around is a bad thing.

Or use them as buffers for half a century.
Since Russia was so intent on invading America through Europe.

Or use them as buffers for half a century.
Would you rather be under the boot of Stalinism?

Since Russia was so intent on invading America through Europe.

Since Europe most certainly didn't have nukes of their own.

Just curious. Answer.

We became the only superpower (for the moment, damn chinese!!) and they envy us.

Would you rather be under the boot of Stalinism?

The Red scare only works on Americans.

We became the only superpower (for the moment, damn chinese!!) and they envy us.

All Europe ever got from its status as a superpower was grief, so we don't envy you. You've started to go where we've been.

The Red scare only works on Americans.

thats cuz you're so far left that a corrupt and dictatorial communist government doesn't bother you (until you're subject to it, that is. and then you'll come crying to the U.S. to save your sorry butt)

Or use them as buffers for half a century.

You're SO right! Next time we have a cold war with Russia wePROMISE to just kinda dig up the country and set up again between Russia and the rst of Europe :rolleyes:

thats cuz you're so far left that a corrupt and dictatorial communist government doesn't bother you (until you're subject to it, that is. and then you'll come crying to the U.S. to save your sorry butt)

Again, since Europe certainly didn't have nukes of its own.

It interferes in European affairs and politics, often not to the best of Europe but likely to the best of itself.

Again, since Europe certainly didn't have nukes of its own.

I'm missing your point, sorry. Please explain how Eruopeans having nukes as anything to do with the U.S. harming them?

You're SO right! Next time we have a cold war with Russia wePROMISE to just kinda dig up the country and set up again between Russia and the rst of Europe :rolleyes:

Try to at least be coherent in your first post. First impressions last.

I'm missing your point, sorry. Please explain how Eruopeans having nukes as anything to do with the U.S. harming them?

You are the one claiming that the US was protecting Europe. You were subjugating it.

The Red scare only works on Americans.
Well, I can't decide where to start with this one...

The Red Scare only works on Americans...hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

1. Fascist Italy: A major part of Mussolini's platform was the elimination of Communists.

2. The Nazi paranoia of Communists makes the American one look like a part time hobby.

3. The Polish Government in Exile of the Second Republic

4. Franco's Spain.

Just to give lie to your statement...

And beyond that, if you don't think the USSR was a major threat to Western Europe post WWII, you are making claims that fly in direct contradiction to history.

thats cuz you're so far left that a corrupt and dictatorial communist government doesn't bother you (until you're subject to it, that is. and then you'll come crying to the U.S. to save your sorry butt)

Umm hey, let me tell you something about how Cold War ended. It wasn't the US who "saved their butts", it were prettymuch the people of Eastern Europe who did that on their own (With some help from Mr. Gorbatchov's Glasnost & Perestroika stuff).
In any case, the communism was doomed and it was only a matter of time 'till that would have happened. :)

Anyways, I didn't see any US forces in Berlin, Prague or Warsaw in 1989 who were celebrated by the people as their liberators, did you?

You are the one claiming that the US was protecting Europe. You were subjugating it.

How do you suppose the U.S. was subjugating Europe? (I'm not intending any of this to come across as sarcastic. These are serious questions) Would you rather have had the dictatorial communist regeime take control of europe, take everybody's freedom away, and rape it for its resources, like it did to other countries?

You are the one claiming that the US was protecting Europe. You were subjugating it.
The US was subjugating Europe? Then why the hell did we allow for local companies and governments to come back into existence as soon as it was logistically possible. Why did the US allow France to withdraw from NATO in the 1950's? Why are people complaining about the US removing our bases out of Europe?

Well, I can't decide where to start with this one...

The Red Scare only works on Americans...hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

1. Fascist Italy: A major part of Mussolini's platform was the elimination of Communists.

2. The Nazi paranoia of Communists makes the American one look like a part time hobby.

3. The Polish Government in Exile of the Second Republic

4. Franco's Spain.

Just to give lie to your statement...

And beyond that, if you don't think the USSR was a major threat to Western Europe post WWII, you are making claims that fly in direct contradiction to history.

Works = present tense.

Worked = past tense.

And then apparantly only on right-wing dictatorships. My, my, what nice company.

In any case, the communism was doomed and it was only a matter of time 'till that would have happened. :)

while I would like to agree with you there, the U.S. did play a role in the fall of the USSR. A major reason they fell was because their economy finally imploded upon itself and simply couldnt support itself anymore. The reason? USSR tried to outproduce the U.S. in terms of military captial. the USSR's economy simply couldn't handle the strain of trying to compete with that of the U.S. and so it collapsed, much like the USSR government did.

Why did we allow for independent national armed forces? Why did we offer billions of dollars just simply to rebuild Europe as the local governments saw fit? If anyone was subjugating it was the USSR. They're the one's who militarily forced countries back inline with the Warsaw Pact.

Question: What harm did the US do?


Answer: They ignored THIS (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/13/INGP4B7GC91.DTL) !!!

Works = present tense.

Worked = past tense.

And then apparantly only on right-wing dictatorships. My, my, what nice company.
Your statement was that only Americans believe in the Red Scare. I was proving that point wrong.

And, beyond that, since when was the Polish Second Republic a right-wing dictatorship?

How do you suppose the U.S. was subjugating Europe? (I'm not intending any of this to come across as sarcastic. These are serious questions)

Having its troops there, trying to inundate it with propaganda, constantly counteracting anything that counteracted US purposes, undermining of normalisation with Eastern Europe...

Would you rather have had the dictatorial communist regeime take control of europe, take everybody's freedom away, and rape it for its resources, like it did to other countries?

It would not have been able to do that. Directly after WWII it couldn't, later Europe got a nuclear deterrant of its own.

Works = present tense.

Worked = past tense.

And what does that bit of madness have to do with anything?

Let's blame that one more on the Russians. Hell, we'd have gladly left if those SOB's hadn't tried to put Western Europe back under the boot.

Exactly when did the Soviets try to put Western Europe 'under the boot'?

What has America done?

We've done a lot of good things in our history as a country. But we've done a lot of ugly things as well. Vietnam is one, Manifest Destiny is another. There's also the Spanish-American War which turns out was just an accident but we blamed the Spanish anyway. There's also the Trail of Tears. The world also perceives Americans as arrogant because we tend to have a "holier than thou are" attitude.

America's a wonderful place and has a lot of potential but it's got a lot of bad stuff along with it too. There's also this current Iraqi War that we got into with inadequete proof and while we've ousted a villain, we've entered a country that hates us because they've seen too many of their own dead by us.

There's a lot to fix.

Or use them as buffers for half a century.

My globe shows that West Germany is not in between Alaska and the Soviet Far East. WG as a buffer? I think the Atlantic does a better job.

It would not have been able to do that. Directly after WWII it couldn't, later Europe got a nuclear deterrant of its own.

the only reason the USSR couldn't have done that directly after WWII was because the U.S. was in Eruope.

The US was subjugating Europe? Then why the hell did we allow for local companies and governments to come back into existence as soon as it was logistically possible.

You needed a market.

Why did the US allow France to withdraw from NATO in the 1950's?

Because it didn't completely, and because it placated them.

Why are people complaining about the US removing our bases out of Europe?

I hear no complaining, and I live in Europe. Really, most people don't even care.

Just curious. Answer.


Jut curious, but why you feel you must have "done harm" in some way?


Som notion that without having "done harm" they should be compelled to be cheerleaders of American foreign policy?

Having its troops there, trying to inundate it with propaganda,
By that you mean American dollars?
constantly counteracting anything that counteracted US purposes,
And what does every other nation do?

undermining of normalisation with Eastern Europe...
I'd have to say that the USSR had far more to do with this than the US...



It would not have been able to do that. Directly after WWII it couldn't, later Europe got a nuclear deterrant of its own.
Beyond that, US troops were and are based in Germany by the invite of that government, not becase we feel like being there.

Since Europe most certainly didn't have nukes of their own.

your friggin stupid. Britain and France both had nuclear weapons in the cold war.

Steal the name: Football ?

Create the multitude of Lies insisting that we are Europe's salvation?

French Fries

Nike

Survival Shows on TV

Other than that I can't think of any thing

Mikes Hope

the only reason the USSR couldn't have done that directly after WWII was because the U.S. was in Eruope.

Yes, of course, and that had nothing to do with the exhaustion of its resources and the fact that it at the time didn't see a need for it. When animosity between the US and the USSR later grew, that's when Europe got caught in the middle.

your friggin stupid. Britain and France both had nuclear weapons in the cold war.

Check your sarcasm detector. I think the needle is stuck.

your friggin stupid. Britain and France both had nuclear weapons in the cold war.

Have you heard of sarcasm?

You needed a market.

I hear no complaining, and I live in Europe. Really, most people don't even care.

Are you kidding? We set up the Marshall Plan to rebuild the place to make a market?? The US had more than enough domestic demand.

You needed a market.
By allowing the local companies to flourish? That really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And anyways, we could have done much better with, say, Asia. Having China on our side during the cold war would have been much more beneficial to the US than it would have been to have Europe.



Because it didn't completely, and because it placated them.
It was clearly in contrast to US interests to have France so far out of NATO as it was.


I hear no complaining, and I live in Europe. Really, most people don't even care.
I have. Various Germans espescially have complained about this.

Jeez, I'm just glad Curtiss LeMay wasn't in charge of everything and that you guys had sane presidents. Or else the Cuban Missile Crisis could've turned out a lot worse. You see, in supremacy now, it means nothing because the USSR could chuck nukes at the US and even if the US fired back, both countries would be f*cked up. The only countries the USA could pwn without getting owned it's self were small countries like Cuba, Vietnam etc.

And they didn't even manage to do that. The USSR also had their own troubles in Afghanistan but it just goes to show how little countries can still strike back as long as the big countries don't go insane. I was shocked when I read about the SAC and America's plans back in the cold days of the 1950's.
"How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb" or whatever that satire was called wasn't far off the real thing. Fact is, the only time the USSR had the advantage without nukes was in 1958. From there on in, bad politics and un-economical practices screwed it.

Why are people complaining about the US removing our bases out of Europe?

They are complaing because a local (but locally significant) economy has built up around these military bases. Yet some more jobs that would be lost.

Another factor probably is, after all, maybe, just maybe, a feeling of certain safety. ^_^

By that you mean American dollars?

You mean us as a market buying your inferior goods. There is a reason "Made in America" = crap.

And what does every other nation do?

It was harmful to Europe, which is what we are discussing.


I'd have to say that the USSR had far more to do with this than the US...

You had as much interest in keeping it going as they. Fortunately the USSR and Europe finished the cold war. Gorbachev was reasonable.

Beyond that, US troops were and are based in Germany by the invite of that government, not becase we feel like being there.

Suuuure. You're there cause you don't want to be there.

ok sarcasim doesnt work on a computer very well.

Nothin', really. 'Cept some messing around with elections in some southern European countries immediately after the war, and stacking the deck to give American products an edge in European markets as a kind of payback for the war and the marshall plan. Nothing terrible.

It's more just a status thing, I think: Europeans feel themselves equal or superior to Americans intellectually, culturally, etc, but have had to play second fiddle for the last half century, which can be frustrating and even humiliating, as when the U.S. single handedly ended the Bosnian and Kosovar conflicts, which Europe struggled to yet could never achieve. Grand European designs are often shot down by the U.S., which has the power to do so, while Europe can rarely do the reverse (examples: a few years back, the Kyoto treaty; just this week, America's torpedoing of the UK's plans for third world debt relief). This isn't a cultural thing. The tables were once turned; 19th century Americans deeply resented Britain for its continued ability to project its power in their own backyard and for sometimes frustrating its ambitions (54/40 or fight!), and spoke of "twisting the lion's tale."

Due to America's global reach and influence, Europe like most of the rest of Earth has also been subjected to a lot of American culture, which traditionalists in their societies sometimes object to. On the other hand, this exchange produced the Beatles, so in some ways it's been good for everybody.

As a former world power, they're also armchair quarterbacks, who believe they could do things better if they were in America's shoes. In some extreme cases, such as France, they haven't gotten it into their heads that their culture, political opinions, etc., no longer carry as much weight as they used to on the world stage, don't deserve such weight, and wouldn't, even if there were no America. Most seem to be more realistic and simply resent arbitrary power, even if, to date at least, it hasn't harmed them too much.

By allowing the local companies to flourish? That really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And anyways, we could have done much better with, say, Asia. Having China on our side during the cold war would have been much more beneficial to the US than it would have been to have Europe

Segregationist as you were, you couldn't "side" with non-whites.

It was clearly in contrast to US interests to have France so far out of NATO as it was.

Sure, giving a little to appease France was so out of your interests.

I have. Various Germans espescially have complained about this.

And yet the silence is complete in Europe. Really. It's not even an issue. What have US media been feeding you?

"What harm did the US ever do to Europe?"

Nothing whatsoever. On the contrary, the only things we have ever done for Europe is save them from themselves and help them rebuild what was left of their countries after "tribal warfare."

I suspect that their alleged "problems" with us now are ...

1. They don't like that we have a direction of our own, much prefering us to kowtow to their supposedly "superior" culture.

2. They need someone to look down on so they pick the US since they know we will never so much as break off diplomatic relations with them.

3. Resentment that they are not in charge of things like they use to be.

Or, how about a very simple explination. Name one world power that has never been hated at one point in time. Seeing as how we are the only Superpower, there is only one country to be envious of. The Red Scare was created by the U.S. government, there are a great many documents for the first one from Wilson's government that prove this and more documents to bring it back post W.W.II.

From the beginning of time countries have hated the stronger one. For example, Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Macedonia, Seleucia, Rome, Britain, France, Russia (slavic countries), Ottoman Empire, China, Japan, and the list goes on and on and on. We're powerful, we're hated, simple as that.

And to comment on something from before on the red scare/communism, bla bla. Go around and ask adults, those that lived during the Cold War, what they think of Russians. Most of them are ignorant pricks and say they are commie bastards. Try it, I did it once for a psychology project and again for a Multi-Cultural studies project, the results were not that shocking. Cold War babies, gotta love em.

"What harm did the US ever do to Europe?"

Nothing whatsoever. On the contrary, the only things we have ever done for Europe is save them from themselves and help them rebuild what was left of their countries after "tribal warfare."

I suspect that their alleged "problems" with us now are ...

1. They don't like that we have a direction of our own, much prefering us to kowtow to their supposedly "superior" culture.

2. They need someone to look down on so they pick the US since they know we will never so much as break off diplomatic relations with them.

3. Resentment that they are not in charge of things like they use to be.

Some Americans are so self-delusional. Such speech was so common for imperialist Europe. "We saved them from themselves. We were good. They're jealous of us."

You'd think such simplistic notions would have been outgrown by now. :rolleyes:

If you ask me, nothing was seriously wrong in the relationship between Europe and the US until Cold War ended. After that, something must have broken. :D

Are you kidding? We set up the Marshall Plan to rebuild the place to make a market?? The US had more than enough domestic demand.

No capitalist, presented with unprecedented global power, a vast vacuum of goods and services, and a government friendly to global capitalist aims, would ever believe in the notion of "enough" domestic demand. The entire first half of the 20th century in American foreign policy is the story of an attempt to expand markets overseas. Don't kid yourself in thinking this wasn't one of our aims after the war, too.

Some Americans are so self-delusional. Such speech was so common for imperialist Europe. "We saved them from themselves. We were good. They're jealous of us."

You'd think such simplistic notions would have been outgrown by now. :rolleyes:
Perhaps that's your problem ... you've "outgrown" the truth and now it hurts too much to hear it. :)

Perhaps that's your problem ... you've "outgrown" the truth and now it hurts too much to hear it. :)

How quaint. You really do believe such simplistic ideas. And here I was, thinking you were of a certain age.

Are you kidding? We set up the Marshall Plan to rebuild the place to make a market?? The US had more than enough domestic demand.

For a capitalist, there is never enough demand, silly.

Global warming.

That is not to say they don't contribute, either, but that wasn't the question...

Global warming.

That is not to say they don't contribute, either, but that wasn't the question...

Well, as a matter of fact the US consume more amounts of fossil fuels per population that anybody else on the planet. Hello? Energy Conservation?

And then there was Mr. Bush saying he didn't want to sign the Kyoto treaty (not that that would seriously matter, global warming is happening anyways, but it would have been a gesture of good will), because he claimed it would harm US economy.

Well, i reckon pollution harms the US health...

Just curious. Answer.

The majority of norwegians love USA, don't worry about it :-)

We love you guys! :fluffle:

the US has helped make some truoble around the world were we really didnt belong. want an example? the iraqi war, that government wasnt so good, but we had no place to go and over throw it, become missonaries of Democracy, say we were defending our freedom, and expect them to wlecome us with open arms, that is nonsense. 'insurgents'? i guess you could call the iraqi's that, but they are trying to tell america to stay out of other contries bussness were they are not concerned. sry if i strayed off the topic guys.

Well i must admit ive never seen so much blinkered american propaganda since the last lot.
Lots of things the americans did was unfortunate they did as much bad as good such is life.
America likes to dominate everything such was the aim of the marshall plan to bring europe under its financial debt its has tried this in every country it has used its *Foreign policy* on and reason the are the most hated country in the owrld bar none.
propaganda is everything all empires have risen and fallen under the ideas it feeds its people i would urge everyone to read the history of the world via the eyes of the different countrys it quite eye opening.
Americans have lived thier lifes fighting against one great enemy or another (amoung themselves when one couldnt be found) its is the american way,

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

An amazing quote far too close to the truth given recent world events since 9/11.
amazing it was a famous nazi officer who said it and its words are carried out every day in modern society------Herman Goering-------

The majority of norwegians love USA, don't worry about it :-)

We love you guys! :fluffle:
thanks, we love u guys 2. =)

Some Americans are so self-delusional. Such speech was so common for imperialist Europe. "We saved them from themselves. We were good. They're jealous of us."

You'd think such simplistic notions would have been outgrown by now. :rolleyes:
Some Europeans are so self-delusional. Such speech is so common amongst those who are just bitter that they aren't on top anymore.

The majority of norwegians love USA, don't worry about it :-)

We love you guys! :fluffle:
Everyone knows Norway kicks-ass. Great country. Bitter people like Fass give Europeans a bad rap.

I've been to several European countries, and the only time anyone was ever as hostile as Fass was at a bar in Germany. The vast bulk of Europeans (just like the vast bulk of people everywhere) are very nice and friendly people.

Let's blame that one more on the Russians. Hell, we'd have gladly left if those SOB's hadn't tried to put Western Europe back under the boot.

And, anyways, we gave Western Europe economic stimulus like none other through the Marshall Plan.

And then we put the stimulus of American military bases in Western Europe. You can't tell me that having a whole bunch of extra consumers around is a bad thing.


Except that they tend to stay on their bases and spend $$ at the KFC and Burger Kings that are located there, not in the local communities

Everyone knows Norway kicks-ass. Great country. Bitter people like Fass give Europeans a bad rap.


...Just like cheerleaders give the US a bad rap, but also tend to be noisy, loud and obnoxious at the same time.

Question: What harm did the US do?


Answer: They ignored THIS (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/13/INGP4B7GC91.DTL) !!!

So true, and so sad. I am ashamed that the US is screwing the entire world in this regard. <sigh>. and it's too late to do anything, really, that's the worst part.

Stupid Oil-Lobby groups, screwed up the world.

To be fair, the US has done a lot more good than harm for Europe in the past 50 years. It's just that we're pretty ticked off about the Iraq War and the Bush Administration in general.

Everyone knows Norway kicks-ass. Great country. Bitter people like Fass give Europeans a bad rap.

I've been to several European countries, and the only time anyone was ever as hostile as Fass was at a bar in Germany. The vast bulk of Europeans (just like the vast bulk of people everywhere) are very nice and friendly people.
Yes, you're right. Unfortunately, the "extreme anti-American" type of European tends to be overrepresented on online forums such as these.

However, he is right on one thing: we're not actually jealous of you. We have all the same freedoms as you do (well, not gun freedom but no-one cares about that anyway) and we are rich like you.

War of Independence (vs. UK 1776-1793); Quasi-War (vs. French Privateers/Pirates 1798-1801); War of 1812 (vs. UK 1812-1815); we could include the first and second Barbary Wars fought against the Semi-Autonomous North African States of the Barbary Coast in 1801-1805 and again in 1815; the Spanish-American war of 1898 when the US took over the Spanish posessions in the Carribean and Pacific.

If we ignore both world wars 1 and 2, which frankly were European creations, we come up with such wonderful things as the Marshall Plan (which fed the West Germans that remained in West Berlin after the Soviet's encircled the city), and then the setting up of various Military Bases all along the Iron Curtain. Now... that said, the "soviet" menace was mainly a huge case of paranoia on the part of Right leaning (formerly fascist) democrats/autocrats in Western Europe AND the US, and Canada, and various Dictators the world over.

So basically after the turn of the 20th century, the US stopped expanding at the expense of European territories and sabre rattling with them... that is until they decided to be World Hegemon as stated by PNAC.... but that's another thread entirely.

thats cuz you're so far left that a corrupt and dictatorial communist government doesn't bother you (until you're subject to it, that is. and then you'll come crying to the U.S. to save your sorry butt)

Go away, I mean HOW THE HELL CAN A CONTINENT NEED TO GO RUNNING TO A COUNTRY, SO WHAT ABOUT NUKES, THEY ARE USELESS ANYWAY, I MEAN ALL THE AMERICANS EVER SEEM TO DO WITH THEM IS DEFUSE THEM AND THEN BUILD MORE, JUST TO TEST THEM OUT ON SOME GODZILLA RIDDEN ISLAND

And as for the cold war, it was both sides fault, I think that when you destroy 2 cities in seconds news spreads fast, I mean HOW THE HECK WOULD YOU NOT EXPECT ALL THE OTHER COUTRIES IN THE WORLD NOT TO BE A LITTLE SCARED?

POSSIBLY THAT IS WHY THE COLD WAR STARTED DON'T YOU THINK?

AND AS FOR THE CHINEESE, IN BRITAIN IF YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD BE CALLED A RACIST

BUT WW3 IS COMING because China is overpopulated, as they say, and they will get the East on their side (Probably) as the East seems to think that the west blames all it's problems on the east*

*Taken from the bbc's Islam Week

America deliberately destroyed the British Empire by economic means at the end of WWII. They also refused to join the League of Nations, possibly thereby causing WWII. America has also gone to war with almost every European power.

.

1. They don't like that we have a direction of our own, much prefering us to kowtow to their supposedly "superior" culture.
Yeah, we don't like that you don't want to take any responsibilities of your actions.

2. They need someone to look down on so they pick the US since they know we will never so much as break off diplomatic relations with them.

maybe but notice that e.g. Brits and French look down to every single country on Earth...

3. Resentment that they are not in charge of things like they use to be.
Have we been in charge? Damn, I missed it. What I mean is that everyone seems to refer only to few western European countries when they are talking about Europe. Europe is also Romania, Lithuania, Albania etc not only GB, France, Germany and few holiday countries around Mediterranean.

Gonna say one thing I just thought of:

So basically America and Russia were trying to invade the world, and because they both had the same amount of power one could not do anything without risking what they already had?

If that sounds like crap, errrrrrrr

Tough

maybe but notice that e.g. Brits and French look down to every single country on Earth...



What the hell? you think that GB looks down on people?

If you think we do, it's either because Blair is a Bush clone, or because YOU ARE PLAIN STUPID, THE LAST TIME I HEARD A REMARK LIKE YOU SEEM TO THINK WE COMMONLY USE WAS IN A POLICE STATION CELL, I KNOW COS' MY PARENTS ARE POLICE

There Is no G in USA is there, the "G" stands for Great

What I mean is that everyone seems to refer only to few western European countries when they are talking about Europe. Europe is also Romania, Lithuania, Albania etc not only GB, France, Germany and few holiday countries around Mediterranean.

Somehow i have to recall that wonderful quote by Donald Rumsfeld about "Old Europe" and "New Europe". That doesn't work out very well.

If you were talking about EU und non-EU countries in Europe, it would be a different matter. Btw, i think people in the US are scared of the EU because it's in the progress of becoming a de-facto superpower.

What the hell? you think that GB looks down on people?

If you think we do, it's either because Blair is a Bush clone, or because YOU ARE PLAIN STUPID, THE LAST TIME I HEARD A REMARK LIKE YOU SEEM TO THINK WE COMMONLY USE WAS IN A POLICE STATION CELL, I KNOW COS' MY PARENTS ARE POLICE

There Is no G in USA is there, the "G" stands for Great
Please stop flaming everyone.

Go away, I mean HOW THE HELL CAN A CONTINENT NEED TO GO RUNNING TO A COUNTRY, SO WHAT ABOUT NUKES, THEY ARE USELESS ANYWAY, I MEAN ALL THE AMERICANS EVER SEEM TO DO WITH THEM IS DEFUSE THEM AND THEN BUILD MORE, JUST TO TEST THEM OUT ON SOME GODZILLA RIDDEN ISLAND

BUT WW3 IS COMING because China is overpopulated, as they say, and they will get the East on their side (Probably) as the East seems to think that the west blames all it's problems on the east*

*Taken from the bbc's Islam Week

Or drop those nukes on unarmed civilians...

WW3 isn't coming (China's not in shape to fight it, the US can't afford it financially, look how much Iraq and Afghanistan cost), China's government is more clever than the US, and Communism there is on the dead end street anyway. Give it a few more years and it'll be gone. They'll get the east on their side? Which east? Certainly not any Asian country apart from North Korea, and even there China has promised to kick Kim Il in the ass to get back to the talks. China has been overpopulated for a few decades by now, that's not new. It's doubtful that the majority of the Chinese population would go along with a course set for war.

Final note, since when does the BBC get anything right?

As for the overall question, what harm? Well... Maybe taking the same tactics as the nazis is one of the points? *points at Dresden (gotta blame the Brits mainly for this), Hamburg, etc etc etc* And those bombings didn't shorten the war.

Thus, the Marshall Plan was just a payback, you destroyed it, you gotta build it up again. On other issues they completely failed, like the de-nazification, it never really worked. Cause if it had, then there wouldn't be an NPD in Germany today.

Everyone knows Norway kicks-ass. Great country. Bitter people like Fass give Europeans a bad rap.

I'm not bitter at all. Keep your ad hominem-like projections to yourself, please. If you must resort to them, then you have lost the arguement a long time ago.

I've been to several European countries, and the only time anyone was ever as hostile as Fass was at a bar in Germany. The vast bulk of Europeans (just like the vast bulk of people everywhere) are very nice and friendly people.

It's funny how I'm hostile when I answer the question and do not think that the US are what they crack themselves up to be. If "nice and friendly" means not telling you what you've asked to hear, well, whatever helps you comfort yourself...

Or use them as buffers for half a century.
Well, DAMN, guess we should have followed Patton's advice.

If you were talking about EU und non-EU countries in Europe, it would be a different matter. Btw, i think people in the US are scared of the EU because it's in the progress of becoming a de-facto superpower.

Hence why they are trying to undermine it.

*watches the Euro kick the Dollar's ass*

Some Europeans are so self-delusional. Such speech is so common amongst those who are just bitter that they aren't on top anymore.

Wow. You totally didn't make a single point there. Notice how I had a historical reference there? And how you had nothing?

*watches the Euro kick the Dollar's ass*
*Watches Europe's economy's start to slow down even further because they mainly rely on exports to places like the US. Laughs at thought of French and Germans getting screwed in the long run.*

Harm that the US has did to Europe:

- You didnt signed the kyoto protocol. You still force us to eat your pollution and you dont do anything about it. (The US is the world's largest polluter)

- G. Bush threw away 50 years of international law, and 50 years of transatlantic relationship; Despite it all, the US and Europe worked as allies against the former soviet union. Today, you don't seem to want allies, you want military auxiliaries that kiss your ass. Not going to happen.

- You spy on us. You used the Echelon program to steal industrial secrets from European countries (Airbus contracts, namely), and you even hijack European companies, not due to the good functioning of market, but because you want to take away technologies that you deem vital to your "national interests" (Gemplus affair). And offcourse, you have got that nasty habit of planting bugs in the EU headquarters in brussels, but that's okay :D Everything that is done there is public :)




- About the US military bases in Europe.. take them away. Really. Shure, the locals will complain a bit, but the majority of us wants you away. The way you treat other's, takes any legitimacy you have for planting military bases on our soil. Offcourse, you Americans say that WE need your bases, but it is the other way around. Most of your wonded in Iraq end up in germany, and most of your re-fluers are based on Azores - It would harm your logistics to lose such bases.

- About the marshal plan.. well, yes, you gave us lots of money, but this served two porpouses: The money was used to buy American goods (since our economies were torn apart), and most importantly, to show that the American way was better than the Soviet way. Had you not given away such aid, and most European countries would have joined the Soviet block, that easy.

On other issues they completely failed, like the de-nazification, it never really worked. Cause if it had, then there wouldn't be an NPD in Germany today.

It worked, but only in half. De-nazification only occured in West Germany (the part occupied by US/Britain). In East Germany under the rule of the Soviets that really never happened. People there were formally changed from Nazis to Communists, and nobody cared anymore. Now take a look where the NPD is big: in eastern parts of Germany.

Well, DAMN, guess we should have followed Patton's advice.

You wouldn't have. What you went on doing was far more self-serving.

Works = present tense.

Worked = past tense.

And then apparantly only on right-wing dictatorships. My, my, what nice company.

try speakingto british middle class conservatives or christian or islamic church goers

why are so many of us europeans anti-american the US biggest failure is to understand that most people love their own country and system

Harm that the US has did to Europe:

- You didnt signed the kyoto protocol. You still force us to eat your pollution and you dont do anything about it. (The US is the world's largest polluter)

- G. Bush threw away 50 years of international law, and 50 years of transatlantic relationship; Despite it all, the US and Europe worked as allies against the former soviet union. Today, you don't seem to want allies, you want military auxiliaries that kiss your ass. Not going to happen.

- You spy on us. You used the Echelon program to steal industrial secrets from European countries (Airbus contracts, namely), and you even hijack European companies, not due to the good functioning of market, but because you want to take away technologies that you deem vital to your "national interests" (Gemplus affair). And offcourse, you have got that nasty habit of planting bugs in the EU headquarters in brussels, but that's okay :D Everything that is done there is public :)




- About the US military bases in Europe.. take them away. Really. Shure, the locals will complain a bit, but the majority of us wants you away. The way you treat other's, takes any legitimacy you have for planting military bases on our soil. Offcourse, you Americans say that WE need your bases, but it is the other way around. Most of your wonded in Iraq end up in germany, and most of your re-fluers are based on Azores - It would harm your logistics to lose such bases.

- About the marshal plan.. well, yes, you gave us lots of money, but this served two porpouses: The money was used to buy American goods (since our economies were torn apart), and most importantly, to show that the American way was better than the Soviet way. Had you not given away such aid, and most European countries would have joined the Soviet block, that easy.
Kyoto - There are so many problems with that stupid piece of BS it ain't funny.

Not so much military auxilaries that we want, so much as anything besides what's there. Schroder, Zapatero, and Chirac are friggin idiots.

How much do you want to bet that the French and Germans have spies in America?

Fine by me. Just have to bump up Israel's capabilites, which they would probably enjoy. Of course, watching that many economies be trashed is rather sad, but since you don't care obviously it's fine

If you live in europe, the probability that you would be typing anything on american forums from said Soviet country is laughable.

You wouldn't have. What you went on doing was far more self-serving.
DAMN those democrats. DAMN them.

As far as i can tell, most Europeans are NOT Anti-American, they are Anti-Bush.

DAMN those democrats. DAMN them.

Democrats, Republicans. Really, the difference is minimal.

Kyoto - There are so many problems with that stupid piece of BS it ain't funny.

Not so much military auxilaries that we want, so much as anything besides what's there. Schroder, Zapatero, and Chirac are friggin idiots.

How much do you want to bet that the French and Germans have spies in America?

Fine by me. Just have to bump up Israel's capabilites, which they would probably enjoy. Of course, watching that many economies be trashed is rather sad, but since you don't care obviously it's fine

If you live in europe, the probability that you would be typing anything on american forums from said Soviet country is laughable.


a) What a constructive argument against the Kyoto protocol! How about you state the problems you find, so that i can blast them one by one?

b) So anyone that disagrees with the mighty US is an idiot? Well, damn, im an idiot. But if the alternative is you, then im glad im an idiot.

c) They likely have. But they don't seem going on the trail of industrial sabotage.

d) lol. You are quite delusional. Despite our mild grownth, the EU can still face the US in economical terms, the damage that such withdrawal would make would be negligeble.

e) American forum? Isnt .co.uk british? lol



Ohhh boy, you are getting nervous! Calm down son, take a prozac!

As far as i can tell, most Europeans are NOT Anti-American, they are Anti-Bush.

No, they are anti-American. "Anti-American" is a word that USians use to describe anyone not blowing smoke up their asses and who doesn't think the US is the bee's knees they think it is.

The harm the US has done to Europe and the world.

1) McDonalds. And all other fast food chains.
2) Rap 'music'
3) Will and Grace.
4) Litigious society.
5) Adam Sandler.
6) The word 'dude' and the phrase 'I'm like so...'

Then again on the other hand they've given us...

1) Frasier, Friends and Cheers.
2) Robert De Niro and Clint Eastwood.
3) Star Wars (Ep IV, V, VI)
4) Blade Runner.
5) First men on the moon.

try speakingto british middle class conservatives or christian or islamic church goers

why are so many of us europeans anti-american the US biggest failure is to understand that most people love their own country and system

You know, that's right, I mean America is not as good as it looks from the outside anyway, and no, I'm not going to say that America is fat, probably because there is so much going on about it (The news, movies like super size me, and of course Michael Moore :rolleyes: )

But still you pollute (Makes you wonder why the day after tomorrow was set in New york :D )

All the companies are taking over the government, and really it's not surprising that you attack Iraq, I mean OIL, if I'm wrong about that, I still that was a major factor

There are no American bases In the UK (That I know of)
But could all this be part of an attempt to take over the world?

Tune in next time!!

Since I believe the original question of the topic was asking about harm done to Europe to explain European negative sentiment against the Bush administration...

Why do you assume this is about harm done to Europe?

Like you, we Europeans have a habit of sticking our noses in international affairs we may or may not have business in. You invaded Iraq. The American population for the most part couldn't care less - not us. We're a hell of a lot closer to Iraq than you are, so we're a bit bothered by that. Look on a map. There's a reason your "Middle East" is termed the "Near East" here.

This isn't some egoistical bitterness because you've tried to screw and use our economies. This is concern about what you are doing to the world at large. Please stop.

I'll add another factor:

The numerous times the US tried to bomb military targets during WWII but ended up bombing the village next to it, causing dozens of casualties. Ok, all those occasions might have been accidents, but the US could damn well admit THEY DID IT and APOLOGIZE, because for most of these bombings that hasn't happened yet. :mad: (Mind you, in those villages -at least in the one i live- this is taken very seriously, and mostly we view upon Americans with contempt).

Right, this might be a smaller thing than the Cold War, but it's still incorrect.

What harm did the US ever do to Europe?

None as far as I'm concerned.


Everyone knows Norway kicks-ass. Great country. Bitter people like Fass give Europeans a bad rap.

I've been to several European countries, and the only time anyone was ever as hostile as Fass was at a bar in Germany. The vast bulk of Europeans (just like the vast bulk of people everywhere) are very nice and friendly people.

I agree, which is nice, since Andaluciae usually tells me I'm a fool.



America deliberately destroyed the British Empire by economic means at the end of WWII. They also refused to join the League of Nations, possibly thereby causing WWII. America has also gone to war with almost every European power.


We destroyed ourselves. Most effectively during Tory governments.
The League of Nations had no significant influence on world politics anyway.
The war thing? I dont know what to say. When? Last century?

There are certainly American bases in the UK. There are B52s and I think we still have US nukes here, and maybe more. I don't really mind that to be honest.

There are clearly some Europeans for whom America can't do a thing right, but then it seems that there are many Americans who have nothing but contempt for Europe. I think that evens out in terms of unreasonable malice, and I also think that most people on either side of the Atlanticm don't feel that strongly about it. It's the opinionated ones that shout loudest who get heard.

That said, seeing as the topic is about what Europeans don't like about Americans, I'm going to give my own views of the things that I don't like about America at the moment. None of them apply to all Americans, or even to most Americans, and some just apply to the government, but they're the things that stick out:


- Ignorance about the world. The belief that Iraqis would all cheer them into every town during the invasion. Perhaps they should have done, but the fact that it was expected shows ignorance of the ways things really are. In 1980 Reagan thought that Latin America was a country. Most Americans don't even have passports. When I've been travelling around the world I've met far more Europeans and Antipodeans than I have Americans. Some of my American friends complain that they hardly get any foreign news from the American media, and have to watch the BBC to find out what's going on in the world.

- 'You're either with or us against us.' That's where it went wrong for your international relations, you know. You don't win allies by threats. In fact you lost a great many, because the threat was empty.

- Climate change. How much more evidence is actually needed before this is generally accepted as fact in America? It keeps piling up. Kyoto will not fix it by itself, but every journey starts with a single step, and Kyoto should be that step. Everyone else is reducing emissions, the US government doesn't seem to give a damn.

- The idea that disagreeing with America and failing to support it in Iraq shows a lack of gratitude for WWII. Do I need to explain why this is ridiculous?

- Litigious culture. This is something that we laugh at more than anything else. The woman who won money from MacDonald's because she wasn't warned that the coffee that she spilt on herself was hot epitomises this.

- Contempt for Europe. This works both ways, I realise, but when Americans loudly proclaim that Europe owes them its freedom from Communism and should therefore lick their arse it is very irksome. We do owe you that freedom, but America owes Europe everything that it stands for - democracy, freedom, capitalism, protestantism and more besides. Europe created global society, Europe drove the industrial revolution, and most of the technologies that created the modern world originated in Europe. Today Europe is still a global economic superpower to rank alongside the US. I think that we probably deserve at least some respect. There are some who seem unwilling to give it.


Before anybody gets personal, please don't forget that, depsite what I've said here, I do like America. My godmother is American, I used to go out with a wonderful American girl and I have friends there. I even support the war in Iraq.

The real problem I have with America is their patriotism, in Europe most people think their country is unimportant (except the french and the british, but they're starting to get it) and even the European Union gets frequently criticised. Now, the image I have from America is that all the media are just saying how great the USA is, how much terrorist dangers there are heading their way and how the government is doing great. Criticists are told to remember 9/11 and how America didn't start it. (Do they know much)
Now to the honest that's frightening me, I've always been glad that we had a powerful ally over the Atlantic that valued their citizen's rights, but now we're drifting away from each other. America is almost transforming in a oppressive dictatorship where corporations choose the president by pumping money in their campaign. And don't say the only alternative is communism, because even corporations have to play by some rules. Completely free market economy is as idiotic as communism.

I think Westmorlandia has made one of the most sensible and reasoned posts in this thread... I don't agree with the last remark re: Iraq but other than that read it and take note Americans.

Portu Cale's points also, take note of the comments regarding spying and state sponsored industrial espionage, they're not things we appreciate seen as we're already signed up to intelligience sharing treaties and if you want the technology then buy it or develop it yourself.

Also should add that one of the reasons a lot of British harbour resentment for the states has to do with the absolutely crippling terms that were imposed on us with the whole Lend-Lease situation regarding equipment for WWII, this was as deliberate an act of destruction of the British empire as could be made without declaring war on us. We had to endure rationing long after most european countries had ended it because of this and were still paying it back till the '70s.

The harm the US has done to Europe and the world.

1) McDonalds. And all other fast food chains.
2) Rap 'music'
3) Will and Grace.
4) Litigious society.
5) Adam Sandler.
6) The word 'dude' and the phrase 'I'm like so...'

Then again on the other hand they've given us...

1) Frasier, Friends and Cheers.
2) Robert De Niro and Clint Eastwood.
3) Star Wars (Ep IV, V, VI)
4) Blade Runner.
5) First men on the moon.
I object. Star wars!? Where were the studios, etc etc?

I think the US has does a great deal of good for Europe. Especially after WWII. From what I can remember from my history lessons, the US escaped relatively unscathed compared to most countries involved and so they were the only ones who had a strong enough economy to help repair a lot of damaged countries. It proved to be very benficial to the US in the end. A reward for a good deed. or something. I haven't done history for a while.

And you continue to pump quite a lot of money into the UK. That Ford factory in the midlands is really quite handy.

Harm? Erm, there are quite a lot of bad things about multinational companies. The majority of these companies are American and so America gets blamed for the harm they do.

The Kyoto thing serious ticked me off. I'd like an unpolluted planet thank you very much. That has rather soured my opinion off Bush.

There are no American bases In the UK
There most certainly are. My friend used to live near one. She felt comforted by the fact that were their to be an accident, she would be in the area that died immediately rather than suffer a slow agonising death. Not the most cheerful person on the world.

And you've taken the word Football and given it a silly name. Unforgiveable that one really.

- 'You're either with or us against us.' That's where it went wrong for your international relations, you know. You don't win allies by threats. In fact you lost a great many, because the threat was empty.



I throughly agree. Also the idea that anyone who criticises America is anti-american and not just expressing an opinion.

Alot of the hurt that people feel at America's actions is the amount of good one could do with so much power.

Your country was built from that most beautiful, beautiful of all things, revolution.

You fought against an imperial power, and you were a shining beacon of hope to those living under the imperialist rule in colonies worldwide.

Instead, as the old saying goes, inside every revolutionary, is a policeman waiting to burst out.

You became the imperialist power, you pursue the objectives of imperialism, that horrid practice that your beautiful nation had fought against to make your nation born.

Am I anti american? No, my rabid criticism of America's policies are merely my expressing a mourning for what could have been but is not, what has happened to the promises and hopes your country were built on and strived for and is replaced by imperialism.

Americans have been turned from revolutionaries into rabid, nationalistic, arrogant beings who believe they are greater than any other nation on the planet. An example was when an American at an airport recently criticised everything about my country while lauding her own in a most disgusting and rude manner.
Some of you sound so right wing, it's as if I'm listening to a German speak in 1940.

No, they are anti-American. "Anti-American" is a word that USians use to describe anyone not blowing smoke up their asses and who doesn't think the US is the bee's knees they think it is.
Who made you the spokesman for how Americans think? Don't make generalizations, it makes you look more ignorant.

Who made you the spokesman for how Americans think? Don't make generalizations, it makes you look more ignorant.

Ignorant... hmm

It's hard for us not to make generalisations like that when our media repeatedly shows your leaders making those comments whenever somebody disagrees with them. Isn't that ignorance?

Same goes for this thread, I think that if you look back through it you'll find similar comments a couple of times at least.

It's all part of the same deal as the "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude. should have that line beside the word ignorant in the dictionary as far as I can see.

I appreciate that not all americans feel the same way, but it seems to be the prevailing attitude that we see.

thats cuz you're so far left that a corrupt and dictatorial government doesn't bother you
The US government does bother us in case you haven't noticed.

Beyond that, US troops were and are based in Germany by the invite of that government, not becase we feel like being there.
Yeah right.

No capitalist, presented with unprecedented global power, a vast vacuum of goods and services, and a government friendly to global capitalist aims, would ever believe in the notion of "enough" domestic demand. The entire first half of the 20th century in American foreign policy is the story of an attempt to expand markets overseas. Don't kid yourself in thinking this wasn't one of our aims after the war, too.

I'm not disagreeing that it didn't happen to some extent, but it certainly was not a goal. And the US actually *still* has enough domestic consumption to carry over a trillion dollars in imports a year.

Saying that the US helped to rebuild Europe after WW2 to have a market there is like saying that Hitler liquidated the Jews for lampshades. Sure, it's a reason, but it is hardly a primary one.

America deliberately destroyed the British Empire by economic means at the end of WWII. They also refused to join the League of Nations, possibly thereby causing WWII. America has also gone to war with almost every European power.

1. The British Empire was spent after having to fight two major conflicts in two generations.

2. As opposed to all the other points the Brits, French & Italians forced at Versailles? I don't think so. It is a factor, but only one of many.

3. So? Every European power has also gone to war with almost every other European power.
Though America has never fought France, any Scandinavian Nation, nor any Warsaw Pact nation. Nor Russia (directly, Korean MIG pilots notwithstanding).
Nor Benelux, nor Portugal or Greece.
Hmm. That leaves England, France, Germany, Austria, Spain, Italy and Turkey. Hardly a long list. :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andaluciae
Beyond that, US troops were and are based in Germany by the invite of that government, not becase we feel like being there.


Yeah right.

Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger on C-Span on August 19, 2004

"Well, let’s remember that U.S. troops in Germany have been one of the greatest success stories for the United States and for Germany over the last 50 years. Not all Americans are aware of the fact that even when our two governments disagreed about whether or not to go to war against Iraq there was nobody in the German political spectrum who advocated the departure of American troops from Germany.

U.S. troops in Germany have been welcome and continue to be welcome. They have become part of our landscape and I am sure that many Germans don’t like to see our American friends leave. "


http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/politics/new/pol_bo_cspan_8_2004.html

...so, yep. (BTW, I actually saw this broadcast on 22 August on C-Span, as they often replay pieces like this on Sunday mornings.)

Just curious. Answer.
Would summing such things up make you feel any better?

How the USA harmed Europe:

Franklin Rooseveld's successor, who is praised for the marshall plan, also actively sought to disarm European powers. Countries like France, Britain and the Netherlands where threatened with the forfeiting of the marshall plan if they didn't give up their colonies. While these nations have gone throught its Imperialism phase and now regret it, the USA is just starting to embrace it. Likeminded governments, democratic or not, enjoy its protection so long as the USA can make a profit there. When the oil is exhausted, a revolution is sprung or when the ruler(s) turn against the USA they are neglected or even invaded.

The US have placed their armies and nukes on European soil. While they former can be tolerated, the latter cannot. These Weapons of Mass Destruction (tm) are unnecessary now the Cold War is over, and missiles can carry them halfway across the globe anyway. Your soldiers deserved a resting place here. As for the nukes I want to cite a certain frenchmen: Come over here and pick up your trash!

The USA considers itself a cop-of-the-world. But the hard facts are: the US created the League of Nations and United Nations for that purpose. If the latter one doesn't see things the same way as the US, too bad for you. You shouldn't have made it an international body then, what neo-cons want it to be is called a 'puppet'. You can't go around invading whoever you don't like. That makes you no better than Nazi Germany.

The US freed Europe in WWII so it could be free. It's as simple as this: We wouldn't have been able to freely critize you if you hadn't fought that war, but if you hadn't wanted us to critisize you you should have stayed out of Europe. Rooseveld choose to bear dissent from his people (and in the long run others) to do what's right. Ever since, no president of the US has done that without persueing a shadowy agenda. Kennedy did not mind Russia building the Berlin Wall in the least, so he was not interested in preserving Europe that much. Nixon and Johnson fought a war of attrition in Vietnam to defend a yet another cruel, closed and authoritarian government, simply hypocracy. Bush is expanding his sphere of influence in the Middle East under the mask of 'freedom and democracy', but it is doubtful these two things will prevail and there is good reason to suspect it's about something different.

Simply put: your United States is modern day's Rome. There is no good or evil, only power. And those that are wise enough to disguise it as 'good'. The last man who choose real good died in the last year of WWII. Totalitarian scum and power-mongers are everywhere now, often using ideologies and nationalism to mask their true intent. The US has the power to do all this, although the mask is starting to crack. It's nothing personal, it seems part of a cycle. But at this point there are more things at risk than just the countries participating in this destructive cycle: the Earth. If you bastards blow it up (ala Planet of the Apes), Europe is not going to forgive or forget.

Well America stood back and did nothing while we fought the Nazis at the height of there power, hell the only thing they gave us was selling us tanks and ships we’d lost due to the French surrendering once the Germans got within five steps of their country, at massively inflated prices. then entering the war once it as essentially over but not before Britain had lost masses of land to Japan and Germany, and the Russians had essentially broken the back of Germany, then claim you won it. OH and Then sparking the cold war and using us a buffer zone thanks for that, the Russians dint have ICBM that could have actually hit you till about the 1980's but you where happy to leave us well within range, then not share your nuclear secrets.

And you constanly spy on us, cheers for that too.

Exelent points water cove, truman was an absolute bastard who started the cold war becuase of his paranoia and ignorance.

Over and over again the usa brags about the 'fact' that they saved europe from german tiranny. How come the russians, who freed a huge part aswell, doesn't rub it in ?

Over and over again the usa brags about the 'fact' that they saved europe from german tiranny. How come the russians, who freed a huge part aswell, doesn't rub it in ?
Because they put an Iron Curtain around the parts they liberated.

The russians won world war two, the argument otherwise is a web of propadaga and lies, by 1941 in stalingrad the German army was on the verge of defeat, and After Kursk in 1943 the German Army was in constant retreat all the way to berlin.

The russians won world war two, the argument otherwise is a web of propadaga and lies, by 1941 in stalingrad the German army was on the verge of defeat, and After Kursk in 1943 the German Army was in constant retreat all the way to berlin.
The Russians did not win WWII any more than any other nation did. Without help from Britain and the US, Russia would have lost at Stalingrad, and Hitler would have forced them to sue for peace. On their own, the Russians would have lost and they very nearly did anyway.

The Russians did not win WWII any more than any other nation did. Without help from Britain and the US, Russia would have lost at Stalingrad, and Hitler would have forced them to sue for peace. On their own, the Russians would have lost and they very nearly did anyway.
Quite true. Since the Russians suffered over 21 million casualties in WWII, more than any other nation, I'd say that they couldn't possibly be considered to hold any status in that war other than as a useful way to turn German forces against two fronts. They just kept dying and falling back, drawing the Germans deeper into Russia until their supply lines were overextended. It was the same story with Napoleon. The Russians never win a war on their own soil by skilled defense. They just hang on til winter and let the enemy freeze to death.

By the way, this topic is a waste of time. We Americans didn't HAVE to do anything to Europe. As Oscar Wilde wrote in A Picture of Dorian Gray, the simple fact is that Americans are an "eminently reasonable" people, which is an affront to the intellectual dignity of the European cultural elite. We are pragmatic by nature, and our success as a people is an insult to their pure, lofty ideals.

Hell, an Englishman, a noble even, wrote that. I'd say it says a great deal about the issue at hand.more

The US is not responsible for how the French turned out.
http://img229.exs.cx/img229/310/soldierofsurrender8vh.jpg

Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger on C-Span on August 19, 2004

"Well, let’s remember that U.S. troops in Germany have been one of the greatest success stories for the United States and for Germany over the last 50 years. Not all Americans are aware of the fact that even when our two governments disagreed about whether or not to go to war against Iraq there was nobody in the German political spectrum who advocated the departure of American troops from Germany.

U.S. troops in Germany have been welcome and continue to be welcome. They have become part of our landscape and I am sure that many Germans don’t like to see our American friends leave. "


http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/politics/new/pol_bo_cspan_8_2004.html

...so, yep. (BTW, I actually saw this broadcast on 22 August on C-Span, as they often replay pieces like this on Sunday mornings.)
Thats hardly an invitation is it? Just cause nobody in the spineless government suggested they should leave. They have been there as occupation force since 1945. I fail to see how that could even be considerd an invitation to come there.

Also, this here, from your source, throws a clearer light on Americans. What they believe our role as their allies realy is.
How are you doing. My brother was stationed there in Germany, I think, from ‘85 to ’86. And he had a good time there and he had no problem over there. But our deployment of our troops is to benefit America and so I am kind of disappointed in Germany and France the way they’ve done so far lately. And I want to know ..
To serve their every whim.

What did the US do to Europe?

Cold war? Bah... I was not born so I can't be mad at them about that. I asked my family members who were born at the time if they are mad at the US for the Marshall plan or other Cold War stuff and they all answered no. On the contrary they all saw the US as a great nation until the last 10 years, hence since the end of the Cold War.

What did the US do since then to piss everybody off? Blatant disregard of international laws and a superiority complex. To list of few: invasion of Iraq against a UN resolution, support of Israel despite their constant violations of international laws and UN resolutions, refusing to be brought in front of the international court of justice, refusing to sign the Kyoto protocol, economical sanctions against countries that do not do everything exactly as they want or just criticize them... In other words, they are bullying the world and it pisses off people...

Some may argue that Europe would like to be the world bully and that is why they are pissed. Maybe, maybe not, who knows what the Europeans governments have in mind? Personally I know that I do not want any country to bully the world and that is why some of the actions of the US government really piss me off....

Again, since Europe certainly didn't have nukes of its own.
Just a reminder, at the time, you didn't.

well they did but they needed scientists from Germany too make them and anyone else think this topic is just stupid and racist? no? just me then I'll go away and live peacefullyt while you lot kill each other oh well byebye

The russians won world war two, the argument otherwise is a web of propadaga and lies, by 1941 in stalingrad the German army was on the verge of defeat, and After Kursk in 1943 the German Army was in constant retreat all the way to berlin.
Completely ingoring everything else that happened in World War II, do you even see the logic of what you posted. You say that the Russians won the war, and you say that in 1941, the german army was basically beaten, and that in 1943, two years later, they were forced into a retreat? When an army is basically beaten, it doesn't take two years to force them into a retreat.

I think this is racist towards all europeans. The USA prides itself for being international peace keepers, when all they really do is stick their nose in other country's business. Americans are too proud to think that they actualy make mistakes.

Patriotism can lead to arrogance and ignorance. The USA is proof of that.

well they did but they needed scientists from Germany too make them and anyone else think this topic is just stupid and racist? no? just me then I'll go away and live peacefullyt while you lot kill each other oh well byebye
So you're saying that they had them, they just didn't know how to make them?

Democrats, Republicans. Really, the difference is minimal.
And this you know from your vast experience in American politics, though you live in Europe? :rolleyes:

Thats hardly an invitation is it? Just cause nobody in the spineless government suggested they should leave. They have been there as occupation force since 1945. I fail to see how that could even be considerd an invitation to come there.

Also, this here, from your source, throws a clearer light on Americans. What they believe our role as their allies realy is.
How are you doing. My brother was stationed there in Germany, I think, from ‘85 to ’86. And he had a good time there and he had no problem over there. But our deployment of our troops is to benefit America and so I am kind of disappointed in Germany and France the way they’ve done so far lately. And I want to know ..
To serve their every whim.

Fifty plus years of spineless gov't? Sorry, doesn't wash.

Can you cite a German gov't official that says the US troops are not there as invitees?

Er... you know that that phonecall was one American's opinion, right? It's a phone-in-questions show.
Curious that you didn't also paste the Ambassaor's reply:
"That’s a fair comment... That is clear, we had a disagreement. But at the same time you should not forget that Germany is America’s number one ally, both political and military, in Afghanistan. ... We tried to be helpful in the spirit of partnership and friendship that has been the hallmark of our German-American relationship over these 50 plus years."

Hmm.

Also, going down a bit:
"That’s a very interesting question. Thank you for making that point. My Government doesn’t think that we need a peace treaty. In 1990, 14 years ago, a treaty was signed which we call the “2+4 Treaty”, a treaty involving the United States, the former Soviet Union, France, the United Kingdom and the two German states that existed at the time. And with that treaty, the two German states merged into one and were then regarded as one reunited Germany. The requirement of a peace treaty has in our view disappeared."

So how can it be an "occupation force", when the German government does not consider it as such?

No, they are anti-American. "Anti-American" is a word that USians use to describe anyone not blowing smoke up their asses and who doesn't think the US is the bee's knees they think it is.
My, my, my. Ad hominem attacks against an entire nation ... And so well-supported.

Oh so Oscar Wilde is suddenly the be all and end all of 20th centaury politics is he, hell bullocks to him, overrated bastard he is.
Oh and all the help USA and Britain sent Russia, what a good luck card, where were the massive supply lines through which an actual effective amount of supplies were sent, the black sea via the Mediterranean , the pacific which was full of Japanese war ships, No no no no no, very little help was sent to Stalingrad or any other major eastern front battle for that matter by the western allies, how would they have got it their?!
The war on the east was entirely a feat of unrelenting determination by the Russian people, they won because (their population was a lot larger than you’d think. 160+ or some what about remember this is the USSR no just Russia, so 21 million was not complete decimation.) and they eventually triumphed as Stalin moved the entire economy of Russia behind the Urals, not to mention the Russian winter ect ect.

So I’m afraid your mistaken old chap

The russians won world war two, the argument otherwise is a web of propadaga and lies, by 1941 in stalingrad the German army was on the verge of defeat, and After Kursk in 1943 the German Army was in constant retreat all the way to berlin.
Eeh The battle for Stalingrad was from 1942-1943.
And by the by, a quik retreat from Stalingrad would have been just as disastrouse for the Wehrmacht. Had the 6th amry not held out as long as they did Army group A would have been trapped in the Caucasus. Unless both armies had been withdrawn the outcome would probably have been the same.

The Red scare only works on Americans.

If you live in Russia, like I do, you'd known better!
Reds and Nazis are the same, the former just hadn't have their Nurenberg yet...

- Ignorance about the world. The belief that Iraqis would all cheer them into every town during the invasion. Perhaps they should have done, but the fact that it was expected shows ignorance of the ways things really are. In 1980 Reagan thought that Latin America was a country. Most Americans don't even have passports. When I've been travelling around the world I've met far more Europeans and Antipodeans than I have Americans. Some of my American friends complain that they hardly get any foreign news from the American media, and have to watch the BBC to find out what's going on in the world.

- 'You're either with or us against us.' That's where it went wrong for your international relations, you know. You don't win allies by threats. In fact you lost a great many, because the threat was empty.

- Climate change. How much more evidence is actually needed before this is generally accepted as fact in America? It keeps piling up. Kyoto will not fix it by itself, but every journey starts with a single step, and Kyoto should be that step. Everyone else is reducing emissions, the US government doesn't seem to give a damn.

- The idea that disagreeing with America and failing to support it in Iraq shows a lack of gratitude for WWII. Do I need to explain why this is ridiculous?

- Litigious culture. This is something that we laugh at more than anything else. The woman who won money from MacDonald's because she wasn't warned that the coffee that she spilt on herself was hot epitomises this.

- Contempt for Europe. This works both ways, I realise, but when Americans loudly proclaim that Europe owes them its freedom from Communism and should therefore lick their arse it is very irksome. We do owe you that freedom, but America owes Europe everything that it stands for - democracy, freedom, capitalism, protestantism and more besides. Europe created global society, Europe drove the industrial revolution, and most of the technologies that created the modern world originated in Europe. Today Europe is still a global economic superpower to rank alongside the US. I think that we probably deserve at least some respect. There are some who seem unwilling to give it.


Before anybody gets personal, please don't forget that, depsite what I've said here, I do like America. My godmother is American, I used to go out with a wonderful American girl and I have friends there. I even support the war in Iraq.

1) Ignorance about the world: most Americans did not expect that Iraqis would cheer us into every town. The ferocity of the insurgency was unexpected, however. Note that there was great joy initially, as witnessed by the pulling down of the Saddam statue. And military who have returned from Iraq anecdotally support the fact that the majority of the civilian populace are grateful for the work they are doing there.

2) Climate change. I'll have to agree to disagree with you there. Evidence that the climate is changing? Yes. Evidence it is due to CO2 emissions? None conclusive. And Kyoto would have destroyed America's economy, while giving developing countries, the greatest polluters, a pass.

3) Litigious culture. True. However, Bush has been very active on that front. GWB's first piece of legislation in the current term is tort reform.

The russians won world war two, the argument otherwise is a web of propadaga and lies, by 1941 in stalingrad the German army was on the verge of defeat, and After Kursk in 1943 the German Army was in constant retreat all the way to berlin.
Eeh The battle for Stalingrad was from 1942-1943.
And by the by, a quik retreat from Stalingrad would have been just as disastrouse for the Wehrmacht. Had the 6th amry not held out as long as they did Army group A would have been trapped in the Caucasus. Unless both armies had been withdrawn the outcome would probably have been the same.

Fifty plus years of spineless gov't? Sorry, doesn't wash.
More like for the past 20 years+ or so.

Can you cite a German gov't official that says the US troops are not there as invitees?
Can you cite one that does?
Have you ever heard of an occupation force that's occupying a country and was invited to do so? An occupation force is never invited. And I never heard a government official saying they were. They will however call them everything the Americans like to hear. Friends, allies, master, God etc...
Unless there is an election. Like it was the case with Schröder when Bush decided to get his name into the history books by invading Iraq.

Er... you know that that phonecall was one American's opinion, right? It's a phone-in-questions show.
It does grant us a good view on the general thought pattern of Americans about what their allies are good for.
Curious that you didn't also paste the Ambassaor's reply:
"That’s a fair comment... That is clear, we had a disagreement. But at the same time you should not forget that Germany is America’s number one ally, both political and military, in Afghanistan. ... We tried to be helpful in the spirit of partnership and friendship that has been the hallmark of our German-American relationship over these 50 plus years."
It's the kind of spineless, ass kissing horse shit I would expect from a government official.



Also, going down a bit:
"That’s a very interesting question. Thank you for making that point. My Government doesn’t think that we need a peace treaty. In 1990, 14 years ago, a treaty was signed which we call the “2+4 Treaty”, a treaty involving the United States, the former Soviet Union, France, the United Kingdom and the two German states that existed at the time. And with that treaty, the two German states merged into one and were then regarded as one reunited Germany. The requirement of a peace treaty has in our view disappeared."
Yeah. Thats a leftover from the Kohl administration. The Christian Democrats are the worst US ass kissers around. At least in that respect I have a little respect for Schröder who is trying to make Germany and the EU less of a US sattelite state. Government statements don't always represent the peoples opinion.

So how can it be an "occupation force", when the German government does not consider it as such?
How can they be "invited" when they start out as occupation forces and remain to be just that as long as there is no peace treaty. If Bush realy was interested in repairing relations he would sign one. Even if it would be a just a symbolic gesture.

Oh so Oscar Wilde is suddenly the be all and end all of 20th centaury politics is he, hell bullocks to him, overrated bastard he is.
Oh and all the help USA and Britain sent Russia, what a good luck card, where were the massive supply lines through which an actual effective amount of supplies were sent, the black sea via the Mediterranean , the pacific which was full of Japanese war ships, No no no no no, very little help was sent to Stalingrad or any other major eastern front battle for that matter by the western allies, how would they have got it their?!
The war on the east was entirely a feat of unrelenting determination by the Russian people, they won because (their population was a lot larger than you’d think. 160+ or some what about remember this is the USSR no just Russia, so 21 million was not complete decimation.) and they eventually triumphed as Stalin moved the entire economy of Russia behind the Urals, not to mention the Russian winter ect ect.

So I’m afraid your mistaken old chap

You are mistaken I'm afraid. I'm talking about little help.

USA
----
427 284 military tracks
50 501 jeeps
595 military ships (28 frigates, 105 submarines, 77 miners, 3 icebreakers, 140 sub-hunters, 202 torpedo-carriers etc)
13 303 armoured vechicles
35 041 - military bikes
136 000 tons of explosives
3 820 906 tons of food
2 541 008 tons of oil & oil products
2 317 694 ton of high-quality steel
15 010 900 pairs of boots
4 952 "Aircobra" fighters
2 410 "Kingcobra" fighters
2 771 A-20 bombers
861 B-25 bombers
hundreds of tons <tired of typing> minerals & metals
473 000 000 artillery shells
and that's not all...

Britain
------
2000 ton of aluminium monthly
27 battleships (icluding 4 submarines)
92 battleships were given to USSR temporaly "until the end of war" (including line "Royal Sovereign" & 1 cruiser)

October 1st, 1941 - May 31st, 1945
17 500 000 tons of strategic shipment sent from America
1 300 000 were lost
We received the rest.
And thank yoy very much for your help.

It was OUR victory. OUR - American, Russian, British and all the rest. Let's not try to rob ourselves of it.

You are mistaken I'm afraid. I'm talking about little help.

USA
----
427 284 military tracks
50 501 jeeps
595 military ships (28 frigates, 105 submarines, 77 miners, 3 icebreakers, 140 sub-hunters, 202 torpedo-carriers etc)
13 303 armoured vechicles
35 041 - military bikes
136 000 tons of explosives
3 820 906 tons of food
2 541 008 tons of oil & oil products
2 317 694 ton of high-quality steel
15 010 900 pairs of boots
4 952 "Aircobra" fighters
2 410 "Kingcobra" fighters
2 771 A-20 bombers
861 B-25 bombers
hundreds of tons <tired of typing> minerals & metals
473 000 000 artillery shells
and that's not all...

Britain
------
2000 ton of aluminium monthly
27 battleships (icluding 4 submarines)
92 battleships were given to USSR temporaly "until the end of war" (including line "Royal Sovereign" & 1 cruiser)

October 1st, 1941 - May 31st, 1945
17 500 000 tons of strategic shipment sent from America
1 300 000 were lost
We received the rest.
And thank yoy very much for your help.

It was OUR victory. OUR - American, Russian, British and all the rest. Let's not try to rob ourselves of it.
This is what I like to see. Someone who uses facts rather than idealistic abstracts. Good work.

We became the only superpower (for the moment, damn chinese!!) and they envy us.

We are the only superpower. Referring to China as a superpower is most laughable as the United States is a virtual hegemon to the rest of the world. with the EU in far second place.

And in time your uppance will come
:)

We are the only superpower. Referring to China as a superpower is most laughable as the United States is a virtual hegemon to the rest of the world. with the EU in far second place.

This marks the first time I've been in complete agreement with someone that had the words 'Sp@mQueen advisor' under their name.

And in time, your uppance will come :)

Again, since Europe certainly didn't have nukes of its own.

Actually, you did not at the close of WWII (when the Soviet army was moving through Europe).

Britain's first test was on 3 October 1952; France's on 3 December 1960

But don't let facts get in your way.... your mind is already made up... :headbang:

fire-bombing of germany, mass killings of innocent civillians and children, landmines, bombing kosovo, causing mass havoc,











meh, not much in my opinion :rolleyes:

My globe shows that West Germany is not in between Alaska and the Soviet Far East. WG as a buffer? I think the Atlantic does a better job.

The Atlantic was not even much of a buffer considering ICBMs and long rang bombers. I grew up in the US next to a primary Soviet nuclear target... effective buffer my a**!

*Watches Europe's economy's start to slow down even further because they mainly rely on exports to places like the US. Laughs at thought of French and Germans getting screwed in the long run.*
Way to overestimate yourself. I don't know about France but Germany exports mainly into the EU countries and to Asia. The percentage of goods exported to the US in 2004 was about 7% of the total exports.

It was OUR victory. OUR - American, Russian, British and all the rest. Let's not try to rob ourselves of it.

Don't forget lend-lease. We rebuilt damaged ships....

But, the Soviets did have the worst time of it of the allies. Maybe even the majority of this was Stalin's fault (running troops into Nazi machine guns without rifles and shooting them themselves if they turned to run back, shooting their own wounded, et cetera) but it is fair to remember the terrible cost they paid...

All Europe ever got from its status as a superpower was grief, so we don't envy you. You've started to go where we've been.


Indeed. I think the rift between the US and Europe is more cultural than political. They see us becoming the new world power and due to all the shit they have been through they have more liberal viewpoints, and undertsnad the real price global domination exacts on EVERYBODY.

Indeed. I think the rift between the US and Europe is more cultural than political. They see us becoming the new world power and due to all the shit they have been through they have more liberal viewpoints, and undertsnad the real price global domination exacts on EVERYBODY.

Or they're envious and anti-Americanism is a form of Euro-nationalism.

They're done anyway. America should court a power that is not in decline (lest we get pulled down with them). India comes to mind.

I think this article sums it up well… Goodbye and good riddance old Europe. We’d love to stay but your being bitter and irrational. Remember when things are finally all said and done that you agitated for this separation.

Cheers 'ya-all'

EUROPEANS AND LEFTISTS

By Nelson Ascher

There’s a classic Soviet joke about some Olympic competition where there were only two runners, the American and the Russian one. The American won, and the thing was reported by the “Pravda” in the following way: “In yesterday’s competition, the Russian runner conquered a glorious silver medal, while the American was the last-but-one to arrive.”

Is it only my unfaithful eye, or most of the European reporting about whatever happens in and with the US, particularly when it has something to do with Iraq, sounds much like the “Pravda” (which means “truth” in Russian) in the joke above?

Look, I can understand fairly well the French or German anger over the Iraqi campaign. After all, they lost a good client and their plans for extending their political influence in the Arab/Muslim world were somewhat undermined. Any new Iraqi government will prove to be rather reluctant when it comes to pay for the Mirage airplanes used to bomb the Kurds with German poison-gas, and it will also review carefully all those very advantageous contracts that many Euro governments had made with Saddam.

But why the hell would a decent French, Spanish, German, Italian or even British leftist take to the streets to keep the blood-money flowing into their own corrupt elites’ and governments’ and bourgeoisies’ Swiss accounts? That these elites should be angry at the loss of such a good source of income and influence is understandable, but the common man-in-the-street wasn’t getting much out of this, was he? It wasn’t the average Frenchmen who had dinner every day at the Tour d’Argent (which happens to be just around the corner, or rather, just across the bridge from my Parisian place). There are only two places where the average Frenchman can usually sit down nowadays to have lunch or dinner: the public park and the Macdo (that’s French for McDonald’s). Any other places, whenever American tourists don’t show up, tend to be rather empty.

I can still remember a time, not so faraway, when the average Euro leftist would criticize his own government, his own ruling class, his own elites and bourgeoisie. I remember, for instance, the scorn with which, in those by-gone days, a publication like “Le Canard Enchainé” referred do Georges Pompidou or told the story of the diamonds Giscard D’Estaing got from Central African emperor Bokassa. The first time I visited Paris, believe it or not, even “Le Monde” had harsh words for Jacques Chirac.

The sad truth is: though the press and the media are still free in much of Europe, they’re not independent anymore. The kind of criticism one reads in the NYT or the WaPo against the US government is almost impossible to find in Europe against any government, except, obviously, the American one. Well, and the Israeli. But Europeans were never particularly fond of Jews, not of the living ones anyway.

Now, why doesn’t the Euro left criticize the Euro elites, even when it is not part of it? First, there are pragmatic considerations: the Euro left has been bought off with jobs, prestige etc. When you work directly or indirectly for the state (in a university, say, or the movie industry) and the state actually pays attention to what you say or think, you’re much less tempted to criticize it. But there are other reasons as well: with real socialism dead, state-centered Europe became the next best alternative. And for those who really believe in it, because they feel (quite rightly, by the way) that they wouldn’t do as well in an open, competitive and “savagely capitalistic” society, it must be quite painful to see exactly that kind of society outperforming their own in, well, everything.

Does anybody really think that Parisians love to live in 20 square meter decaying flats instead of in a large suburban house, that they feel happier in their stinking, rat-infested subway than they would in a large car with a powerful air-conditioner? I’m not convinced that the average Parisian girls loves to wear the same clothes over and over for five years, and I can assure you that when I invited the local intelligentsia to my place and served duck liver, champagne and good cheeses, they didn’t protest my bourgeois habits because they were too busy eating the dishes, the forks, spoons, and knives.

Europeans simply want to live like Americans. But they cannot, because, among other things, they like to work less and less. They still believe that to work is to be exploited by old-style capitalists with gold watches hanging from golden chains from their pockets and wearing top hats. So they have to invent for themselves an alternative America, an America where blacks are still lynched daily, where people die of hunger in the streets, where dissenting voices are silenced with pistols, where everybody is a fat religious fanatic. Though the proportion of the population that has a university degree is higher in the US than in Western Europe, though the American publishing market dwarves the European one, though one can find a wider range of opinions and better researched information even in the American MSM than in their European counterparts, still the Europeans do their best to convince themselves that Americans are hopelessly stupid or, to put it in another way, that they themselves are, oh, so much cleverer and deserving. A century ago they were pretty happy feeling they were better, more civilized people than the Asians or Africans. Half a century ago, they loved to imagine how much more human they were than those nasty worms, the Jews. Now it is America’s turn.

Then, let’s not forget the strength of other old habits. Whatever they say about themselves, Europeans in general are very nationalistic. They’re not patriotic: they wouldn’t die to defend their homelands, though neither are they always cowardly, and they would sometimes risk their lives to kill their rivals. Actually, the Europeans have always been and still are the most nationalistic people on earth. Well, they invented nationalism after all, didn’t they? To be European is to feel yourself superior, and right now they have to find ways to feel they’re better than the Americans. When your house is smaller, your car is smaller and your budget too, then you begin to claim some merit for the brilliant novel another guy wrote centuries ago or for the beautiful symphony some countryman of yours composed in the 19th century. Thus, if you're French, you're almost Gustave Flaubert and if you're German you actually are Beethoven.

The left isn’t and has never been immune to the call of nationalism. A French leftist is, first of all, a Frenchman, then a leftist. The same applies to the Germans, Italians, Spaniards etc. Much of the fascination of being a leftist consists not only in knowing that you are right, but also that those who disagree with you are not wrong or misguided: they are evil. Leftism is, in many ways, a form of xenophobia and this goes quite well with more conventional nationalism and ethnocentrism. Leftism became a way of inventing enemies and assigning blame.

The US has always accepted immigrants who had something to contribute: qualified people, scientists, technicians, entrepreneurs. Most immigrants accepted in Europe since WW2 are just those who would do the work Europeans felt to be below themselves. The new kind of work they find to be “inferior” but they want to see done anyway is nowadays that of dying to blow up Americans and/or their allies. If that’s not readily possible, burning down a synagogue will do.

For half a millennium Europeans got used to consider themselves the top of the world. European-born leftism is a variation on this theme. American affluence, power and influence are profoundly humiliating for them. Take a look at the arrogant way most Euro politicians, many with real or fake aristocratic names, behave and you’ll see what’s in the back of their minds. It could more or less be translated in the following way: “Why, for God’s sake, is that idiotic Bush so powerful and influential while I’m just the king, prime-minister or president of a shitty little, decadent European country? Why he and not me? I’m cleverer, I know more about wines, my ancestors were better people. So why, why?”

That’s more than simple (and sometimes healthy) envy. Envy, up to a point, can move people to improve their own situation through legitimate means. What bothers the Europeans and the Euro-style left is a sense of cosmic injustice. If this looks a bit like the way Muslim ideologues feel, that’s not just a coincidence.

PS: When there still existed something that could be fairly described as a French sense of humour, that is, when their jokes weren't restricted to dealing with the US, the Americans and also, obviously, the Americans and the US, a French general commented ironically on an enemy:

Cet animal est très méchant:
quand on l'attaque, il se défend.

This could be translated in the following way:

This animal - under attack -
behaves too badly: it fights back.

Well, perhaps this is after all the root-cause of Europe's anti-American anger: the US wasn't supposed to fight back. Neither is it, from an Euro or Muslim point of view, nice when the Jews fight back too. C'est la vie.
POSTED BY NELSON ASCHER| 5:56 PM | LINK *

We are the only superpower. Referring to China as a superpower is most laughable as the United States is a virtual hegemon to the rest of the world. with the EU in far second place.

Firstly, he didn't say that China was a superpower, only that it would be, and it almost certainly will be in the next few decades barring something unexpected.

Secondly, you're only talking in military terms.




1) Ignorance about the world: most Americans did not expect that Iraqis would cheer us into every town. The ferocity of the insurgency was unexpected, however. Note that there was great joy initially, as witnessed by the pulling down of the Saddam statue. And military who have returned from Iraq anecdotally support the fact that the majority of the civilian populace are grateful for the work they are doing there.

The crowd that pulled down Saddam's statue actually only numbered a few hundred. And yes, I suspect that most Iraqis are grateful, that's not the same as loving the fact that you're there. There have also been many anecdotes of soldiers who claim that they were utterly disillusioned by the way that the Iraqis received them because they assumed that, standing for freedom, they'd be heroes, but they weren't. I suppose it just depends who's feeding you the anecdotes. In any case, that was all really a minor part of the point I was making.

2) Climate change. I'll have to agree to disagree with you there. Evidence that the climate is changing? Yes. Evidence it is due to CO2 emissions? None conclusive. And Kyoto would have destroyed America's economy, while giving developing countries, the greatest polluters, a pass.

The evidence is that temperatures are rising far faster than any natural spurt that has ever been recorded. We also know for a fact that greenhouses gases will make the world warmer, we just don't know exactly by how much. Putting these two facts together is conclusive enough. You could never 'prove' that it was the greenhouse gases, all that you can do is rack up heaps of highly persuasive circumstantial evidence. But the fact that mankind is not able to prove that something is happening doesn't mean that it isn't.

Kyoto would have destroyed America's economy? Funny, because we've managed to cut our emissions to our target without doing the same, as have many other states. It's about willpower, and sound and worthwhile investment.

Developing countries aren't even close to being the biggest polluters. What you mean is that they are less clean in their use of fuel, but that's not the same thing. The US, where 5% of the world's population live, produces almost 1/4 of the world's CO2 emissions:

http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/evolution.html

You should also remember that, as it is more cost-effective to cut emission rates in developing countries you can put money into programmes there instead if you want and it counts towards your reduction total under Kyoto.

So yes, you'd have to spend money to reduce emissions and perhaps knock a few 1/10ths off your GDP growth rates for a few years, but, considering the amount you knock out and the fact that it affects everyone else on the planet, is that unfair? I think not.

3) Litigious culture. True. However, Bush has been very active on that front. GWB's first piece of legislation in the current term is tort reform.

Good for him. Shows he can get it right.

Developing countries aren't even close to being the biggest polluters. What you mean is that they are less clean in their use of fuel, but that's not the same thing. The US, where 5% of the world's population live, produces almost 1/4 of the world's CO2 emissions:

What percentage of the world's industrial output does the US produce? It is not all SUVs making CO2, some of it is building the ships, industrial equipment, and tools that the rest of the world needs.

Sl0re, that article is insane. Is he talking about some other Europe? It's not the one that I live in, that's for sure. It's just a populist rant, appealing to the very same sort of prejudice, arrogance and ignorance that he seeks to criticise. I see it touched a nerve with you. No one who understands Europe could agree with that article.


Take this section (I can't do the whole article, I'm afraid. I only have so long):

Does anybody really think that Parisians love to live in 20 square meter decaying flats instead of in a large suburban house, that they feel happier in their stinking, rat-infested subway than they would in a large car with a powerful air-conditioner? I’m not convinced that the average Parisian girls loves to wear the same clothes over and over for five years, and I can assure you that when I invited the local intelligentsia to my place and served duck liver, champagne and good cheeses, they didn’t protest my bourgeois habits because they were too busy eating the dishes, the forks, spoons, and knives.

There are certainly slums in Paris, as there are in New York, but on what basis does he call the subway stinking and rat-infested? It isn't. Does he think that Parisians all live in pokey little flats and have no large suburban houses? Does he really? And who the hell is he to criticise the clothing of the most stylish women in the world? Nobody, I believe. And food? OMFG, either he's an ignorant sod or he's just a big media troll, trying to wind people up by his big fat lies. I hear that New York has great food, but anything it has learnt about haute cuisine it has, of course, learnt from the French.

The crowd that pulled down Saddam's statue actually only numbered a few hundred. And yes, I suspect that most Iraqis are grateful, that's not the same as loving the fact that you're there. There have also been many anecdotes of soldiers who claim that they were utterly disillusioned by the way that the Iraqis received them because they assumed that, standing for freedom, they'd be heroes, but they weren't. I suppose it just depends who's feeding you the anecdotes. In any case, that was all really a minor part of the point I was making.

That whole scene was fake, just like the liberation of what's-her-name, Jessica Lynch? However, I won't deny many Iraqi were happy with the toppling of the Saddam regime.

What percentage of the world's industrial output does the US produce? It is not all SUVs making CO2, some of it is building the ships, industrial equipment, and tools that the rest of the world needs.

Fair comment. I don't know the answer. Perhaps, as you're seeking to use that fact to counter my point, you could look that one up yourself? Doubtless it's higher than 5% but I very much doubt that it's 25% though. The US is a big net importer of goods, in fact (hence your enormous trade deficit). Rather than it producing what the world needs it is more like the reverse, if anything.

That whole scene was fake, just like the liberation of what's-her-name, Jessica Lynch?

Really? How do you know that? I never heard anything similar, though it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

There are certainly slums in Paris, as there are in New York, but on what basis does he call the subway stinking and rat-infested? It isn't. Does he think that Parisians all live in pokey little flats and have no large suburban houses? Does he really? And who the hell is he to criticise the clothing of the most stylish women in the world? Nobody, I believe. And food? OMFG, either he's an ignorant sod or he's just a big media troll, trying to wind people up by his big fat lies. I hear that New York has great food, but anything it has learnt about haute cuisine it has, of course, learnt from the French.

Well I appreciate the sincere reply (I'm serious, you didn't attack and go overboard) but I've been to Europe too. There are pretty big slums over there in places I didn't expect (such as Germany). But slums are not the issue, it is the average middle class living standard. It varies around Europe but I do think the American is higher than France, Germany, and I’ll dare say it… even Sweden. A lot of people do live in old smallish apartments who would have houses and cars here (doing the same type of work)... Then there are just general issues of pride. Leftist internationalism is still a (often irrational) form of nationalism (with it’s own ideology of loves and hates)… I don't want to get bogged down on that though. I will say something is a root cause of the attitudes people have towards Americans and it goes deeper than the arguments used. Many people definitely jump to the most anti-American position they can, quickly, and in my opinion unfairly. It leads me to wonder what is really causing this.

This article was one opinion.... and BTW, if you’re in Britain, you’re the best off (economically) so this article would make the least sense. I’d also say the article does not really talk about you or people who still can hold rational discussions. Its about leftists who froth about imperialism and American terrorism… not centrists or center left people who don’t see a world wide Anglo-Capitalist conspiracy….

I say we just need some GMO crops that convert more CO2 back to oxygen.

PS
We have great foods that have no ties to France. :) We have people from all over the world to take the best ideas from (foods included).

Cheers

Fair comment. I don't know the answer. Perhaps, as you're seeking to use that fact to counter my point, you could look that one up yourself? Doubtless it's higher than 5% but I very much doubt that it's 25% though. The US is a big net importer of goods, in fact (hence your enormous trade deficit). Rather than it producing what the world needs it is more like the reverse, if anything.

No, it's pretty close to the CO2 levels. The trade deficit is based on money in and out, not tangible production.

We've had a trade deficit for as long as I recall but we don't go bankrupt because our wealth / tangible asset production (such as of industrial items) is still recognized... re: the creditors know we have the ability to repay…

I find it hard to believe that the US thrives on high-energy unskilled heavy industry. That sort of thing went from the UK to countries with cheaper manpower some time ago.

The reason that the US hasn't gone bankrupt is that there isn't a fixed amount of cash that will run dry or something - when the US sends wealth abroad, it simply exerts downward pressure on the dollar, that's all. It's not because you have lots of heavy industry. I'd like to see some figures on industrial production though.


Sl0re - the article wasn't really about lefties. he just uses the term here and there when he wants to spice up his insults. Sweepings statements like 'Europeans in general are very nationalistic' show that he isn't really making the distinction himself. It's a very silly article.

American middle classes are much better off, no doubt about it, but the French would reply by saying that their ordinary workers are better provided for, I guess. Houses may be smaller because property prices are higher than in the US (I know they are in the UK, though I'm actually not so sure about France.)

Based on popular opinion, and not knowing much about history myself, I'm assuming that in a previous episode, France must have killed America's parents or something.

The Atlantic was not even much of a buffer considering ICBMs and long rang bombers. I grew up in the US next to a primary Soviet nuclear target... effective buffer my a**!

Um, thanks... I think.
(I'm assuming that you're agreeing with me that West Germany was not a buffer for the US...)

I live within 60km of NYC in Connecticut. Back in the 80s, I lived in Stratford, which had a missile all of it's own due to Sikorsky Helicopters and the Avco Army Engine Plant... :(

The thing that really bothers me is that Europeans came here for centuries, their poor came, now Europe is better off. And most of that can be contributed to the US, but no thanks are necesary, now they hate us, in 50 years or so what if Europe has another war? Will they start coming here again? The question is should we let them if they want to? I dont have a problem ith Europe, but they seem to have a problem with us. And I still have no idea why. Some hate us because we saved them. Some because we ended their terrific system of govt. (the reds)

Again, since Europe certainly didn't have nukes of its own.

Point, Europe has some nukes, but because they wouldnt stand up to the Russians themselves and certainly werent going to use nukes it was probably up to us to stop the communists.

The thing that really bothers me is that Europeans came here for centuries, their poor came, now Europe is better off. And most of that can be contributed to the US, but no thanks are necesary, now they hate us, in 50 years or so what if Europe has another war? Will they start coming here again? The question is should we let them if they want to? I dont have a problem ith Europe, but they seem to have a problem with us. And I still have no idea why. Some hate us because we saved them. Some because we ended their terrific system of govt. (the reds)

What does the American stock consist of then, pure Aryan Americans that grew out the ground. Your ignorance defuses your augment quickly and painlessly. I’m not counting the American Indians, considering they where basically ethically cleansed during the Indian wars, and then given lovely reservations were they can live out the rest of their days. I doubt your argument could be based from their eyes either as American did not have an economy before the British, French Spanish and Dutch came anyhow.

More like for the past 20 years+ or so.

Okay... but the forces in Germany since 1989 are clearly not occupation forces (please read the final point below).


Can you cite one that does?

I already have. The Ambassador's statements show that the German government and the American government have long been partners, and that US troop bases are welcome in Germany.
Ball is in your court...


Have you ever heard of an occupation force that's occupying a country and was invited to do so? An occupation force is never invited. And I never heard a government official saying they were. They will however call them everything the Americans like to hear. Friends, allies, master, God etc...
Unless there is an election. Like it was the case with Schröder when Bush decided to get his name into the history books by invading Iraq.

Yet not one German leader has ever considered withdrawing from NATO, or asking for the American troops to leave... Fascinating.

I'd think that to be politicking as opposed to an official view. Americans by and large don't care about gay marriage, yet candidates discuss it on the campaign trail.


It does grant us a good view on the general thought pattern of Americans about what their allies are good for.

I can't speak for everyone, but I am very grateful that America's allies are with us in Afghanistan. I was also very grateful when the NATO common defense clause was put in play for the FIRST TIME during the 9.11 attacks, and international NATO forces began patrolling the North Atlantic off our shores. And I was very touched by this:http://www.marine.de/80256B100061BA9B/CurrentBaseLink/N255AG8N894MMISDE


It's the kind of spineless, ass kissing horse shit I would expect from a government official.

Then I'm afraid I don't know what to tell you. It seems your beef is with the Germany government and your dislike of Americans.


Yeah. Thats a leftover from the Kohl administration. The Christian Democrats are the worst US ass kissers around. At least in that respect I have a little respect for Schröder who is trying to make Germany and the EU less of a US sattelite state. Government statements don't always represent the peoples opinion.

EXCELLENT! So you know that the US Government does not always represent the people's opinion, too? :)


How can they be "invited" when they start out as occupation forces and remain to be just that as long as there is no peace treaty. If Bush realy was interested in repairing relations he would sign one. Even if it would be a just a symbolic gesture.

:confused:
Call me crazy, but it seems to me that after 1989 when Germany reunited that occupation was over. There aren't any more US/UK/FR/USSR zones... "Checkpoint Charlie" is gone, as is the wall.
If occupation wasn't over at any time before, it was certainly over then.

The "2+4 Treaty" *is* the peace treaty... especially note article 7.

http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/2plusfour8994e.htm

Actually the occupation forces in German are primarily the British army, i have numerous friends born on bases there, and most of our military infrastructure is actually bases there e.i the courts which are in the news recently.

Nato apart from on paper is in a nutshell dead, eufor has taken over most of its european operations in reality.

Does he really? And who the hell is he to criticise the clothing of the most stylish women in the world?
This really isn't a good thing. The dresses at fashion shows from most french designers, from most designers period, actually, are just fugly.

Actually the occupation forces in German are primarily the British army, i have numerous friends born on bases there, and most of our military infrastructure is actually bases there e.i the courts which are in the news recently.

The British army had some 40,000 troops in Germany. While the US had close to 200,000. Even today there are still some 70,000 US occupation troops left.

There were more Brittish before, they just all left the army when they found out there was stuff like decent food and dentists and the sun. I know I would.

I already have. The Ambassador's statements show that the German government and the American government have long been partners, and that US troop bases are welcome in Germany.
Ball is in your court...
They were already there.



Yet not one German leader has ever considered withdrawing from NATO, or asking for the American troops to leave... Fascinating.
No. It's not facinating. It's just sad. NATO is the chain that ties us. I must credit Schröder, as much as I hate him for his catastrophic domestic policies, for calling for a reorganisation of NATO from a strict military organisation to a political one. That would give the sattelites more weight and make them less dependent on Washington. Of course the plan will be torpedoed by loyal US puppets like Stoiber and Merkel.


I can't speak for everyone, but I am very grateful that America's allies are with us in Afghanistan. I was also very grateful when the NATO common defense clause was put in play for the FIRST TIME during the 9.11 attacks, and international NATO forces began patrolling the North Atlantic off our shores.
Like I already pointed out. America believes it's allies/sattelites exist to serve their needs. And I was very touched by this:http://www.marine.de/80256B100061BA9B/CurrentBaseLink/N255AG8N894MMISDE
Yuck.



Then I'm afraid I don't know what to tell you. It seems your beef is with the Germany government and your dislike of Americans.
Yes it is.



EXCELLENT! So you know that the US Government does not always represent the people's opinion, too? :)
There will always be a small portion, even in the US.



:confused:
Call me crazy, but it seems to me that after 1989 when Germany reunited that occupation was over. There aren't any more US/UK/FR/USSR zones... "Checkpoint Charlie" is gone, as is the wall.
If occupation wasn't over at any time before, it was certainly over then.
Unless I'm mistaking US army bases still count as US soil in Germany. Certainly feels like an occupation. Wether it's official or not.

The "2+4 Treaty" *is* the peace treaty... especially note article 7.

http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/2plusfour8994e.htm
A yes. The Versailles Treaty light.

Really? How do you know that? I never heard anything similar, though it's not beyond the realm of possibility.
I wouldn't say it was fake but the videotape released about it gave us a wrong idea. There is also a videotape in which the whole scene is shown further away and in that video you can see that there were only about 30 Iraqiis and about 30-40 American soldiers.

But, the Soviets did have the worst time of it of the allies. Maybe even the majority of this was Stalin's fault (running troops into Nazi machine guns without rifles and shooting them themselves if they turned to run back, shooting their own wounded, et cetera) but it is fair to remember the terrible cost they paid...

Yes we in Russia will never forget it. And thanks u, I'm glad that there are people who remeber, cause lots of people forget.

As our poet said:
"You can start any rotten murderous enterprise
With those youths
Who are confused on when was WWII and when the Troyan War'

Sorry I'm bad at translating poetry...

America should have never entered world war one...therefore it would have more likely ended with less than a decesive victory. The Versailles treaty wouldn't have existed or in such a punitive fashion. Perhaps Hitler could have died during the period, and perhaps he wouldn't have the platform nescessary to start the next war.

Maybe Communism would have never weeped it's way through the cracks, and the war on terrorism wouldn't have existed in the same fashion. Sadly the world is what it is, and they didn't have that sort of hindsight.

For all the talk of wars and military actions in Europe, the worst damage done to Europe by the US in recent times has been through its foreign and trade policies.

Every time something begins to work slightly out of favour for the US they rip up and change the rules or ignore them. We constantly hear the same excuses, it's to protect the American economy, yet ours we're not allowed to protect it seems. When it's in their favour they trumpet about Free Trade agreements, yet they can't stand to see anybody else trading with them from a strong position.

For all the talk of wars and military actions in Europe, the worst damage done to Europe by the US in recent times has been through its foreign and trade policies.

Every time something begins to work slightly out of favour for the US they rip up and change the rules or ignore them. We constantly hear the same excuses, it's to protect the American economy, yet ours we're not allowed to protect it seems. When it's in their favour they trumpet about Free Trade agreements, yet they can't stand to see anybody else trading with them from a strong position.

It use to be the other way around...America was so focused on being economically liberal, and Europe wouldn't allow free-trade.

I'm a leaning-libertarian, and I don't even like corporate lobbying. I never really believed anyone had rights, but the individual. That being said, I don't think any favours should be annointed to American Corporations. They must compete on their own merit.

They were already there.

And? They've not been asked to leave, and do *pay* to keep the bases there, no?

You seem to be okay with France and Germany being friends today, but not the US and Germany. Why is that?


No. It's not facinating. It's just sad. NATO is the chain that ties us. I must credit Schröder, as much as I hate him for his catastrophic domestic policies, for calling for a reorganisation of NATO from a strict military organisation to a political one. That would give the sattelites more weight and make them less dependent on Washington. Of course the plan will be torpedoed by loyal US puppets like Stoiber and Merkel.

It would also help if the other alliance members would ratchet up their defense spending.
So your issue is again with the German Gov't.


Like I already pointed out. America believes it's allies/sattelites exist to serve their needs.

And what are your allies for? ANY ally is someone you count on to help you when you need a hand. And you do the same for your allies.


Yuck.

That speaks volumes. If you can't see that loyalty to one's friends isn't a good thing, I feel a bit sorry for you.
When the Berlin disco was bombed in 1986, the US bombed Libya... that's just one sign of the US standing by Germany. There have been many over the years, and many by Germany doing likewise.


There will always be a small portion, even in the US.

"Even"? It seems you have the same "snobbery" towards the US that you claim many Americans have towards Europe.


Unless I'm mistaking US army bases still count as US soil in Germany. Certainly feels like an occupation. Wether it's official or not.

Ah. I see. So should I be angry that the Hungarians (whom opressed us Slovaks for hundreds of years) have an Embassy in the US? They're occupying US soil...

I thought you lived in Holland?


A yes. The Versailles Treaty light.

Er? I wasn't aware that Germany had to pay indemnities, turn over it's fleet/airships/rail locomotoives, or stay out of the Rhur... or surrender?
Please point out how this is like Versailles at all, because I just don't see it.

Question: What harm did the US do?


Answer: They ignored THIS (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/13/INGP4B7GC91.DTL) !!!

The only reason that studies show there is global warming is that we are gradually pulling out of the pleistocene epoch. we have much too small a sample to show that we are having a global warming problem. The sample is over what, 200 years. How long has the earth been around?

Certain archelogical a climatoligical findings show that there was a "little ice age" near the end of the dark ages/beginning of the renessance. This would explain why temperatures are rising to return to the more temperate state before this little ice age. It is a theory supported by many scientists, but not many people hear about it since it isn't a doom and gloom prophesy.

As our poet said:
"You can start any rotten murderous enterprise
With those youths
Who are confused on when was WWII and when the Troyan War'

Sorry I'm bad at translating poetry...

Interesting: what is his/her name?

Unless I'm mistaking US army bases still count as US soil in Germany. Certainly feels like an occupation. Wether it's official or not.

Embassies and military bases are considered the soil of that country for diplomatic and jurisdiction reasons, not for occupations. The british embassy in the US is considered british soil. I don;t see that as an occupation.

I think the US bombed the crap out of quite a lot of europe in WW2.

I think the US bombed the crap out of quite a lot of europe in WW2.

In defence of most of europe, why doesn't everyone hate germany, how ling did they bomb england? :rolleyes:

Embassies and military bases are considered the soil of that country for diplomatic and jurisdiction reasons, not for occupations. The british embassy in the US is considered british soil. I don;t see that as an occupation.

Yes, but countries get to choose who is allowed to set up an embassy on their soil and have the right to throw them out as well. Embassies and military bases are legally treated in completely different manners when it comes to setting them up. I think what is being confused here is that the germans had no choice in the matter of those bases being set up on their soil in the first place.

I do however think that it is right that we did have bases there, for various reasons. I also think that now the circumstances have changed so much the Germans should be allowed to make their own minds up as to whether they stay or are reduced or removed altogether. This would require some major renegotiation of the NATO accords though.

Don't forget lend-lease. We rebuilt damaged ships....

But, the Soviets did have the worst time of it of the allies. Maybe even the majority of this was Stalin's fault (running troops into Nazi machine guns without rifles and shooting them themselves if they turned to run back, shooting their own wounded, et cetera) but it is fair to remember the terrible cost they paid...
And let's not forget Stalin's officer purges. Killing your leaders before the fight is a risky strategy, seldom pays off.

And let's not forget Stalin's officer purges. Killing your leaders before the fight is a risky strategy, seldom pays off.
but when it dose thats when your into the big bucks

The cold war.Wrong answer. Try again.

Well if you want to talk PHYSICAL harm, the U.S. did sort of pwn up on Germany in WWII and made a lot of craters and such.Well...the US could have simply stayed out of WWII in Europe. After all, it was Japan that attacked Pearl Harbor. The US could have just gone to war against Japan.

Europe might look a little different today, though...

The Red scare only works on Americans.What are you, 12?

You needed a market.



Because it didn't completely, and because it placated them.



I hear no complaining, and I live in Europe. Really, most people don't even care.I'm sure that most people don't really care if the US removes it's bases from Europe. Now. I was stationed in Germany from 1973 to 1975. They cared then. We were there because Europe wanted us there. Now that the cold war is over, and slowly being forgotten and warped (as history tends to in the hands of those who weren't there) we're probably becoming a bit of an embarrassment.

But we were wanted by the vast majority of Europeans on the west side of the iron curtain until it came down. Don't delude yourself otherwise.

Somehow i have to recall that wonderful quote by Donald Rumsfeld about "Old Europe" and "New Europe". That doesn't work out very well.

If you were talking about EU und non-EU countries in Europe, it would be a different matter. Btw, i think people in the US are scared of the EU because it's in the progress of becoming a de-facto superpower.Please don't quote Rumsfeld. He's an ass.

but when it dose thats when your into the big bucks
True.

Or drop those nukes on unarmed civilians...

WW3 isn't coming (China's not in shape to fight it, the US can't afford it financially, look how much Iraq and Afghanistan cost), China's government is more clever than the US, and Communism there is on the dead end street anyway. Give it a few more years and it'll be gone. They'll get the east on their side? Which east? Certainly not any Asian country apart from North Korea, and even there China has promised to kick Kim Il in the ass to get back to the talks. China has been overpopulated for a few decades by now, that's not new. It's doubtful that the majority of the Chinese population would go along with a course set for war.

Final note, since when does the BBC get anything right?

As for the overall question, what harm? Well... Maybe taking the same tactics as the nazis is one of the points? *points at Dresden (gotta blame the Brits mainly for this), Hamburg, etc etc etc* And those bombings didn't shorten the war.

Thus, the Marshall Plan was just a payback, you destroyed it, you gotta build it up again. On other issues they completely failed, like the de-nazification, it never really worked. Cause if it had, then there wouldn't be an NPD in Germany today.Note to those who complain that sarcasm doesn't work on a computer - try it this way.

So sorry to have bothered you. Next time y'all get into a big ol' war that covers your entire continent, we'll just stay home nice an cozy and warm.

NOTE to the majority of Europeans - NOT directed at you, just the complete ________ (fill in with your favorite expletive) who keep on with crap like what is quoted above.

Harm that the US has did to Europe:

- You didnt signed the kyoto protocol. You still force us to eat your pollution and you dont do anything about it. (The US is the world's largest polluter)

- G. Bush threw away 50 years of international law, and 50 years of transatlantic relationship; Despite it all, the US and Europe worked as allies against the former soviet union. Today, you don't seem to want allies, you want military auxiliaries that kiss your ass. Not going to happen.

- You spy on us. You used the Echelon program to steal industrial secrets from European countries (Airbus contracts, namely), and you even hijack European companies, not due to the good functioning of market, but because you want to take away technologies that you deem vital to your "national interests" (Gemplus affair). And offcourse, you have got that nasty habit of planting bugs in the EU headquarters in brussels, but that's okay :D Everything that is done there is public :)




- About the US military bases in Europe.. take them away. Really. Shure, the locals will complain a bit, but the majority of us wants you away. The way you treat other's, takes any legitimacy you have for planting military bases on our soil. Offcourse, you Americans say that WE need your bases, but it is the other way around. Most of your wonded in Iraq end up in germany, and most of your re-fluers are based on Azores - It would harm your logistics to lose such bases.

- About the marshal plan.. well, yes, you gave us lots of money, but this served two porpouses: The money was used to buy American goods (since our economies were torn apart), and most importantly, to show that the American way was better than the Soviet way. Had you not given away such aid, and most European countries would have joined the Soviet block, that easy.First two points - VERY VALID.

Third point - industrial spying doesn't go both ways? (that's sarcasm - of course it does). I'll lay this one off as a draw.

Fourth point - no, you don't need our military bases, soldiers, sailors, airmen there...any more...a point we might want to keep in mind if y'all start in on each other again. (end sarcasm)

Last point - again, something to keep in mind if y'all ever start another continent wide war over there sometime.

Democrats, Republicans. Really, the difference is minimal.Aren't you just a sweetheart? Who filled you with all this malevolent nonsense as you were growing up?

There are pretty big slums over there in places I didn't expect (such as Germany).

You know, I've lived in the US, and I could have SWORN i saw some slums there too. More like a universal byproduct of capitalism, it seems. (And despite what some people seem to believe, Europe is capitalist.) And while unemployment figures tend to be higher in Europe, the more comprehensive level of social welfare ensures that being unemployed is less of a critically disagreeable state than in the States.

But slums are not the issue, it is the average middle class living standard. It varies around Europe but I do think the American is higher than France, Germany, and I’ll dare say it… even Sweden. A lot of people do live in old smallish apartments who would have houses and cars here (doing the same type of work)..

Not everyone's idea of comfort revolves around size. Put it down to different ideals of taste and values. And cars, well I can't say I know many people without them, and of those that do, most could easily get by without them. City planning is often done very differently from the US and the distances involved in everyday travel are typically much, much shorter. As for living standard, look at some stats. Per capita is similar or slightly lower in Western Europe, and when education, health care standards etc. are included, such as in the HDR, similar or higher.

and BTW, if you’re in Britain, you’re the best off (economically) so this article would make the least sense.

Bwahaha! Now THAT is funny! Seriously, what in the world are you basing this on? The british economy has been deteriorating for the last few decades; again, look at per capita income stats, or better yet, for the bigger picture, figures based on HDI. (and PLEASE don't say the HDI model is irrelevant because it's put out by a UN agency! ;) )

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2004/

You are mistaken I'm afraid. I'm talking about little help.

USA
----
427 284 military tracks
50 501 jeeps
595 military ships (28 frigates, 105 submarines, 77 miners, 3 icebreakers, 140 sub-hunters, 202 torpedo-carriers etc)
13 303 armoured vechicles
35 041 - military bikes
136 000 tons of explosives
3 820 906 tons of food
2 541 008 tons of oil & oil products
2 317 694 ton of high-quality steel
15 010 900 pairs of boots
4 952 "Aircobra" fighters
2 410 "Kingcobra" fighters
2 771 A-20 bombers
861 B-25 bombers
hundreds of tons <tired of typing> minerals & metals
473 000 000 artillery shells
and that's not all...

Britain
------
2000 ton of aluminium monthly
27 battleships (icluding 4 submarines)
92 battleships were given to USSR temporaly "until the end of war" (including line "Royal Sovereign" & 1 cruiser)

October 1st, 1941 - May 31st, 1945
17 500 000 tons of strategic shipment sent from America
1 300 000 were lost
We received the rest.
And thank yoy very much for your help.

It was OUR victory. OUR - American, Russian, British and all the rest. Let's not try to rob ourselves of it.

I'm afraid you missed one minor detail: all these weapons could hardly reach the USSR. The Pacific, the Mediteranean, the Baltic, where all sealed. Japan ruled the pacific up till Midway, and continued to remain a scourge of convoys after it if only the US was foolish enough to choose that route. The Mediteranean was a hot-spot for British fleets that tried to subdue Italy, but it was not safe enough. The Baltic is quite clear: there was a narrow passage near Scandinavia under full control of Germany. Enemy submarines where not going to allow convoys there. The only way was to sail around the north pole and bring those suplies in at Kola and Archangelsk. The problem with that is that those places where close to Finland (which was out to get revenge) and in an under developed area, not to mention far away from the major cities. The soldiers at Stalingrad would recieve more products from the Ural or even from Leningrad and Moscow than Archangelsk. And in war, every minute a train travels from the north to the Caucasus is a minute wasted (assuming there where any trains up north). Leningrad might have benfitted from those suplies, but fell regardlesly. Moscow would have, but the pressure there was lifted in favor of Stalingrad where the tide was turned. In the South, where the war took a turn for the better, the Soviets continued to rely on their first given rifles for waaaaay too long, yet they won.

Don't forget the Russians fought with more determination than any other Ally. It was death at the hands of Nazis, or death at the hand of Stalin. Surrender made no difference.

McDonalds

Speaking as a Brit with no harmful feelings towards the Americans, I think it has more to do with European nations losing their empires that we're sore over. Anybody from Europe who thinks that there is some way the largest economy in the world cannot affect the global community is living in nationalist ignorance.

BTW, the British Economy has been doing quite well recently, speaking as an Economics student. In fact, its one of the main planks of New Labour's election campaign.

McDonalds

Now *that* is the best example I've seen in this thread yet!! :)

McDonaldsAh, well...you've got us there.

Honestly - McDonalds in Brussels? McDonalds in Bremen? I've seen 'em. Yuk. In Brussels, I eat waffles, fries, and BEER. In Bremen, I eat Bratwurst, brochen, and BEER. I don't want no stinkin' mcdonalds in europe.

i don't eat no stinkin' mcdonalds in the us, either. what crap.

BTW, the British Economy has been doing quite well recently, speaking as an Economics student.

Yes, yes, it is a relative matter; doing better than it was recently, but certainly not top of the European pile as was implied.

We brought them McDonalds.

- You didnt signed the kyoto protocol. You still force us to eat your pollution and you dont do anything about it. (The US is the world's largest polluter)

Actually, if i am not mistaken, china and indai are larger polluters, and, after the kyoto protocol, they have to lower their pollution LESS than the US becasue of thier less developed countries...especially india.

And? They've not been asked to leave, and do *pay* to keep the bases there, no?
As far as I know they only pay for their own maintanance.

You seem to be okay with France and Germany being friends today, but not the US and Germany. Why is that?
Germany and France treat eachother as equals while the US treats their allies as assets that exist to further their own interests.



It would also help if the other alliance members would ratchet up their defense spending.
So your issue is again with the German Gov't.
Actually in this it is with the opposition. And it has nothing to do with defence spending.



And what are your allies for? ANY ally is someone you count on to help you when you need a hand. And you do the same for your allies.
Except the US thinks they should lend a hand no matter what and otherwise just shut up. Noticed how all of them lend a hand in Afghanistan?



That speaks volumes. If you can't see that loyalty to one's friends isn't a good thing, I feel a bit sorry for you.
When the Berlin disco was bombed in 1986, the US bombed Libya... that's just one sign of the US standing by Germany. There have been many over the years, and many by Germany doing likewise.
The thing you are overlooking in the La Belle bombing is that it was a favorit hangout for the US occupation forces. The US bombing of Lybia wasn't about standing by Germany. As Germany wasn't the target to begin with.



"Even"? It seems you have the same "snobbery" towards the US that you claim many Americans have towards Europe.
It's the general impression most Americans leave.



Ah. I see. So should I be angry that the Hungarians (whom opressed us Slovaks for hundreds of years) have an Embassy in the US? They're occupying US soil...
Don't be stupid. I wasn't talking about embassies. Like Whining Trancers said.

I thought you lived in Holland?
I do. What of it?



Er? I wasn't aware that Germany had to pay indemnities, turn over it's fleet/airships/rail locomotoives, or stay out of the Rhur... or surrender?
Please point out how this is like Versailles at all, because I just don't see it.
Article 1, subsection 3. Article 3, subsection 2. Hence Versailles light.
The 2+4 treaty outlines what Germany can and cannot do. So the mentioned full sovereignty over its internal and external affairs in article 7, subsection 2 is a joke.

Oh yeah. And the enemy state clause against Germany and Japan should be scratched from the UN charter.

Article 53
1. The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.

2. The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.


Article 107
Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action.

The Red scare only works on Americans.

The rest of us were so scared... I mean, two big countries going "I pwned you there" and "Haha Got you there comrade!" was probably the biggest dickwaving contest ever. Capitalism used it to create a fearful placated society of morons who would trust the corporate logo any day and give up their rights, while the Communist ideals of work an health for all were equally squandered and flushed down the toilet.

Both countries went all over hte world invading, sacking or buying countires with arms deals and so on... South an Latin America was rapedan pilliaged by the US led terror war there, the Russians went after everything nearby they could get their hands on, then they started colliding around Egypt and Europe an such...

It's lame but it happened.

But at least we learned one thing... One superpower is WAYYYYYY worse... Cause theres no one to stop it, it just attacks and attacks, instead of thinly vieled ideaology of the "Red threat" it's now totally full of shit and bombing for it's corporations, which now have more power than the state.

I mean, when Bill Gates (Microsoft fame) can threaten DENMARK.. (not a company in Denmark, no... the whole nation) if it does not vote in favor of patenting life and copywriting DNA in the next vote, they will pull out of the country... Then you have totalitarian institutions that are way to big for their own good.

Krackonis

I mean, when Bill Gates (Microsoft fame) can threaten DENMARK.. (not a company in Denmark, no... the whole nation) if it does not vote in favor of patenting life and copywriting DNA in the next vote, they will pull out of the country... Then you have totalitarian institutions that are way to big for their own good.

:eek: He did?

Actually, if i am not mistaken, china and indai are larger polluters, and, after the kyoto protocol, they have to lower their pollution LESS than the US becasue of thier less developed countries...especially india.

No... It's the US... China could overtake it by 2020... And yes, they have more room to expand because they are fledgling nations against the juggarnaut of mindless US industry/pollution. What do you think they Kyoto Accord is for anyways?

To stop the everglades from being submerged up to Miami... For two countries in the south pacific that are just about under water and are currently planning evacuations to abandon their island nation...

I suggest they come right to your door and say "WE're moving in, you destroyed our nation, you must give us part of yours..."

Ah, well...you've got us there.

Honestly - McDonalds in Brussels? McDonalds in Bremen? I've seen 'em. Yuk. In Brussels, I eat waffles, fries, and BEER. In Bremen, I eat Bratwurst, brochen, and BEER. I don't want no stinkin' mcdonalds in europe.

i don't eat no stinkin' mcdonalds in the us, either. what crap.

Amazingly, McDonalds was offered as a good thing to most nations which agreed to trade relations with the US, but now we find that it creates more jobs at less pay (mcjob) Opiates between the Cheese and the Beef make you addicted like caffene and provides more carcenogens and it poisons peoples bodies. It's like the US sells "How to kill yourself 101: smoke this, eat that and wash it all down with a "non-diary gelatious polyurethane beverage" only 105 calories a sip!"

Sad sad sad... If people only though before we let htem in the door... Actually the song by Rammstien - Amerika actually talks about this...

:eek: He did?

I read it here :http://news.com.com/Microsoft+denies+threatening+Denmark+over+patents/2100-1014_3-5577515.html?part=rss&tag=5575731&subj=news.1014.5

I still don;t beleive in Golbal warming in the way you portray it. I think it is a more natural thing. Studies indicate that there was a "little ice age" for approximately 300 years. Many scientist believe that we are returning to a more temperate state. Some also beleive that the only reason we see such a dramatic change is that we are taking far to small a sample. That is my belief and i am holding to it.

No... It's the US... China could overtake it by 2020... And yes, they have more room to expand because they are fledgling nations against the juggarnaut of mindless US industry/pollution. What do you think they Kyoto Accord is for anyways?


It's been asserted that the US government is the worst polluter...namily the military. I never doubt that, for some reason. Anyone have an actual study on pollution in general...not some essay off the net. Something that's peer reviewed?

I still don;t beleive in Golbal warming in the way you portray it. I think it is a more natural thing. Studies indicate that there was a "little ice age" for approximately 300 years. Many scientist believe that we are returning to a more temperate state. Some also beleive that the only reason we see such a dramatic change is that we are taking far to small a sample. That is my belief and i am holding to it.

Well, it seems only fair. Your country is the only one denying that Global warming is an issue (the only one) and since it is the country you go to to live a dream, which in an of itself is denial, its fitting.

You know what, instead of me trying to convince you, type in "Global warming" into google and stay there till you read at least 10 articles.

It will happen soon and eventually what corporations do to this planet will be criminal.. When countries start losing their territory and they know you caused it, thats where they will be suing or attacking.

It's been asserted that the US government is the worst polluter...namily the military. I never doubt that, for some reason. Anyone have an actual study on pollution in general...not some essay off the net. Something that's peer reviewed?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/204F6C5D-E54E-4329-93D6-699556D39812.htm

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/news/40652.html


http://www.chinapost.com.tw/i_latestdetail.asp?id=26415

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4501240

The lat one is not an article but an Audio Stuy Report.

Well, it seems only fair. Your country is the only one denying that Global warming is an issue (the only one) and since it is the country you go to to live a dream, which in an of itself is denial, its fitting.

You know what, instead of me trying to convince you, type in "Global warming" into google and stay there till you read at least 10 articles.

It will happen soon and eventually what corporations do to this planet will be criminal.. When countries start losing their territory and they know you caused it, thats where they will be suing or attacking.

Actually...I recall the research done by multiple countries was found to be inconclusive on who was doing it...although those conclusions were edit out, by the UN. The world is getting warm, but the science community is heavily divided in where the responsibility lies.

You know, I've lived in the US, and I could have SWORN i saw some slums there too. More like a universal byproduct of capitalism, it seems. (And despite what some people seem to believe, Europe is capitalist.) And while unemployment figures tend to be higher in Europe, the more comprehensive level of social welfare ensures that being unemployed is less of a critically disagreeable state than in the States.



Not everyone's idea of comfort revolves around size. Put it down to different ideals of taste and values. And cars, well I can't say I know many people without them, and of those that do, most could easily get by without them. City planning is often done very differently from the US and the distances involved in everyday travel are typically much, much shorter. As for living standard, look at some stats. Per capita is similar or slightly lower in Western Europe, and when education, health care standards etc. are included, such as in the HDR, similar or higher.



Bwahaha! Now THAT is funny! Seriously, what in the world are you basing this on? The british economy has been deteriorating for the last few decades; again, look at per capita income stats, or better yet, for the bigger picture, figures based on HDI. (and PLEASE don't say the HDI model is irrelevant because it's put out by a UN agency! ;) )

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2004/


After Margaret Thatchers and Ronald Regans attack on Unions there is no wonder why profits are soaring and work standards are going down the tubes.

Actually...I recall the research done by multiple countries was found to be inconclusive on who was doing it...although those conclusions were edit out, by the UN. The world is getting warm, but the science community is heavily divided in where the responsibility lies.

That might be true, but there is no doubt in among the poorer nations who their enemy is.

I read it here :http://news.com.com/Microsoft+denies+threatening+Denmark+over+patents/2100-1014_3-5577515.html?part=rss&tag=5575731&subj=news.1014.5
More reason to switch to Linux.

France's Pride

As far as I know they only pay for their own maintanance.

Then you're a bit off in your point of view/knowledge on this point.

Germany (yearly) pays $1billion USD towards maintaining the 44 US bases in Germany. Basically, that covers Rammstien. The US covers the rest, which is over $10billion USD per year.

Given that the US pays *CUBA* for Guantanamo Bay, I'd be pretty surprised if some of that 10+ Billion/year isn't "rent money".

However, I can't read German (at least, not better than the average 7 year old child), so I'm stuck with English and Slovak language searches, which is rather limiting.


Germany and France treat eachother as equals while the US treats their allies as assets that exist to further their own interests.

Please show me just *one* example where the US treated Germany (or any other ally) as a "subject"?
And before you say Iraq, it is off the table due to France & Germany's "vested interests" and the oil for food escapade. Surely, if it is so endemic you'll be able to find another example from 1946-now.


Actually in this it is with the opposition. And it has nothing to do with defence spending.

Actually, it has quite a bit to do with defense spending. KFOR in Jugoslavia proved that Europe cannot send enough troops quickly enough anywhere -- even within Europe.


Except the US thinks they should lend a hand no matter what and otherwise just shut up. Noticed how all of them lend a hand in Afghanistan?

Er? I recall in Gulf War 1 that *everyone* had a hand. And the US/French liasoned with Haiti. And in Afghanistan. And right now in Iraq, the UK, Polish and other allies are fully consulted.
You're griping that nations that are not in Iraq are not being consulted. IMHO, that's a pretty bizarre point to debate from.


The thing you are overlooking in the La Belle bombing is that it was a favorit hangout for the US occupation forces. The US bombing of Lybia wasn't about standing by Germany. As Germany wasn't the target to begin with.

And Germans out for a good time. 2 of the 3 killed were US servicemen. Go look up how many of the 250 wounded were Germans. Allies are in things *together*.
So, I guess the Berlin Airlift was American imperialism too? :rolleyes:
We can debate this for days, but as your mind is closed to the very idea that America is not a latter-day Rome, there seems little point.


It's the general impression most Americans leave.

And you know that living in Europe... how?
I am a 1st gen American/Slovak ex-pat. I live near Yale University in Connecticut and work in New York City. And I assure you that you're painting with a very broad brush. Most Americans (and I've known many) do not have a grudge against any other land.

I still love to vacation in Vienna and Prague, btw. Of course, Prague is easier for me, as I can blend in. The Viennese tend to sneer whenever I start in Slovak, but perk up when I switch to English, or in my rather poor German.


Don't be stupid. I wasn't talking about embassies. Like Whining Trancers said.


But I was. And I am not being stupid. Your contention about the bases is no more or less valid than embassies: both are "occupying" land in another nation. From your chair, embassies also must be occupiers. That, or you accept that the German government has had the US in Germany (at least since 1989). Your choice. :)


I do. What of it?

I was just wondering how, if you live in Holland, you're so in tune with life in Germany. I don't really know much about life in Ohio, for example.


Article 1, subsection 3. Article 3, subsection 2. Hence Versailles light.
The 2+4 treaty outlines what Germany can and cannot do. So the mentioned full sovereignty over its internal and external affairs in article 7, subsection 2 is a joke.

"Article 1, (3) The united Germany has no territorial claims whatsoever against other states and shall not assert any in the future.

Really. You going to demand Alsace and Lorraine? Or maybe Poland? Give me a break. This is a VERY, VERY VERY small price to pay, given that Germany started and lost both of the World Wars.

Article 3, (2) The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, acting in full agreement with the Government of the German Democratic Republic, made the following statement on 30 August 1990 in Vienna at the Negotiations on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe:

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany undertakes to reduce the personnel strength of the armed forces of the united Germany to 370,000 (ground, air and naval forces) within three to four years. This reduction will commence on the entry into force of the first CFE agreement. Within the scope of this overall ceiling no more than 345,000 will belong to the ground and air forces which, pursuant to the agreed mandate, alone are the subject to the Negotations on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The Federal Government regards its commitment to reduce ground and air forces as a signficant German contribution to the reduction of conventional armed forces in Europe. It assumes that in follow-on negotiations the other participants in the negotiations, too, will render their contribution to enhancing security and stability in Europe, including measures to limit personnel strength."

Note that last sentance. It's basically arms control for *everyone*. Yes, it only spells it out for Germany. If I recall, this clause was demanded by the Soviet Union.

Personally, I dislike it. But I can't see how you can compare it to Versailles. It is not punative.
And, Germany *does* have full soverignty: I wasn't aware that Washington was telling Berlin how to pave the roads, collect taxes, or conduct relations with France.
Oh, wait. That's right. It's not. :)

Seriously, VW. I think you might be either overly cynical, or have bought into some kind of conspiracy theory. And please know that I do not mean that as an insult, it is just my opinion. Peace.

Then you're a bit off in your point of view/knowledge on this point.

Germany (yearly) pays $1billion USD towards maintaining the 44 US bases in Germany. Basically, that covers Rammstien. The US covers the rest, which is over $10billion USD per year.
So it's even worse then I thought. The US is not only occupying German soil. Germany has to pay the US for the "privilege" to have them there.



Please show me just *one* example where the US treated Germany (or any other ally) as a "subject"?
And before you say Iraq, it is off the table due to France & Germany's "vested interests" and the oil for food escapade. Surely, if it is so endemic you'll be able to find another example from 1946-now.
It's more then obviouse if you read the PNAC and Progressive Policy Centers statements.



Actually, it has quite a bit to do with defense spending. KFOR in Jugoslavia proved that Europe cannot send enough troops quickly enough anywhere -- even within Europe.
It doesn't for me.

Er? I recall in Gulf War 1 that *everyone* had a hand. And the US/French liasoned with Haiti. And in Afghanistan. And right now in Iraq, the UK, Polish and other allies are fully consulted.
You're griping that nations that are not in Iraq are not being consulted. IMHO, that's a pretty bizarre point to debate from.
No I'm griping the US wanting to deny those that do not agree the right to voice their opinion.



And Germans out for a good time. 2 of the 3 killed were US servicemen. Go look up how many of the 250 wounded were Germans.
And the only reason any Germans wer harmed was because of the Americans. Had they not been there it wouldn't have happened.

So, I guess the Berlin Airlift was American imperialism too? :rolleyes:
Actually it was. The US couldn't lose a piece of democracy to the evil commies.
We can debate this for days, but as your mind is closed to the very idea that America is not a latter-day Rome, there seems little point.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/




And you know that living in Europe... how?
I go out and talk with people. And thats at least what I can gather.




But I was. And I am not being stupid. Your contention about the bases is no more or less valid than embassies: both are "occupying" land in another nation. From your chair, embassies also must be occupiers.
Thats bull. Military bases and embassies are not the same.
That, or you accept that the German government has had the US in Germany (at least since 1989). Your choice. :)
Germany has had them since 1949.



I was just wondering how, if you live in Holland, you're so in tune with life in Germany. I don't really know much about life in Ohio, for example.
I go there quit often.



"Article 1, (3) The united Germany has no territorial claims whatsoever against other states and shall not assert any in the future.

Really. You going to demand Alsace and Lorraine? Or maybe Poland? Give me a break. This is a VERY, VERY VERY small price to pay, given that Germany started and lost both of the World Wars.
You know I could debate this about who started what war for hours. Cause there you go beeing stupid again.
Demanding they dismiss any claims to lands in a treaty is Versailles style. And therefor not a sovereign choice. It's a dictate.

Article 3, (2) The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, acting in full agreement with the Government of the German Democratic Republic, made the following statement on 30 August 1990 in Vienna at the Negotiations on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe:

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany undertakes to reduce the personnel strength of the armed forces of the united Germany to 370,000 (ground, air and naval forces) within three to four years. This reduction will commence on the entry into force of the first CFE agreement. Within the scope of this overall ceiling no more than 345,000 will belong to the ground and air forces which, pursuant to the agreed mandate, alone are the subject to the Negotations on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The Federal Government regards its commitment to reduce ground and air forces as a signficant German contribution to the reduction of conventional armed forces in Europe. It assumes that in follow-on negotiations the other participants in the negotiations, too, will render their contribution to enhancing security and stability in Europe, including measures to limit personnel strength."

Note that last sentance. It's basically arms control for *everyone*. Yes, it only spells it out for Germany. If I recall, this clause was demanded by the Soviet Union. Personally, I dislike it. But I can't see how you can compare it to Versailles. It is not punative.
I was talking about the ceiling of 345,000 troops. Again, limitation of allowed numbers. Spells Versailles.


And, Germany *does* have full soverignty: I wasn't aware that Washington was telling Berlin how to pave the roads, collect taxes, or conduct relations with France.
As long as US occupation troops are polluting German and European soil and air with their bases there is no such thing as full sovereignity.

So it's even worse then I thought. The US is not only occupying German soil. Germany has to pay the US for the "privilege" to have them there.

Yep. And they get all the economic benefits. Why do you think the German gov't is not happy with the US's decision to start moving bases out of Germany into other countries, like Bulgaria?

And you still haven't provided anything to prove your idea that the US doesn't pay rent.


It's more then obviouse if you read the PNAC and Progressive Policy Centers statements.

Partisan and propogandistic, to say the least.


It doesn't for me.

That's a pity. I see Jugoslavia as one of the saddest things that happened since the fall of the Wall, and a time when Europe could have shone, but didn't. And that grieves me.


No I'm griping the US wanting to deny those that do not agree the right to voice their opinion.

We do? Ah. That must be why the UN has been so quiet about Iraq. To say nothing of the French and a lot of the world's press. :rolleyes:


And the only reason any Germans wer harmed was because of the Americans. Had they not been there it wouldn't have happened.

Right. And the reason the Libyans bombed a disco in Berlin instead of one in NYC is? I suppose you think the German hostage taken in Algeria a couple years ago was due to the US, too? (shakes head)


Actually it was. The US couldn't lose a piece of democracy to the evil commies.

The US doesn't like seeing people starve to death. If you'd rather have lived under Communism, that's your right. But as you don't now, I think your POV here is contrived unless you're getting ready to move to Cuba or North Korea... and, as someone who did live in a Communist nation (briefly), I don't recommend it.

You also seem to take the defeat of Communism as a given. I certainly don't think that it was.


http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Ah, the PNAC link.
This is *still* just an opinionistic piece of propoganda, no better than if I posted something about Germans wanting to cover their butts for taking all that money in the oil-for-food scandal and the illegal trading with Saddam's Iraq. But, like this site, it's all unproven rumor and innuendo right now. At least until the UN opens its files.

I have not used such sites to further my position, I'd appreciate if you do the same. Otherwise, there is little point.

You dragged that up site last time we debated. It may be your bible, but it is certainly not mine, nor indeed most people's. :)


I go out and talk with people. And thats at least what I can gather.

Are they people in Holland? How long have you ever lived in Germany?
I don't mean to disparage in any way, just to ask are the folks you talk to representative of an entire nation?

Who is right? And is everyone always unanimous?
Am I to take that these people you talk to are representative of everyone? Because, I know that the Bavarians and the Pomeranians agree on everything... ;)

I talk to people all the time... and? Where I am, most New Yorkers outside of the City hate having Hilary Clinton for a Senator, while a good number in the city like her. I can find a ton of anti-contraception people in some places, or anti-gun people in others.


Thats bull. Military bases and embassies are not the same.

"That's bull" is hardly an arguement. Both are on land in another nation, and that land is considered the property of the nation that "owns" the base or embassy. In both cases, the land can be patriated back (the US embassy in Saigon has gone from US to Viet Namese to US again!)... How are they not the same? *Both* are instances of land being occupied by a foreign government!

...and in both cases, the "visitor" pays for it.


Germany has had them since 1949.

That wasn't a choice you just made. Evade all you want, you're in a dichotomy. :)


I go there quit often.

I don't know these things. I don't know anything about you other than what you post.


You know I could debate this about who started what war for hours. Cause there you go beeing stupid again.
Demanding they dismiss any claims to lands in a treaty is Versailles style. And therefor not a sovereign choice. It's a dictate.

Name calling gains you nothing, VW. If you cannot have a civil debate, then there is no reason to continue.

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but in most peace treaties ever written, land adjustments are the norm. And in this one, none was taken FROM Germany.

Further, it is MOST CERTAINLY a soverign choice. The two Germanys desired unification. Both signed on the line, and one presumes that all 6 sides debated these provisions. If something is acceptable to the parties involved, it is a consensus.
Otherwise, you are saying that 8-sided red signs on the road are an impairment on national sovereignty.


I was talking about the ceiling of 345,000 troops. Again, limitation of allowed numbers. Spells Versailles.

Yes, I concur with this piece is Versailles-like. But it was a provision of the USSR, not the US/UK or even France. And the manpower limitation was hardly the most damning piece of Versailles.
IMHO, this one point is far from making the whole treaty "Versailles Light". It's like comparing a child's tricycle to an automobile. Both are wheeled forms of transportation, but that's about all they have in common.


As long as US occupation troops are polluting German and European soil and air with their bases there is no such thing as full sovereignity.

Great! So Germany has been soverign since 1989. I'm glad we cleared that up. :)

Read: It comes down to your personal refusal to believe that the German government invites US and other troops within Germany. As Germany does in the US for fighter pilot training.
And you've yet to prove your case that it is otherwise.

Since Europe most certainly didn't have nukes of their own.

NB: Both the UK and France are nuclear powers.

You had me at "most New Yorkers outside of the City hate having Hilary Clinton for a Senator." And hey, if I'm supporting you, despite my being half-Austrian, you know it's good. One important point you (both) overlooked though is that troop limits do not matter. They're too easy to get around. Best example is Napoleonic-era Prussia. After defeating Prussia in 1807, Napoleon restricts their army to 42 000 men. By continuously training and 'retiring' men, they actually had quite a large army by the time things turned against Napoleon.

You had me at "most New Yorkers outside of the City hate having Hilary Clinton for a Senator." And hey, if I'm supporting you, despite my being half-Austrian, you know it's good. One important point you (both) overlooked though is that troop limits do not matter. They're too easy to get around. Best example is Napoleonic-era Prussia. After defeating Prussia in 1807, Napoleon restricts their army to 42 000 men. By continuously training and 'retiring' men, they actually had quite a large army by the time things turned against Napoleon.

Thanks. I don't know what to say. :)

True, but I also assume that VW would know how the Nazi Gov't got around the Treaty of Versailles limitations and remilitarized the Rhur.
Great point!!

Servus,
Markreich

Really? How do you know that? I never heard anything similar, though it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

First, there were the Arabic journalists who noticed that the liberated Iraqis weren't speaking Iraqi Arabic. The journalists were first called liars, traitors, etc. Later on it was confirmed.


http://www.unknownnews.net/040707toppling.html

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0704/161032.html

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=641

Sorry I couldn't find any better links. I simply googled saddam toppling staged