NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't understand why Americans can't come to terms with the fact that some people don't believe in the same stuff that they believe in. Infact a lot of people don't agree with Americans. Just accept it. Accusing everyone who doesn't like your country as being 'jelous' just furthur exemplafys your enourmous arogants.

And a lot of people do, why can't YOU accept that?

I don't think you are jealous, I jusy wish you would quite expressing YOUR OPINION as if EVERY non-American felt as YOU do...

Regards,
Gaar

But you can't seem to name even ONE right now, why is that?

Regards,
Gaar


I can name/number several, so here goes:

July 1973, S/10974

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

The resolution strongly deplored Israel's occupation of the Arab territories since 1967, and expressed serious concern with the Israeli authorities' lack of cooperation with the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General.

January 1976, S/11940

Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 3 abstentions
.
The resolution called for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967, and deplored Israel's refusal to implement relevant UN resolutions. It furthermore reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self determination, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

March 1976, S/12022

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

In the draft, the Security Council expressed deep concern over Israeli measures to change the character of the occupied territories, in particular Jerusalem, the establishment of Israeli settlements, human rights violations, and called for an end of such measures.

June 1976, S/12119

Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

The resolution affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self determination, the right of return, and the right to national independence.

April 1980, S/13911

Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

The resolution affirmed the Palestinian right to establish an independent state, the right of return or compensation for loss of property for refugees not wishing to return, and Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967.

April 1982, S/14943

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention
.
In the draft, the Security Council denounced Israeli interference with local governance in the West Bank, and its violations of the rights and liberties of the population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The resolution furthermore called on Israel to end all activities in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

April 1982, S/14985

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The draft strongly condemned the shooting of worshippers at Haram Al-Sharif on 11 April, 1982, and called on Israel to observe and apply the provisions of the Forth Geneva Convention, and other international laws.

June 1982, S/15185

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution draft condemned the Israeli non-compliance with resolutions 508 and 509, urged the parties to comply with the Hague Convention of 1907, and restated the Security Council's demands of Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

June 1982, S/15255/Rev. 2

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)
.
The resolution demanded the immediate withdrawal of Israeli and Palestinian forces from areas in and around Beirut, and that the parties would comply with resolution 508. It furthermore requested that the Secretary General would station UN military observers to supervise the ceasefire and disengagement in and around Beirut, and that the Secretary General would make proposals for the installation of a UN force to take up positions beside the Lebanese interposition force.

August 1982, S/15347/Rev. 1

Vote: 11 in favor, 1 veto (US), 3 abstentions.

The resolution strongly condemned Israel for not implementing resolutions 516 and 517, called for their immediate implementation, and decided that all UN member-states would refrain from providing Israel with weapons or other military aid until Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory.

August 1983, S/15895

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

The resolution called upon Israel to discontinue the establishment of new settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, to dismantle existing settlements, and to adhere to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. The resolution furthermore rejected Israeli deportations and transfers of Palestinian civilians, and condemned attacks against the Arab civilian population. The Security Council also called upon other states to refrain from giving Israel any assistance related to the settlements, and stated its intention to examine ways of securing the implementation of the resolution, in the event of Israeli non-compliance

September 1985, S/17459

Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

The resolution draft deplored the repressive measures applied by the Israeli authorities against the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, and called upon Israel to immediately cease the use of repressive measures, including the use of curfews, deportations, and detentions.

January 1986, S/17769

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

The resolution strongly deplored Israeli refusal to abide earlier Security Council resolutions, and called upon Israel to comply with these resolutions, as well as the norms of international law governing military occupation such as the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Security Council also expressed deep concern with violations of the sanctity of the Haram Al-Sharif, and with Israeli measures aimed at altering the character of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.

January 1988, S/19466

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution called upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War to the territories occupied since 1967, and to conform to the Convention. The resolution moreover called upon Israel to refrain from practices violating the human rights of the Palestinian people.

April 1988, S/19780

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution expressed grave concerned with the Israeli use of collective punishment, including house demolitions. It condemned the policies and practices utilized by the Israeli authorities violating the human rights of the Palestinian People, especially the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army. Called on Israel to abide to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and urged it to desist from deporting Palestinians.

February 1989, S/20463

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution strongly deplored Israeli persistence in violating the human rights of the Palestinian people, in particular the shooting of Palestinian civilians, including children. It also deplored Israel's disregard of Security Council decisions, and called upon Israel to act in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant Security Council resolutions.

June 1989, S/20677

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution deplored the violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, demanded that Israel would abstain from deporting Palestinian civilians for the occupied territories, and that it would ensure the safe return of those already deported. It also called upon Israel to comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention, and requested that the Secretary General would give recommendations on measures guaranteeing compliance with the Convention, and the protection of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories.

November 1989, S/20945/Rev. 1

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)
.
The resolution deplored the Israeli violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, including the siege of towns, ransacking of homes, and confiscation of property. It called upon Israel to abide to the Fourth Geneva Convention, to lift the siege, and to return confiscated property to its owners. The resolution requested that the Secretary General would conduct on-site monitoring of the situation in the occupied territories.

May 1990, S/21326

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The draft resolution attempted to establish a commission to examine the situation related to Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.

May 1995, S/1995/394

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution confirmed that the Israeli expropriation of Palestinian land in East Jerusalem was invalid, and called upon Israel to refrain from such actions. It also expressed its support for the Middle East peace process and urged the parties to adhere to the accord agreed upon.

March 1997, S/1997/199

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution expressed deep concern with the Israeli plans to build new settlements in East Jerusalem, and called upon Israel to desist from measures, including the building of settlements, that would pre-empt the final status negotiations. The resolution once again called on Israel to abide by the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

March 1997, S/1997/241

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

The resolution demanded an end to the Israeli construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem, and to all other measures related to settlements in the occupied territories.

March 2001, S/2001/270

Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

The resolution called for a total and immediate stop of all acts of violence, provocation, and collective punishment, as well as a complete cessation of Israeli settlement activities, and an end of the closures of the occupied territories. The resolution furthermore called for the implementation of the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement, and expressed the Security Council's willingness to set up mechanisms to protect the Palestinian civilians, including the establishment of a UN observer force.

December 2001, S/2001/1199

Vote: 12 in favor, 1 veto (US) 2 abstentions.

In the resolution, the Security Council condemned all acts of terror, extrajudiciary executions, excessive use of force and destruction of properties, and demanded an end of all acts of violence, destruction and provocation. The resolution called on the parties to resume negotiations, and to implement the recommendations of the Mitchell Report. It also encouraged the establishment of a monitoring apparatus for the above mentioned implementation.

Sorry I forgot that you want links, so here's a more recent one:
click here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/15/121234.shtml)

"UNITED NATIONS – After a U.S. veto in the Security Council, the Palestinians promised to seek a U.N. General Assembly vote on a resolution condemning Israel for building a massive security fence.
The United States was the lone vote against the resolution on the 15-member Security Council on Tuesday, though four nations abstained. The vote came after a daylong open debate in which most of the 40 nations that spoke condemned Israel for building the barrier, which cuts into the West Bank, as a grab for land."

And a lot of people do, why can't YOU accept that?

I don't think you are jealous, I jusy wish you would quite expressing YOUR OPINION as if EVERY non-American felt as YOU do...

Regards,
Gaar

Eutrusca posted that he wanted to hear our opinions, so we're giving them. Most of the posts here aren't saying that everybody feels/thinks exactly the same way either...

*snip*

Yeah, I meant ones that WEREN'T Vetoed.

And then also cite the "consequences" for non-compliance, just as there were consequences cited in the Iraqi Resolutions.

And it isn't enough to say that the U.S. was the ONLY ONE to Veto, so it doesn't count, because the UN doesn't work that way...

I don't get to cite the UN Resolution that called for "action" that was vetoed by France, do I?

You don't get to pick and choose which "vetoed" Resolutions "should have" gone through if it weren't for the U.S., do you?

And if you do think so, why?

You don't get to just "change" events to suit YOUR needs, do you?

Regards,
Gaar

Eutrusca posted that he wanted to hear our opinions, so we're giving them. Most of the posts here aren't saying that everybody feels/thinks exactly the same way either...

So those quoting a number like 90% are saying what?

And I don't see ANY of you say you think they are wrong, why is that?

Regards,
Gaar

... I guess you didn't realize Mexico is in Central America. Get a map.
Arent you the co-Founder of the "we can advise others" thread?

Moby just excused himself for the behaviour of the rightwingers of his nation and their government. He also said that he does not feel American in the sense of the US because of ridiculous things like the forced (uncomprehensible in the enleighted free EU world)study of creationisme and the negationisme of sience and Darwin.He also excused for the crimes of the "elected" administration. Moby also said that he likes to see an independent NYC, apart from the dark unleighted, back to the middle ages right wingers.

The live public on the Belgian national TV gave him a understanding and warm applause:D .

Guess that some of the US extremists on NS would like to know.

Hmm, he was in Brussels for the release of his new album. Perhaps I'll buy it, sounded great and the person seems a intelligent and well informed artist.

Know what world out side of America, you can kiss my fucking American ass.

One: I am fucking tired of us helping the whole world, they are attacked by natural causes or another nation or a terror group, first things out of there mouths are either:

A: Its America's fault.

or

B: OH AMERICA PLEASE HELP US, OUR NATION IS UNDER ATTACK * SOB * ITS YOUR DUTY TO HELP US * SOB * PLEASE * SOB *.

Well, everywhere but most of Asia and all of Europe, its B, Middle East, its A and a tad bit of B.

So what do we do? Even if it is A, we send in our Soldiers or aid workers knowing full well what can happen, we come in we don't demand to be worshipped, we don't say sacrifice 88,000 lammas or we'll destroy you, we just come in, look at the problems, fix the problems the nation's government can't fix, blow off billions of dollars to make this nation possibly stronger economically and military then it was before, and we pull out saying " Well, you seem to be fine and have everything under control, good luck and remember we can help you if you need it. " just like any other friendly nation would do. Well, here is another A B and possibly C thing.

A: Were pulling out, the nation we helped is all yay for America, and either later on stay a ally or start being complete dicks and make up some gay ass bull shit holy religous " duty " to kill Americans and Capitalists.

B: Were pulling out, and this dick of a nation DOES make it a religious duty to kill Americans, and starts pulling off Terror attacks on our retreating soldiers/aid workers. And in due time, gets its ass kicked, rebuilt blowing off even more money then before, and the whole world saying were evil jack asses for even being there in the first place.

C: Were pulling out, America is split into to beliefe groups, mostly stronger in Adolosences is one side, Liberal'ism' ( Yes, ism makes it fancier, bite me. ). They start doing weed massively, they start making up illusions about our Government, and act even worse then the outside world is acting too us. And C can apply to both A or B.

Well anyways, we pull out, and inevetibaly no matter how it went in the nation's country we just helped out, they'll start flaming us saying were Satanists sent here by Satan and just here to rule the world.

Now please, now Europeans, pay special fucking attention to this part:

How many fucking times have we saves your asses with in the past 100 fucking years? How many times was it your fault why over half of Europe is in a shit hole, and the mostest stupidest thing to ever exist has been formed, yes I am talking about the EU. The EU, if your country has a shitty ass currency system and economy, then why not? Join it and opress thousands of Europeans through taxes as they pay for your shitty country's own fucking fault for having this shitty economy and not really doing a damned thing before to fix it. * BUT REMEMBER!!! ITS THE EVIL CAPITALIST AMERICANS FAULT, YES YES....IT IS...OHHH YES!! SO IS!!! *

And look at the fucking facts, whos fault is it really for the Middle East for being so fucked up? Well ok I take that back, it isn't really ' fucked ' up, it is just has been put into the biggest HATE EVERYONE ESPECIALLY AMERICAN mood thingy, ok before I get my self lost here is the facts:

* Yes I am going to be a lazy ass like the American I am and post tiny snibbets, in laymans terms for you to comprehend, and besides, it should be a blessing.....the post already has enough toung twisting " Americanisms " *

Europe before WWI: Lots of Prospurous Empires, all kind of peaceful. But the British and French for some reason are deathly afraid of the German Empire and the Austrian-Hungary empire....ooo, whats this? EVEN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE.

Brit/French ultimate plan for the Ottoman Empire * At the time the Ottoman empire existed, it owned pretty much all of current day Middle East * was to tear apart the Ottoman Empire, devide it into several nations that would soon become war torn shit holes, but hell, Britain and France doesn't care, as long as the Ottoman Empire is no longer existant. So WWI is progressing, Britain and France get a bit desperate, they seem to be doing well with the German and Austrian-Hungary empire, but looky here, they need to fuck up the Ottoman empire, so how do they do it??? Really want to know?? Ok fine, but you asked for it:

Britain sets up deals with the Arabic people, saying " Rebel against the Ottoman Empire, weaken them, and we promis to give you * pretty much * all of the Middle East. Well, the Arabic people are a bit edgy with this, kind of a thing more with the " Well what if we just get slaughtered " kind of thing. Well they do it, but in reality....Britain and France sat up deals with each other on how to divide the Ottoman lands. They split up the lands, mandate them, and the Arabic people only recieve: Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman. It soon changed to * Correct me if I'm wrong * SA and Yemen. But I dunno what happens here, but we all know that now the Arabic people pretty much posess: Saudi Arabia. Well being lied to is only the begining of the hatred, time progresses, its the 70s, some fucktard with a long beard and lots of money and is by chance Arabic states that " It is a Religious duty to kill Americans. " Well lots of conflict is already stirring up in the Middle East, all the nations that were being mandated by France and or Britain were given there ultimate freedom, they pull out there people who ran the Governments there, pretty much leaving these nations * Like Syria, etc....around that area * with out a Government, a Economy....pretty much made them fucked. So conflict upon conflict, we get involved cuz the UN is like " America, your the strongest nation we can trust, go police this. " What do we do, I dunno exactly what could have been shared, I could imagine we asked why first, it isn't and wasn't our problem, but sure, were nice, so we help.

Ok now, were totally clueless, we send troops to try and help some of these nations, but everyone there suddenly starts attacking us mainly, we have nothing to do but defend our selves, it gets on holy ground, and now America has a Jihad on them. And now, why not? Since America fought on holy ground, lets go ahead and blame even problems America had nothing to do with on well AMERICA.

So there you go, want to know what I think America should do? Close off our immigration, stop talking to the outside world, even through internet means, keep it this way for oh' say 1 or 2 years, reopen, and lets see how the outside world is doing then.

Got a problem with my post, think some of it was miss typed, yea I know I'm only human, so I know I fucked up a lot of facts possibly, sue me, all I am trying to express is, well you should get what I'm trying to express. I am not going to check replies really, for I don't have the time to waste 3 hours or so arguing over pointless matters. Yay the world hates me and my country and my countrymen, cool....if that helps them sleep at night, sure I don't care....well wait I do, but go ahead, let the real airheads say what they want about America and the Americans. Ok, bye bye.

So those quoting a number like 90% are saying what?

And I don't see ANY of you say you think they are wrong, why is that?

Regards,
Gaar

I think practically everybody has said Eutrusca's points are wrong apart from point 1. And point 5 may be true but it seems to be generally agreed that they're changing things for the worse.

Yeah, I meant ones that WEREN'T Vetoed.



Ok, I'll post some stuff on Israeli non-compliance with UN resolutions:
Selective enforcement

The most extensive violator of UN Security Council resolutions is Israel, by far the largest recipient of US military and economic aid. These include resolutions 262 and 267 that demand Israel rescind its annexation of greater East Jerusalem, as well as the more than a dozen other resolutions demanding Israel cease its violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, such as deportations, demolitions of homes, collective punishment, and seizure of private property.

UN Security Council resolutions 446, 452 and 465 require that Israel evacuate all of its illegal settlements on occupied Arab lands. The United States, however, insists the fate of the settlements is a matter of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. In fact, the Clinton Peace Plan of December 2000 would have allowed Israel to illegally annex most of these settlements and surrounding areas into Israel, dividing the West Bank into non-contiguous Palestinian cantons separated by expanded Israeli territory that the Palestinians would be required to recognize. Even more disturbing, the US decision to help fund Israel's construction of Jewish-only "bypass roads" in the occupied West Bank to connect the illegal settlements with Israel puts the United States in violation of Article 7 of resolution 465, which prohibits member states from facilitating Israel's colonisation drive.

Furthermore, the United States has successfully pressured the Security Council to pass resolutions dealing with its allies only under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which falls under “Pacific Settlement of Disputes,” which limit the Security Council’s ability to enforce them. By contrast, the United States has successfully insisted that resolutions dealing with Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Iran and other countries the United States does not like be passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, “Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression,” which provides for an array of possible enforcement mechanisms, including economic sanctions and military force.

As a result, there have been cases where relatively minor disputes – such as those involving extradition issues – have been placed under Chapter VII, whereas major acts of aggression in direct violation of the UN Charter – such as the invasion, occupation and annexation by one country of another – have been placed under Chapter VI.

In addition to the United States blocking the enforcement of such UN Security Council resolutions, the United States has used its veto power 30 times to protect Israel from demands that it end its violations of human rights and international law in the Occupied Territories and attacks against neighbouring states. The United States has also vetoed a score of other UN Security Council resolutions, including sanctions against apartheid South Africa, the reappointment of UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, a call for all nations to honour decisions of the International Court of Justice and the renewal of UN peacekeeping forces in Bosnia.

In fact, over the past 30 years, the United States has used its veto power more than all other member states of the United Nations Security Council have used their veto power during that same period combined. Such a veto threat has also weakened the language of a number of others that were allowed to pass. In addition, threats of a US veto have blocked scores of resolutions from even coming up to a vote. For example, in 2001, the United States threatened to veto a number of resolutions proposed by European governments regarding Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories if they even mentioned the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel’s illegal settlements, international law, or the principle of land-for-peace.

In other words, no country has done more to compromise the authority of the United Nations Security Council and its enforcement mechanisms than has the United States.While the UN Security Council had a strong case to insist that Iraq be more fully compliant with its resolutions, the United States is the last country to claim the right to enforce alleged non-compliance militarily. Not only does the UN Charter and UN Security Council resolution 1441 explicitly recognise that only the Security Council as a whole – and not any single member – has the legal authority to enforce such resolutions militarily, but the United States is the last member of the world body to claim any kind of moral authority to do so.


This is from: here (http://www.globalpolicy.org/unitedstates/unpolicy/gen2003/0415moral.htm)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, maybe I misread your post, but please don't just make a list of demands about what I should post about, what do you think I am some kind of machine to do your research for you? Try taking an objective look at more than just your own media and you might be able to figure out why so many of the rest of the citizens of this world don't agree with you.

Central America is not a continent by itself...

Take a look at this (http://www.ri.net/schools/Central_Falls/v/218/t7con.html)schools educational website if you want some help with your geography.

Just in case you can't be bothered I'll list the seven continents:

1 Africa
2 Antarctica
3 Asia
4 Australia
5 Europe
6 NorthAmerica
7 South America

I misspoke when I referred to Central America as a continent. It is techncially considered part of the North American continent. But, 36 years ago when I was in high school, we were taught that there were 3 "Americas", however, as you pointed out, only 7 continents. My error in using an incorrect word. The point I was trying to make, however, is that the term "American" is commonly used throughout the world when referrring to someone from The United States of America. Much like people from the Former Soviet Union...USSR...were often referred to, incorrectly, but commonly understood, as "Russians". If you read through this thread alone, you will find that most of the posters, on both sides of the issue, refer to US citizens as Americans...though you chose to single out someone who had views opposed to yours.

Know what world out side of America, you can kiss my fucking American ass.

One: I am fucking tired of us helping the whole world, they are attacked by natural causes or another nation or a terror group, first things out of there mouths are either:

A.

*stops reading allready here because of the shit and propaganda avalanche that I smell (it stinks)*

Wow again a mentaly disabled person on NS that had a shitload of propaganda for breakfast during school.

THE US IS NOT THE WORLDS FIRST DONOR, NEVER WAS, NEVER WILL BE. (Allready forgoten the Tsunami?) Oh, yeah, Tsunami is a country for ya :rolleyes:

You can kiss my ass to, you ignorant piece of ego.

Arent you the co-Founder of the "we can advise others" thread?


Yes, I am. Though, I feel we have made it clear that our advice will not include matters of politics, religion, or social morals. It is merely to share some of what we have observed and learned (sometimes the hard way) in everyday situations...peer pressure, dating questions, college worries, etc. You will also note, that as I gave up debating on NS for Lent, I have not entered into any debates since Ash Wednesday....with the exception of a debate or raising children, for which I have made penance. It is not my intention to debate any issue in this thread, but I had to wonder why Whinging Trancers took exception to a word commonly misused by many. Now, have I answered your question sufficiently?

I misspoke when I referred to Central America as a continent. It is techncially considered part of the North American continent. But, 36 years ago when I was in high school, we were taught that there were 3 "Americas", however, as you pointed out, only 7 continents. My error in using an incorrect word. The point I was trying to make, however, is that the term "American" is commonly used throughout the world when referrring to someone from The United States of America. Much like people from the Former Soviet Union...USSR...were often referred to, incorrectly, but commonly understood, as "Russians". If you read through this thread alone, you will find that most of the posters, on both sides of the issue, refer to US citizens as Americans...though you chose to single out someone who had views opposed to yours.

I only chose to point out something that wasn't true, I didn't try to single you out, as you put it. If you're going to make such basic mistakes, expect them to be pointed out. If you'd read through some of the posts before your own, you might have noticed a few other posts with people complaining about generalising about "Americans" and asking that we make a distinction between them, so we did.

Ok, sorry I lied. Only about one thing, when I said I wouldn't reply, that was a lie.

One: I found out about 3/4 of this info from European sites made by Europeans. NOT AT SCHOOL, you fucking arrogant shit head. And the only fuck who is fed propoganda for breakfast is you. Let me guess, does Mum and Dad say that we don't care about the world, and prolly don't even know what Tsunami means? And do you fucking realize, a lot of money donated from America is that of organizations put together for CHILDREN to donate to the TSUNAMI RELIEF IN SOUTH EAST ASIA. During one of my school's pep rallys, and we were doing a Tsunami relief run thing. The Administrator with the most money in his/her bucket got pied. This one teacher that WE ALL wanted pied was 400 Dollars behind the leader. So the school gives us a chance to raise 400 Dollars IN ONE FUCKING MINUTE! Guess what? WE RAISED ABOUT 600 DOLLARS IN 30 SECONDS. Yea, sounds like the American youth really wouldn't give a dime to help the world. Seriously, and after the donation, to make sure, I even asked everyone why they truely donated majority of the reason was to HELP with the Aid. So fuck you, your the ignorant propoganda infested jack ass who has NO FUCKING CLUE what he is talking about. Really, the day I kiss a Propoganda filled European's ass is thee verry day, THEE VERRY DAY, hell freezes over.

Ok, sorry I lied. Only about one thing, when I said I wouldn't reply, that was a lie.

One: I found out about 3/4 of this info from European sites made by Europeans. NOT AT SCHOOL, you fucking arrogant shit head. And the only fuck who is fed propoganda for breakfast is you. Let me guess, does Mum and Dad say that we don't care about the world, and prolly don't even know what Tsunami means? And do you fucking realize, a lot of money donated from America is that of organizations put together for CHILDREN to donate to the TSUNAMI RELIEF IN SOUTH EAST ASIA. During one of my school's pep rallys, and we were doing a Tsunami relief run thing. The Administrator with the most money in his/her bucket got pied. This one teacher that WE ALL wanted pied was 400 Dollars behind the leader. So the school gives us a chance to raise 400 Dollars IN ONE FUCKING MINUTE! Guess what? WE RAISED ABOUT 600 DOLLARS IN 30 SECONDS. Yea, sounds like the American youth really wouldn't give a dime to help the world. Seriously, and after the donation, to make sure, I even asked everyone why they truely donated majority of the reason was to HELP with the Aid. So fuck you, your the ignorant propoganda infested jack ass who has NO FUCKING CLUE what he is talking about. Really, the day I kiss a Propoganda filled European's ass is thee verry day, THEE VERRY DAY, hell freezes over.

You must be a very frustrated poor child.
You just have been nominated for being NS worst loser.
BTW, your lies and propaganda about the Tsunami are to easy, informed people in the US to know that the EU is worlst biggest donor.
Go to bed, mummy made diner.

You must be a very frustrated poor child.
You just have been nominated for being NS worst loser.
Go to bed, mummy made diner.

Yes I'm the loser....really....well wait here we go, ever even NOTED your name ONCE?

" Bushrepublican liars " = Heavily molested child who is also a immature poor loser and has no other way to express his soar loserness about Bush winning another term. No wait, the feeble minded soar loser thought one day, I'LL JUST MAKE A INSIGNIFICANT NATION THAT NO ONE WILL REALLY CARE ABOUT NAMED ' Bushrepublic liars "

I only chose to point out something that wasn't true, I didn't try to single you out, as you put it. If you're going to make such basic mistakes, expect them to be pointed out. If you'd read through some of the posts before your own, you might have noticed a few other posts with people complaining about generalising about "Americans" and asking that we make a distinction between them, so we did.

I did read them and I did not say that you singled me out. As a matter of fact, that was the first time I posted to this thread, so you have nothing from me to respond to previously. I was responding to your singling out someone else by name. So, from now on, when I post about citizens of my country, I will post it as United States of Americans.

It won't improve by attacking the NS community.
You are so young that you even don't see how ridiculous you are. You din't see it don't ya :D

It won't improve by attacking the NS community.
You are so young that you even don't see how ridiculous you are. You din't see it don't ya :D

So, someone who apparently knows the answers to life's problems, what makes you assume I'm " so young "?

EDIT: Forgot to add, but arn't you pretty much attacking the American portion of the NS Community, like before I posted? On different threads? Possibly? Hmm?

Ok, well now to do something more useful with my time, I am going to not level my self down to the degree to argue with such losers who act as if there the ultimate, that they apparently know everything, yes they really don't and there wasting someone's time, and there own time, when it could be used for something a whole lot better. Ok, well have fun jacking off to your Propogandic bs, and just keep in mind that just some day, you may even piss us off to the point we may even start acting the way you proclaim we do. Well, have a good rest of your frustrating life.

I did read them and I did not say that you singled me out. As a matter of fact, that was the first time I posted to this thread, so you have nothing from me to respond to previously. I was responding to your singling out someone else by name. So, from now on, when I post about citizens of my country, I will post it as United States of Americans.

I'm going through my posts now trying to figure out when I've singled somebody out by name, other than to say that the first post was by Eutrusca (surely that's not a problem, is it?). If you could point me towards the offensive post I'll do something about it. How's that for fair?

This thread is not suppose to be flame-bait
So, how's that working out for you?

Who would have thought that giving someone else their opinions in a demeaning and condisending manner would have generated flame, huh? You put the caveat in there so it should have worked, right? I mean, it's not at all insulting to have someone reduce your opinion to 'jealousy' and then dismiss it...why would that be flamebait?

Hmm.

Ok, well now to do something more useful with my time, I am going to not level my self down to the degree to argue with such losers who act as if there the ultimate, that they apparently know everything, yes they really don't and there wasting someone's time, and there own time, when it could be used for something a whole lot better. Ok, well have fun jacking off to your Propogandic bs, and just keep in mind that just some day, you may even piss us off to the point we may even start acting the way you proclaim we do. Well, have a good rest of your frustrating life.


14 years old and still not and bed, tsss, bad boy :p And so cool :D Your parents must be proud to have such a well informed source at home :D LOL.
But you're right people should stop wasting their time on ya. Bye kiddo, greetings at Gitmo, the worlds example of your "freedom". :D

I'm going through my posts now trying to figure out when I've singled somebody out by name, other than to say that the first post was by Eutrusca (surely that's not a problem, is it?). If you could point me towards the offensive post I'll do something about it. How's that for fair?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8380153&postcount=726

In response to a post Eutrusca made your response:

Well, if you do know the name of your country, why not use it?

I think you're being very arrogant if you think that you can get away with saying America because you think that everyone in the World will immediately and by necessity think of one specific country within that continent, ignoring the rest.
You are showing your imperialist attitudes there.

Your use of 'America' instead of 'USA' gives the implication that the USA is America and America is the USA, thereby implicitly belittling and relegating the other countries that are there.

Seems like a pretty direct and pointed response to one person in particular to me.

Can we be any more stereotypical? I mean look, sure some Americans can be ignorant and self-ritous, but when you speak of "Americans" as a whole there lies a problem. I'm not saying that I myself do not fall under these circumstances, but I am saying that I see the uselessness and grotesque views on this issue.

Most nations have stereotypes, which are utilized for no apparent reason.
Examples:
The French are snobby
Germans are greedy nazis
Irishmen are drunkards
Polish people are stupid
Blacks are animals
Women shouldn't have rights...

There are countless ways to emphasize the problems with these threads, but I shall just leave it with this: Until you are perfectly innocent yourselves, you probably shouldn't critisize other peoples.

though you chose to single out someone who had views opposed to yours.

OK, I've been through every post from 720 onwards again and I still can't figure out who I'm meant to have singled out by name. Are you maybe confusing me with "Demented Hamsters," if so, well thanks for wasting my time.

I am not demented hamsters.

I can name/number several, so here goes:

July 1973, S/10974

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

The resolution strongly deplored Israel's occupation of the Arab territories since 1967, and expressed serious concern with the Israeli authorities' lack of cooperation with the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General.

January 1976, S/11940

Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 3 abstentions
.
The resolution called for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967, and deplored Israel's refusal to implement relevant UN resolutions. It furthermore reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self determination, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

March 1976, S/12022

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

In the draft, the Security Council expressed deep concern over Israeli measures to change the character of the occupied territories, in particular Jerusalem, the establishment of Israeli settlements, human rights violations, and called for an end of such measures.

June 1976, S/12119

Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

The resolution affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self determination, the right of return, and the right to national independence.

April 1980, S/13911

Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

The resolution affirmed the Palestinian right to establish an independent state, the right of return or compensation for loss of property for refugees not wishing to return, and Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967.

April 1982, S/14943

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention
.
In the draft, the Security Council denounced Israeli interference with local governance in the West Bank, and its violations of the rights and liberties of the population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The resolution furthermore called on Israel to end all activities in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

April 1982, S/14985

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The draft strongly condemned the shooting of worshippers at Haram Al-Sharif on 11 April, 1982, and called on Israel to observe and apply the provisions of the Forth Geneva Convention, and other international laws.

June 1982, S/15185

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution draft condemned the Israeli non-compliance with resolutions 508 and 509, urged the parties to comply with the Hague Convention of 1907, and restated the Security Council's demands of Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

June 1982, S/15255/Rev. 2

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)
.
The resolution demanded the immediate withdrawal of Israeli and Palestinian forces from areas in and around Beirut, and that the parties would comply with resolution 508. It furthermore requested that the Secretary General would station UN military observers to supervise the ceasefire and disengagement in and around Beirut, and that the Secretary General would make proposals for the installation of a UN force to take up positions beside the Lebanese interposition force.

August 1982, S/15347/Rev. 1

Vote: 11 in favor, 1 veto (US), 3 abstentions.

The resolution strongly condemned Israel for not implementing resolutions 516 and 517, called for their immediate implementation, and decided that all UN member-states would refrain from providing Israel with weapons or other military aid until Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory.

August 1983, S/15895

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

The resolution called upon Israel to discontinue the establishment of new settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, to dismantle existing settlements, and to adhere to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. The resolution furthermore rejected Israeli deportations and transfers of Palestinian civilians, and condemned attacks against the Arab civilian population. The Security Council also called upon other states to refrain from giving Israel any assistance related to the settlements, and stated its intention to examine ways of securing the implementation of the resolution, in the event of Israeli non-compliance

September 1985, S/17459

Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

The resolution draft deplored the repressive measures applied by the Israeli authorities against the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, and called upon Israel to immediately cease the use of repressive measures, including the use of curfews, deportations, and detentions.

January 1986, S/17769

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

The resolution strongly deplored Israeli refusal to abide earlier Security Council resolutions, and called upon Israel to comply with these resolutions, as well as the norms of international law governing military occupation such as the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Security Council also expressed deep concern with violations of the sanctity of the Haram Al-Sharif, and with Israeli measures aimed at altering the character of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.

January 1988, S/19466

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution called upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War to the territories occupied since 1967, and to conform to the Convention. The resolution moreover called upon Israel to refrain from practices violating the human rights of the Palestinian people.

April 1988, S/19780

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution expressed grave concerned with the Israeli use of collective punishment, including house demolitions. It condemned the policies and practices utilized by the Israeli authorities violating the human rights of the Palestinian People, especially the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army. Called on Israel to abide to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and urged it to desist from deporting Palestinians.

February 1989, S/20463

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution strongly deplored Israeli persistence in violating the human rights of the Palestinian people, in particular the shooting of Palestinian civilians, including children. It also deplored Israel's disregard of Security Council decisions, and called upon Israel to act in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant Security Council resolutions.

June 1989, S/20677

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution deplored the violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, demanded that Israel would abstain from deporting Palestinian civilians for the occupied territories, and that it would ensure the safe return of those already deported. It also called upon Israel to comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention, and requested that the Secretary General would give recommendations on measures guaranteeing compliance with the Convention, and the protection of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories.

November 1989, S/20945/Rev. 1

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)
.
The resolution deplored the Israeli violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, including the siege of towns, ransacking of homes, and confiscation of property. It called upon Israel to abide to the Fourth Geneva Convention, to lift the siege, and to return confiscated property to its owners. The resolution requested that the Secretary General would conduct on-site monitoring of the situation in the occupied territories.

May 1990, S/21326

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The draft resolution attempted to establish a commission to examine the situation related to Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.

May 1995, S/1995/394

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution confirmed that the Israeli expropriation of Palestinian land in East Jerusalem was invalid, and called upon Israel to refrain from such actions. It also expressed its support for the Middle East peace process and urged the parties to adhere to the accord agreed upon.

March 1997, S/1997/199

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution expressed deep concern with the Israeli plans to build new settlements in East Jerusalem, and called upon Israel to desist from measures, including the building of settlements, that would pre-empt the final status negotiations. The resolution once again called on Israel to abide by the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

March 1997, S/1997/241

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

The resolution demanded an end to the Israeli construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem, and to all other measures related to settlements in the occupied territories.

March 2001, S/2001/270

Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

The resolution called for a total and immediate stop of all acts of violence, provocation, and collective punishment, as well as a complete cessation of Israeli settlement activities, and an end of the closures of the occupied territories. The resolution furthermore called for the implementation of the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement, and expressed the Security Council's willingness to set up mechanisms to protect the Palestinian civilians, including the establishment of a UN observer force.

December 2001, S/2001/1199

Vote: 12 in favor, 1 veto (US) 2 abstentions.

In the resolution, the Security Council condemned all acts of terror, extrajudiciary executions, excessive use of force and destruction of properties, and demanded an end of all acts of violence, destruction and provocation. The resolution called on the parties to resume negotiations, and to implement the recommendations of the Mitchell Report. It also encouraged the establishment of a monitoring apparatus for the above mentioned implementation.

Sorry I forgot that you want links, so here's a more recent one:
click here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/15/121234.shtml)

"UNITED NATIONS – After a U.S. veto in the Security Council, the Palestinians promised to seek a U.N. General Assembly vote on a resolution condemning Israel for building a massive security fence.
The United States was the lone vote against the resolution on the 15-member Security Council on Tuesday, though four nations abstained. The vote came after a daylong open debate in which most of the 40 nations that spoke condemned Israel for building the barrier, which cuts into the West Bank, as a grab for land."
But, she only wanted one. :) The truth is a terrible thing huh?

BTW, thanks for replying for me. I was unable to post for awhile.

OK, maybe I misread your post, but please don't just make a list of demands about what I should post about, what do you think I am some kind of machine to do your research for you? Try taking an objective look at more than just your own media and you might be able to figure out why so many of the rest of the citizens of this world don't agree with you.

Point taken, and I apologize if you read it as some kind of "demand" from me, rather than my want to have both sides live by the same standards...

In other words, if it wasn't going to be good enough for me to cite stuff regardless of whether it was eventually ratified by the whole of the Body of the Security Council then I was saying that it shouldn't be good enough for you to use it either.

I am going to look into the information you have posted, and I thank you for the link to the information so I am able to decide for myself rather than accept someone’s word for it.

However, please know that I am an American who believes we will ask no ones "permission" to act unilaterally, or otherwise, when we deem it to be necessary. Just as I would allow YOU and YOUR Country to also act in your own best interest, regardless of how we in the U.S. felt.

So my question to you then becomes, how is it YOU feel that YOU can become involved in the internal Politics of OUR Nation in order to try and suit YOUR OWN Countries "wants" on the matter? Isn't it our RIGHT to ACT in our OWN best interest?

Why is it that no one on YOUR side wants to address the point that, had Churchill been listened to in the early 30's in Europe and done what "needed to be done", just as Bush is doing now, even in the face of a Majority of the Public who wanted Appeasement; then perhaps a more deadly World War could have been averted less than a decade later?

So, as History has shown us, the "Popular view" is not always RIGHT!

Regards,
Gaar

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8380153&postcount=726

Seems like a pretty direct and pointed response to one person in particular to me.

Hey Zooke, seen as it wasn't me that made the post, any chance of an apology? :)

OK, I've been through every post from 720 onwards again and I still can't figure out who I'm meant to have singled out by name. Are you maybe confusing me with "Demented Hamsters," if so, well thanks for wasting my time.

I am not demented hamsters.

Yup, it was DH that posted the orginal. Sorry about that. You got mixed into it when you assumed I didn't have any knowledge or desire to attain knowledge in geography.

Come on kids, kiss and make up!

Hey Zooke, seen as it wasn't me that made the post, any chance of an apology? :)

See my previous post. If it's any explaination, to view these threads without getting the headache from hell, I have my resolution set so the print is larger. This requires my scanning over to the left to see who said what on each post. *slide left...slide right...slide left...slide right...slide...oh phooey!*

Again, I'm sorry for the confusion. But I am really quite good at geography.

It's sweet really, being in a thread about Americans and slashing them, yet be having peer mediation...bewildering to the very last.

CanuckHeaven
I don't screw up often, but when I do, it's a dandy!! :D

I am going to look into the information you have posted, and I thank you for the link to the information so I am able to decide for myself rather than accept someone’s word for it.


:)


So my question to you then becomes, how is it YOU feel that YOU can become involved in the internal Politics of OUR Nation in order to try and suit YOUR OWN Countries "wants" on the matter? Isn't it our RIGHT to ACT in our OWN best interest?

Why is it that no one on YOUR side wants to address the point that, had Churchill been listened to in the early 30's in Europe and done what "needed to be done", just as Bush is doing now, even in the face of a Majority of the Public who wanted Appeasement; then perhaps a more deadly World War could have been averted less than a decade later?


How am I becoming involved in the internal politics of your nation? Most of the stuff we've talked about in this thread is to do with the American Foreign Policy, ie: its policies outside of its own territory.

Churchill wasn't in a position of power to be listened to in the early thirties, check for yourself which year he became the Prime Minister of Britain.

That politics of appeasement rant is just that, it's a rant trying to justify big stick diplomacy. "We've got a big stick and if you don't do what we want we'll use our big stick, in fact we'll beat up a few of you anyway just to make sure the rest of you are scared and compliant."

Now if that sounds a bit silly, read the stuff that came out of the PNAC about full spectrum dominance and the need to take America into several conflicts to firmly establish its dominance over other states.

Yup, it was DH that posted the orginal. Sorry about that. You got mixed into it when you assumed I didn't have any knowledge or desire to attain knowledge in geography.

Thanks for the apology. :D

I never made any assumption, I just pointed out a mistake. :)

So hugs 'n' ting and we can move on again...

It's sweet really, being in a thread about Americans and slashing them, yet be having peer mediation...bewildering to the very last.
Mediation? It's more like some mutterances and then some drunk European comes on, makes a boisterous claim that someone made on page 1 but they couldn't be arsed to read it, and then everyone does a collective :rolleyes: and the thread returns to muttering.

All of the really polar American posters have been run out of the forum when looking at the relative picture. Now it's just turning into a masturbatory circle-jerk in these kinds of threads (see: Name one good thing about the USA)

See: bushrepublican lies, New British Glory (circa page 30)

Thanks for the apology. :D

I never made any assumption, I just pointed out a mistake. :)

So hugs 'n' ting and we can move on again...

Works for me! <Implied fluffle>

So, as History has shown us, the "Popular view" is not always RIGHT!




How about looking at it this way:

Yes, the popular view isn't always right, that is a given. Now at the same time the USA says "we want to let everybody have democracy."

In a democracy people get to have their say and the vote. America meanwhile ignores "the say" of the people of the rest of the world and ignores their "vote" in the UN whenever it's not convenient.

So how is America helping or demonstrating the power of democracy here?

How am I becoming involved in the internal politics of your nation? Most of the stuff we've talked about in this thread is to do with the American Foreign Policy, ie: its policies outside of its own territory.

So you are not one that has questioned and or faulted our Election of Bush ever? If you have, that is becoming involved in OUR internal Politics, is it not?

When has ANY American questioned which Leader you have chosen to represent YOUR Country?

I find it AMAZING that people from ALL OVER THE WORLD like to do just that while I have rarely ever seen any American do it to ANY other Country, why do you suppose that is?

And they, like you, don't believe they are trying to affect OUR internal Politics by doing it, again, why is that?

Churchill wasn't in a position of power to be listened to in the early thirties, check for yourself which year he became the Prime Minister of Britain.

I guess you missed my point...

MY POINT was HAD EUROPE, and more specifically England, listened to Churchill (i.e. Elected HIM) then we can consider what may have been, can we not?

That politics of appeasement rant is just that, it's a rant trying to justify big stick diplomacy. "We've got a big stick and if you don't do what we want we'll use our big stick, in fact we'll beat up a few of you anyway just to make sure the rest of you are scared and compliant."

Now if that sounds a bit silly, read the stuff that came out of the PNAC about full spectrum dominance and the need to take America into several conflicts to firmly establish its dominance over other states.

And here we will have to agree to disagree. As I point out, History has shown that the Majority is not always correct in their "Politics", and why should your being wrong, perhaps, preclude me from acting in my own best interest, regardless of what the Majority in YOUR Country think? Because we know there are people in your Country who DO support what we are doing, right? They just aren't a Majority in your Country, like they are in mine.

Regards,
Gaar

In a democracy people get to have their say and the vote. America meanwhile ignores "the say" of the people of the rest of the world and ignores their "vote" in the UN whenever it's not convenient.

So how is America helping or demonstrating the power of democracy here?

The UN is anything BUT a Democracy...

And that you would try and portray it as such either points to your lack of knowledge about how the UN is run or is just you trying, again, to assert yourself in the "internal" Politics of our OWN NATION by saying that we need to have the Worlds "permission" to act in our OWN best interst when WE deem it necessary!

Why is that! I would REALLY LIKE TO KNOW!

And it's not like the rest of the World WASN'T leaning towards action against Iraq, as shown by the UN Resolutions, it only seems that we are bickering about just WHEN we should have gone, right?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

So you are not one that has questioned and or faulted our Election of Bush ever? If you have, that is becoming involved in OUR internal Politics, is it not?

When has ANY American questioned which Leader you have chosen to represent YOUR Country?

I find it AMAZING that people from ALL OVER THE WORLD like to do just that while I have rarely ever seen any American do it to ANY other Country, why do you suppose that is?

And they, like you, don't believe they are trying to affect OUR internal Politics by doing it, again, why is that?

I guess you kissed my point...

MY POINT was HAD EUROPE, and more specifically England, listened to Churchill (i.e. Elected HIM) then we can consider what may have been, can we not?

As I point out, History has shown that the Majority is not always correct in their "Politics", and why should your being wrong, perhaps, preclude me from acting in my own best interest, regardless of what the Majority in YOUR Country think? Because we know there are people in your Country who DO support what we are doing, right? They just aren't a Majority in your Country, like they are in mine.

Regards,
Gaar
No, becoming involved is when we demand a change, just commenting upon it is not becoming involved.

I've met plenty of Americans who've commented upon the politics of my nation, most of the Americans that I've met though haven't had a clue about politics anywhere, but in their own country and even then it's been sadly limited. Maybe that has something to do with it.

We could possibly consider what may have happened if Churchill had been elected in the early thirties, but he wasn't and he was never in a position to be either, so what's the point?

The following text is from here (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/winston_churchill.htm)

"After his electoral defeat in 1922, Winston Churchill left the Liberal Party and became the MP for Epping in 1924 standing as a ‘constitutional anti-socialist’. Stanley Baldwin, leader of the Conservative Party, appointed him as Chancellor of the Exchequer (a post he held from 1924 to 1929) and Winston Churchill officially rejoined the Conservative Party in 1925.

Churchill remained outside of government from 1929 to 1939. He had spoken out against the government’s policy towards India and as Hitler became more and more aggressive in Europe, Winston Churchill became more and more concerned about the stance taken by the then leader of the government, Neville Chamberlain. From 1938 to the outbreak of war in September 1939, Churchill urged the government to be more pro-active against Hitler, including for an early call for conscription."


Please note that the last line says from 1938 to September 1939, which might go a bit further towards pointing out why some of us see that appeasement article as the rubbish that it is.

There have already been several links in this thread pointing out that the majority of Americans don't necessarily agree with the war and you still say that the majority do agree with it, could you possibly be wrong there too?

The UN is anything BUT a Democracy...

And that you would try and portray it as such either points to your lack of knowledge about how the UN is run or is just you trying, again, to assert yourself in the "internal" Politics of our OWN NATION by saying that we need to have the Worlds "permission" to act in our OWN best interst when WE deem it necessary!

Why is that! I would REALLY LIKE TO KNOW!

And it's not like the rest of the World WASN'T leaning towards action against Iraq, as shown by the UN Resolutions, it only seems that we are bickering about just WHEN we should have gone, right?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Your internal politics is politics which affects your own nation, when you take it on to the world stage, it's not just internal.


ps: I'm not going to answer anymore now as it's coming up on 1 am here and I have to get up for work in 5 1/2 hours.

So you are not one that has questioned and or faulted our Election of Bush ever? If you have, that is becoming involved in OUR internal Politics, is it not?

When has ANY American questioned which Leader you have chosen to represent YOUR Country?
Umm the US has many times interceded into the politics of other countries to the point of assisting hostile takeovers. That is pretty involved huh?

I find it AMAZING that people from ALL OVER THE WORLD like to do just that while I have rarely ever seen any American do it to ANY other Country, why do you suppose that is?
See Above.

MY POINT was HAD EUROPE, and more specifically England, listened to Churchill (i.e. Elected HIM) then we can consider what may have been, can we not?
Purely speculative on your part. There is no way of knowing what would have happened?

And here we will have to agree to disagree. As I point out, History has shown that the Majority is not always correct in their "Politics", and why should your being wrong, perhaps, preclude me from acting in my own best interest, regardless of what the Majority in YOUR Country think? Because we know there are people in your Country who DO support what we are doing, right? They just aren't a Majority in your Country, like they are in mine.
Sometimes we need to be careful with that majority rules concept? Human rights should be the number one consideration?

(country accent) People attack americans because we're a bunch of backwoods, drunk, idiots. (in normal voice) in other words were a people person, who drink. and sport guns. :mp5:

http://www.hudsonreview.com/BawerSp04.html

Don't like what America is doing?

Then change it. *Shrugs* Make your government stand up to the US.

Me, I'm behind them all the way on foreign policy, hich is rather ironic as I'm very opposed to Bush's domestic policies... hrm.

Umm the US has many times interceded into the politics of other countries to the point of assisting hostile takeovers. That is pretty involved huh?

See Above.

I'm talking about Individuals NOT Governments, but I assume you knew that because it was stated very plainly...

Care to address that or you want to rant on again about something I didn't even say?

Regards,
Gaar

There have already been several links in this thread pointing out that the majority of Americans don't necessarily agree with the war and you still say that the majority do agree with it, could you possibly be wrong there too?

I'm pretty sure we JUST HAD an ELECTION that showed that a MAJORITY of Americans do indeed support our current President and want him to continue to do what he is doing...

Something about THAT YOU don't understand?

Regards,
Gaar

How about looking at it this way:

Yes, the popular view isn't always right, that is a given. Now at the same time the USA says "we want to let everybody have democracy."

In a democracy people get to have their say and the vote. America meanwhile ignores "the say" of the people of the rest of the world and ignores their "vote" in the UN whenever it's not convenient.

So how is America helping or demonstrating the power of democracy here?
Well, how about since most of the nations in the UN do not have a democratic form of government, "the people" have no representation whatsoever?

I'm pretty sure we JUST HAD an ELECTION that showed that a MAJORITY of Americans do indeed support our current President and want him to continue to do what he is doing...

Something about THAT YOU don't understand?

Regards,
Gaar

Diebold's glitchy software isn't a majority.

Another reason quite a few people hate America: Blatant denial of Canada kicking their sorry asses. Plus the whole gay issue. Plus the obvious lack of respect for human rights. Not to mention yer FUCKLOAD OF NUKES!

And on the note of Pearl Harbour/9-11... 9-11 was rigger, pearl harbour was provoked.

I'm pretty sure we JUST HAD an ELECTION that showed that a MAJORITY of Americans do indeed support our current President and want him to continue to do what he is doing...

Something about THAT YOU don't understand?

Regards,
Gaar


Bleep it! One last post before bed time then.

Just because he got elected President does not mean that the majority of the people support the war. It means that the majority of the people who voted support the idea of him becoming President, there is an enormous difference. Can you not get your head around that?

I don't know if anyone's said this before, but just so all of you know, America is not a democracy. We are a Republic.

Also, the 'governments' that we're erecting in Afghanistan and Iraq are not Democracies, as Bush claims. They, too, are Republics.

There are very, very few genuine democracies in the world.

What you Americans fail to realise is your a relitevly new country. Plus your NOT helping the world, you pulled out of the Kyto summit ffs You continue to push the boundrys of ignorence concerning other people and their culture, theyve been around a hell of a lot longer than you they are wiser, if it wasnt for the fact you have the biggest ( and least compitant) armed forces in the world and your huge polluting economy a lot of countrys wouldnt even bother to deal with you.

Well, how about since most of the nations in the UN do not have a democratic form of government, "the people" have no representation whatsoever?

So you would deny the representatives of their country (elected or not) any right to speak for them?

"We're democratic, but you aren't, so we don't have to listen to anything you say." Yeah, that makes sense.


Right, this time I'm off...

I've met plenty of Americans who've commented upon the politics of my nation, most of the Americans that I've met though haven't had a clue about politics anywhere, but in their own country and even then it's been sadly limited. Maybe that has something to do with it.

And perhaps, like myself, they realize that your internal Politics are none of our business and, as long as they are Democratic in nature, we shouldn't stick our noses where they don't belong?

And don't for one moment believe that just because I don't rail on them (Your internal Politics) that I am not informed about them. I just choose to respect them as being your or any other Countries "way" of doing business and it is not for ME to question. It is however up to me to try and understand it as well as I am able, if I care to understand the differences between our Nations.

Regards,
Gaar

I don't know if anyone's said this before, but just so all of you know, America is not a democracy. We are a Republic.

Also, the 'governments' that we're erecting in Afghanistan and Iraq are not Democracies, as Bush claims. They, too, are Republics.

There are very, very few genuine democracies in the world.

Possibly because Democracy doesn't work.

I feel a lot of frustration when dealing with my country. As I loathe bullies, and spent most of my school years hiding away from them, it hurts when I see our government, sometimes even citizens just tromping around without noticing the damage it does. I don't like being in a country reputed to be a bully, especially when I personally try to keep my nose out of other people's beeswax unless they want my help.

Just my stuffed up ignorant American opinion.

-Asylum Nova

So you would deny the representatives of their country (elected or not) any right to speak for them?

"We're democratic, but you aren't, so we don't have to listen to anything you say." Yeah, that makes sense.


Right, this time I'm off...

We don't deny them any Right to speak on any matter...

We just deny them the Right to dictate to us how we will react to any given situation Worldwide.

Something about that you don't understand?

Regards,
Gaar

So you would deny the representatives of their country (elected or not) any right to speak for them?

"We're democratic, but you aren't, so we don't have to listen to anything you say." Yeah, that makes sense.


Right, this time I'm off...
Good job at putting words in my mouth. :rolleyes:

Possibly because Democracy doesn't work.

And perhaps that is why we are a "Democratic Republic" and not a "True Democracy" in the purest sense of the word.

Regards,
Gaar

I'm talking about Individuals NOT Governments, but I assume you knew that because it was stated very plainly...

Care to address that or you want to rant on again about something I didn't even say?

Regards,
Gaar
Why do you suggest that my post is a rant? It was merely an observation about who is meddling in who's politics. For non-Americans to express a view to the governance of your country in regards to foreign policy, which can affect this world, is totally different from the fact that your country has actually done far worse, and that is to intercede into the business of foreign countries to the point of overthrowing the government.

And perhaps, like myself, they realize that your internal Politics are none of our business and, as long as they are Democratic in nature, we shouldn't stick our noses where they don't belong? So, If they AREN'T democratic, can you declare it a field day?

Why do you suggest that my post is a rant? It was merely an observation about who is meddling in who's politics. For non-Americans to express a view to the governance of your country in regards to foreign policy, which can affect this world, is totally different from the fact that your country has actually done far worse, and that is to intercede into the business of foreign countries to the point of overthrowing the government.

And are YOU ever going to address it on the "Individual" rather than the "Governmental" level? Or do you only discuss things on the level YOU care to?

Edit add: That's why I say it was a rant... You didn't address the actual subject of what you were responding to and rather switched the argument to suit your needs. In my book that's ranting on...

Regards,
Gaar

I agree completely with the main arguement.

Some people wrinkle their noses and whine at the idea of America being imperialist. I think we should be imperialist. Everyone else in history got to be, and it's only been a solid 200 years since we actually got settled (i.e., fought everyone else's wars, defended against other imperalists, made MTV..etc.)

Is it so wrong we fight our own fight once in a while? Just because the European Union doesn't care to fight it, should we just give up? Why can't we take a little time and be a super imperial bastard? The world can be our sandbox.

:eek:

I feel a lot of frustration when dealing with my country. As I loathe bullies, and spent most of my school years hiding away from them, it hurts when I see our government, sometimes even citizens just tromping around without noticing the damage it does. I don't like being in a country reputed to be a bully, especially when I personally try to keep my nose out of other people's beeswax unless they want my help.

Just my stuffed up ignorant American opinion.

-Asylum Nova
Operant word: "reputed." As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, it seems as if one of the reasons so many Europeans refer to the US as a "bully" is because of their resentment at having been relegated by history to the status of second-rate powers, at least for the time being.

So, If they AREN'T democratic, can you declare it a field day?

No...

But if the people call for Democracy, should we not help them achieve it?

No...

But if the people call for Democracy, should we not help them achieve it?
If it is within our power to do so, most assuredly.

No...

But if the people call for Democracy, should we not help them achieve it?

isn't that an INTERNAL affair?

And you probably should. But not by blowing everyone to hell.

isn't that an INTERNAL affair?

And you probably should. But not by blowing everyone to hell.

Sure, but again, that will be my Government reacting to the call from another Nation...

Not ME telling YOU that YOUR CHOICE (this assumes a Democracy already in place, does it not?) is just a bunch of ill informed idiots making a rash decision about who will lead them, right?!?!

Why is that so hard for you guys to understand?

Regards,
Gaar

Sure, but again, that will be my Government reacting to the call from another Nation...

Not ME telling YOU that YOUR CHOICE (this assumes a Democracy already in place, does it not?) is just a bunch of ill informed idiots making a rash decision about who will lead them, right?!?!

Why is that so hard for you guys to understand?

Regards,
Gaar

... What. The. Hell?

i dont dislike all Americans, but heres a few reasons

you spent 40 years propping up dictatorships and helping terrorists.

the vast majority of the IRAs funding comes from the US, and the IRA has done its best to destroy the place where i live

America prances round the world like it knows best, like someone has given them the position of the world police, being entirely hypocritical in its foreign affairs, and telling other countries what to do

that enough?

Actually on the IRA question, most Irish Americans are really bored by the IRA at this point, and I spoke to some English people who seemed to be in the know, and they said the real funding seems to be coming from Irish Australians.

Operant word: "reputed." As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, it seems as if one of the reasons so many Europeans refer to the US as a "bully" is because of their resentment at having been relegated by history to the status of second-rate powers, at least for the time being.

I suppose you're right to a degree. People don't really like it when power and influence are stripped away from them. It's a human trait to want to stand out and shine. Hard to settle for less when you've been the best.

However, I truly believe it's not all resentment. I truly believe that a lot of people are seriously worried about what the US is doing. Let's face it, we can cause an awful lot of damage sometimes...that scary scary Gulf War of nuclear destruction...not to mention the A-bomb we dropped on Hiroshima. Granted, we helped clean up that mess...but still. *sighs*

I'll be back later to check out the rest of the posts...there's some good comments in here.

-Asylum Nova

1. We make a good target. Anyone on top in any field of endeavour is automatically highly visible. Attacking them is easy and fun for those with lesser achievements.

Excuse me ? "Lesser achievements?" I expect you think you invented the steam engine? or the Jet engine? Let me tell you the rest of the world has been here one hell of a lot longer than you and frankly i cant think of anything that america has achived the doesnt sit in the shadow of other countrys and cultures Achievements.

2. Differing opinions on the response to 9/11. 9/11 was a wake-up call for America. It was seen as an unwarranted attack on innocent civilians and totally unprovoked. Traditionally, America is quick to respond to this sort of thing ( see Pearl Harbor ). Many who post on here apparently agree with the position presented to me by a foreign national almost immediately after 9/11: "Just forget it and move on." This is not the way America responds to attacks on its civilians on its own soil.

And just how many innocent civilians has america killed? Can anybody say Hiroshima? or prehaps nagasaki? not to mention the more recent crusades to install puppet goverments in Afganistan and Iraq.

3. Envy. Many of the anti_american posters on here are from nations which have been superpowers in the past: Germany, France, Russia, even Great Britain. There is a degree of envy at the impact America and American actions have on their own countries at this point in time, witness the so-called "cultural imperialism" allegations. This is most often used by Germans ( who tried their damndest to conquer the entire world! ), and French ( who managed to reach Moscow before the weather decimated them ). Which is worse, taking over another country by force, or taking over a portion of another country's culture by offering good products and services at a reasonable price?

I personally do not envy America or Americans, your standard of education is poorer, your levels of gun crime and obesity are enormous compared to the rest of the world. For some reason you mostly seem very very ignorant of other peoples cultures and historys, im afraid your like a spoilt shild with a bigger toy than the other kid, you just want to show how big and shiny it is. And your "good products" are produced in other countrys where people work for a pittance so you can have your new nikes and 45" plasma tv. All youve succeded in doing is obliterating cultures that have been around for centurys longer that you have.

4. Resentment at having America presume to advocate a better form of government ( democracy ) for people who have been unable to attain it for themselves.

Im afraid America isnt doing things purely to create a democratic world, your armed forces arent on some kind of happy danceing trip spreading peace and harmony around the world.

5. Fear that America is finally recognizing that its influence and power are capable of changing the world. I've noted that some on here who claim that America is trying to establish an empire seem to fear that, now that America is hitting her stride, their own country will be somehow "taken over." This despite the fact that America has never kept territory from any of the nations she defeated, other than a few small islands for naval and airforce bases, which were used to defend other nations.


Ill just highlight "influence and power are capable of changing the world" Yes indeed, i agree. Changing it for the worse that is, your doing a stirling job, terrorist attacks are on the rise and ignorece of other peoples faiths and cultures hasnt been higher for years. Do you know why youve kept nothing but islands? because the locals will continue to resist your occupation of their country, see iraq. and also "which were used to defend other nations." Nope im afraid its so you can maintain a platform with which you can attack/bomb/murder your way to any part of the world, heck give it a few years and we might even see you nuke somebody because they dont want to join your consumer driven, ignorent, polluting "utopia".

"ignorece of other peoples faiths and cultures hasnt been higher for years" -is that a stat?

Why do you suggest that my post is a rant? It was merely an observation about who is meddling in who's politics. For non-Americans to express a view to the governance of your country in regards to foreign policy, which can affect this world, is totally different from the fact that your country has actually done far worse, and that is to intercede into the business of foreign countries to the point of overthrowing the government.

:rolleyes:

France:
1946-1954 Indochina War
1950-1953 Korean War
1954-1962 Algeria
1956 Attack on Suez Canal(Egypt)
1960 Explodes Nuclear Weapon in the Sahara!
1961 Tunisia
1963 Congo
1964 Gabon
1966 Nuclear Weapons test in the Pacific
1967 Central African Republic
1968 Explodes Thermonuclear Weapon in the Pacific
1968 Chad
1975 Chad
1975-1977 Afars and Issas
1979 Clash with Somali troops
1978 Intervention in Zaire
1978-1983 Interventions in Chad
1984 Permanent force in Chad
1985 Greenpeace ship sunk
1996 Rwanda

UK:
1945-1947 Greece
1945-1965 Aden & Arabia
1948-1960 Malaya
1950-1953 Korea
1952-1956 Kenya
1952-1959 Cyprus
1956 Attack on Suez Canal(Egypt)
1957 Muscat & Oman
1962 Thailand
1963-1965 Malaysia
1964 East Africa
1966 Zambia
1969-1984 Ireland
1982 Falkland Islands

Operant word: "reputed." As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, it seems as if one of the reasons so many Europeans refer to the US as a "bully" is because of their resentment at having been relegated by history to the status of second-rate powers, at least for the time being.
What I find interesting, is that you just had an American discuss their dislike at being a "bully", and you turned it around to suggest that "Europeans refer to the US as a "bully", and then you go further and suggest that Europeans are a "second-rate power". Your debating skills are somewhat anemic to say the least.

glad to see someone's doing their research

yah, the topic keeps jumping a bit, how bout we pick 1 and stick with is

:rolleyes:
~~SNIP~~

Clearly you have missed the whole point. I suggest you go back to the beginning of the conversation that referred to the meddling in other countries business.

I did not suggest that other countries are innocent of the same tactic. You have misinterpreted my post.

France:
1946-1954 Indochina War
1950-1953 Korean War
1954-1962 Algeria
1956 Attack on Suez Canal(Egypt)
1960 Explodes Nuclear Weapon in the Sahara!
1961 Tunisia
1963 Congo
1964 Gabon
1966 Nuclear Weapons test in the Pacific
1967 Central African Republic
1968 Explodes Thermonuclear Weapon in the Pacific
1968 Chad
1975 Chad
1975-1977 Afars and Issas
1979 Clash with Somali troops
1978 Intervention in Zaire
1978-1983 Interventions in Chad
1984 Permanent force in Chad
1985 Greenpeace ship sunk

UK:
1945-1947 Greece
1945-1965 Aden & Arabia
1948-1960 Malaya
1950-1953 Korea
1952-1956 Kenya
1952-1959 Cyprus
1956 Attack on Suez Canal(Egypt)
1957 Muscat & Oman
1962 Thailand
1963-1965 Malaysia
1964 East Africa
1966 Zambia
1969-1984 Ireland
1982 Falkland Islands


Way to mis the point, youve just google "naughty things/wars non-american countrys have been involved in"
A few are, granted examples of other Countrys involving themselves in others buisness, but i dont see how nuclear tests or sinking a boat meddle in other countrys affairs. Plus quite a lot of the things youve listed there are incorrect for your aparant statements purpose, the Falkland islands for example, Britain has controlled them for years, nobody had prior ownage of the islands, defending it from attack is meddleing in another countrys affairs how?

achived...countrys...Achievements.

...america ...Hiroshima? or prehaps nagasaki? not...Afganistan...


your standard of education is poorer... historys..., im... spoilt shild... countrys... nikes... youve... centurys...

Im... isnt... arent... danceing...

Ill... stirling... ignorece... hasnt... been "higher" for years. Do you know why youve... iraq... im... ignorent...

You've only posted five times thus far. I think you'll make a much better debater if you avoid hypocrisy in your posts. Otherwise, stop posting. Please do not dismiss my country as uneducated when you do not hold a basic grasp of the syntax of the main language of this board. It decreases the strength of your argument by orders of magnitude.

Also, I find it interesting you use the nuclear attacks of WWII instead of the Dresden firebombing. But I'm an ignorant and arrogant American with a low quality of education, so I really shouldn't know that. However, that wasn't really an American event as it was a British/American type of slaughter.

Now, the Tokyo Firebombing, yeah, that was all the good old Uncle Sam there.

Edit: :headbang: You did NOT just use 'ownage' in a serious context.

And are YOU ever going to address it on the "Individual" rather than the "Governmental" level? Or do you only discuss things on the level YOU care to?
Okay, to suit you, I went back and copied your post:

Originally Posted by Urantia II
So my question to you then becomes, how is it YOU feel that YOU can become involved in the internal Politics of OUR Nation in order to try and suit YOUR OWN Countries "wants" on the matter? Isn't it our RIGHT to ACT in our OWN best interest?
Pray tell, how can I become involved your countries internal politics, if I do NOT have a vote?


Edit add: That's why I say it was a rant... You didn't address the actual subject of what you were responding to and rather switched the argument to suit your needs. In my book that's ranting on...
I didn't switch the argument, I refined it.

BTW, if you don't mind me asking, what nation is Urantia II the re-incarnation of? I like to have an idea who I am debating with.

Clearly you have missed the whole point. I suggest you go back to the beginning of the conversation that referred to the meddling in other countries business.

I did not suggest that other countries are innocent of the same tactic. You have misinterpreted my post.

Huh, just as YOU misrepresented mine and have YET to answer the actual question that was asked...

Nice to see that it bothers you like it bothers me!

Regards,
Gaar

I dont represent my countrys levels of education, statistics do. And i was refering to the numbers of people killed by Americans, not the RAF , i think you will find that Hiroshima sports a much higher number of deaths than the Dresden firebombing. May i ask your age? As i myself are only 17 and due to long term illness i have been unable to enjoy the delights of a thorough education, blame that and the fact its 4:04am for my lack of perfectly accurate spelling and grammar.

Pray tell, how can I become involved your countries internal politics, if I do NOT have a vote?

By questioning our vote and calling us stupid for whom we have chosen. I don't do that to you, do I?


I didn't switch the argument, I refined it.

By CHANGING the subject being discussed (the Government versus the individual) you DID switch the discussion, refining it would be like taking it from "theoretical" individuals to us specifically, would it not?

BTW, if you don't mind me asking, what nation is Urantia II the re-incarnation of? I like to have an idea who I am debating with.

None, the name Urantia was already taken and so I added the II. This is my first Nation in the Game.

Regards,
Gaar

I dont represent my countrys levels of education, statistics do. And i was refering to the numbers of people killed by Americans, not the RAF , i think you will find that Hiroshima sports a much higher number of deaths than the Dresden firebombing. May i ask your age? As i myself are only 17 and due to long term illness i have been unable to enjoy the delights of a thorough education, blame that and the fact its 4:04am for my lack of perfectly accurate spelling and grammar.
I'm 20, but I haven't taken a formal English class in over a year. Also, I'm not a doctor but being up until 4:04 in the morning while recovering from long term illness usually isn't a good idea.

Liberal estimates from Dresden say 500,000 dead.
Liberal estimates from the Nuclear bombings say somewhere around 200,000 dead.

Now, let's take half of the dead from Dresden and call it American. Let's take all of the 100,000 from the Tokyo firebombing and call it American. That's 350,000, and considerably larger than the 200,000 from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I dont represent my countrys levels of education, statistics do. And i was refering to the numbers of people killed by Americans, not the RAF , i think you will find that Hiroshima sports a much higher number of deaths than the Dresden firebombing. May i ask your age? As i myself are only 17 and due to long term illness i have been unable to enjoy the delights of a thorough education, blame that and the fact its 4:04am for my lack of perfectly accurate spelling and grammar.

Another uneducated American here.

True. Dresden had about 25000-45000 deaths; less than Nagasaki's 50000-75000 deaths from the A-bomb, which was less than the 100000 killed in the conventional bombing of Tokyo; which is about the same as Hiroshima.

A comparable number of civilians were killed through conventional methods as were killed with the American nukes. Dropping those bombs saved the Allies from an invasion that would have killed a million American soldiers, and killed another 4 million Japanese.
If the war had gone on longer, and forced the Soviets to help, they might have kept any land they'd captured just like they did in Eastern Europe. Dropping those bombs was a good thing.

Liberal estimates from Dresden say 500,000 dead.
...euhmm...?

By questioning our vote and calling us stupid for whom we have chosen. I don't do that to you, do I?
Heck, about half of the posters from the US stated that Bush was the wrong man for the job, and many of us non-Americans kinda joined in the agreement of the statement. I don't know what you would do, because you state that you are new here. I do find that difficult to believe though.

By CHANGING the subject being discussed (the Government versus the individual) you DID switch the discussion, refining it would be like taking it from "theoretical" individuals to us specifically, would it not?
You were trying to add far too much importance to our "involvement" in US politics, and I was trying to point out that US intervention of other governments was far worse.

None, the name Urantia was already taken and so I added the II. This is my first Nation in the Game.
Yeah Urantia would have been my first choice too, but I would never have guessed just how popular it was as a nation. :rolleyes:

All kidding aside, where does the name Urantia come from?

What I find interesting, is that you just had an American discuss their dislike at being a "bully", and you turned it around to suggest that "Europeans refer to the US as a "bully", and then you go further and suggest that Europeans are a "second-rate power". Your debating skills are somewhat anemic to say the least.
I suppose I shouldn't still be surprised when you resort to personal attacks, especially considering who you understudied, but I still am. I suppose hope continues to spring eternal.

I turned nothing around. All I have done is return the discussion to the original topic, which was reasons why so many on here indulge themselves in attacks on America and Americans, one reason for which was loss of position by Europe relative to America.

The precise number of dead is difficult to ascertain and is not known. Earlier reputable estimates varied from 25,000 to more than 60,000, but historians now view around 25,000-35,000 as the likely range[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#fn_Bergander2)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#fn_Evans2) with the latest (1994) research by the Dresden historian Friedrich Reichert pointing toward the lower part of this range.

Thats a very very liberal assesment you have there. But this whole thing was beside the point, i was mearly stating the amout on civilians killed by americans is far, far greater than the amout of american civillians killed in events such as 9/11, Most Americans seem to give this even a disspropourtiante amout of importance. It was a terrible event, and i had someday hoped to

The last full school year i had was in year 5, roughly 9-10 years of age. And im not recovering, its a lifeling thing :(

Way to mis the point, youve just google "naughty things/wars non-american countrys have been involved in"


Actually it's called researching through things called "books".....

One of many you've never read apparently.......... :rolleyes:

Thats a very very liberal assesment you have there. But this whole thing was beside the point, i was mearly stating the amout on civilians killed by americans is far, far greater than the amout of american civillians killed in events such as 9/11, Most Americans seem to give this even a disspropourtiante amout of importance. It was a terrible event, and i had someday hoped to

The last full school year i had was in year 5, roughly 9-10 years of age. And im not recovering, its a lifeling thing :(

The bombings of Dresden and Tokyo occured during wartime. The 9/11 attacks were not. There's over 50 years in between these events. How can you compare them???
If you want to discuss the number of American civilians killed in the Twin Towers compared to the number of Afghani civilians killed, or the number of Iraqi civilians killed, we can do that. At least those are in the same time period.

I suppose I shouldn't still be surprised when you resort to personal attacks, especially considering who you understudied, but I still am. I suppose hope continues to spring eternal.
Ummm and who did I understudy? It is very rare when I crawl down to your level to criticize a poster, but that is all I was doing. You have continually taken pot shots at so many posters on this thread in others, and if you somehow hurt by my insensitive remarks then I do apologize.

I turned nothing around. All I have done is return the discussion to the original topic, which was reasons why so many on here indulge themselves in attacks on America and Americans, one reason for which was loss of position by Europe relative to America.
You still want to make the point that others are anti-American because they are somehow "envious" of your nation and I say that is utter hogwash. I haven't seen anyone who agrees with you on that point in this whole thread, and I addressed that to you in my first post directed to you on this thread.

As yet, you have not given me the decency of a reply, and instead only gave me smart remarks, such as "if it don't fit, don't put dat sucka on". You have no desire for honest debate?

*****************************************************
Although I was a bit reluctant to get into this thread, my head overruled my heart. Right off the bat, I notice that you take a controversial stance, which could be construed as flamebait. Please note that I am NOT anti-American but I am anti-Bush. Also please note that because I am anti-Bush doesn’t mean that I hate the man because I don’t, dislike immensely would be a better choice of words.

I realize that many of the rabid anti-Americans on here are going to post enlightening things like:
Are you trying to imply that anyone that is anti-American is somehow infected with rabies? Minus 1 point for you.

"'Cause Americans are stupid!" or "'Cause you keep attacking other countries!" or "'Cause American soldiers are all trigger-happy!" or similar strangeness.
So if anyone thinks that the US is attacking too many countries, they are somehow “strange” for their beliefs? Minus 1 more point for you.

But I, for one, have been pondering just why so many of the posters on here truly seem to hate America and Americans.
Here I think that you are clearly over stating the truth. While many posters believe that Bush is bad, not too many actually “hate” your country, or “hate” Americans in general. Since you used the word “many”, were you trying to suggest more than half? If you could point me towards any statistic that may validate your claim, then I will concede that point to you. Zero points for this item at this time.

Now you lay out the premise for this thread:

“I, for one, have been pondering just why so many of the posters on here truly seem to hate America and Americans.”

Now if this were an earnest attempt to truly “understand” the other posters, then I would be inclined to give you a point. However, since you have already challenged the mental capacity of these so called posters who you are trying to “understand”, and put them on the defensive, then I will have to suggest Minus 1 more point for you.


Here are some of the reasons I believe thre are so many on here who post knee-jerk anti-Americanism:
Once again, if anyone posts anything that can be construed as anti-American, then their opinion is “knee-jerk”? Minus 1 more point for you.

Well we aren’t even into the meat and potatoes of your post and by my count, you are down 4 points already.

1. We make a good target. Anyone on top in any field of endeavour is automatically highly visible. Attacking them is easy and fun for those with lesser achievements.
Assuming that you are a “target”, and assuming that you are on top in your field of endeavour, that people with “lesser achievements” want to attack you because it is “easy and fun”'? Please spare me. Minus 1 more point for you.

My personal thoughts on this matter. Remove the perceived “target” off your back and get out of Iraq, as soon as is humanly possible. I believe that this attack against Iraq is an absolute failure and makes the region and the world far more dangerous.

2. Differing opinions on the response to 9/11. 9/11 was a wake-up call for America. It was seen as an unwarranted attack on innocent civilians and totally unprovoked. Traditionally, America is quick to respond to this sort of thing ( see Peral Harbor ). Many who post on here apparently agree with the position presented to me by a foreign national almost immediately after 9/11: "Just forget it and move on." This is not the way America responds to attacks on its civilians on its own soil.
Many as in most again? I truly believe that most people around the world were in shock when this tragedy occurred and many supported the retaliatory strikes against Afghanistan, my country and myself included. I think you are being less than honest for suggesting otherwise.

I also believe that the invasion of Iraq, was “an unwarranted attack on innocent civilians and totally unprovoked”. The grandiose “Shock and Awe” campaign that ensued, sickened me. To me, this was no different then the planes that flew into the WTC and Pentagon

3. Envy. Many of the anti_american posters on here are from nations which have been superpowers in the past: Germany, France, Russia, even Great Britain. There is a degree of envy at the impact America and American actions have on their own countries at this point in time, witness the so-called "cultural imperialism" allegations. This is most often used by Germans ( who tried their damndest to conquer the entire world! ), and French ( who managed to reach Moscow before the weather decimated them ). Which is worse, taking over another country by force, or taking over a portion of another country's culture by offering good products and services at a reasonable price?
Do you really think that most people that express anti-American sentiments are envious of your troops dying in the Middle East sandbox? From what I have seen and read, it is the fact that innocent people are dying in an unnecessary war. It is also the fact that many can see an agenda that goes beyond Iraq, into countries such as Iran and North Korea. Many see the possibility of a global conflict that could inadvertently involve the use of nuclear weapons and that this is resulting in a new arms race. To think that it is envy by the other posters speaks to your perceived arrogance. Minus 1 more point for you.

4. Resentment at having America presume to advocate a better form of government ( democracy ) for people who have been unable to attain it for themselves.
Forcing “democracy” on people who have a totally different ideology is arrogant on your part if you believe that is “better” for them. Minus 1 more point for you.

5. Fear that America is finally recognizing that its influence and power are capable of changing the world.
Oh there is fear alright. Fear that the world is a more dangerous place and that US foreign policy could result in a global catastrophe. Proclaiming that the US will use its’ “influence and power” to change the world, without consultation is dictatorial in nature and certainly worthy of being challenged by so called anti-Americans. Since you support this doctrine, Minus 1 more point for you.

I've noted that some on here who claim that America is trying to establish an empire seem to fear that, now that America is hitting her stride, their own country will be somehow "taken over." This despite the fact that America has never kept territory from any of the nations she defeated, other than a few small islands for naval and airforce bases, which were used to defend other nations.
Most imperialistic nations tend to go into other countries, take what they want and when there is nothing left of any significant value, they leave. Now we all know that the US lifeblood is oil, and we also know that the world’s 2nd largest reserves are in Iraq. How convenient is that? And I guess while the US is there, they should build 14 “enduring” military bases (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm). Oh and while you are at it, might as well hijack the Iraqi economy as well through Bremer’s Orders (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2004/0120ambitions.htm).

These are some of the reasons I see for anti-Americansim. This thread is not suppose to be flame-bait, but rather just the perspective of one American on this issue. Please at least try to present your arguments in a calm, logical, reasoned manner, rather than simply saying something along the lines of "America sucks!"
I will agree that some posters are over zealous in their anti-Americanism, but that doesn’t come just from posters outside your country. There are many Americans who totally oppose the direction that America is taking, so even your initial premise is wrong. I do care about America and I do care about this world and if you think this is a “knee-jerk” post than that would be your problem and not mine.

You tend to side with the Bush government right or wrong and you classify anyone who cares to challenge that ideology as being anti-America or anti-American. Perhaps you need to understand why there are so many and try to understand why they feel the way they do, instead of trying to insult their intelligence through the use of threads such as this one?

1. It is very rare when I crawl down to your level to criticize a poster, but that is all I was doing. You have continually taken pot shots at so many posters on this thread in others, and if you somehow hurt by my insensitive remarks then I do apologize.

2. You still want to make the point that others are anti-American because they are somehow "envious" of your nation and I say that is utter hogwash. I haven't seen anyone who agrees with you on that point in this whole thread, and I addressed that to you in my first post directed to you on this thread.

4. You tend to side with the Bush government right or wrong and you classify anyone who cares to challenge that ideology as being anti-America or anti-American. Perhaps you need to understand why there are so many and try to understand why they feel the way they do, instead of trying to insult their intelligence through the use of threads such as this one?
There are so many incorrect, inaccurate and inflammatory statements in this post that it's difficult to even know where to begin.

First, I have deleted all of the insulting "Minus one point for you!" idiocy, because its entire purpose is to be inflammatory. To respond to a few of the allegations you make:

1. The condescending tone of "crawling down to" my level clashes with your attempt to impress others with the false apology. Get real.

2. There have been a number of other posters on this thread who agree with that statement, but you obviously discount their posts for no other reason than that they are just "ignorant, unclutured Americans" and so are unworthy of attention from one so exhaulted.

3. If you had bothered to read posts I have made on General other than those you want to attack, you would realize that I definitely do not "side with the Bush government right or wrong." By cheery-picking only those posts and threads I make which irritate you, you get a very lopsided view of where I stand. And the only person insulting anyone's intelligence right now is you. Your tone is condescending, your demeanor is haughty, your attitude is elitist, and your words are insulting.

There are so many incorrect, inaccurate and inflammatory statements in this post that it's difficult to even know where to begin.

First, I have deleted all of the insulting "Minus one point for you!" idiocy, because its entire purpose is to be inflammatory. To respond to a few of the allegations you make:

1. The condescending tone of "crawling down to" my level clashes with your attempt to impress others with the false apology. Get real.

2. There have been a number of other posters on this thread who agree with that statement, but you obviously discount their posts for no other reason than that they are just "ignorant, unclutured Americans" and so are unworthy of attention from one so exhaulted.

3. If you had bothered to read posts I have made on General other than those you want to attack, you would realize that I definitely do not "side with the Bush government right or wrong." By cheery-picking only those posts and threads I make which irritate you, you get a very lopsided view of where I stand. And the only person insulting anyone's intelligence right now is you. Your tone is condescending, your demeanor is haughty, your attitude is elitist, and your words are insulting.
You can't even make an honest reply. In regards to "inflammatory", that was your intent of this thread from the beginning. You have shown your true colours by lashing out, and by doing so you have missed an opportunity to demonstrate that you truly are but a "humble", "honest" person. You may now move on to the next person that you wish to criticize as "hateful" anti-Americans. :eek:

Heck, about half of the posters from the US stated that Bush was the wrong man for the job, and many of us non-Americans kinda joined in the agreement of the statement. I don't know what you would do, because you state that you are new here. I do find that difficult to believe though.

People from the U.S. are free to complain all they want, it is their internal Politics after all, is it not?

If I saw a couple of Canadians debating their choice for their Leader, I would likely watch intently and MAY ask an occassional question to clarify something I may not understand, but I would never try to suggest to either side that they were right and the other side was wrong, obviously you don't mind doing just that.

You were trying to add far too much importance to our "involvement" in US politics, and I was trying to point out that US intervention of other governments was far worse.

So YOU get to determine a subjects importance to me?

So I guess you missed the point that, I believe you may feel free to criticize the Government we have chosen in any manner you wish, but when you make it a personal thing by questioning the intelligence of those who Elected them you have stepped over a line that you shouldn't cross.

And that you believe it IS ok to personalize the discussion says a bit about you, does it not?


Yeah Urantia would have been my first choice too, but I would never have guessed just how popular it was as a nation. :rolleyes:

All kidding aside, where does the name Urantia come from?

And why is it you believe that this isn't my first Nation? And what would it matter if it wasn't?

Again, this IS the first Nation I have made here, and if you like I can PROVE IT! But I would really like to know why that would be necessary?

Urantia? It would actually be: "The Urantia Book" and it is also known as "The Blue Book". Urantia is the name given in this Book for Earth...

I am surprised it has taken so long for someone to ask...

http://free.hostdepartment.com/F/Fandor/

Regards,
Gaar

Actually it's called researching through things called "books".....
One of many you've never read apparently..........

Once again youve missed the point, you made a list of events, most of which are unconnected with what was said.

And who are you to make personal statements, for your information im a avid reader of both fiction and non-fiction.



The bombings of Dresden and Tokyo occured during wartime. The 9/11 attacks were not. There's over 50 years in between these events. How can you compare them???


So your saying the murder of civilians during times of war in some way doesnt count ? If a hundred people die in 1940 and a hundred now, its still a hundred people, and anyway i wasnt "Comparing" them i was showing an example of the death count. Plus 9/11 was in a war of sorts, your pressuring arab nations and attempting to impose your will over other countrys via the use of threats and military action. You have to understand this :terrorist attacks are a form of warfare, one thats harder to fight against and damages a nation more than a open confilct ever could, it comprimises your feeling of safety, and quesions your goverments ability to deal with these forms of attack.

2. There have been a number of other posters on this thread who agree with that statement, but you obviously discount their posts for no other reason than that they are just "ignorant, unclutured Americans" and so are unworthy of attention from one so exhaulted.
Since you have totally misrepresented what I have actually stated in regards to your Envy clause, I must set the record straight.

No way did I state that Americans are "ignorant or uncultured" or that they were "unworthy of attention". I can speak clearly for myself thanks very much. I do not need you putting words into my dialogue.

In your zeal to condemn me as an anti-American, you probably missed the part where I stated that I was NOT anti-American, just anti-Bush. I have friends in Alabama, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. I have visited the US on many occaisions and I have always enjoyed my visits.

If anyone has taken an "exhaulted" position in this thread, that would be YOU, by suggesting that those that YOU perceive to be anti-Americans are "rabid", that their posts are "knee-jerk", and that they are "envious" of the US. Perhaps it is you that thinks that "anti-Americans" are "ignorant or uncultured"? The other point that clearly does not resonate is that you think that "anti-Americans" are unsympathetic regarding 9/11 and I think that is hogwash.

As far as you are concerned, I am not angry at you and I certainly don't hate you, but I do not respect the manner in which this thread was created.

I hate the America's bastardisation of the english language.
I hate the USA going to war over reasons THEY think is right. Who are you to say what is right or wrong?
I hate the absolute stupidity of most USA people I've met. Out of a few dozen I've met, only 1(one!) has had any sort of intelligence. The rest couldn't spell "Australia" if they had an atlas in front of them.
I hate the USA's superior attitude. You aren't better than the world.
I hate your invasion of cultures. Everything is becoming Americaniz(s)ed.
I hate the PATRIOT act, and everything it stands for.
I hate the way that crime in your cities is portrayed in the media. If it is what it is shown, then I fear that your invasion of my culture will bring about a similar state.
I hate the arrogance you people seem to possess in abundunce.

I know that this doesn't apply to all Americans, but this is what I hate about the USA. I guess you could call me more "Anti-American-Culture/Anti-Bush", but it's still basically the same thing.

What all this boils down to is a Pro-Bush apologist posturing that demonizes each and every dissenting viewpoint no matter how rational and constructed and sources cited they may be.

And the "refutations" basically boil down to disngenuous copout labelings. If you question Bush's policy in Iraq, the Patriot Act and such you're labeled anything from "Unpatriotic" to "Terrorist Sympathizer." Sort of like how anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly swallow Israel's policies like a White House intern is disingenuously labeled an anti-Semite.

Johnny Cochran played the race card less times.

I hate the America's bastardisation of the english language.
I hate the USA going to war over reasons THEY think is right. Who are you to say what is right or wrong?
I hate the absolute stupidity of most USA people I've met. Out of a few dozen I've met, only 1(one!) has had any sort of intelligence. The rest couldn't spell "Australia" if they had an atlas in front of them.
I hate the USA's superior attitude. You aren't better than the world.
I hate your invasion of cultures. Everything is becoming Americaniz(s)ed.
I hate the PATRIOT act, and everything it stands for.
I hate the way that crime in your cities is portrayed in the media. If it is what it is shown, then I fear that your invasion of my culture will bring about a similar state.
I hate the arrogance you people seem to possess in abundunce.

I know that this doesn't apply to all Americans, but this is what I hate about the USA. I guess you could call me more "Anti-American-Culture/Anti-Bush", but it's still basically the same thing.

Can I be the second smart person from the USA?

Agreed on the "Patriot" act. It was intended for good, but it invades people's privacy; eventually it will be turned towards an evil purpose.


What all this boils down to is a Pro-Bush apologist posturing that demonizes each and every dissenting viewpoint no matter how rational and constructed and sources cited they may be.

And the "refutations" basically boil down to disngenuous copout labelings. If you question Bush's policy in Iraq, the Patriot Act and such you're labeled anything from "Unpatriotic" to "Terrorist Sympathizer." Sort of like how anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly swallow Israel's policies like a White House intern is disingenuously labeled an anti-Semite.


Whilst many Americans such as myself are pro-Bush, the people you referred to who started this thread - tain't necessarily so. Some of them REALLY don't like Bush.

There is a big difference between disagreement and demonisation.

I've been following this thread pretty closely... name once when someone was labelled unpatriotic :confused: . And since the thread was aimed at people from other country, why would it matter who was patriotic?

I hate the absolute stupidity of most USA people I've met. Out of a few dozen I've met, only 1(one!) has had any sort of intelligence. The rest couldn't spell "Australia" if they had an atlas in front of them.
You're doing us more harm than good here. :p

You're doing us more harm than good here. :p

At least he spelled Australia right, it would have been kind of funny if he hadn't.

Whilst many Americans such as myself are pro-Bush, the people you referred to who started this thread - tain't necessarily so. Some of them REALLY don't like Bush.

There is a big difference between disagreement and demonisation.

I've been following this thread pretty closely... name once when someone was labelled unpatriotic :confused: . And since the thread was aimed at people from other country, why would it matter who was patriotic?

I said "Anything from Unpatriotic to Terrorist Sympathizer." And unless the specific thread posts are deleted, I don't see why I have to specify the incidents but I do seem to recall where someone asked about if an individual hates America's policies because they lost a relative to American or Israelis troops whereupon Forrest simply dismissed said hypothetical persons as terrorist sympathizers.

There is one reason why i do not like america in general, im sure the people are alright, but you government is just appaling.

You did not see what an amazing president you had with clinton, one of the best you have ever had. And then you put Bush into power.

and then, the single reason why i dislike america, bush decides he is not going to sign the Kyoto Protocol!!!! The worlds largest pollution source just decides it doesnt care about it and decides wealth and industry is a more worthwhile cause than securing the health og the planet!

fools

There is one reason why i do not like america in general, im sure the people are alright, but you government is just appaling.

You did not see what an amazing president you had with clinton, one of the best you have ever had. And then you put Bush into power.

and then, the single reason why i dislike america, bush decides he is not going to sign the Kyoto Protocol!!!! The worlds largest pollution source just decides it doesnt care about it and decides wealth and industry is a more worthwhile cause than securing the health og the planet!

fools

I don't agree with the fact that we didn't sign the Kyoto protocol, but on the other hand, I doubt that any of the other country's signatures on it will do a damn bit of good.

Simply following the protocol isn't going to help the environment unless we can replace all energy production with renewable energy, and make all transportation use clean energy.

And you all know that is the U.S. had signed Kyoto, we would be the only one actually trying to follow the rules. No, this sounds more like "You wouldn't agree with my brilliant idea so there must be something wrong with your country."

There is one reason why i do not like america in general, im sure the people are alright, but you government is just appaling.

You did not see what an amazing president you had with clinton, one of the best you have ever had. And then you put Bush into power.

and then, the single reason why i dislike america, bush decides he is not going to sign the Kyoto Protocol!!!! The worlds largest pollution source just decides it doesnt care about it and decides wealth and industry is a more worthwhile cause than securing the health og the planet!

fools

I live in the US.Everybody I know is really nice. I hate our government and I hate what it is doing. I sincerely believe the US should've signed the Kyoto Protocal. However, I think that everyone "hates" the USA should not judge its people by the actions of the government. I don't think that many people understand how much half of the US hates Bush.

The United States does things overseas and projects military power because it is possible to do so.

The US didn't seem to like what happened in Vietnam - that its ability to project power was stymied by the homefront perception that thousands of American soldiers were dying and nothing was being accomplished.

Over 6000 dead US soldiers per year - and no real effect - so the public says, "Go Home".

Well, every weapon system and every battle tactic since then has been centered around the idea of "No More Vietnam". And by that, they do not mean, "we don't fight insurgents". It means that we find a way to get it done without taking over 6000 dead per year - and we find a way to stabilize a majority of the country.

We're taking a tenth of the casualties we took in Vietnam. That's evidently low enough to avoid the "Vietnam syndrome" where the American public demands that we come home. We also have crippled the insurgency to the point where they can never engage us directly in a fight (the way the Viet Cong could) without having the insurgents (any who are in the fight) being wiped out.

So the US can invade a country which defends itself with modern weapons, and kick its ass in short order, with a very small number of casualties. This is a precedent-setting capability. The US can also suppress an insurgency - not totally make it go away - but certainly minimize its capabilities in ways no other nation can achieve. That is a precedent-setting capability.

No matter who the President is now, the US has these capabilities. And that capability is shared by no other nation on earth. While it would be a good capability for the United Nations to have, the United Nations can't get something like that together. So the rest of the world waits in anxious tension over where and when that capability will be exercised next.

It is a capability that is far more expensive and far more difficult to obtain that developing a nuclear weapon. The ability to use conventional forces to subdue virtually any nation in short order with a minimum of casualties.

That's why people are afraid. You could add that they are not willing to invest the time, the money, the technology, or the people necessary to obtain a similar capability - they would rather try and talk the US out of using this capability to redraw maps and redefine governments. When the US doesn't listen, this makes them upset, because it plays directly on their insecurity - an insecurity which they themselves have decided to have.

an insecurity which they themselves have decided to have.How?

How?

If you see the US developing a capability to wage war at little personal cost to itself (when compared to previous US engagements) - and to effectively win those wars - and you are from a nation that chooses not to develop that capability, that is a real (not perceived) state of insecurity.

It is an insecurity that cannot be ignored.

It puts you into the position of being a beggar. You can only be dependent upon that person's good will to exercise or not exercise that power when you wish. So, if you want the US to use that power at UN behest, you have to beg. And if you want the US to not use that power, you have to beg. Being dependent, all you can offer is your dependentness.

That insecurity hurts your pride - personally - because you know you are a beggar.

The United States does things overseas and projects military power because it is possible to do so.

The US didn't seem to like what happened in Vietnam - that its ability to project power was stymied by the homefront perception that thousands of American soldiers were dying and nothing was being accomplished.

Over 6000 dead US soldiers per year - and no real effect - so the public says, "Go Home".

Well, every weapon system and every battle tactic since then has been centered around the idea of "No More Vietnam". And by that, they do not mean, "we don't fight insurgents". It means that we find a way to get it done without taking over 6000 dead per year - and we find a way to stabilize a majority of the country.

We're taking a tenth of the casualties we took in Vietnam. That's evidently low enough to avoid the "Vietnam syndrome" where the American public demands that we come home. We also have crippled the insurgency to the point where they can never engage us directly in a fight (the way the Viet Cong could) without having the insurgents (any who are in the fight) being wiped out.

So the US can invade a country which defends itself with modern weapons, and kick its ass in short order, with a very small number of casualties. This is a precedent-setting capability. The US can also suppress an insurgency - not totally make it go away - but certainly minimize its capabilities in ways no other nation can achieve. That is a precedent-setting capability.

No matter who the President is now, the US has these capabilities. And that capability is shared by no other nation on earth. While it would be a good capability for the United Nations to have, the United Nations can't get something like that together. So the rest of the world waits in anxious tension over where and when that capability will be exercised next.

It is a capability that is far more expensive and far more difficult to obtain that developing a nuclear weapon. The ability to use conventional forces to subdue virtually any nation in short order with a minimum of casualties.

That's why people are afraid. You could add that they are not willing to invest the time, the money, the technology, or the people necessary to obtain a similar capability - they would rather try and talk the US out of using this capability to redraw maps and redefine governments. When the US doesn't listen, this makes them upset, because it plays directly on their insecurity - an insecurity which they themselves have decided to have.


How rosey are thouse glasses your wearing sunshine, i love your use of the word subdue, and insurgency i love that word how is it any diffrent from partisan or freedom fighter. The reason you where shat on in veitnam was 100% becuase of the terain and that the only deployable ground force where G.I conscripts who dint give a shit, against hard core communist voluteers who by the time the americans arrived where vetrans in infantry tactics.

As for this bit.
So the US can invade a country which defends itself with modern weapons, and kick its ass in short order, with a very small number of casualties.

Define modern weponry, for your latest two conquests afganistan and iraq armed forces pretty much consited of had me down soviet gear and maybe one or two peices of sub standard french equipment now and again, not to mention their armies were 90% conscripts with no combat experience and maybe a small dedicated but equally green leadership cadare, The reason for your so little casulties and lack of counter attacks, where as soon as they heard tanks or anything else as long as they wernt being forced to fight on pain of death, they routed there where prehaps 3 battles in the whole of the iraq war.

you seem to think as prehaps the american millitary does as a whole that as long as you have bigger better guns and a bigger force youll win evey time, and that is why evey time you come agaist a force of however poorly equiped and small a force but a commited one ideolgically you loose and will continue to do so untill you do learn

/army chair general rant over

If you see the US developing a capability to wage war at little personal cost to itself (when compared to previous US engagements) - and to effectively win those wars - and you are from a nation that chooses not to develop that capability, that is a real (not perceived) state of insecurity.

It is an insecurity that cannot be ignored.

It puts you into the position of being a beggar. You can only be dependent upon that person's good will to exercise or not exercise that power when you wish. So, if you want the US to use that power at UN behest, you have to beg. And if you want the US to not use that power, you have to beg. Being dependent, all you can offer is your dependentness.
You become a threat to yourself and to the rest of the world with such weapons.
You just make the world and your nation in partucular less secure and you still have to beg other nations not to use their military capabilities.
Look at the Israel/Palestine conflict. Their military capabilities didn't stop any of them. It just made the conflict more bloody.
Look at Iraq. The simple fact that some paranoid freack thought they were just trying to get weapons lead to a war.

That insecurity hurts your pride - personally - because you know you are a beggar.
I feel ashamed of my nation's nuclear weapons right now.
I didn't feel pride when my nation nuked the pacific 10 years ago to develop such scary weapons.
If my country contributed a little to world peace, there would be a reason to have pride for it. The fact that Chirac stood up to the US in the Iraq war did bring back some little pride in my country, although he did it for the wrong reasons and although he is still a fucking pain in tha ass.
You have to be a fucking brain-washed zombi freack to feel pride in your nation because it has many nuclear weapons. That is partly why many in the world think US citizens are fools (because their zombis are the most vocals)

I feel ashamed of my nation's nuclear weapons right now.
I didn't feel pride when my nation nuked the pacific 10 years ago to develop such scary weapons.
If my country contributed a little to world peace, there would be a reason to have pride for it. The fact that Chirac stood up to the US in the Iraq war did bring back some little pride in my country, although he did it for the wrong reasons and although he is still a fucking pain in tha ass.
You have to be a fucking brain-washed zombi freack to feel pride in your nation because it has many nuclear weapons. That is partly why many in the world think US citizens are fools (because their zombis are the most vocals)

Even you realize that a nuclear weapon you can't use is fairly useless. It's more of a liability than an asset.

Whereas if you can invade at will and do what you want, at least you can do something. You know, like machinegunning citizens of the Ivory Coast so that you can preserve your chocolate supply...

Well, it looks like Chirac likes Condi (even if the rest of the French do not). And it looks like he'll be sending money to help with the occupation of Iraq.

You don't have to be brain washed - you just have to be the primary beneficiary.

You can't even make an honest reply. In regards to "inflammatory", that was your intent of this thread from the beginning. You have shown your true colours by lashing out, and by doing so you have missed an opportunity to demonstrate that you truly are but a "humble", "honest" person. You may now move on to the next person that you wish to criticize as "hateful" anti-Americans. :eek:
What ... EVER! :rolleyes:

I hate the America's bastardisation of the english language.
I hate the USA going to war over reasons THEY think is right. Who are you to say what is right or wrong?
I hate the absolute stupidity of most USA people I've met. Out of a few dozen I've met, only 1(one!) has had any sort of intelligence. The rest couldn't spell "Australia" if they had an atlas in front of them.
I hate the USA's superior attitude. You aren't better than the world.
I hate your invasion of cultures. Everything is becoming Americaniz(s)ed.
I hate the PATRIOT act, and everything it stands for.
I hate the way that crime in your cities is portrayed in the media. If it is what it is shown, then I fear that your invasion of my culture will bring about a similar state.
I hate the arrogance you people seem to possess in abundunce.

I know that this doesn't apply to all Americans, but this is what I hate about the USA. I guess you could call me more "Anti-American-Culture/Anti-Bush", but it's still basically the same thing.
Poor baby. Your heart is just filled with hate, isn't it. Perhaps it's enough to keep you off the streets and out of trouble, but I somehow doubt it.

Poor baby. Your heart is just filled with hate, isn't it. Perhaps it's enough to keep you off the streets and out of trouble, but I somehow doubt it.

Agreed, that poster was just asking for it, but then it does just confirm the view expressed here, many times, that you're just taking on the ones who are easiest to pick off, doesn't it?

How about a proper reply to some of the more literate and sensible objections raised here?

1. The reason you where shat on in veitnam was 100% becuase of the terain and that the only deployable ground force where G.I conscripts who dint give a shit, against hard core communist voluteers who by the time the americans arrived where vetrans in infantry tactics.

2. you seem to think as prehaps the american millitary does as a whole that as long as you have bigger better guns and a bigger force youll win evey time, and that is why evey time you come agaist a force of however poorly equiped and small a force but a commited one ideolgically you loose and will continue to do so untill you do learn
1. Unadulterated bullshit. I was there during both Tet offensives and both the VC and the NVA lost ... big time! Vietnam was won on the ground but lost in the media and in the White House.

2. Well, we've never lost so far. What makes you think we will now?

Agreed, that poster was just asking for it, but then it does just confirm the view expressed here, many times, that you're just taking on the ones who are easiest to pick off, doesn't it?

How about a proper reply to some of the more literate and sensible objections raised here?
Point one out and I'll do my best. Fair enough? :)

I hate the America's bastardisation of the english language.

Well, it isn't the King's English, but we're not the only country that bastardizes a language. If you were a linguist, you would know that this sort of thing happens naturally - it's not as though we did it out of spite.

I hate the USA going to war over reasons THEY think is right. Who are you to say what is right or wrong?

And who are you? Haven't you heard of realpolitik, or have you not attended university yet?

I hate the absolute stupidity of most USA people I've met. Out of a few dozen I've met, only 1(one!) has had any sort of intelligence. The rest couldn't spell "Australia" if they had an atlas in front of them.

I have the impression your sample is not the same as mine. Most of the Americans I know personally are highly educated and intelligent.

I hate the USA's superior attitude. You aren't better than the world.

Most nations have some attitude of superiority. And I don't say we're better than the rest of the world. We're just better than the people who fly hijacked civilian airliners into buildings full of non-combatants with the express purpose of killing as many non-combatants as possible.

I hate your invasion of cultures. Everything is becoming Americaniz(s)ed.

No one is forcing your people to go to McDonald's at gunpoint. If you don't like it, don't buy it. You don't have to go to a single American-made movie, or buy any American cultural artifact - or eat another bite of Pizza Hut pizza. Last I checked, even in occupied Iraq, we don't point guns at people and force them to eat Kentucky Fried Chicken.

So if you watch Baywatch, it's not our fault. You could change the channel, you know.

I hate the PATRIOT act, and everything it stands for.

Good thing you don't live here, then.

I hate the way that crime in your cities is portrayed in the media. If it is what it is shown, then I fear that your invasion of my culture will bring about a similar state.

Actually, violent crime is at a historic low in the US - you really shouldn't believe everything you see on TV or read in the newspaper. Statistics show that especially if you live in a state where concealed carry of firearms is allowed, you will experience an even lower violent crime rate. My jurisdiction is just such a place - we're at an incredible low - and it feels very safe here.

I hate the arrogance you people seem to possess in abundunce.

Arrogance is not something that's confined to Americans. I've seen plenty of people from other countries on this forum who are more arrogant than anyone I've ever met in my entire life.

Even you realize that a nuclear weapon you can't use is fairly useless. It's more of a liability than an asset.The big problem I have with those weapons is that they can be used.

Whereas if you can invade at will and do what you want, at least you can do something. You know, like machinegunning citizens of the Ivory Coast so that you can preserve your chocolate supply...

Well, it looks like Chirac likes Condi (even if the rest of the French do not). And it looks like he'll be sending money to help with the occupation of Iraq.

You don't have to be brain washed - you just have to be the primary beneficiary.And I should be proud of that? Man sorry but I'm not that brain-washed. I know about the colonization and all that and there is no way I will condone this. I spit on Chirac and Condi.

And after reading your posts, I have to say you are a fool to condone realpolitik.

It's not a matter of condoning it.

Realpolitik explains everything.

As to whether or not it is moral, or legal, or appeals to any high-minded notions, those concepts are irrelevant in the decision-making of any nation.

Nations do not act in any way other than according to realpolitik (well, maybe not the French, who seem to have surrendered rather than fight for their national interest when invaded).

You can't force nations to act constantly against their own self-interest any more than you can force a man to be a Communist against his will. Still don't remember the fall of the Soviet Union, do you?

Point one out and I'll do my best. Fair enough? :)

My goodness, what a change about :)

well let's start here then:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8379652#post8379652

It's not a matter of condoning it.

Realpolitik explains everything.

As to whether or not it is moral, or legal, or appeals to any high-minded notions, those concepts are irrelevant in the decision-making of any nation.

Nations do not act in any way other than according to realpolitik (well, maybe not the French, who seem to have surrendered rather than fight for their national interest when invaded).

You can't force nations to act constantly against their own self-interest any more than you can force a man to be a Communist against his will. Still don't remember the fall of the Soviet Union, do you?
People partly follow what their self interest are, or what they think their self interest are and partly follow their instinct.
I don't think my self interest is served by gunning innocent people down. Those who think that are uneducated fools who will pay their faults in the long run. I just wish they could see that. Unfortunately too many people have their eyes closed.
Another thing many people don't see is that national interest is not the same as individual interest.

I realize that many of the rabid anti-Americans on here are going to post enlightening things like: "'Cause Americans are stupid!" or "'Cause you keep attacking other countries!" or "'Cause American soldiers are all trigger-happy!" or similar strangeness. But I, for one, have been pondering just why so many of the posters on here truly seem to hate America and Americans.

Here are some of the reasons I believe there are so many on here who post knee-jerk anti-Americanism:

1. We make a good target. Anyone on top in any field of endeavour is automatically highly visible. Attacking them is easy and fun for those with lesser achievements.

2. Differing opinions on the response to 9/11. 9/11 was a wake-up call for America. It was seen as an unwarranted attack on innocent civilians and totally unprovoked. Traditionally, America is quick to respond to this sort of thing ( see Pearl Harbor ). Many who post on here apparently agree with the position presented to me by a foreign national almost immediately after 9/11: "Just forget it and move on." This is not the way America responds to attacks on its civilians on its own soil.

3. Envy. Many of the anti_american posters on here are from nations which have been superpowers in the past: Germany, France, Russia, even Great Britain. There is a degree of envy at the impact America and American actions have on their own countries at this point in time, witness the so-called "cultural imperialism" allegations. This is most often used by Germans ( who tried their damndest to conquer the entire world! ), and French ( who managed to reach Moscow before the weather decimated them ). Which is worse, taking over another country by force, or taking over a portion of another country's culture by offering good products and services at a reasonable price?

4. Resentment at having America presume to advocate a better form of government ( democracy ) for people who have been unable to attain it for themselves.

5. Fear that America is finally recognizing that its influence and power are capable of changing the world. I've noted that some on here who claim that America is trying to establish an empire seem to fear that, now that America is hitting her stride, their own country will be somehow "taken over." This despite the fact that America has never kept territory from any of the nations she defeated, other than a few small islands for naval and airforce bases, which were used to defend other nations.

Another poster ( The Alma Mater ) referred me to an article about the current differences between how Americans view the world and how Europeans view the world. I highly recommend it, since it goes a long way toward explaining these differing world views: http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html

These are some of the reasons I see for anti-Americansim. This thread is not suppose to be flame-bait, but rather just the perspective of one American on this issue. Please at least try to present your arguments in a calm, logical, reasoned manner, rather than simply saying something along the lines of "America sucks!"


Another 'oh stop being mean to us' thread. It's your governmental policies people aren't fond of. If you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen
The answer is simple..you can not spell, please end your love affair with ize and you will be

No one is forcing your people to go to McDonald's at gunpoint. If you don't like it, don't buy it. You don't have to go to a single American-made movie, or buy any American cultural artifact - or eat another bite of Pizza Hut pizza. Last I checked, even in occupied Iraq, we don't point guns at people and force them to eat Kentucky Fried Chicken.



One of the things that a lot of people are missing out here is that some products are foisted upon countries whether they like it or not and they don't get the choice to not use them. As an example, in Iraq, if you want to buy new seed stock (say if you were a farmer) your choices are legally limited to seed stock supplied by certain large US agro-chemical companies now, which must also be used in conjunction with their chemicals.

This is another way of holding a country to ransom, the people don't have a choice, because if they don't buy them they only get to not grow crops and thus to starve.

Incidentally these seed stocks produce plants which can't be properly bred to produce more healthy seed stock, so they have to buy more each year, keeping people dependent upon the suppliers.

I'm at work now, don't have much time left at the moment to find the links to prove this... but believe me I will later. If anybody else can be bothered, please do.

1. True, but that's not why I - or many of the people that I know - dislike America.

2. So you respond to it by attcking Iraq, which couldn't target America and wasn't part of 9/11? That's a bit like getting angry because your boss sacked you, doing something to you boss, and then going after other bosses.

3. Normally envy would come from those who remember a time in which the opposite was so. I was not alive when Britain was a super-power, nor are many at all today. That doesn't quite work. I don't mind America's culture in Britain, I do mind it attacking countries that haven't caused it any harm.

4. Really? America is a constitutional republic rather than a true democracy. And I'm fine with my nation's government type, I'm really not jealous of a democracy.

5. Yes, you are capable of changing the world, because you're the only real super-power at the moment. As such, you have the potential to do great or terrible things. Invading countries so as to forcefully impose democracy does, believe it or not, attract a certain amount of anger from many people affected. If there are any more Iraqs, the western world may well suffer more terrorism. This puts the UK at risk as well as the US.

6. The article concludes in basically saying that the US need not be constrained by Europe as it can do what it wants, and should do such to protect the modern world. If 'protecting the modern world' amounts to attacking something that poses no threat to you, then it's hardly protection, is it? In a modern world, not everything is done through war. 'Protecting the modern world' does not require invading other nations, posing a threat or not. There are other forms of diplomacy. But the views in this article state that Europe should build up its military (as if Europe is one big nation...it's not.) to help America protect 'the modern world'. Why? For a start, we're hardly under threat from invasion, more from terrorism, and you can't vanquish that by conquering a nation. All invading places might do is create more anger among terrorists. One thing that the article is right about is that the US seems 'mired in history'. Diplomacy in the real civilised world is not declaring war. Perhaps war gets things done easier, but it just creates even more to sort out. Diplomacy is 'negotiating alliances, treaties, and agreements', and 'Tact and skill in dealing with people', 'subtly skillful handling of a situation' and 'wisdom in the management of public affairs'. Declaring war does not count for any of the above. Why should we build up a military for diplomacy - diplomacy as war has ended over here.
1. Good. I never stated that "all" those who hate America did so for any of the reasons cited, only that those were some of the reasons I thought they did so.

2. Intelligence is a chancy thing at best. The best intel we had at the time indicated that Saddam had WMB and the will to use them against the US. The military action against Saddam operated under the rubric of "better safe than sorry." The possibility of the use of WMD against the US was horrific enough sufficient to justify military action. Subsequent events proved that the introduction of democracy into the Middle East had a "reverse domino effect," leading to a number of Mid-East nations leaning more toward democracy than ever before.

3. Better to head off probable attacks than wait for thousands more innocent civilians to die.

Envy, resentment and other emotions are not limited to one person or groups of people. Parents and grandparents pass on attitudes and mind-sets to children. The point is that former glory is collectively missed and it's relatively easy to envy those who take the place of formerly powerful nations.

4. Good for you. I don't recall making the point that all nations should have a democratic form of government, only that the people should be given a voice in the type and and actions of their government.

5. And you don't think this is the proper course of action? Sounds a bit like Neville Chamberlain redoux ... "Peace in our time" translates to "Peace for us and everyone else can continue to suffer."

6. Which is one of the primary points the article makes: that the approach Europe advocates involves non-confrontive techniques ( largely because Europe has relied upon the US for protection and has allowed its military capabilities to atrophy ), and that it falls to the US, as the premier military power in the world, to provide the "protective cover" necessary to allow Europe to continue to focus on things other than projection of force.

One of the things that a lot of people are missing out here is that some products are foisted upon countries whether they like it or not and they don't get the choice to not use them. As an example, in Iraq, if you want to buy new seed stock (say if you were a farmer) your choices are legally limited to seed stock supplied by certain large US agro-chemical companies now, which must also be used in conjunction with their chemicals.

This is another way of holding a country to ransom, the people don't have a choice, because if they don't buy them they only get to not grow crops and thus to starve.

Incidentally these seed stocks produce plants which can't be properly bred to produce more healthy seed stock, so they have to buy more each year, keeping people dependent upon the suppliers.

I'm at work now, don't have much time left at the moment to find the links to prove this... but believe me I will later. If anybody else can be bothered, please do.
So you're alleging that the US forces farmers to buy seed only from American companies??? I don't believe this. You need to proved sources for this, please.

Another 'oh stop being mean to us' thread. It's your governmental policies people aren't fond of. If you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen
The answer is simple..you can not spell, please end your love affair with ize and you will be
Huh? Do try to finish your posts and have them make a bit more sense, please.

I hate the America's bastardisation of the english language.

But but, I presume, Yorkshire's bastardisation of the English language? Or Scotland's? Or Ireland's? Last time I checked, you see, language evolved on more levels than simply national ones, and for more reasons than to piss off England. It is not ok if an American would spell 'Color' instead of 'colour', but it is fine for us Brits to change 'Aluminum' (Discovered and named in America) to 'Aluminium'? Language changes and evolves, always has, always will. Suck it up and move on to more important things.

I hate the USA going to war over reasons THEY think is right. Who are you to say what is right or wrong?

And by that same logic, who are you to say they are right or wrong?

I hate the absolute stupidity of most USA people I've met. Out of a few dozen I've met, only 1(one!) has had any sort of intelligence. The rest couldn't spell "Australia" if they had an atlas in front of them.

Haaaa, ha ha ha ha! Nice one, I thought you were serious for a moment. Ok, listen, go out in Britain's streets and try and find intelligence there. I bet the rate here is much lower than your '1-in-12 Americans are smart' ratio (Most of the ones I've met are pretty intelligent, not to mention their school system kicks the shit out of England's.).

I hate the USA's superior attitude. You aren't better than the world.

Better is subjective. I happen to love it over in the States. Ergo, for me, America is 'best' - which will quite obviously come through in how I act and talk about America.

I hate your invasion of cultures. Everything is becoming Americaniz(s)ed.

Through the acceptance, choice, and even requests of the nations who are submitting to Americanization. As has infinitly been pointed out, nobody makes people go to McDonald's - there are a half dozen local food places within five or ten minutes walk of the McD's in my town.

I hate the PATRIOT act, and everything it stands for.

Actually, I would agree with you on this, I'm not a fan of the PATRIOT act, but I can see the reasoning behind it.

I hate the way that crime in your cities is portrayed in the media. If it is what it is shown, then I fear that your invasion of my culture will bring about a similar state.

Come back when you believe books, scientists, and statistical evidence instead of what the liberal, anti-American media says. And again, this is not an invasion of force. If you want to 'resist America', just buy local.

I hate the arrogance you people seem to possess in abundunce.

Maybe the arrogance comes from the fact that in a little over 200 years America became the most powerful, wealthiest, prosperous nation on Earth?* Seems to me like that's a hell of an achievement, especially given the comparative decline of the old world powers; Britain, France, and so forth.

* I would note that none of these are subjective points to make. It's the richest, it's the most powerful now that the Soviets have fallen and until China catches up, that's how it is staying. Standard of life in the USA is higher than anywhere else in the world based on pretty much ever quotient there is to decide. Higher income, more products, etc. etc.

My goodness, what a change about :)

well let's start here then:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8379652#post8379652
Happy now? :)

Even you realize that a nuclear weapon you can't use is fairly useless. It's more of a liability than an asset.French Nukes are useless?

They are the ultimate reason why the US will never consider attacking France.
They are the ultimate reason why the US will never consider attacking France Neigbors.
They are the ultimate reason why the EU will break free from NATO.

The USA can complain all they want...
if France chooses to sell Military Tech to China or Iran...there is not stopping the "cheese eating surrender monkies"..

Not as long as they have the power to smack us in the mouth...not as long as they can kill 100million of US.

French jokes are ez(surrender/whiteFlags/armpits)...even I do it some times :D

Talk is cheap...but France is not Iraq or Iran, Its not Even China...we cant impose our will on them.

the French Nukes are not useless.
They are dangerous, they can kill millions, and lay radioactive waste...they are the ultimate deterrent against the Bushios...

They are not useless.

But but, I presume, Yorkshire's bastardisation of the English language? Or Scotland's? Or Ireland's? Last time I checked, you see, language evolved on more levels than simply national ones, and for more reasons than to piss off England. It is not ok if an American would spell 'Color' instead of 'colour', but it is fine for us Brits to change 'Aluminum' (Discovered and named in America) to 'Aluminium'? Language changes and evolves, always has, always will. Suck it up and move on to more important things.
The latin base for many elements is -ium. Thus, in fact, the Americans (Charles Martin Hall specifically) misspelled the element in a handbill.

Read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martin_Hall

and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium


Americans are just about the only ones spelling it Aluminum ;)

Happy now? :)


Surprisingly, more than I expected to be. :D

I still think your reasoning and arguments stink, but at least you've put a bit of effort into it, for once.


As to the holding of the Iraqis to economic ransom:

This was done by Paul Bremer via Iraqi order 81 which you'll find upon this page. (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/) which is the official Iraqi Coalition website.


More details of the effects are here (https://www4.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/01/304431.html)
--------------------------------------------------------------

"Iraq: Order 81
Keith Parkins | 27.01.2005 15:55 | Ecology | Repression | Social Struggles

As part of the systematic corporate looting of Iraq, the US is now about to destroy Iraq's agriculture, and in doing so, will destroy a heritage going back at least 10,000 years.


'What America has done is not restructure Iraq's agriculture, but dismantle it. The people whose forefathers first mastered the domestication of wheat will now have to pay for the privilege of growing it for someone else. And with that, the world's oldest farming heritage will become just another subsidiary link in the vast American supply chain.' -- Jeremy Smith

Following the illegal occupation of Iraq, the country was systematically looted.

Shortly after the occupation, George W Bush signed an executive order indemnifying the corporate looters from prosecution.

It is the responsibility of an occupying power to protect the assets of the occupied country. To systematically loot a country constitutes a war crime.

Last year, two females hijacked a conference in London where the spoils of Iraq were to be shared out. They were charged with 'aggravated trespass'. The case was quickly dropped when the government realised war crimes would be aired in court.

An example of the looting of the country is Order 81.

Paul Bremer, former US Iraqi viceroy, signed a number of Orders, that amongst other things, handed the assets of Iraq to US corporations. Order 81 was one such order.

Iraq is the cradle of civilisation. The fertile crescent of ancient Mesopotamia was the world's first wheat belt.

Agriculture is not exempt from the corporate looting of Iraq.

The agricultural sector is to be restructured. Agriculture will be orientated towards world trade, growing food for US corporations, buying inputs from US corporations.

Iraq first cultivated wheat thousands of years ago. Farmers swap their seeds, select out the best varieties suited to their growing conditions. They have done so for generations.

Iraq is so important for wheat, that it had its own seed banks at Abu Ghraib. So important was Abu Ghraib, that a wheat variety was named after the place. Now Abu Ghraib is notorious as the place where the US tortures and humiliates prisoners.

The seed banks at Abu Ghraib have been destroyed. Seeds could be sourced from secondary seed banks in Syria, but these seeds will not be used.

Instead, the US will dictate what varieties of wheat are grown. The US knows best. Under the guise of 'aid', it is 'educating' farmers in what seeds to sow. 10,000 years of seed selection, and the Yankee Imperialists know best.

US corporations will license seeds to farmers.

50% of the wheat grown will be a variety used for pasta. Pasta? Iraqis don't eat pasta. Either it is for export, or the US troops are in for a very long occupation.

Order 81, protects plant patents, intellectual property rights. That is it will protect the rights of US corporations, but not the rights of Iraqi farmers who have been selecting seeds for generations.

As with Percy Schmeiser in Canada, should farmers find their crops have been contaminated with alien genes, then like Percy, they will be prosecuted for theft of intellectual property rights. They may even be prosecuted if their crops have the same characteristics as crops 'owned' by US corporations."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are lot more examples of this and some of them may be better written, this is literally the first that I've found as I prepare to leave work to go home...

here's another one:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/02/1721859.php

and here's another:

http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=7653

Now please don't try and tell me that they have a choice to not buy...

They are the ultimate reason why the US will never consider attacking France.
They are the ultimate reason why the US will never consider attacking France Neigbors.
They are the ultimate reason why the EU will break free from NATO.

Not as long as they have the power to smack us in the mouth...not as long as they can kill 100million of US.

the French Nukes are not useless.
They are dangerous, they can kill millions, and lay radioactive waste...they are the ultimate deterrent against the Bushios...
Please tell me this is some sort of sick joke. Plese tell me you don't really believe that any US administration would seriously advocate an attack of any kind against France.

French Nukes are useless?

They are the ultimate reason why the US will never consider attacking France.
They are the ultimate reason why the US will never consider attacking France Neigbors.
They are the ultimate reason why the EU will break free from NATO.

The USA can complain all they want...
if France chooses to sell Military Tech to China or Iran...there is not stopping the "cheese eating surrender monkies"..

Not as long as they have the power to smack us in the mouth...not as long as they can kill 100million of US.

French jokes are ez(surrender/whiteFlags/armpits)...even I do it some times :D

Talk is cheap...but France is not Iraq or Iran, Its not Even China...we cant impose our will on them.

the French Nukes are not useless.
They are dangerous, they can kill millions, and lay radioactive waste...they are the ultimate deterrent against the Bushios...

They are not useless.
not to rain on your parade, but i don't think France's nukes have anything at all to do with the US's likelihood of attacking Europe. the reasons why the US won't attack France or its neighbors have pretty much nothing whatsoever to do with France's nuclear capabilities, and everything to do with the economic and political alliances that would make such an attack extremely unfavorable for the US.

not to rain on your parade, but i don't think France's nukes have anything at all to do with the US's likelihood of attacking Europe. the reasons why the US won't attack France or its neighbors have pretty much nothing whatsoever to do with France's nuclear capabilities, and everything to do with the economic and political alliances that would make such an attack extremely unfavorable for the US.
What about North Korea then?

What about North Korea then?
I strongly suspect that China will eventually take care of N. Korea. China is all about trade and business these days and having a "friend" like N. Korea isn't really condusive to that.

What about North Korea then?

The nuclear weapons that North Korea has would not stop an attack on North Korea by the US.

1. How do you suppose that what amounts to a tactical yield weapon would have a strategic effect on the US?
(None, unless delivered to a major US city).
2. How many do you think they have? (Less than six).
3. How do you think they could be employed in a theater tactical sense against US forces? (at random, since they would not have accurate targeting information).
4. How many of the six do you think could get past the PAC-3 and SM-3 systems currently in place? (None).
5. On the off chance that North Korea successfully detonated a low yield atomic bomb on US forces, what do you think the immediate US response would be (OPLAN calls for at least fifty nuclear strikes on North Korea).
6. Do you think this would stop the US from being successful in defeating North Korea? (No, not at all).

Next!

French Nukes are useless?

Yes.
They are the ultimate reason why the US will never consider attacking France.

Bullshit.

They are the ultimate reason why the US will never consider attacking France Neigbors.

More bullshit.

They are the ultimate reason why the EU will break free from NATO.

Won't happen - NATO is the most effective international organization on the planet. Do you see NATO coming apart right now? Or are NATO nations now cooperating on the occupation of Iraq? More than the UN? Yes! NATO is alive and well.

The USA can complain all they want...
if France chooses to sell Military Tech to China or Iran...there is not stopping the "cheese eating surrender monkies"..

Well, not one bit of that military tech is worth the money they spend on it - and people in the international arms markets are complaining about how worthless French radar is. French subs are the joke of the oceans - the only thing noisier than a French submarine is a Canadian one on fire.

Not as long as they have the power to smack us in the mouth...not as long as they can kill 100million of US.

Hate to tell you, but most of the French nuclear force can't reach the US.
On September 16, 1996, France's 18 S3D intermediate-range missiles on the Plateau d'Albion were deactivated. Two years and $77.5 million later, the silos and complex were fully dismantled.

So there are no land based French nuclear missiles.

France has approximately 45 aircraft deliverable nuclear weapons, of which the French admit that 15 are on board their aircraft carriers.

It is a moot point - none of the aircraft would reach the US, and indeed, the carriers would be sunk easily by US Naval forces before they could get within range of the US. The French Navy is a joke compared to the US Navy.

That leaves sub-launched ballistic missiles. There are a total of four subs, each with 16 missiles, but due to operational constraints, only one or two is manned and operational at any one time. The ones left in port would be easily destroyed (their missiles could not reach the US from France), and the ones at sea rank among the noisiest subs in the ocean - and the US Navy is the deadliest anti-submarine warfare force on earth.

They are dangerous, they can kill millions, and lay radioactive waste...they are the ultimate deterrent against the Bushios...

They are not useless.

Keep dreaming. France knows that their force is useless against the United States.

I seem to recall a recent remark by a French diplomat who noted that no force France could muster could stop or delay any military action that the United States may wish to do in the world today.

Ermm.....

WHAT DO NUKES HAVE TO DO WITH PEOPLE HATING AMERICA?!!?!?

Sorry.... just getting us back to the point. :)

...and everything to do with the economic and political alliances that would make such an attack extremely unfavorable for the US.Countries in Europe were relyin in "economic and political alliances" and did not see WWI coming...

Unlikely? yes Very Unlikely. very very.

Impossible? I dont think so...
And whoever decided to spen billions...to get the French Nuk-lear Program started...did not think so either

...he did not fully trust the USA to give France all the needed political Independence.

Well, not one bit of that military tech is worth the money they spend on it - and people in the international arms markets are complaining about how worthless French radar is. French subs are the joke of the oceans - the only thing noisier than a French submarine is a Canadian one on fire.
Wouldn't it be a good thing the Chinese bought those from the French then?

Countries in Europe were relyin in "economic and political alliances" and did not see WWI coming...

Unlikely? yes Very Unlikely. very very.

Impossible? I dont think so...
And whoever decided to spen billions...to get the French Nuk-lear Program started...did not think so either

...he did not fully trust the USA to give France all the needed political Independence.

I guess that's why the French Nuclear force is so short-ranged - useful mostly against other European nations.

I guess that's why the French Nuclear force is so short-ranged - useful mostly against other European nations.
They're still afraid of Germany, perhaps rightfully so. I mean, twice in one generation is more than enough, yes?

They're still afraid of Germany, perhaps rightfully so.
Rightfully so? And you complain about people voicing their dislike about your country while dishing out underhanded bashing yourself? :rolleyes:

Surprisingly, more than I expected to be. :D

I still think your reasoning and arguments stink, but at least you've put a bit of effort into it, for once.


As to the holding of the Iraqis to economic ransom:

This was done by Paul Bremer via Iraqi order 81 which you'll find upon this page. (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/) which is the official Iraqi Coalition website.


More details of the effects are here (https://www4.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/01/304431.html)
--------------------------------------------------------------

"Iraq: Order 81
Keith Parkins | 27.01.2005 15:55 | Ecology | Repression | Social Struggles

As part of the systematic corporate looting of Iraq, the US is now about to destroy Iraq's agriculture, and in doing so, will destroy a heritage going back at least 10,000 years.


'What America has done is not restructure Iraq's agriculture, but dismantle it. The people whose forefathers first mastered the domestication of wheat will now have to pay for the privilege of growing it for someone else. And with that, the world's oldest farming heritage will become just another subsidiary link in the vast American supply chain.' -- Jeremy Smith

Following the illegal occupation of Iraq, the country was systematically looted.

Shortly after the occupation, George W Bush signed an executive order indemnifying the corporate looters from prosecution.

It is the responsibility of an occupying power to protect the assets of the occupied country. To systematically loot a country constitutes a war crime.

Last year, two females hijacked a conference in London where the spoils of Iraq were to be shared out. They were charged with 'aggravated trespass'. The case was quickly dropped when the government realised war crimes would be aired in court.

An example of the looting of the country is Order 81.

Paul Bremer, former US Iraqi viceroy, signed a number of Orders, that amongst other things, handed the assets of Iraq to US corporations. Order 81 was one such order.

Iraq is the cradle of civilisation. The fertile crescent of ancient Mesopotamia was the world's first wheat belt.

Agriculture is not exempt from the corporate looting of Iraq.

The agricultural sector is to be restructured. Agriculture will be orientated towards world trade, growing food for US corporations, buying inputs from US corporations.

Iraq first cultivated wheat thousands of years ago. Farmers swap their seeds, select out the best varieties suited to their growing conditions. They have done so for generations.

Iraq is so important for wheat, that it had its own seed banks at Abu Ghraib. So important was Abu Ghraib, that a wheat variety was named after the place. Now Abu Ghraib is notorious as the place where the US tortures and humiliates prisoners.

The seed banks at Abu Ghraib have been destroyed. Seeds could be sourced from secondary seed banks in Syria, but these seeds will not be used.

Instead, the US will dictate what varieties of wheat are grown. The US knows best. Under the guise of 'aid', it is 'educating' farmers in what seeds to sow. 10,000 years of seed selection, and the Yankee Imperialists know best.

US corporations will license seeds to farmers.

50% of the wheat grown will be a variety used for pasta. Pasta? Iraqis don't eat pasta. Either it is for export, or the US troops are in for a very long occupation.

Order 81, protects plant patents, intellectual property rights. That is it will protect the rights of US corporations, but not the rights of Iraqi farmers who have been selecting seeds for generations.

As with Percy Schmeiser in Canada, should farmers find their crops have been contaminated with alien genes, then like Percy, they will be prosecuted for theft of intellectual property rights. They may even be prosecuted if their crops have the same characteristics as crops 'owned' by US corporations."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are lot more examples of this and some of them may be better written, this is literally the first that I've found as I prepare to leave work to go home...

here's another one:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/02/1721859.php

and here's another:

http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=7653

Now please don't try and tell me that they have a choice to not buy...
Yeah, good old Bremer's Orders......the hijacking of the Iraqi economy. Long live "democracy"?

COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY ORDER NUMBER 81
PATENT, INDUSTRIAL DESIGN, UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION,
INTEGRATED CIRCUITS AND PLANT VARIETY LAW (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20040426_CPAORD_81_Patents_Law.pdf)

For the rest of Bremer's Orders, you can find them here:

http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/index.html#Regulations

Check out # 39:
COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY ORDER NUMBER 39
FOREIGN INVESTMENT (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20031220_CPAORD_39_Foreign_Investment_.pdf)

And # 94:

COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY ORDER NUMBER 94
BANKING LAW OF 2004 (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20040607_CPAORD94_Banking_Law_of_2004_with_Annex_A.pdf)

The US occupation/takeover of Iraq is not only a military one but an economic one.

I guess that's why the French Nuclear force is so short-ranged - useful mostly against other European nations.
I say you dont know what you are talking about.

call it ...instinct.

They're still afraid of Germany, perhaps rightfully so. I mean, twice in one generation is more than enough, yes?
so you also think French Nukes are short Ranged?

so you also think French Nukes are short Ranged?
650km, 2,500km for all aircraft delivered French nukes.

4500 to 6000km for sub launched missiles (but, as I said, there's only one sub operating at time with 16 missiles).

So, out of the 350 warheads the French have, almost none of them can reach the US.

I dont think people do attack America and Americans on here. What they attack are stupid, badly spelt, unthoughtout and unsubstantiated pieces of flag waving rubbish like this -) http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=403353

I dont think people do attack America and Americans on here. What they attack are stupid, badly spelt, unthoughtout and unsubstantiated pieces of flag waving rubbish like this -) http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=403353
That's not rubbish, that's flamebait, and some of you guys took it hook, line, and sinker. Well, I guess it is rubbish, but it's not rubbish in the sense you appear to have implied.

I've lost count of times that individuals have come on here and called Americans 'arrogant and ignorant.' I can't count on my two hands the amount of times people have said that the US needs to get nuked or otherwise attacked. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside when I know that reading my history book and keeping abreast on current events does me not a bit of good because there are some prolific posters on this board who will invalidate anything I say simply because of where I'm from. Better yet, there are some real winners on this board that think I or some of my countrymen should die just because of where we are born. Now THAT is rubbish, sir.

Rightfully so? And you complain about people voicing their dislike about your country while dishing out underhanded bashing yourself? :rolleyes:
You missed the point. I was trying to point out that France, having been twice attacked by Germany within one generation, might be expected to be a bit leery of having it happen again.

Yes.
Well, not one bit of that military tech is worth the money they spend on it - and people in the international arms markets are complaining about how worthless French radar is. French subs are the joke of the oceans - the only thing noisier than a French submarine is a Canadian one on fire.



Very good joke :p I find it a good one.
But it is a joke of a uninformed person about the military. Informed people know what the quality is, and sorry, the US is not dominating the armsmarket on all fronts with quality, there are lots of products in wich EU arms outclasses US products (best tank is the Leopard2 A6 for example, even the US is on his knees to buy the canon and place it in the latest version of Abrahams 2) aso with lots of other stuff from small arms till heavy machineguns and rocketsystems. Ever heard of the "minimi", a EU product, seen daily on the Iraqi front used by the US, same goes with lots of products of FN, Sig Sauer aso.

Well I just "googled" a bit ... look here for more information :

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/france/ (browse the different sections)

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/France/FranceArsenalRecent.html

http://www.netmarine.net/forces/fost/index.htm

http://www.netmarine.net/armes/msbs/

http://www.netmarine.net/forces/fost/index.htm

http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr/brp/notices/004001630.shtml

http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr/dossier_international/nucleaire/index.shtml


Today their nuclear arsenal is composed of a :

1) naval element with 5 submarines :

- 2 older ones :
Indomptable (1976)
Inflexible (1985)
armed with 16 M4 missiles, each with 6 TN71 warheads of 150 kt, 5000 km range

- 3 new generation ones and 1 in construction :
Triomphant (1997)
Téméraire (1999)
Vigilant (2004)
Terrible (2010)
for the moment armed with 16 M45 missiles, each with 6 TN75 warheads of 150 kt, 6000 km range
In the next years the new M51 missile will enter in service : 6 very stealth TN75 warheads of 150 kt, 8000 km range

2) aerial component with Mirage 2000N (air force) and Super Etendard (navy) aircrafts that are replaced by Rafale aircrafts now.
They fire the ASMP missile : 1x TN81 warhead of 300kt, 300km range. The missile will be replaced by the ASMP-A missile of 500km range in 2007. We have around 150 of these missiles. The aircrafts are supported by C-135 tankers.

The former ground based components were all disbanded :
- about 40 silo-based missile (S4 missiles, 3500-4000km range with 3 TN35 warheads of 20 kt)
- tactical theater ballistic missiles : Pluton (on an AMX-30 chassis) and later Hadès (on a truck) - 15-25 kt missiles of about 150km range.
- nuclear test range in Mururoa dismantled and replaced by simulation programs


Some finetuning in your opinion (wich I respect a lot) will do you good.


Regards,

Very good joke :p I find it a good one.
But it is a joke of a uninformed person about the military. Informed people know what the quality is, and sorry, the US is not dominating the armsmarket on all fronts with quality, there are lots of products in wich EU arms outclasses US products (best tank is the Leopard2 A6 for example, even the US is on his knees to buy the canon and place it in the latest version of Abrahams 2) aso with lots of other stuff from small arms till heavy machineguns and rocketsystems. Ever heard of the "minimi", a EU product, seen daily on the Iraqi front used by the US, same goes with lots of products of FN, Sig Sauer aso.

Some finetuning in your opinion (wich I respect a lot) will do you good.

Cannon.

Abrams.

Also, nobody is going to recognize the "minimi" here because we call it the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) ;)

Cannon.

Abrams.

Also, nobody is going to recognize the "minimi" here because we call it the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) ;)

Sory for that typo (non English speaker, ik spreek geen Engels :) )
And the minimi is a EU product, typo or not. :)

In fact, a question, ha sthe name "Abrams" something to do with "Abraham".
I was in my youth a millitary freak but I don't know about that.

Thanks for the info if you have it. Guess it has something to do with the designers name, no?

The name honours General Creighton W. Abrams.

1. Good. I never stated that "all" those who hate America did so for any of the reasons cited, only that those were some of the reasons I thought they did so.

Yet it's a reason that you seem to keep on coming back to, when we point out repeatedly that it isn't the way we feel, you ignore it, like most of the sensible points that you ignore, so that you can concentrate upon attacking the idiots. Further reason for people to think that your post was just flame bait, even if you do make a half hearted attempts at replying properly once or twice, after you get repeatedly pulled up over it. If you took in a single point that anybody made you might find people a lot more receptive.

I'd also like to point out that in your initial post you say "Attacking them is easy and fun for those with lesser achievements." Now at the same time you say in part 3 that a fair few of us have been super-powers in the past, so if we've been super-powers in the past how have we got lesser achievements? Surely if we've had world spanning empires and you keep on saying that you aren't one yet, then you've still got a lot of catching up to do?


2. Intelligence is a chancy thing at best. The best intel we had at the time indicated that Saddam had WMB and the will to use them against the US. The military action against Saddam operated under the rubric of "better safe than sorry." The possibility of the use of WMD against the US was horrific enough sufficient to justify military action. Subsequent events proved that the introduction of democracy into the Middle East had a "reverse domino effect," leading to a number of Mid-East nations leaning more toward democracy than ever before.

Intel is a chancy thing at best, you said it, so don't let it be the only thing that you use to justify a war.

That "reverse domino effect" is just propoganda as well, much of the rest of the middle east was a lot closer to becoming democratic before you went headlong into Afghanistan and then dragged the rest of us into Iraq after you. Iran, specifically, was virtually there, the Mullahs had lost there power base almost to the point of being ignored, the kids at university were wearing what they wanted/doing what they wanted/saying what they wanted, reforms were being put in all over, women were more free than they'd been in years, then your foreign policy gave the right wing fundamentalists all the excuse and fear in the public they needed to seize control of the reins of power again and rid the country of all the hard won reforms that had been sweeping through.


3. Better to head off probable attacks than wait for thousands more innocent civilians to die.


You know that statement may as well come from an Al-Qaeda training manual.

Envy, resentment and other emotions are not limited to one person or groups of people. Parents and grandparents pass on attitudes and mind-sets to children. The point is that former glory is collectively missed and it's relatively easy to envy those who take the place of formerly powerful nations.

I'd say the envy is more likely to be felt by those who've never had the power, not the ones that had it and saw the problems that it brings.

I'll quote part of your original post again "Which is worse, taking over another country by force, or taking over a portion of another country's culture by offering good products and services at a reasonable price?"

The problem that cause resentment is that the USA has taken over countries by force and then offered them services and refused to allow them to have a choice. See my posts about Iraq order 81. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8387785&postcount=885)

If they haven't been taken over by force, quite often they may as well have been because your trade agreements are just as bad for your average small country.

4. Good for you. I don't recall making the point that all nations should have a democratic form of government, only that the people should be given a voice in the type and and actions of their government.

Yet you have repeatedly in this thread stated that you feel it is your duty to introduce democracy to them. In fact you advocated invading them and thrusting democracy upon them.

Also your country has had a terrible habit of helping much less than democratic regimes to power throughout the world, so yet again that doesn't stand up. If you want examples pick a country or two in South America, at least one of them you'll (as a nation) have been guilty of stirring the pot in.

5 And you don't think this is the proper course of action? Sounds a bit like Neville Chamberlain redoux ... "Peace in our time" translates to "Peace for us and everyone else can continue to suffer."

No, we don't think it's the right course of action. The comparison doesn't stand up at all, Hitler was hell bent upon taking over Europe and had managed to make a start with several countries. Iraq took over Kuwait ten years beforehand, then had the cr@p kicked out of it by the allies, then had been starved into submission pretty much by sanctions, and had then been sat, pretty much impotent. Not like Saddam was rampaging around the middle east is it? Don't try saying terrorism, even you know it's not true.

In answer to your original point 5, you have repeatedly kept territory from other nations, however you like to dress it up with leases/loans etc you have kept territory and you've then used it to prosecute your own foreign policy (occasionally defending somebody else if it has suited your own needs). Look at the amount of aid you've had to start giving to some countries in recent years to bribe them into allowing you to use those bases for purposes that they didn't agree with. A lot of countries initially objected to you using the bases upon their soil for the bombing of Afghanistan, because of the trouble that they thought it would bring their way, you upped the bribes and began twisting arms and backing out of finance deals until you got what you wanted. Now they get to suffer the backlash for your foreign policies again.


6. Which is one of the primary points the article makes: that the approach Europe advocates involves non-confrontive techniques ( largely because Europe has relied upon the US for protection and has allowed its military capabilities to atrophy ), and that it falls to the US, as the premier military power in the world, to provide the "protective cover" necessary to allow Europe to continue to focus on things other than projection of force.

Europeans advocate non-confrontative techniques because we've been through the war stages and learnt our lessons, ie: they are the absolute last resort. Look how upset you were after 3000-4000 dying on 9/11 and then compare that to how your average muslim feels when you've killed many more than ten times that since.

Nato is a joint nations force, the USA may have been the single biggest member of it, but we're not exactly alone by ourselves. If you put the other nations militaries together it's not exactly a small force that you're left with, don't assume that we're defenceless without you. More to the point you keep on advocating attack, as the best defence, we don't like to behave like that anymore, because it causes untold resentment, which you are just beginning to suffer from.

A few here have mentioned Realpolitik, Americas open adherence to it is one of the major causes of this resentment. Can you not understand that to people with next to nothing, ie: a huge proportion of the world, the USA just taking things because they can, even though they don't really need them, (you are the biggest already and yet you just want more and more) and then saying, well nobody can stop us, is going to cause anti-american feelings.

To sum up, your foreign policy as a whole causes more resentment and anti-american feeling than anything else about you as nation, the fact that your foreign policy pays no heed to any other nations needs and wishes makes it all the worse, consequently you get slated for it. You've got so many things going for you that the rest of the world admires, it's just a shame that you have to treat the rest of the world in such a contemptious and greedy manner really.

on the subject of 'others are just jealous because they aren't superpowers anymore,' i have to wonder why people even say this. its absurd and not thought out even to the slightest degree. to explain...

almost every superpower in the world's existence has had a lasting (and almost always negative) effect on the world. The british decimated the inhabitants of Australia and America as well as helping the french in laying the groundwork in Africa for some of the most oppresive regimes the world has ever seen. The USSR left a legacy of more plutonium and radioactive materials than Keith Richards has ingested in his entire life, and Germany... well, i shouldn't even have to point that one out.

my point is, do we really want to be a superpower that has such a high chance of negatively affecting the world (and already has, most visibly in places like Nicaragua and El Salvador), or do we want to be benevolent in the use of our power, trying our utmost to avoid throwing our weight around every chance we get unless absolutely 100% unavoidable? I, for one, see no point in becoming another nation inflicting wide-spread pain on the world in the name of peace and justice, like Britain in places like India.

That's not rubbish, that's flamebait, and some of you guys took it hook, line, and sinker. Well, I guess it is rubbish, but it's not rubbish in the sense you appear to have implied.

I've lost count of times that individuals have come on here and called Americans 'arrogant and ignorant.' I can't count on my two hands the amount of times people have said that the US needs to get nuked or otherwise attacked. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside when I know that reading my history book and keeping abreast on current events does me not a bit of good because there are some prolific posters on this board who will invalidate anything I say simply because of where I'm from. Better yet, there are some real winners on this board that think I or some of my countrymen should die just because of where we are born. Now THAT is rubbish, sir.
"in the only land that's free"

Not true and therefore rubbish

"Where can you work with the hours that you choose?
Where do you have freedom to travel, without having to have internal passports?
Where can you choose to use a bike, a bus, a car or your own feet to travel today?
Who is the proudest nation on earth?
What land is it whose people are always singing in its praises and boasting?
Where can you be thankful for living in the land of the free?"

Again, he is implying that these qualities are unique to the US and it isn't true. I shall therefore refer to it as rubbish.

Very good joke :p I find it a good one.
But it is a joke of a uninformed person about the military. Informed people know what the quality is, and sorry, the US is not dominating the armsmarket on all fronts with quality, there are lots of products in wich EU arms outclasses US products (best tank is the Leopard2 A6 for example, even the US is on his knees to buy the canon and place it in the latest version of Abrahams 2) aso with lots of other stuff from small arms till heavy machineguns and rocketsystems. Ever heard of the "minimi", a EU product, seen daily on the Iraqi front used by the US, same goes with lots of products of FN, Sig Sauer aso.

Well I just "googled" a bit ... look here for more information :

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/france/ (browse the different sections)

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/France/FranceArsenalRecent.html

http://www.netmarine.net/forces/fost/index.htm

http://www.netmarine.net/armes/msbs/

http://www.netmarine.net/forces/fost/index.htm

http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr/brp/notices/004001630.shtml

http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr/dossier_international/nucleaire/index.shtml


Today their nuclear arsenal is composed of a :

1) naval element with 5 submarines :

- 2 older ones :
Indomptable (1976)
Inflexible (1985)
armed with 16 M4 missiles, each with 6 TN71 warheads of 150 kt, 5000 km range

- 3 new generation ones and 1 in construction :
Triomphant (1997)
Téméraire (1999)
Vigilant (2004)
Terrible (2010)
for the moment armed with 16 M45 missiles, each with 6 TN75 warheads of 150 kt, 6000 km range
In the next years the new M51 missile will enter in service : 6 very stealth TN75 warheads of 150 kt, 8000 km range

2) aerial component with Mirage 2000N (air force) and Super Etendard (navy) aircrafts that are replaced by Rafale aircrafts now.
They fire the ASMP missile : 1x TN81 warhead of 300kt, 300km range. The missile will be replaced by the ASMP-A missile of 500km range in 2007. We have around 150 of these missiles. The aircrafts are supported by C-135 tankers.

The former ground based components were all disbanded :
- about 40 silo-based missile (S4 missiles, 3500-4000km range with 3 TN35 warheads of 20 kt)
- tactical theater ballistic missiles : Pluton (on an AMX-30 chassis) and later Hadès (on a truck) - 15-25 kt missiles of about 150km range.
- nuclear test range in Mururoa dismantled and replaced by simulation programs


Some finetuning in your opinion (wich I respect a lot) will do you good.


Regards,


You're fairly uninformed as well.

The French submarines you list never have more than one out on patrol at any one time.
You can't expect the French Navy to survive any confrontation with the US Navy - its carriers would be sunk on the first day of operations.
None of the land based missiles are in operation (as you note). Even when in operation, none of them could reach the US. They never had the range, and were largely targeted at European nations.
None of the aircraft carriers or aircraft could reach the US in any realistic military scenario. The Mirage 2000N would fall into the ocean before reaching the US - and the Super Etendard with its missiles would fall into the ocean off the coast of France.
So the only missiles capable of reaching the US are from a single French submarine - provided that it survives the trip to get in firing range.

The cannon on the M1A1 and M1A2 is the 120mm Rheinmetall - but we didn't have to beg to get it. It's already on all of the Abrams tanks. It's also made here in the US under license, so we don't need to beg for them anymore.

We also make all of the ammunition for that cannon (Alliant Techsystems is the manufacturer).

In the Canadian Cup Trophy (which is the armor gunnery competition), the Abrams has kicked the ass of all of the other countries since its inception - in fact, some countries (such as the UK - who used to win the contest based on their high degree of skill) think that the fire control system on the Abrams is unfair - it's considered to have an unfair advantage over the Leopard 2, the Challenger, the Leclerc, and any other modern main battle tank.

Care to try again?

I realize that many of the rabid anti-Americans on here are going to post enlightening things like: "'Cause Americans are stupid!" or "'Cause you keep attacking other countries!" or "'Cause American soldiers are all trigger-happy!" or similar strangeness. But I, for one, have been pondering just why so many of the posters on here truly seem to hate America and Americans.

Here are some of the reasons I believe there are so many on here who post knee-jerk anti-Americanism:

1. We make a good target. Anyone on top in any field of endeavour is automatically highly visible. Attacking them is easy and fun for those with lesser achievements.

Are you at the top of every field of endeavour? Literature for example. To quote the old saying, German literature is high brow, English literature is middle brow and American literature is low brow. And being a literature student with experience of each (well I havent read any German novels but I have read Russian ones and thats close enough), I would say that I would have to agree with them. In American literature, the themes are so painfully obvious.
What about culture? American culture certainly is not the best in the world.
What about food? MacDonalds is hardly excellent cuisine.
What about art? Very few decent American artists.

2. Differing opinions on the response to 9/11. 9/11 was a wake-up call for America. It was seen as an unwarranted attack on innocent civilians and totally unprovoked. Traditionally, America is quick to respond to this sort of thing ( see Pearl Harbor ). Many who post on here apparently agree with the position presented to me by a foreign national almost immediately after 9/11: "Just forget it and move on." This is not the way America responds to attacks on its civilians on its own soil.

Actually a Daily Mail columinst said something very true regarding the recent war on terror. He said that there is no more danger of terrorism now than there was before 11th September. And I can onyl agree. Islamic extremists were plotting to harm the West then and they are plotting to harm the West now. And for all the new vaunted security measures, a terror strike is just as likely. You can't guard something as big as a country from something as small as a terrorist cell. Thats a lesson Britain long learnt ago with its struggles against the IRA (who are up to their old tricks again)

3. Envy. Many of the anti_american posters on here are from nations which have been superpowers in the past: Germany, France, Russia, even Great Britain. There is a degree of envy at the impact America and American actions have on their own countries at this point in time, witness the so-called "cultural imperialism" allegations. This is most often used by Germans ( who tried their damndest to conquer the entire world! ), and French ( who managed to reach Moscow before the weather decimated them ). Which is worse, taking over another country by force, or taking over a portion of another country's culture by offering good products and services at a reasonable price?

Good products? Have you ever eaten at MacDonalds? Have you ever watched Friends? However it is quite a good point: we in the old world are quite envious of you because you have essentially taken the position of super power in a matter of 200 years whereas it took most European nations 1000 years of hard work to reach that stage.

4. Resentment at having America presume to advocate a better form of government ( democracy ) for people who have been unable to attain it for themselves.

How odd. Britain has been an evolving democracy since 1688. France was democratic since the late 1800s and so was Germany right up until Hitler. Believe it or not, America did not invent democracy. You didn't even create the modern version of it - Britain did.

5. Fear that America is finally recognizing that its influence and power are capable of changing the world. I've noted that some on here who claim that America is trying to establish an empire seem to fear that, now that America is hitting her stride, their own country will be somehow "taken over." This despite the fact that America has never kept territory from any of the nations she defeated, other than a few small islands for naval and airforce bases, which were used to defend other nations.

America does have an empire. However unlike the European empires, you pretend you dont have because your very constitution means you are anti imperial. This is very convient for America - it means they can burst into regimes, tkae them over, claim its not an imperial conquest and so dont have to take even basic responsibilty for the peoples of that country. Innovative but not a patch on the way the European empires dealt with their colonial peoples: at least they took care of them.

Another poster ( The Alma Mater ) referred me to an article about the current differences between how Americans view the world and how Europeans view the world. I highly recommend it, since it goes a long way toward explaining these differing world views: http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html

These are some of the reasons I see for anti-Americansim. This thread is not suppose to be flame-bait, but rather just the perspective of one American on this issue. Please at least try to present your arguments in a calm, logical, reasoned manner, rather than simply saying something along the lines of "America sucks!"

Americans have yet to lose their idealism and join the rest of world. Compare a British and American politican. An American politician will pump his speech so full of hyperbole and idealistic clap trap about liberty etc. A British politican generally speaks in a more down to earth sort of way. Why? Because the poeples of Europe have seen it all during their time and know it is best to be cyncial about such frail idols like liberty.

I guess we could figure out what was the best television show based on the number of worldwide viewers.

That could, at least, tell us what the world thought the best television show (by nation) was.

If we accept that premise, then Baywatch is the number one television show of all time - boasting a daily viewership around the world of one billion viewers.

And which country is responsible for Baywatch? I'm not saying it's highbrow entertainment - but what the viewers have, by their established ratings, selected as the number one television show.

I'm sure that worldwide, most people don't know who Kafka or Chekhov were - but at least 1 billion people can recognize some of the women from Baywatch.

heres how i see it.
a country whare security guards are needed in schools
with a government that does not beleive in global warming
a country obsessed with religeon
a huge suicide rating in schools do to bullying
a nation with the fatest people in the world
a country wich spawned Meryl streeps for christs sake
in america it has beenn know to find that some americans did not actually know that other religeons than christianity existed
this is just to begin..however i did like my visit to vermont :D

Flashheart']heres how i see it.
a country whare security guards are needed in schools
with a government that does not beleive in global warming
a country obsessed with religeon
a huge suicide rating in schools do to bullying
a nation with the fatest people in the world
a country wich spawned Meryl streeps for christs sake
in america it has beenn know to find that some americans did not actually know that other religeons than christianity existed
this is just to begin..however i did like my visit to vermont :D

There are no security guards in the schools in my district.
We are not obsessed with religion - most people don't go to church regularly.
I'm sure you have bullying in your schools.
I am not fat - in fact, it's probably a safe bet that I could run most foreigners on this forum into the ground.
Meryl Streep is not the only actress in the US - you're a little out of date.
I bet we could go to your country and find something there that the people were ignorant of.

One of the most enlightening moments I had in Europe was realizing that the National Enquirer (that lowbrow US paper) was not a purely American phenomenon. Every country has its lowbrow paper - and lowbrow people. Reading Bild in Germany (the German language in Bild is simple enough for the typical first-year student of the language to read) showed me the truth of that.

That, and the fact that Busen magazine could be found in nearly every Esso station on the rack next to the fast food snacks...

Europeans who like to say "we're all highbrow and educated here" while pointing at the lowbrow sectors of the US are doing themselves a disservice.

Give me a plane ticket to Germany, and a rail pass, and I'll find rednecks, ignorant idiots, people with horrific accents, junk food that's German (not American), and a host of other horrors that you thought were only American.

Then we'll go to Paris... and I'll do it again.

There are no security guards in the schools in my district.
We are not obsessed with religion - most people don't go to church regularly.
I'm sure you have bullying in your schools.
I am not fat - in fact, it's probably a safe bet that I could run most foreigners on this forum into the ground.
Meryl Streep is not the only actress in the US - you're a little out of date.
I bet we could go to your country and find something there that the people were ignorant of.

One of the most enlightening moments I had in Europe was realizing that the National Enquirer (that lowbrow US paper) was not a purely American phenomenon. Every country has its lowbrow paper - and lowbrow people. Reading Bild in Germany (the German language in Bild is simple enough for the typical first-year student of the language to read) showed me the truth of that.

That, and the fact that Busen magazine could be found in nearly every Esso station on the rack next to the fast food snacks...

Europeans who like to say "we're all highbrow and educated here" while pointing at the lowbrow sectors of the US are doing themselves a disservice.

Give me a plane ticket to Germany, and a rail pass, and I'll find rednecks, ignorant idiots, people with horrific accents, junk food that's German (not American), and a host of other horrors that you thought were only American.

Then we'll go to Paris... and I'll do it again.


yes the bosh are ignorant to
and yes i dare say that you would find plenty of people who were ignorant of many things. and yes we have bullying b(not as much or as bad but yes..yes we do)
but this is thread is called whats rong with america not what isn rong with my country

I guess we could figure out what was the best television show based on the number of worldwide viewers.

That could, at least, tell us what the world thought the best television show (by nation) was.

If we accept that premise, then Baywatch is the number one television show of all time - boasting a daily viewership around the world of one billion viewers.

And which country is responsible for Baywatch? I'm not saying it's highbrow entertainment - but what the viewers have, by their established ratings, selected as the number one television show.

I'm sure that worldwide, most people don't know who Kafka or Chekhov were - but at least 1 billion people can recognize some of the women from Baywatch.
I know this is totally off topic, but I do think it is kind of ironic that "Baywatch" would be "the number one television show of all time", and even more ironic considering who was the number one attraction of that show:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/jebsplace/Celebs/Pamela%20Anderson/pam2/pamela40.jpg

Pamela Denise Anderson has become perhaps one of the most recognized faces (and bodies) in the world. Her role in the popular syndicated series Baywatch redefined how a body conscious society watched television.....

What followed were roles in Married with Children, Home Improvement, and several nude appearances in Playboy (the most covers of any woman in the history of the magazine with 9).

It is called sex appeal?

Flashheart']yes the bosh are ignorant to
and yes i dare say that you would find plenty of people who were ignorant of many things. and yes we have bullying b(not as much or as bad but yes..yes we do)
but this is thread is called whats rong with america not what isn rong with my country

Well, don't go generalizing things like "security guards in schools" because most of them don't have them.

America is more different from one place to another within its borders than any single European country - you're going to find some religious areas - and some that have no religion at all - and some that have many different religions. Many areas without security guards in schools - and some inner city areas with them. We are not all the same.

Oh, and by the way, when you visited Vermont, I'm sure you'll be happy to know that it is the only state in the US where anyone can carry a handgun concealed on his person - without a license.

So you were probably in the presence of an armed American - who didn't shoot you, as the European media would have you believe - nearly the whole time you were in Vermont.

Oh, and by the way, when you visited Vermont, I'm sure you'll be happy to know that it is the only state in the US where anyone can carry a handgun concealed on his person - without a license.
[ moves to Vermont ]

I think some people are missing the point that America is neither the most democratic(being a republic anyways), safe (very dangerous country), or even offering the highest quality of life.

European countries as well as for example, canada, have very very very high standards of living with less crime, and a more proportionate distribution of wealth.

Plus, the largest economic power in the world runs a horrifying debt/deficit and still can't provide healthcare for it's citizens!?! What the hell kind of show are you guys running?

What the hell kind of show are you guys running?
One that is negotiated in very public and sometimes very intense debate, which results in solutions that no one is overjoyed about but with which most can live.

The French submarines you list never have more than one out on patrol at any one time.
You can't expect the French Navy to survive any confrontation with the US Navy - its carriers would be sunk on the first day of operations.
None of the land based missiles are in operation (as you note). Even when in operation, none of them could reach the US. They never had the range, and were largely targeted at European nations.
None of the aircraft carriers or aircraft could reach the US in any realistic military scenario. The Mirage 2000N would fall into the ocean before reaching the US - and the Super Etendard with its missiles would fall into the ocean off the coast of France.
So the only missiles capable of reaching the US are from a single French submarine - provided that it survives the trip to get in firing range.
History has taught us nothing? One of the absolute worst military tactics is to underestimate the enemy's ability to defend themselves or their ability to counter attack, such as the insurgency in Iraq for instance?

You are hypothesizing on an attack on France, which makes absolutely no sense, considering their alliances with so many other countries.

When Hitler struck out across Europe, did he envisage taking on the whole world? How about Napoleon? The list goes on, the results were the same?

[i]Pamela Denise Anderson ... It is called sex appeal?
Mmmmmmmmm! Pamela. :D

History has taught us nothing? One of the absolute worst military tactics is to underestimate the enemy's ability to defend themselves or their ability to counter attack, such as the insurgency in Iraq for instance?

You are hypothesizing on an attack on France, which makes absolutely no sense, considering their alliances with so many other countries.

When Hitler struck out across Europe, did he envisage taking on the whole world? How about Napoleon? The list goes on, the results were the same?

Yes, history teaches us that pre-emptive attack is usually successful.

Which makes me wonder why France says that pre-emptive attack is illegal under international law, and that they would never, never do it.

So, in a hypothetical conflict between the US and France, how many of France's nuclear or naval assets do you believe would survive the first 24 hours of conflict, since the US would obviously strike first with its stealth and precision weapons? And considering that the French President does not live in an unknown underground bunker, but in a historical residence aboveground, how long would the primary representative of French government exist? Or would the US employ its standard strategy of national decaptitation?

Hypothetically, within 24 hours, the French subs and carriers would be sunk - the air force decimated, and the national government decaptitated - all without the use of nuclear weapons. If the US did use nuclear weapons, and struck first, it would take 20 minutes (the flight time from the US to France of ICBMs).

Considering that France has no ballistic missile warning radar, the only warning that they would get that a nuclear missile attack was in progress would be the detonation of warheads on their targets. France would not be in a position to retaliate at all.

As for the insurgency in Iraq, they are not capable of substantial political effect anymore.

Yes, history teaches us that pre-emptive attack is usually successful.

Which makes me wonder why France says that pre-emptive attack is illegal under international law, and that they would never, never do it.
It may work, but according to the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions it is illegal.

So, in a hypothetical conflict between the US and France, how many of France's nuclear or naval assets do you believe would survive the first 24 hours of conflict, since the US would obviously strike first with its stealth and precision weapons?
Firstly it is only hypothetical. Secondly, if circumstances existed between the US and France that it appeared that war might be evident, do you not think that France would prepare for that possibility, by deploying all her assets?

And considering that the French President does not live in an unknown underground bunker, but in a historical residence aboveground, how long would the primary representative of French government exist? Or would the US employ its standard strategy of national decaptitation?
Saddam seemed to do a fairly good job of evading capture?

Hypothetically, within 24 hours, the French subs and carriers would be sunk - the air force decimated, and the national government decaptitated - all without the use of nuclear weapons. If the US did use nuclear weapons, and struck first, it would take 20 minutes (the flight time from the US to France of ICBMs).
See above about deployment.

Considering that France has no ballistic missile warning radar, the only warning that they would get that a nuclear missile attack was in progress would be the detonation of warheads on their targets. France would not be in a position to retaliate at all.
Are you assuming that UK, and others would not honour their NATO commitment, and assist France? Also, depending on the circumstances, Russia and/or China might assist France? Again, and I stress this, the worst thing to do is underestimate the ability of the defender to not only defend themselves, but their ability to counterattack. This is a thread about anti-Americanism and I see an awful lot of venom by US posters towards the French. Why is that? Do you really think the French are a bunch of cowards?

As for the insurgency in Iraq, they are not capable of substantial political effect anymore.
Meanwhile, the US has 170,000 troops pinned in Iraq?

Yes, history teaches us that pre-emptive attack is usually successful.

Which makes me wonder why France says that pre-emptive attack is illegal under international law, and that they would never, never do it.

So, in a hypothetical conflict between the US and France, how many of France's nuclear or naval assets do you believe would survive the first 24 hours of conflict, since the US would obviously strike first with its stealth and precision weapons? And considering that the French President does not live in an unknown underground bunker, but in a historical residence aboveground, how long would the primary representative of French government exist? Or would the US employ its standard strategy of national decaptitation?

Hypothetically, within 24 hours, the French subs and carriers would be sunk - the air force decimated, and the national government decaptitated - all without the use of nuclear weapons. If the US did use nuclear weapons, and struck first, it would take 20 minutes (the flight time from the US to France of ICBMs).

Considering that France has no ballistic missile warning radar, the only warning that they would get that a nuclear missile attack was in progress would be the detonation of warheads on their targets. France would not be in a position to retaliate at all.

As for the insurgency in Iraq, they are not capable of substantial political effect anymore.
What about sarin gaz spread in the main american cities? Or agent orange or whatever fucking deadly gaz they have.
Or what about 747 boeing planes?

Ein Deutscher']The latin base for many elements is -ium. Thus, in fact, the Americans (Charles Martin Hall specifically) misspelled the element in a handbill.

Read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martin_Hall

and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium


Americans are just about the only ones spelling it Aluminum ;)

"In 1993, IUPAC recognized aluminum as an acceptable variant"

Language evolves and changes. If that takes a million people's concerted effort, so be it. If it happens to take place because one man uses a variant spelling on a handbill, so be it. Fair enough though, my facts weren't accurate, but my point remains valid.

What about sarin gaz spread in the main american cities? Or agent orange or whatever fucking deadly gaz they have.
Or what about 747 boeing planes?

The people in question, such as OceanDrive, want to know about France vs. the US in a war.

France doesn't have any chemical weapons. Neither does the US.

France doesn't have any combat aircraft that could reach the US.

I don't see any insurgents in Iraq spreading gas here, do you? I don't see them hijacking any planes right now, do you?

The people in question, such as OceanDrive, want to know about France vs. the US in a war.That is what I was talking about. You know war is not a video game, don't you?

France doesn't have any chemical weapons. Neither does the US.ROTFLMAOHAHAHALOLOLOLOL
Good one thanks for entertaining me so much.

I don't see any insurgents in Iraq spreading gas here, do you? I don't see them hijacking any planes right now, do you?Come on, are you still thinking Saddam had gas? After 12 years of UN inspection and embargo? The insurgents are even less likely than Saddam to have gas.

Are you at the top of every field of endeavour? Literature for example. To quote the old saying, German literature is high brow, English literature is middle brow and American literature is low brow. And being a literature student with experience of each (well I havent read any German novels but I have read Russian ones and thats close enough), I would say that I would have to agree with them. In American literature, the themes are so painfully obvious.
What about culture? American culture certainly is not the best in the world.
What about food? MacDonalds is hardly excellent cuisine.
What about art? Very few decent American artists.

I have read many, many books in my time. I shan't go through a thousand examples of them, but to say that there is a hierarchy of culture is just the kind of thing that makes Americans pissed off and nationalistic. American culture is perfectly valid, and can be as intellectually stimulating as anything else - or as intellectually deprecating as anything else. It is no better or worse than a two millenia old tribal dance in Polynesia, it is simply different.

Oh, and most of the best sci-fi of the last century was from the US - Asimov, Dick, Bradbury, Crichton, and Heinlein to name but a few. Not to mention Alcott, Lee, Hemingway, Fitzegerald, Kesey, Ellis, Nabokov, Rand, etc, etc ad nauseum.

Then there's movies. I don't know about you but most of the films I consider truly excellent come from the US. There are exceptions, of course - La Haine is French, Shaun of the Dead is British, and pretty much all the others are Oriental.

Music? I wonder how different the music today would be without Jazz - and therefore, Rock 'n' Roll, then just plain Rock, Metal, and so forth.

Food? Well, gee, there's this weird thing about food called personal preference. If someone thinks termites are great cuisine, that's good for them! I'm happy with my apple pie, Philadelphia cheese steaks, cown on the cob (Which I actually thought to be British until very recently), chili con carne, chop suey, jambalaya, and yes pizza, burgers, and fries. In addition to all the American variants of foods, such as the differences between egg foo yong and egg rolls. This, of course, came about due to the new conditions which immigrants found themselves in, not because some cowboy said "This is good, but it ain't great! Let's screw it up and add more fat!" Before shooting some people stone cold dead.

And finally, art.

Because the Tate Modern is a paragon of visual stimulation.

Actually a Daily Mail columinst said something very true regarding the recent war on terror. He said that there is no more danger of terrorism now than there was before 11th September. And I can onyl agree. Islamic extremists were plotting to harm the West then and they are plotting to harm the West now. And for all the new vaunted security measures, a terror strike is just as likely. You can't guard something as big as a country from something as small as a terrorist cell. Thats a lesson Britain long learnt ago with its struggles against the IRA (who are up to their old tricks again)

Daily Mail. That's all that really needs to be said.

However, do you think the IRA would be dicking around if we'd been sending the SAS in to take care of them every time they pulled some crap? I don't. I think if we'd constantly been stomping down on them, instead of just trying to clean up after them (I'm from Northern Ireland and lost people in the Troubles), and their Northern counterparts, we'd be able to write them off as an unsanitary footnote, and get on with the negotiations with the real people of the Emerald Isles, who tend to be fairly nice and reasonable.

Good products? Have you ever eaten at MacDonalds? Have you ever watched Friends? However it is quite a good point: we in the old world are quite envious of you because you have essentially taken the position of super power in a matter of 200 years whereas it took most European nations 1000 years of hard work to reach that stage.

If MacDonald's was poor quality, it would not have become one of the most powerful corporations on the planet. If Friends was really terrible, it would not have become as profitable as it was, would not have run for what, 9 or 10 seasons? and would certainly not have created the spinoff series Joey. Yes, you might not like them, and yes, you can use them to talk about what it says about America that they started there, but that's apparently ignoring the fact that most of the rest of the world has avariciously consumed American culture and products.

How odd. Britain has been an evolving democracy since 1688. France was democratic since the late 1800s and so was Germany right up until Hitler. Believe it or not, America did not invent democracy. You didn't even create the modern version of it - Britain did.

A very valid point, but America is unique in her ideals of Democracy, which mean that even though it is not perfect, people are trying to fix it. Here in England, can we say the same? Our idea of fixing things is to try and indict Blair on war crimes, and to sit around in the pub complaining about it. At least they're trying. Which ties in with what you say further down, too.

America does have an empire. However unlike the European empires, you pretend you dont have because your very constitution means you are anti imperial. This is very convient for America - it means they can burst into regimes, tkae them over, claim its not an imperial conquest and so dont have to take even basic responsibilty for the peoples of that country. Innovative but not a patch on the way the European empires dealt with their colonial peoples: at least they took care of them.

HAHA! Oh, that's rich.

The Mau-Mau uprising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau)

The 'divide and rule' strategy of the British Empire is respoonsible, directly, for Ireland, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Sudan, India, and yes, Iraq. (Among others.) You might have heard of a few of those countries having problems now and then. Nothing major, just some civil wars and genocide.

Heard of a chap named Jacques Massu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Massu)? Those two lines alone are enough to show that the French were willing to use the same tactics the Nazis had - just ten years after WW2.

I hardly need to delve into Germany's recent history, I hope.

America is not innocent. Neither is the rest of the world. We've done things just as bad, and rarely with as high a sense of idealism.

Americans have yet to lose their idealism and join the rest of world. Compare a British and American politican. An American politician will pump his speech so full of hyperbole and idealistic clap trap about liberty etc. A British politican generally speaks in a more down to earth sort of way. Why? Because the poeples of Europe have seen it all during their time and know it is best to be cyncial about such frail idols like liberty.

And this ultimately is why America, for me personally, is better than Europe. In America, if you have some crazy, half-baked dream, people will warn you not to get yor hopes up too high, but still encourage you. In Europe, you'll just get laughed at. And look at how many rags-to-riches stories there are in the US, compared to those here. We have... well, we have the National Lottery. And the occasional chap who pops up in the papers for a week and shows that some reformed drug addict can go on to holding a succesful job. When we have a hyper-succesful entrepenuer, it's national news. When America does, it's another person who sat down and did his normal thing which all Americans are encouraged to do. The American Dream is an ideal, yes, and one that every Human on Earth has - to make things better for themselves. Of course, in Europe, things are already pretty good, and as we don't have a two hundred year history of that ideal ingrained into ourselves, we don't see anything special about it - as you say yourself, it's a frail idol.

America doesn't believe that.

America has proved it otherwise. In 200 years they've risen to a position of power which the Old World took a millenia to reach - and they've now got to a point where there is no other empire to challenge them.

And when you challenge the core beliefs of someone, you expect a retaliation. *shrugs* I mean, the Anglican Church would not be overjoyed to hear you making a big fuss about how Jesus Christ is a false idol, would it?

The world can be handled in several ways; plain idealism, with no regards to reality (Which you suggest is the American principle.); rational idealism, which understands that things aren't perfect but does it's best to bring people closer to it (Which is the actual American doctrine); cynicism (Which seems to be the pervailing European attitude, and that certainly explains why nothing ever gets DONE here.); among others which don't need to be gone into for the illustration of my point.

America has proved it otherwise. In 200 years they've risen to a position of power which the Old World took a millenia to reach - and they've now got to a point where there is no other empire to challenge them.
If didn't took milenia to conquer America. It took 50 years or something like that.

OK I really couldn't be arsed to look through 63 pages of debate so my points will probably have been gone over a few times but here are my reasns for disliking the US.

1. Democracy. You don't have it. All of your politicians are stupidly rich, they spend millions on getting elected. Some of them are even in the same families which means that families and top businessmen (mostly) rule you country. In the UK a single person can get elected for a couple of hundred pounds. Put 1000 in a deposit and throw some cash aroud on flyers and bingo, you can be elected. I'm not saying the UK has a great system because it doesn't, but at least we aren't run by an oligarchy.

You are so keen to export democracy yet you don't actually have it yourselves. Not a good start.



2. Free Trade. Again, something you are keen to export, again, you don't have it. By it's definition it is a case of companies and businesses going head to head ON THEIR OWN. The government provides tax breaks (which, coincidentally benefit the people in charge of government) and subsidies which give your companies the perfect advantage FROM THE GOVERNMENT. Again the UK does it, I'm not going to argue, most big governments do it.


3. Confrontation. The US is aggressive, scarily so. You have the best quality military gear in the world including the worlds ONLY superfighter. And you want more. Your military expenditure is massive despite the fact that you only need to keep the military as is to be able to win almost any concievable war. You went into Iraq and Afghanistan with no real plan for the postwar period. About a month before the assault phase of the Iraq war I predicted in conversation with my friends that the US would kick butt in the conquering of Iraq but would have a hell of a time keeping order. I was right, and that worries me a lot.


4. George Bush. I will say no more.


5. The wannabe jew right. They call themselves Christian but let's not fool ourselves, they want to be in Israel kicking infidel butt. Or at least that's what they tell us they want. I over-generalised here but I consider myself Christian and don't want to go on the kind of rant I would otherwise produce.

That point was not intended to be anti-semitic before anyone says it was.

I intended to put more on but I can't remember it ATM

America is not innocent. Neither is the rest of the world. We've done things just as bad, and rarely with as high a sense of idealism.


Which is what I've be trying to prove throughout this thread.

1. Democracy. You don't have it. All of your politicians are stupidly rich, they spend millions on getting elected. Some of them are even in the same families which means that families and top businessmen (mostly) rule you country. In the UK a single person can get elected for a couple of hundred pounds. Put 1000 in a deposit and throw some cash aroud on flyers and bingo, you can be elected. I'm not saying the UK has a great system because it doesn't, but at least we aren't run by an oligarchy.

Yeah, I'm sure that's how Tony Blair got elected. And isn't the House of Lords an oligarchy?

You are so keen to export democracy yet you don't actually have it yourselves. Not a good start.

Pot. Kettle. Black.



2. Free Trade. Again, something you are keen to export, again, you don't have it. By it's definition it is a case of companies and businesses going head to head ON THEIR OWN. The government provides tax breaks (which, coincidentally benefit the people in charge of government) and subsidies which give your companies the perfect advantage FROM THE GOVERNMENT. Again the UK does it, I'm not going to argue, most big governments do it.

But, European countries go a step further. They have government-run or sponsored corporations like Airbus. We don't.


3. Confrontation. The US is aggressive, scarily so. You have the best quality military gear in the world including the worlds ONLY superfighter.

I'm sure the producers of the Eurofighter would want to argue with you on that.

And you want more. Your military expenditure is massive despite the fact that you only need to keep the military as is to be able to win almost any concievable war. You went into Iraq and Afghanistan with no real plan for the postwar period. About a month before the assault phase of the Iraq war I predicted in conversation with my friends that the US would kick butt in the conquering of Iraq but would have a hell of a time keeping order. I was right, and that worries me a lot.
I would imagine that we already knew that. I believe that Rumsfeld even said that he didn't know how long it would take.

4. George Bush. I will say no more.
He won the election, now, didn't he? Tony Blair, I will say no more.


5. The wannabe jew right. They call themselves Christian but let's not fool ourselves, they want to be in Israel kicking infidel butt. Or at least that's what they tell us they want. I over-generalised here but I consider myself Christian and don't want to go on the kind of rant I would otherwise produce.

That point was not intended to be anti-semitic before anyone says it was.

I intended to put more on but I can't remember it ATM

Considering the very small number of Jews as a proportion of the US population, who are you talking about? The majority of Jews in the US are Democrats - in fact, the Democratic Party counts on them as hardcore supporters of the Democratic Party.

Are you sure you know who the Christians are in the US?

“Yeah, I'm sure that's how Tony Blair got elected. And isn't the House of Lords an oligarchy?”

With no power in the end. It can’t stop legislation except on about two occasions in each year at best. And sooner or later someone will reform it because it is a recognised problem, the government recognises it as a problem for crying out loud!

“But, European countries go a step further. They have government-run or sponsored corporations like Airbus. We don't.”

Actually Airbus is corporations banding together to make a very expensive product, and yes many of the companies involved are government subsidised.

“I'm sure the producers of the Eurofighter would want to argue with you on that.”

They can argue all they like. It’s gen 4.5 as is the MiG 37 the F-22 is the only 5th gen fighter in the world.

“He won the election, now, didn't he? Tony Blair, I will say no more.”

I see no relevance. He has not contested an election after the wars. Yet. He might do in May, but he hasn’t yet.

“Considering the very small number of Jews as a proportion of the US population, who are you talking about? The majority of Jews in the US are Democrats - in fact, the Democratic Party counts on them as hardcore supporters of the Democratic Party.

Are you sure you know who the Christians are in the US?”

I was referring to what are more usually known as Fundamentalist Christians. Read the New Testament, how many holes in their beliefs can you poke? A lot.

I was referring to what are more usually known as Fundamentalist Christians. Read the New Testament, how many holes in their beliefs can you poke? A lot.

Speaking as a Fundamentalist Christian, I don't see how they are "Jews".

I love America, i like most of what it stands for and what it has done. What i dont like it how much religious zeal the leaders and the country seems to have.

I said WANNABE JEWS.

NOT JEWS.

WANNABE JEWS.

Considering the very small number of Jews as a proportion of the US population, who are you talking about? The majority of Jews in the US are Democrats - in fact, the Democratic Party counts on them as hardcore supporters of the Democratic Party.


That's one of the problems.

In Britain we don't have racial groups voting for any particular party. Old people, rich people, students maybe, but not according to race.

That's one of the problems.

In Britain we don't have racial groups voting for any particular party. Old people, rich people, students maybe, but not according to race.

Race was largely used as an issue by Democrats in the latter half of this century to identify people who were potentially dispossessed in comparison to the rest of America.

Because the Left in the US does not really exist, and where it does exist it may never mention "class", they had to come up with another term.

Common sense, however, seems to be breaking down this "voting by race". In the last election, it really began to crumble. It's one of the primary reasons that the Democratic Party is in trouble - they can't wave the race flag and hope that anyone will rally around it anymore.

Race was largely used as an issue by Democrats in the latter half of this century to identify people who were potentially dispossessed in comparison to the rest of America.

Because the Left in the US does not really exist, and where it does exist it may never mention "class", they had to come up with another term.

Common sense, however, seems to be breaking down this "voting by race". In the last election, it really began to crumble. It's one of the primary reasons that the Democratic Party is in trouble - they can't wave the race flag and hope that anyone will rally around it anymore.

I'd hate to live in a country where it was even conceived of.

I'd hate to live in a country where it was even conceived of.

Here in the US, Democrats seized on the idea of voting by race. Unfortunately, reality shows that not all people of a particular "race" have the same interests.

Republicans seem to have seized on the idea of voting for your beliefs (religious people), or voting for your money (investors - of which many Americans in the middle class are now members).

Democrats would have you vote by the color of your skin - vote Democrat because you're black, for instance.

Well, some affluent blacks don't vote Democrat anymore. And a lot of Hispanics vote Republican because of their beliefs and their newfound prosperity. See how it's going?

Unless the Democrats wake up, they're going to wake up with no constitutents.

God help us all when that happens.

God help us all when that happens.

I think the condescending attitude will also be the Democrats undoing,"as you know, only the Democratic Party can help African-Americans... that's why you should vote Democrat".

It's a failed strategy. And right now, they don't have a clue that they're failing.

Pelosi, for instance, appears to be clinging to the daft hope that somehow, people in America will wake up and vote Democrat.

To be fair the Democrats are no better than the Republicans in most ways. They just haven't figured out that race isn't a platform these days.

And they are a bit less trigger happy.

I said WANNABE JEWS.

NOT JEWS.

WANNABE JEWS.

what's wrong with wanting to be a jew? or any other religion for that matter?

i would make some other points. but theyv' probably all been made already.
as a brit, i don't really have a problem with america. i didn't want to go to war in iraq, or Afganistan. but my governamet did. and as a voting citizen, i elected them. so i have to go with their decisions, whether i agree or not.

aside from that, my only problem is how religion gets involved in politics, governemt should be completely separate from religion, it is the only way to avoid unfair representation or bias towards any one faith. same applies for race and class.

So enlighten me. What, exactly, is "the point?"

That Americans believe they have something for other countries to be jelous of. The fact is, you dont. Other countries are in many cases, very happy with their own culture and ideas.

To be fair the Democrats are no better than the Republicans in most ways. They just haven't figured out that race isn't a platform these days.

And they are a bit less trigger happy.
I never understood what is the difference between rep and dem. They have different ways of getting votes (one focus on religion, the other on race), but their politics are the same.

Indeed I dislike them both, but I can see some differences in which the Republicans scare the pants off me while the Dems just annoy the hell out of me. Also, to claim that the Reps don't focus on someones race and go for a racial demographics votes is just plain absurd.

Indeed I dislike them both, but I can see some differences in which the Republicans scare the pants off me while the Dems just annoy the hell out of me. Also, to claim that the Reps don't focus on someones race and go for a racial demographics votes is just plain absurd.

Please enlighten us. How do the Republicans practice what you speak of?

Please enlighten us. How do the Republicans practice what you speak of?


well I could find a million links (as you probably could too if you tried google out) but here are a couple:

Reps sample black culture for votes (http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/homie715)

Reps make a pitch for black votes (http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1P1:99964643&refid=ink_tptd_np&skeyword=&teaser=)


Is this enough to prove my point? Come on now. You dont really think that they dont play all the angles they can do you?

In the Canadian Cup Trophy (which is the armor gunnery competition), the Abrams has kicked the ass of all of the other countries since its inception - in fact, some countries (such as the UK - who used to win the contest based on their high degree of skill) think that the fire control system on the Abrams is unfair - it's considered to have an unfair advantage over the Leopard 2, the Challenger, the Leclerc, and any other modern main battle tank.

Care to try again?

Abrams always is defeated in tests by LeoII, not only because it is a "ubertank", also because of the better skills (like you mention) of the crews. In inner EU tests, the brits loose from France, Belgium and Germany.

Together this creates a far distance with the lousy Abrams.

Try again, it is for free. Inform yourself a bit will ya,for example you could give some links like I did (don't come with FOX or republican nitwit propaganda like you mostly do).

Bye

Abrams always is defeated in tests by LeoII, not only because it is a "ubertank", also because of the better skills (like you mention) of the crews. In inner EU tests, the brits loose from France, Belgium and Germany.

Together this creates a far distance with the lousy Abrams.

Try again, it is for free. Inform yourself a bit will ya,for example you could give some links like I did (don't come with FOX or republican nitwit propaganda like you mostly do).

Bye

Yes, I guess that explains this:

On June 19th, 1987, 1st platoon, Delta Company, 4th Battalion, 8th Cavalry (formerly 3-33 Armor) did what no other U.S. Army unit has been able to do in 24 years of international tank gunnery competition: we won the Canadian Army Trophy (CAT)!

Out of a possible 21,800 points, 1st platoon posted a Final score of 20,490, which was 800 points higher than its closest competitors, 2nd platoon, 4th Company, 124th Panzer Battalion [German Army] (19,690 points).

Veterans of CAT scoffed at a 3rd Armored Division team that said it was going to win without a single tank commander, gunner, loader, or driver that had ever competed in CAT.

Unfortunately, the past failures of the United Slates to win CAT have had the effect of transforming the competition into a test. This is not a phenomenon peculiar to the United States. The showing of the Royal Hussars at this year's competition was the subject of a front page story in London's Sunday Telegraph, June 21, 1987, titled "NATO Allies Outgun Britain's New Battle Tanks". Critics have used the results of past CATs to slam the way the Army trains, the quality of its all-volunteer force, and its procurement policies. These criticisms are as baseless as those who would claim that our use of the Unit Conduct of Fire Trainer (UCOFT) and Simulation Network (SIMNET) proves that simulators can be used to further reduce yearly training ammunition allocations.

Want to know who won the competition from that year on, up until they stopped the competition in 1991 because the Abrams always won?

Abrams always is defeated in tests by LeoII, not only because it is a "ubertank", also because of the better skills (like you mention) of the crews. In inner EU tests, the brits loose from France, Belgium and Germany.

Together this creates a far distance with the lousy Abrams.

Try again, it is for free. Inform yourself a bit will ya,for example you could give some links like I did (don't come with FOX or republican nitwit propaganda like you mostly do).

Bye

No Fox, no republican nitwit propaganda....

http://3ad.com/history/cold.war/cat.pages/scoreboard.2.htm

No Fox, no republican nitwit propaganda....

http://3ad.com/history/cold.war/cat.pages/scoreboard.2.htm

It is 1987 :eek: (in fact that is before Leclerc, Abrams2, latest Leo2, Merkeva, Challenger2) but nice to see that the stand of Northag was 1)UK, 2)Germany, 3)Holland 4) US 5) Belgium of the 15 or so nations.

It is 1987 :eek: (in fact that is before Leclerc, Abrams2, latest Leo2, Merkeva, Challenger2) but nice to see that the stand of Northag was 1)UK, 2)Germany, 3)Holland 4) US 5) Belgium of the 15 or so nations.

Isn't this what he said??

On June 19th, 1987, 1st platoon, Delta Company, 4th Battalion, 8th Cavalry (formerly 3-33 Armor) did what no other U.S. Army unit has been able to do in 24 years of international tank gunnery competition: we won the Canadian Army Trophy (CAT)!

It is 1987 :eek: (in fact that is before Leclerc, Abrams2, latest Leo2, Merkeva, Challenger2) but nice to see that the stand of Northag was 1)UK, 2)Germany, 3)Holland 4) US 5) Belgium of the 15 or so nations.

The Abrams was there, as was the Leopard 2, if you care to read.

The US won the competition every year thereafter. They had to stop competing, because there was no way that any nation believed that the competition was fair, given the advantages of the Abrams.

BTW, the two Republican Guard divisions that rolled out of Baghdad and were destroyed in a single pass by three B-52 bombers (total loss of over 2000 armored vehicles and 32,000 casualties in just a few seconds), were hit by CBU-105 bombs.

There isn't a tank in the world, including the Leclerc, that can take a hit on top from a BLU-108 submunition - and each submunition is guided.

Those two Iraqi divisions essentially disappeared in a single pass. We're talking T-80 and T-72 tanks.

Still don't think that any conventional armored force would suffer a similar fate?

If the US gets air superiority over your country, your conventional military would become an enormous target set. Facts of life, proven in combat.

Right, I really didn't want to post this, because it's just joining in with the incredibly tedious off-topic rubbish, but I can't bare to see any more of this "Abrams pisses all over everything else" american ego cr@p. (same goes for those posting "France will nuke USA" etc.).


So here goes. Yes, the CAT competitions were stopped in the end, but not for quite the reasons that some have put forward. In fact they've been superceded by other competitions such as the CANAM competitions, amongst others.

For instance in October 2002 if you follow the link (http://www.strathconas.ca/archives/rhq/Oct_02.htm)you'll find that the Canadians won in their Leopards.

More recently, in 2004, the Americans just won the last round of the CANAM Trophy. Again it was hardly a thrashing of all opposition by the Abrams, what it came down to was the Americans scoring two hits more out of 36 (both night and day shoots).

This most recent competition brought the scores from 6 years of competition to 3-3, hardly the absolute walkover that some seem to suggest for the Abrams. Most tankers from the rest of the world seem to be agreed that it comes down to training in the end, not just your, supposedly, invincible equipment.








Now, please, enough of this tedious wanking off over military equipment and stick to the topic at hand or is that just too likely to lead to some people having to either shut up or admit that there might actually be genuine and justified reasons for a lot of people here attacking american policies?

The Abrams was there, as was the Leopard 2, if you care to read.

The US won the competition every year thereafter. They had to stop competing, because there was no way that any nation believed that the competition was fair, given the advantages of the Abrams.

BTW, the two Republican Guard divisions that rolled out of Baghdad and were destroyed in a single pass by three B-52 bombers (total loss of over 2000 armored vehicles and 32,000 casualties in just a few seconds), were hit by CBU-105 bombs.

There isn't a tank in the world, including the Leclerc, that can take a hit on top from a BLU-108 submunition - and each submunition is guided.

Those two Iraqi divisions essentially disappeared in a single pass. We're talking T-80 and T-72 tanks.

Still don't think that any conventional armored force would suffer a similar fate?

If the US gets air superiority over your country, your conventional military would become an enormous target set. Facts of life, proven in combat.

It's fortunate that we had air superiority because the T-80 would have been a worthy opponent to any western tank. With a fast autoloader and a 125mm smoothbore, it has some serious stopping power, and a low profile to boot.

Course the Iraqis probably wouldn't have been very skilled with the application of it...

Sorry Trancers, you're right it is off topic.

To get back to the topic - and I'll restate my position:

It's because despite having weapons Europeans don't

a) have the will to project substantial power beyond their borders
b) would rather talk than fight - even if it means losing
c) don't understand why another nation would act differently

So, when the US violates (a) and projects substantial power beyond its borders, and violates (b) by fighting - because sometimes (right or wrong) the US thinks it is necessary to do so, then we get (c) - a bunch of pissed off Europeans.

But don't worry - because of (a) they won't attack us and because of (b) we'll just get a lot of talk.

To get back to the topic - and I'll restate my position:

It's because despite having weapons Europeans don't

a) have the will to project substantial power beyond their borders
b) would rather talk than fight - even if it means losing
c) don't understand why another nation would act differently

So, when the US violates (a) and projects substantial power beyond its borders, and violates (b) by fighting - because sometimes (right or wrong) the US thinks it is necessary to do so, then we get (c) - a bunch of pissed off Europeans.

But don't worry - because of (a) they won't attack us and because of (b) we'll just get a lot of talk.

In order then as you've listed them:

a) Europeans, generally, don't see any need for anybody to project military power beyond their borders.

b) Europeans have generally learnt that talking is a whole lot better in the long term for everybody than fighting, however invade us and you will see a whole load of talkers suddenly become great fighters. Ever heard the expression that the British love to have a laugh, but never put them in a tight situation? There were words to that effect put in the handbooks that GIs used to be given just before they arrived in Britain during WWII, to stop them being complacent and thinking that they could get away with anything as heros over here. Look at it realistically, we in europe have had a hell of a lot of practice when it comes to war.

c) We understand why other nations will act differently, but damnit we'd love it if they could catch up a bit with everybody else and realise that you're not doing yourselves or anybody else any favours.

As for the rest of your post, well you summed it up:

The US violates other countries. Now maybe it might seem a bit harsh using courtroom language for rape, but that is what we are watching the USA do every day.





Good night :)

Don't worry. While you're wringing your hands, wistfully hoping that the world will straighten itself out under the auspices of the UN, the US will be out there, taking care of the messes that can't be negotiated away.

You know, messes that were either the result of World Communism (North Korea), or European Map Drawing (the whole Middle East).

And good night to you! :rolleyes:

Don't worry. While you're wringing your hands, wistfully hoping that the world will straighten itself out under the auspices of the UN, the US will be out there, taking care of the messes that can't be negotiated away.

You know, messes that were either the result of World Communism (North Korea), or European Map Drawing (the whole Middle East).

And good night to you! :rolleyes:


As per usual you don't have a single real answer do you? Other than it's all the fault of Europe and we're the Worlds Police now. World police my ass, police are answerable to somebody, it's one of the central tenets of having a police force in most civilised countries. Police do not get to be judge, jury and executioner. Now America refuses to acknowledge world courts when it comes to their own soldiers and their own actions outside of their own territory, you have no independent review. That's not policing as we know it! You'd be disgusted if a police force in the USA refused to cooperate with an inquiry or to be answerable to anybody but itself, wouldn't you?

Nothing but a load of excuses for the US bullying the world. You've not got a single bit of justification for why the US insisted upon Iraqi order 81 or anything actually relevant to why people keep on attacking US policy.

As to your last, supposed, point about how everything in the middle east is the fault of the europeans well we know that's just another excuse for you to use to divert blame from the fact that you created and then kept in power the monster that was Saddam Hussein. I'm not saying that Europeans didn't make mistakes in the middle east, because we did, but at least we decided to let them get on with it themselves again, because they're their countries not ours or yours.

I have read many, many books in my time. I shan't go through a thousand examples of them, but to say that there is a hierarchy of culture is just the kind of thing that makes Americans pissed off and nationalistic. American culture is perfectly valid, and can be as intellectually stimulating as anything else - or as intellectually deprecating as anything else. It is no better or worse than a two millenia old tribal dance in Polynesia, it is simply different.

Oh, and most of the best sci-fi of the last century was from the US - Asimov, Dick, Bradbury, Crichton, and Heinlein to name but a few. Not to mention Alcott, Lee, Hemingway, Fitzegerald, Kesey, Ellis, Nabokov, Rand, etc, etc ad nauseum.

Then there's movies. I don't know about you but most of the films I consider truly excellent come from the US. There are exceptions, of course - La Haine is French, Shaun of the Dead is British, and pretty much all the others are Oriental.

Music? I wonder how different the music today would be without Jazz - and therefore, Rock 'n' Roll, then just plain Rock, Metal, and so forth.

Food? Well, gee, there's this weird thing about food called personal preference. If someone thinks termites are great cuisine, that's good for them! I'm happy with my apple pie, Philadelphia cheese steaks, cown on the cob (Which I actually thought to be British until very recently), chili con carne, chop suey, jambalaya, and yes pizza, burgers, and fries. In addition to all the American variants of foods, such as the differences between egg foo yong and egg rolls. This, of course, came about due to the new conditions which immigrants found themselves in, not because some cowboy said "This is good, but it ain't great! Let's screw it up and add more fat!" Before shooting some people stone cold dead.

And finally, art.

Because the Tate Modern is a paragon of visual stimulation.



A rather poorly put across argument. In the cultural stakes, America is a very low player. Culture generally is not judged from the view of single person but from the view of those outside. And when you consider what American culture (the culture of mass produced corporations), they dont stand a chance. Russia destroyed individualism through the brutality of the police state - America has destroyed individualism by affecting social pressures through the giant beast of mass produced business. American culture is generally uniform which is veyr bland when cosnidering the many cultures that co-exist in Britain, France and Germany.


Daily Mail. That's all that really needs to be said.

However, do you think the IRA would be dicking around if we'd been sending the SAS in to take care of them every time they pulled some crap? I don't. I think if we'd constantly been stomping down on them, instead of just trying to clean up after them (I'm from Northern Ireland and lost people in the Troubles), and their Northern counterparts, we'd be able to write them off as an unsanitary footnote, and get on with the negotiations with the real people of the Emerald Isles, who tend to be fairly nice and reasonable.


Firstly just because the columinst works for the Daily Mail does not make his comment invalid just as if one of us worked for the Daily Mail. Th Mail might not be the best paper in the world (far from it) but it is by far the best British tabloid. I prefer the Telegraph myself.

Britain spent the entire of the latter half of the 1800s learning that the iron fist does not work when dealing with insurgency and popular terrorist movements. The British governments (both Conservative and Liberal) introduced Coercion Act after Coercion Act, at one point suspending habeus corpus and inflating police power. What did this do? It jsut increased the insurgency. It made martyrs of the nationalist leaders like Parnell and just caused even more defiance against the 'English tyrants'. You say you live in Northern ireland - well you must know that we have placed hundreds of troops in Northern ireland to try and settle the troubles by force. What has it done? Caused nothing but 30 years of never ending violence, murder and suspicion.

America will learn that being gung ho is all well and good against a visible threat like Nazi Germany but is practically suicidal when performed against virtually invisible terrorist cells who can strike from the shadows and disappear back into them. In Iraq, a thousand deaths have been caused by insurgency and terrorism. Heavy handness will not win the war against terror. It can only be won on the battlefield for the hearts and minds of Islamic citizens and because of heavy handed action, many of those citizens (from those in Britain to those in Bali) now flee more compassion for the terrorists and their cause than they foir the West.



If MacDonald's was poor quality, it would not have become one of the most powerful corporations on the planet. If Friends was really terrible, it would not have become as profitable as it was, would not have run for what, 9 or 10 seasons? and would certainly not have created the spinoff series Joey. Yes, you might not like them, and yes, you can use them to talk about what it says about America that they started there, but that's apparently ignoring the fact that most of the rest of the world has avariciously consumed American culture and products.


Success is not the only measure of quality. The PlayStation 2 might be the most successful games console but Nintendo produce better quality games. Friends and MacDonalds are successful not because of quality but because of mediocrity. They are not very good but neither are very bad so they neither offend nor overly please people and therefore manage to appease a wide range of people.


A very valid point, but America is unique in her ideals of Democracy, which mean that even though it is not perfect, people are trying to fix it. Here in England, can we say the same? Our idea of fixing things is to try and indict Blair on war crimes, and to sit around in the pub complaining about it. At least they're trying. Which ties in with what you say further down, too.


Why does it need fixing? The system has worked perfectly well for the past 200 years and still does produce the desired result - the party with the most votes usually does win. I do say usually but the situation where a party wins because it has more MPs but less actual votes has only occured twice in the last hundred years. And because of the multiple party system, if there is a close majority (i.e. a hung parliament) then all of the parties are represented because the government can't just push through acts - it has to make the others agree with them.


HAHA! Oh, that's rich.

The Mau-Mau uprising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau)

The 'divide and rule' strategy of the British Empire is respoonsible, directly, for Ireland, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Sudan, India, and yes, Iraq. (Among others.) You might have heard of a few of those countries having problems now and then. Nothing major, just some civil wars and genocide.

Heard of a chap named Jacques Massu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Massu)? Those two lines alone are enough to show that the French were willing to use the same tactics the Nazis had - just ten years after WW2.

I hardly need to delve into Germany's recent history, I hope.

America is not innocent. Neither is the rest of the world. We've done things just as bad, and rarely with as high a sense of idealism.


How very foolish of you to stumble into my favourite area of history - defending the British Empire and imperialism in general. Very well, let the mashing commence.

Firstly we might note that imperial powers rarely treated their imperial subjects in a genocidal way (or at least not on purpose). Generally such incidents are isolated that are not reflective of the general conduct of the imperial powers. For example the Boer War concentration camps of the British. Now the word concentration camp does not mean the same as the Nazi version - the Nazis murdered their victims through malice while the British killed theirs through ignorance of medical hygenie and misplaced goodwill. Such an incident was completely and utterly isolated - it was not a repeat and it was not repeated.

The example of India is poorly made. India has gained far more from Britain than it ever lost. It gained industry, centres of education, transport networks, civil government, burecracies, modernised taxation, modernised agricultural methods and national unity. It is because of the foundations that Britain laid down that India is now a super power and the world's largest democracy. That demcoracy was recently tested by the elections and the winner actually stood down when it was suggested that there were some irregularities. Could you imagine Bush or Blair doing that? The British gave them everything they needed for such a success - without the British it is doubtful that India would be as well off today. The Indian indepence movement owes its creation to Britain too - remember that Gandhi was an Oxbridge educated lawyer.

And can you really say that Ireland (or Northern ireland) is really that bad off?Admittedly they have had some civil unrest but nothing reaching the levels of civil war. If I remember correctly, didn't the EU claim that Ireland was its most prosperous nation? They didn't do too badly out of Britain either.

As for the African states (and Iraq), the simple reason is that the British were in control of them for a quite a short period of tiem. We were unable to grant them the full benefits of imperial colonism which long term colonies like India received. Which is why it is my fervent belief that the best way to sort out the African problems is to have the Western powers take over.

And I am sure in 50 years time when some people say that America was good, people will say "Oh but what about Vietnam, Iraq etc?"

And actually the British did colonise with idealism. Thats why many historians call it the Empire of Good Intentions. The plan was quite simple and advocated by most Liberals. Go into barbaric, didivded countries, grant unto them the light of Britannic civilisation and then release them once the job was done and they were able to support themselves. Then they wouldn't be bound to Britain as a colony is bound to its master but it would be part of a Commonwealth of equal nations, all brought together by love of the mother state, Britain. That plan was being exexcuted and would be still being executed today had America not ruined the chances of it.



And this ultimately is why America, for me personally, is better than Europe. In America, if you have some crazy, half-baked dream, people will warn you not to get yor hopes up too high, but still encourage you. In Europe, you'll just get laughed at. And look at how many rags-to-riches stories there are in the US, compared to those here. We have... well, we have the National Lottery. And the occasional chap who pops up in the papers for a week and shows that some reformed drug addict can go on to holding a succesful job. When we have a hyper-succesful entrepenuer, it's national news. When America does, it's another person who sat down and did his normal thing which all Americans are encouraged to do. The American Dream is an ideal, yes, and one that every Human on Earth has - to make things better for themselves. Of course, in Europe, things are already pretty good, and as we don't have a two hundred year history of that ideal ingrained into ourselves, we don't see anything special about it - as you say yourself, it's a frail idol.

America doesn't believe that.

America has proved it otherwise. In 200 years they've risen to a position of power which the Old World took a millenia to reach - and they've now got to a point where there is no other empire to challenge them.

And when you challenge the core beliefs of someone, you expect a retaliation. *shrugs* I mean, the Anglican Church would not be overjoyed to hear you making a big fuss about how Jesus Christ is a false idol, would it?

The world can be handled in several ways; plain idealism, with no regards to reality (Which you suggest is the American principle.); rational idealism, which understands that things aren't perfect but does it's best to bring people closer to it (Which is the actual American doctrine); cynicism (Which seems to be the pervailing European attitude, and that certainly explains why nothing ever gets DONE here.); among others which don't need to be gone into for the illustration of my point.

The American Dream is often put into these simple words: any man can be President. This seems to be the core of your argument here. Well firstly have you looked at American presidents? All of them come from rich, business families or from the few established political houses (like the Kennedys or the Bushs). Almost all of their representatives are rich business men because only rich business men can afford the campaign. And when in power they look after the interests of other rich business men which is why America has very little social welfare - rich business men believe it would damage the economy and so their friends in the elected bodies ensure that it is never passed.

Compare this to the British system. Margret Thatcher was the daughter of a green grocer. John Major was the son of a circus acrobat. Disraeli was the son of a Jewish writer. David Llyod George came from a tiny mining village in Wales. MPs tend not to be rich people with business connections - they tend to be lawyers who have good knowledge of human rights, hte legislative process and the judicial process. And anyone can become a laywer. It costs virtually next to nothing to run as an MP in Britain. Thats why some Labour MPs are former miners. In the Commons there are also doctors and teachers. It would seem to me that you have far greater a chance of becoming Prime Minister of Britain than you do of becoming President of America.

In Britain we do have a huge history with the word and ideal of liberty - it was mentioned in the time of the Magna Carta in the 1300s and has been present throughout the many trials and tribulations of this country. We do see anything special in it AT THE MOMENT because this is a time of political apathy and too many people take that ideal fro granted. My comment on it beign a frail idol is not meant as an attack on liberty but rather as a general comment. It is frail because it is far too easily shattered.

And things do get done in Europe. If you paid attention, watched the news, listened to Today in Parliament on BBC Radio 4 you could hear these things being done. but as I said this is a terrible time of political apathy in Europe and so the media does not spend time highlighting politics because politics does not at the moment sell or gain ratings.

The Abrams was there, as was the Leopard 2, if you care to read.

.

If you care to read, the Leo2 A6, did not exist at that time (like I said: Leo2A6 ).

If you care to read, the Leo2 A6, did not exist at that time (like I said: Leo2A6 ).

Not that it matters much.

The US doesn't seem to want to rely on making similar forces face each other. They get better results with dissimilar/asymmetrical forces.

So if they want to attack tanks, they generally use something else. Tank on tank is ok - but it gives the other guy a chance.

Using helicopters against tanks, or even better, using CBU-105/BLU-108 against tanks is perfect.

I hear that the Future Combat System will not have heavy items like the Abrams in any case - so there might not even be a US heavy battle tank in the future.

To get back to the topic - and I'll restate my position:

It's because despite having weapons Europeans don't

a) have the will to project substantial power beyond their borders
b) would rather talk than fight - even if it means losing
c) don't understand why another nation would act differently

So, when the US violates (a) and projects substantial power beyond its borders, and violates (b) by fighting - because sometimes (right or wrong) the US thinks it is necessary to do so, then we get (c) - a bunch of pissed off Europeans.

But don't worry - because of (a) they won't attack us and because of (b) we'll just get a lot of talk.

Perhaps Europe's experiences of having the worst wars in history make it unwilling to hand out those parcels of pain and misery called 'wars' America seems so keen on giving out like sweets at the moment. Europe's had two horrible wars and millions of lives lost on it's ground. The US has never had that kind of conflict, so it's fine with going to war. If a new world war was fought on American soil, you wouldn't be so quick to go out and fight everyone who looked at you sideways.

The UK should withdraw support from the US.

Menwith Hill and all similar bases should be bulldozed.

Just the thoughts of your average Englander.

A rather poorly put across argument. In the cultural stakes, America is a very low player. Culture generally is not judged from the view of single person but from the view of those outside. And when you consider what American culture (the culture of mass produced corporations), they dont stand a chance. Russia destroyed individualism through the brutality of the police state - America has destroyed individualism by affecting social pressures through the giant beast of mass produced business. American culture is generally uniform which is veyr bland when cosnidering the many cultures that co-exist in Britain, France and Germany.



Firstly just because the columinst works for the Daily Mail does not make his comment invalid just as if one of us worked for the Daily Mail. Th Mail might not be the best paper in the world (far from it) but it is by far the best British tabloid. I prefer the Telegraph myself.

Britain spent the entire of the latter half of the 1800s learning that the iron fist does not work when dealing with insurgency and popular terrorist movements. The British governments (both Conservative and Liberal) introduced Coercion Act after Coercion Act, at one point suspending habeus corpus and inflating police power. What did this do? It jsut increased the insurgency. It made martyrs of the nationalist leaders like Parnell and just caused even more defiance against the 'English tyrants'. You say you live in Northern ireland - well you must know that we have placed hundreds of troops in Northern ireland to try and settle the troubles by force. What has it done? Caused nothing but 30 years of never ending violence, murder and suspicion.

America will learn that being gung ho is all well and good against a visible threat like Nazi Germany but is practically suicidal when performed against virtually invisible terrorist cells who can strike from the shadows and disappear back into them. In Iraq, a thousand deaths have been caused by insurgency and terrorism. Heavy handness will not win the war against terror. It can only be won on the battlefield for the hearts and minds of Islamic citizens and because of heavy handed action, many of those citizens (from those in Britain to those in Bali) now flee more compassion for the terrorists and their cause than they foir the West.




Success is not the only measure of quality. The PlayStation 2 might be the most successful games console but Nintendo produce better quality games. Friends and MacDonalds are successful not because of quality but because of mediocrity. They are not very good but neither are very bad so they neither offend nor overly please people and therefore manage to appease a wide range of people.



Why does it need fixing? The system has worked perfectly well for the past 200 years and still does produce the desired result - the party with the most votes usually does win. I do say usually but the situation where a party wins because it has more MPs but less actual votes has only occured twice in the last hundred years. And because of the multiple party system, if there is a close majority (i.e. a hung parliament) then all of the parties are represented because the government can't just push through acts - it has to make the others agree with them.



How very foolish of you to stumble into my favourite area of history - defending the British Empire and imperialism in general. Very well, let the mashing commence.

Firstly we might note that imperial powers rarely treated their imperial subjects in a genocidal way (or at least not on purpose). Generally such incidents are isolated that are not reflective of the general conduct of the imperial powers. For example the Boer War concentration camps of the British. Now the word concentration camp does not mean the same as the Nazi version - the Nazis murdered their victims through malice while the British killed theirs through ignorance of medical hygenie and misplaced goodwill. Such an incident was completely and utterly isolated - it was not a repeat and it was not repeated.

The example of India is poorly made. India has gained far more from Britain than it ever lost. It gained industry, centres of education, transport networks, civil government, burecracies, modernised taxation, modernised agricultural methods and national unity. It is because of the foundations that Britain laid down that India is now a super power and the world's largest democracy. That demcoracy was recently tested by the elections and the winner actually stood down when it was suggested that there were some irregularities. Could you imagine Bush or Blair doing that? The British gave them everything they needed for such a success - without the British it is doubtful that India would be as well off today. The Indian indepence movement owes its creation to Britain too - remember that Gandhi was an Oxbridge educated lawyer.

And can you really say that Ireland (or Northern ireland) is really that bad off?Admittedly they have had some civil unrest but nothing reaching the levels of civil war. If I remember correctly, didn't the EU claim that Ireland was its most prosperous nation? They didn't do too badly out of Britain either.

As for the African states (and Iraq), the simple reason is that the British were in control of them for a quite a short period of tiem. We were unable to grant them the full benefits of imperial colonism which long term colonies like India received. Which is why it is my fervent belief that the best way to sort out the African problems is to have the Western powers take over.

And I am sure in 50 years time when some people say that America was good, people will say "Oh but what about Vietnam, Iraq etc?"

And actually the British did colonise with idealism. Thats why many historians call it the Empire of Good Intentions. The plan was quite simple and advocated by most Liberals. Go into barbaric, didivded countries, grant unto them the light of Britannic civilisation and then release them once the job was done and they were able to support themselves. Then they wouldn't be bound to Britain as a colony is bound to its master but it would be part of a Commonwealth of equal nations, all brought together by love of the mother state, Britain. That plan was being exexcuted and would be still being executed today had America not ruined the chances of it.




The American Dream is often put into these simple words: any man can be President. This seems to be the core of your argument here. Well firstly have you looked at American presidents? All of them come from rich, business families or from the few established political houses (like the Kennedys or the Bushs). Almost all of their representatives are rich business men because only rich business men can afford the campaign. And when in power they look after the interests of other rich business men which is why America has very little social welfare - rich business men believe it would damage the economy and so their friends in the elected bodies ensure that it is never passed.

Compare this to the British system. Margret Thatcher was the daughter of a green grocer. John Major was the son of a circus acrobat. Disraeli was the son of a Jewish writer. David Llyod George came from a tiny mining village in Wales. MPs tend not to be rich people with business connections - they tend to be lawyers who have good knowledge of human rights, hte legislative process and the judicial process. And anyone can become a laywer. It costs virtually next to nothing to run as an MP in Britain. Thats why some Labour MPs are former miners. In the Commons there are also doctors and teachers. It would seem to me that you have far greater a chance of becoming Prime Minister of Britain than you do of becoming President of America.

In Britain we do have a huge history with the word and ideal of liberty - it was mentioned in the time of the Magna Carta in the 1300s and has been present throughout the many trials and tribulations of this country. We do see anything special in it AT THE MOMENT because this is a time of political apathy and too many people take that ideal fro granted. My comment on it beign a frail idol is not meant as an attack on liberty but rather as a general comment. It is frail because it is far too easily shattered.

And things do get done in Europe. If you paid attention, watched the news, listened to Today in Parliament on BBC Radio 4 you could hear these things being done. but as I said this is a terrible time of political apathy in Europe and so the media does not spend time highlighting politics because politics does not at the moment sell or gain ratings.

*clapclapclap*
Brilliant!
Also, I love radio 4 :)

Not that it matters much.

The US doesn't seem to want to rely on making similar forces face each other. They get better results with dissimilar/asymmetrical forces.

So if they want to attack tanks, they generally use something else. Tank on tank is ok - but it gives the other guy a chance.

Using helicopters against tanks, or even better, using CBU-105/BLU-108 against tanks is perfect.

I hear that the Future Combat System will not have heavy items like the Abrams in any case - so there might not even be a US heavy battle tank in the future.

Why do people insist on arguing about boring, mechanical things like weapons when they could be talking about political/social/economic/cultural problems? Honestly. Weapons don't win wars: the men behind them do.

Why do people insist on arguing about boring, mechanical things like weapons when they could be talking about political/social/economic/cultural problems? Honestly. Weapons don't win wars: the men behind them do.

Well, it looks like the British are lightyears ahead on solving the social problem of the inadvertent release of intestinal gas:

http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?CY=...n&IDX=GB2289222

Why do people insist on arguing about boring, mechanical things like weapons when they could be talking about political/social/economic/cultural problems? Honestly. Weapons don't win wars: the men behind them do.

Besides, Tanks against American forces would be obliterated well before they came in contact with the enemy...

We sit our Video Game Players in Trucks with Rockets flown by Video and pick them off from MILES away now.

Gotta LOVE them Video Game addicts! :D

Regards,
Gaar

You really have to wonder why the British have invented an intestinal gas collector. I mean, do they plan on using the gas as a weapon, or as an alternative energy source?

I tell you, there is an intestinal gas gap!

Perhaps Europe's experiences of having the worst wars in history make it unwilling to hand out those parcels of pain and misery called 'wars' America seems so keen on giving out like sweets at the moment. Europe's had two horrible wars and millions of lives lost on it's ground. The US has never had that kind of conflict, so it's fine with going to war. If a new world war was fought on American soil, you wouldn't be so quick to go out and fight everyone who looked at you sideways.

The UK should withdraw support from the US.

Menwith Hill and all similar bases should be bulldozed.

Just the thoughts of your average Englander.
This Canadian concurs 100%. Excellent points!!

This Canadian concurs 100%. Excellent points!!

Oh, so the American Civil War wasn't a horrible war with mass casualties.

Ok.

Oh, so the American Civil War wasn't a horrible war with mass casualties.

Ok.

Actually, the American Civil War was one of the worse Wars, as far as casualties go, if you compare the number of casualties to the whole of the Population of the Country/Countries fighting the War.

Regards,
Gaar

Actually, the American Civil War was one of the worse Wars, as far as casualties go, if you compare the number of casualties to the whole of the Population of the Country/Countries fighting the War.

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Someone just posted that the US has never had a horrible war with horrible casualties.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Someone just posted that the US has never had a horrible war with horrible casualties.

Not to be beated. it was the english civil war that had the highest population/ people killed ratio. When the british do something we never get beaten.

Not to be beated. it was the english civil war that had the highest population/ people killed ratio. When the british do something we never get beaten.

Well half the US won the Civil War, and the other half lost.

Hard to have a Civil War and not have someone get beaten.

So, how did the British do at Dunkirk?

Not to be beated. it was the english civil war that had the highest population/ people killed ratio. When the british do something we never get beaten.

And hence the reason I use the terms "was one of" so as to not get someone saying I had claimed it be the worse.

Regards,
Gaar

So, how did the British do at Dunkirk?

evacuated about 5 times what the military thought was possible

Yes, it was a mass war, 3,000,000 involved in fighting and 600,000 casualties are no small numbers by any means. However, with it having happened between 1861 and 1865, there haven't been any survivors or people with direct memory of it around for quite some time and that is going to mean that it's not kept in the collective conscience in the same way. When people can turn around and repeat there own experiences of war in conversation the effects are far more powerful than just reading it in the history books.

Yes, it was a mass war, 3,000,000 involved in fighting and 600,000 casualties are no small numbers by any means. However, with it having happened between 1861 and 1865, there haven't been any survivors or people with direct memory of it around for quite some time and that is going to mean that it's not kept in the collective conscience in the same way. When people can turn around and repeat there own experiences of war in conversation the effects are far more powerful than just reading it in the history books.

Thanks to bush and blair the iraqis now have a whole new generation to pass on those kind of experiences.

evacuated about 5 times what the military thought was possible

Yes, they excelled at running away to fight another day, but in tactical terms, I believe that qualifies as being beaten.

I guess then, that the British didn't lose Crete, either?

Yes, it was a mass war, 3,000,000 involved in fighting and 600,000 casualties are no small numbers by any means. However, with it having happened between 1861 and 1865, there haven't been any survivors or people with direct memory of it around for quite some time and that is going to mean that it's not kept in the collective conscience in the same way. When people can turn around and repeat there own experiences of war in conversation the effects are far more powerful than just reading it in the history books.

I'm betting that in a few generations, all of the Europeans will have forgotten as well, and will climb down off that high horse and go to war again.

Yes, they excelled at running away to fight another day, but in tactical terms, I believe that qualifies as being beaten.

I guess then, that the British didn't lose Crete, either?

No no. We excell at everything we do. If we lose, we lose in a glorius way.

I'm betting that in a few generations, all of the Europeans will have forgotten as well, and will climb down off that high horse and go to war again.


Quite possibly, we'll see.

At least it may entail, a few more decades of relative peace though.

On dunkirk
well after after your allies the french surrender at your flank and leave you surrounded. Hundreds of brave soilders formed a rear guard action and stoped the germans for nearly a week so the army could evacuate and keep us in the war but had no chance of escape them selves, also thanks to french innability to fight we had to leave all our armour and atilery their.

As for crete i think some else made a jibe about, it would have been a walk over if the greeks hadunt collapsed, you americans clourfully forget the fact that for 3 years britian had to face off the axis alone, fecking good job we did too, not an inch of the british empire was taken and we chased the germans and italians all the way across africa.

Whispering legs id like to have seen the americans do any better, its mircle you think you won the war the only victory you had was d-day and with loads of our help, take the battle of the bulge america got its ass kicked their, untill the germans ran out of oil and ammo.

War rant over

Give me some rational, well thought out reasons why you dislike America/Americans.
How would you like to have neighbours like you? ^_^ I mean, some Americans come across as being loud-mouthed, brash, insensitive, hypocritical and self-righteous (and that is just describing the average Republicrud).

I don't like Americans because there seems to be a calm trend of "we are better than all of you. Our democracy is better even though Bush is raping us of our rights because of the War on Terror and that ever-handy War in Iraq..." as well as the rampant religious right movement that seeks to demonise liberals and make homosexuality a sin, thus throwing back America into the dark ages...

I generally just hate American Republicrap, but because they seem to be the majority (damned neo-cons), I use a general term... I don't mind the libs.

Yes, I have American family and I hate them and their sickening patriotism...

One of my best friends is American. So, I don't hate all; I just hate the ones that embrace the negative stereotypes.

I'm betting that in a few generations, all of the Europeans will have forgotten as well, and will climb down off that high horse and go to war again.

Since the American Civil War was one of the first Great Wars to be documented by photography, we don't actually NEED the "spoken word" and rememorances of those that were there to "see" for ourselves, if only in some small part, the ravages of the War that our Ancestors fought.

Perhaps we cannot remember it in the starkest of terms from those that were there, but I would suggest that neither can those who heard such things themselves rather than seeing the "images" of what was done.

WWII will be even easier to remember, since much was caught on film and not just photographs.

Regards,
Gaar

you ignorant yank bastard

No, I'm quite well aware of military history. I was just trying to make a few sarcastic points with someone who believes that Britain never was beaten in battle.

It might be noted that the British had much larger armed forces in WW II, especially their first rate navy, than they do now. It was one of the few nations in history that has been able to credibly project power around the world.

No, I'm quite well aware of military history. I was just trying to make a few sarcastic points with someone who believes that Britain never was beaten in battle.

It might be noted that the British had much larger armed forces in WW II, especially their first rate navy, than they do now. It was one of the few nations in history that has been able to credibly project power around the world.
Im sorry its really a raw nerve. Every american war movie and america won the war on its own statement i see is spiting on the memory of both my grandfathers who fought their hearts out.

On dunkirk
well after after your allies the french surrender at your flank and leave you surrounded. Hundreds of brave soilders formed a rear guard action and stoped the germans for nearly a week so the army could evacuate and keep us in the war but had no chance of escape them selves, also thanks to french innability to fight we had to leave all our armour and atilery their.

As for crete i think some else made a jibe about, it would have been a walk over if the greeks hadunt collapsed, you americans clourfully forget the fact that for 3 years britian had to face off the axis alone, fecking good job we did too, not an inch of the british empire was taken and we chased the germans and italians all the way across africa.

Whispering legs id like to have seen the americans do any better, its mircle you think you won the war the only victory you had was d-day and with loads of our help, take the battle of the bulge america got its ass kicked their, untill the germans ran out of oil and ammo.

War rant over

they took the channel islands, nazi swine!

they took the channel islands, nazi swine!

the channel island residents are tratiors they made no attempt to resist, they should be shelled for turing their back on parliment and the king

you ignorant yank bastard once again your lack of knowledge about anything futher than new york of los angles shines through, id very much like to see how the yank millitary would have fared after your allies the french surrender at your flank and leave you surrounded. Hundreds of brave soilders formed a rear guard action and stoped the germans for nearly a week so the army could evacuate and keep us in the war but had no chance of escape them selves, also thanks to french innability to fight we had to leave all our armour and atilery their.

As for crete i think some else made a jibe about, it would have been a walk over if the greeks hadunt collapsed, you americans clourfully forget the fact that for 3 years britian had to face off the axis alone, fecking good job we did too, not an inch of the british empire was taken and we chased the germans and italians all the way across africa. Then again when your learn your history from movies what can one expect.

I agree. They should read history books that were written by other countries. That way, they get more knowledge of the wars instead of the limited patriotism-saturated propoganda that they are fed from the over-glamourised Hollywood slop trough.

Oh, and you know, there were more than just military men, merchanrs helped at that battle while the British and French ranks tried to hold their position for nearly a week.

Europe tried and fought valiantly even though the Germans oppressed many of the people. Britain fought well, and they did a great job. heck, they could have gone without the Canucks, Aussis and Zealanders. But, they did need a few allies against the Nazis.

England held out for a long time, with the help of Austrilia, New Zealand and Canada. The US was no where in the picture until much later in the case of both wars. They only came in when it suited them; ie: 1917 after some crap happened to them, and in 1941 after the bombing of Pearl Harbour.

I agree. They should read history books that were written by other countries. That way, they get more knowledge of the wars instead of the limited patriotism-saturated propoganda that they are fed from the over-glamourised Hollywood slop trough.

Oh, and you know, there were more than just military men, merchanrs helped at that battle while the British and French ranks tried to hold their position for nearly a week.

Europe tried and fought valiantly even though the Germans oppressed many of the people. Britain fought well, and they did a great job. heck, they could have gone without the Canucks, Aussis and Zealanders. But, they did need a few allies against the Nazis.

England held out for a long time, with the help of Austrilia, New Zealand and Canada. The US was no where in the picture until much later in the case of both wars. They only came in when it suited them; ie: 1917 after some crap happened to them, and in 1941 after the bombing of Pearl Harbour.


Canada Austrilia and new zealand are britian. if you check the fine points of their consitution the queen/king is still head of state. We all thought together from day one, and the austrilians and kiwi's fought like demons in south east asia, something america also brushes over, if austrilia had fell there would have been little to stop the japaneses navy.

Im sorry its really a raw nerve. Every american war movie and america won the war on its own statement i see is spiting on the memory of both my grandfathers who fought their hearts out.

Well, if it's any consolation, I also believe that the Russians had a lot to do with the defeat of Germany.

Had Hitler not been fighting the Russians (for years by the time of Normandy), you would be speaking German now, and I think that the Allies would have lost the war.

Over 1 million Germans fell in the East. That's not something that they could recover from, and still fight against the invasion.

Now, count how many Russians died doing that. It's a ghastly number.

The Russians lost more men at Kharkov in a single day than the US and UK lost on the beaches of Normandy in the whole invasion.

the channel island residents are tratiors they made no attempt to resist, they should be shelled for turing their back on parliment and the king
At least mainland Britian didn't! :D

At least mainland Britian didn't! :D

I would have loved to have fought in the defence if sealion had gone ahead, it would have been one hell of a fight.