NationStates Jolt Archive

One constant theme that comes through on these boards is that if you are an American (USA) then it seems that you have to live your life in fear of something.

You have to have the right to bear arms so that your own government doesnt go rogue on you, so that you can defend yourself and your loved ones against any lunatic or criminal that threatens you.

You have to have the best military in the world, to be able to deal with whatever threats appear.

Did this attitude appear after 9/11 or was it always there?
If it did appear after 9/11 is it not an overreaction?
What is it that makes the US citizen have to live in this perpetual state of fear?

These is not US bashing, OK. I am not saying "Blood loving US people have to have guns" or anything like that. I am genuinely puzzled as to why there is so much emphasis on protecting yourself from others in the USA.

as an American, all i can say is that i feel far more threatened by my own people and government than i do by outside forces. i believe my rights, my freedom, and even my safety are more at risk from Americans than from non-Americans.

but then, i happen to be a non-conservative non-Christian lower-economic-class bisexual female intellectual...it's not really a good time to be any of those in America right now :).

Why are Americans paranoid?

Because everyone is out to get us!! (j/k)

as an American, all i can say is that i feel far more threatened by my own people and government than i do by outside forces. i believe my rights, my freedom, and even my safety are more at risk from Americans than from non-Americans.

but then, i happen to be a non-conservative non-Christian lower-economic-class bisexual female intellectual...it's not really a good time to be any of those in America right now :).

I think the goverment uses fear to get us to go along with them taking our rights away. They want us to be scared of the world and come running to them for protection.

i often suspect that on some level americans like being afraid of just about everything. its like some sort of deep-rooted cultural tradition. and when they can't find anything in particular to be frightened of, they come up with something stupid to tide them over - "omg noes! some disease that only kills really old people and is very hard to transmit is going to kill us all!".

i've always felt like something of an outsider on this. my suburban upbringing somehow didn't leave me terrified of the city, and it was all downhill from there.

The US's govt. is paranoid the same reason a theif or muderer would be paranoid. When you do bad things, bad things come back and happen to you. They project their fear thru propaghanda and so the many people who actually believe what the govt. says get paranoid too.

One constant theme that comes through on these boards is that if you are an American (USA) then it seems that you have to live your life in fear of something.

You have to have the right to bear arms so that your own government doesnt go rogue on you, so that you can defend yourself and your loved ones against any lunatic or criminal that threatens you.

You have to have the best military in the world, to be able to deal with whatever threats appear.

Did this attitude appear after 9/11 or was it always there?
If it did appear after 9/11 is it not an overreaction?
What is it that makes the US citizen have to live in this perpetual state of fear?

These is not US bashing, OK. I am not saying "Blood loving US people have to have guns" or anything like that. I am genuinely puzzled as to why there is so much emphasis on protecting yourself from others in the USA.
I prefer to think of it as a cautious awareness rather than a paranoia. The world can be a dangerous place and "keeping your powder dry" is simply good sense. :)

I think the goverment uses fear to get us to go along with them taking our rights away. They want us to be scared of the world and come running to them for protection.

That is a position I had considered, but then discarded (I am not sure why I discarded it though.)

I'm paranoid because everyone is conspiring against me.

You call it paranoia, I call it being prepared. The world isn't entirely friendly. There are some people out there who are a threat, and it's best to be ready to protect yourself provided it doesn't interfere with living your life.

hope you don't mind, but this thread has made me curious enough to start a spin-off thread with a poll...

I prefer to think of it as a cautious awareness rather than a paranoia. The world can be a dangerous place and "keeping your powder dry" is simply good sense. :)

The problem is that it seems to be assumed, too often, that it is a dangerous place, and that you have to defend yourself against it at all times.
What happened to trust and empathy and fellow feeling. Do these not exist anymore in the USA?

The problem is that it seems to be assumed, too often, that it is a dangerous place, and that you have to defend yourself against it at all times.
What happened to trust and empathy and fellow feeling. Do these not exist anymore in the USA?
Trust is earned. Some nations and organizations have earned the US' trust. Some have shown themselves to be unworthy of trust. Empathy's fine as long as it doesn't get in the way of doing what needs to be done.

Alfred Adler:
Trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events, not of words. Trust movement.

It's true that trust is earned - like when we didn't like Pakistans nuclear program so we stopped selling them military equipment. But now it's ten years later and we are selling them some fighter jets because they didn't bomb us.

Why does the rest of the world not understand the nature of pragmatism? The easiest way to defend oneself and one's family against threats big and small is with the threat of superior or mutually annihilating force. I'm certainly not going to leave it up to some cop who has no legal obligation to actually protect me from anything.

One constant theme that comes through on these boards is that if you are an American (USA) then it seems that you have to live your life in fear of something.

-<deleted>-

Did this attitude appear after 9/11 or was it always there?


It's been here for a while, but it really picked up after WWII. The ruling elite has used a combination of induced terror (mostly over foreign enemies, but minorities, immigrants, and gays have all been the bogey man at some point) and apathy to establish and maintain their power base.

A terrified public will follow you anywhere, if you promise to lead them to safety, and an apathetic one at least won't ask inconvenient questions about your motives.

One constant theme that comes through on these boards is that if you are an American (USA) then it seems that you have to live your life in fear of something.

You have to have the right to bear arms so that your own government doesnt go rogue on you, so that you can defend yourself and your loved ones against any lunatic or criminal that threatens you.

You have to have the best military in the world, to be able to deal with whatever threats appear.

Did this attitude appear after 9/11 or was it always there?
If it did appear after 9/11 is it not an overreaction?
What is it that makes the US citizen have to live in this perpetual state of fear?

These is not US bashing, OK. I am not saying "Blood loving US people have to have guns" or anything like that. I am genuinely puzzled as to why there is so much emphasis on protecting yourself from others in the USA.

It's been there since at the founding of the country. And it's not fear. It's vigilance. As Jefferson (I think) said, "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." If we are not constantly looking for the possible threats and counteracting them, what will stop them from either killing us of depriving us of our freedom?

One constant theme that comes through on these boards is that if you are an American (USA) then it seems that you have to live your life in fear of something.

I'm in fear of something? What am I in fear of?

You have to have the right to bear arms so that your own government doesnt go rogue on you, so that you can defend yourself and your loved ones against any lunatic or criminal that threatens you.

Yep! True! That is why we never have tyranical governments. They know that we'll revolt and take them out if they do.

You have to have the best military in the world, to be able to deal with whatever threats appear.

And this makes us to be afraid of something?

Did this attitude appear after 9/11 or was it always there?
If it did appear after 9/11 is it not an overreaction?
What is it that makes the US citizen have to live in this perpetual state of fear?

1) Personal interpretation.
2) Nope
3) We are?

These is not US bashing, OK. I am not saying "Blood loving US people have to have guns" or anything like that. I am genuinely puzzled as to why there is so much emphasis on protecting yourself from others in the USA.

To make sure that the government does what the people want and to prevent tyranny from forming in this country.

There are so many guns in the US that it can be reasonably assumed that anyone who has any criminal intentions whatosever will be able to easily acquire several.

Also, we have a government which has lately decided that people can be tortured and that the constitution doesnt neccessarily protect our rights to trial by jury or protection from unreasonable search/seizure/arrest.

Also, we have a vandal hoard of religious fundementalists who constantly try to smash down the wall that seperates their church from the laws.

Plus the food is mainly poisonous, ditto the air.

And there is less and less of a social safety net every day.

And the media makes certain that we know very well that there are lots of murderers out there waiting to hurt us.

And we've done so much wrong to so many people around the world and been so arrogant and so greedy and made ourselves so genuinely worthy of punishment that it is hard not to expect it sooner or later.

Congratulations on the triple post.

Deja Vue, anyone.

Coreneliu. You argue that there is no fear, that may be true in your case, but just look at the justifications that are given for having firearms, for having to have the most powerful military.

You, yourself say that it is the armed populace that keeps the gov't in line, so what keeps it in line in the UK? The empirical evidence does not support your justifications. All I am doing is expressing a perception that is relatively common outside of, and apparently by the response received, inside of the USA. That the americans are always on trigger edge, ready to explode into violent action at the slightest movement.
Now, outside of humans, preparedness for violence at that level is a sign of fear. The question I was asking is whether it is also a sign of fear in the human population as well. And if it is, what is it that causes the USA to suffer more of this than any other country?

One constant theme that comes through on these boards is that if you are an American (USA) then it seems that you have to live your life in fear of something.

You have to have the right to bear arms so that your own government doesnt go rogue on you, so that you can defend yourself and your loved ones against any lunatic or criminal that threatens you.

You have to have the best military in the world, to be able to deal with whatever threats appear.

Did this attitude appear after 9/11 or was it always there?
If it did appear after 9/11 is it not an overreaction?
What is it that makes the US citizen have to live in this perpetual state of fear?

These is not US bashing, OK. I am not saying "Blood loving US people have to have guns" or anything like that. I am genuinely puzzled as to why there is so much emphasis on protecting yourself from others in the USA.




I fear nothing and no one. I believe the government is paranoid, but not the american people as a whole, for the most of them anyway. Every country has it's loony tunes donchaknow.

the Grokdoc

The problem is that it seems to be assumed, too often, that it is a dangerous place, and that you have to defend yourself against it at all times.
What happened to trust and empathy and fellow feeling. Do these not exist anymore in the USA?
Of course they do. They exist side-by-side with the realization that things can sometimes get a bit dicey. :)

One constant theme that comes through on these boards is that if you are an American (USA) then it seems that you have to live your life in fear of something.

You have to have the right to bear arms so that your own government doesnt go rogue on you, so that you can defend yourself and your loved ones against any lunatic or criminal that threatens you.

You have to have the best military in the world, to be able to deal with whatever threats appear.

Did this attitude appear after 9/11 or was it always there?
If it did appear after 9/11 is it not an overreaction?
What is it that makes the US citizen have to live in this perpetual state of fear?

These is not US bashing, OK. I am not saying "Blood loving US people have to have guns" or anything like that. I am genuinely puzzled as to why there is so much emphasis on protecting yourself from others in the USA.

You've just been watching "welcome to columbine" haven't you?

You've just been watching "welcome to columbine" haven't you?

No, I've been reading threads on NS general. :eek:

One constant theme that comes through on these boards is that if you are an American (USA) then it seems that you have to live your life in fear of something.

You have to have the right to bear arms so that your own government doesnt go rogue on you, so that you can defend yourself and your loved ones against any lunatic or criminal that threatens you.

You have to have the best military in the world, to be able to deal with whatever threats appear.

Did this attitude appear after 9/11 or was it always there?
If it did appear after 9/11 is it not an overreaction?
What is it that makes the US citizen have to live in this perpetual state of fear?

These is not US bashing, OK. I am not saying "Blood loving US people have to have guns" or anything like that. I am genuinely puzzled as to why there is so much emphasis on protecting yourself from others in the USA.

There is a huge culture of fear in western culture, Particularly in America. Why else would we need spf 50 sunscreen and taser guns marketed as personal safelty devices????

You call it paranoia, I call it being prepared. The world isn't entirely friendly. There are some people out there who are a threat, and it's best to be ready to protect yourself provided it doesn't interfere with living your life.

You define being in a constant state of fear as prepared. You would think being prepared woul dmean you weren't afraid.

I don't fear our gov't i fear outsiders, i dont know when the last terrorist plotted against brazil but i am cautious because i dont want another 5000 innocent people being kill for no cause of theirs like on 9/11, i had a friend taken that day and i dont want that to happen again. so call us what u like but we r being protective of our freedoms. :sniper:

You define being in a constant state of fear as prepared. You would think being prepared woul dmean you weren't afraid.
I don't feel afraid. I feel like we're in a good position to defend ourselves, therefore we can relax.

According to M.Moore the immigrants to America were all pussys and the american media is really frightening

This attitude was always there, however after 9/11 we Americans saw that we were more vulnerable than we had thought was possible. As a result the self-preservation instinct began working overtime in most people. The reaction, however, is not unfounded. On 9/11 Americans saw the 2nd tallest buildings in the US crumble and the center of our military burn. As a result it is justifiable that we Americans are a bit on edge.

Deja Vue, anyone.

Coreneliu. You argue that there is no fear, that may be true in your case, but just look at the justifications that are given for having firearms, for having to have the most powerful military.

Yep! Someone has to make sure that tyrannical person doesn't take over the world. Since Europe, not including Britian, is to weak to do it, that leaves the US.

You, yourself say that it is the armed populace that keeps the gov't in line, so what keeps it in line in the UK?

Absolutely nothing. The Queen herself can disolve parliment at her whim. Since the people are unarmed, they won't be able to prevent it. If the President dissolves Congress, watch out.

The empirical evidence does not support your justifications. All I am doing is expressing a perception that is relatively common outside of, and apparently by the response received, inside of the USA. That the americans are always on trigger edge, ready to explode into violent action at the slightest movement.

Do you have proof of your first statement? Nope you don't. As for being violent, considering our history, I'm not surprised. We've always been picked on! We've always been ignored. We've always been underestimated. Most of this by europe.

Now, outside of humans, preparedness for violence at that level is a sign of fear. The question I was asking is whether it is also a sign of fear in the human population as well. And if it is, what is it that causes the USA to suffer more of this than any other country?

Our history!

I don't feel afraid. I feel like we're in a good position to defend ourselves, therefore we can relax.

Agreed Drunk commies.

I don't fear our gov't i fear outsiders, i dont know when the last terrorist plotted against brazil but i am cautious because i dont want another 5000 innocent people being kill for no cause of theirs like on 9/11, i had a friend taken that day and i dont want that to happen again. so call us what u like but we r being protective of our freedoms. :sniper:

I am an ex patriate Brit, who lived in London in the 70s and 80s. I have first hand experience of terrorism thanks to the IRA, not on the scale of 9/11 but rather more frequently with genuine alarms mixed in with the false ones.
I did not call you anything, I askesd why, as a nation, the USA appears to be so paranoid.
A typical USA reaction though in the sniper smiley.

Well, I'd say that we Americans are so paranoid because pretty much every other country in the world hates us. One day they'll probably all team up and take us out...we'd take them all out with us though (we have bunches of nukes; say goodbye to your capital cities).

Well, I'd say that we Americans are so paranoid because pretty much every other country in the world hates us. One day they'll probably all team up and take us out...we'd take them all out with us though (we have bunches of nukes; say goodbye to your capital cities).
You are a silly, silly, person.

Absolutely nothing. The Queen herself can disolve parliment at her whim. Since the people are unarmed, they won't be able to prevent it. If the President dissolves Congress, watch out

The queen is fairly powerless in reality. Americans always fail to understand the UK system. She can disolve parliment in theory but if she did no one would "disolve" and she'd just look silly.

Ameicans are paranoid. Look at the precautions taken by lots of people against anthrax attack and chemical attack after 9/11. No one did that here even though a threat was also likely. We don't panic in Europe. But then we've experienced attacks against our countries many times and realise that the personal risk is small. It's happened in the US, what, 3 or 4 times?
Experience shows us that precautions don't help and risks are smaller than percieved. You are still very young as a nation and the young are bound to overreact.

To answer the original question, America is a very diverse country, so you can't really pinpoint one type of American. People are people regardless of where they happen to live, and you'll probably find more differences among Americans than you will between us and other countries. That said, the level of fear one usually has in America has a lot to do with where one lives. For example, I have lived both in the inner city and in the suburbs and there are very big differences in terms of fear.

In the suburbs and rural areas, everything is quiet, nice, and safe. You'll mainly see some houses, a shopping mall or a school, and just middle class families living their lives. You probably won't even lock your doors (except maybe at night) and you're not too worried about where your kids are or if they're safe. Most Americans like to keep a gun in their house as a safety precaution because self-reliance is a big part of our culture. The way many of us see it, we are better capable of protecting ourselves than the police because it takes them longer to get to our house.

When you go to the city, of course, the level of fear rises. A lot of people are crammed into a smaller area, it has a more lower-middle class or poor population, and gang crime is a big problem. Living in one of the bad parts of Los Angeles, I've seen two people get shot and I've had a group of three men try to break into my house (trust me, you would be so happy you have your rifle to scare them away). I think that in the larger cities in America, you don't have that sense of community and trust that you would in other places mainly because there are so many people on your own street that you do not know and have never seen. This is probably the biggest cause of fear.

There are so many guns in the US that it can be reasonably assumed that anyone who has any criminal intentions whatosever will be able to easily acquire several.

Also, we have a government which has lately decided that people can be tortured and that the constitution doesnt neccessarily protect our rights to trial by jury or protection from unreasonable search/seizure/arrest.

Also, we have a vandal hoard of religious fundementalists who constantly try to smash down the wall that seperates their church from the laws.

Plus the food is mainly poisonous, ditto the air.

And there is less and less of a social safety net every day.

And the media makes certain that we know very well that there are lots of murderers out there waiting to hurt us.

And we've done so much wrong to so many people around the world and been so arrogant and so greedy and made ourselves so genuinely worthy of punishment that it is hard not to expect it sooner or later.


Aww, cmon. If you actually live here, you should know better than to think like that. The vast majority of gun crimes are caused by illegally obtained guns, and many of the gun deaths caused by legally registered guns are suicides and NOT homicides. In fact, when Florida made it easier for citizens to get guns, their crime plummeted.

Most of the bad revisions that threaten our civil liberties in the piece of legislation you are referring to, The Patriot Act, are sunset provisions. They expire this year. The Patriot Act is a bad piece of legislation, but the media has overestimated its destructiveness. America hasn't turned into an Orwelian society just yet. Same goes for the pesky religious fundamentalists. It's sad that you have so little love for your country that you think it is "genuinely worthy of punishment." America isn't hated because it is arrogant and greedy (by the way, do you have any proof for that claim? And enlightened self-interest is a good thing, it's called capitalism), it is hated mainly because it is a superpower, or as the French Prime Minister likes to say, a "hyperpower." People will always find reasons to hate any country with so much power regardless of what name the country has or what good it has done. The same happened with Great Britain and other world powers throughout history.

Absolutely nothing. The Queen herself can disolve parliment at her whim. Since the people are unarmed, they won't be able to prevent it. If the President dissolves Congress, watch out.

Our history!

Do you not wonder why its a general thought that many Americans are idiots? *Presents this quote like its wheel of fortune*

Your history isn't that bad, actually rather peachy in comparison to many countries that don't have nearly as much pointless violence as you.

OMG, I am afraid Big Brother will pick up on this conversation, I am going to go out and arm myself to the teeth and plant landmines in my driveway!!! j/k

For example, I have lived both in the inner city and in the suburbs and there are very big differences in terms of fear.

In the suburbs and rural areas, everything is quiet, nice, and safe.

When you go to the city, of course, the level of fear rises.

your experience seems to have been the opposite of mine. while i would agree that suburbs and rural areas are largely safer than the cities, it is precisely in those places where most of the general fear and anxiety resides. rural and suburban folks are terrified of the cities (though suburbanites will make the trek downtown to go shopping or to work), and tend to get more worked up about percieved threats and terrorist attacks in general, even though they are the least likely to be affected by them. it just sort of comes with the territory for urban people - you take precautions, but you don't spend much of your time worrying about it.

IMHO, and the not-so-HO of many historians, Americans have been unusually fearful the way we are now since WWII, when we had a legitimate threat to our nation and we built (almost completely from scratch) a military to go along with it. Then along came the Cold War, which, though Americans did overreact to the Big Red Menace, was again a legitimate threat. The problem is, now we can't get out of "threat mode". The entire military is geared towards fighting the next USSR and is changing only slowly; the defense industry that was necessary during WWII became overbearing and horribly corrupt during the Cold War and is now so entrenched in the government that no military spending bill has been defeated for years; and most Americans are so used to fearing the "enemy" that they easily slip into the role of a war on terror.
Military preparedness is one thing; we spend more on the military than every other country on earth combined- and the Cold War is over!
We have useless weapons like a NMD project that has never shown any signs of being feasible, the V-22 Osprey that went 300% over budget and the Pentagon did not want (but important contracts in its making were in Trent Lott's congressional district, so he and other congressmen pushed it through), medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe that were built in the 80's but had been unnecessary since the development of ICBM's in the 60's, etc.
The war on terror is not a war, and we do not need bunker-busting tactical nukes or more strategic bombers to fight it. Terrorism is not one monolithic front; after all, I don't see Bush worrying about the IRA or Tamil Tigers- or Saudi Arabia's royal family, for that matter. If 'terrorism' is such a threat that we need to have the military we do, then why aren't we making sacrifices in the private sector? Why isn't there a draft? Answer: it's not necessary, and neither is the majority of our military spending.
The fact is, as many have pointed out, that American society is used to living with a threat. Our status quo- from politicians' platforms to millions of factory workers' jobs- requires it.

Absolutely nothing. The Queen herself can disolve parliment at her whim. Since the people are unarmed, they won't be able to prevent it. If the President dissolves Congress, watch out.



Do you have proof of your first statement? Nope you don't. As for being violent, considering our history, I'm not surprised. We've always been picked on! We've always been ignored. We've always been underestimated. Most of this by europe.

A little bit of misunderstanding here.

You say that our monarch can dissolve parliament. True. You acknowledge that we are not an armed nation. True. You then ask me what is my empirical evidence that an armed populace is not necessary to eliminate rogue goevernments.
Maybe I was not clear enough. 790 years of UK history is my empirical evidence.

We have always had a healthy desire to protect ourselves. Gun ownership is built into our constitution because of our history shortly before the founding.

It is worse after 9/11, whether justified or not. There might be better solutions, but the bulk of the populace has to get over the knee jerk reaction before solid solutions start getting placed.

As to the hasty generalization that Americans must be afraid of something, it is awful condescending and presumptuous, don't you think? Historically speaking, governments that take away private citizen's guns do so to facilitate abusive patterns. Why ever would we follow that lead?

The vast majority of us do not live in fear of anything, but there are 300 million of us online. If you look around, I guarantee you'll find paranoid Americans out here, but to generalize what you have been exposed to and project it on all of us is rather short sighted. I own a gun, and I'll use it to defend my country or family if needed... But I honestly don't expect to ever need to.

You define being in a constant state of fear as prepared. You would think being prepared would mean you weren't afraid.
As stated earlier, pragmatism and fear are two entirely different things. If anything, I am more 'afraid' of getting in a fatal car crash than getting killed by someone else, given that the probability just looking at the roughest numbers of murders vs fatal car crashes is about 1 to 4. If you were to figure in my size, race, sex, and economic status I would probably be at least an order of magnitude more likely to die in a car crash than to be killed by someone else. This does not stop me from driving or even going faster than the speed limit. I take care to be senisible in my driving habits and the care of my car however. I also make sure that I pay attention to my surroundings while driving. The care that I take in the car is the same care that any law-abiding citizen takes while carrying concealed. They are ensuring their safety and if they are also the good samaritan sort the safety of others.

I'm reminded of the phrase "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that they're not out to get you."

America was founded with a series of checks and balances, the founding fathers (who no one seems to accurately quote anymore, especially when it comes to the separation of church and state issue) realized that power tends to go to ones head quickly (take a look at our supreme court Justices). Therefore they tried to protect the nation through the 3 branches of government and the citizens of the country. They also, it might be noted, based a lot of their work on religious, and even *gasp* biblical principles in an effort to keep the citizens of the country on some sort of moral ground w/o denying their freedom to (or not to) worship.

As far as parania goes, webster defines such as "a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations." I don't think that America in general is like that. There are groups, such as the American Criminal...I mean Civil Liberties Union that try to convince the populace that every act by congress (especially if it's conservative) is an attempt to destroy some consititutional liberty (you know, the group that will try to save the life of a guilty criminal but try to kill an innocent brain damaged woman). Then of course there's the judicial branch of our government that seems to be better at making laws than ruling on the current ones like they're supposed to. On top of this we have a large percentage of arabic countries that hat our guts because of our diplomacy with Israel, and a vast European community that is seemingly ungrateful for any contribution this country has ever made and scoffs at the concept of "right and wrong" (which many in our country do as well) yet are quick to condemn something they don't like and ask for our troops to enforce it.

So I look at all that, and could easily see how someone could become paranoid. But for this American citizen, while I protect my family, and fulfill my civic responsibilities, I realize that what happens in this world is beyond my control and I need not worry about the one who does control it.

your experience seems to have been the opposite of mine. while i would agree that suburbs and rural areas are largely safer than the cities, it is precisely in those places where most of the general fear and anxiety resides. rural and suburban folks are terrified of the cities (though suburbanites will make the trek downtown to go shopping or to work), and tend to get more worked up about percieved threats and terrorist attacks in general, even though they are the least likely to be affected by them. it just sort of comes with the territory for urban people - you take precautions, but you don't spend much of your time worrying about it.

that's interesting, it makes sense... i guess my experience was the opposite, but that's exactly what I was saying before... all Americans are different and everyone has a different experience, so i guess it's innaccurate to say that the nature of fear is one way or another

I'm not scared and I live in the US.

ok lets imagen the world is like a city with lots of gangster familys....each country is pretty much governed by themselves and there is no mother or father to say yes or no....the biggest family will worry that other smaller familys will join together and declare war and take over them...paranioa will always be present in the best country..(i hate to admit they are first in the world tho) :D sorry for any spelling mistakes had a few :D

I prefer to think of it as a cautious awareness rather than a paranoia. The world can be a dangerous place and "keeping your powder dry" is simply good sense. :)
Surely then every country's people would be as paranoid (sorry, "cautiously aware") as the American people. Also, I highly doubt that Americans are the most knowledgable people about the outside world. I'm not saying that you are a bunch of xenophobic rednecks, but living in such a large, self-sufficient country you don't feel the need to know as much about the world outside your border.

It's been there since at the founding of the country. And it's not fear. It's vigilance. As Jefferson (I think) said, "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." If we are not constantly looking for the possible threats and counteracting them, what will stop them from either killing us of depriving us of our freedom?
The only people who are depriving Americans of their freedom is the American government, particularly since 1945.

Yep! Someone has to make sure that tyrannical person doesn't take over the world. Since Europe, not including Britian, is to weak to do it, that leaves the US
Actually Britain would be on your "too weak" list if Blair had done as Chirac and Scroeder did, and followed the will of his people.

And BTW, what tyrannical person are you talking about? Surely not Saddam?

As for being violent, considering our history, I'm not surprised. We've always been picked on!
Who's been picking on you? How many times has the US been invaded since its founding? Once? Almost every country in Europe has suffered worse than America has.

America isn't hated because it is arrogant and greedy (by the way, do you have any proof for that claim? And enlightened self-interest is a good thing, it's called capitalism), it is hated mainly because it is a superpower, or as the French Prime Minister likes to say, a "hyperpower." People will always find reasons to hate any country with so much power regardless of what name the country has or what good it has done.
America is arrogant and greedy. Self-interest is fine, but oppressing foreign peoples is crossing the line. People don't hate America because of its power (typical American response) they the way it uses its power. (Well at least you didn't say "they hate us because of our freedoms".)

I'm not scared and I live in the US.

im not scared and i live in England...it dont mean a thing if your scared or not........people live in iraq..iran.afganastan...china...ect and they arnt scared because that is how life has been for them....people just learn to live the life that they have :D

Who's been picking on you? How many times has the US been invaded since its founding? Once? Almost every country in Europe has suffered worse than America has.

You do realize that this hurts your case more than it helps it. "Peace in our time" remember? That and had the americans told the russians to fuck off and go back to russia at the end of WWII, the Cold War wouldn't have been nearly as bad.

I'm not scared and I live in the US.
Why do you assume that being paranoid means being scared? Being paranoid means that you have afeeling of persecution, a feeling that others are attacking or desire to attack you. How you react to this is another question.

because Bush is a dumbfuck. :mad:

The problem is that it seems to be assumed, too often, that it is a dangerous place, and that you have to defend yourself against it at all times.
What happened to trust and empathy and fellow feeling. Do these not exist anymore in the USA?
I believe that there is one word that is able to sum up the American position on everything: I. Take it as you will.

I believe that there is one word that is able to sum up the American position on everything: I. Take it as you will.

I couldn't agree with you more. :)

I'm not paranoid..

What are you a terrorist thug?

Is this some sort of trick?

Hmmmm..

Must be a plot, somehow in there..

LOL.....

Troy* ;)

I couldn't agree with you more. :)
And now you know why Americans can seem a little cooky.

And now you know why Americans can seem a little cooky.

Oh, I've known why they've been cooky for a quite some time now.

You are a silly, silly, person.

How is he silly?

The queen is fairly powerless in reality. Americans always fail to understand the UK system. She can disolve parliment in theory but if she did no one would "disolve" and she'd just look silly.

I actually understand the UK System well considering I am an American. She can do what I just stated and there's nothing that the Brits can really do about it since you have no written constitution.

Ameicans are paranoid. Look at the precautions taken by lots of people against anthrax attack and chemical attack after 9/11. No one did that here even though a threat was also likely. We don't panic in Europe. But then we've experienced attacks against our countries many times and realise that the personal risk is small. It's happened in the US, what, 3 or 4 times?
Experience shows us that precautions don't help and risks are smaller than percieved. You are still very young as a nation and the young are bound to overreact.

No you just ignore it till it hits you in the head. WWII ring a bell? We at least prepare for something which actually gives us a leg up over Europe. As for attacks, you don't do crap about them but treat them as criminal matters but as we've seen under Clinton, that don't work. We learn from our mistakes, Europe hasn't learned from its mistakes yet.

Do you not wonder why its a general thought that many Americans are idiots? *Presents this quote like its wheel of fortune*

Actually, its an intelligent post!

Your history isn't that bad, actually rather peachy in comparison to many countries that don't have nearly as much pointless violence as you.

Take alook at our history with Britain (even as a colony) and you'll understand why.

A little bit of misunderstanding here.

You say that our monarch can dissolve parliament. True. You acknowledge that we are not an armed nation. True. You then ask me what is my empirical evidence that an armed populace is not necessary to eliminate rogue goevernments.
Maybe I was not clear enough. 790 years of UK history is my empirical evidence.

Hence the uprising of the people in the "Bloodless Revolution" and the Glorious Revolution. To bad there wasn't an uprising during Mad King George's reign. He was a tyrant and the British did nothing against him.

[quote]Actually Britain would be on your "too weak" list if Blair had done as Chirac and Scroeder did, and followed the will of his people.

And BTW, what tyrannical person are you talking about? Surely not Saddam?

Europe did nothing about Hitler! They went with appeasement! All Europe does is Appeasement! Hell, they don't even recognize a terrorist organization when it hits them upside the head. Appeasement doesn't work and that is all the Europe does, appeasement.

"He who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."

Who's been picking on you? How many times has the US been invaded since its founding? Once? Almost every country in Europe has suffered worse than America has.

Britain in 1812
Mexico (somewhat) in 1840s
Confederates in 1863

That is about it unless you want to go to December 1941 when a shot down Jap pilot took a town on a small Hawaiian Island and was later taken out.

America is arrogant and greedy. Self-interest is fine, but oppressing foreign peoples is crossing the line. People don't hate America because of its power (typical American response) they the way it uses its power. (Well at least you didn't say "they hate us because of our freedoms".)

Whom have we oppressed? No one by my knowledge. Shall we talk about Europes oppression of foreign people?

I got this as a chain Email some time ago, it seems to be relevant here.

---------------------------------
ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS
This essay, by Lt.Col. Dave Grossman, former West Point psychology professor
and retired Army Ranger, was sent by the wife of a retired Marine. She
notes, "I've met many Marines in the past 25 years, all the same type:
Strong, compassionate, patriotic, brave. Many of our non-military friends
say they can't understand why Marines are the way they are. I thought the
following article shed a bit of light on these brave men."

Warrior Ethos
"Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so
because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things
that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that
may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as
always, even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending?
What is worth dying for? What is worth living for?" - William J. Bennett -
in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy, November 24, 1997
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most
of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive
creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true.
Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated
assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast
majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.
Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent
crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record
rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which
means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less
than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent
crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent
citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We
may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still
remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who
are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme
provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the
pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will
grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard
blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that
shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something
wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the
predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves
feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there
that will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are
evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you
forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety
in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to
protect the flock and confront the wolf."


If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive
citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for
your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf.
But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your
fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who
is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness,
into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves,
and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, which is what makes
them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world.
They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire
extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their
kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police
officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more
likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but
the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea
of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they
chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the
wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is
that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any
sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished
and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a
representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that
there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them
where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our
airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather
have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go,
"Baa."

Until the wolf shows up! Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide
behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high
school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had
the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had
nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT
teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically
peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs
feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard
on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently
about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how
many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog;
it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny
critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the
breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a
righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous
battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to
the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep
pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After
the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens
in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs,
the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those
planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly
transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into
warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he
does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to
survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the
population.

There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of
violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of
violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast
majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language:
slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their
victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd
that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically
primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose
which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans
are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was
honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was
the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert
an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the
other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his
phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a
signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one
hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business
people and parents. -- From sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the
wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

"Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after
that?"

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil
of evil men." - Edmund Burke
Here is the point I like to emphasize; especially to the thousands of
police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real
sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves.
They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you
can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but
you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your
loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you.
If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to
hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if
you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a
conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare
yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes
knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well
concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters
tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of
religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your
congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual
in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your
loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break,
one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other
cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why
he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was
at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a
mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning
down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved
every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot,
and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die.
That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it
would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was
carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably
scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for
"heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were
defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids'
school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic
accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often
their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog
quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live
with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to
stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically
destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is
counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and
horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when
you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't
train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy.
Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive,
you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at
your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in "Fear Less," his superb post-9/11
book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms
with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an
insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by
saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all
the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in
small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some
level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his
life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.

If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you
step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that
the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime.
Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and
you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to
yourself... "Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy.
It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a
continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other
end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the
other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in
America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a
few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors
started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up
that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you
and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your
moment of truth.

I don't know about everybody else, but I'm paranoid because the voice in my head tells me the men in black helicopters are controlling my mind through the telephone.

How is he silly?

He's talking jingoistic bollocks. that's why.


I actually understand the UK System well considering I am an American. She can do what I just stated and there's nothing that the Brits can really do about it since you have no written constitution.

No you think you understand it because you are an American!
We don't have a constitution. We have common law. The Queen exists on our say so and would be in trouble if she tried to interfere. She is effectively powerless and I think we like it that way. It's the politicians we have to worry about not the royalty.


No you just ignore it till it hits you in the head. WWII ring a bell? We at least prepare for something which actually gives us a leg up over Europe. As for attacks, you don't do crap about them but treat them as criminal matters but as we've seen under Clinton, that don't work. We learn from our mistakes, Europe hasn't learned from its mistakes yet.


Well we haven't been here long compared to you have we? and we never had a war on our home ground did we? NO wait. That was YOU.
It's easy to speak from your safe ivory tower. We avoid wars because we've fought a few too many in our back yard. Yes, we should of acted sooner in WW2 but after the millions lost in France in the Great war it's not too suprising that the governments of the time paused.
Don't forget you turned up late for the last two wars and only popped in when it benifitted you the most.
So get off your smug high horse and remember the lesson of Vietnam while you count your dead in Iraq.

He's talking jingoistic bollocks. that's why.

Is that your opinion?

No you think you understand it because you are an American!
We don't have a constitution. We have common law. The Queen exists on our say so and would be in trouble if she tried to interfere. She is effectively powerless and I think we like it that way. It's the politicians we have to worry about not the royalty.

I actually studied the British Monarchy and I do know that you don't have a Constitution and that the Queen can do what I said she can do. Will she? Nope but I know she can.

Well we haven't been here long compared to you have we? and we never had a war on our home ground did we? NO wait. That was YOU.
It's easy to speak from your safe ivory tower. We avoid wars because we've fought a few too many in our back yard. Yes, we should of acted sooner in WW2 but after the millions lost in France in the Great war it's not too suprising that the governments of the time paused.
Don't forget you turned up late for the last two wars and only popped in when it benifitted you the most.
So get off your smug high horse and remember the lesson of Vietnam while you count your dead in Iraq.

We all have had wars on our home ground. Britain has had a war on its home ground too. As for turning up late, we didn't turn up because it benefitted us but out of necessity. Our declaration of war in WWII was on Japan only. Germany and Italy declared war on us a couple days later. As for the lessons of Vietnam, we learned them otherwise our casualties in Iraq will be higher than they are.

....
I actually studied the British Monarchy and I do know that you don't have a Constitution and that the Queen can do what I said she can do. Will she? Nope but I know she can.
.....

The irony is of course that the only reason she can (in theory), is because she never has and no-one believes she ever would, except in some hypothetical extremis. Assuming a reasonably legitimate government in Parliament, if the monarch attempted to do anything as stupid as dissolve Parliament, they would fail. They might cause a few nasty incidents if a few nutters took things a bit seriously, but they'd be a lot more likely to bring about the end of the British monarchy.

Really, get your head out of your books and take a look at the world as it is, not just as it might be.

Is that your opinion?

No sorry. I lied. Of course it's my opinion.


I actually studied the British Monarchy and I do know that you don't have a Constitution and that the Queen can do what I said she can do. Will she? Nope but I know she can.

That must of been boring for you. Having a power which you can not apply for fear of being ignored is the same as having no power. You have been taught raw facts but have missed the nuances.



We all have had wars on our home ground. Britain has had a war on its home ground too. As for turning up late, we didn't turn up because it benefitted us but out of necessity. Our declaration of war in WWII was on Japan only. Germany and Italy declared war on us a couple days later. As for the lessons of Vietnam, we learned them otherwise our casualties in Iraq will be higher than they are.
Your casualties at the begining in Vietnam we fairly low. There is no China to back up Iraq. 'Praps the anology was foolish on my part. Sorry.
But if you (and Bloody Britain among others) hadn't interfered your casualties would have been nil. Of course your oil interests and your Saudi allies had to be put first.
America is paranoid because if you go through life pissing people off you have to watch your back.

You have to have the right to bear arms so that your own government doesnt go rogue on you, so that you can defend yourself and your loved ones against any lunatic or criminal that threatens you.

You have to have the best military in the world, to be able to deal with whatever threats appear.

Did this attitude appear after 9/11 or was it always there?

Quite sincerely, I believe this attitude appeared somewhere around 1776 and has been with us ever since. I do not think it is a bad attitude, and I don't think we are paranoid as you imply. We just believe in our freedom, out rights, and our ability to defend that freedom and those rights.

No sorry. I lied. Of course it's my opinion.

Thought so

That must of been boring for you. Having a power which you can not apply for fear of being ignored is the same as having no power. You have been taught raw facts but have missed the nuances.

Quite the opposite in fact.

Your casualties at the begining in Vietnam we fairly low. There is no China to back up Iraq. 'Praps the anology was foolish on my part. Sorry.
But if you (and Bloody Britain among others) hadn't interfered your casualties would have been nil. Of course your oil interests and your Saudi allies had to be put first.
America is paranoid because if you go through life pissing people off you have to watch your back.

Care to prove that this is about oil?

Quite sincerely, I believe this attitude appeared somewhere around 1776 and has been with us ever since. I do not think it is a bad attitude, and I don't think we are paranoid as you imply. We just believe in our freedom, out rights, and our ability to defend that freedom and those rights.

Actually longer than that.

It's true that trust is earned - like when we didn't like Pakistans nuclear program so we stopped selling them military equipment. But now it's ten years later and we are selling them some fighter jets because they didn't bomb us.

And they didn't bomb India with a nuclear weapon.

You do realize that this hurts your case more than it helps it. "Peace in our time" remember? That and had the americans told the russians to fuck off and go back to russia at the end of WWII, the Cold War wouldn't have been nearly as bad.
What has Chamerlain's appeasement got to do with America being picked on? I was challenging Cornlieu's assertion that America has had such a tough time with foreign countries. You've had it pretty easy.

[QUOTE=Swimmingpool]
Europe did nothing about Hitler! They went with appeasement! All Europe does is Appeasement! Hell, they don't even recognize a terrorist organization when it hits them upside the head. Appeasement doesn't work and that is all the Europe does, appeasement.

"He who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."

You're using the Europe of 1939 as "proof" of what Europe is like now? That's weak, really weak.

Besides, Churchill, a European, was not about appeasement in WW2, which the US stayed out of for its 1st two years, BTW.

As for recognising terrorist organisations, the US did not recognise the IRA as one until 1997!

[QUOTE=Swimmingpool]
Britain in 1812
Mexico (somewhat) in 1840s
Confederates in 1863

That is about it unless you want to go to December 1941 when a shot down Jap pilot took a town on a small Hawaiian Island and was later taken out.

That's pretty good going for 230 years of history. Surely doesn't merit complaints that We've always been picked on!

[QUOTE=Swimmingpool]
Whom have we oppressed? No one by my knowledge. Shall we talk about Europe's oppression of foreign people?
Yes, talk about it all you like. I won't deny it. In fact, I will add that the worst European oppressors of the 19th century were the French and Belgian governments in Africa.

America is the topic however. America has installed and/or supported dictatorships in Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Haiti, South Africa, Angola, Iraq, Syria, and so on. You get the idea.

Oh forgive me! I forgot all the other diplomatic incidents that have occured because Europe didn't like us. I could go through them But I'm short on time.

As for your countries, we didn't oppress them. The oppressed themselves. We didnt' control them, they controled themselves.

Quite the opposite in fact.

You were taught the nuances and ignored the facts?
American schooling is very strange


Care to prove that this is about oil?
No. you're right again. It's abviously about soup. Or chocolate drops. No wait it's to do with America's love of Islam and the middle east.
What a fool I should of seen it earlier.

According to M.Moore the immigrants to America were all pussys and the american media is really frightening

MM is neither an un-biased nor a credible source.

So get off your smug high horse and remember the lesson of Vietnam while you count your dead in Iraq.
Lesson of Vietnam - That the press can be used in order to undermine what is actually a very successful battle, namely the Tet Offensive.

Us Americans are all paranoid because we smoke too much pot.

One constant theme that comes through on these boards is that if you are an American (USA) then it seems that you have to live your life in fear of something.
You have to have the right to bear arms so that your own government doesnt go rogue on you, so that you can defend yourself and your loved ones against any lunatic or criminal that threatens you.
You have to have the best military in the world, to be able to deal with whatever threats appear.
Did this attitude appear after 9/11 or was it always there?
If it did appear after 9/11 is it not an overreaction?
What is it that makes the US citizen have to live in this perpetual state of fear?
These is not US bashing, OK. I am not saying "Blood loving US people have to have guns" or anything like that. I am genuinely puzzled as to why there is so much emphasis on protecting yourself from others in the USA.

Raised on a history of conflicts and wars, told fairy tales about deception and the strong taking advantage of the weak, living on land taken by force...such conflict and fear is in our nation's blood.

A brief look around my room tells me that I have the same thoughts as my fellow Americans; no less than 5 weapons are in my room, all placed in areas I can access if sitting or lying down. Why? I've never been attacked in my home, I don't live in a dangerous neighborhood, and I'm big enough to scare off all but the most dedicated attacker. Yet I've lived this way since long before 9/11, I was paranoid before it was fashionable. ;)

Yet as much as I prepare myself for threats that will likely never materialize, I cannot say I live in fear. I simply take precautions, then live life secure in the thought that I am prepared for danger should it arrive. This perhaps is the difference between myself and the average American after 9/11. I'm at home with the "dangers" of life, and others stumble about as if they've just discovered the world is a dangerous place.

Anyone remember...oh, about 2 or 3 years ago, when Sharks were the big thing? A falling coconut has a statistically better chance of ending your life than a shark attack, yet MASSIVE news coverage and TV specials were devoted to the tiny number of shark attacks, people in the great plains were buying shark repellant. Why? In case a shark swims 1500 miles inland.

I think the US has a culture that "discovers" danger anew every few months. I believe its a fear from having and not wanting to let go. Its the same mindset that declares all other nations as "jealous" of what the US has and is. We are fearful that our good fortunes will be snatched from us, either by death or another nation.

Lesson of Vietnam - That the press can be used in order to undermine what is actually a very successful battle, namely the Tet Offensive.

i will speak for everyone i have met in the Military Intelligence Branch of the United States Navy when i say that Vietnam was a spectacular example of what never, ever to do again. It was a catastrophic failure, on a moral and ethical level as well as a tactical one. The Tet Offensive was successful because it capitalized on a social construct that was in place already.

I think you do what needs to be done, and after 9/11 attacking afgahnistan needed to be done. I could have lived without Iraq but i must admit i am happy that we freed those people. You attack us, and we'll show you where to stick it.

As for fear, i dont fear a nuclear attack of any sorts mainly because if one is dropped, that effects a non military target the U.S. will retaliate. Sure we might be locked in a nuclear winter and sure the human race may die off but we won the fight :cool:


Although something i find interesting, if i dont pay my taxes the IRS will come and audit me and i will most likely end up in prison but if the government doesnt pay the national deficit to the people nothing happens. They just take more.

i know that lots of us americans act paranoid for many reasons one being that everyone is againt us but who gives ashit because our military is so powerfull that no one stands against us and will be crused within a few years and if everyone were to attack at once we can just nuke them all and decimate everyone at the push of a button so if you want to fuck with the us be prepared to die. :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :upyours:

As for fear, i dont fear a nuclear attack of any sorts mainly because if one is dropped, that effects a non military target the U.S. will retaliate. Sure we might be locked in a nuclear winter and sure the human race may die off but we won the fight :cool:


Yes, as an American, i will second the opinion above that it's my fellow Americans that make me feel unsafe.

i will speak for everyone i have met in the Military Intelligence Branch of the United States Navy when i say that Vietnam was a spectacular example of what never, ever to do again. It was a catastrophic failure, on a moral and ethical level as well as a tactical one. The Tet Offensive was successful because it capitalized on a social construct that was in place already.
I was gonna say something much less intelligent.
I thought just sending your young men a long way away from home to get them killed was foolish. The benefits rarely out weight the costs.

I was gonna say something much less intelligent.
I thought just sending your young men a long way away from home to get them killed was foolish. The benefits rarely out weight the costs.

Beyond that even, our President at the time was exploiting a Constitutional Loophole by keeping them over there indefinitely while sending more and more. Furthermore, we weren't even fighting to help our friends! We had no ties whatsoever! We were fighting on the side of our "strategic non-enemies" just to show the world that shoot, if we can't fight the BIG communist fronts, well by gum, we're sure as hell gonna start with the lil' 'uns!

A brief look around my room tells me that I have the same thoughts as my fellow Americans; no less than 5 weapons are in my room, all placed in areas I can access if sitting or lying down. Why? I've never been attacked in my home, I don't live in a dangerous neighborhood, and I'm big enough to scare off all but the most dedicated attacker. Yet I've lived this way since long before 9/11, I was paranoid before it was fashionable. ;)
Is the problem not that the weapons would actually put you in more danger than less, though? Cause, if you have weapons a large proportion of other people will, of which a tiny minority will be total nutters who shouldn't be in change or what is a potentially lethal piece of machinery?

This familiarity with guns also has it's own price in that rather than the abject fear someone like me would feel seeing a gun, resulting in me running as fast as possible to the nearest safe place, an American would be more likely to fight and hence put themselves at more danger still, because of the desire to "protect" them.

So to answer the question, Americans live in perpetual fear because by "protecting" themselves they're actually creating additional danger. As any Health and Safety trainer worth their dough will tell you, the best way to eliminate a hazard is to remove the danger, not protect the person. Ditto principle.

So I look at all that, and could easily see how someone could become paranoid. But for this American citizen, while I protect my family, and fulfill my civic responsibilities, I realize that what happens in this world is beyond my control and I need not worry about the one who does control it.

May I congradulate you on an outstanding first post. I look forward to seeing more of your posts.

Who's been picking on you? How many times has the US been invaded since its founding? Once?

Invaded once, attacked at least three times. War of 1812, December 7th, and 911.

Almost every country in Europe has suffered worse than America has.

Perhaps we have suffered less because our military is so prepared. Perhaps we have suffered less because any potential armed invader know the American has arms and will use them.

America is arrogant and greedy.

I do not think saving Europe twice is arrogant and greedy. I do not think that freeing the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq from despotic rulers is arrogant and greedy. I do not think that the aid provided to the tsunami victims is arrogant and greedy.

Oh forgive me! I forgot all the other diplomatic incidents that have occured because Europe didn't like us. I could go through them But I'm short on time.

As for your countries, we didn't oppress them. The oppressed themselves. We didn't control them, they controled themselves.
Oh, diplomatic incidents... really hard.

The US did oppress those people. They didn't elect these dictatorships, they were put into power by the US government.

i will speak for everyone i have met in the Military Intelligence Branch of the United States Navy when i say that Vietnam was a spectacular example of what never, ever to do again.
Whether or not Vietnam as a whole was a debacle is largely irrelevant. The point is that the Tet offensive basically eliminated any real ability to hurt us that the Vietcong had. There is no rational way to actually assume that the Tet offensive was a loss for the US. That is how it was portrayed by the press in the US however.

Don't forget you turned up late for the last two wars and only popped in when it benifitted you the most.

During WW II we were fully supporting England with the Lend Lease program, and that was in place long before we were attacked. So, I don't call that "showing up late."

"He who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."
Vietnam.

Perhaps we have suffered less because our military is so prepared. Perhaps we have suffered less because any potential armed invader know the American has arms and will use them.
Yes, and no European country ever had a well-prepared military, as you imply. :rolleyes:

I do not think saving Europe twice is arrogant and greedy. I do not think that freeing the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq from despotic rulers is arrogant and greedy. I do not think that the aid provided to the tsunami victims is arrogant and greedy.
Of course if you say it in such biased language it doesn't sound arrogant and greedy. I'll bias it the opposite way for you:

"I do not think that disregarding all world opinion and the UN for wars based on lies, with questionable motives (including oil) is arrogant and greedy. I do not think that the aid provided to the tsunami victims, which is a tiny fraction of that spent on aforementioned wars is arrogant and greedy."

Vietnam.

Oddly enough, that whole bit all started because we supported the French colonial rule. Had we sided with Ho Chi Minh in the first place he might never have gone communist, thus avoiding the whole war. This outlines a very good rule of warfare, never take French advice or pay attention to French pleas on what to do when entering a conflict. If at all possible, namely if they aren't acting in concert with our other allies, do the opposite.

I think the goverment uses fear to get us to go along with them taking our rights away. They want us to be scared of the world and come running to them for protection.
Almost right.

The government uses fear to garner support at election time. For instance, compared to WWII or the Cold War, the threat of terrorism is pocket change. You wouldn't know that by listening to the government or the media (the media sensationalizes everything).

The government itself is also afraid and protective. If American lives or property is lost/damaged in an attack, they are held responsible. The political consequenses of failing to protect Americans (or having the appearance thereof) are devastating.

Beyond that even, our President at the time was exploiting a Constitutional Loophole by keeping them over there indefinitely while sending more and more. Furthermore, we weren't even fighting to help our friends! We had no ties whatsoever! We were fighting on the side of our "strategic non-enemies" just to show the world that shoot, if we can't fight the BIG communist fronts, well by gum, we're sure as hell gonna start with the lil'
'uns!

First of all, you are wrong on much of what you stated above. Secondly, let's leave Viet Nam out of this thread as it is not the subject of the thread. If you want to talk about VN, please start a new thread. Thank you.

During WW II we were fully supporting England with the Lend Lease program, and that was in place long before we were attacked. So, I don't call that "showing up late."

It is a question of perspective, as this was an economically wise move as well as a matter of material support. I would have preferred it if this thread had not degenerated into the USA saved the world vs the USA doesn't know what pain is. It was not intended to be a bash USA or bash Europe thread. It was a question about why the USA citizens are so quick to see threats, where, most often they do not exist, be they internal or external. A question as to whether this has to do with the American way of life in general or whether it is something that has developped more recently with 9/11 and homeland security etc.

The consensus so far appears to be that this defense reaction is linked to the culture. Now I am left with the question of why. What is it that makes the US culture so highly strung? There is a drive to be the best, but does that mean that everyone has to feel that the rest of the world is going to try to take whatever you may have achieved away from you? This worry seems to apply on the individual level and on the national level. Where does it come from?

America as a nation is paranoid because its foreign and global justice policy can be summarized with the credo from Animal Farm "All animals are equal. But Some are More Equal than others," with "Some" in this instance being the United States. While the country is ready to crack down hard on nations and foreign individuals for various crimes and offenses, America as a government seems to be quite quiet or sometimes brazen about getting away with pulling off similar or identical actions. That's why the International Court of Crime strikes fear into the heart of the American government: While they decry it as a political tool to snipe at America's global and moral superiority, part of the matter is America has been so used to being the proverbial 800-pound gorilla pushing other countries around at its whim, it could not fathom its citizens or officials being brought to accountability for deeds that it would more than gladly strike down members of other nations for doing.

And yet Americans cry foul when foreign diplomats or their relatives commit various amounts of grievous crimes and get away without a trial because of diplomatic immunity. America wants diplomatic immunity from the rest of the world but not vice versa.

America as a nation is paranoid, because with a handful of exceptions (such as the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, Pearl Harbor and 9-11) the country as a whole has never been a constant battleground like many other countries in Europe, Asia and Africa have been or even still are to this day. America wants to keep any conflict they're involved outside of the continental United States because not only does it give its citizens a sense of security, but because it weakens the rest of the world proportionately. Also, most Americans will be afflicted with a case of the "It's Not Happening To Me" disease which makes it easier to carry out distasteful policies when the consequences and collateral damage resulting from carrying out said policies won't splash back on the United States. An old saying goes "Familiarity breeds contempt," but when it comes to American foreign policy, the inverse is true. "The less you really know about what's really happening, the less you really give a shit about it."

And yet quite a few Americans are quick to make snide remarks about Chamberlain's appeasement policy without taking into context how Europe might have been just a bit tired of the continent as a whole smacking the shit out of each other for centuries, especially on the heels of that spectacularly sordid and brutal trench battle called World War One. If shit blew up in America's backyard way more often and way longer than Pearl Harbor or 9-11 did whenever the government decides to declar war, I doubt the people would be so gung-ho about it after a while.

The following link is useful for seeing the world's specific grievances against America. If you're a Bushevik apologist who's going to make snide remarks about it, why the hell did you bother clicking on the link in the first place?

USA: Why do they hate us so much? (http://www.isometry.com/usahate.html)

Is the problem not that the weapons would actually put you in more danger than less, though? Cause, if you have weapons a large proportion of other people will, of which a tiny minority will be total nutters who shouldn't be in change or what is a potentially lethal piece of machinery?

This familiarity with guns also has it's own price in that rather than the abject fear someone like me would feel seeing a gun, resulting in me running as fast as possible to the nearest safe place, an American would be more likely to fight and hence put themselves at more danger still, because of the desire to "protect" them.

So to answer the question, Americans live in perpetual fear because by "protecting" themselves they're actually creating additional danger. As any Health and Safety trainer worth their dough will tell you, the best way to eliminate a hazard is to remove the danger, not protect the person. Ditto principle.

While I do not completely dispute your assertions, let us return to look at them all the same.

You say that weapons are more likely to be held by other people if I myself own them. That is possible. Unless you can assure me that NO other people, including those "nutters" own them, I'd rather by armed and safe than unarmed and at the mercy of others. It is an unprepared person that is an easy target, a prepared person can still be attacked, but enjoys more security than one wishing for peace.

You also specifically mention guns; while I did not. I do not own any guns. I said 5 weapons. While I will spare you the rather lengthy discussion of why I arm myself with "outdated" technology, suffice it to say that I have put some thought into bringing a gun into my house and decided against it.

The old Bruce Lee interview, "What would you do if a man pulled a gun on you?" "I'd give him my wallet." applies here. My desicion to arm myself in the home is very different than the idea of taking on a gun-toting person out on the streets. Here in this room I have nowhere to run, unless I fancy jumping through a window and falling a considerable distance. If you cannot run and you are confronted with danger, you must surrender or fight.

Running from an attacker is a good idea...if you can get away. If you can't you have to remove the threat to yourself with force; "Fight or Flight" right?. This is a very difficult desicion to make, to fight or flee, and it must be made quickly. If you choose wrong, you may die. So having BOTH options open to you would be nice. Simply focusing on running away no matter what could force you into difficult positions.

Thus I think your conclusion, while possibly accurate, has some caveats that bear mentioning. Its true that by attack another to save yourself you put yourself at risk. But if you cannot fight for yourself, others must either fight for you or you will be a victim of whatever life throws in your path.

The consensus so far appears to be that this defense reaction is linked to the culture. Now I am left with the question of why.

We have told you why. It is based on out history. To understand it, you must understand our history, from the time of Jamestown and Plymouth to the present.

It is a question of perspective, as this was an economically wise move as well as a matter of material support. I would have preferred it if this thread had not degenerated into the USA saved the world vs the USA doesn't know what pain is. It was not intended to be a bash USA or bash Europe thread. It was a question about why the USA citizens are so quick to see threats, where, most often they do not exist, be they internal or external. A question as to whether this has to do with the American way of life in general or whether it is something that has developped more recently with 9/11 and homeland security etc.

The consensus so far appears to be that this defense reaction is linked to the culture. Now I am left with the question of why. What is it that makes the US culture so highly strung? There is a drive to be the best, but does that mean that everyone has to feel that the rest of the world is going to try to take whatever you may have achieved away from you? This worry seems to apply on the individual level and on the national level. Where does it come from?
I might have your answer.

America is an overwhelmingly wealthy and materialistic society. We like to have stuff, and we have lots of money to buy lots of stuff. Houses, yachts, TVs, cars, more cars, sound systems, music collections, you name it we got it.

Now lets say there's a battle/natural disaster/riot. In poorer places of the world, these events don't mean all that much to the residents of the place. There is, of course, the risk of death or injury, or damage to crops (where applicable) but it's not all that huge a deal if the house/hut or yard gets knocked around a bit.

Now lets say that the battle/natural disaster/riot takes place in the US. The same risk of death/injury is augmented by the near certainty of loss of property. People are going to be running around in the chaos, TAKING YOUR STUFF!!! IMO, that is why we are so 'paranoid' about peace, security, and stability. Few other places in the world have enough wealth in the form of immediate material posessions to justify or create that kind of attitude.

We have told you why. It is based on out history. To understand it, you must understand our history, from the time of Jamestown and Plymouth to the present.

The history of the USA is less bloody and less violent that the history of just about any other country with maybe the exception of Antarctica. Your history does not explain the trigger happy nature of the US culture. I do have a pretty good idea of the history of the USA, not as detailed as my knowledge of the history of the UK, but, surprisingly better than my knowledge of the history of Brazil. Why, because we were taught American history in the UK. You had a war of independence and then a civil war. After that a border dispute with Mexico. Look at the history of any European nation and you will see much more war and devestation. Why then does the USA have such a belligerent culture? (I mean in the sense of being quick to turn to violence, not in necessarily provoking violence) It could be due to the lack of experience of war at home. There is no-one still alive from the days of the last battle faught on continental US territory. It could be due to something else.

We have alot going for us as Americans and there are many who strive to take that away.

Sorry if this has already been said but, I read a book entitled The Culture Of Fear, written by Barry Glassner. And, it gave reasons for why Americans are afraid of certain things.

Basically, the American media searches for the best story - which, I'm sorry to say is: Man bites dog. Not, dog bites man.

The feeling of insecurity has always affected Americans. I myself am an American. I am also more afraid of the government trying to tell me how to live my life, rather than a terrorist attack.

It was not intended to be a bash USA or bash Europe thread.

Ok!


Why then does the USA have such a belligerent culture? (I mean in the sense of being quick to turn to violence,...

And this is not an antagonistic statement?

You may be familiar with out history, but you do not understand our history.

Ok!




And this is not an antagonistic statement?

You may be familiar with out history, but you do not understand our history.

It was not meant to be antagonistic. It was simply descriptive (If you think I was wrong, then I apologize unreservedly :( )

So help me, and others understand. If knowledge does not bring understanding, what does?

Look at the media. Look at all the local news networks and see all these "shocking reports" on some disease or shopping mall fraud trick and tell me you don't notice the climatic rise of fear all simply to make a few bucks or win support.

It is everywhere around us now. The American society has built itself to be create fear, be feared, or fear.

It's sad what extreme use of consumerism does.

All I hear from the rest of the world is critiques about how bad we are. And you want to wonder why we feel so paranoid? Three thousand plus people were killed at 9/11 from our own planes and we have most of our troops, that form up the strongest army in the world; over in a desert nation. My father is in the military and in Iraq and I can say that it's scary to think that the next time you turn on the T.V. they could be talking about your loved one.

WE have the right to be paranoid. I'm not scared of my government, I'm afraid that some bastard is going to put anthrax in an envelope and send it to my house or where my mom works. I'm not a very paranoid person, but some things just raise flags around my eyes.

Arcognus

All I hear from the rest of the world is critiques about how bad we are. And you want to wonder why we feel so paranoid? Three thousand plus people were killed at 9/11 from our own planes and we have most of our troops, that form up the strongest army in the world; over in a desert nation. My father is in the military and in Iraq and I can say that it's scary to think that the next time you turn on the T.V. they could be talking about your loved one.

WE have the right to be paranoid. I'm not scared of my government, I'm afraid that some bastard is going to put anthrax in an envelope and send it to my house or where my mom works. I'm not a very paranoid person, but some things just raise flags around my eyes.

Arcognus


It's typical of conservatives to not worry where their government is headed... so long as we rule in military forces, right?

My father is in the military and in Iraq

Tell your dad thank you. I appreciate what he is doing.

All I hear from the rest of the world is critiques about how bad we are. And you want to wonder why we feel so paranoid? Three thousand plus people were killed at 9/11 from our own planes and we have most of our troops, that form up the strongest army in the world; over in a desert nation. My father is in the military and in Iraq and I can say that it's scary to think that the next time you turn on the T.V. they could be talking about your loved one.

WE have the right to be paranoid. I'm not scared of my government, I'm afraid that some bastard is going to put anthrax in an envelope and send it to my house or where my mom works. I'm not a very paranoid person, but some things just raise flags around my eyes.

Arcognus

You certainly seem paranoid. I don't think anyone died or got seriously hurt by those antrax in an envelope scams, a whole load was made out of it because it seemed scary and there was a slow news day, plus lots of people thought it would be funny to try it with flour.

And unless you work in a large government building and hold a rather important position, what would be the point of sending antrax to you? Sorry to go on but the antrax in a letter stories seemed to be one of the more ridiculous fear mongering stories to come out of the american media.

You were taught the nuances and ignored the facts?
American schooling is very strange

Even stranger is, I was homeschooled so I didn't have to put up with the PC crap the public schools were teaching.

No. you're right again. It's abviously about soup. Or chocolate drops. No wait it's to do with America's love of Islam and the middle east.
What a fool I should of seen it earlier.

Nice sarcasm.

Invaded once, attacked at least three times. War of 1812, December 7th, and 911.

You forgot 1861! But that's trivial!

Perhaps we have suffered less because our military is so prepared. Perhaps we have suffered less because any potential armed invader know the American has arms and will use them.

Here here

I do not think saving Europe twice is arrogant and greedy. I do not think that freeing the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq from despotic rulers is arrogant and greedy. I do not think that the aid provided to the tsunami victims is arrogant and greedy.

Considering that the taliban is in Surrender talks and I've just recently learned that the Sunnis are also ready to talk peace terms. That'll leave the Zarqawi boys out to dry. And I agree with your last line too.

Vietnam.

Proof that we are in another Vietnam please? Oh wait? We're not

Yes, and no European country ever had a well-prepared military, as you imply. :rolleyes:

France obviously didn't! Poland obviously didn't! Belgium, Holland, Norway....all taken over by Germany who did prepare for them. However, they weren't prepared for the Soviet Union who wasn't prepared for the German onslaught that followed. Britain wasn't prepared either come to think of it!

Tell your dad thank you. I appreciate what he is doing.

I echo his sentiment and would like to add that my father just recently returned from the theater two weeks ago.

France obviously didn't! Poland obviously didn't! Belgium, Holland, Norway....all taken over by Germany who did prepare for them. However, they weren't prepared for the Soviet Union who wasn't prepared for the German onslaught that followed. Britain wasn't prepared either come to think of it!

Your arrogance offends. How prepared was our own US back in WW2 hmm? When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor we really kicked their ass eh? Oh wait, it took 6 months for our first real victory to come about. Oops! We're just as failible as everyone else.

Be reasonable; no one was "prepared" for WW2, because no nation in the history of the world was truly ready to take on half of the world and win. As you said yourself, Germany defeated Belgium, Holland, Norway, France, beat down the British and took over almost half of the USSR. Then they were defeated.

How well would the US have done without the help of the USSR and the entire Eastern front? How well would they have done if the Balklands not proven so difficult to secure oil from, slowing down the Nazi war machine? How well would we have done without the Japanese tied down by China and Britian's SE Asian forces? It was a WORLD war. We know now that even the Swiss took part at times; almost everyone was in on the fight.

You're being very unreasonable; many nations in Europe had well prepared, eilte militaries. Some you have to look father back into the past than others. But the US is no invincible god of war as you seem to suggest; we've failed countless times, or succeeded only through heroism and persistance where preparedness and planning was lacking.

Show some humility, show some dignity, show some basic respect for others. Right now you act as a snotty child, barking out a meaningless victory in some silly children's game. Its simply disgusting.

Your arrogance offends. How prepared was our own US back in WW2 hmm? When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor we really kicked their ass eh? Oh wait, it took 6 months for our first real victory to come about. Oops! We're just as failible as everyone else.

Be reasonable; no one was "prepared" for WW2, because no nation in the history of the world was truly ready to take on half of the world and win. As you said yourself, Germany defeated Belgium, Holland, Norway, France, beat down the British and took over almost half of the USSR. Then they were defeated.

How well would the US have done without the help of the USSR and the entire Eastern front? How well would they have done if the Balklands not proven so difficult to secure oil from, slowing down the Nazi war machine? How well would we have done without the Japanese tied down by China and Britian's SE Asian forces? It was a WORLD war. We know now that even the Swiss took part at times; almost everyone was in on the fight.

You're being very unreasonable; many nations in Europe had well prepared, eilte militaries. Some you have to look father back into the past than others. But the US is no invincible god of war as you seem to suggest; we've failed countless times, or succeeded only through heroism and persistance where preparedness and planning was lacking.

Show some humility, show some dignity, show some basic respect for others. Right now you act as a snotty child, barking out a meaningless victory in some silly children's game. Its simply disgusting.

Anyone who posts on this forum with the sole belief that America never has and never can do wrong strike me as no better than the revisionists who claim the Holocaust was a hoax or leaves out sorely important details in Japanese history books like the Rape of Nanking or Pearl Harbor.

as an American, all i can say is that i feel far more threatened by my own people and government than i do by outside forces. i believe my rights, my freedom, and even my safety are more at risk from Americans than from non-Americans.

but then, i happen to be a non-conservative non-Christian lower-economic-class bisexual female intellectual...it's not really a good time to be any of those in America right now :).

I feel the same way but I am not a bisexual or a female or an intellectual I think :( :D

The reason that Americans seem paranoid is pretty simple. Most people, regardless of where you are, are pretty stupid. Add that on to the media constantly spewing out "news" about how we are under attack by various random terrorists, and you get people who are convinved the world is out to get them.

Your arrogance offends. How prepared was our own US back in WW2 hmm? When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor we really kicked their ass eh? Oh wait, it took 6 months for our first real victory to come about. Oops! We're just as failible as everyone else.

Did I say that we weren't prepared? Oh wait? We actually were. We just didn't expect an attack on Pearl Harbor but on the Philippines. Also, the planes were spotted but the people at the Info desk thought it was a flight of bombers. There were mistakes made but to say we were unprepared totally is an exaggeration. Yes we got our asses kicked but you also have to remember that Japan had the best trained carrier pilots, the best trained sailors and a well equipped army.

Be reasonable; no one was "prepared" for WW2, because no nation in the history of the world was truly ready to take on half of the world and win. As you said yourself, Germany defeated Belgium, Holland, Norway, France, beat down the British and took over almost half of the USSR. Then they were defeated.

The only nation prepared for WWII was Germany but they weren't prepared for the Soviet Union. Japan was prepared but didn't expect us to stay in the fight after the Pearl Harbor Fiasco. A nation prepared doesn't necessarily win a war but they win most of the time.

How well would the US have done without the help of the USSR and the entire Eastern front? How well would they have done if the Balklands not proven so difficult to secure oil from, slowing down the Nazi war machine? How well would we have done without the Japanese tied down by China and Britian's SE Asian forces? It was a WORLD war. We know now that even the Swiss took part at times; almost everyone was in on the fight.

USSR--Received helped from the US Prior to our declaration of war! How well would the USSR fought without American aide before we entered WWII? Britain? HAHA!! Don't make me laugh! They were tossed nearly right out of SE Asia! The US pretty much fought the Pacific campaign alone. :rolleyes: You are right that it was a world war though.

You're being very unreasonable; many nations in Europe had well prepared, eilte militaries. Some you have to look father back into the past than others. But the US is no invincible god of war as you seem to suggest; we've failed countless times, or succeeded only through heroism and persistance where preparedness and planning was lacking.

That's farthe back! I also never said nor thought that my nation's military is invincible.

Show some humility, show some dignity, show some basic respect for others. Right now you act as a snotty child, barking out a meaningless victory in some silly children's game. Its simply disgusting.

The same goes back to you.

we're all paranoid and freaked out because everyone around us is paranoid and freaked out, because our mayors are paranoid and freaked out, because our govenors and congress people are paranoid and freaked out, because our president is paranoid and freaked out, because he used to be a crack head.

WE have the right to be paranoid. I'm not scared of my government, I'm afraid that some bastard is going to put anthrax in an envelope and send it to my house or where my mom works.
That was actually a guy from New Jersey that mailed those...so...yeah

One constant theme that comes through on these boards is that if you are an American (USA) then it seems that you have to live your life in fear of something.

No.
You have to have the right to bear arms so that your own government doesnt go rogue on you, so that you can defend yourself and your loved ones against any lunatic or criminal that threatens you.

If you are at the point where you have to bear arms against a rogue government, you waited too long to use your other rights, such as speech. Nevertheless, there are plenty of people shoveled into ovens who waited until the last minute and gave up all their rights while trusting the government's word that they were only being sent to work camps.

As for self-defense, I've been actually attacked. It doesn't happen to everyone, but to those it happens to, it's real. It's not paranoia. I have no intention of being attacked again. And don't give me the "if only there were more police" idea. If everyone had a police officer assigned to watch them, it wouldn't do any good. That kid who shot up the school was living with a police officer. So he was being watched every day. And the school security guard was unarmed. So when the kid showed up, he was a target - not a means for society to defend the weak and helpless.
You have to have the best military in the world, to be able to deal with whatever threats appear.

It's been that way for us ever since Pearl Harbor and all through the Cold War.
Did this attitude appear after 9/11 or was it always there?

Always there.
What is it that makes the US citizen have to live in this perpetual state of fear?

We're not in a "perpetual state of fear". Internationally, we have interests to protect. And for matters of personal defense, we know that police can't be everywhere to protect everyone all the time - that police show up AFTER you've been killed, raped, or abused. A woman or man who arms themselves and takes self-defense classes is not being paranoid - they are being realistic. People who count on the police to show up in time to stop something violent are being unrealistic.

There is a difference between paranoid and vigilant. The US is vigilant

There is a difference between paranoid and vigilant. The US is vigilant

Semper Vigilence!

Always vigilent.

Also the Civil Air Patrol Motto

I can't fathom why Americans are so paranoid. If it's not the evil, godless Commies, it's the evil, religious fanatic Muslims. If it's not the damned Chinese trying to subvert the American economy, it's the damned Illuminati and corporate concerns trying to control the economy. If it's not the dangerous isolationists attempting to turn American into a government-controlled super-fortress, it's the New World Order trying to subvert American sovereignty...

What I see of Americans makes me think that it's a combination of factors, some real, most imaginary. I think that in the first place America is reaching the stage Britain was at in about 1900. America can see that its position as the world's sole superpower - the pax Americana - is going, inevitably, to slip away within the next 40 to 50 years; the rising economies in Asia, the resurgent Russian economy, and the moves towards greater European unity are all perceived as threats to American primacy; and like Britain at the turn of the century, America doesn't much like that.

Secondly, there is the supposed threat of attacks upon America, be they by terrorists or other nations, which leads to immense American military expenditure (although, paradoxically, not particularly impressive performance) and a general "siege mentality." The problem with this is, of course, that as America tries to assrt its will, like Britain, it makes enemies galore. Americans have to be aware of this; hence, they are caught in an unpleasant position whereby they are afraid to cease their aggressive, arrogant posture for fear of being superseded, but know that to maintain it is merely to ensure that their supersedance (is that even a word?) is inevitable.

Basically, America is, amusingly, where Britain was this time a century ago. Equally amusingly, I foresee almost the exact same pattern of events occurring to bring about America's fall from majesty as happened to Britain.

Proof that we are in another Vietnam please? Oh wait? We're not



France obviously didn't! Poland obviously didn't! Belgium, Holland, Norway....all taken over by Germany who did prepare for them. However, they weren't prepared for the Soviet Union who wasn't prepared for the German onslaught that followed. Britain wasn't prepared either come to think of it!
Whispers quietly... America wasn't really all that well prepared for either world war. We were fortunate enough to have the Atlantic Ocean to give us time to turn on the old engine of war. Then we kicked ass.

Whispers quietly... America wasn't really all that well prepared for either world war. We were fortunate enough to have the Atlantic Ocean to give us time to turn on the old engine of war. Then we kicked ass.

True but in WWII we were better prepared than most but didn't count on Pearl being the target.

I can't fathom why Americans are so paranoid. If it's not the evil, godless Commies, it's the evil, religious fanatic Muslims. If it's not the damned Chinese trying to subvert the American economy, it's the damned Illuminati and corporate concerns trying to control the economy. If it's not the dangerous isolationists attempting to turn American into a government-controlled super-fortress, it's the New World Order trying to subvert American sovereignty...

What I see of Americans makes me think that it's a combination of factors, some real, most imaginary. I think that in the first place America is reaching the stage Britain was at in about 1900. America can see that its position as the world's sole superpower - the pax Americana - is going, inevitably, to slip away within the next 40 to 50 years; the rising economies in Asia, the resurgent Russian economy, and the moves towards greater European unity are all perceived as threats to American primacy; and like Britain at the turn of the century, America doesn't much like that.

Secondly, there is the supposed threat of attacks upon America, be they by terrorists or other nations, which leads to immense American military expenditure (although, paradoxically, not particularly impressive performance) and a general "siege mentality." The problem with this is, of course, that as America tries to assrt its will, like Britain, it makes enemies galore. Americans have to be aware of this; hence, they are caught in an unpleasant position whereby they are afraid to cease their aggressive, arrogant posture for fear of being superseded, but know that to maintain it is merely to ensure that their supersedance (is that even a word?) is inevitable.

Basically, America is, amusingly, where Britain was this time a century ago. Equally amusingly, I foresee almost the exact same pattern of events occurring to bring about America's fall from majesty as happened to Britain.
"resurgent russian econony" << Laughs. Russia IS however becoming less and less democratic. And China is really pretty scary (and the EU wants to sell them ARMS?!?!? They're constantly threatening to invade democratic Tawian!!)

"Siege mentality" << No. That would involve sacrifices of the luxuries our consumer society enjoys. Creation and exploitation of fear for the purpose of gaining support, yes.

Britain = massive influence over the world, and COLONIAL RULE.

America = massive influence over the world. Note the lack of colonies.

True but in WWII we were better prepared than most but didn't count on Pearl being the target.
At the begining of the war (late 30s) our military had hardly advanced at all since WWI. Our army was woefully small and poorly trained. To our credit, we realized Hitler was a threat once he started annexing and invading, and got our act together.

People can argue all they want about Pearl Harbor. Early warning systems were very new, our men were not familiar with them, we were not expecting an attack. We were surprised, and we paid dearly for that. In the end, the Japanese would come to regret Pearl Harbor more than us. Let that be a lesson to all future enemies: "DON'T WAKE THE FRIGGIN GIANT!!!!"

May god have mercy on whatever nation (not terrorists or guerillas) engages in a conventional war with the US.

"resurgent russian econony" << Laughs. Russia IS however becoming less and less democratic. And China is really pretty scary (and the EU wants to sell them ARMS?!?!? They're constantly threatening to invade democratic Tawian!!)

"Siege mentality" << No. That would involve sacrifices of the luxuries our consumer society enjoys. Creation and exploitation of fear for the purpose of gaining support, yes.

Britain = massive influence over the world, and COLONIAL RULE.

America = massive influence over the world. Note the lack of colonies.

1) Russian economy is most definitely on the up; since the Russians were America's last real opponent, I would expect Americans to look at this with misgivings, especially since they funded it. Self-abuse is a strangely pleasant thing.

2) Um...America is NOT concerned about democracy (nor is the EU). The fact that China is "threatening" to invade Taiwan (apart from being irrelevant) means nothing in terms of EU policy, and in all honesty the only reason the USA cares about Taiwan is that Taiwan is a good export customer and handy base facility so that the USN can keep an eye on the Chinese.

3) What you descirbe is a siege economy, not a siege mentality. The former is born out of frea, the latter out of necessity, and neither of them are prerequisites for the existence of the other.

4) The lack of official colonies is again irrelevant. Some nations are, though officially sovereign, in fact little more than adjuncts of the USA, kept their through reliance upon the US economy; the great difficulty is, of course, that should they ever exploit their power (that is, should they ever cease buying American products and supplying America with raw materials and goods), the US economy would collapse.

4) The lack of official colonies is again irrelevant. Some nations are, though officially sovereign, in fact little more than adjuncts of the USA, kept their through reliance upon the US economy; the great difficulty is, of course, that should they ever exploit their power (that is, should they ever cease buying American products and supplying America with raw materials and goods), the US economy would collapse.

Didn't know that American Samoa had that much power :rolleyes:

1) Russian economy is most definitely on the up; since the Russians were America's last real opponent, I would expect Americans to look at this with misgivings, especially since they funded it. Self-abuse is a strangely pleasant thing.

2) Um...America is NOT concerned about democracy (nor is the EU). The fact that China is "threatening" to invade Taiwan (apart from being irrelevant) means nothing in terms of EU policy, and in all honesty the only reason the USA cares about Taiwan is that Taiwan is a good export customer and handy base facility so that the USN can keep an eye on the Chinese.

3) What you descirbe is a siege economy, not a siege mentality. The former is born out of frea, the latter out of necessity, and neither of them are prerequisites for the existence of the other.

4) The lack of official colonies is again irrelevant. Some nations are, though officially sovereign, in fact little more than adjuncts of the USA, kept their through reliance upon the US economy; the great difficulty is, of course, that should they ever exploit their power (that is, should they ever cease buying American products and supplying America with raw materials and goods), the US economy would collapse.
Western nations care about democracy... when it's convenient. Building nations that value the same principles as us (freedom and democracy) is beneficial in the long run to our security.

Europe also has countries that are near-dependant upon it for economic survival. What do you think would happen to Europe if countries stopped buying its products and supplying it with raw materials? Your points, although valid, do not apply exclusively to the US.

Because we're hard core!

I ain't paranoid, sonnie!

*looks around room fearfully while tottering a "boomstick" on hs lap*

"AHH! A gay communist democrat terrorist mullah ayatollah anarchist scumbag!"

*fires "boomstick" and blows off mailmans head*

"Oh, it was only thar mailman. Heh heh...."

______________________

Back to seriousness, though, I am not in constant fear. And I am one of the few people here who has a reason to be scared(I have recieved death-threats towards my family by terrorists). However, I believe in living my life without fear as much as I can. It helps me focus and enjoy my life. I have a life where I can explore and see things that most people will never see, and I'm not going to let some opium-high fake-muslims(their fake because they have broken so many Islamic laws it isn't funny) stop me from enjoying my life, which I am blessed to have.

Western nations care about democracy... when it's convenient. Building nations that value the same principles as us (freedom and democracy) is beneficial in the long run to our security.

Europe also has countries that are near-dependant upon it for economic survival. What do you think would happen to Europe if countries stopped buying its products and supplying it with raw materials? Your points, although valid, do not apply exclusively to the US.

Never said they did, mate. Still, I'd contend that Europe is perhaps less worried by that prospect, since it tends to do less to irritate such nations; heck, we did it enough in the 19th century.

I can't fathom why Americans are so paranoid. If it's not the evil, godless Commies, it's the evil, religious fanatic Muslims.

When the Cold War came to an end, all the people who thought we were just being paranoid had a lot of crap on their faces.

The KGB not only admitted all the spying and subversion and sabotage over the years, they also named names. Interesting things like paying German citizens to protest against nuclear weapons. Confirming long held suspicions we had about certain people in the 1950s.

The paranoia turned out to be the truth.

American society recovered from the WTC terrorist attacks long ago, I see the idiots in government as the greatest threat. Modern conservatives are just retarded from what I've seen.

As far as I'm concerned, if a Republican gets a term next voting year, I'm putting out a poll to make him move to Canada so we can finally have some smarter people in the White House. :D

Its important, I think, to note that one is only paranoid if one has no reason to believe that everyone is out to get them. It really has nothing to do with anything else. If everyone is, in fact, out to get you but you have no logical reason for this belief, you are just as paranoid.

The rights of US citizens to bear arms and defend themselves is rooted in our history and there to make sure it never becomes an issue. The fact is that an armed society is a polite society and oppressive regimes rarely take root in countried with an armed populous.

As far as I'm concerned, if a Republican gets a term next voting year, I'm putting out a poll to make him move to Canada so we can finally have some smarter people in the White House. :D

Hmm. I find it interesting that people like Condi Rice can be incredibly well educated and intelligent, but people who oppose Republicans will come right out and call her stupid. People with less intelligence and even less education have been called "intellectual" by the Democrats.

Hmm. I find it interesting that people like Condi Rice can be incredibly well educated and intelligent, but people who oppose Republicans will come right out and call her stupid. People with less intelligence and even less education have been called "intellectual" by the Democrats.

Condi is exceptional in many ways. I don't like her, or many of her policies, but she is a highly intelligent, well-educated black female republican. I imagine that combination is something of a rarity.
That said, Democrats like to think that they're smarter than Republicans but if they were I imagine they'd be in office right now.
As a further note, education does not equate to intelligence, as shown by President Bush, who, while probably not the callow moron portrayed by the bleeding heart liberal media, is not exactly the definitive intellectual statesman.
P.S.- Sorry, I've never said "bleeding-heart liberal media" before. It has a nice ring to it, although I freely admit that there is some die-hard fundamentalist conservative media too.

Its important, I think, to note that one is only paranoid if one has no reason to believe that everyone is out to get them. It really has nothing to do with anything else. If everyone is, in fact, out to get you but you have no logical reason for this belief, you are just as paranoid.

The rights of US citizens to bear arms and defend themselves is rooted in our history and there to make sure it never becomes an issue. The fact is that an armed society is a polite society and oppressive regimes rarely take root in countried with an armed populous.

Isn't it best to have polite society AND an unarmed society. Like say the UK?

Isn't it best to have polite society AND an unarmed society. Like say the UK?

The unarmed part NEVER works here in the US. The most polite areas of the US, where you are at the least risk of bodily harm from a criminal, is in areas of the US where people are comfortable owning guns.

The unarmed part NEVER works here in the US. The most polite areas of the US, where you are at the least risk of bodily harm from a criminal, is in areas of the US where people are comfortable owning guns.

I'll second that. I live in Canada, and we've had a ton of problems wth our gun registry, but even if it had been properly run I don't know if it would have flown. In the states, where they're much more protective of their guns, gun-control is impractical.
Lastly,it'd be great if everyone was unarmed, but the problem is that criminals don't obey the law, or they wouldn't be criminals, so they'll get weapons regardless.

When the Cold War came to an end, all the people who thought we were just being paranoid had a lot of crap on their faces.

The KGB not only admitted all the spying and subversion and sabotage over the years, they also named names. Interesting things like paying German citizens to protest against nuclear weapons. Confirming long held suspicions we had about certain people in the 1950s.

The paranoia turned out to be the truth.

The paranoia turned out to be anything but true; proof of its truth would have been when the Red Army's tanks fired up their engines, loaded their guns and rolled towards the Rhein, not the "news" that the Soviets had been doing their best for years to gain an advantage over us by any possible method.

The paranoia turned out to be anything but true; proof of its truth would have been when the Red Army's tanks fired up their engines, loaded their guns and rolled towards the Rhein, not the "news" that the Soviets had been doing their best for years to gain an advantage over us by any possible method.

Everything we had been told about the Communist Party in the US - their plans for subversion, sabotage, and acts of espionage have all turned out to be true.

At the time, people like you said "it's not true - these are good people, and you're just being paranoid".

The advice given by people like you turned out to be completely stupid.

Like the US didn't do any espionage... or sabotage, or... lose whole countries. I don't even want to know what the CIA tried to pull during the cold war.

Paranoia and propganda feed each other in a symbiotic relationship. Which came first, who knows:D
The Power of Nightmares: The Shadows In The Cave (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3970901.stm)

http://207.44.245.159/video1040.htm

Like the US didn't do any espionage... or sabotage, or... lose whole countries. I don't even want to know what the CIA tried to pull during the cold war.
One thing that is known, is the toppling of the democratically elected government in Iran, which led to the autocratic and despotic Shah taking power, which then led to the cultural revolution where the Ayatollahs took power, which led to some of the problems in the ME today.

Like the US didn't do any espionage... or sabotage, or... lose whole countries. I don't even want to know what the CIA tried to pull during the cold war.

I'm not saying the US didn't. But there were plenty of people here in the US who said that the USSR "Never" did that sort of thing.

It was nice to see the curtain come down, and watch as the KGB opened its files. Nice to see its former spymasters interviewed on TV, outing the very people who denied the Russians were doing a thing.

i'm surprised to see here far more mature opinions than in most of the political forums. I don't know the average age here, but if the American posters are young, America will have better days than today.

I'm not saying the US didn't. But there were plenty of people here in the US who said that the USSR "Never" did that sort of thing.

It was nice to see the curtain come down, and watch as the KGB opened its files. Nice to see its former spymasters interviewed on TV, outing the very people who denied the Russians were doing a thing.

*Sigh* I am NOT saying that the Russian never did anything like that, nor am I implying that US paranoia was totally baseless. However, the fact that the Soviets were acting against the USA via their Communist parties of the west, where they could, is not surprising, and does not actually justify some of the paranoia exhibited by America, or the west at large, during the Cold War. What WOULD have justified it would have been, as I say, when the Red Army took a drive to Paris. It seems that we have slightly different ideas of what justifies paranoia here. You appear to be of the opinion that the potential to act against a nation justifies paranoia; I take the view that only the act itself justifies paranoia to a nation or group.

When you're actually spying, that's taking an action.
When you're actually sabotaging things, that's taking an action.
When you're organizing groups of people to do those things, that's taking an action.
When you're raising money from people in Hollywood to organize groups of people to do those things, that's taking an action.

Better we get paranoid and stop the actions from happenning.

When you're actually spying, that's taking an action.
When you're actually sabotaging things, that's taking an action.
When you're organizing groups of people to do those things, that's taking an action.
When you're raising money from people in Hollywood to organize groups of people to do those things, that's taking an action.

Better we get paranoid and stop the actions from happenning.

When you're actually crossing borders without permission, that's an action.
When your bombers are sortieing against ships, that's an action.
When your navy is at sea and on a war footing, that's an action.
When you're about to launch a massive air attack against an unsuspecting opponent, that's an action.

None of what you class as actions (apart from number two, where examples would be appreciated) are actually actions threatening the US in any significant way. The fact that they exist does not make them an extant threat, it merely gives them the potential to be one.

When you're actually crossing borders without permission, that's an action.
When your bombers are sortieing against ships, that's an action.
When your navy is at sea and on a war footing, that's an action.
When you're about to launch a massive air attack against an unsuspecting opponent, that's an action.

None of what you class as actions (apart from number two, where examples would be appreciated) are actually actions threatening the US in any significant way. The fact that they exist does not make them an extant threat, it merely gives them the potential to be one.


By your logic, we should never spy on al-Qaeda members, and wait until the day comes when they open a vial of smallpox on the streets of New York. Then wait until about 10 million people are dead to do anything about it.

Did I say that we weren't prepared? Oh wait? We actually were. We just didn't expect an attack on Pearl Harbor but on the Philippines. Also, the planes were spotted but the people at the Info desk thought it was a flight of bombers. There were mistakes made but to say we were unprepared totally is an exaggeration. Yes we got our asses kicked but you also have to remember that Japan had the best trained carrier pilots, the best trained sailors and a well equipped army.

The only nation prepared for WWII was Germany but they weren't prepared for the Soviet Union. Japan was prepared but didn't expect us to stay in the fight after the Pearl Harbor Fiasco. A nation prepared doesn't necessarily win a war but they win most of the time.

USSR--Received helped from the US Prior to our declaration of war! How well would the USSR fought without American aide before we entered WWII? Britain? HAHA!! Don't make me laugh! They were tossed nearly right out of SE Asia! The US pretty much fought the Pacific campaign alone. :rolleyes: You are right that it was a world war though.


I thought you were more mature than this. Its lamentable. Perhaps you were having a bad day or something. I'll try this again.

Whatever your educational background, you are very weak in WW2 era history. I suggest you find "The Two Ocean war", which gives a pretty good examination of world Naval status in the years leading up to WW2. In it you'll find that US naval "preparations" were up to 2 full years behind Japan's. Our torpedos and naval aviation technology were vastly inferior and neglected by US policy.

Our forces in the pacific theater were undermanned, under-supported, ill-equiped, and isolated. The Hawaii base was one of the few that was well-defended, but it was only the vast distance of the pacifc that prevented it from being invaded by the Japanese. If it were closer it would likely have been invaded, like the Philippines were later.

The US was so utterly unprepared for the war that it was on the defensive in every major battle for roughly 6 months. It wasn't until Midway that the war turned around; 6 months of intensive industrial preperation and wartime innovation; far from being "prepared" for the war, we played defensively until the home front could catch up.

The Axis powers lost because they fought on multiple fronts at the same time. Japan lost thousands of troops fighting China, Britain and Austrailia in the SE Asian theater; far from defeating Britain quickly, they were bogged down in SE Asian nations like Burma. Study up on SE Asian theater actions in WW2 a little more before telling me that Britain didn't play a major part. British efforts based out of India caused enormous damage to the Japanese war effort.

Perhaps you are thinking only of fleet actions in WW2? The US fleets did not operate much in conjunction with allied commands, true. The British fleet and Austrialian fleets did have significant power, not near as much as Japan or the US. However there is more to WW2 than fleet actions; the war on the ground was important as well, and not just the US's island hopping campaign.

Your analysis of WW2 warfare is deeply flawed. Please study more before assuming our allies took no major part in it. I have no idea why you cling to this idea that we were alone in the Pacific, but it simply is not true.

Whatever your educational background, you are very weak in WW2 era history. I suggest you find "The Two Ocean war", which gives a pretty good examination of world Naval status in the years leading up to WW2. In it you'll find that US naval "preparations" were up to 2 full years behind Japan's. Our torpedos and naval aviation technology were vastly inferior and neglected by US policy.

So does the Pacific Campaign Book that I have. Gives the cause and effect of the war and what the state of the fleet was in. I am actually quite fluent on WWII era history since it is one of my primary areas of study. I never stated that our weapons was state of the art, I know that to be true, but I do know that we did take preparations for war. Problem is, we lost sight of a carrier fleet and we thought that they would strike us in the Philippines first. I do know of our technological problems and if you continue to study it, you'll find that the torpedo problem persisted throughout the war. Aviation technology really wasn't that big a problem but Carrier aviation was a problem. The Japs had us in carrier experience and don't forget, they also had more carriers than we do. Not to mention, they have been used against China therefor, experience.

Our forces in the pacific theater were undermanned, under-supported, ill-equiped, and isolated. The Hawaii base was one of the few that was well-defended, but it was only the vast distance of the pacifc that prevented it from being invaded by the Japanese. If it were closer it would likely have been invaded, like the Philippines were later.

It could've been invaded even on December 7, 1941. They could've done it and they would've succeeded too. Remember that we were preparing for an attack in Manila and not in Hawaii. As I've stated before, we were better prepared than Europe was otherwise, Pearl Harbor would've been worse than it was.

The US was so utterly unprepared for the war that it was on the defensive in every major battle for roughly 6 months. It wasn't until Midway that the war turned around; 6 months of intensive industrial preperation and wartime innovation; far from being "prepared" for the war, we played defensively until the home front could catch up.

That was because the Japs had the initiative? Anytime you take the war straight to your opponet first, you'll be able to put your opponet on the defensive. The Nazis did it with France and did it with Russia too. So this is really irrelevant considering the massive attack done by Japan the day after Pearl Harbor.

The Axis powers lost because they fought on multiple fronts at the same time. Japan lost thousands of troops fighting China, Britain and Austrailia in the SE Asian theater; far from defeating Britain quickly, they were bogged down in SE Asian nations like Burma. Study up on SE Asian theater actions in WW2 a little more before telling me that Britain didn't play a major part. British efforts based out of India caused enormous damage to the Japanese war effort.

Only in that part of the world. However, in the Central and Southern and Northern Pacific, they didn't play a major role. I can make a case for Australia and New Zealand considering they played a major role in the Guadalcanal Campaign. I do know what the Brits did In SE Asia but that was the only major area they fought in because of their colonies. However, the US pretty much fought in the Pacific nearly alone. And that is what I said, Pacific and NOT SE Asia. Big Difference between the two theaters.

Perhaps you are thinking only of fleet actions in WW2? The US fleets did not operate much in conjunction with allied commands, true. The British fleet and Austrialian fleets did have significant power, not near as much as Japan or the US. However there is more to WW2 than fleet actions; the war on the ground was important as well, and not just the US's island hopping campaign.

Yep, Guadalcanal was fought with US, Australia, New Zealand Forces against the Japs. Iwo Jima, America against Japan. Marianas, America Vs Japan. Pelilu, American against Japan. Philippines, American and philipino forces against Japan. Okinawa, America against Japan. Air War on Japan? American Bombers. Tarawa? American troops. Don't get me going on this because most of the ground fighting, outside of the area near New Zealand and Australia, was done by the American Army and the Marines. I'm talking Pacific Theater here. SE Asia is a different theater.

Your analysis of WW2 warfare is deeply flawed. Please study more before assuming our allies took no major part in it. I have no idea why you cling to this idea that we were alone in the Pacific, but it simply is not true.

Says you because I mentioned Pacific. We did in the Pacific except in the areas near New Zealand. The Burma-India-China theater was its own seperate theater.

American Paranoia existed well before 9/11. It has existed throughout history in almost every nation, there have been periods of paranoia. Europe was wracked by paranoia in the form of the occult for nearly half a millenium then it was put to rest when they committed genocide.

Paranoia in America just hasn't finished its phase yet. It began during the foundation with the natives, then to the fear of blacks rising up against them. These were both put tho rest with the near elimination of the native population then the pacification of the blacks. But it was replaced with a fear of the GREAT SOVIET UNION, which was put to rest when it was corrupted and put to rest. Then it was replaced by an unhealthy fear of 'Satanists' which was put to rest when reason prevailed. Then after 9/11 it was replaced by a healthy fear of terrorists, which will never be pacified because of the very nature of terrorism, so now they'll be paranoid forever. That has been the evolution of American Paranoia.

American Paranoia existed well before 9/11. It has existed throughout history in almost every nation, there have been periods of paranoia. Europe was wracked by paranoia in the form of the occult for nearly half a millenium then it was put to rest when they committed genocide.

Paranoia in America just hasn't finished its phase yet. It began during the foundation with the natives, then to the fear of blacks rising up against them. These were both put tho rest with the near elimination of the native population then the pacification of the blacks. But it was replaced with a fear of the GREAT SOVIET UNION, which was put to rest when it was corrupted and put to rest. Then it was replaced by an unhealthy fear of 'Satanists' which was put to rest when reason prevailed. Then after 9/11 it was replaced by a healthy fear of terrorists, which will never be pacified because of the very nature of terrorism, so now they'll be paranoid forever. That has been the evolution of American Paranoia.

Someone's been watching Bowling for Columbine.