NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is it each time one takes a look at the General Forum is there at least one, sometimes several items of hatespeech against the United States? For example, today there is currently one on the first page about Why Americans dont have all the answers. Why are these so rampant? Coming into this with the goal of being objective, I notice there are very few if any anti-European sentiments started, but each day someone takes every chance they get to rip on the US. Any thoughts as to why it is deemed so important to share Anti-American rhetoric over and over again?

Because Bush is a moron and his presidency has served to humiliate the US on an international scale.

It seems like giving "drive by political commentary" is easy to do, and it is easy to blame everything on the Americans, just like it is easy for everyone to blame everything on the insurance industry, or on big business in general, without any real logic behind the attacks. However, it seems like just a select few that are making most of the Anti american comments, it is just that those few seem to have alot of free time on their hands, which may come from not having a job due to the high unemployment rates in alot of Europe.

Because Bush is a moron and his presidency has served to humiliate the US on an international scale.

by no means is President Bush a "moron", he is a very inteligent man, who happens to make some decisions you personally may disagree with. However, this says nothing as to his inteligence, rather it says more to invalidating your remarks..

Why is it each time one takes a look at the General Forum is there at least one, sometimes several items of hatespeech against the United States? For example, today there is currently one on the first page about Why Americans dont have all the answers. Why are these so rampant? Coming into this with the goal of being objective, I notice there are very few if any anti-European sentiments started, but each day someone takes every chance they get to rip on the US. Any thoughts as to why it is deemed so important to share Anti-American rhetoric over and over again?
This has been hashed and re-hashed on here. I have always maintained that it's a combination of envy and resentment on the part of many Europeans. Many on here loudly contend that I'm wrong, so ... ( shrug )

by no means is President Bush a "moron", he is a very inteligent man

I seriously almost fell off my stool when I read this.

Americans are an inferior race.

What i want to know more is why there are always some people who assume that people who are critical of Bush Corp are envious of Americans. Do you really think that we secretly want to be Americans? I think thats actually a very unpleasant thoughts for many, no offense. I dont mind living in New York or California though. =D

Americans are an inferior race.


I think your comment, along with the previous one, prove the original poster's point.....

by the way, when you say the above comment, and I can only imagine you didn't say it in jest, what are you inferring Americans are inferior to?

What i want to know more is why there are always some people who assume that people who are critical of Bush Corp are envious of Americans. Do you really think that we secretly want to be Americans? I think thats actually a very unpleasant thoughts for many, no offense. I dont mind living in New York or California though. =D

New York and California are indeed nice, but...

...They're so fucking expensive.

I personally hate the "temporariness" of American culture. I would much rather spend a month in Europe, like a few days in England, then a few in Germany, France, Spain, Switzerland, etc. than a month going around the United States. I've been to New York twice and San Francisco once, and although I enjoyed the time there I imagine that I would enjoy time in Europe much more.

Why is it each time one takes a look at the General Forum is there at least one, sometimes several items of hatespeech against the United States? For example, today there is currently one on the first page about Why Americans dont have all the answers. Why are these so rampant? Coming into this with the goal of being objective, I notice there are very few if any anti-European sentiments started, but each day someone takes every chance they get to rip on the US. Any thoughts as to why it is deemed so important to share Anti-American rhetoric over and over again?



Because "Death to Ah-mare-ee-kah!" is the only English some Europeans choose to learn :D

What i want to know more is why there are always some people who assume that people who are critical of Bush Corp are envious of Americans. Do you really think that we secretly want to be Americans? I think thats actually a very unpleasant thoughts for many, no offense. I dont mind living in New York or California though. =D


By no means attacking, but why would being an American be unpleasant for anyone? There are wayyyyyyyy more freedoms and securities in America than in most places, so it seems a pretty good thing to be.

Because Bush is a moron and his presidency has served to humiliate the US on an international scale.

Funny. I said the same thing during the Clinton Administration.

Bush is intelligent. And your remarks shows your lack of intelligence

I seriously almost fell off my stool when I read this.

Why when what he says is true? I noticed that most of his harshest critics don't like what he's doing. It doesn't make one unintelligent for doing something that some people object. I object to his immigration policy but that doesn't mean I think he's an idiot.

Americans are an inferior race.

The Germans and the Japs thought this in the '40s. Did you see what happened to them? Congrats on your first post being 1)ignorant and 2)flamebaiting.

I think your comment, along with the previous one, prove the original poster's point.....

by the way, when you say the above comment, and I can only imagine you didn't say it in jest, what are you inferring Americans are inferior to?



It was sarcasm. We're a nation, not a race :D

By no means attacking, but why would being an American be unpleasant for anyone? There are wayyyyyyyy more freedoms and securities in America than in most places, so it seems a pretty good thing to be.


Arrogance , for one thing.

Second, I cant get married in America. I would not be free and I would not feel secure either.

Why when what he says is true? I noticed that most of his harshest critics don't like what he's doing. It doesn't make one unintelligent for doing something that some people object. I object to his immigration policy but that doesn't mean I think he's an idiot.

It's not his policies, man. It's how absolutely moronic he is when he *attempts* to deliver a speech, among other things.

Arrogance , for one thing.

Second, I cant get married in America. I would not be free and I would not feel secure either.



That's because marriage here is actually marriage, not a travesty ;)


Ok, now that I've quipped, I will run away before this turns into a gay marriage thread :D

Why is it each time one takes a look at the General Forum is there at least one, sometimes several items of hatespeech against the United States? For example, today there is currently one on the first page about Why Americans dont have all the answers. Why are these so rampant? Coming into this with the goal of being objective, I notice there are very few if any anti-European sentiments started, but each day someone takes every chance they get to rip on the US. Any thoughts as to why it is deemed so important to share Anti-American rhetoric over and over again?

I don't find this forum to be Anti-American nor have I seen an abnormal amount of rhetoric against American nations such as Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Jamaica, Canada etc...

That's because marriage here is actually marriage, not a travesty ;)


Ok, now that I've quipped, I will run away before this turns into a gay marriage thread :D

well whatever, at least now you understand why I dont want to be an American. So please stop using the "they are just jealous" excuse. Its annoying and arrogant.

It's not his policies, man. It's how absolutely moronic he is when he *attempts* to deliver a speech, among other things.



Excuse me, I know many-a-genius who sometimes stumble on words because of nervousness or their pace of thought exceeding their pace of speech. You can't judge someone by their speech just like that.

Excuse me, I know many-a-genius who sometimes stumble on words because of nervousness or their pace of thought exceeding their pace of speech. You can't judge someone by their speech just like that.


...sometimes?

Arrogance , for one thing.

Second, I cant get married in America. I would not be free and I would not feel secure either.

So your gay then? If you are, you can get married in Massachuttess.

Excuse me, I know many-a-genius who sometimes stumble on words because of nervousness or their pace of thought exceeding their pace of speech. You can't judge someone by their speech just like that.

Do they stumble through everyday speech, hmm? Do they have a lot of trouble just finding proper words to say when talking?

Ugh. I really dunno what it is with some of you people... Defending others, just because they're on your general side of the political spectrum.

It's not his policies, man. It's how absolutely moronic he is when he *attempts* to deliver a speech, among other things.

Speech difficulty does not mean he is unintelligent. And what other things are you talking about?

I by no means hate America, and did not love Clinton. I'm a Republican right wing capitalist guy, and I still don't much care for Bush. Still, if I had to choose between living in America and Germany, I would likely choose America because 1) I don't speak German, although I would love to pick it up. 2) I don't know enough about the current German government to warrant deciding it over the one I know already, although if I did have that choice I would definitely research both of my options. 3) Germany is too restrictive I think of things related to the Third Reich era. It happened and is a stain on Germany's history, obviously, but that doesn't keep Wolfenstein 3D from being a fun game. "I may disagree with what you're saying but I'll fight to the death your right to say it" (note that doesn't extend to the killing of races just because they're "inferior", I'm not that crazy)

Speech difficulty does not mean he is unintelligent. And what other things are you talking about?

It's not just his speeches. It's whenever he opens his mouth.

I don't find this forum to be Anti-American nor have I seen an abnormal amount of rhetoric against American nations such as Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Jamaica, Canada etc...

That's because, in most civilized circles, America means the United States of America and yes, there has been a tremendous amount of US bashing on here. Many times more than Chilean, Bolivian, Argentinian, Costa Rican, Jamaican, or Canadian bashing.

So your gay then? If you are, you can get married in Massachuttess.

I didnt say I am gay. But anyways, its not good enough. The same sex married couples in Massachuttes still do not receive all the rights that opposite sex married couples receive because the federal government does not reocognize it. And the federal government will never recognize it because of DOMA, I think. And we know gay marriages will not be legal in states like Alabama and Texas until 3040.

Excuse me, I know many-a-genius who sometimes stumble on words because of nervousness or their pace of thought exceeding their pace of speech. You can't judge someone by their speech just like that.

I'm not a geneous but I stumble over words constently when I get way ahead of myself. Does that make me unintelligent? :D

Arrogance is a two way street here, folks. Europeans who complain about American arrogance may have a point, but I've heard a ton of them rant and rave about "OMG Amerikka so evil and imperialist and omg fat too lol" with all the modesty of a pop star.

Besides, shut the hell up about Bush. I didn't vote for him, and neither did about half the voting population, but I'm sick of hearing Europeans bitch about him. He's a bad president, he'll be gone soon. Deal with it. It's not like you guys have never had less than ideal candidates in your top offices so stop being such sanctimonious pricks. It's not like Europeans have never sullied their hands with a little aggressive foreign policy either, so knock off the holier-than-thou shit.

Arrogance , for one thing.

Second, I cant get married in America. I would not be free and I would not feel secure either.


Arrogance is a trait of an individual, not an entire nation of people. It is quite interesting that someone who doesn't want to be discriminated against for their sexual preferences sure finds it easy to lump all americans together into one group and be prejudice against them. A bit hypocritical?

Do they stumble through everyday speech, hmm? Do they have a lot of trouble just finding proper words to say when talking?

Ugh. I really dunno what it is with some of you people... Defending others, just because they're on your general side of the political spectrum.


Its quite annoying. I mean you can be a neo conservative all you want, but trying to defend Bush and claim that he is intelligent..grrr.

It's not just his speeches. It's whenever he opens his mouth.

I stumble over words everday. Even during classroom debates I stumble over words! Does that make me unintelligent?

Its quite annoying. I mean you can be a neo conservative all you want, but trying to defend Bush and claim that he is intelligent..grrr.

Ugh. It really bothers me, too.

I am sorry if i offend anyone with my comment, but I only said that because i am sick of Americans accusing me and others that we are critical of Bush Corp because we are jealous at the fact that we are not Americans!

I stumble over words everday. Even during classroom debates I stumble over words! Does that make me unintelligent?

It's not just his stumbling over words. It's how long it takes him to find the words, and the idiotic look he has when trying to say them. Then, there's his vacant stare, and the look of accomplishment when he finally completes a cohesive sentence.

by no means is President Bush a "moron", he is a very inteligent man, who happens to make some decisions you personally may disagree with. However, this says nothing as to his inteligence, rather it says more to invalidating your remarks..

He is not an intelligent man. He grins continuosly during interviews, even if they're talking about the war in Iraq, and he says 'nucular' instead of nuclear. And, ofcourse, he did all those drugs in the airforce and highschool. Anyone who does that shit can't be particularly bright! So, even though we on this forum have no hard proof evidence, like an IQ test, to prove his stupidity, we have plenty of reasons to to believe that his mom bungie jumped during pregnancy.


P.S.- he looks like a monkey! :D

Those who really, really, really hate America, Move to FRANCE.
(You may disagree with laws and beliefs of America but that means you don't hat it. Think of America and the government as you mother. She took care of you and your children, provided you with a comforting life. Even though she says you cant do this or that, like stay out late, doesn't mean you hate her) Think.

Those who really, really, really hate America, Move to FRANCE.
(You may disagree with laws and beliefs of America but that means you don't hate it. Think of America and the government as you mother. She took care of you and your children, provided you with a comforting life. Even though she says you cant do this or that, like stay out late, doesn't mean you hate her) Think.

its not about stumbling, its about bieng simple minded. It seems like he has a very limited and narrowed idea about what the world is like, as if he cannot understand any grey areas. "They hate us because of our freedom." And also the fact that he attacked Kerry by calling him a "liberal." Its quite clear that during the presidental debates, Bush has no original idea, and he cannot understand or make a coherent or logical argument.

Those who really, really, really hate America, Move to FRANCE.
(You may disagree with laws and beliefs of America but that means you don't hate it. Think of America and the government as you mother. She took care of you and your children, provided you with a comforting life. Even though she says you cant do this or that, like stay out late, doesn't mean you hate her) Think.

America never held me to her teat, and I'm not moving to France just because you don't like the way I feel about this nation's leadership at the moment.

It's not just his stumbling over words. It's how long it takes him to find the words, and the idiotic look he has when trying to say them.

Sorry but that doesn't mean he's unintelligent. Doesn't even come close to fitting the definition of unintelligent.

Then, there's his vacant stare, and the look of accomplishment when he finally completes a cohesive sentence.

Once again, it doesn't prove that he's unintelligent.

Sorry but that doesn't mean he's unintelligent. Doesn't even come close to fitting the definition of unintelligent.



Once again, it doesn't prove that he's unintelligent.

It may not, but what Agnostic Deeishpeople said does all that, and more. My points just help it along.

I'm not a geneous but I stumble over words constently when I get way ahead of myself. Does that make me unintelligent? :D


Well, you did just spell "genius" and "constantly" incorrectly ;) :D

so basically the reasoning given so why there is so much anti-american hatespeech on the general forum boils down to the following:

1. Someone's personal dislike for how the American President speaks and his maneurisms.
2. Someone's personal thoughts on the attractiveness of the American President.

That argument doesn't hold to much water now, does it?

That's because, in most civilized circles, America means the United States of America and yes, there has been a tremendous amount of US bashing on here. Many times more than Chilean, Bolivian, Argentinian, Costa Rican, Jamaican, or Canadian bashing.

I've asked this question before, but your ethnocentric post leaves me no choice.

Where does the word "America" come from?

Those who really, really, really hate America, Move to FRANCE.
(You may disagree with laws and beliefs of America but that means you don't hate it. Think of America and the government as you mother. She took care of you and your children, provided you with a comforting life. Even though she says you cant do this or that, like stay out late, doesn't mean you hate her) Think.

Oh holy hell. :rolleyes:

Listen, I'm an American. That means the only person I think of as my mother and mind with slavish devotion was my actual mother. The blind loyalty you're advocating is probably the most un-American thing ever. The ability to criticize, or even to hate, the government is one our most sacred freedoms. The government is not your parent in any sense. It's a strictly limited (read the Constitution) body that we as citizens allow to exist to protect basic rights. If you want this idiotic king-serf relationship with your government, move to North Korea.

And the France comment...grow up.

It may not, but what Agnostic Deeishpeople said does all that, and more. My points just help it along.

actually, what he says doesn't either.

Bush just cannot comprehend a mildly complex concept. I remember him repeating Kerry’s comment about needing the “U.N approval” to wage a war or something. He obviously took it out of context but he kept on repeating the same line as if he found a weakness! He’s the type of guy who is good at name calling, being stubborn and self righteous at the expense of being logical.

He is not an intelligent man. He grins continuosly during interviews, even if they're talking about the war in Iraq, and he says 'nucular' instead of nuclear. And, ofcourse, he did all those drugs in the airforce and highschool. Anyone who does that shit can't be particularly bright! So, even though we on this forum have no hard proof evidence, like an IQ test, to prove his stupidity, we have plenty of reasons to to believe that his mom bungie jumped during pregnancy.


P.S.- he looks like a monkey! :D


He's in the highly intelligent range of IQ (120-130), so he isn't stupid. He may not be brilliant, but he's not a dullard :p

Well, you did just spell "genius" and "constantly" incorrectly ;) :D

:eek: I'm unintelligent :eek: :D

Where does the word "America" come from?

Amerigo Vespucci.

I'm proud to be a Mongolian
Land of a great democracy
Where the equal rights are for every
Where there's justice and liberty...

I've asked this question before, but your ethnocentric post leaves me no choice.

Where does the word "America" come from?

It derives from the name of Amerigo Vespucci( 1454-1512), a Florentine businessman and pilot, who sailed with both Spanish and Portuguese expeditions to the New World. (Taken straight from Encylopedia Americana Vol 1)

So your gay then? If you are, you can get married in Massachuttess.

But who wants to live in Massachusets?! (tehe....masachuttess...).

He's in the highly intelligent range of IQ (120-130), so he isn't stupid. He may not be brilliant, but he's not a dullard :p

He scored 97 on his IQ test.

That's because, in most civilized circles, America means the United States of America and yes, there has been a tremendous amount of US bashing on here. Many times more than Chilean, Bolivian, Argentinian, Costa Rican, Jamaican, or Canadian bashing.

There have been Canadian bashings? Christ in heaven, have you people not enough to do?

There have been Canadian bashings? Christ in heaven, have you people not enough to do?

NOPE! We're Americans. We don't know when to quit :D

He scored 97 on his IQ test.


120.

Western Culture dominates the world, there’s no dispute on that. American culture is the largest subculture of western civilization (population, influence). Thus it stands that those who wish to change Western Culture have to take a shot at and change American culture. What would one accomplish by say, going after Kenya?

Another explanation is that American culture at this moment is in a state of flux, what with the decline of American cinema, the transformation from an industrial economy too a service niche market sector, the death of God and the various attempts to either bury the shadow or resurrect it, the increasing influence of Japanese subculture such as Anime and Manga, feelings that the American Modern Project made some mistakes, reactions to feminism and the sexual revolution, ect....ect.... There is a lot of debate about where the United States should head, internal and external, left and right. People attack the present to shape the future.

Bush just cannot comprehend a mildly complex concept. I remember him repeating Kerry’s comment about needing the “U.N approval” to wage a war or something. He obviously took it out of context but he kept on repeating the same line as if he found a weakness! He’s the type of guy who is good at name calling, being stubborn and self righteous at the expense of being logical.


The presidential debates are so rehearsed that neither party is truly making an original thought, however I assure you both Senator Kerry and President Bush have a good comprehension on the concept of foreign policy, which was the topic of the debate you refer to.

It is also quite comical that you mention Bush being a "name caller", yet you refer to him as "stubborn", "Self Righteous" and "illogical".

Amestria']Western Culture dominates the world, there’s no dispute on that. American culture is the largest subculture of western civilization (population, influence). Thus it stands that those who wish to change Western Culture have to take a shot at and change American culture. What would one accomplish by say, going after Kenya?

Another explanation is that American culture at this moment is in a state of flux, what with the decline of American cinema, the transformation from an industrial economy too a service niche market sector, the death of God and the various attempts to either bury the shadow or resurrect it, the increasing influence of Japanese subculture such as Anime and Manga, feelings that the American Modern Project made some mistakes, reactions to feminism and the sexual revolution, ect....ect.... There is a lot of debate about where the United States should head, internal and external, left and right. People attack the present to shape the future.


I can honestly say that is the most inteligent comment I have read since posting the original question. This is the type of debater i hoped to encounter. Thank you

great post

The presidential debates are so rehearsed that neither party is truly making an original thought, however I assure you both Senator Kerry and President Bush have a good comprehension on the concept of foreign policy, which was the topic of the debate you refer to.

It is also quite comical that you mention Bush being a "name caller", yet you refer to him as "stubborn", "Self Righteous" and "illogical".


Heh. Its more about stating the obvious, imo. :)

On the topic of America bashing: I have found this in other forums as well, and most non-Americans say it is because we are "arrogent" or "ignorant". First off, saying both of those things is a gross stereotype. But why do they say that? I think it's because European's think that the average American doesn't know much about anything other than America. They than look down on us and stereotype all of us, and put us in ignorant and arrogent catagories, making themselves those very things, ignorant and arrogent.

On the topic of Bush's intelligence: I was reading some of the people talking about what a "moron" Bush is and how he can never find the correct words. Funny though, as I kept reading, all I started seeing was "I don't know what the hell you people who make your opinions are talking about, but here's what the media says, so it must be true!". Try thinking for yourselves people, it disgusts me how easily some are brainwashed into quoting what they hear. Yes, I have heard Bush's speaches. Yes, he does stumble over his words. Yes, he does say gramatically incorrect things. So? The ability to communicate well and your faciel expressions have nothing to do with your intelligence.

and he says 'nucular' instead of nuclear.

P.S.- he looks like a monkey! :D


I didn't vote for Bush, never even considered it, but living in the Southern United States I am about fed up with having a southern accent equated with stupidity and low intelligence. Does a New England accent automatically confer high intelligence? no. Does a west coast accent automatically confer a desire to make bad motion pictures? no.

So, get off the southern accent = the shallow end of the gene pool.

ok, rant is over

There have been Canadian bashings? Christ in heaven, have you people not enough to do?


Darn Canadians and their yummy Molson Ice...

I can honestly say that is the most inteligent comment I have read since posting the original question. This is the type of debater i hoped to encounter. Thank you

great post

Thank you for the compliment and you are very welcome. :)

The ability to communicate well and your faciel expressions have nothing to do with your intelligence.


I will argue that a president should make the effort to communicate well and if he cant , than maybe his intelligence is questionable. Its also about what he says, i think.

as harry truman said "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"

we are the biggest military force in the world. we have the most cultural imperialism. we are trying to bring democracy to countries that have never considered it.

we are gonna catch some shit for it.

some deserved some undeserved

we're a big country, we can take it.

I will argue that a president should make the effort to communicate well and if he cant , than maybe his intelligence is questionable.

In that case, I have to question Kerry's intelligence because his facial expressions aren't normal.

In that case, I have to question Kerry's intelligence because his facial expressions aren't normal.

I questioned Kerry's intelligence from the get go, so it came as no surprise to find out that he was a D- student in his college days.

In that case, I have to question Kerry's intelligence because his facial expressions aren't normal.


I dont see anything wrong with his facial expressions. =0 Some people are just not very animated and thats not a problem.

But not being able to speak well is another matter. But like i've already said, its also about what he says and what he does.

I questioned Kerry's intelligence from the get go, so it came as no surprise to find out that he was a D- student in his college days.

Then Kerry in my mind is unintelligent! :D

I questioned Kerry's intelligence from the get go, so it came as no surprise to find out that he was a D- student in his college days.


I think Kerry was alright as long as the lightning was able to strike, so he can be ALIVE!!!! ALIVE!!!!!! ALIVE!!!!!

He scored 97 on his IQ test.
Firstly, before anyone spouts out a random number, whether it be good or bad, how about this little thing called proof?

Secondly, I believe that a man could be a smart person without being a good orator, and visa versa. Look at Hitler - a brilliant orator, able to round up an entire nation behind him, and all that for being a crazy asshole. A lot of people don't see past the Texan accent and think Bush is just mispronouncing everything he is saying (nuclear is the best example). And being simple does not equate into being dumb. By the way, all you people who are so absolutely sure Bush is an idiot, what Ivy League school did you graduate from?

Lastly, though I am not a proponent of Bush, compared to Kerry, I'd go with Bush every time. Kerry's play on his own military career and the Democrats' bashing of Bush's made me sick. His wife, who so many thought was a great woman, struck me as a frigid bitch who leads her husband by the nose. I think the defining moment for their relationship was when at the hustings, Kerry hugged several men that were backing him and helping promote him and his party. He gets to his wife after the group, and they shake hands.

And for those who think Kerry was any smarter than Bush, nearly an exact two months ago CNN released a report comparing Kerry and Bush's first years in college. Bush had the higher GPA (albeit by a very slight margin). He had a D in astronomy, and Cs and Bs for everything else. Kerry had about three Ds in total, including one in political science, and Cs and Bs for the rest.

In my opinion, it is pretty sad that these were the best either party could come up with, but if I had to choose, Bush wins. And apparently the majority of those that cared enough to vote in the US felt the same way.

EDIT: Hah, I gave Kerry too much credit with his grades.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/?page=full
FOUR Ds, his highest grade being a C, not a B. And damn, he looks like a retard in that picture.

Hilter was quite smart.

I didn't vote for Bush, never even considered it, but living in the Southern United States I am about fed up with having a southern accent equated with stupidity and low intelligence. Does a New England accent automatically confer high intelligence? no. Does a west coast accent automatically confer a desire to make bad motion pictures? no.

So, get off the southern accent = the shallow end of the gene pool.

ok, rant is over

Oh, that's a southern accent? Sorry, i didn't realise that i was making that kind of impression. But, on the topic of western accents, yes, if Hollywood is any example (kidding :) ).

I will argue that a president should make the effort to communicate well and if he cant , than maybe his intelligence is questionable. Its also about what he says, i think.


I agree the American president should put in an effort to be a good speaker, as President Bush has made that effort. He was known as a good speaker (decent at least) as a governor, and did appear nervous during the first part of his pregnancy. However, I think everyone has to admit 2 things, regardless of like/dislike or party affiliation, about our current president...

1st. He has tried in terms of speaking, he was a little embarrasing during the first debates of his first term, which is understandable when speaking to millions of potential voters. However, he has become a much more elegant speaker, seems more natural, and allaroung clearer.

2nd. No matter how much you like or dislike the guy, Bill Clinton may have been our best publically speaking president in the history of the US (except maybe early Reagan). I was not a fan of Clinton, but find him an eloquent and charismatic speaker. It is hard to follow that kind of speaking for anyone, so I think any president after Clinton would have taken heat for his speaking ability.

I agree the American president should put in an effort to be a good speaker, as President Bush has made that effort. He was known as a good speaker (decent at least) as a governor, and did appear nervous during the first part of his pregnancy. However, I think everyone has to admit 2 things, regardless of like/dislike or party affiliation, about our current president...

1st. He has tried in terms of speaking, he was a little embarrasing during the first debates of his first term, which is understandable when speaking to millions of potential voters. However, he has become a much more elegant speaker, seems more natural, and allaroung clearer.

2nd. No matter how much you like or dislike the guy, Bill Clinton may have been our best publically speaking president in the history of the US (except maybe early Reagan). I was not a fan of Clinton, but find him an eloquent and charismatic speaker. It is hard to follow that kind of speaking for anyone, so I think any president after Clinton would have taken heat for his speaking ability.Clinton spoke and never actually said anything. That is why idiots from Europe think he is centrist. He dissembled and lied.

Hilter was quite smart.
Yes and no. He was smart in some ways, and in others, incredibly ignorant. If he were to have done just a handful of things differently, there may have been nothing the Allied forces could have done to stop him. But time and time again, he would screw things up. If you want examples, I can break down the entire war and how he commanded Nazi Germany, but I don't feel in the mood to go on about it without a mandate.

Clinton spoke and never actually said anything. That is why idiots from Europe think he is centrist. He dissembled and lied.


but...given what you just said, you have to admit he was an excellent speaker, even if he was spewing nothing of value....

I agree the American president should put in an effort to be a good speaker, as President Bush has made that effort. He was known as a good speaker (decent at least) as a governor, and did appear nervous during the first part of his pregnancy.

I didn't know he was a women....

bush and kerry are both born into the powerful elite of america. Doesnt' matter who you voted for because at the end of the day your either having a corporate puppet or a closet socialist. Both bad for America

Yes and no. He was smart in some ways, and in others, incredibly ignorant. If he were to have done just a handful of things differently, there may have been nothing the Allied forces could have done to stop him. But time and time again, he would screw things up. If you want examples, I can break down the entire war and how he commanded Nazi Germany, but I don't feel in the mood to go on about it without a mandate.


well he "accomplished" alot, at least.

He is not an intelligent man. He grins continuosly during interviews, even if they're talking about the war in Iraq, and he says 'nucular' instead of nuclear. And, ofcourse, he did all those drugs in the airforce and highschool. Anyone who does that shit can't be particularly bright! So, even though we on this forum have no hard proof evidence, like an IQ test, to prove his stupidity, we have plenty of reasons to to believe that his mom bungie jumped during pregnancy.


P.S.- he looks like a monkey! :D

That's not really true. He is an intelligent man. He has done a excellent job pissing off all of my enemies at the same time. Just because you disagree with his views doesn't make him a idoit. The real idoits are the anti-Bush haters who are always making these dumb comments and attacking Bush's policies with bad infomation. By the way, Bush is smarter then Kerry.

I'm a Republican, and I voted for Bush, and I'm glad I did too.

Hail Satan!

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

-snip-

Don't remember where exactly I got that score, but it had his dad at 98 and him at 97. I think it was CNN two years ago.

And yeah, that CNN article on Kerry confirmed my original thoughts about him. He's an idiot, just like G.W.

Why i hate america?

Let's see here, maybe the false portrayals of communism, the focusing on the idiot leaders and the mislabeling of everything america doesnt like as communist.....

That and the fact that i am despised throughout most of america because i am a communist.....

It derives from the name of Amerigo Vespucci( 1454-1512), a Florentine businessman and pilot, who sailed with both Spanish and Portuguese expeditions to the New World. (Taken straight from Encylopedia Americana Vol 1)

And what territory was the name "America" first applied?

I didn't know he was a women....

You caught it to eh? Yea I know he ment Presidency but comeon, that is funny! :D

Because Bush is a moron and his presidency has served to humiliate the US on an international scale.

So the Democrats lost to a moron? What does that tell you about their candidate?

:D

And what territory was the name "America" first applied?

North America Actually, most of the Western Hemisphere in actuality since it was he who first realized that Columbus discovered a new land mass.

That's not really true. He is an intelligent man. He has done a excellent job pissing off all of my enemies at the same time. Just because you disagree with his views doesn't make him a idoit. The real idoits are the anti-Bush haters who are always making these dumb comments and attacking Bush's policies with bad infomation. By the way, Bush is smarter then Kerry.

I'm a Republican, and I voted for Bush, and I'm glad I did it too.

Hail Satan!

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

I can honestly say I didn't see that last 2 phrases going with the rest of the argument. Which part of the Christian right do satanists belong to?? j/k...

So the Democrats lost to a moron? What does that tell you about their candidate?

:D



actually...what does that tell you about the Americans voters.. is the more appropriate question. ;)

He's in the highly intelligent range of IQ (120-130), so he isn't stupid. He may not be brilliant, but he's not a dullard :p
First off, IQ tests are bullshit. Second, is a man who says the stupid shit as shown in my sig actually smart? Does an intelligent man say this crap? "And so, in my State of the -- my State of the Union -- or state -- my speech to the -- nation, whatever you wanna call it, speech to the nation -- I asked Americans to give 4,000 years -- 4,000 hours over the next -- of the rest of your life -- of service to America. That's what I asked. I said 2 -- 4,000 hours." He threw up nine shards of phrases that one must put back together to form two incoherent sentences. That is not the product of an intelligent man. Or if you think actions speak louder than words, who was stupid enough to try riding a Segway untippable scooter while it was off? Who was stupid enough to shove his way in front of Clinton at Clinton's own Presidential library opening? Who was stupid enough to write on the American flag as it's a federal offense?

So the Democrats lost to a moron? What does that tell you about their candidate?

:D

It tells me Kerry is even more of a moron in the eyes of the majority.

actually...what does that tell you about the Americans voters.. is the more appropriate question. ;)

That we're smart enough not vote for a moronic person in the name of John F. Kerry.

I think this has gotten a little off subject. My best summation of the original author's point was that the general forum seems to have a lot of anti-americanism, and wandered some of the cause of this, whether it was just that europeans hate America as a whole, or if something was driving this. I would have to respond to that stating that the United States is the hegemonic state of our times, thus is apt to being verbally assaulted. I think the same would be said of the British a few hundred years back, and previously to them the Dutch at their highest point.

So the Democrats lost to a moron? What does that tell you about their candidate?

:D
great point..

Why i hate america?

Let's see here, maybe the false portrayals of communism, the focusing on the idiot leaders and the mislabeling of everything america doesnt like as communist.....

That and the fact that i am despised throughout most of america because i am a communist.....
We don't depise you. Actually, you are something to be pitied. A person who still thinks it's cool and anti-establishment to be a communist.

:rolleyes: yeah just like its so cool to be gay..

False portrayal of communism?? What are you talking about China3? Let's back that up.... Tell me about all of those communist nations that rose to greatness... What a minute, there really aren't any... It sounds as if you hate the freedoms that allow Americans to speak their minds about communism... Tell me, are you in China?? just curious.....

I don't think anyone has really given many valid reasons for this anti-americanism that exists out there, nor does their seem to be an understanding as to why they hate America, just a knowledge that they do.

I think europe can take their cruissant munching tea sipping brautwurst eating selfs and shove it (not refering 2 britan because their cool and shoot up the taliban wit their allah selfs)

I think europe can take their cruissant munching tea sipping brautwurst eating selfs and shove it (not refering 2 britan because their cool and shoot up the taliban wit their allah selfs)

Wow. Just wow.

Wow. Just wow.



In case you didn't notice, we Americans are frustrated with Europe :D

I am an American, but that doesn't make Ze_Barrio any less of a dumbass.

Well, a good answer to the original question would have to make a distinction. If you're talking about opposition for the sake of opposition, then that actually is irresponsible and ill-informed. But, then again, so is the 'they hate us because they're jealous' Rush Limbaugh crap.

If you're talking about actual, well-informed criticisms of the American government and the relationship between our government and other governments, then that isn't Anti-Americanism at all.

Well, a good answer to the original question would have to make a distinction. If you're talking about opposition for the sake of opposition, then that actually is irresponsible and ill-informed. But, then again, so is the 'they hate us because they're jealous' Rush Limbaugh crap.

If you're talking about actual, well-informed criticisms of the American government and the relationship between our government and other governments, then that isn't Anti-Americanism at all.



Speaking of Limbaugh, I'm ordered a Club Gitmo shirt the other day. :D

Bah. Limbaugh is too polemic for our own good. :P

This has been hashed and re-hashed on here. I have always maintained that it's a combination of envy and resentment on the part of many Europeans. Many on here loudly contend that I'm wrong, so ... ( shrug )

Ya. It's like how you never hear muggers complaining about crime on the streets. It's always people who keep getting their purses snatched and their wallets lifted who are all "oh, help me, my stuff got taken away, why won't anyone do anything about all this crime?"

You only ever hear anti-mugger stuff. People who wish that they had the strength and character that it takes to be a criminal are so jealous of their rugged independent lifestyle that they never stop complaining about them. You never hear about all the good stuff muggers do. Right now there's a mugger subsisting off of his criminal proceeds who is allowing me to work by not applying for my job. If all the criminals out there right now decided to switch to an honest living do you have any idea what sort of havok that would reak with your earnings potential?

These "crime victims" on the other hand... Every time they loose some money, or a loved one, or a car it's straight to the police they go crying. My home-owners insurance would be a lot lower if I didn't have to carry all those layabouts who file claims when their houses get burgled. How much do we loose every year in property taxes to pay the police that these tattlers report to?

People need to start putting up some anti crime-victim threads. These crime victims are a drain on our society. When I was a kid, if someone tattled to the teacher then he'd get whipped for tattling. Why don't we demand the same independence of spirit from our adults?

The scary thing is, I believed the last post until about halfway through.

Of course, the writer's still going to have to provide links between America and criminals for his or her analogy to work.

It's not that people are anti-american as so much have a bad perception of America. For one, looking at George Bush and his policies, it is hard not to wonder how some Americans could have re-elected such a president. Yet, if I was an american, I would feel ashamed to be steoreotyped in this catagory so I suppose its not the best comparason. Yes, america is free but it is not as free as its people think. Everything is draped in fear, the media installs a blanket of fear in people so they consume. Nothing is truely free in America.

It's not that people are anti-american as so much have a bad perception of America. For one, looking at George Bush and his policies, it is hard not to wonder how some Americans could have re-elected such a president. Yet, if I was an american, I would feel ashamed to be steoreotyped in this catagory so I suppose its not the best comparason. Yes, america is free but it is not as free as its people think. Everything is draped in fear, the media installs a blanket of fear in people so they consume. Nothing is truely free in America.
Nothing is truely free anywhere. But the US was the first to give it a go at justice and liberty through a government of the people, by the people. It set the example for the storming of the Bastille and the many South American countries that claimed independence shortly after.

Ya. It's like how you never hear muggers complaining about crime on the streets. It's always people who keep getting their purses snatched and their wallets lifted who are all "oh, help me, my stuff got taken away, why won't anyone do anything about all this crime?"

You only ever hear anti-mugger stuff. People who wish that they had the strength and character that it takes to be a criminal are so jealous of their rugged independent lifestyle that they never stop complaining about them. You never hear about all the good stuff muggers do. Right now there's a mugger subsisting off of his criminal proceeds who is allowing me to work by not applying for my job. If all the criminals out there right now decided to switch to an honest living do you have any idea what sort of havok that would reak with your earnings potential?

These "crime victims" on the other hand... Every time they loose some money, or a loved one, or a car it's straight to the police they go crying. My home-owners insurance would be a lot lower if I didn't have to carry all those layabouts who file claims when their houses get burgled. How much do we loose every year in property taxes to pay the police that these tattlers report to?

People need to start putting up some anti crime-victim threads. These crime victims are a drain on our society. When I was a kid, if someone tattled to the teacher then he'd get whipped for tattling. Why don't we demand the same independence of spirit from our adults?

My god, this was brilliant.

My god, this was brilliant.

Only if you automatically assume that there is a direct connection between the American government and the muggers in question.

It's not that people are anti-american as so much have a bad perception of America. For one, looking at George Bush and his policies, it is hard not to wonder how some Americans could have re-elected such a president. Yet, if I was an american, I would feel ashamed to be steoreotyped in this catagory so I suppose its not the best comparason. Yes, america is free but it is not as free as its people think. Everything is draped in fear, the media installs a blanket of fear in people so they consume. Nothing is truely free in America.


I think an easy retort to that is that Freedom isn't free. Media does paint a blanket of fear, you are pretty much dead on with that. However, media doesn't truly represent America, just as Al Jezeera doesn't represent all Arab speaking nations, it is a set of journalists reporting their view of the news. I think the old saying that everyone sees 20-20 in hindsight applies here, as it is easy to point out any shortcomings of the current president/national leader of any country, and no one is by any means saying George W. Bush is perfect. In fact, it is our duty as our Americans to speak out against our government if it displeases us. However, I think overall Bush has done a great job in a time of chaos, of terrorism, of uncertainty, he has shined as a leader, and there have been many converts to his cause.

With that having been said, it is hard as an American to get a perception from the outside world as to their views on America. I can understand some people see Americans as arrogant, however there are plenty of arrogant Europeans as well, so this is a moot point. I can also understand some people resenting the freedoms Americans have, in fact the very things that would have one hung in one country are acceptable in the U.S. My point with this thread is that I am seeing a very vocal anti-American sentiment, and would like to hear some of the causes of it. There are quite a few individuals, who are outspoken against the US, against the president of the US, and against Americans in general that blindly take pot shots at America calling it evil, inferior, etc. but never really stating their roots, nor a point to compare America to.

So the Democrats lost to a moron? What does that tell you about their candidate?

:D

That tells you about the quality of the voters, not the candidates. Though I didn't really like either one, I still hold that the majority of the world is composed of ignorant fools. Yes, that is a little cynical, but I haven't seen much to prove me wrong.

Well I think what everyone has said so far IS fair. I mean an example, of something we see... When the French decided not to support America during George's War efforts searching for all those "WMD" that everyone "has" (even though America has the most in the world, but thats not my point) Americans were mad that the French didnt support them. So they changed the name of French fries to Freedom Fries...

Now this may be such a small thing, and it is. But you have to look at the big picture. Why would a country that claims to be so free and open minded and supportive of all ideas, punish another country for not supporting them? It's so mind-boggling. And thats what people feel. That Americans want everyone to follow them, without asking questions and having their own opinions on issues. To join the heard.

I can also understand some people resenting the freedoms Americans have, in fact the very things that would have one hung in one country are acceptable in the U.S.

My point with this thread is that I am seeing a very vocal anti-American sentiment, and would like to hear some of the causes of it.

To help out, statements like that first one are what is irritating. I do not resent "US freedoms". Having hopped from nation to nation most of my life, there are plenty of nations that are just as, if not moreso, free. Canada is a fine example. Its this attitude that thinks that the US is the most free or the best and such that gets people riled up. I don't want to call it arrogance, but it comes dangerously close as such. There are plenty of fine countries that measure up just as well.

That tells you about the quality of the voters, not the candidates. Though I didn't really like either one, I still hold that the majority of the world is composed of ignorant fools. Yes, that is a little cynical, but I haven't seen much to prove me wrong.

And yet one more person that thinks people who voted for Bush was uninformed. I voted for Bush and I was informed. Probably because I kept track of what was going on.

Nothing is truely free anywhere. But the US was the first to give it a go at justice and liberty through a government of the people, by the people. It set the example for the storming of the Bastille and the many South American countries that claimed independence shortly after.

You make a valid point. I think it is also important to point out that America is the only nation in the world that truly reflects that for the people, by the people spirit. Even the founding documents of all other nations, that say the government "grants citizens the freedom to" do various things (to paraphrase). The US is the only nation that says these rights and freedoms are God given, and that the government may not take them away. In fact, there are protections in place in the US constitution (mainly the 2nd amendment) to help the people if the government were to get too powerful or large.

You guys are missing the point. People hate the US because of what we represent. They hate us because they live in the protective cocoon we provide for them. They understand nothing of the essence of human nature and the harshness of reality. Europe needs its scapegoat and unfortunately, they will pick the most powerful nation around, even if we've saved them countless times in the past, and strangely not the country thats attacked them twice in the last century (I am of course talking about Germany, sorry if I offend anyone but you can't argue facts. Modern day Germany is a credit to Europe but we've never harmed them either). Some people say it's jealousy and I tend to agree. All of Europe would be speaking German now if it wasn't for the nation they dispise so much and that is why they dispise us. Because we have the strength to stand up for what is right and lead the fight against any enemy that threatens them they hate us. They know they could never achieve the greatness we have by hiding behind the shield that we provide. The nay-sayers will always hate America until one day when we arent there to bail them out. Many Americans consider the liberals in this country to live in a fantasy world but in comparison to Europe, they're Hardcore conservatives. The truth is that human beings are wretched and uncivilized. They are greedy, ruthless, ambitious and powerhungry. That's why communism failed and it's a harsh reality Europe has yet to see. They know the power we wield and are afraid of it, not realizing that the United States of America has a long reputation of standing up for the little guy and saving the day. I believe a very astute man once said something about biting the hand that feeds... I guess Europe never heard that expression. By the way, times we've saved France in the last century: World War I, World War II, the Cold War, Vietnam. Also, to France, next time you might want to watch the Belgian border instead of building a huge costly and completly useless wall on your eastern front (just a thought, don't get tricked three times) History buffs and Frenchmen will know what I'm talking about. Some of you may dismiss me as arrogant but everything I've said here is true. Honestly I don't mean to offend anyone so if you are offended, I am sorry. I am simply reporting the truth, not without bias I admit, but still I deal in fact, not in speculation and half-truths. I do not blame any of you for hating me and what I stand for, but I am an American and at least I am free to stand for what I wish (... which is more than I can say for some of our toughest critics) Remember, stand for anything you wish but people have died so that you can stand for something. -Apathy is Death-

P.S. Im not really into Fascism, my country was made more as a joke with a liberal friend than anything. Im as far right-wing as you go. (on most all issues)

I seriously almost fell off my stool when I read this.

Thats cuz your a liberal, and a pinko commie

Arrogance , for one thing.

Second, I cant get married in America. I would not be free and I would not feel secure either.

Thats cuz your a homo and probably a liberal

Firstly, before anyone spouts out a random number, whether it be good or bad, how about this little thing called proof?

Secondly, I believe that a man could be a smart person without being a good orator, and visa versa. Look at Hitler - a brilliant orator, able to round up an entire nation behind him, and all that for being a crazy asshole. A lot of people don't see past the Texan accent and think Bush is just mispronouncing everything he is saying (nuclear is the best example). And being simple does not equate into being dumb. By the way, all you people who are so absolutely sure Bush is an idiot, what Ivy League school did you graduate from?

So you're saying "just because someone gives no evidence of intelligence that's no reason to think that he doesn't have any," and "not being capable of complex reasoning isn't a bad thing." Um, I seem to recall his claiming that he "knew" Saddam had weapons of mass destruction because of "instinct." That's pretty stupid and it stems from his being a simpleton.

BTW, Bush graduated with what's called a "gentleman's C." It's nothing to be proud of. He couldn't even get into Texas University with his grades, he actually had to settle for the Ivy Leagues as a legacy.


Lastly, though I am not a proponent of Bush, compared to Kerry, I'd go with Bush every time. Kerry's play on his own military career and the Democrats' bashing of Bush's made me sick.

So you vote with the pro war guy who never served the military because you don't like the guy who did serve the military mentioning that he did? Care to offer some logic behind that incredibly absurd statement?


His wife, who so many thought was a great woman, struck me as a frigid bitch who leads her husband by the nose. I think the defining moment for their relationship was when at the hustings, Kerry hugged several men that were backing him and helping promote him and his party. He gets to his wife after the group, and they shake hands.

So you're one of these "I'm voting for Bush because, while he may be taking our country in the wrong direction, may have ass backwards domestic policies, is making enemies all around the world, is racking up the largest deficit in the history of the world, cuts taxes while raising spending, and wages unprovoked wars of aggression while not equipping the troops who are actually going to be fighting that war... well, Kerry's just not my kinda guy."

Is that what you're saying?
It sounds an awful lot like that, but I want to be sure.
Because if that's what you're saying, you're an idiot.
That would certainly explain you're non-specific appoval of Bush, but you ought to be aware that, as an idiot, you're judgement isn't the greatest.


And for those who think Kerry was any smarter than Bush, nearly an exact two months ago CNN released a report comparing Kerry and Bush's first years in college. Bush had the higher GPA (albeit by a very slight margin). He had a D in astronomy, and Cs and Bs for everything else. Kerry had about three Ds in total, including one in political science, and Cs and Bs for the rest.

That was for the first year. Kerry didn't commit his first year, then he worked and brought his grades up. He has intelligence and knows the value of work and applies it.

Bush coasted on his fathers name and got gentleman's C's throughout his entire academic career. Bush has connections and knows the value of a powerful name and abuses it for all it's worth.


In my opinion, it is pretty sad that these were the best either party could come up with, but if I had to choose, Bush wins. And apparently the majority of those that cared enough to vote in the US felt the same way.

Kerry wasn't the best that the party could come up with, but he was light years ahead of Bush. Kerry could have taken a dump on the podium and it would probably have been a better president. Not that the product would have been smarter than Bush, I'm not trying to go absurdist here. But Bush has a certain "negative intelligence." That is, his chosen courses of action are usually worse than if he'd actually done nothing at all. Kerry's feces would do nothing as a president, except possibly fertilize the rose garden, which would be a vast improvement over Bush.

Kerry himself was an intelligent, prudent, deliberate man who knew the value of military service, hard work, and loyalty to country over corporation. No wonder the Republican's hated him.

The Democrats could have offerd up Dean, but the DLC was really worried at the fact that he didn't need them, so they sabotaged him by playing up the "Dean Scream" which was at a rally in which everyone else was screaming louder than he was. And the "liberal media" didn't want the liberal candidate.


EDIT: Hah, I gave Kerry too much credit with his grades.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/?page=full
FOUR Ds, his highest grade being a C, not a B. And damn, he looks like a retard in that picture.

Oh, you want to talk retarded looking pictures?
Click Here Then. (http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/Snakeoil/Bush.jpg)

Kerry's looks ugly, but not retarded. Nice to know that you're staying true to the Republican tradition of voting based on superficial crap all around.

Well I think what everyone has said so far IS fair. I mean an example, of something we see... When the French decided not to support America during George's War efforts searching for all those "WMD" that everyone "has" (even though America has the most in the world, but thats not my point) Americans were mad that the French didnt support them. So they changed the name of French fries to Freedom Fries...

Now this may be such a small thing, and it is. But you have to look at the big picture. Why would a country that claims to be so free and open minded and supportive of all ideas, punish another country for not supporting them? It's so mind-boggling. And thats what people feel. That Americans want everyone to follow them, without asking questions and having their own opinions on issues. To join the heard.

Just think if the shoe were on the other foot. If the French government were under attack by outside invaders, and they felt that an action could lead to the saving of thousands of French lives and stop future attacks against the French people. However, their hands are tied, because before they can commit to the act that their inteligence and international inteligence show is the right thing to do, they have to go to the United Nations and appeal to other nations that couldn't care less about the French people's safety. Thus, would the French be happy if some other nation, that in theory has nothing to gain by supporting their defending themselves and their allies, votes against them taking action? It is not a matter of the French's freedom of speech, or freedom to their own beliefs, it is a matter of the French government having a say-so in the United States government being able to defend their own people from foreign invaders.

You have completely missed the point on this one.

With that having been said, it is hard as an American to get a perception from the outside world as to their views on America. I can understand some people see Americans as arrogant, however there are plenty of arrogant Europeans as well, so this is a moot point. I can also understand some people resenting the freedoms Americans have, in fact the very things that would have one hung in one country are acceptable in the U.S. My point with this thread is that I am seeing a very vocal anti-American sentiment, and would like to hear some of the causes of it. There are quite a few individuals, who are outspoken against the US, against the president of the US, and against Americans in general that blindly take pot shots at America calling it evil, inferior, etc. but never really stating their roots, nor a point to compare America to.

I do not agree with Stephan Den Beste in all things but I think he gives a good analysis here.

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/02/Theguidingphilosphybehind.shtml

It is not an accident that those who disdain America also distrust Democracy. And my own suspicion is that their grip upon Europe is the reason that Europe is dying. ~_~

Becuase Americans are uncultured idiots who elect modern day nazis to power. Thats like Germans asking me back in the 1930's why I dont like Germany ... stupid really ...

Also, in regards to the UN and people critisizing Bush for acting without them, just think back to the Oil for Food Scandal and the, of course, French officials pocketing money from Saddam himself. If that isn't proof that an organization such as the UN is corruptable and not omniscient, I don't know what is. Also, I do not mean to pick on the French so much, its just their government has a stellar record for doing stupid things (not to mention the fact that they aren't exactly famous for hospitality...or hygene) One more thing, and this goes for Republicans as well as Democrats, stop with the smearing and personal attacks. It demeans yourself as well as causes you to lose all credibility, thus voiding any headway you made for your cause with you post. Calling President Bush an iliterate dumbass doesn't prove anything except that you have no support, are angry and are lashing out. The same goes both ways. I am personally friends with plenty of liberals and know that the only way we can coexist is if we respect each other, not bash each other.

The scary thing is, I believed the last post until about halfway through.

Of course, the writer's still going to have to provide links between America and criminals for his or her analogy to work.

Well, we would be a bad-assed bunch of criminals if our pussie liberal government would step up to the plate and join the world court.

Strut right in and say "yeah, we mined Nicaragua's harbors, what're you gonna do about it?"

"We lied our way into a war of aggression with Iraq? We sure did, and it's all ours now bitches."

But no. We just keep pretending there's no such thing as international law like we're afraid that it could do anything if it existed. We should just invade all those countries that want to arrest Rumsfeld and Kissenger. Damn right they're war criminals! And what's the rest of the world going to do about it?

Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Rove, the DieBold corporation, Haliburton, KBR... The list goes on and on. People and institutions you could look up to if they'd just come out and say what they really are without worrying about what the ultra-left is going to say about them.

-snip-



you bias flows in and out of you, just give up, no-one likes a nazi.

The scary thing is, I believed the last post until about halfway through.

Of course, the writer's still going to have to provide links between America and criminals for his or her analogy to work.
Yea, pretty good rant he had going there :)

Do you mind if I provide some info for him (or her?)? Ah well, I'm gonna go ahead.

Pretty old link to dictators & despots supported by the US (http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm)
Some reasons why the US is universally hated (http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa.html)
More reasons why people pretty much wants the lot of you off our planet (http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/hateamerica.html)
Most reviled nation in history? Here's more reasons why (http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/whydopeoplehateus.htm)
...And another handfull of reasons (http://www.isometry.com/usahate.html)

I've seen how Americans think people envy them so many times in the last 3-4 years. I don't understand what we're supposed to envy though? What are we jealous of?
Personally, I'm pretty happy about EU not being the world's superpower, because I sincerely doubt we wouldn't be every bit as much a bunch of imperialistic, murderous arses.
Europeans have a long history (several times longer than the US history) of raping and pillaging. We've only just begun to limit our psuchotic behaviour, and it has much more to do with us no longer being capable of pulling it off, than it's because we suddenly realized we were the anathema of all things humane. Or to put it a bit more plainly: We didn't start behaving. We just don't have the ability to do as we please. The US does, however, and it would seem we taught you lot well. You're now every bit as evil and murderous in both forign and domestic policy as we've ever been.

Brings me right back to the envy bit. Do you Americans think the majority of europeans are jealous of your ability to act like maniacs?
The trust is we aren't. The majority of europeans (the peoples, not our governments) are quite pleased that we're no longer the scourge of mankind. Many of us try our damndest to make us a force for positive change in the world. It's not a lofty goal, and it's probably not something we'll achieve in my lifetime, but we are a lot of people who try, and we do actually have support in the general population.
The peoples over here, aren't interested in mayhem for profit anymore. Not to the extent you guys are anyway. I only hope you'll learn from that too. I really don't want anything bad to happen to your nation, and I don't resent you being the sole superpower. Right now, I'd prefer if the US was in another solar system, but it's solely because your (forign) policies wreak so much havock. I'd much rather wellcome your nation as a force for peace. And I haven't given up hope for your country, any more than I've given up hope for my own.

But you can hardly blame people - regardless of who or where - for bitching about you, and wanting to blow you up. You systematically exploit mindblowing amounts of peoples and nations. You support genocidal dictators everywhere, you wreak havock on the environment, and you force corporate oppression and abuse through superiour firepower and economic sanctions...
In other words, a large procentage of the world's population has everything to fear from you, though they've done you no harm. You are the ones who cause their deaths. Don't blame them for hating you for it. It's hypocritical. Likewise, don't blame others for speaking up against you. You come off as a schoolyard bully, crying because people doesn't like it when you beat up their mates. It's pathetic at best.

- Wellwishes & high hopes for the future, TSw

Also, in regards to the UN and people critisizing Bush for acting without them, just think back to the Oil for Food Scandal and the, of course, French officials pocketing money from Saddam himself. If that isn't proof that an organization such as the UN is corruptable and not omniscient, I don't know what is.

Um, you know that we accounted for 51% of that oil smuggling right? We had more to do with the oil for food scandal than all the other countries in the world combined. We're hardly in a position to complain about UN corruption.

Becuase Americans are uncultured idiots who elect modern day nazis to power. Thats like Germans asking me back in the 1930's why I dont like Germany ... stupid really ...

This is exactly what I was talking about. I see nothing in this post than an empty insult with no substance, no credibility, and an angry guy demeaning himself and dragging down the debate. Please, it doesn't make you look cool, it doesn't make you look tough, come to me with some substance and I will be more than happy to debate with you like a civilized adult, not like a nine year old that just learned a new word.

Becuase Americans are uncultured idiots who elect modern day nazis to power. Thats like Germans asking me back in the 1930's why I dont like Germany ... stupid really ...
Hey, just because your friends think your che shirt is cool doesn't give you the right to flame my entire nation. Go back to picking your back zits.

And yet one more person that thinks people who voted for Bush was uninformed. I voted for Bush and I was informed. Probably because I kept track of what was going on.

Then could you explain what it was you voted for about him?

I don't mean saying things like "his stance on the war" or anything that vague, but rather things like "unlike Kerry, who thinks you ought to only wage wars of choice when you have the money to pay for them, Bush believed that if we're going to wage war on an unarmed country, we ought to borrow the money so that the interest on that loan will be a huge tax burden to our grandchildren." Things that are specific.

I'm not saying that the above was actually your stance, you may have voted for Bush despite disagreeing with him on that particular issue, but I'd like to know what causes you were voting for, not just pointing to Bush and saying "I like that," and assuming that the rest of us see the same thing you do.

Becuase Americans are uncultured idiots who elect modern day nazis to power. Thats like Germans asking me back in the 1930's why I dont like Germany ... stupid really ...

And yet another idiot who needs to brush up on history.

you bias flows in and out of you, just give up, no-one likes a nazi.

If you'll notice, I do not claim to be without bias and I believe I am as entitled to post my opinion as you are to call me a nazi. Just for the record i am not a nazi, I am as open to free speech and debate as anyone you'll find. I do not wish to exterminate all who oppose me.

And yet one more person that thinks people who voted for Bush was uninformed. I voted for Bush and I was informed. Probably because I kept track of what was going on.

I'm not actually saying that people who voted for Kerry are any better. Just that their views are closer to mine, so I'm naturally predjudiced. Sorry if you got that impression.

Becuase Americans are uncultured idiots who elect modern day nazis to power. Thats like Germans asking me back in the 1930's why I dont like Germany ... stupid really ...

And yet another idiot who needs to brush up on history.

Ya, he should realize that America was actually very fond of Germany back in the 30's. Hitler was Time magazine's man of the year. It wasn't until he became a threat to our trade routes that we bothered to go to war against him.

We had a proud pro-fascist movement in this country once. Now it has to skulk around in the wings of the political stage. Great men like Grover Norquist now have to hide behind the personas of well-intentioned, but ultimatly insufficient people like George W. Bush. Such a lack of perspective in these anti-Bush people.

I do not wish to exterminate all who oppose me.

And I thank you for that. ;)

Then could you explain what it was you voted for about him?

1. Economic reasons
2. National Security Reasons
3. Defense Reasons

The only 2 things that are the most important.

I'm not saying that the above was actually your stance, you may have voted for Bush despite disagreeing with him on that particular issue, but I'd like to know what causes you were voting for, not just pointing to Bush and saying "I like that," and assuming that the rest of us see the same thing you do.

I voted for his stances on the Economy. Lower Taxes were a good thing for this economy. It has stimulated the economy and it is chuggin on all cylendors.

I voted for his National Security Stances. This to me should be the formost on everyone's minds. I don't believe that the UN is the final approving authority when it comes to national defense nor the last stop before any nation can go to war with another.

I voted for his stances regarding the military. He believes in a strong military and that is precisely what we are getting. He gave the military a pay raise that we haven't seen in 8 years under Clinton.

I'm not actually saying that people who voted for Kerry are any better. Just that their views are closer to mine, so I'm naturally predjudiced. Sorry if you got that impression.

No problem and I apologize as well :)

Just think if the shoe were on the other foot. If the French government were under attack by outside invaders, and they felt that an action could lead to the saving of thousands of French lives and stop future attacks against the French people. However, their hands are tied, because before they can commit to the act that their inteligence and international inteligence show is the right thing to do, they have to go to the United Nations and appeal to other nations that couldn't care less about the French people's safety. Thus, would the French be happy if some other nation, that in theory has nothing to gain by supporting their defending themselves and their allies, votes against them taking action? It is not a matter of the French's freedom of speech, or freedom to their own beliefs, it is a matter of the French government having a say-so in the United States government being able to defend their own people from foreign invaders.

You have completely missed the point on this one.

You know, I honestly thought, for a second, that the last sentence was someone else responding to your post, it's that retarded. It just looked like such a paragraph would have to have a sentence after it calling it for what it is.

Do you honestly think that the hypothetical situation above is in any way analagous to our invasion of Iraq? The UN has nothing against nations acting in self defense. That's not what Iraq was. Weapons inspectors were in Iraq and they were coming out saying that Saddam really had no WMD's. It was obvious that we were going in there on a lie, and Bush jumped the gun not because "the smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud," but because the smoking gun was going to be the Secretary of State's small vial of baby laxitives in the UN.

First, regardind the WMD's, President Bush is not a liar, he acted on the best intelligence at the time, and if you'll take a trip with me down memory lane, Kerry authorized the use of force based on the same intel. Also, do you think that it is possible that the president as well as congress would be provided with more detailed and researched intel than any John Doe who flips on the nightly news to see whats happening in the world. Also, the world seems to have forgotten that two or three days before the invasion of Iraq a satellite caught a photo of about 500 armored trucks crossing the border out of Iraq. If you still are not convinced based on WMDs or lack there of how about the humanitarian side. People complain all the time about teh 2000 or so American casualties in Iraq and they are each and every one of them a tragedy but what about the hundreds of thousands Saddam murdered every year, the millions that lie in anonymous mass graves in the desert. Do their voices not count as much as a volunteer soldier just because they were not Americans? Please do not dishonor what our brave men and women fight for by so callously belittleing their cause.

1. Economic reasons
2. National Security Reasons
3. Defense Reasons

The only 2 things that are the most important.

A 3 point list, and you call it "Only 2 things..." I already know where this is headed.

I voted for his stances on the Economy. Lower Taxes were a good thing for this economy. It has stimulated the economy and it is chuggin on all cylendors.

No it hasn't. He cut taxes as soon as he got into office, and it is only now that we are seeing any recovery. That's not improvement. If I get kicked in the balls, I don't claim to feel great an hour later because the pain subsided and give credit to the person who kicked me in the balls. Hell, up until last year even Walmart was reporting record lows. Clinton rolled back the Reagan/Bush tax cuts on the top 1% and finally started paying down our deficit. 8 years of unprecidented economic expansion that ended as soon as Bush got into office.

I voted for his National Security Stances. This to me should be the formost on everyone's minds. I don't believe that the UN is the final approving authority when it comes to national defense nor the last stop before any nation can go to war with another.

I voted for his stances regarding the military. He believes in a strong military and that is precisely what we are getting. He gave the military a pay raise that we haven't seen in 8 years under Clinton.

But you know that he lied to get us into war in Iraq right?

You know that he's paying hired mercenaries a hundred times what he's paying our soldiers to do the exact same job. Now you may say "well, not enough people are joining the military," but that still doesn't explain why military families are holding bake sales to pay for body armor for their husbands/sons/brothers. We are not getting a strong military with Bush. We're getting increase military spending, but most of it is going into pork-padded private contractor companies.

Did you know that when Bush's campaign ads were attacking Kerry for voting against several military spending bills, those were bills that Dick Cheney himself (as secretary of defense) said that he didn't want?

Did you know that the Bush administration has weakened the military so much that it can no longer support many of its military bases and has had to start closing them down?

Under Bush the military is going year after year unable to meet its recruiting goals, and that's despite the increased economic pressure on low income families to send their children into the military. You knew that, right?

I know you must know all of this, because you said you were informed. What I don't understand is why any of this tells you to vote for Bush.

First, regardind the WMD's, President Bush is not a liar, he acted on the best intelligence at the time, and if you'll take a trip with me down memory lane, Kerry authorized the use of force based on the same intel.

Best intelligence, only in that it most closely resembled what he wanted to hear. The weapons inspectors were in there and he pulled them out because they were saying that Saddam had nada. Bush then sold the story to the American people as "Saddam won't let the weapons inspectors in."

And I think you may need new windshield wipers because your view of Memory Lane is clearly a bit cloudy. Kerry authorized the use of force because Bush said that he was going to use it to coerce Saddam into cooperating with the weapons inspections. Saddam capitulalated and Bush attacked anyway.

Also, do you think that it is possible that the president as well as congress would be provided with more detailed and researched intel than any John Doe who flips on the nightly news to see whats happening in the world.

I fucking hate his idiotic argument. "We should trust that the president knows what's best 'cuz he knows more than we do." If you're so comfortable with the idea that you have no idea what's going on in government that you aren't entitled to criticize then you are, by definition, a fascist.

Also, the world seems to have forgotten that two or three days before the invasion of Iraq a satellite caught a photo of about 500 armored trucks crossing the border out of Iraq. If you still are not convinced based on WMDs or lack there of how about the humanitarian side. People complain all the time about teh 2000 or so American casualties in Iraq and they are each and every one of them a tragedy but what about the hundreds of thousands Saddam murdered every year, the millions that lie in anonymous mass graves in the desert. Do their voices not count as much as a volunteer soldier just because they were not Americans? Please do not dishonor what our brave men and women fight for by so callously belittleing their cause.

That's bullshit. I'll work backwards.

It's bullshit to say that calling a war wrong is unpatriotic because it means that I am causing the sacrifice of the dead to be in vain. Their sacrifice was in vain because they never should have been sent there.

The humanitarian argument for Iraq is bullshit. If you want to invade countries for their crimes against humanity then shouldn't you start with the really bad ones? Rwanda? Sudan? Cote d'Ivore? Uzbekistan? Saundi Arabia? I won't even bring up the China one, because most people agree that we don't have the muscle to wage a war of conscience against China on its home turf. But all of these have commited acts far more atrocious than Saddam, and many of Saddam's were commited when he was our ally and would have stopped if we had merely asked him to, which we didn't, just like Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan are our allies, but do we ask them to stop being evil incarnate? No.

So there's crime against humanity that it would cost us nothing to stop, but we don't, and that which is far worse than Iraq that we could stop, but we don't. Because it's wrong on two fronts it bears repeating. Humanitarian invasion of Iraq=bullshit.

And don't forget about Abu-Ghraib and Gitmo. Sure we've scapegoated a handful of people for it, but if you think that it's just a handful of military bad apples you're being naive. It's a systemic problem that you always get in these cases, and remember when Rumsfeld was asked what led to this problem? He said that it was new digital photography. That's right, he didn't see torture as a problem, when asked what cause "the problem" he assumed that he was being asked "how did people find out?" Real humanitarian huh?

Wow, even for a republican, triple bullshit points in a single statement is pretty impressive.

As for trucks leaving Iraq. Probably international oil companies sneaking out before the bombs came in, but it could have been anything. They were fucking trucks. Remember, the inspectors were in there, so Saddam clearly wasn't too concerned that they were going to be found.

The very problem is that none of these issues are black, nor white. We have to be right every time we act but the terrrorists only have to be lucky once. We live in a nation filled with and run by people who hate war and do not want to see a single innocent die and we are fighting an idealistic misguided people who love war, revere those who kill innocents and have no regard for human life, even their own. I know I'm not one to name-call and get angry but this is a war fought between two ways of life, the civilized world versus those who hate all progress, a nation that opresses women, stoning them for exposed ankles and exterminates those who disagree politically. We are not fighting men, we are fighting animals. We are fighting for our very way of life. We are fighting so that the oppressed people of the world may one day stand and have a voice. There was a day in 1776 when a group of gentlemen met so that they could be heard, during the partition of Berlin, operation Vittles brought hope to thousands, on the beaches of Normandy, thousands died so that the voices of others would not be lost. A child whose father was murdered by the Bathists is no less important than you or me. The story of our great nation has inspired many other peoples to be free and if that dream of Liberty dies under the pall of Fascism and Dictatorships, then we have truely lost all that we stand for

The inspectors got in for a short time after 14 years of Saddam ignoring UN mandates (doesnt sound like the work of an innocent man). Plus, Iraq is a big country full of desert that is very hard to search. Im not saying itll happen but perhaps in ten years an achaeologist digging up mass graves will find the weapons we were looking for. As for the intel, no, i am not comfortable not knowing in everything going on in our government but frankly they'd be fools to tell us all of what they know. You forget... the American public knows-the enemy knows. We are living in the Information Age and for know, we'll just have to trust in the judgement of our elected government. I know ill never convince you of anything so why bother talking to a brick wall. In reference to the humanitarian issues, first, no victory is without cost. I do agree with you on one point, i wish we were doing more elsewhere, but truthfully and sadly we cant fix everything (mainly because no one else helps). I dont hear you bashing Europe for things happening in Africa. Just an observation. As for the prison abuse scandal. Am I happy about it? No, it shouldn't have been done, it does a discredit to our servicemen, but what about the hundreds upon hundreds of stories of the compassion from American Soldiers? They get overlooked because they arent exciting enough to make the news? What about all the American soldiers saving the lives of the insurgents who were shooting at them. Ill admit openly that I have a bias and an agenda as do you and perhaps we both choose to ignore both sides of every story in many cases but my guess is that im as stuck in my ways as you so well just have to learn to share the country. (trade ya Ohio and Florida for California)

We are not fighting men, we are fighting animals.

This is the most dangerous view to have. To not even acknowledge an enemy as human. Humans, my good man, are capable of pulling off some dubious shit. To refer to terrorists as animals misses the point entirely, which is that they are very human.
Hell, I recall people used to make the same accusation of the Japanese in WWII or the Mongols of the 13th century. They were very human, but fear and hatred blind rationality.

and by the way, "fucking trucks" can hold "fucking stuff" (and they were government military trucks)

Im not underestimating the terrorists by calling them animals, i am merely trying to find an adequate way to describe their mentality. September 11th will always serve as a reminder of what they are capable of. I in no way underestimate their ingenuity and resourcfullnes, just their "kill everyone" mentality

but i absolutely agree with Chikyota about underestimating your enemy. It would be a grave mistake indeed, but that does not mean that I have to respect those who murder so blindly. To me, respect for life is one of the finer points of humanity so i find it hard to sympathize, for lack of a better word, with those who do not possess that. Ad i also know that it is not necessarily the fault of the individual that was brainwashed from an early age to hate liberty, but that does not change the actions. Im sorry if i was not clear in my first post but i was not underestimating, merely attempting, apparently poorly to describe the mentality without a flurry of obscenities. I suppose global terrorism would be the strongest ever argument for nurture over nature and for that reasons I pity the babies born today destined for Suicide bombing, as well as I pity the babies born today destined to be their victims. The problem lies really in the institution of radical fundamentalist islam, not necessarily in the individual.

[QUOTE=Domici



Did you know that the Bush administration has weakened the military so much that it can no longer support many of its military bases and has had to start closing them down?

Under Bush the military is going year after year unable to meet its recruiting goals, and that's despite the increased economic pressure on low income families to send their children into the military. You knew that, right?

[/QUOTE]

These two are wrong. Here's why.

http://www.brac.gov/docs/BRAC05Legislation.pdf (http://)

Basically thats the Congressional statute on the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closing). It started in 1990!!!!!. So thats Bush Sr. Its purpose is to get rid of militarry bases that are not needed anymore in order to free up money in the budget. Most bases are not needed as the military is smaller than it was in the early 90s and many bases are bcoming multi-service (more than one miltary branch). Try to be more thourgh when researching topics.

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/nr20050711-3941.html (http://)

Some low numbers for the year for the Army NG (77%) and the Active Army (86) but I see the Marines at 102% and Marine Reserves 100%. And the others up and down in between except for the Air Force Reserve (114%). And re-enlistment rates are high, the website mentions all active duty branches exceded those goals and the Army and Air Force NG exceded re-enlistment goals. I don't think too bad given that a US all-volunteer military has ever fought a 4 year old (and likely to go on for the foreseeable future) war before. Key word all-volunteer, no one holds a gun to a new recruits head and says "Join or die." Not everyone in the military is from a low income family. I'm not, most of my Reserve unit is not. And if someone from a low income family joins, so what? Lets see, an 18 year old guy from a low income family graduates high school. Chances are he won't be able to afford college, so that means going straight into the work force. (Yes I know he could take out student loans and work minimum wage jobs and work very hard and make it. But follow me for a little bit longer.) Why not join the military? You get paid, get trained in a job skill, get food and housing for free. (Yes you could also get sent to Iraq, Afganistan or any number of ther "garden spots", it is not always a bad thing. No taxes on pay. :D ) He becomes a disel mechanic, does 4 years active and 4 years reserve. After active duty, he's got some money saved up, some college credits (went to night school on the Army's dime.), and 4 years experience (which is the magic word in the work force) as a disel mechanic.

A 3 point list, and you call it "Only 2 things..." I already know where this is headed.

Pardon me but I was tired when I typed that out. I ment to hit the 3 and not the 2.

No it hasn't. He cut taxes as soon as he got into office, and it is only now that we are seeing any recovery. That's not improvement.

Wrong. His tax cuts kept the recession from getting worse and if it wasn't for those tax cuts, the economic fallout from the 9/11 attacks AS WELL AS the corporate scandals that followed soon after, would've been far worse.

If I get kicked in the balls, I don't claim to feel great an hour later because the pain subsided and give credit to the person who kicked me in the balls.

If someone kicks you in the balls, kick him back when you are able too. That falls under defense and not economy. :p

Hell, up until last year even Walmart was reporting record lows. Clinton rolled back the Reagan/Bush tax cuts on the top 1% and finally started paying down our deficit. 8 years of unprecidented economic expansion that ended as soon as Bush got into office.

And the prices we paid at the store shot up. I guess the democrats never did understand that if you raise taxes on business owners, they have to hike their prices to compensate. This is precisely what happened and we were stuck paying higher prices for ordinary items. With Bush's taxcuts, prices went down. Not much granted but it did make alot of items cheaper for more people to buy them. This caused in increase in tax revenue and thus the economy gets stimulated. Interesting concept.

[quote]But you know that he lied to get us into war in Iraq right?

You know that he didn't lie so get off of it. I love how people say he lied. I'll say this again because apparently it isn't sinking in. The intelligence regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction WAS FALSE. The CIA had faulty Intelligence in regards to them. However, what he said regarding Human Rights abuses done by Saddam and his henchmen were SPOT ON! You understand this right?

You know that he's paying hired mercenaries a hundred times what he's paying our soldiers to do the exact same job. Now you may say "well, not enough people are joining the military," but that still doesn't explain why military families are holding bake sales to pay for body armor for their husbands/sons/brothers. We are not getting a strong military with Bush. We're getting increase military spending, but most of it is going into pork-padded private contractor companies.

Believe what you will however I have a better insight into matters military than you do. Why? I've been around it my entire life and I know what's wrong with it but I also know that it is stronger now than it was under Billy boy.

Did you know that when Bush's campaign ads were attacking Kerry for voting against several military spending bills, those were bills that Dick Cheney himself (as secretary of defense) said that he didn't want?

Yes but Dick Cheney wasn't President now was he?

Did you know that the Bush administration has weakened the military so much that it can no longer support many of its military bases and has had to start closing them down?

Don't get me started on this one! I also know that you are taking things out of context which is completely normal for you. Stretched thin yes, weakened hardly.

Under Bush the military is going year after year unable to meet its recruiting goals, and that's despite the increased economic pressure on low income families to send their children into the military. You knew that, right?

You do know that re-enlistment is up right? Yea that is what I thought. You didn't.

I know you must know all of this, because you said you were informed. What I don't understand is why any of this tells you to vote for Bush.

Mainly because I am better informed than the average person in regards to the military. I know the Press has blown things way out of proportion because that is their stock in trade. I don't believe everything the media says regarding half of their stories. You do know that the Press is built around bad news right? You really need to start looking for Good news as well as bad to be a well informed person. Apparently your not that well informed.

These two are wrong. Here's why.

http://www.brac.gov/docs/BRAC05Legislation.pdf (http://)

Basically thats the Congressional statute on the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closing). It started in 1990!!!!!. So thats Bush Sr. Its purpose is to get rid of militarry bases that are not needed anymore in order to free up money in the budget. Most bases are not needed as the military is smaller than it was in the early 90s and many bases are bcoming multi-service (more than one miltary branch). Try to be more thourgh when researching topics.

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/nr20050711-3941.html (http://)

Some low numbers for the year for the Army NG (77%) and the Active Army (86) but I see the Marines at 102% and Marine Reserves 100%. And the others up and down in between except for the Air Force Reserve (114%). And re-enlistment rates are high, the website mentions all active duty branches exceded those goals and the Army and Air Force NG exceded re-enlistment goals. I don't think too bad given that a US all-volunteer military has ever fought a 4 year old (and likely to go on for the foreseeable future) war before. Key word all-volunteer, no one holds a gun to a new recruits head and says "Join or die." Not everyone in the military is from a low income family. I'm not, most of my Reserve unit is not. And if someone from a low income family joins, so what? Lets see, an 18 year old guy from a low income family graduates high school. Chances are he won't be able to afford college, so that means going straight into the work force. (Yes I know he could take out student loans and work minimum wage jobs and work very hard and make it. But follow me for a little bit longer.) Why not join the military? You get paid, get trained in a job skill, get food and housing for free. (Yes you could also get sent to Iraq, Afganistan or any number of ther "garden spots", it is not always a bad thing. No taxes on pay. :D ) He becomes a disel mechanic, does 4 years active and 4 years reserve. After active duty, he's got some money saved up, some college credits (went to night school on the Army's dime.), and 4 years experience (which is the magic word in the work force) as a disel mechanic.

Thank you. You did a far better job of Telling this uninformed person what the truth really is! Thanks for Serving from this son of a veteran of the Air Force.

Why is it each time one takes a look at the General Forum is there at least one, sometimes several items of hatespeech against the United States? For example, today there is currently one on the first page about Why Americans dont have all the answers. Why are these so rampant? Coming into this with the goal of being objective, I notice there are very few if any anti-European sentiments started, but each day someone takes every chance they get to rip on the US. Any thoughts as to why it is deemed so important to share Anti-American rhetoric over and over again?

Perhaps it's the way the American government is acting within the world at this time in history.

Ya, he should realize that America was actually very fond of Germany back in the 30's. Hitler was Time magazine's man of the year. It wasn't until he became a threat to our trade routes that we bothered to go to war against him.

We had a proud pro-fascist movement in this country once. Now it has to skulk around in the wings of the political stage. Great men like Grover Norquist now have to hide behind the personas of well-intentioned, but ultimatly insufficient people like George W. Bush. Such a lack of perspective in these anti-Bush people.

Thanks to Ted Kennedys daddy, Joe Sr.

Time's man of the year is supposed to be the person who contributed to the news the most that year, not the awesomest dude in the world. That's why Osama bin Laden was a frontrunner for the 2001 Man of the Year, and if the the Time editors had the guts and trusted the American public to understand what they meant (which would be misplaced trust; there would have been riots and jeremiads against the liberal media) he would have been Man of the Year.

Thanks to Ted Kennedys daddy, Joe Sr.

Really? And here I thought the Bush Family (http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/Bush_Eugenics.html) had way more to do with helping Hitler (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html) ..;)

Really? And here I thought the Bush Family (http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/Bush_Eugenics.html) had way more to do with helping Hitler (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html) ..;)
Not even the evils of Nazism stopped Prescott from making money.

Not even the evils of Nazism stopped Prescott from making money.

Yesterday it was the Nazi's, today it's Saudi Arabia... go figure.

What i want to know more is why there are always some people who assume that people who are critical of Bush Corp are envious of Americans. Do you really think that we secretly want to be Americans? I think thats actually a very unpleasant thoughts for many, no offense. I dont mind living in New York or California though. =D


For the right price many of us in the rest of the states would be willin to let you have them :D

Americans are an inferior race.
no thats not just an arogant ass whole if i never knew one you must just need to brush up on your history (remember there have been people before you who have said and there mostly dead (look at hitler)

Why people tend to hate America? I'm not sure, but it's probably because of the American imperialism; America is probably one the most powerful nations in the world and they know it. Therefore The US government feel that other countries should listen to them (Not necesarily obey them but at least listen)
Also there is a tendency in the US to see things black and white (see Bush:"Either you ar with us, or you are with the terorrists) The world is not like that and people tend to see American people as undereducated(stupid) This mixture of factors makes it so that there are a lot of anti-American feelings in the world

Do they stumble through everyday speech, hmm? Do they have a lot of trouble just finding proper words to say when talking?

Ugh. I really dunno what it is with some of you people... Defending others, just because they're on your general side of the political spectrum.


So you choose to assail others when you are on the other side of the political spectrum?

1. Economic reasons
2. National Security Reasons
3. Defense Reasons

The only 2 things that are the most important.



I voted for his stances on the Economy. Lower Taxes were a good thing for this economy. It has stimulated the economy and it is chuggin on all cylendors.

I voted for his National Security Stances. This to me should be the formost on everyone's minds. I don't believe that the UN is the final approving authority when it comes to national defense nor the last stop before any nation can go to war with another.

I voted for his stances regarding the military. He believes in a strong military and that is precisely what we are getting. He gave the military a pay raise that we haven't seen in 8 years under Clinton.



Very well said.

Wrong. His tax cuts kept the recession from getting worse and if it wasn't for those tax cuts, the economic fallout from the 9/11 attacks AS WELL AS the corporate scandals that followed soon after, would've been far worse.



ok.. I normally dont jump into forums like this but I felt the need to correct a common misconception.
The bush tax cuts were not the only factor that led to the short recession, The fed had a large part in it as well. Do you not remember the 0% financing and open market operations in place at the time?
Fiscal policy is useless without monetary policy. To claim that bush was the only reason for the economy not slumping as much as expected is just wrong and shows a lack of knowledge about economics.
well... I feel better now. I dont mean to insult anyone, I just hate that argument.

actually...what does that tell you about the Americans voters.. is the more appropriate question. ;)

Sorry, this might be a little out of context, but it's always bugged me: Why is Europe so interested in our government? I had a Russian friend going to school in Holland during the election, and he said there were tons of pissed people when Bush got elected... Um... He isn't in charge of your country.... why are you guys so up in arms against him?

Sorry, this might be a little out of context, but it's always bugged me: Why is Europe so interested in our government? I had a Russian friend going to school in Holland during the election, and he said there were tons of pissed people when Bush got elected... Um... He isn't in charge of your country.... why are you guys so up in arms against him?

You really cant be that naive the desicions that Bush and the USA affect evry citizen in the world, the economy of Europe affects America and vice versa you really need to read something before making a comment like that.

I always get a good laugh when I'm told that as a European that I'm "Jealous" of America. :rolleyes:

Quite the opposite actually.

On topic: You're the worlds biggest super power, I think you can handle a few people complaining about you. While yes, there are idiots who blame everything on America, any time some one makes a valid argument they are usually met with
"Get lost America hater! Why are all you liberals/lefties/communists/polar bears so anti-America?!"

You guys are missing the point. People hate the US because of what we represent. They hate us because they live in the protective cocoon we provide for them.

That is your problem! You think everyone else needs to be SAVED by you. Protective cocoon you provide? I almost split my sides laughing at this. As a Canadian, I am terrified of being attached to a nation such as America, not do I feel safe in that "cocoon" you've provided. Thanks, but no thanks.

That is your problem! You think everyone else needs to be SAVED by you. Protective cocoon you provide? I almost split my sides laughing at this. As a Canadian, I am terrified of being attached to a nation such as America, not do I feel safe in that "cocoon" you've provided. Thanks, but no thanks.

Here, Here!

Canada is in more danger being an ally of the USA than if we were not.

Sorry, this might be a little out of context, but it's always bugged me: Why is Europe so interested in our government? I had a Russian friend going to school in Holland during the election, and he said there were tons of pissed people when Bush got elected... Um... He isn't in charge of your country.... why are you guys so up in arms against him?

So up in arms against him? Because everything he does, going to war or whatnot effects the rest of the world in political and economical ways. Of course I was up in arms (though I am a Canadian so am much closer then people in Europe to what he does), if I lived abroad I would have felt the same way, no doubt about it.

Very well said.

Thank you :)

"So up in arms against him? Because everything he does, going to war or whatnot effects the rest of the world in political and economical ways. Of course I was up in arms (though I am a Canadian so am much closer then people in Europe to what he does), if I lived abroad I would have felt the same way, no doubt about it."

Hm, so what you guys are saying is: your own governments are ineffectual at establishing control over their own countries/influencing world politics? If this is true, and what the USA does impacts the world so directly and completely, all I see you all doing is a lot of bitching and not any action. If we affect the world so much, come over here, become a citizen, and start changing how we do things. Talk is cheap.

ok.. I normally dont jump into forums like this but I felt the need to correct a common misconception.
The bush tax cuts were not the only factor that led to the short recession,

Ok where did I say that the Tax Cuts caused a recession? Sorry but I didn't say that. I think you need to go back and re-read what I said.

The fed had a large part in it as well. Do you not remember the 0% financing and open market operations in place at the time?

And when did that happen? OH YEA! AFTER 9/11 to get people to buy homes and cars. It didn't cause the recession either! :rolleyes:

Fiscal policy is useless without monetary policy. To claim that bush was the only reason for the economy not slumping as much as expected is just wrong and shows a lack of knowledge about economics.

Apparently it is you that needs to study alittle more economics. The Tax Cuts did prevent the recession from being worse than it was. The Recession actually started under none other than Bill Clinton. It also kept the economy mostly on its feet after 9/11 AND the Corporate Scandals.

well... I feel better now. I dont mean to insult anyone, I just hate that argument.

Just like I hate uninformed people.

Ok this is the thing - The president of the USA is voted not because of intelligence but because of a slick publicity campaign that costs a fortune.

What's behind the current president of the USA is not intelligence, tact, diplomacy, lateral thinking skills, tactical genius, or anything like that.

..but money. Same reason he scraped through Yale.

Does an intelligent articulate person say this:

"The relations with, uhh — Europe are important relations, and they've, uhh — because, we do share values. And, they're universal values, they're not American values or, you know — European values, they're universal values. And those values — uhh — being universal, ought to be applied everywhere." —George W. Bush, at a press conference with European Union dignitaries, Washington, D.C., June 20, 2005

The reason people dislike him is because of the fact that he holds far too much power (look at the irish president - she's a figurehead we hold for diplomacy, with no real power, and yet she was a professor of Law in a University equivalent to your Ivy leagues)

As for why Europeans dislike him, well if you call Greeks "Grecians" and you don't know the difference between Slovakia and Slovenia, let alone where to find them on the map, yet you're meant to be the leader of the most powerful country in the world, it does little to endear you to your neighbours.

North America Actually, most of the Western Hemisphere in actuality since it was he who first realized that Columbus discovered a new land mass.

If what you say is true then it would seem the word "American" should be applied to anyone living in the territories discovered by Cristobal Colon, which were eventually named after Amerigo Vespucci. Yes or no?

I am not American but lived there for 10 years and enjoyed it and have many good friends and met my wife there . Having also travelled there on numerous occasions throughout my life I have been able to observe many things. Perhaps (and of course this is only one man's opinion) what many Americans don't realize is that in many ways you set the bar really high; and like any relationship amongst peers - you then have to live up to it.

America may be seen as the great saviour, currently the longest experiment in democracy (as all politcal systems are constantly evolving they are all experiments, a place where free enterprise reigns (within limits), a nation that is innovative and creative, that is eminently successful- full of generous warm people. There are however numerous "disconnects" when it comes to international relations that start on the individual level. Others wonder, how can this superpower appear to be filled with people so seemingly insular? Why do they expect things to be like home when they go to other places?

These of course are generalisations that nonetheless many people can relate to. Perhaps the issue is that Americans don't realize what a large footprint they leave on the world. Whether personally or globally. It's part of the reality of being a superpower. People understand power and what they demand from someone who wields power is that it is does so evenly and with good intention. The USA has a spotty record in this regard, and may be seen by others to be hypocritical in its actions. It seems sometimes as if the "freedoms" that Americans proclaim (which exist in numerous other nations) as so important apply more to them than to others. This is a perception that needs to be corrected. The danger of perceived hubris is that other people believe that their pov isn't being addressed, hence not respected. Why wouldn't it be so on an international level?

Because the American footprint is so large others are affected, whether intenionally or not. As a result it is impossible to exist in a vacuum, so people (i.e nations) are going to speak up if the think they will be affected. One has to get along with ones neighbours (i.e. the global community) in order to get things done. Self interest equates to national interest. It doesn't matter whether it is a friend who has a big stick over your head it is still a big stick. So when others speak up it for what they see as uneven foreign policy or ineqities in practice it doesn't mean that they are jealous. It doesn't make them anti american either, they just don't agree...

This post isn't intended to be an attack so there is no need for defense. Hopefully it will be taken as contributing to the discourse nothing more nothing less! :D

Because "Death to Ah-mare-ee-kah!" is the only English some Europeans choose to learn :D
This is twice you used this slur and it wasn't cute the first time. :eek:

If what you say is true then it would seem the word "American" should be applied to anyone living in the territories discovered by Cristobal Colon, which were eventually named after Amerigo Vespucci. Yes or no?
Wow, get over it. We all know that "America" encompasses the entire Western hemisphere. But what do you call a citizen of the United States? A...United Statesian? No. An American.

America may be seen as the great saviour, currently the longest experiment in democracy (as all politcal systems are constantly evolving they are all experiments, a place where free enterprise reigns (within limits), a nation that is innovative and creative, that is eminently successful- full of generous warm people. There are however numerous "disconnects" when it comes to international relations that start on the individual level. Others wonder, how can this superpower appear to be filled with people so seemingly insular? Why do they expect things to be like home when they go to other places?

These of course are generalisations that nonetheless many people can relate to. Perhaps the issue is that Americans don't realize what a large footprint they leave on the world. Whether personally or globally. It's part of the reality of being a superpower. People understand power and what they demand from someone who wields power is that it is does so evenly and with good intention. The USA has a spotty record in this regard, and may be seen by others to be hypocritical in its actions. It seems sometimes as if the "freedoms" that Americans proclaim (which exist in numerous other nations) as so important apply more to them than to others. This is a perception that needs to be corrected. The danger of perceived hubris is that other people believe that their pov isn't being addressed, hence not respected. Why wouldn't it be so on an international level?

Because the American footprint is so large others are affected, whether intenionally or not. As a result it is impossible to exist in a vacuum, so people (i.e nations) are going to speak up if the think they will be affected. One has to get along with ones neighbours (i.e. the global community) in order to get things done. Self interest equates to national interest. It doesn't matter whether it is a friend who has a big stick over your head it is still a big stick. So when others speak up it for what they see as uneven foreign policy or ineqities in practice it doesn't mean that they are jealous. It doesn't make them anti american either, they just don't agree...

This post isn't intended to be an attack so there is no need for defense. Hopefully it will be taken as contributing to the discourse nothing more nothing less! :D

I would like to add one little thing:

When it comes to international politics, to the "world community", the USA are the most powerful nation, that much is true. Yet, no other nation elected it in any way, it got to the top by building up an impressive military and a threatening economy.
Yes, they did help in conflicts, someties on the right side, sometimes not, and yes, they ended two major conflicts all in all (the last one exactly 60 years ago). In the maentime, they started a good few more that are still smoldering. But apart from its conduct on the diplomatic level, the fact remains that if you compare the "world community" to a regular country, it is, unfortunately, not a free democracy but rather dominated by a power that doesn't rule by consent. Be that benevolent or not, it will continue rubbing people the wrong way, espacially since it is far from subtle in its approach to international problems...

It's a strictly limited (read the Constitution) body that we as citizens allow to exist to protect basic rights. If you want this idiotic king-serf relationship with your government, move to North Korea.

And the France comment...grow up.


Is that really how you view your government?

Bush is intelligent.

He was attacked by a malicious, freedom-hating pretzel and nearly died. He valiently fell off his bike into a terrorist Scotish police officer and put him in the hospital. Not to mention he's fallen off his bike more during his presidency than I did when I was learning to ride.

And to the first guy... your rhetoric shows when you use words like "hatespeech" and call groups of people "anti-American." the rest of the world calls hatespeech "criticism" and anti-Americanism "not agreeing with every policy Bush has."

Under that logic, you would have been labelled as "anti-American" for hating on Clinton, and any efforts to impeach him for getting freedom-jobs in the Oval Office were clearly hatespeech.

Originally Posted by Corneliu
Bush is intelligent.

Compared to...?

which may come from not having a job due to the high unemployment rates in alot of Europe.
er maybe in parts of europe but not in the UK thanks, Unemployment is basically as low as its ever been here!

As an American, Let me apologize for the oafish behavior of some of our citizens. That being said, every country has it's fair share of morons - the only problem is, that in America, most of our dick-heads have internet access.

There is a kernal of truth in the jealousy argument I think, though. Especially concerning countries that are former superpowers. The French have been terminally constipated since they realized that the "Lingua Franca" was going to turn out to be English.

Of course, it doesn't make things better when Americans as a people seem so filled with arrogance. I've travelled a little and I don't think I've seen any where other than the U.S. where the citizens habitually claim to be "the greatest country in the world". Now, it's just possible that America is objectively number 1 in some catagories - but rubbing other people's noses in it is just stupid. It's like going to school and having a classmate anounce everyday to the class: "I'm number one and the rest of you assholes suck!"

I am a proud American - but I have traveled throughout Canada, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England - I believe they are all beautiful places with good government and wonderful people. I would be proud to call any of them home.

I've travelled a little and I don't think I've seen any where other than the U.S. where the citizens habitually claim to be "the greatest country in the world".

Try going to Australia :D

Try going to Australia :D

I probably will eventually, but 30 hours on a plane just doesn't turn me on.

[QUOTE=Tyrannical Fascists]You guys are missing the point. People hate the US because of what we represent. They hate us because they live in the protective cocoon we provide for them. They understand nothing of the essence of human nature and the harshness of reality. Europe needs its scapegoat and unfortunately, they will pick the most powerful nation around, even if we've saved them countless times in the past, and strangely not the country thats attacked them twice in the last century (I am of course talking about Germany, sorry if I offend anyone but you can't argue facts. Modern day Germany is a credit to Europe but we've never harmed them either). Some people say it's jealousy and I tend to agree. All of Europe would be speaking German now if it wasn't for the nation they dispise so much and that is why they dispise us. Because we have the strength to stand up for what is right and lead the fight against any enemy that threatens them they hate us. They know they could never achieve the greatness we have by hiding behind the shield that we provide. The nay-sayers will always hate America until one day when we arent there to bail them out. Many Americans consider the liberals in this country to live in a fantasy world but in comparison to Europe, they're Hardcore conservatives. The truth is that human beings are wretched and uncivilized. They are greedy, ruthless, ambitious and powerhungry. That's why communism failed and it's a harsh reality Europe has yet to see. They know the power we wield and are afraid of it, not realizing that the United States of America has a long reputation of standing up for the little guy and saving the day. I believe a very astute man once said something about biting the hand that feeds... I guess Europe never heard that expression. By the way, times we've saved France in the last century: World War I, World War II, the Cold War, Vietnam. QUOTE]

errrr helo.... Britain calling, we were fighting and holding out a good many years before you joined in..... both times! this is one of the reasons you get "anti american feeling" because you just assume that you saved everyone, no mention of any of the other countries that were already fighting when america joined. now dont get me wrong i think the USA is the UK's greatest world friend and i would much rarther USA (for all its faults) than some of the backstabbers in europe (i.e. france and germany currently) but you have a tendancy to forget or rewrite history to suit, thats one of the things that narks people!

Americans are an inferior race.
descended from every other race in the known world, oddly enough.....

descended from every other race in the known world, oddly enough.....

Descent being the key word here ;)

*just kidding

A reason why many people have reasonable grudges against America is:

Foreign policy : Their pre WW2 policy was great, they could have helped out a bit sooner but the general idea of not jumping into other countries was a good one. I don't have the figures but I reckon that America have started more wars than any other country in the world in the last 50 years. Or if not they are pretty close. If they did not bomb or intefere in the politics of oither countries then i think that there would be far fewer people with grudges against America. I reckon if some guy in Iraq comes home to find his wife and child have been killed by an American bomb you would have a lot of work explaining that it was ok because he was being liberated.


So, let me get this straight.

It was OK for the US to help Europe defeat Hitler and Mussolini. They were obviously bad guys doing bad things.

But since then, any attempt by the US to assist other countries is perceived as Imperialism. Fine.

What I would really like to see, and you can call it a rant if you want, is this.

I would like to see the United States (not America) stop buying oil from the Middle East and pull every single investment dollar out of evey country that would rather we weren't there being imperialistic. We will no longer send our 'imperealistic" financial aid to those countries that have people that don't like us.

I'd like to see the US be a little more self-centered. Let's fix our internal issues before we attempt to fix the world. Spend some of my hard earned tax dollars here at home instead of rebuilding tsunami damaged third world nations.

And if you don't like your government, your economy or the government of the nation next door, fix it yourself. But don't emigrate here, we wouldn't want you to be offended by us up close.

Why is it each time one takes a look at the General Forum is there at least one, sometimes several items of hatespeech against the United States? For example, today there is currently one on the first page about Why Americans dont have all the answers. Why are these so rampant? Coming into this with the goal of being objective, I notice there are very few if any anti-European sentiments started, but each day someone takes every chance they get to rip on the US. Any thoughts as to why it is deemed so important to share Anti-American rhetoric over and over again?

Gnooti seauton !

So, let me get this straight.

It was OK for the US to help Europe defeat Hitler and Mussolini. They were obviously bad guys doing bad things.

But since then, any attempt by the US to assist other countries is perceived as Imperialism. Fine.

What I would really like to see, and you can call it a rant if you want, is this.

I would like to see the United States (not America) stop buying oil from the Middle East and pull every single investment dollar out of evey country that would rather we weren't there being imperialistic. We will no longer send our 'imperealistic" financial aid to those countries that have people that don't like us.

I'd like to see the US be a little more self-centered. Let's fix our internal issues before we attempt to fix the world. Spend some of my hard earned tax dollars here at home instead of rebuilding tsunami damaged third world nations.

And if you don't like your government, your economy or the government of the nation next door, fix it yourself. But don't emigrate here, we wouldn't want you to be offended by us up close.


Nice dream, but let's face facts. Withdrawing interests and businesses, especially from 3rd world countries, is going to hurt US economy no end. So it's not going to happen...

You see, the moment you get involved in a conflict, you take on responsibility. That's why I, personally, opt for close consideration of both sides and all options before deciding on action. For some reason, the USA hasn't really done that in 60 years...

its a pipe dream, I know.

Too many things depend on us being out there.

I just wish we could do it without the mess.

I also wish that filling my tank every day just so I can get to work didn't finance the next bomb to go off somewhere.

Too bad.

That's why I, personally, opt for close consideration of both sides and all options before deciding on action. For some reason, the USA hasn't really done that in 60 years...

Obviously, that's a gross over-statement. You can validly make that point for the current stupidity - but extending it back 60 years is a little silly. Vietnam, in particular, was a conflict we entered into in an agonizingly slow incremental way. Each step down the path was debated to death internally over the course of three administrations. Hindsight may well show the mistakes of that war, but don't accuse us of rash action in that case.

It was OK for the US to help Europe defeat Hitler and Mussolini.



Don't kid yourself. In BOTH world wars the US stood by until

a) Europe was on its knees economically
b) It was quite obvious who was on the winning hand

Then and only then they reacted, sending in brainwashed but otherwise unprepared young men.

(And don't come telling me about the junk yard ruse called Pearl Harbour.)

Obviously, that's a gross over-statement. You can validly make that point for the current stupidity - but extending it back 60 years is a little silly. Vietnam, in particular, was a conflict we entered into in an agonizingly slow incremental way. Each step down the path was debated to death internally over the course of three administrations. Hindsight may well show the mistakes of that war, but don't accuse us of rash action in that case.

Ok, I'll take that back, I don't rightfully know enough about the Vietnam war to be able to make any well-based statements here.
It just so happens that in discussions like this, without fail, somebody will point to the "glorious achievements" of the USA in WW I and WW II (which did end exactly 60 years ago and would have been avoidable in the first place if that had been in the interest of the international community), happily omitting the military desasters and blunders ever since.
Please don't get me wrong, as a German I am grateful to the Allied Forces for finally ending that dreadful period of German history (ALL the Allies), and I wish it had been sooner, but don't you agree it's a bit rich to still demand eternal gratitude and unquestioning obedience and support from a whole continent for that?

and Vietnam aside, we also attempted to keep out of the Baltic conflict, the revolution in Somalia, and we have lost many soldiers when not at war, simply because the governments of foriegn countries have requested our presence as an assist to their security. Each time, once we were in country an doing as requested, someone somewhere started screaming "imperialist dogs" and shooting at them or blowing them up in their sleep.

Can you show me one time prior to the fiasco in Iraq (which I don't care for either) when the United States stepped in uninvited and started a war? If so, I will listen and check the facts.

... but don't you agree it's a bit rich to still demand eternal gratitude and unquestioning obedience and support from a whole continent for that?

Yes - and it is a continual embarrassment to keep hearing it from some of my countrymen - As if our prior good acts give us carte blanche to act the fools forever.

Don't kid yourself. In BOTH world wars the US stood by until

a) Europe was on its knees economically
b) It was quite obvious who was on the winning hand

Then and only then they reacted, sending in brainwashed but otherwise unprepared young men.

(And don't come telling me about the junk yard ruse called Pearl Harbour.)


You are right, although I'm still trying to figure out how we managed to blow up our own pacific fleet just to have an excuse. I would much rather have not sent anyone at any time.

Why is it each time one takes a look at the General Forum is there at least one, sometimes several items of hatespeech against the United States? For example, today there is currently one on the first page about Why Americans dont have all the answers. Why are these so rampant? Coming into this with the goal of being objective, I notice there are very few if any anti-European sentiments started, but each day someone takes every chance they get to rip on the US. Any thoughts as to why it is deemed so important to share Anti-American rhetoric over and over again?


Perhaps there are so many threads regarding America because this forum is quite political, something which the USA participates in on frequent basis. And perhaps somethreads may appear anti american to you because the ppl on the forum disagree with some of the USA's policies etc? There have been plenty of threads concerning Europe in the past, but Europe is made up of so many nations and cultures that threads regarding this may be more country specific.
Personally I disagree with much of the Bush Administration. I love America though. When I rant on NS it is about the above Administration not you. This thread has been over done so much. If you don't like a thread on NS there is nothing that forces you to participate in it.

and Vietnam aside, we also attempted to keep out of the Baltic conflict, the revolution in Somalia, and we have lost many soldiers when not at war, simply because the governments of foriegn countries have requested our presence as an assist to their security. Each time, once we were in country an doing as requested, someone somewhere started screaming "imperialist dogs" and shooting at them or blowing them up in their sleep.

Can you show me one time prior to the fiasco in Iraq (which I don't care for either) when the United States stepped in uninvited and started a war? If so, I will listen and check the facts.

What Baltic conflict??? I'm not quite sure what you are referring to...

Btw, this exact same argument was one that Sovjet Russia absolutely adored. Whenever there was trouble in one of their satellite nations, parts of the "legal" (i.e. recogniced by the Sovjets) governemt asked them for help, and good old Father Russia sent tanks and troups to beat down those evil rebels.
Please take a look around you. The USA is pursueing their own interest in evey conflict they get involved in (whether that is obvious or not), they just happen to do a pretty thourough propaganda job to accompany the military action. And that's fair enough, nobody expects any country to be selfless in that respect. But they don't expect gratitude in return either, and that's where America is different.

What Baltic conflict??? I'm not quite sure what you are referring to...

Btw, this exact same argument was one that Sovjet Russia absolutely adored. Whenever there was trouble in one of their satellite nations, parts of the "legal" (i.e. recogniced by the Sovjets) governemt asked them for help, and good old Father Russia sent tanks and troups to beat down those evil rebels.
Please take a look around you. The USA is pursueing their own interest in evey conflict they get involved in (whether that is obvious or not), they just happen to do a pretty thourough propaganda job to accompany the military action. And that's fair enough, nobody expects any country to be selfless in that respect. But they don't expect gratitude in return either, and that's where America is different.

Cabra, all of your criticism seems pretty specific to our current Iraq situation. It doesn't fit very well with other U.S. military actions since WWII. You painting with a big brush there. U.S. troops have seen action in precious few places since the end of Vietnam - if you have a specific criticism of any of those - please state it.

I don't want your gratitude.

I don't want to go to foriegn countries and get blown up.

I don't want foriegners to come to my country and blow things up.

I have no illusions about who runs my country, it's business.

I really don't care anymore what the rest of the world wants. I've been all over the world and the only thing anyone ever wanted from me when I was in their country was my money. Even in the Middle East, my dollars were welcomed while my presence as a satanic American was not.

I don't find this forum to be Anti-American nor have I seen an abnormal amount of rhetoric against American nations such as Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Jamaica, Canada etc...
Give it a freakin rest already! WE GET THE POINT !!!!! (god, thats annoying!)

as harry truman said "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"

we are the biggest military force in the world. we have the most cultural imperialism. we are trying to bring democracy to countries that have never considered it.

we are gonna catch some shit for it.

some deserved some undeserved

we're a big country, we can take it.
I second that! (grabs catchers mask to catch the shit)

Cabra, all of your criticism seems pretty specific to our current Iraq situation. It doesn't fit very well with other U.S. military actions since WWII. You painting with a big brush there. U.S. troops have seen action in precious few places since the end of Vietnam - if you have a specific criticism of any of those - please state it.

Kosovo, Somalia, Afghanistan, First Gulf War come to mind. I have serious doubts that any of those were pure selfless actions. But then again, you can't blame a country for protceting its interests, and I don't. Otherwise I would have a go at France for the Algeria conflict, at Britain for the Falklands, at Turkey and Greece for Cyprus and more or less every othe country on the globe.
What I'm saying is, a large part of the population of the USA expect gratitude in return for those actions, and I simply don't like that attitude. I don't criticise other countries as a general rule, because I regard that as very impolite behaviour to say the least, but then again I find I can't help but try and correct statements glorifying American wars and military action and put them back into perspective.
I'm sorry if I should offend anybody in doing so, that is not my intention, honestly.

Why i hate america?

Let's see here, maybe the false portrayals of communism, the focusing on the idiot leaders and the mislabeling of everything america doesnt like as communist.....

That and the fact that i am despised throughout most of america because i am a communist.....
We don't despise you for bein a commy, we just hate communism in general. Who the hell wants to work all day, just to share with the lazy neighbor and his 19 kids?

We don't despise you for bein a commy, we just hate communism in general. Who the hell wants to work all day, just to share with the lazy neighbor and his 19 kids?

Yeah, but what's cooler than a system where the more kids you have the more money you get from the government. It's like you're being paid, to have sex!

I don't dislike Americans. I just dislike Bush and his policies.

I also dislike it when people start bashing China with the incredibly strange ideas. I DON'T EAT BABIES (I will NEVER drop that).

Kosovo, Somalia, Afghanistan, First Gulf War come to mind. I have serious doubts that any of those were pure selfless actions. But then again, you can't blame a country for protceting its interests, and I don't. Otherwise I would have a go at France for the Algeria conflict, at Britain for the Falklands, at Turkey and Greece for Cyprus and more or less every othe country on the globe.
What I'm saying is, a large part of the population of the USA expect gratitude in return for those actions, and I simply don't like that attitude. I don't criticise other countries as a general rule, because I regard that as very impolite behaviour to say the least, but then again I find I can't help but try and correct statements glorifying American wars and military action and put them back into perspective.
I'm sorry if I should offend anybody in doing so, that is not my intention, honestly.

I think you are only partly right. As an American... yeah I do expect gratitude for Kosovo and Somalia. Those were purely humanitarian missions. One was to stop starvation, the other to stop a simmering genocide. I feel proud that we acted. Afghanistan was also pretty clear-cut. We had just been attacked by an organization whose leaders and bases were in Afghanistan. Was there any other concievable action to take? As for the first Iraq war... I agree. It was pure self-interest.

Perhaps it's the way the American government is acting within the world at this time in history.
You mean not turning a blind eye while a bunch of savages kill innocent people because it would be easier? Or do you mean taking the stance that if the world has gotten to the point where anyone can go anywhere on the planet, and there are people that will kill anyone who disagrees with them living on said planet, that is is common sense that we should take care of them? Which are you referring to?

Really? And here I thought the Bush Family (http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/Bush_Eugenics.html) had way more to do with helping Hitler (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html) ..;)
If thats how you judge people, you better hope your ancestors didn't own slaves, or that makes you a racist slave owner!

I think you are only partly right. As an American... yeah I do expect gratitude for Kosovo and Somalia. Those were purely humanitarian missions. One was to stop starvation, the other to stop a simmering genocide. I feel proud that we acted. Afghanistan was also pretty clear-cut. We had just been attacked by an organization whose leaders and bases were in Afghanistan. Was there any other concievable action to take? As for the first Iraq war... I agree. It was pure self-interest.

The question is, why being selfless on a humanitarian mission to stop starvation in Somalia, but not in Ethiopia? Why stop genocide in Kosovo, but not in Serbia or Rwanda?
And why withdraw from Afghanistan before the object of the operation is acheived?

You mean not turning a blind eye while a bunch of savages kill innocent people because it would be easier? Or do you mean taking the stance that if the world has gotten to the point where anyone can go anywhere on the planet, and there are people that will kill anyone who disagrees with them living on said planet, that is is common sense that we should take care of them? Which are you referring to?

I'm guessing he's referring to the whole "get attacked by one group, so invade a country that had nothing to do with it because you were looking to invade that country anyway and make it possible by telling huge lies" thing.

But I'm just guessing.

Afghanistan was also pretty clear-cut. We had just been attacked by an organization whose leaders and bases were in Afghanistan.

I think he was refering to Afghanistan I - the one where America supported, funded and ARMED the Taleban to start with.

I'm guessing he's referring to the whole "get attacked by one group, so invade a country that had nothing to do with it because you were looking to invade that country anyway and make it possible by telling huge lies" thing.

But I'm just guessing.
You mean fanatical Arabs? When 9/11 happened, Americans didn't say " Gee, I think Iraq had something to do with it!" They said " Thats the last fucking straw! We aren't gonna take shit from these crazy fucks any more!" So when we give an ultimatum via the U.N. security council, and some dumb fuck dictator thumbs his nose at us, we bomb their ass! Even if France sits their with one thumb up their ass, and the other hand in Saddams pocket, and Spain cries foul and changes governments! If Europe doesn't like it and doesn't wanna help, fuckem! We don't need them. They can do their own thing, we'll do ours.

The question is, why being selfless on a humanitarian mission to stop starvation in Somalia, but not in Ethiopia? Why stop genocide in Kosovo, but not in Serbia or Rwanda?

We send aid to Ethiopa. In Somalia the aid could not reach people because of armed warlords.

The Kosovo mission was just a part of the whole Balkan initiative. Serbian fighting was also taken care of. The situation in the Balkans has been stable since we setup peace keeping. We have saved thousands upon thousands of lives. We stopped horrible violence including the mass-rapes of tens of thousands of women. We did this, and still recieve criticism. So yes... we sometimes get touchy about the subject. Your question earlier shows you know virtually nothing about the events in the Balkans during the late 80's and 90's yet you are perfectly willing to criticize the US in this area. Why is that?

As for Rwanda, that happened too quickly for anybody to respond. You might want to ask the French about Rwanda. They had the most personel there. But to be fair, I don't think anyone expected that kind of carnage from machetes and tribal warfare.

And why withdraw from Afghanistan before the object of the operation is acheived?

Damn good question. I refer you to the insane W.

You mean fanatical Arabs? When 9/11 happened, Americans didn't say " Gee, I think Iraq had something to do with it!" They said " Thats the last fucking straw! We aren't gonna take shit from these crazy fucks any more!" So when we give an ultimatum via the U.N. security council, and some dumb fuck dictator thumbs his nose at us, we bomb their ass! Even if France sits their with one thumb up their ass, and the other hand in Saddams pocket, and Spain cries foul and changes governments! If Europe doesn't like it and doesn't wanna help, fuckem! We don't need them. They can do their own thing, we'll do ours.

Well... if that's the case... then why did we lie about it? Why did the Bush Admin feel the need to pin 9/11 on Iraq and lie about WMD's?

The Kosovo mission was just a part of the whole Balkan initiative. Serbian fighting was also taken care of. The situation in the Balkans has been stable since we setup peace keeping. We have saved thousands upon thousands of lives. We stopped horrible violence including the mass-rapes of tens of thousands of women. We did this, and still recieve criticism. So yes... we sometimes get touchy about the subject. Your question earlier shows you know virtually nothing about the events in the Balkans during the late 80's and 90's yet you are perfectly willing to criticize the US in this area. Why is that?

I happen to have friends in Kroatia... so yes, I do know a bit about what went on there. And the genocide of Kroatians wasn't prevented by the USA, nor by the UNO, nor by NATO. They all kept referring to it as "civil war", as Germany at the time was the only country to recognise Kroatia as an independent nation. Germany back then was still bound by its constitution and couldn't legally send troups to stabilise the region, even tough attempts have been made.


As for Rwanda, that happened too quickly for anybody to respond. You might want to ask the French about Rwanda. They had the most personel there. But to be fair, I don't think anyone expected that kind of carnage from machetes and tribal warfare.


Well, the French managed to be effective to some degree, but yes, nobody would have expected anything like that in the first place. That's true. However, in my opinion, the African political map is one of the biggest crimes of Europe in the 19th and 20th century, it will continue being the world's biggest powder keg.

Well... if that's the case... then why did we lie about it? Why did the Bush Admin feel the need to pin 9/11 on Iraq and lie about WMD's?
You really need to get some proof. The Downing street memos are just hearsay of what some Brits said. I'll admit it may be true, but if I said that some guy in Sweden was the mastermind, it doesn't make it true without proof. And to be completely honest with you, if we did have to lie a bit to get a good reason to start taking out crazy dictators, it just says that the U.N. and most of its members are too cowardly to get rid of a murderous dictator without imminent reasons! Do you wait till you get stung to get rid of a hornets nest if its where your kids play? ( in other words, now that they have the ability to move across the world in less than a day, the world is now EVERYBODYS back yard!)

BTW - The US was not acting alone in the Balkans - it was a UN (or NATO?) peacekeeping force.

The NATO. But both the US and the NATO only got involved after the conflict and the genocide had been going on for nearly a decade...

I happen to have friends in Kroatia... so yes, I do know a bit about what went on there. And the genocide of Kroatians wasn't prevented by the USA, nor by the UNO, nor by NATO. They all kept referring to it as "civil war", as Germany at the time was the only country to recognise Kroatia as an independent nation. Germany back then was still bound by its constitution and couldn't legally send troups to stabilise the region, even tough attempts have been made.

We tried hard. We tried through the UN for years to get some action taken. We tried and eventually gave up. We then decided to go around the UN and do it through Nato. It wasn't the UN that stopped the violence in the Balkans - it was the US through NATO. If it hadn't been for China and Russia vetoing us at every turn - we could have saved a lot of lives in Croatia. That is one of the reasons the UN has very little credibility in the US.

We tried hard. We tried through the UN for years to get some action taken. We tried and eventually gave up. We then decided to go around the UN and do it through Nato. It wasn't the UN that stopped the violence in the Balkans - it was the US through NATO. If it hadn't been for China and Russia vetoing us at every turn - we could have saved a lot of lives in Croatia. That is one of the reasons the UN has very little credibility in the US.

That's why I think the Security Council is badly in need of reforms...

The idea that usually turns criticism of the USA into a flame-war, heated debate, or some combination thereof seems to be self-perception. One can start with "democracy" and "freedom". First one must assert that, politically, the USA is, as defined and limited by the Constitution, a republic. Civil rights and freedoms are more stable under such a system. A democracy governs by status quo. Whatever half and one of the people decide is the way thing should be is the way things should be. Beyond basic human rights, freedoms in the USA are determined by the culture. Laws are created and maintained to protect the accepted norm.
Thats cuz your a homo and probably a liberal
This is an extremist example of democratic rights and freedoms. A large and vocal population has declared homosexuality an abherration; as a result, it doesn't have the freedom of the alternative, despite not infringing upon the freedom of others. (On a side note, one should recognize how self-defeating it is to use the label "liberal" in a condescending fashion while toting perceived freedoms.)

Continuing on the subject of self-perception is the exaggeration of self-worth. I don't mean to be deprecating here but, in humanitarian terms, the life of an American is worth no more than the life of an Iraqi or Afghani civilian.
...their hands are tied, because before they can commit to the act that their inteligence and international inteligence show is the right thing to do, they have to go to the United Nations and appeal to other nations that couldn't care less about the French people's safety...
The other nations of the UN *could* care more about the safety of Americans -- at the expense of the safety of those in your crosshairs. The civilian death tolls in Iraq and Afghanistan have been estimated, by international media, to ~11,000 at the least, and more reasonably nearing 20,000. When America goes to war, CNN prefers to talk about how many armed, patriotic soldiers have been killed.

There were obvious interests in the invasion of Iraq aside from the concerns of national security. That's understandable, everyone wants to look out for number one. What many of us find a problem with is the subterfuge. If America did it all for America, fine. Admit it. The rest of the world will feel free to judge them based on their actions, treat them differently in international politics, and people will shut up about it. If America goes on the defensive and tries to justify, rationalise, or otherwise excuse *every* action it was responsible for, people will be far more aggressive in making sure America knows how they feel.

by no means is President Bush a "moron", he is a very inteligent man,.......

I don't know whether to laugh at you, or cry for you.


Is Bush stupid? You bet he is. Bush is nearly illiterate. He even has trouble keeping his thoughts together in a coherent manner. Check it out........

"I'm hopeful. I know there is a lot of ambition in Washington, obviously. But I hope the ambitious realize that they are more likely to succeed with success as opposed to failure." -George W. Bush, Jan. 2001

Succeed with success. Ok, makes sense to me. :rolleyes:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful - and so are we, they never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people - and neither do we." George W Bush at a Pentagon meeting, August 2004

Well I could of told you that George, only it turns out that your not ignorant to putting your own country in danger after all. :D

"The world is more peaceful and more free under my leadership." George W Bush, White House, Oct. 28, 2003

Ermmmm, not quite grasping the concept of 'freedom' here are we George. :headbang:

C'mon! If this guy was intelligent, he would be allowd to open up his mouth without a 'crack team' of analysts being hired to save him some blushes. Everytime he does try to speak for himself he shows his true thoughts and they're all incoherent. That's a major reason why people don't like your country. Plain and simply because you all have an irresponsibly minded man running it and not only have a fair chunk of you chose him twice, but deny actual facets to his personality......... such as his illiteracy.

You guys should just quit supporting such a remedial.

"Hey, that's un-American. Did George W Bush quit even after losing the popular vote? No.Did he quit after losing millions of dollers of his father's friend's money in failed oil companies? No. Did he quit after knocking that girl up? No. Did he quit after he got that DUI? No. Did he quit after getting arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct at a ball game? No."

There were obvious interests in the invasion of Iraq aside from the concerns of national security. That's understandable, everyone wants to look out for number one. What many of us find a problem with is the subterfuge. If America did it all for America, fine. Admit it. The rest of the world will feel free to judge them based on their actions, treat them differently in international politics, and people will shut up about it. If America goes on the defensive and tries to justify, rationalise, or otherwise excuse *every* action it was responsible for, people will be far more aggressive in making sure America knows how they feel.

My thoughts exactly :)

Cabra, I just want to point out one more thing and then I'm off to bed. You initially criticized Americans for butting in militarily and being upset when we didn't recieve gratitude. You ended up by criticizing us for not jumping in quickly enough into Croatia and Rwanda.

This is the frustration that most Americans feel. We get blasted when we try to help and blasted when we hold back. We are in a no-win situation. We have tried to work through the UN in cases like Croatia, but get nowhere. We circumvent the UN like we did in Kosovo, and we still get criticized. We hold back or not act at all like in Rwanda - we get blasted again. No matter what course we take - we get severely criticized. This gets very old after awhile and accounts for a lot of the hostile comments you may see from Americans on this forum.

Cabra, I just want to point out one more thing and then I'm off to bed. You initially criticized Americans for butting in militarily and being upset when we didn't recieve gratitude. You ended up by criticizing us for not jumping in quickly enough into Croatia and Rwanda.

This is the frustration that most Americans feel. We get blasted when we try to help and blasted when we hold back. We are in a no-win situation. We have tried to work through the UN in cases like Croatia, but get nowhere. We circumvent the UN like we did in Kosovo, and we still get criticized. We hold back or not act at all like in Rwanda - we get blasted again. No matter what course we take - we get severely criticized. This gets very old after awhile and accounts for a lot of the hostile comments you may see from Americans on this forum.

No, sorry, you misunderstand me in that case. I don't criticise the USA for NOT taking action in Rwanda and Kroatia, I criticise it for not taking action there after having taken action elsewhere, claiming selfless motives.
You see, if the USA had said "We'll blast Saddam out of Kuwait, who does he think he is annecting OUR oil resources?" and not claimed UNO-backing for their action, fair enough. But protecting some people (those with the oil) and not others (those without it) while claiming to protect ALL people, that's the attitude I resent.

If you don't get involved anywhere apart from areas where you have political or economical interest and state that as such, fine. Perfect. If, however, you claim selfishness and everybody's best interest and humanitarian motives, you better live up to that claim or face the blame the world will place at your doorstep for lying.

and Vietnam aside, we also attempted to keep out of the Baltic conflict, the revolution in Somalia, and we have lost many soldiers when not at war, simply because the governments of foriegn countries have requested our presence as an assist to their security.
...
Can you show me one time prior to the fiasco in Iraq (which I don't care for either) when the United States stepped in uninvited and started a war? If so, I will listen and check the facts.

This is exactly the kind of attitude that should be responded with "ignorant" and "arrogant"!
Sorry RIGHTWINGCONSERVANIA, nothing personal on you of course but let's look at the facts:
Arrogance:
"and we have lost many soldiers when not at war, simply because the governments of foriegn countries have requested our presence"

Ignorance:
1. The United States have yet to declare war on another nation. There hasn't been a formal declaration of war since Perl Harbour!
The only "war", "declared" is that against Terrorism. Which IMHO is a load of crap as there is NO definition on who the terrorists are, or what terrorism is! Are the founding fathers of the US terrorists? Well they were, according to the British Empire. Most of them had a price on their head. Most Israeli prime ministers and cabinet members were also terrorists according to the British. The Muzahedin in Afghanistan were terrorists according to the USSR (while they were "freedom fighters" for the US) and terrorists according to the US a few years later.

2. Please tell me how many of the following countries kindly requested US military intervention while a freely elected government (not a puppet generalismo) was in power:
Cuba -- 1899: US occupies with 18,000 marines. 1902: Cuba is forced to sign the Platt Amendment, giving the US the “right” to intervene in Cuba's internal affairs at any time. 1906, 1916 and 1917: US troops invade and occupy Cuba. 1933: US government overthrows Cuban government. 1959: Cuban revolutionaries take power. 1961: US attempts to invade Cuba to overthrow the revolutionary government.
Mexico -- 1914: US troops invade and occupy Vera Cruz province.
Haiti -- US invades in 1915 and 1918. In 1994, 6000 US marines invade Haiti to restore President Aristide to power.
Panama -- 1918: US forces invade five cities in Panama. 1964: US troops attack protesters who attempt to fly the Panamanian flag in the Canal Zone. In December 1989 the US invades Panama.
USSR -- 5000 troops were sent to the Arctic ports in 1919 and 10,000 to Siberia in 1920 in an unsuccessful attempt to crush the Bolshevic Revolution.
Nicaragua -- 1927-33: US forces occupy Nicaragua to fight revolutionary leader Augusto Sandino's liberation army.
China -- 1945-49: USA intervened in civil war, on side of Chiang Kai-shek, against Mao’s revolution.
Korea-- 1950-53: Joins South Korea and leads coalltiion of other allies to fight China and North Korea.
Lebanon -- 1958: 10,000 US marines invade. 1982-84: US forces combat Muslim and Syrian fighters in support of Christian government.
Laos -- 1960s: US Special Forces established a base in Xieng Khouang as part of its intervention in a civil war. The Plain of Jars, located in the province was heavily bombed by the US.
Vietnam -- OK, I'll put that aside
Dominican Republic -- 1965: 4000 US marines invade to overthrow a left-wing government.
Guatemala -- 1966-67: Command operation; Green Berets aid in combat against leftist rebels.
Cambodia --1969-75: War against leftist forces; intense bombing; up to 2 million killed.
Grenada -- 1983: US forces invade Grenada
Libya -- 1986:Air strikes against nationalist government with alleged terrorist links.
Iraq -- 1990: Operation Desert Storm drives Iraq out of Kuwait; 200,000+ killed. - depleted uranium bombs first use
Somalia -- 1992-94: US-led United Nations occupation during civil war.
Yugoslavia -- 1999: US Aircrafts bomb Chinsese embassy (collateral damage, unfortunate accident) and the Belgrade TV Tower (nope, no accident), amongst other NON-military targets. I will never forget the civilian train that had the audacity to cross a bridge while a US rocket was blowing it to pieces.
Afghanistan-- 2001: US forces invade and ouster Afghanistan's Taliban government
Iraq -- 2003: US forces invade Iraq (again)
--------------------------------
These are 20 acts of war during this century. Note that I have not included WWI or WWII and have tried to avoid "minor" intervention (e.g. Greece, Bolivia, El Salvador, Nicaragua).
I have also avoided mentioning the countless CIA operations that have overthrown regimes or even democratically elected governments throughout the world.


As for the "is Bush a moron?" debate.
I really don't care.
Personally, I liked Clinton. He looked nice. His answers were witty. He played the saxophone. He had an interesting sex life.
But all this didn't stop him from leading acts of aggression or violating international treaties and laws.
Here's a nice list of international treaties and laws that the US have broken during the last 2 decades (it's from the Clinton era in case you're wondering)
http://warandlaw.homestead.com/files/lawsviol.html

I deeply hate the US external policies. I also dislike ignorance and arrogance. I have nothing at all against any citizen of the US who is not:
a. Part of the think tanks and executive structure that enforces these policies and extends violence all through the globe
b. Ignorant, arrogant and unwilling to learn/change

But who knows... Perhaps it's just me.
I'm envious of the US political freedoms. Or I'm just plain scared that one day I will wake up in Guantanamo. Where national and international laws can not protect anyone.

If what you say is true then it would seem the word "American" should be applied to anyone living in the territories discovered by Cristobal Colon, which were eventually named after Amerigo Vespucci. Yes or no?

The continents themselves are called America (North, South, Central) I wouldn't dare call someone who lives in say, Mexico an American. They'd kill you.

Wow, get over it. We all know that "America" encompasses the entire Western hemisphere. But what do you call a citizen of the United States? A...United Statesian? No. An American.

Just like a Person whose a Citizen of Canada is called a Canadian, From Panama a Panamanian, Mexican (Person from mexico) etc.

He was attacked by a malicious, freedom-hating pretzel and nearly died. He valiently fell off his bike into a terrorist Scotish police officer and put him in the hospital. Not to mention he's fallen off his bike more during his presidency than I did when I was learning to ride.

And your point to this?

Under that logic, you would have been labelled as "anti-American" for hating on Clinton, and any efforts to impeach him for getting freedom-jobs in the Oval Office were clearly hatespeech.

Hated Clinton? Yes! Respected Clinton? Yes I did Respect him. Why? He was the President of the United States. I would respect who ever is in that office. I may not like who was in it, but I would respect whoever was in that office.

I would respect who ever is in that office. I may not like who was in it, but I would respect whoever was in that office.

Why?
Not criticising here, but that seems to be an American idea that always puzzled me... why respect sombody for holding an office (no matter how he got there)?
It's a bit like "I don't like the war, but I have to support the troops", I don't really get that one either...

Well... if that's the case... then why did we lie about it? Why did the Bush Admin feel the need to pin 9/11 on Iraq and lie about WMD's?

Funny, I thought it was faulty intelligence we gathered, not only from our own intel, but from the rest of the world's intel that said he had'em!

BTW - The US was not acting alone in the Balkans - it was a UN (or NATO?) peacekeeping force.

Sure as hell wasn't the UN! China blocked the resolutiont that would've involved the UN in the Balkans.

It was NATO that went in and not the UN (just one more reason why the UN is becoming worthless)

Cabra, I just want to point out one more thing and then I'm off to bed. You initially criticized Americans for butting in militarily and being upset when we didn't recieve gratitude. You ended up by criticizing us for not jumping in quickly enough into Croatia and Rwanda.

This is the frustration that most Americans feel. We get blasted when we try to help and blasted when we hold back. We are in a no-win situation. We have tried to work through the UN in cases like Croatia, but get nowhere. We circumvent the UN like we did in Kosovo, and we still get criticized. We hold back or not act at all like in Rwanda - we get blasted again. No matter what course we take - we get severely criticized. This gets very old after awhile and accounts for a lot of the hostile comments you may see from Americans on this forum.

WTG Gartref. This is so accurate it can't be hammered. Well done.

Why?
Not criticising here, but that seems to be an American idea that always puzzled me... why respect sombody for holding an office (no matter how he got there)?
It's a bit like "I don't like the war, but I have to support the troops", I don't really get that one either...

My mother is against the war in Iraq but supports our troops over there. They are 2 different things. Remember that the troops obey the orders of the Commander in Chief. They have no say in the matter.

As for me respecting the President of the United States, he is the President. He occupies the Office of the President of the United States. I respect the office and whoever is in that office but I do not have to like the person who occupies said office.

That is where I get really annoyed half the time with people on this board. They think the Office and the Person in that office are the same. They are not. The person is temporary (4-8 years) but the Office of the President has been around since the Constitution was ratified.

Cabra, I just want to point out one more thing and then I'm off to bed. You initially criticized Americans for butting in militarily and being upset when we didn't recieve gratitude. You ended up by criticizing us for not jumping in quickly enough into Croatia and Rwanda.

This is the frustration that most Americans feel. We get blasted when we try to help and blasted when we hold back. We are in a no-win situation. We have tried to work through the UN in cases like Croatia, but get nowhere. We circumvent the UN like we did in Kosovo, and we still get criticized. We hold back or not act at all like in Rwanda - we get blasted again. No matter what course we take - we get severely criticized. This gets very old after awhile and accounts for a lot of the hostile comments you may see from Americans on this forum.There's a difference between Kosovo and Iraq. Why, there's even a difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem is how whatever is done is attempted. There was no immediate cause for Iraq besides something that has turned out to be the biggest lie in international politics since the Soviets denied stationing nuclear weapons in Cuba.
If Bush decided to invade Rwanda on some bogus reason like he did in Iraq, there'd be criticism too.
The thing is, those conflicts aren't the same cup of tea, and as long as a majority of us Americans continues to fail separating them and retreat into a corner saying "What do I care about what you think of me", we have no excuse to be surprised when people criticize our actions.

My mother is against the war in Iraq but supports our troops over there. They are 2 different things. Remember that the troops obey the orders of the Commander in Chief. They have no say in the matter.

Not completely true. They chose to do the job, didn't they? They knew about the risks and duties involved...
So, if I personally opposed the war in Iraq, I would not support the troops there. But that's just me thinking.


As for me respecting the President of the United States, he is the President. He occupies the Office of the President of the United States. I respect the office and whoever is in that office but I do not have to like the person who occupies said office.

That is where I get really annoyed half the time with people on this board. They think the Office and the Person in that office are the same. They are not. The person is temporary (4-8 years) but the Office of the President has been around since the Constitution was ratified.

The person holds the office. And the office will change drastically depending on what person holds it. Actually, without the person, the office doesn't exist. So the office itself is neutral.
Consequently, if I don't feel respect for the person, that feeling is not going to change whatever office said person might be holding. On the contrary, the more options the office provides for the person to further loose my respect, and the more that person uses the office in ways that make me loose respect, my respect for the office is bound to decline as well, for giving that person those options.

Wow, get over it. We all know that "America" encompasses the entire Western hemisphere. But what do you call a citizen of the United States? A...United Statesian? No. An American.

I call them Gringos. ;)

But the point is that this thread along with several other threads go on incessantly about how everyone hates people from the U.S. or they are jealous of people from the U.S. and on and on. Meanwhile there have been several posts that criticize other countries such as the UK, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Japan, Korea, Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, etc...

Yet whenever anyone criticizes the way the U.S. government is handling the war on terror, which unfortunatley affects most people in the world, suddenly blindly patriotic people from the U.S. start clamouring "You're just saying that because you are anti-American". This is the nationalistic equivalent of a "race card".

Give it a freakin rest already! WE GET THE POINT !!!!! (god, thats annoying!)

Almost as annoying as viewing posts in which people from the U.S. seem to think the word "American" is reserved only for themselves.

Found any official reference to "America" without "United States" yet?


"NORTH" America
"CENTRAL" America
"SOUTH" America

The continents themselves are called America (North, South, Central) I wouldn't dare call someone who lives in say, Mexico an American. They'd kill you.

Do you have evidence to back up this sweeping generalization?

Do you have evidence to back up this sweeping generalization?

Since I"ve never been to Mexico, no. But I do know Canadians don't like to be called Americans. They are called Canadians just like those from Mexico are called Mexicans.

Since I"ve never been to Mexico, no. But I do know Canadians don't like to be called Americans. They are called Canadians just like those from Mexico are called Mexicans.

If Canadians and Mexicans don't like being called Americans, which is a supposition until you can produce evidence to prove your point, it is probably because U.S. foreign policy is inevitably making the word "American" something that people in the rest of the Americas don't want to be associated with.

P.S. there is a futbol (soccer) team from Colombia that is called "America" the supporters of this team are called "Americanos"

But who wants to live in Massachusets?! (tehe....masachuttess...).

As a resident of Massachusetts, I do take exception to your insinuation that this state is somehow less than a desirable place to live. In fact, - from the Berkshires to the Atlantic coast - the land is beautiful; the population includes peoples of virtually every ethnic and religious group who live in harmony with each other. The fact that this is the first state to grant gay people the benefits denied them in other states and in most countries should indicate the attitudes of the general population. We have probably the finest universities, the finest medical facilities, and among the finest food of any place on the globe. And I do not work for the office of tourism!

And if I did not live here, I would gladly live in France! or Canada! or the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, etc. but I would not want to live in Texas! ;)