NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

No! That isn't why. Canadians have always been called canadians as far back as there has been colonies. Mexicans have been calling themselves that since they tossed out the spanish. Study alittle more history!

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

And your point being?

And your point being?

Just beyond your grasp

No! That isn't why. Canadians have always been called canadians as far back as there has been colonies. Mexicans have been calling themselves that since they tossed out the spanish. Study alittle more history!

I'm always studying history, but we are not discussing a historical issue. We are discussing a contemporary arrogance.

And your point being?

There are people who are not residents or citizens of the 50 states who refer to themselves as "American".

I don't know. But his voters...
http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

Just beyond your grasp

Don't mock. I'm guilty of that too at times but in the end it only justifies their xenophobia.

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! I want to live in Massachusetts... oh wait... I DO! AND I LOVE IT!

Just beyond your grasp

Now this has got to be one of the most immature posts you've ever done.

Don't mock. I'm guilty of that too at times but in the end it only justifies their xenophobia.

Oh brother. I"m not afraid of anything or anyone or any nation.

True. Apologies for that Corneliu, the target was just too big and i could not resist. Temptation got the better of me.

The point the guy was making was that people outside America proudly refer to themselves as American.
I think people should call themselves American based on their reigion
Ex. "I'm North American."
Countries are still okay though. :D

The point the guy was making was that people outside America proudly refer to themselves as American.

Proof please?

There are people who are not residents or citizens of the 50 states who refer to themselves as "American".

Proof please?

Proof please?

I've already provided you with proof, but if you need more...

I'm an American!!!! :D

I've already provided you with proof, but if you need more...

I'm an American!!!! :D

LOL!@@@@@

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 think alot of it has to do with, as a whole, the media portrays the unelightened americans and these people are blindly partiotic, which leads to anti-american sentiments. furthermore even on an unbiased objective forum such as this people will bring bias. and yes some of these are blindly patriotic toward their nation, unfortunately in America this is rampant and many people do not know better, where as in europe people are encouraged to disagree with the State and to not blindly submit and support the State. In america we are not encouraged to ask but to support without asking. sure some people are not this way, unfortunately for us that are not like this, those that are ruin it for us. *shrug* thats my opinion anyway

Why the USA?
Because of the hypocrisy.

America is a land that encourages free speech (so long as it's confined to the properly designated "Free-Speech Zone" where nobody can hear you.)

America is a land that encourages the sanctity of life (which is why it is the only democracy that retains the death penalty)

America is a land that encourages the principals of democracy. (Which is why it has the electoral college, that makes the vote of a man in georgia worth more than the vote of a man in New York)

America is a land that encourages free trade (Which is why after four rulings from the WTO pronouncing their duties on softwood lumber to be illegal and the redistribution of those funds through the Byrd amendment to the competing companies to be illegal, they are still collecting and redistributing those duties)

America is a land that encourages freedom of choice (So long as that choice does not involve marriage with someone of the same sex)

America is a land that discourages weapons of mass destruction (Which is why it not only possesses the largest stockpiles, but invaded Iraq despite evidence from its own intelligence agency, and has not invaded North Korea)

America is a land that encourages fair and equitable justice systems (Which is why it has passed bills allowing people to be jailed without revealing why, and with it being illegal to tell anybody why, or even that they have been arrested)

America is a land that encourages the world to work together (Which is why they moved against, if not the letter of UN rulings, then against the intent of them as explained by the rest of the members)

America is a land that encourages peace (which is why they have a military budget over 15 times larger than the next highest country, and a policy that dictates the military be able to fight on two entirely separate fronts at once)

America is a land that encourages the freedom to succeed and fail on your own merits. (Which is why civil offenses against the RIAA are now criminal offenses, to be enforced by the public coffers and not the industry involved)

Ah, America.. land of the beautiful (people), with liberty and justice for all (who can afford it).

So why does the anti-American rhetoric get constantly repeated? Because for all these things, those of the US are still the ones who loudly proclaim "Our country is the best in the world and you all just wish you could be us." Newsflash from the rest of the world; we all have our problems, but the rest of us generally aren't so arrogant to simply ignore them and declare ourselves the Shining Example. The rhetoric is us just trying to get at least that message into you.. because as long as you believe you're the best in the world, you won't be working on the necessary changes to *become* the best in the world.

Why the USA?
Because of the hypocrisy.

America is a land that encourages free speech (so long as it's confined to the properly designated "Free-Speech Zone" where nobody can hear you.)

America is a land that encourages the sanctity of life (which is why it is the only democracy that retains the death penalty)

America is a land that encourages the principals of democracy. (Which is why it has the electoral college, that makes the vote of a man in georgia worth more than the vote of a man in New York)

America is a land that encourages free trade (Which is why after four rulings from the WTO pronouncing their duties on softwood lumber to be illegal and the redistribution of those funds through the Byrd amendment to the competing companies to be illegal, they are still collecting and redistributing those duties)

America is a land that encourages freedom of choice (So long as that choice does not involve marriage with someone of the same sex)

America is a land that discourages weapons of mass destruction (Which is why it not only possesses the largest stockpiles, but invaded Iraq despite evidence from its own intelligence agency, and has not invaded North Korea)

America is a land that encourages fair and equitable justice systems (Which is why it has passed bills allowing people to be jailed without revealing why, and with it being illegal to tell anybody why, or even that they have been arrested)

America is a land that encourages the world to work together (Which is why they moved against, if not the letter of UN rulings, then against the intent of them as explained by the rest of the members)

America is a land that encourages peace (which is why they have a military budget over 15 times larger than the next highest country, and a policy that dictates the military be able to fight on two entirely separate fronts at once)

America is a land that encourages the freedom to succeed and fail on your own merits. (Which is why civil offenses against the RIAA are now criminal offenses, to be enforced by the public coffers and not the industry involved)

Ah, America.. land of the beautiful (people), with liberty and justice for all (who can afford it).

So why does the anti-American rhetoric get constantly repeated? Because for all these things, those of the US are still the ones who loudly proclaim "Our country is the best in the world and you all just wish you could be us." Newsflash from the rest of the world; we all have our problems, but the rest of us generally aren't so arrogant to simply ignore them and declare ourselves the Shining Example. The rhetoric is us just trying to get at least that message into you.. because as long as you believe you're the best in the world, you won't be working on the necessary changes to *become* the best in the world.



*APPLAUDS*

I was going to post this says it all no?

Why the USA?
Because of the hypocrisy.

America is a land that encourages free speech (so long as it's confined to the properly designated "Free-Speech Zone" where nobody can hear you.)

America is a land that encourages the sanctity of life (which is why it is the only democracy that retains the death penalty)

America is a land that encourages the principals of democracy. (Which is why it has the electoral college, that makes the vote of a man in georgia worth more than the vote of a man in New York)

America is a land that encourages free trade (Which is why after four rulings from the WTO pronouncing their duties on softwood lumber to be illegal and the redistribution of those funds through the Byrd amendment to the competing companies to be illegal, they are still collecting and redistributing those duties)

America is a land that encourages freedom of choice (So long as that choice does not involve marriage with someone of the same sex)

America is a land that discourages weapons of mass destruction (Which is why it not only possesses the largest stockpiles, but invaded Iraq despite evidence from its own intelligence agency, and has not invaded North Korea)

America is a land that encourages fair and equitable justice systems (Which is why it has passed bills allowing people to be jailed without revealing why, and with it being illegal to tell anybody why, or even that they have been arrested)

America is a land that encourages the world to work together (Which is why they moved against, if not the letter of UN rulings, then against the intent of them as explained by the rest of the members)

America is a land that encourages peace (which is why they have a military budget over 15 times larger than the next highest country, and a policy that dictates the military be able to fight on two entirely separate fronts at once)

America is a land that encourages the freedom to succeed and fail on your own merits. (Which is why civil offenses against the RIAA are now criminal offenses, to be enforced by the public coffers and not the industry involved)

Ah, America.. land of the beautiful (people), with liberty and justice for all (who can afford it).

So why does the anti-American rhetoric get constantly repeated? Because for all these things, those of the US are still the ones who loudly proclaim "Our country is the best in the world and you all just wish you could be us." Newsflash from the rest of the world; we all have our problems, but the rest of us generally aren't so arrogant to simply ignore them and declare ourselves the Shining Example. The rhetoric is us just trying to get at least that message into you.. because as long as you believe you're the best in the world, you won't be working on the necessary changes to *become* the best in the world.

all of this. Plus it is VERY annoying to meet US citizens who think all inventions came from their land.

I hon't think anyone's got a problem with Americans here, I think more people have a problem with American politicians. Many people seem to judge the USA based on what GW Bush and the Republican Party say and do because they are the Americans that most of the world sees on our TV screens and read about in the 'papers. And they do give the wrong impression of the people.

I am against the government of the USA. In fact, I think that Electoral College, seperation of powers and majoritarian electoral systems lead to an undemocratic system that helps prats like Bush get into power. I also think no different of the system used in the UK that lets Blair get into power - but does that mean I hate my fellow Britons? No. It's the same with the US of A.

You can't judge the people based on politicians. Things like the afforementioned hypocracy are the fault of the government who has the power over those things, not the American people who are mostly good people. Sure, they have a few very right wing assholes and religious nutters, but do they really count as people? (Joke: no offence intended ;) )

I dont hate America, i dislike Bush, though mainly because of Tony Blair.

I dislike the Republican party, but no more than i dislike Britain's Conservative Party. (im from Britain)

I dislike some idiot americans i meet on online games that cannot type anything other than weird L33t, unfortunatly this appears to be spreading to other parts of the world.

I dislike the american obsession with big cars, but thats just my taste in cars.

I dislike the Electoral collage system. I want a PR system in the UK.

I like most Americans ive met in person, but ive never actually been to America.

I dont hate america but nor do i agree with many of its actions.

I really hate the way there are many mad fundamentalist christians in America but i dont like Fundamentalist religion.

I dislike the way america thinks it can go into poor countries and tell them how to do things, again thats me dislikeing american government policies.

I think lots of people in Europe are angry at the arrogance of many (though not all) americans

<snip>
Why is it that Europeans understand Americans better than Americans? Excellent post!

Why is it that Europeans understand Americans better than Americans? Excellent post!

Funny. I understand Americans just fine. I have no problems with the Europeans. However, they need to make a distinction between the Office of the President and the person in that office and that they don't do.

Funny. I understand Americans just fine. I have no problems with the Europeans. However, they need to make a distinction between the Office of the President and the person in that office and that they don't do.

Simply holding an office doesn't entitle you to respect. We've chucked eggs at our politicians and they've punched us back (Prescott anyone?) you bow and scrape to yours far more.

I dont hate America, i dislike Bush, though mainly because of Tony Blair.

I dislike the Republican party, but no more than i dislike Britain's Conservative Party. (im from Britain)

I dislike some idiot americans i meet on online games that cannot type anything other than weird L33t, unfortunatly this appears to be spreading to other parts of the world.

I dislike the american obsession with big cars, but thats just my taste in cars.

I dislike the Electoral collage system. I want a PR system in the UK.

I like most Americans ive met in person, but ive never actually been to America.

I dont hate america but nor do i agree with many of its actions.

I really hate the way there are many mad fundamentalist christians in America but i dont like Fundamentalist religion.

I dislike the way america thinks it can go into poor countries and tell them how to do things, again thats me dislikeing american government policies.

I think lots of people in Europe are angry at the arrogance of many (though not all) americans

Fair enough, well said. That's not Anti-Americanism, that's a well-qualified personal opinion.

For those non-Americans who don't like our representative republic or the electoral college, consider this: these are the fundamentals of our form of government, and implemented as closely as possible to how the the founders intended. There is no hypocrisy in this respect.

Do you realize how difficult this is to change? It is effectively impossible, so to dislike a people for accepting a form of government as it was designed several hundred years before strikes me as unrealistic and arrogant. Americans today have no responsibility for their form of government except for not changing it - and frankly, this is near impossible and very unlikely regarding the fundamentals of government.

I'll accept an American criticizing the Electoral College, but not a non-American. How we follow our Constitution and interpret our laws is up to us, it really is not your concern unless you're a citizen or vote. And from a practical standpoint, your wasting words since you have no effect on US Constitutional matters.

Simply holding an office doesn't entitle you to respect. We've chucked eggs at our politicians and they've punched us back (Prescott anyone?) you bow and scrape to yours far more.

The office of the President is to be respected. I respect the Office of the Prime Minister or the office of whatever head of state is there. That is the symbol of that government.

You may not like the person inside that office but try to respect the office itself.

Fair enough, well said. That's not Anti-Americanism, that's a well-qualified personal opinion.

For those non-Americans who don't like our representative republic or the electoral college, consider this: these are the fundamentals of our form of government, and implemented as closely as possible to how the the founders intended. There is no hypocrisy in this respect.

Do you realize how difficult this is to change? It is effectively impossible, so to dislike a people for accepting a form of government as it was designed several hundred years before strikes me as unrealistic and arrogant. Americans today have no responsibility for their form of government except for not changing it - and frankly, this is near impossible and very unlikely regarding the fundamentals of government.

I'll accept an American criticizing the Electoral College, but not a non-American. How we follow our Constitution and interpret our laws is up to us, it really is not your concern unless you're a citizen or vote. And from a practical standpoint, your wasting words since you have no effect on US Constitutional matters.

Well said indeed.

The office of the President is to be respected. I respect the Office of the Prime Minister or the office of whatever head of state is there. That is the symbol of that government.

You may not like the person inside that office but try to respect the office itself.
No one is going around saying "screw the Presedency and what it stands for," but it is American tradition to ridicule those that hold the office. That is something I think you find it hard to comprehend. You can't confuse the office itself with those in power. Saying "I hate Bush" is not the same as saying "I hate the office of the President." Try to differentiate between the two. Simply because someone is President doesn't automatically make them God and anyone that ridicules them is a traitor deserving of death.

No one is going around saying "screw the Presedency and what it stands for," but it is American tradition to ridicule those that hold the office. That is something I think you find it hard to comprehend. You can't confuse the office itself with those in power. Saying "I hate Bush" is not the same as saying "I hate the office of the President." Try to differentiate between the two. Simply because someone is President doesn't automatically make them God and anyone that ridicules them is a traitor deserving of death.

I agree. I make a distinction all the time between the two because that was how I was raised! Though I didn't like Clinton, I still respected him because he was the President of the United States.

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!

Don't knock the intel guys. They were told exactly what information was required. They delivered it. Whenever they accidently included the truth, they were specifically told to remove it. They did the job they were ordered to do flawlessly.

Don't knock the intel guys. They were told exactly what information was required. They delivered it. Whenever they accidently included the truth, they were specifically told to remove it. They did the job they were ordered to do flawlessly.

Bull crap. Nice conspiracy theory but it is inaccurate.

I agree. I make a distinction all the time between the two because that was how I was raised! Though I didn't like Clinton, I still respected him because he was the President of the United States.
You didn't have to respect him. You can go further than you did. You don't have to respect the man himself just because he holds that office, but you should still respect the office itself--as if it wasn't even occupied. Going by your logic, everyone has to respect Nixon, all conservatives have to respect FDR, no one can make fun of Taft getting stuck in the White House bath tub. No matter how much you despise the policies of the President you still have to respect them? That is not right.

You didn't have to respect him. You can go further than you did. You don't have to respect the man himself just because he holds that office, but you should still respect the office itself--as if it wasn't even occupied.

I think Achtung, you and I are in a partial agreement here. I unfortunately, had no choice but to respect him for reasons that I think you can guess.

Going by your logic, everyone has to respect Nixon, all conservatives have to respect FDR, no one can make fun of Taft getting stuck in the White House bath tub. No matter how much you despise the policies of the President you still have to respect them? That is not right.

I respect FDR and I'm a conservative. How about that huh?

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..
bush has an I.Q of 91 which is very close to being retarded

bush has an I.Q of 91 which is very close to being retarded

Be careful what you read...

Debunked: "Lovenstein Institute" report that George W. Bush "has lowest IQ of all presidents of past 50 years"

Additional investigation revealed that the presidential IQ report ("Report: President Bush has lowest IQ of all presidents of past 50 years") attributed to the (fictitious) Lovenstein Institute is a hoax, debunked July 18, 2001 by snopes.com, an urban legends website (click here to read the snopes.com exposé; click here to read the original report, published in the fictitious "Pennsylvania Court Observer." In a Lexis-Nexis search, I found the hoax reported as factual information in at least four foreign newspapers: Guardian ("Diary" by Matthew Norman, July 19, 2001), The Express ("By George he's the dimmest," July 20, 2001, p. 8, no byline), the Scottish Daily Record ("Dumbya's dumb day" by Alexandra Williams, July 20, 2001, p. 2), and Bilt Zeitung ("Bush dümmster Präsident seit 1945 -- IQ nur 91," Aug. 1, 2001, no byline).

bush has an I.Q of 91 which is very close to being retarded

Here's the link

http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Bush/Bush-IQ-Myth.html

Fair enough, well said. That's not Anti-Americanism, that's a well-qualified personal opinion.

For those non-Americans who don't like our representative republic or the electoral college, consider this: these are the fundamentals of our form of government, and implemented as closely as possible to how the the founders intended. There is no hypocrisy in this respect.

Do you realize how difficult this is to change? It is effectively impossible, so to dislike a people for accepting a form of government as it was designed several hundred years before strikes me as unrealistic and arrogant. Americans today have no responsibility for their form of government except for not changing it - and frankly, this is near impossible and very unlikely regarding the fundamentals of government.

I'll accept an American criticizing the Electoral College, but not a non-American. How we follow our Constitution and interpret our laws is up to us, it really is not your concern unless you're a citizen or vote. And from a practical standpoint, your wasting words since you have no effect on US Constitutional matters.

Nobody ever said they hated the USA because of the constitution, and nobody ever said that they wanted to change the USA's constitution. However, some people, like me, who are not American feel that governments should have certain principles in order to be as democratic as possible. I wouldn't go on an idelogoical crusade to change all countries to have these systems, it is merely an opinion, like I have opinions on TV shows, pets and what colour socks I like.

Of course it is US citizens who should have the final say over the constitution, but external ideas and constructive critisizm can be very useful. For example: The sub-national parliaments set up in the UK are based on the German Bundestag. Germany has no say over the our constitutional affairs, but the introduced us to that system.

Finally, if the USA doesn't want others to critisise their internal affairs, perhaps the USA government should stop poking it's nose into other nation's affiars.

Here's the link
http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Bush/Bush-IQ-Myth.html

Ahh, the "Lovenstein IQ"; nothing like making up your own scale. It's as lame as Kerry's Misery Index.

I'll make up my own institute, give myself an IQ of 179 and claim to be the Father of Modern Warfare and World's Greatest Mathematician.

I respect FDR and I'm a conservative. How about that huh?

How can anyone not like FDR? He dragged the world out of the depression, and afterwards the courts chucked out all the unconstitutional agencies. Everybody wins! :D

Amen Brother/Sister........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.

How can anyone not like FDR? He dragged the world out of the depression, and afterwards the courts chucked out all the unconstitutional agencies. Everybody wins! :D
Take for example, the Bush family, who despised FDR. After Roosevelt's death: "The only man I truly hated lies buried in Hyde Park" -- Prescott S. Bush.

A point not often mentioned is how to resolve the conflict of opinion between parties. There is a host of opinion between the extremes of pro and anti-American extremes, and the extremes should not necessarily define the topic of debate.

Either extreme, when taken to it's logical conclusions, May evolve into an ideology. Ideological differences are much more difficult to reconcile.

Here is an excerpt from an interesting article, and in consideration of length I have posted only the summary. I would be interested in people's reaction to the author's perspective on anti-Americanism, and the point that anti-Americanism as an ideology is counterproductive and impedes dialogue. Criticism of policy or individual actions or of Presidents is not the topic here.

Those with interest, please read the entire article, don't take this summary alone as a basis for comment.

"The real clash of civilizations?

There is a great need today for both Europeans and Americans to understand the career of this powerful doctrine of anti-Americanism. As long as its influence remains, rational discussion of the practical differences between America and Europe becomes more and more difficult. No issue or question is addressed on its merits, and instead commentators tend to reason from conclusions to facts rather than from facts to conclusions. Arguments, no matter how reasonable they appear on the surface, are advanced to promote or confirm the pre-existing concept of America constructed by Heidegger and others. In the past, European political leaders had powerful reasons to resist this approach. Such practical concerns as alliances, the personal ties and contacts forged with American officials, commercial relations, and a fear of communism worked to dampen anti-Americanism. But of late, European leaders have been tempted to use anti-Americanism as an easy way to court favor with parts of the public, especially with intellectual and media elites. This has unfortunately added a new level of legitimacy to the anti-American mindset.

Not only does anti-Americanism make rational discussion impossible, it threatens the idea of a community of interests between Europe and America. Indeed, it threatens the idea of the West itself. According to the most developed views of anti-Americanism, there is no community of interests between the two sides of the Atlantic because America is a different and alien place. To "prove" this point without using such obvious, value-laden terms as "degeneracy" or the "site of catastrophe," proponents invest differences that exist between Europe and America with a level of significance all out of proportion with their real weight. True, Europeans spend more on the welfare state than do Americans, and Europeans have eliminated capital punishment while many American states still employ it. But to listen to the way in which these facts are discussed, one would think that they add up to different civilizations. This kind of analysis goes so far as to place in question even the commonality of democracy. Since democracy is now unquestionably regarded as a good thing - never mind, of course, that such an attachment to democracy arguably constitutes the most fundamental instance of Americanization - America cannot be a real democracy. And so it is said that American capitalism makes a mockery of the idea of equality, or that low rates of voting participation disqualify America from being in the camp of democratic states.

Repairing the breach

Hardly any reasonable person today would dismiss the seriousness of many of the challenges that have been raised against "modernity." Nor would any reasonable person deny that America, as one of the most modern and the most powerful of nations, has been the effective source of many of the trends of modernity, which therefore inevitably take on an American cast. But it is possible to acknowledge all of this without identifying modernity with a single people or place, as if the problems of modernity were purely American in origin or as if only Europeans, and not Americans, have been struggling with the question of how to deal with them. Anti-Americanism has become the lazy person's way of treating these issues. It allows those using this label to avoid confronting some of the hard questions that their own analysis demands be asked. To provide just one striking example, America is regularly criticized for being too modern (it has, for example, developed "fast food"), except when it is criticized for not being modern enough (a large portion of the population is still religious).

A genuine dialogue between America and Europe will become possible only when Europeans start the long and arduous process of freeing themselves from the grip of anti-Americanism - a process, fortunately, that several courageous European intellectuals have already launched. But it is also important for Americans not to fall into the error of using anti-Americanism as an excuse to ignore all criticisms made of their country. This temptation is to be found far more among conservative intellectuals than among liberals, who have traditionally paid great respect to the arguments of anti-American thinkers. Much recent conservative commentary has been too quick to dismiss challenges to current American strategic thinking and immediately to attribute them, without sufficient analysis, to the worst elements found in the historical sack of anti-Americanism, from anti-technologism to anti-Semitism. It would be more than ironic - it would be tragic -- if in combating anti-Americanism, we were to embrace an ideology of anti-Europeanism."

http://www.thepublicinterest.com/archives/2003summer/article1.html

"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.


Sorry for the out of context bump.

The office of the President is to be respected. I respect the Office of the Prime Minister or the office of whatever head of state is there. That is the symbol of that government.

You may not like the person inside that office but try to respect the office itself.


The office is nothing without the person filling it. Why should I respect a person I despise because he suddenly can hide behind a big-time office?

<snip>

Very, very interesting article.
It is in fact true that it is largely the European intellectual and educated levels of society that disagree most with American politics and international behaviour, whereas the less educated classes tend to still view America in the image it had in the 1950s and 60s.
Although it can be observed that even they start to feel threatened... I guess the overall feeling is best described as "threatened"

Cabra, my concern is in just what you say, a general European feeling of 'threatened' which can't be addressed since the very concept of our nation is defined as the root cause of your feelings. There can be little discussion over the concept, but much over specific items.

Will we lose our ability to converse on these matters? As sentiment devolves into ideology the opportunities will become more limited. I decry this, and hope others share my concern.

The author remarks:

"A genuine dialogue between America and Europe will become possible only when Europeans start the long and arduous process of freeing themselves from the grip of anti-Americanism - a process, fortunately, that several courageous European intellectuals have already launched. But it is also important for Americans not to fall into the error of using anti-Americanism as an excuse to ignore all criticisms made of their country. This temptation is to be found far more among conservative intellectuals than among liberals, who have traditionally paid great respect to the arguments of anti-American thinkers."

My opinion is that he's correct that Europeans bear the onus of analyzing their views more critically, and that real debate which focuses on specifics won't evolve until it can be done in a constructive fashion. The polar opposites of anti-Americanism, the conservative intellectuals in America, in my view, are in the minority. Debate is indeed possible between Europe and the majority of US citizens but more careful analysis by Europeans is pre-requisite to this eventuality

Take for example, the Bush family, who despised FDR. After Roosevelt's death: "The only man I truly hated lies buried in Hyde Park" -- Prescott S. Bush.

Any other family members come out against FDR?

My hats off to the Father of Modern Warfare and the World's Greatest Mathematician and to someone who knows how to spell. Ahh, the "Lovenstein IQ"; nothing like making up your own scale. It's as lame as Kerry's Misery Index.

I'll make up my own institute, give myself an IQ of 179 and claim to be the Father of Modern Warfare and World's Greatest Mathematician.

Any other family members come out against FDR?
Herbert Walker loathed FDR, GHWB shared his father's contempt, and it naturally saturated down to W, though he has not openly said "I hate FDR," but that is one of the reasons why he wants to "reform" Social Security in the way he is proposing.

Cabra, my concern is in just what you say, a general European feeling of 'threatened' which can't be addressed since the very concept of our nation is defined as the root cause of your feelings. There can be little discussion over the concept, but much over specific items.

Will we lose our ability to converse on these matters? As sentiment devolves into ideology the opportunities will become more limited. I decry this, and hope others share my concern.

The author remarks:

"A genuine dialogue between America and Europe will become possible only when Europeans start the long and arduous process of freeing themselves from the grip of anti-Americanism - a process, fortunately, that several courageous European intellectuals have already launched. But it is also important for Americans not to fall into the error of using anti-Americanism as an excuse to ignore all criticisms made of their country. This temptation is to be found far more among conservative intellectuals than among liberals, who have traditionally paid great respect to the arguments of anti-American thinkers."

My opinion is that he's correct that Europeans bear the onus of analyzing their views more critically, and that real debate which focuses on specifics won't evolve until it can be done in a constructive fashion. The polar opposites of anti-Americanism, the conservative intellectuals in America, in my view, are in the minority. Debate is indeed possible between Europe and the majority of US citizens but more careful analysis by Europeans is pre-requisite to this eventuality

While I completely agree that dialogue is more necessary than ever, I also know that it will be difficult for Europeans, as we (generally and on the whole) no longer have the feeling of talking to somebody on the same level.

Europe, that is to say most European nations, used to feel like an equal partner of the USA, with the same respect and friendship on both sides. This feeling has been thouroughly disrupted by the Americans behaviour before and now during the 2nd Gulf war (or 3rd, if you want). As I stated before, to many European nations it felt like a slap in the face to first have their advise for reason and consideration disregarded and then being ridiculed in the American public. Although "freedom fries" where definitly worth a laugh, the whole campaign left many European nations feeling at least a slight resentment against the politics and polemics of the US.
While parts of the USA made every effort to alienate the French, they succeeded in making the Germans feel more than uneasy, being eerily reminded of their own past in behaviour like this. Ireland felt exploited as means of propaganda when Bush came to visit during his election campaign, clearly trying to stir up nostalgic feelings about "the old country" in the large population of Irish descent back home. I've been to demonstrations here in Dublin, and believe me, never since Reagan's time has there been so much anger at Amercian politics in a European capital.
(He never visited Dublin, he stayed in Shannon)

Personally, I think this situation has to change before we even can begin to re-approach each other. Some very good diplomats and some very careful and subtle talks and statements would be in order... and (just my own thought) I seriously doubt that we are going to see any of that as long as Bush is in power...

The relevance of the previous reply is, to my mind, twofold, since the criticisms and observations of american politics and policy are erudite, whilst the discussion of european regression of influence raises an entirely new premise.

The post-war USA was restrained in its intention solely by the presence of an opposing power whose influence politically, militarily and economically was equavalent to that of the USA. I refer, quite evidently to the U.S.S.R., a superpower whose opposition to american politics maintained a degree self determination globally. If we intend to bemoan american disregard for European sentiments, would it not be prudent to further the precedent of the E.U. and enact a full political union of the Europen powers into a federal state in which self-governance is retained but europen influence augmented. Before the myriad of Euro-sceptics berate such a concept, I would illustrate that the majority of the institutions of a federally unified Europe are in place; The European parliment and the European Union, whilst a seperation from the essentially unnecessary and unwieldy NATO is plausable and, to my mind, a necessity.

The relevance of the previous reply is, to my mind, twofold, since the criticisms and observations of american politics and policy are erudite, whilst the discussion of european regression of influence raises an entirely new premise.

The post-war USA was restrained in its intention solely by the presence of an opposing power whose influence politically, militarily and economically was equavalent to that of the USA. I refer, quite evidently to the U.S.S.R., a superpower whose opposition to american politics maintained a degree self determination globally. If we intend to bemoan american disregard for European sentiments, would it not be prudent to further the precedent of the E.U. and enact a full political union of the Europen powers into a federal state in which self-governance is retained but europen influence augmented. Before the myriad of Euro-sceptics berate such a concept, I would illustrate that the majority of the institutions of a federally unified Europe are in place; The European parliment and the European Union, whilst a seperation from the essentially unnecessary and unwieldy NATO is plausable and, to my mind, a necessity.

I'm far from being a Euro-sceptic, but I think this process shouldn't be pushed or forced. While the institutions are in place, the processes are not. And they will have to be agreed on.
I have some doubts regarding the idea that a strong unified Europe would be the basis for dialogue between Europe and the USA, as the objectives and ideals of both blocks would still differ considerably. The USA would most likely begin to see Europe as a rival, and might turn to outright hostility rather than reconsilliation.
But I would agree with reconsidering the necessity of the NATO alliance. While I wouldn't opt for dismantling it entirely, I would propose a change of the organisation to an agreed treaty and a skeleton military force, to be built up to full force out of the military of the member states when needed.

Europeans are taught differently in school from the ground up.

ALOT, not all, but ALOT of Europeans are just as arrogant, sometimes even MORE than Americans.

It's fundamental, and it's really always been like this (except for the wars, nonetheless,) except that now you hear about something on a different continent 3 minutes after it happens.

While I completely agree that dialogue is more necessary than ever, I also know that it will be difficult for Europeans, as we (generally and on the whole) no longer have the feeling of talking to somebody on the same level.

Europe, that is to say most European nations, used to feel like an equal partner of the USA, with the same respect and friendship on both sides. This feeling has been thouroughly disrupted by the Americans behaviour before and now during the 2nd Gulf war (or 3rd, if you want). As I stated before, to many European nations it felt like a slap in the face to first have their advise for reason and consideration disregarded and then being ridiculed in the American public. Although "freedom fries" where definitly worth a laugh, the whole campaign left many European nations feeling at least a slight resentment against the politics and polemics of the US.
While parts of the USA made every effort to alienate the French, they succeeded in making the Germans feel more than uneasy, being eerily reminded of their own past in behaviour like this. Ireland felt exploited as means of propaganda when Bush came to visit during his election campaign, clearly trying to stir up nostalgic feelings about "the old country" in the large population of Irish descent back home. I've been to demonstrations here in Dublin, and believe me, never since Reagan's time has there been so much anger at Amercian politics in a European capital.
(He never visited Dublin, he stayed in Shannon)

Personally, I think this situation has to change before we even can begin to re-approach each other. Some very good diplomats and some very careful and subtle talks and statements would be in order... and (just my own thought) I seriously doubt that we are going to see any of that as long as Bush is in power...Wow, you must be a very important person to be able to speak for all of Europe. While I don't agree with much of what you said, I do agree with your right to say it. I can't speak for all Americans, but I'll speak for myself. If Europeans don't "feel" like an equal partner to the USA, it's because they're not. We stand with the British during times of war, and they are gracious enough to stand by us. That's what an equal partner does. They "do" instead of "feel". We pull the French back from the hands of the German Nazi's and what do the French do? Nothing. They'd rather smoke and drink their fine wines and stick their heads in the sand and pretend they are better than the rest of the world. I'm an American and while I'm tired of being bashed in the world, I've decided to be proud of who I am, where I live and not care what you think.

Wow, you must be a very important person to be able to speak for all of Europe. While I don't agree with much of what you said, I do agree with your right to say it. I can't speak for all Americans, but I'll speak for myself. If Europeans don't "feel" like an equal partner to the USA, it's because they're not. We stand with the British during times of war, and they are gracious enough to stand by us. That's what an equal partner does. They "do" instead of "feel". We pull the French back from the hands of the German Nazi's and what do the French do? Nothing. They'd rather smoke and drink their fine wines and stick their heads in the sand and pretend they are better than the rest of the world. I'm an American and while I'm tired of being bashed in the world, I've decided to be proud of who I am, where I live and not care what you think.

Exactly.

Most Americans I know don't get upset over someone preaching hate about us, but we'd defend their right to say it.

Alot of Europeans are hypocritical too. They bash America and when they're responded to the American gets called racist. It's happened to me, believe it.

Wow, you must be a very important person to be able to speak for all of Europe. While I don't agree with much of what you said, I do agree with your right to say it. I can't speak for all Americans, but I'll speak for myself. If Europeans don't "feel" like an equal partner to the USA, it's because they're not. We stand with the British during times of war, and they are gracious enough to stand by us. That's what an equal partner does. They "do" instead of "feel". We pull the French back from the hands of the German Nazi's and what do the French do? Nothing. They'd rather smoke and drink their fine wines and stick their heads in the sand and pretend they are better than the rest of the world. I'm an American and while I'm tired of being bashed in the world, I've decided to be proud of who I am, where I live and not care what you think.

Thank you for that perfect example illustrating the statement I made.

I can't speak for all Americans, but I'll speak for myself. If Europeans don't "feel" like an equal partner to the USA, it's because they're not. We stand with the British during times of war, and they are gracious enough to stand by us. More like, foolish. You only entered WW2 out of self-interest not some noble drive to free Europe That's what an equal partner does. They "do" instead of "feel". We pull the French back from the hands of the German Nazi's and what do the French do? Nothing. You do know who helped you in the revolutionary war right? It sure wasn't the brits. They'd rather smoke and drink their fine wines and stick their heads in the sand and pretend they are better than the rest of the world. Or they'd rather actin their own self-interestrather than be dragged into the political shit. I'm an American and while I'm tired of being bashed in the world, I've decided to be proud of who I am, where I live and not care what you think. Just make sure pride doesn't cloud your eyes.

bold.

We pull the French back from the hands of the German Nazi's and what do the French do? Nothing. They'd rather smoke and drink their fine wines and stick their heads in the sand and pretend they are better than the rest of the world.
This here is classic. CLASSIC! We must remember he only speaks for himself though...

Unfortunately France-bashing is a national sport it seems...

Unfortunately France-bashing is a national sport it seems...

And mistaking France for the only nation in Europe, too

I don't "bash" france, and I don't consider making jokes about the US anti-Americanism. To the same extents.

Futhermore, does everyone here realize that FRANCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE US IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR?

It was a few civilians with ships who got paid, they just happened to be from France.

*shrugs*

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.

This statement betrays an arrogance that is perceived to be widespread amongst a significant number of Americans and thus contributes to a negative feeling towards them on some occasions.

It's the sort of statement that dismisses the rest of the world on so many levels; language, culture etc. Are you saying that the vast majority of people in places such as Mexico, Brazil and Argentina (any many more) are not exisiting within 'civilised circles'?

Personally, on the subject of the thread... I don't believe there is any more anti-Americanism than there is anti-Europeanism. Those that are 'anti-' either are often extemists. Most people articulate their arguments quite well and have legitimate reasons based on their personal principles/believes for finding certain regimes distasteful.

What I do see as more prominent, is that people from USA are slightly worse at dealing with such things when levelled against USA with debate; they are more likely (but no means uniquely) to assume that any statement of negativity towards anything from USA is a condemnation of their entire country and thus claim there is an "anti-American" movement on the forums. Europeans tend to resort to debate and arguing why they believe that European policy (or whatever policy) is a better way when is critised rather than to just saying "You're an intolerant anti-European'' etc. Some United States posters seem to believe that any critisism of their government's actions is illegitimate - this is slightly concerning for a land that likes to portray itself as the world's leading democracy.

Possibly one of the reasons of this American bashing thingy is because of the problem of the nations society there's to much crime, obeseity, teen pregnancies, homosexuals, and drugies. Also the country lacks culture. No one likes reading, play's or opera.( I don;t like opera but thats beside the point.) And Americans have some of the stupidest people. Hell, all the care about is going to parties and getting laid! I think the schools could do a lot better by educating them without there prescious "nappy time" and my God! middle schools there are full of sluts and posers thinking that there in "the hood". Some of them have a fith grade reading level! I can't bare what high school will be like. If I had my way I would found a jail called "New Alcatraz" whereevery criminal, teen parent, drug user homo will be safly put behind bars and be required to do force labor. Another prblem with America is racism! Americans hate Americans there are so many anti-semitists in that country that I just want to shoot every friggin one! Or put them in New Alcatraz. These are my thoughts on to improve the nations society and then it will be a more..... Civiliezed place. Thank you.

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

Why? :confused:

snippety
So, you see the difference as: Americans (yes, including USians and gringos) can't really take international critisism when it concernes their highest political institutions, while Europeans critique their own institutons (and others) without no shame and no end... ...?

Futhermore, does everyone here realize that FRANCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE US IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR?

It was a few civilians with ships who got paid, they just happened to be from France.

*shrugs*



"a few"? I always thought there were thousands, among them very good generals and french aristocrats.... :rolleyes: :confused:

This here is classic. CLASSIC! We must remember he only speaks for himself though... I do speak for myself. All Americans don't think the way I do.

"a few"? I always thought there were thousands, among them very good generals and french aristocrats.... :rolleyes: :confused:
You always thought wrong. get back in line!

I do speak for myself. All Americans don't think the way I do.
That is painfully obvious.
It's great you too have the right to think wrong, though.

Possibly one of the reasons of this American bashing thingy is because of the problem of the nations society there's to much crime, obeseity, teen pregnancies, homosexuals, and drugies. Also the country lacks culture. No one likes reading, play's or opera.( I don;t like opera but thats beside the point.) And Americans have some of the stupidest people. Hell, all the care about is going to parties and getting laid! I think the schools could do a lot better by educating them without there prescious "nappy time" and my God! middle schools there are full of sluts and posers thinking that there in "the hood". Some of them have a fith grade reading level! I can't bare what high school will be like. If I had my way I would found a jail called "New Alcatraz" whereevery criminal, teen parent, drug user homo will be safly put behind bars and be required to do force labor. Another prblem with America is racism! Americans hate Americans there are so many anti-semitists in that country that I just want to shoot every friggin one! Or put them in New Alcatraz. These are my thoughts on to improve the nations society and then it will be a more..... Civiliezed place. Thank you.
Learn how to spell, then I'll listen to you.

So, you see the difference as: Americans (yes, including USians and gringos) can't really take international critisism when it concernes their highest political institutions, while Europeans critique their own institutons (and others) without no shame and no end... ...?

"Stop them from becoming tyranical" Sounds familiar? ;)
Yes, criticising institutions and politicians is an important factor of political life in Europe. You could say we tend to take the "checks and balances" to the streets. And to the pubs.

I don't "bash" france, and I don't consider making jokes about the US anti-Americanism. To the same extents.

Futhermore, does everyone here realize that FRANCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE US IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR?

It was a few civilians with ships who got paid, they just happened to be from France.

*shrugs*

I think someone here needs a dose of history 101

That is painfully obvious.
It's great you too have the right to think wrong, though.

Nobody said it's wrong. This is about opinins, and no opinion can ever be wrong, it alway depends on the perception of the individual.

Nobody said it's wrong. This is about opinins, and no opinion can ever be wrong, it alway depends on the perception of the individual. Thank you. Do I see a seed of diplomacy breaking out of the ground?

Nobody said it's wrong. This is about opinins, and no opinion can ever be wrong, it alway depends on the perception of the individual.
You are wrong.. so utterly wrong...

Thank you. Do I see a seed of diplomacy breaking out of the ground?

That's what I've been trying for all the time in this thread. Thanks for recognising it ;)

That's what I've been trying for all the time in this thread. Thanks for recognising it ;)

Diplomacy? Never I say!

You are wrong.. so utterly wrong...

:D Well, that's your opinion ...

:D Well, that's your opinion ...
that's being anti-american!

Diplomacy? Never I say!

I happen to believe in peaceful diplomacy as the highest discipline of politics :)

But I'm not going to defend my views today, as I'll have to work tomorrow. I hope this thread won't have turned into a flamefest by the time I log on again. Keep it clean, kids, and good night.

that's being anti-american!

And you prove me right again. Thank you :D

I happen to believe in peaceful diplomacy as the highest discipline of politics :)

Same here really, I just can't keep serious the whole time.

You are wrong.. so utterly wrong...
I am afraid to report that you are being a hypocrit. that is your opinion. I believe the general consensus is that an opinion can not be "right" or "wrong". If it was then Bush is most definatly a moron, but worse, a dangerous moron with a trigger happy bunch of neo-morons who seem to think that it is their fate, nay, duty to make everywhere else in the world conform to them, at least thats what the majority of opinion around the world is. But noone said this was right or wrong, it is merly an opinion. Many Americans would rebuff this "absurd" opinion with some tosh like #We are maiking the world a safer, better place" that is also an opinion, and many would say that it is wrong.

However back to the original point. There is no such thing as a good or bad opinion.

You always thought wrong. get back in line!

:D :D :D :D :D :D thank you for telling me the truth :rolleyes: ;)

Personally I think that this thread started out with a good piont:
that there is so much constant negativity towards America (alot of which is ephisised by the Media) that most have forgotten all of the good things that we do and that by just saying that they are using their right of free speach that an American soldier had to defend in battle and some even die for so for me
God Bless America!

You are wrong.. so utterly wrong... What are you, a communist? YOU ARE WRONG....SO UTTERLY WRONG...

I There is no such thing as a good or bad opinion.
but your wrong opinion... you're wrong!

Personally I think that this thread started out with a good piont:
that there is so much constant negativity towards America (alot of which is ephisised by the Media) that most have forgotten all of the good things that we do and that by just saying that they are using their right of free speach that an American soldier had to defend in battle and some even die for so for me
God Bless America!

If I understood that correctly you were congratulating soldiers in defending you right to frredom of speech. And in a general context this could be argued to be true. But then, correct me if I'm wrong but is it not in the American constitution?

There isn't much to complain about Europe except that Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain have sadly legalized gay marriage.

but your wrong opinion... you're wrong!

Well thats your opinion. But I have two words for you: Prove it.

Well thats your opinion. But I have two words for you: Prove it. The burden of proof is in your court... cos we decided so! Prove you didn't molest Shanti, and we let you be!

If I understood that correctly you were congratulating soldiers in defending you right to frredom of speech. And in a general context this could be argued to be true. But then, correct me if I'm wrong but is it not in the American constitution?

yeah freedom of spreech is one of the freedoms we are granted in the constitution and when I mentioned the soldiers I also ment that every time our contry is threatend so are its right and ideals :)

While I completely agree that dialogue is more necessary than ever, I also know that it will be difficult for Europeans, as we (generally and on the whole) no longer have the feeling of talking to somebody on the same level.

Europe, that is to say most European nations, used to feel like an equal partner of the USA, with the same respect and friendship on both sides. This feeling has been thouroughly disrupted by the Americans behaviour before and now during the 2nd Gulf war (or 3rd, if you want). As I stated before, to many European nations it felt like a slap in the face to first have their advise for reason and consideration disregarded and then being ridiculed in the American public. Although "freedom fries" where definitly worth a laugh, the whole campaign left many European nations feeling at least a slight resentment against the politics and polemics of the US.
While parts of the USA made every effort to alienate the French, they succeeded in making the Germans feel more than uneasy, being eerily reminded of their own past in behaviour like this. Ireland felt exploited as means of propaganda when Bush came to visit during his election campaign, clearly trying to stir up nostalgic feelings about "the old country" in the large population of Irish descent back home. I've been to demonstrations here in Dublin, and believe me, never since Reagan's time has there been so much anger at Amercian politics in a European capital.
(He never visited Dublin, he stayed in Shannon)

Personally, I think this situation has to change before we even can begin to re-approach each other. Some very good diplomats and some very careful and subtle talks and statements would be in order... and (just my own thought) I seriously doubt that we are going to see any of that as long as Bush is in power...

Cabra, does the author of the work adequately describe your views, and possibly the view of many Europeans, in this paragraph? Strictly in terms of recent events, of course.

"America's rise to the status of the world's premier power, while inspiring much admiration, has also provoked widespread feelings of suspicion and hostility. In a recent and widely discussed book on America, Après L'Empire, credited by many with having influenced the position of the French government on the war in Iraq, Emmanuel Todd writes: "A single threat to global instability weighs on the world today: America, which from a protector has become a predator." A similar mistrust of American motives was clearly in evidence in the European media's coverage of the war. To have followed the war on television and in the newspapers in Europe was to have witnessed a different event than that seen by most Americans. During the few days before America's attack on Baghdad, European commentators displayed a barely concealed glee - almost what the Germans call schadenfreude - at the prospect of American forces being bogged down in a long and difficult engagement. Max Gallo, in the weekly magazine Le Point, drew the typical conclusion about American arrogance and ignorance: "The Americans, carried away by the hubris of their military power, seemed to have forgotten that not everything can be handled by the force of arms ... that peoples have a history, a religion, a country.""

What is everyone's reaction to the following, and how does this relate to you and your political perspective?

"According to the French analyst Jean François Revel, "If you remove anti-Americanism, nothing remains of French political thought today, either on the Left or on the Right." Revel might just as well have said the same thing about German political thought or the thought of almost any Western European country, where anti-Americanism reigns as the lingua franca of the intellectual class."

I'm thinking we need to re-define how we look at the problem of misunderstanding and suspicion between America and Europe. Analysis of human inter-personal relationships indicates to me that problems often spring from unfulfilled expectations - no matter whether people have unreasonable expectations, if they are heartfelt then conflict arises when they are not realized. Humans also use past behavior, precedent, and convention as a measue by which to judge current behavior. Does this thinking apply to nations as well?

Perhaps what we are observing is something similar. Could it be that we should recognize that the post-9/11 world needs to consider evaluating its rulesets? Clearly there are differences of opinion on the core issue of self-defense - does that right exist, when is it appropriate, and what standards should we expect other nations to have?

Perhaps we should begin by questioning whether our rulesets should be reviewed at all and whether they are adequate, whether rules going back hundreds of years should be revised. Do we move forward by recognizing that a nuclear world with the threat of fundamentalist terrorism new means of combatting threats must be found? Where does the UN fit in, should it (or portions of it) be revised - is it even effective?

I'm Essentially suggesting that increased dialogue has never been more important, and that some of our differences are based on burst expectations. Prevention of friction requires debate and agreement upon rules, and without that we will likely continue on the path we're on. The right to self-defense and the justification thereof is a core issue that covers much of the dispute.

quotes from: http://www.thepublicinterest.com/archives/2003summer/article1.html

Personally I think that this thread started out with a good piont:
that there is so much constant negativity towards America (alot of which is ephisised by the Media) that most have forgotten all of the good things that we do and that by just saying that they are using their right of free speach that an American soldier had to defend in battle and some even die for so for me
God Bless America!

First of all: no American soldier has ever died for me or my freedom of speech.
Second: God bless the whole world!

P.S.: Saying something negative about America is no Anti-Americanism. You'll find me criticising many aspects of American politics etc. and yet I like the USA. I have many American friends, people I love and respect. I am NOT anti-American.

The burden of proof is in your court... cos we decided so! Prove you didn't molest Shanti, and we let you be!

I'm celibate. As for the buden of proof, you were making a rather insulting remark about what I stated as my opion; namely that there is no such thing as a right or wrong opinion, ergo the proof is that you made the remark in a public forumn in writing.

There isn't much to complain about Europe except that Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain have sadly legalized gay marriage.

What about the lack of democracy within the EU? The lack of care for countries like Belarus? The corruption within the EU Parliament? :(

What about the lack of democracy within the EU? The lack of care for countries like Belarus? The corruption within the EU Parliament? :(

Oh right of course America is completly free of corruption isn't it?!
Let's take an example: Haliburton.

Need I say more?

Anyone ever look at how anti-French, anti-British, anti-Canadian, anti-Chinese, anti-(insert country here) most Americans are to the rest of the world as well? It's not a one-way street.

First of all: no American soldier has ever died for me or my freedom of speech.
Second: God bless the whole world!

P.S.: Saying something negative about America is no Anti-Americanism. You'll find me criticising many aspects of American politics etc. and yet I like the USA. I have many American friends, people I love and respect. I am NOT anti-American.

my comment was more directed at american citizens who take their country for granted but it may aplipy to you as well if you live in a country that is allied with the USA
if you do then most defiantly they did because thats what allied means just like Euorpian soldiers in wars dieing for "allied" freedoms

, "If you remove anti-Americanism, nothing remains of French political thought today, either on the Left or on the Right." Revel might just as well have said the same thing about German political thought or the thought of almost any Western European country, where anti-Americanism reigns as the lingua franca of the intellectual class."

That guy just summed up two hugely different political entities... do you need more assurance he is a hack than the fact he compares French and German politics on a single scale..? There really is nothing left in French political thought when "anti-americanism" is removed?!? You'd have to be retarded to take that face-value. There is always the anti-EU-ism

Anyone ever look at how anti-French, anti-British, anti-Canadian, anti-Chinese, anti-(insert country here) most Americans are to the rest of the world as well? It's not a one-way street.

What a refreshingly honest and to the point view. Thank you.

Oh right of course America is completly free of corruption isn't it?!
Let's take an example: Haliburton.

Need I say more?


well natuarlly no country is free of couruption but when making a statment like that then you always need to look at both sides and present more then one piont! ;)

Anyone ever look at how anti-French, anti-British, anti-Canadian, anti-Chinese, anti-(insert country here) most Americans are to the rest of the world as well? It's not a one-way street. Wow, way to paint us all with the same brush. If most Americans are so Anti-everyone, then why do we have such a diverse country? Ever seen any big cities here? My ancestors came from other countries. Why do so many die to get here if this is such a bad place?

That guy just summed up two hugely different political entities... do you need more assurance he is a hack than the fact he compares French and German politics on a single scale..? There really is nothing left in French political thought when "anti-americanism" is removed?!? You'd have to be retarded to take that face-value. There is always the anti-EU-ism

Anti-EU ism? Something that Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey discussed springs to mind:

"Britain joined the Common Market (as it then was) in order to screw the French by splitting them off from the Germans.
The French went in to protect their ineffecient farmers (today they get one hell of a giant subidy)
And the Germans went in "... well if you are familiar with the charcters I have mentioned you will know what they said of Germany.

The French love the EU, they get stacks of money out of it, and Germany gets to control the EU money via the banks.

What a refreshingly honest and to the point view. Thank you.

I have to agree there that in every country or really any thing there is a certian amount of loyalty and the thought that its anothers mistake so really in any country there an anti another country
it just works that way!

Wow, way to paint us all with the same brush. If most Americans are so Anti-everyone, then why do we have such a diverse country? Ever seen any big cities here? My ancestors came from other countries. Why do so many die to get here if this is such a bad place?

A lot of people die trying to get into urope too, or for that matter even cities in Africa. As with all people they are looking for a better life. Whether or not they find it is completly another matter.
What he was saying, if I understood him correctly, is that there is just as much anti- elsewhere opinion in America as their is anti_America (or rather negative American) opinion elsewhere in the world.

Oh right of course America is completly free of corruption isn't it?!
Let's take an example: Haliburton.

Need I say more?


Yes. I have no idea what Haliburton is. :confused:

my comment was more directed at american citizens who take their country for granted but it may aplipy to you as well if you live in a country that is allied with the USA
if you do then most defiantly they did because thats what allied means just like Euorpian soldiers in wars dieing for "allied" freedoms

I am from Austria. I could be wrong, but I don't think my country has ever been an ally of the USA... We're the bad guys you fought against to protect your freedom ;) :D

Yes. I have no idea what Haliburton is. :confused:

Haliburton is a big company that used to be under the heel of the Vice President (Dick Chaney). They seem to have secured themselves massive deals, far out of proportion, to do all sorts for the American gov't, including most, if not all, the oil contracts in Iraq.

I am from Austria. I could be wrong, but I don't think my country has ever been an ally of the USA... We're the bad guys you fought against to protect your freedom ;) :D We love you now though. No, really. Austria is such a beautiful country. Especially this time of year. ;)

Wow, way to paint us all with the same brush. If most Americans are so Anti-everyone, then why do we have such a diverse country? Ever seen any big cities here? My ancestors came from other countries. Why do so many die to get here if this is such a bad place?

The anti-Americans overseas are all being painted with the same brush, so what is the problem with my statement?

Watch how Bill O'Reilly (the most popular pundit on FNC) talks about the British people and press. Hear the random person comment on France's cowardice and laziness, backing up their viewpoint with their surrendering to German's over 60 years ago. See what the typical American's thoughts on anyone Middle Eastern or Muslim are. We're just as guilty of the blanketed stereotyping and hate as anyone else in the world... to a certain extent, it's human nature. To a different extent, when even your allies believe something about you, there may be some truth to it.

I realize we have a very diverse culture in this country -- we complain about them too. If they're Hispanic, they're automatically an "illegal", whether we truly know they are or not. Racism against blacks is around... hell, while France was surrendering, we were lynching them in the streets.

I am from Austria. I could be wrong, but I don't think my country has ever been an ally of the USA... We're the bad guys you fought against to protect your freedom ;) :D

Forgive me but I can't help noticing that Austria is closer to J'burg than to most of continental USA.

Haliburton is a big company that used to be under the heel of the Vice President (Dick Chaney). They seem to have secured themselves massive deals, far out of proportion, to do all sorts for the American gov't, including most, if not all, the oil contracts in Iraq.

Thank you.

The French loved the EU, they got stacks of money out of it, and Germany used to control the EU money via the banks.
Corrected to your liking.

I am from Austria. I could be wrong, but I don't think my country has ever been an ally of the USA... We're the bad guys you fought against to protect your freedom ;) :D

well the only time we "fought against" you was when you were invaded by the Natzi's and Austria has been our ally sense after the second World War and fought with us in the Cold War.

We love you now though. No, really. Austria is such a beautiful country. Especially this time of year. ;)

*kiss* :D thanks --- but you'd better come around in winter ;)

Corrected to your liking.

No I think the original was probably rather more accurate. The French do love the EU, they don't follow any regulations that don't suit them and they get stacks of money. The Germans control the Euro, ergo they get the financial perks.

well the only time we "fought against" you was when you were invaded by the Natzi's and Austria has been our ally sense after the second World War and fought with us in the Cold War.

Austria fought against the USA in WW I and WW II and since Austria declared its neutrality in 1945, we never supported anyone in Cold War or any other conflict. :rolleyes:

No I think the original was probably rather more accurate. The French do love the EU, they don't follow any regulations that don't suit them and they get stacks of money.


But they rejected the EU constitution and anti-EU-sentiments are stronger than ever before. Not only in France, but also in GB and Denmark.

No I think the original was probably rather more accurate. The French do love the EU, they don't follow any regulations that don't suit them and they get stacks of money. The Germans control the Euro, ergo they get the financial perks.
oh, sorry, i didn't catch that critisism in the post i was modifying. i agree strongly with you. that's the thing americans tend to miss... we fucking criticise our own institutions too... constantly!

Perhaps what we are observing is something similar. Could it be that we should recognize that the post-9/11 world needs to consider evaluating its rulesets? Clearly there are differences of opinion on the core issue of self-defense - does that right exist, when is it appropriate, and what standards should we expect other nations to have?
The right of self-defense obviously exists both on a personal and on a national level.
The problem is that the "enemy" has no face whatsoever. Even if Bin Laden or Zarkaui or whoever, gets killed there are ten others waiting to take the lead.

And what about the muslims who believe THEY are the ones on the defense... not now, after 9/11 but for at least 50+ years!

Who's really on the defense all these years and who is the aggressor?

"Evaluate the rulesets of the world"???
This is as dangerous as it can get!
WHO will do this "evaluation". Which rulesets should be adapted? How will they be adapted?
Are we talking about persuading Israel or Saudi Arabia to make concessions, or are we talking about creating a lawless place like Guantanamo in every region?
Are we talking about strict security in airports or about storage and processing of every individual phone call or email?
Last but not least, WHO will do the evaluation? The UN? The US? Ramsfeld?

I would opt for Benjamin Franklin:
"People who are willing to sacrifice essential freedoms for security deserve neither freedom nor security."

Austria fought against the USA in WW I and WW II and since Austria declared its neutrality in 1945, we never supported anyone in Cold War or any other conflict. :rolleyes:

I apoligize for a minor mistake but the USA never fought with Austria directly and in WWII it was because of the invasion and they are currently allied with the USA even if you might be "neutral" :)

But they rejected the EU constitution and anti-EU-sentiments are stronger than ever before. Not only in France, but also in GB and Denmark.

Most Brits have always been a little against it (I dont know why). France, well since I am a reader of Private Eye, I will not comment of its rejection and Chiracs stance on it. Denmark, well Im not qualified to comment on that since I have spent almost no real time there to get an idea of what their feelings towards the EU are.

I apoligize for a minor mistake but the USA never fought with Austria directly and in WWII it was because of the invasion and they are currently allied with the USA even if you might be "neutral" :)

Errm, I hate to quibble (who am I kidding, I love to!) but when the Americans joined in WW1 in 1917, the Austro-Hungarians were still in the war, ergo some were fighting Americans.

And correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the whole point of a neutral country was that it was... neutral. Or am misunderstanding the point here?

I apoligize for a minor mistake but the USA never fought with Austria directly and in WWII it was because of the invasion and they are currently allied with the USA even if you might be "neutral" :)

:confused: Are you sure?
It was emperor Franz Jospeh who started WW I and as far as I know, the USA was not on Austria's side. Could be that there was no battle of Austrian soldiers fighting directly against US soldiers in WW I.

And about WW II : the invasion thing is... difficult. Hitler - just like many Nazis in high positions - was Austrian and at least 1/3 supported him.

And the present situation: could be that we are allies (YAY! the more friends the better!) :fluffle:

I apoligize for a minor mistake but the USA never fought with Austria directly and in WWII it was because of the invasion and they are currently allied with the USA even if you might be "neutral" :)
:confused:
The US DID fight with Austria! The statement that Austria didn't exist as a sovereign nation and didn't take part in WWII is as absurd as saying that Nazi Germans fought the USSR but not Russia.
When the Allies won they split Austria to four parts and occupied it for a decade.
Austria is not a NATO member and is not "currently allied" with the US.

Even if I'm DEFINITELY not neutral ;)

And correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the whole point of a neutral country was that it was... neutral. Or am misunderstanding the point here?

Austria is an odd country. We're supposed to be neutral and yet we're member of the EU :D :p Don't try to understand that. I don't, either. I guess, we just don't like to give up this nice tradition ;)

The anti-Americans overseas are all being painted with the same brush, so what is the problem with my statement?

Watch how Bill O'Reilly (the most popular pundit on FNC) talks about the British people and press. Hear the random person comment on France's cowardice and laziness, backing up their viewpoint with their surrendering to German's over 60 years ago. See what the typical American's thoughts on anyone Middle Eastern or Muslim are. We're just as guilty of the blanketed stereotyping and hate as anyone else in the world... to a certain extent, it's human nature. I realize we have a very diverse culture in this country -- we complain about them too. If they're Hispanic, they're automatically an "illegal", whether we truly know they are or not. Racism against blacks is around... hell, while France was surrendering, we were lynching them in the streets. Just how "random" is the person that is found that the press gets their comments from? CNN, MSNBC and FNC all have their own "random" people. If you watch CNN or MSNBC, you'll get their opinion on just about anything and it will more than likely be different than FNC. All of these channels are biased. I must admit that I have to try very hard not to paint all Muslims with the same brush as I paint the 9/11, terroists and the 7/7, 7/21, terrorists with. Yes, I agree that we, as Americans can show our ignorance by stereotyping different races, cultures, religions. I don't think that I need to apologize for slavery in this country ( I didn't own or abuse or kill any slaves), but I do think that I need to speak out against it. Slavery of any type, anywhere, is an abomination. Just as good Muslims don't need to apologize for the afore mentioned acts of terror, I do think that they need to speak out against it. I didn't lynch anyone and I'm originally from Mississippi. None of my ancestors in this country ever owned anyone.

But they rejected the EU constitution and anti-EU-sentiments are stronger than ever before. Not only in France, but also in GB and Denmark.Most Brits have always been a little against it (I dont know why). France, well since I am a reader of Private Eye, I will not comment of its rejection and Chiracs stance on it. Denmark, well Im not qualified to comment on that since I have spent almost no real time there to get an idea of what their feelings towards the EU are.
I doubt the vote percentages were for or against EU as such. A certain percentage for sure was anti-this or that government. A great number of voting (i believe) had nothing to do with the matter in hand; the EU constitution (as shitty as it was). In France and the Neds it was more like a vote of confident to the gov't - whatever they were doing wrong at the time... we should always give a vote to the populace in these crucial matters, shouldn't we..?

The anti-Americans overseas are all being painted with the same brush, so what is the problem with my statement?

Watch how Bill O'Reilly (the most popular pundit on FNC) talks about the British people and press. Hear the random person comment on France's cowardice and laziness, backing up their viewpoint with their surrendering to German's over 60 years ago. See what the typical American's thoughts on anyone Middle Eastern or Muslim are. We're just as guilty of the blanketed stereotyping and hate as anyone else in the world... to a certain extent, it's human nature. To a different extent, when even your allies believe something about you, there may be some truth to it.

I realize we have a very diverse culture in this country -- we complain about them too. If they're Hispanic, they're automatically an "illegal", whether we truly know they are or not. Racism against blacks is around... hell, while France was surrendering, we were lynching them in the streets."To a different extent, when even your allies believe something about you, there may be some truth to it."

As for this comment, can the same be said for France? If your allies, the Americans, believe something about France, there may be some truth to it.

Just how "random" is the person that is found that the press gets their comments from? CNN, MSNBC and FNC all have their own "random" people. If you watch CNN or MSNBC, you'll get their opinion on just about anything and it will more than likely be different than FNC. All of these channels are biased.
Of course every news outlet is biased. The difference between bias on FOX vs CNN, is that there is a methodology to FOX's bias, and they consistently slant everything to one particular side. Not to mention that they are more heavily biased than any other news channel, yet they have the arrogance to claim to be "fair and balanced" and use the "we report you decide" and other highly ironic slogans.

Of course every news outlet is biased. The difference between bias on FOX vs CNN, is that there is a methodology to FOX's bias, and they consistently slant everything to one particular side. Not to mention that they are more heavily biased than any other news channel, yet they have the arrogance to claim to be "fair and balanced" and use the "we report you decide" and other highly ironic slogans. Fox is definately biased to the right, no doubt, but CNN and MSNBC are definately biased to the left.

Okay kiddies, I've got better things to do tonight. Adios.

I don't think that I need to apologize for slavery in this country ( I didn't own or abuse or kill any slaves), but I do think that I need to speak out against it.

Yeah, I agree... you don't need to apologize for slavery/prejudice, or to be blamed for it. That's exactly what we do to countries the world over, though. France surrendered 60 years ago? They're cowards who only didn't want to support the Iraq War because of their cowardice. That's the kind of generalization/foreign stereotype I'm talking about, and their not supporting the war (like many other countries throughout the world) was the major factor that led into the French-bashing that we have in our culture today. Hell, they were even more right about WMDs than we were.

But for the record, the French aren't my favorite people... it just erks me to hear that one example in particular. Unless you have some sort of mental deficiency and haven't been able to create new memories since the 50s, you have no excuse to try and pass that off.

"To a different extent, when even your allies believe something about you, there may be some truth to it."

As for this comment, can the same be said for France? If your allies, the Americans, believe something about France, there may be some truth to it.
This is more along my line of thinking:

Robert McNamara:
''We are the strongest nation in the world today, and I do not believe we should ever apply that economic, political or military power unilaterally. If we'd followed that rule in Vietnam, we wouldn't have been there. None of our allies supported us. If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better re-examine our reasoning.''

Originally Posted by Corneliu
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.
This statement betrays an arrogance that is perceived to be widespread amongst a significant number of Americans and thus contributes to a negative feeling towards them on some occasions.

It's the sort of statement that dismisses the rest of the world on so many levels; language, culture etc. Are you saying that the vast majority of people in places such as Mexico, Brazil and Argentina (any many more) are not exisiting within 'civilised circles'?

Personally, on the subject of the thread... I don't believe there is any more anti-Americanism than there is anti-Europeanism. Those that are 'anti-' either are often extemists. Most people articulate their arguments quite well and have legitimate reasons based on their personal principles/believes for finding certain regimes distasteful.

What I do see as more prominent, is that people from USA are slightly worse at dealing with such things when levelled against USA with debate; they are more likely (but no means uniquely) to assume that any statement of negativity towards anything from USA is a condemnation of their entire country and thus claim there is an "anti-American" movement on the forums. Europeans tend to resort to debate and arguing why they believe that European policy (or whatever policy) is a better way when is critised rather than to just saying "You're an intolerant anti-European'' etc. Some United States posters seem to believe that any critisism of their government's actions is illegitimate - this is slightly concerning for a land that likes to portray itself as the world's leading democracy.

This says it all.

Fox is definately biased to the right, no doubt, but CNN and MSNBC are definately biased to the left.
You missed the entire point of my argument.

Yeah, I agree... you don't need to apologize for slavery/prejudice, or to be blamed for it. That's exactly what we do to countries the world over, though. France surrendered 60 years ago? They're cowards who only didn't want to support the Iraq War because of their cowardice. That's the kind of generalization/foreign stereotype I'm talking about, and their not supporting the war (like many other countries throughout the world) was the major factor that led into the French-bashing that we have in our culture today. Hell, they were even more right about WMDs than we were.

But for the record, the French aren't my favorite people... it just erks me to hear that one example in particular. Unless you have some sort of mental deficiency and haven't been able to create new memories since the 50s, you have no excuse to try and pass that off. Ha ha. Touche.

Fox is definately biased to the right, no doubt, but CNN and MSNBC are definately biased to the left.

Okay kiddies, I've got better things to do tonight. Adios.
We are so OOH! and AAH! that you could spend even that much time with us. Thannk you eversomuch!!!!

We are so OOH! and AAH! that you could spend even that much time with us. Thannk you eversomuch!!!! Get a life boy.

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.
Actually, there is no Central American continent. Central America is actually part of the North American Continent.

Uuyhh! "get a life"
In a forum of this sort, no less. That really stings. And it's a ma'am to you.

Get a life boy.
Didn't you say you had better things to do? :p

Actually, there is no Central American continent. Central America is actually part of the North American Continent.

I know that CanuckHeaven! I did study geography all throughout school and it was needed in my original field of study.

I know that CanuckHeaven! I did study geography all throughout school and it was needed in my original field of study.
lol

Corneliu - Central America is a continent
CH - No it's not
Corneliu - I KNOW THAT!!!

thank you, I needed a laugh right about now! :D

Didn't you say you had better things to do? :p
only if you're a kiddie

only if you're a kiddie
ah

Uuyhh! "get a life"
In a forum of this sort, no less. That really stings. And it's a ma'am to you. Sorry to offend, ma'am. And that's a ma'am right back at ya. I just said, "get a life" for the sting you tried to throw at me. I really do have to go. Back later.

lol

Corneliu - Central America is a continent
CH - No it's not
Corneliu - I KNOW THAT!!!

thank you, I needed a laugh right about now! :D
Leave him alone, man! he is the NS official meteorologist. He was interested about that aswell as pol sci... makes him a pro.

Sorry to offend, ma'am. And that's a ma'am right back at ya. I just said, "get a life" for the sting you tried to throw at me. I really do have to go. Back later.
Seems nobody was fatally wounded then (i just bleed for no reason). Carry on...

lol

Corneliu - Central America is a continent
CH - No it's not
Corneliu - I KNOW THAT!!!

thank you, I needed a laugh right about now! :D

I never called Central America a Continent. It is the geographic designation since it is in the middle. It is part of North America and I never said anything different.

Leave him alone, man! he is the NS official meteorologist. He was interested about that aswell as pol sci... makes him a pro.

Started out as a Meteorology Major then Switched to Poli Sci AND history.

I never called Central America a Continent. It is the geographic designation since it is in the middle. It is part of North America and I never said anything different.

That's it Cornel U, keep on truckin'

That's it Cornel U, keep on truckin'
awright! he sometimes mixes words when typing fast! happens to us all...
highly intelligent people sometimes type faster than they think... or slower.. well... anyways

The right of self-defense obviously exists both on a personal and on a national level.
The problem is that the "enemy" has no face whatsoever. Even if Bin Laden or Zarkaui or whoever, gets killed there are ten others waiting to take the lead.

And what about the muslims who believe THEY are the ones on the defense... not now, after 9/11 but for at least 50+ years!

Who's really on the defense all these years and who is the aggressor?

"Evaluate the rulesets of the world"???
This is as dangerous as it can get!
WHO will do this "evaluation". Which rulesets should be adapted? How will they be adapted?
Are we talking about persuading Israel or Saudi Arabia to make concessions, or are we talking about creating a lawless place like Guantanamo in every region?
Are we talking about strict security in airports or about storage and processing of every individual phone call or email?
Last but not least, WHO will do the evaluation? The UN? The US? Ramsfeld?

I would opt for Benjamin Franklin:
"People who are willing to sacrifice essential freedoms for security deserve neither freedom nor security."

Well, you raise good points. If you read the earlier conversation, you'll recall that we were talking about anti-Americanism and how Europeans feel they no longer trust the US. In context of that exchange I suggest that one area of dispute is whether the US was justified in invading Iraq which we claim was done as pre-emptive self defense among other reasons. Hence my parallell between human relationships and international ones.

Regarding your questions - precisely, those things which need to be discussed. Since in my view the UN is not functioning, and they would normally be the organization to sponsor this debate, I'm not sure of any way to do it other than diplomacy. BTW, rulesets, the way I mean them, is not necessarily (but will likely will include) international law. In the philosophical sense, they are agreed upon behaviors.

Unfortunately, the topic is anti-Americanism so I won't answer you specifically rather than get the thread off-topic. Take a look at the link I posted earlier, see what you think about the problems anti-Americanism are causing and how it affects the ability to solve the problems you have suggested.

awright! he sometimes mixes words when typing fast! happens to us all...
highly intelligent people sometimes type faster than they think... or slower.. well... anyways

My words were meant to encourage and support.

...so cynical.

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



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.

I'm not sure which fantasy is more popular in Republican circles. That or Lord of the Rings. Have you anything to back it up other than Neo-Con propaganda? I'm not going to argue parrallel universe economics anymore than I'm going to argue conclusive evidence of God's existence or non-existence. The notion that exactly what happened after he took action and what was exactly what happened the last time that action was taken were somewhat prevented is counter intuitive. When Reagan cut taxes and upped spending we had deficits and a recession. When Bush did it we had a recession. When Clinton raised taxes, very slightly on the richest part of the population we began to pay down the deficit and the economy expanded, right up until Bush took over. If you're going to convince me that fictitious economies have any baring on this argument, you're going to have to offer me more than propaganda and ideology.

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

No, but it does fall under your faulty logic.

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.

What? you mean all those democrats in Walmart? I'm talking about under Bush's watch. Under Bush Walmart has reported diminished sales. I guess that means that business taxes and price levels don't actually have the causal relationship that you assert.It also means, again, that your logic is faulty.

OTH. Under Clinton, the top wage earners got a heavier share of the tax burden, and the poorer people had more money in their pocket. They had more money to spend, and the economy got stimulated. No that's an interesting concept because it isn't completly fictitious. The one you presented makes a nice fairy tale or perhaps a horror story to tell at the bible camp campfires, but it's a big yawnfest to those of us in the reality based community.

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?

I know he did lie, because he hand picked the intelligence that he liked. A large part of the contraversy around John Bolton was that he harrassed CIA officials who were coming back with intelligence that indicated that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

I know he lied in saying that Saddam wouldn't let the weapons inspectors in. Bush pulled them out because he was afraid that they were going to find evidence that Saddam had no WMD's, which was what they were all saying.

If he was really interested in going after human rights abuses he'd have started in the places where the biggest human rights abuses were going on. In Africa. If he gave a rat's ass about human rights abuses he'd put economic sanctions on the American corporations that do business with oppressive dictators.


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.

I notice you can't actually refute my point. You can only claim, with no evidence to support you, that your opinion must have weight because you're the one who has it. Sorry, that's not going to wash. Everything you've said up till now indicates that you don't actually know how to process what information you do have, so claiming that I ought to trust what you do with it isn't very reassuring.

Yes but Dick Cheney wasn't President now was he?
He's part of the administration. The fact that he's not THE president doesn't matter much. He's there because Bush wants him there. Anything he does as VP is Bush's fault. Anything he says that Bush doesn't correct is Bush's lie. You know... Like when Bush simply implied that Saddam was behind 9/11 and 70% of the US believed it and 90% of FOX viewers. The Cheney went out and said it explicitly, so Bush had to go out and correct him.


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.

When things are stretched thin, they're weaker.

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

Let's suppose for a minute that re-enlistment is up, there are a lot of contradictory messages about that, but I'll give you that anyway.

Well then, that would bring down the recruitment goals, because they'd have the people from that end anyway.

Recruitment goals are still not being met. Just because the military is loosing less people than it thought it was going to doesn't mean that it is of no consequence that people don't want to join.

It's like you're telling people they should be happy about their termite infestation because the chimney is made out of bricks.

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.

Wow. Just wow. I thought you were just ignorant because so little of your information is credible. It turns out you may be a bona fide idiot. You go looking for good news and that's your idea of maintaining balanced input? That's your idea of being well informed?

Did you watch the OJ trial and think "well, he might not be guilty, he's pretending that a glove doen't fit." Perhaps you believe Pat Robertson when he says "some studies are indicating that adult stem cells may have better medical potential than embryonic stemm cells."

It's pretty obvious that what you're going after is not good news, but reassuring news. News that tells you that what you've already made up your mind to believe might be right despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary. Now that's perfectly normal, and lots of people do it unconciously, but I've never seen anyone come so close to spelling it out in writing that that's what they're doing as you have and still not have the little light bulb go off over their heads.

Good news vs. bad news is not the issue. The issue is credibility and analysis. You've demonstrated yourself to be incapable of actually analyzing data, so I'm not going to encourage you to try without help. Perhaps you should take some classes in logic and statistics or something, they might actually help you understand the world you live in, right now you're just trying to mash a world full of round, hexagonal, and triangular pegs right through the one round hole you've grown comfortable with.

Well, you all raise good points about anti-americanism (sic)... as I have nothing to add (and no-one can), i just talk about the Audubon Society. They love birds, you know.. *nudge*

*Snip*

Domici, I suggest you learn facts before you go spouting off your mouth ok?

I'm only responding here to address your grasp of sources of information Corneliu. Inability to process information is a serious problem that is plaguing the Republican party these days by causing pople to vote for it and enable them to make their inadequacy evident, so to help the Republican party I'm going to try to show you, as one of its supporters, some of the ways in which you are failing to analyze information.

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.

He was, after a fashion, on your side of this debate. He was saying that the tax cut was part of what the recession shorter than it otherwise whould have been. A fantasy with which you agree, but missed nonetheless.

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.

No, actually the recession didn't start under Clinton. Bush tried to blame it on Clinton, but noone believed him, so the phrase "Clinton recession" fell out of favor because it was making Bush look like the spoiled pouty cry-baby that he is. The recession started after Bush took office.

The branch of economics that deals with recessions in parrallel universes doesn't actually exist, and so can't be studies. The closest we have in real life is the economic theories of Arthur Laffer. Superficially this is what Reagan and Presidents Bush based their economic politics on.

According to Laffer there is an optimal rate of taxation.

Where if you raise the taxes higher you discourage production, and the lowered production ends up costing the government more in the diminished tax base than it gains in the increased tax rate.

But if you lower the taxes below the optimal rate of taxation the potential increase in production won't make up for the diminished tax rate.

Since Reagan came along the politics have always said "lower taxes and increase production for a stronger economy." When Bush Sr. was running against Reagan he correctly called it Voodoo economics. However it proved to be so politically effective that it has only seen a small break under Clinton who's personal charisma made disastrous economic policy unnecessary. And a very brief break under Bush Sr. who, by conservative standards, cowardly caved in to reality and raised taxes, but didn't have the charisma or basic intelligence to explain why it was necessary, or why he lied about it in the first place.

Just like I hate uninformed people.
Well, self-hating conservatives are nothing new, but you should be aware that information without the analytical tools to process it are about as useful as sattelite signals without a sattelite dish or TV.

Domici, I suggest you get new facts because the ones you're using are woefully inaccurate.

Well, you raise good points. If you read the earlier conversation, you'll recall that we were talking about anti-Americanism and how Europeans feel they no longer trust the US. In context of that exchange I suggest that one area of dispute is whether the US was justified in invading Iraq which we claim was done as pre-emptive self defense among other reasons. Hence my parallell between human relationships and international ones.
I did read the entire thread. Unfortunately except from a handful of posts the quality leaves a lot to be desired :(
I'm really tempted to go into the Iraq debate but I'm afraid we'll be off topic.

Because, for me the recent invasion of Iraq is just the tip of the iceberg. In this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9405219&postcount=235) I made a quick list of 20 acts of war on the part of the US in the 20th century.
I find this new "pre emptive self defense" dogma extremely unnerving. Afghanistan was "preemptive self defense" because they were (probably) harbouring terrorists. They didn't deny it and there was some evidence to support this case.
At this point I have to create a metaphor. I think it will work better for many of the participants.
So... the stronger person in the neighbourhood went into the Afghan house, beat the little Talliban and threw him out of his house. Of course he didn't catch the terrorist... but he had been finding refuge here. Hadn't he?
A couple of years later the same strongest person remembered that there was some unfinished business at Saddam's house. So he started an elaborate story about how Saddam was getting ready to drop stink-bombs into everyone else's house and kill every man, woman and parrot in the neighbourhood. When he saw that noone really believed him (besides Tony), he added the terrorist link to Saddam. This time not even Tony believed him!
So what's next? Ah yes, the fact that Saddam was beating his children.
But still, noone is willing to invade yet another house of the neighbourhood.
So... our friend says "F&ck y'all, I ain't gonna wait", goes in ALONE and kicks Saddam out. Unfortunately one of Saddam's children dies of collateral damage and another one vows to revenge his brother's death and the ousting of his father... The whereabouts of Saddam himself are unknown to the neighbourhood or the police.

That about sums up my views of the past 3-4 years.

It's really remarkable how people in the US may believe that while even Europeans (sitting comfortably in front of 2000€ laptops with quick Internet connections) are strongly criticising these policies, their nation and the whole world is better off.
I don't frequently quote surveys but this one conducted in 2004 really caught my attention. It was done throughout Europe and one of the questions was "which nation do you think poses the biggest danger for your security". Number one was "The US".
Again... the Europeans.

Now put it in perspective.
If the average, well educated, well fed European who watches Hollywood movies, listens to Madonna, eats MacDonalds and has the luxury to participate in international forums is criticising the US and believes that the US is the biggest threat...
What will a N.Korean, or Syrian, or Iranian think?
An Indonesian, a Yugoslav, Somalian, Angolan?
A Palestinian, Malaysian, Jordanian, Chinese?
What about the hundreds of thousands relatives of US/Israeli "collaterally damaged" people in the Middle East?

PS. The US/Isreali is one "evil" in their minds, as (for them) Israel wouldn't be around or it would be a comletely different nation if it wasn't for the US. I do not agree with this theory I'm just using it to strengthen my point.
PPS. I apologise for the big post but I believe these subjects should be discussed in more than a paragraph consisting of insults and smilies.

Americans are an inferior race.

americans are not a race!

americans are irish,jew,arab,french,german,american indian(true american race if there is one..you hate them too)polish, russian...you name it.

what a weak minded statement,am truly sorry for you.you hate a country made up of every citizen of the world practically and you dont even realize it.

where are you from that is so superiour?

i think you may hate american gov. policy,fine,your entitled to your opinion,but then again you may just be rather naive and follow the herd of propaganda that is spoon fed to you by the left?

america has done alot for the world...marshall plan,and alot of bad..like france ,germany,russia,england and all those nice dictators like pol pot..etal.

but the worlds problem is americas fault...grow up...france wasnt making money off the oil for food program?,thats why they didnt want to get involved...they wanted the status quo.

the world is hypocritical if they "point there crooked finger at the us alone"

it is simplistic to say most are jealous of america,but it may hold some truth.

rant off :fluffle:

Seems to me there isn't such a thing as anti-Americanism. It's painfully obvious you need a a thing to hate though. You just can't function without a threat Here comes one then: Homosexual French troll made of maple syrup and hemp. Will sell as hotcakes in europe and asia (did i patent it yet..?). It pontificates when you press its tummy...

So, you see the difference as: Americans (yes, including USians and gringos) can't really take international critisism when it concernes their highest political institutions, while Europeans critique their own institutons (and others) without no shame and no end... ...?
No, that's a slightly unfair summary of my personal viewpoint. I think it is more likely that an American will take any critism of USA as an attack against everything American (and thus as anti-Americanism) than a European nation's citizen would do for critisism of his/her nation. However, there are of course large exceptions on both sides.

Seems to me there isn't such a thing as anti-Americanism. It's painfully obvious you need a a thing to hate though.
Hes right about one thing, the world needs someone to hate. Unfortunately for us, we live in the biggest, most powerful, and therefore most obvious choice around. They tend to forget though that were not the problem. Hell, weve saved the world (yes that includes Europe) three times in the last century. Britain's cool though, they can hold their own in a fight. BTW, my condolences to those touched by the recent terror strikes in England, these truely are terrible times we live in when people murder so blindly...Hang in there guys. Anyway, as for the rest of Europe, some may say its envy, some may say its fear, whatever you believe relax. Unless youre a terrorist, were not out to get you. The US isnt the monster its made out to be. As for those living in the US, love it or leave it. You are amoung the luckiest in the world just being born here and i think if you left youde see just how much you take for granted. I guess some people just arent happy without being miserable about something.

By the way, if you dislike France, their laissez-faire foreign policy, or support the war in Iraq, you may enjoy this vid I found.

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/frenchtroops.html

Its mean but funny as hell.

Domici, I suggest you get new facts because the ones you're using are woefully inaccurate.

Well perhaps Neitzsche can speak up if I'm the one misinterpreting him.
As for the other facts, why don't you tell me where they're in error.

Do I have Arthur Laffer pegged wrong? Perhaps you could explain him to me.

The actual facts weren't really my main gripe with your posts however, as much as your horribly flawed reasoning. e.g. What you think would have happened if Bush had not given another tax cut is not a fact. It is, in the strictest sense of the word, a fantasy. You said that he was particularly strong on defense, I presented you with evidence to the contrary. If you need new evidence how about his efforts to take away active duty pay? As far as he's concerned the military is a means to an end, and not even a particularly special means. He's willing to spend a hundred times what he spends on the military to hire "civilian contractors," and yet he threatened to veto any Iraq-war legislation that included improvements to Tricare for the family of the troops.

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 )

I don't think it is envy. The Europeans are also firstworlders and are ahead socially.
I think people just don`t like the US because they don`t stop messing on other people’s affairs even when they are asked no to.
On many countries US is considered the biggest treat to the world’s security.

People dont like us because we mess around in other peoples business?

I didnt hear anyone complaining during WWI or WWII. The big difference this time is that it was us who were attacked, not Europe. Europeans, not being from here, cannot possibly understand our motivation, so they simply regect it. We were attacked on 9/11, but by an enemy the world has never seen before. No one has had to fight the war on terror before and it seems that the US and Britain will have to pave the way. Whenever you face a new enemy there are bound to be slip-ups and setbacks, we are all human, but it is vital that we do not lose this battle. the rest of the world seems blissfully ignorant of what is truely going on right now. Americans are fighting for their very way of life, not you guys this time.

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.

*bolding is mine

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9405352&postcount=236

Actually, there is no Central American continent. Central America is actually part of the North American Continent.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9409763&postcount=394

I know that CanuckHeaven! I did study geography all throughout school and it was needed in my original field of study.
Well if you have studied history as well as you have studied geography, then I can understand why history confuses you. Here is why:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9409798&postcount=398

lol

Corneliu - Central America is a continent
CH - No it's not
Corneliu - I KNOW THAT!!!

thank you, I needed a laugh right about now! :D

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9409851&postcount=404

I never called Central America a Continent. It is the geographic designation since it is in the middle. It is part of North America and I never said anything different.

* bolding is mine

Sure does look like you called Central America a "continent", and you didn't exactly tell the truth to Achtung 45?

To add to the confusion:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9409855&postcount=405

Started out as a Meteorology Major then Switched to Poli Sci AND history.

Surely you don't need all that learnin' to be a Bush/Republican apologist? Although I can see where the Meteorolgy course can come in handy:

When you get confused about what you said or didn't say, and you don't know weather you are coming or going when the political climate here is heating up, you end up clouding the issues and give us a snow job?

People dont like us because we mess around in other peoples business?

I didnt hear anyone complaining during WWI or WWII. The big difference this time is that it was us who were attacked, not Europe. Europeans, not being from here, cannot possibly understand our motivation, so they simply regect it. We were attacked on 9/11, but by an enemy the world has never seen before. No one has had to fight the war on terror before and it seems that the US and Britain will have to pave the way. Whenever you face a new enemy there are bound to be slip-ups and setbacks, we are all human, but it is vital that we do not lose this battle. the rest of the world seems blissfully ignorant of what is truely going on right now. Americans are fighting for their very way of life, not you guys this time.

Yup. No country in the history of the world has ever had to face terrorists before 9-11-01. Nope. That was the first time ever.

WTC bombing under Clinton? I guess it was a demolition accident.
Years of the NRA in Ireland and England? Overly exubirant fireworks celebrations?

Surely you don't need all that learnin' to be a Bush/Republican apologist? Although I can see where the Meteorolgy course can come in handy:

When you get confused about what you said or didn't say, and you don't know weather you are coming or going when the political climate here is heating up, you end up clouding the issues and give us a snow job?

No. The reason you need to study meteorology to support the Bush administration is because it teaches you how to be wrong all the time and still sound like you have some idea of what you are talking about.

"America's rise to the status of the world's premier power, while inspiring much admiration, has also provoked widespread feelings of suspicion and hostility. In a recent and widely discussed book on America, Après L'Empire, credited by many with having influenced the position of the French government on the war in Iraq, Emmanuel Todd writes: "A single threat to global instability weighs on the world today: America, which from a protector has become a predator." A similar mistrust of American motives was clearly in evidence in the European media's coverage of the war. To have followed the war on television and in the newspapers in Europe was to have witnessed a different event than that seen by most Americans. During the few days before America's attack on Baghdad, European commentators displayed a barely concealed glee - almost what the Germans call schadenfreude - at the prospect of American forces being bogged down in a long and difficult engagement. Max Gallo, in the weekly magazine Le Point, drew the typical conclusion about American arrogance and ignorance: "The Americans, carried away by the hubris of their military power, seemed to have forgotten that not everything can be handled by the force of arms ... that peoples have a history, a religion, a country.""

In a way, yes, that would describe some of the senitment in Europe at the moment.

I think there are a number of reasons and roots for that:
During the Cold War, Europe perceived the world in balance, albeit a dangerous one. The two large enemies, USA and USSR, both with their block of allies. Americas attention was focused on the USSR, all its international poilitics aimed at maintaining the balance or else toppling it in its own favour. Allies were sought after, treated well, respected (as long as they remained allies).
While both great powers represented extremes, European nations were happy to take ideas from both sides, thus forming most of their social democracies. All this time, though, all of Europe was well aware of the fact that, if the Cold War should escalate into an armed conflict, the whole continent would be little more than a battle field for the two enemies and would most likely be completely and utterly destroyed.

This, in addition to the horrible and inhumane experiences from two world wars, led to a very strong anti-war sentiment in European mentality. War, in contrast to the way the USA regards it, is no means to solve any conflict. War is something that is only to be employed if virtaully all other possible means have failed, and even then it is better to first consider the impossible ones.
The difference here is the Europe lived and through 2 active wars and one passive one in the last century, whereas the USA only fought in those wars. It never saw the effects of war at home (which is one of the reason that the attack of 9/11 was such a shock to the American public).
The USA obviously finds it hard to understand and keeps mistaking this caution for cowardice. I consider this rather unjustified, seeing that the whole of Europe backed the US campaign in Afghanistan and continues to do so (at the moment, German and French troops are active stabilising the situation in Afghanistan, so that US troops can be sent of to the Gulf region).
As a result, Europeans don't take kindly to being called "cowards" and "surrender-monkeys".


And it's exactly this behaviour - needlessly attacking another country, aggression against those countries who object such an action, unwillingness to take into account other opinions or different advice, attempts to re-polarise the world (this time not Communism - Capitalism, but Islam - Freedom), alienating former friends and allies and displaying rather undemocratic behaviour down to outright disregard for international law that leads to the perception of America as a threat to world peace.

There is no balance any more, with the USSR out of the picture (no discussions as to why, please), which leaves the USA as the only super power on this planet. That. in effect, means that the USA can do whatever it wants, there is no more need for allies, there is no more focus on the enemy, there is no more need for caution or diplomatic or even polite behaviour. The US government can bash whosoever it chooses, and has done so exceedingly in the last few years.
There is not one single former ally that hasn't been severly insulted in the last 5 years, and I think it is asked a bit much to demand the same loyalty and friendship now, without so much as an apology.

How would you feel if you yourself were a small, peaceful nation and suddenly you find a big, strong, aggressive, threatening bully right next to you? Many feel that with the fall of Sovjet Russia, the only power who could control the US and hold it in check is gone, and I think there is some truth in that.
What can the international community do? The USA showed crass disregard of the UNO, disregard for international courts and orgnaisations, and there is no other block of power to stop it from doing whatever it sets itself out to do. We are not targeted at the moment, but who can say when this will change? And then what?


"According to the French analyst Jean François Revel, "If you remove anti-Americanism, nothing remains of French political thought today, either on the Left or on the Right." Revel might just as well have said the same thing about German political thought or the thought of almost any Western European country, where anti-Americanism reigns as the lingua franca of the intellectual class."

Honestly, don't you think this perception is very shallow indeed? France isn't half as fixated on the USA as the USA appears to be on France.
And if a country really has no more other issues than insulting another country, what a happy, content, free and paeceful country that would have to be ;)

Yup. No country in the history of the world has ever had to face terrorists before 9-11-01. Nope. That was the first time ever.

WTC bombing under Clinton? I guess it was a demolition accident.
Years of the NRA in Ireland and England? Overly exubirant fireworks celebrations?

WTC bombings happened in America, Clinton merely did noting about it

Ireland I would consider more of a civil war than terrorism. What i mean is that this is the first time the war on terror has been taken on in such a large scale. You have to admit that we are in uncharted waters, no one really has done this before.

Besides, my aim was to point out the hypocrasy in European culture in that we are expected to come storming to their aid, but god forbid we go to our own.

Yup. No country in the history of the world has ever had to face terrorists before 9-11-01. Nope. That was the first time ever.

WTC bombing under Clinton? I guess it was a demolition accident.
Years of the NRA in Ireland and England? Overly exubirant fireworks celebrations?

The NRA??? Here??? :p
That sure is news to me

WTC bombings happened in America, Clinton merely did noting about it

Ireland I would consider more of a civil war than terrorism. What i mean is that this is the first time the war on terror has been taken on in such a large scale. You have to admit that we are in uncharted waters, no one really has done this before.

Besides, my aim was to point out the hypocrasy in European culture in that we are expected to come storming to their aid, but god forbid we go to our own.

Europe has been fighting national and international terrorism since the 1960s.
The IRA didn't just operate in Ireland, it actively attacked England.
The RAF in Germany attacked nationals and foreigners alike.
The HAMAS attacked Israelis in Germany.
The PKK attacked both in Turkey and in Germany.
France fought Islamic terror at home and in its former colonies.
Italy faced some attacks from Muslim extremists.
Albanian terror organisations attacked civilians all over Europe.

The USA didn't get involved in any of those inicdenst (and I'm grateful they didn't), except of course financing the terrorists on numerous occasions.

People dont like us because we mess around in other peoples business?

I didnt hear anyone complaining during WWI or WWII. The big difference this time is that it was us who were attacked, not Europe. Europeans, not being from here, cannot possibly understand our motivation, so they simply regect it. We were attacked on 9/11, but by an enemy the world has never seen before. No one has had to fight the war on terror before and it seems that the US and Britain will have to pave the way. Whenever you face a new enemy there are bound to be slip-ups and setbacks, we are all human, but it is vital that we do not lose this battle. the rest of the world seems blissfully ignorant of what is truely going on right now. Americans are fighting for their very way of life, not you guys this time.

I think Europeans understand terrorism equally as well or better than Americans- 30 plus years which has seen the IRA and ETA, the bader meinhoff gang- the red brigade ETC. Oh and don't forget the fascism in Spain and the ww's. They understand pain and shock and horror and death. No way of life is being threatend unless you think that burqas are going to be de riguer in South Beach or Fresno or Boise. It just isn't going to happen- to think otherwise is to give in to fearmongering. The rest of the world isn't blissfully ignorant - perhaps it's just that Americans are realizing what the rest of the world has known all along. That life is nasty brutish and short. Welcome to the club :(

The average American is ignorant of how much power their nation wields in the world and how much America affects other lives- but to those affected whether positively or negatively they know.

The other thing is that it makes no difference if you are my friend or not if there is the perception of having a big stick over my head - then it is still a big stick...

By the way, if you dislike France, their laissez-faire foreign policy, or support the war in Iraq, you may enjoy this vid I found.

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/frenchtroops.html

Its mean but funny as hell.
I disagree with the three things you posted above but the video is funny in and of itself! good one :)

Right or wrong can seem relative in the greater scheme of things, but here are some facts in this case.
Over nearly sixty years since the end of World War Two, America managed to gain the goodwill of much of the world, and widespread sympathy after 9/11. However, since then, America has managed to squander much of this goodwill and becomea arguably the most hated country in human history. This failure to cultivate public opinion seems to be due to a particular aspect of America's national self-image; the idea that America's virtue is self-evident. Bush and co appear to have acted in the belief that the rest of the world will see their self-evident virtue, only to find public opinion turning against them everywhere. Right or wrong, they are failing to persuade the world, and many Americans, that their cause is virtuous. The "who cares what they think!" attitude makes things worse, hinting at a 'might makes right' philosophy. Whether this means that strength makes one virtuous or that strength allows one to act as one wishes without the need for virtue is unclear. Either way, America's considerable power, combined with these attitudes, is certain to create resentment.

Right or wrong can seem relative in the greater scheme of things, but here are some facts in this case.
Over nearly sixty years since the end of World War Two, America managed to gain the goodwill of much of the world, and widespread sympathy after 9/11. However, since then, America has managed to squander much of this goodwill and becomea arguably the most hated country in human history.

This more than anything else is why we often scoff at international opinion. I read about a survey in Europe where they rated the PRC higher than the US in popularity. I openly admit that our President has the IQ of a bowling ball and he's tied us up in a nice quagmire of an unwinable war. But if you're of the opinion that that makes us the worst nation in history or even worse than the PRC you need an education in history or you've already received a lobotomy.

This more than anything else is why we often scoff at international opinion. I read about a survey in Europe where they rated the PRC higher than the US in popularity. I openly admit that our President has the IQ of a bowling ball and he's tied us up in a nice quagmire of an unwinable war. But if you're of the opinion that that makes us the worst nation in history or even worse than the PRC you need an education in history or you've already received a lobotomy.

I think emotions run high on both sides of the Atlantic... this was an "opinion" poll. If you went out and asked the American public who was worse, Hitler or Saddam, what do you think they'll answer? Do you think they will base their sentiment on facts?

Probably Hitler. Seriously lots of Americans were against the invasion. But that's not even the same thing. If they were asked say who was worse: Chirac or Kim Jong Il? I mean we loathe the French but I still even the hawks would rate Chirac better that Il....

Probably Hitler. Seriously lots of Americans were against the invasion. But that's not even the same thing. If they were asked say who was worse: Chirac or Kim Jong Il? I mean we loathe the French but I still even the hawks would rate Chirac better that Il....

Should we run a test here? My money is on Saddam in that poll. ;)
Plus, there's a fair chance that a good number of people won't be sure who Kim Jong Il is....

Should we run a test here? My money is on Saddam in that poll. ;)
Plus, there's a fair chance that a good number of people won't be sure who Kim Jong Il is....

Bet. I've got no problem taking an Irishman's money. 'Sides everybody knows who Kim Jong Il is. He was in Team America for chrissakes! My constant sourse of amusement: Europeans that show their ignorance of America by going on about how ignorant we are.

Right or wrong can seem relative in the greater scheme of things, but here are some facts in this case.
Over nearly sixty years since the end of World War Two, America managed to gain the goodwill of much of the world, and widespread sympathy after 9/11. However, since then, America has managed to squander much of this goodwill and becomea arguably the most hated country in human history. This failure to cultivate public opinion seems to be due to a particular aspect of America's national self-image; the idea that America's virtue is self-evident. Bush and co appear to have acted in the belief that the rest of the world will see their self-evident virtue, only to find public opinion turning against them everywhere. Right or wrong, they are failing to persuade the world, and many Americans, that their cause is virtuous. The "who cares what they think!" attitude makes things worse, hinting at a 'might makes right' philosophy. Whether this means that strength makes one virtuous or that strength allows one to act as one wishes without the need for virtue is unclear. Either way, America's considerable power, combined with these attitudes, is certain to create resentment.
Yes, I totally agree with the gaining of "goodwill" and the "squandering" of same. By invading Iraq illegally, Bush has squandered more than goodwill. He has squandered the lives of over 1,800 US troops, over 100,000 Iraqi lives, and over $170 Billion. As one Democrat so aptly stated:

"This White House had made an art of creating crisis where a crisis does not exist," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57476-2005Jan7.html)

There was no "crisis" in Iraq before THE invasion, there sure the hell is now!! In most places, this boils down to an anti-Bush and NOT anti-American sentiment.

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 not exactly true. Assuming you are referring to gay marriage, it is legal in Massachusetts for example. There are no Federal laws regulating marriage - that is left to the individual States to decide.

Also, I don't feel that I'm an arrogant person - and none of the people I knew when I lived in Korea and/or visited the UK thought I was arrogant either.

Hes right about one thing, the world needs someone to hate. Unfortunately for us, we live in the biggest, most powerful, and therefore most obvious choice around. They tend to forget though that were not the problem. Hell, weve saved the world (yes that includes Europe) three times in the last century. Britain's cool though, they can hold their own in a fight. BTW, my condolences to those touched by the recent terror strikes in England, these truely are terrible times we live in when people murder so blindly...Hang in there guys. Anyway, as for the rest of Europe, some may say its envy, some may say its fear, whatever you believe relax. Unless youre a terrorist, were not out to get you. The US isnt the monster its made out to be. As for those living in the US, love it or leave it. You are amoung the luckiest in the world just being born here and i think if you left youde see just how much you take for granted. I guess some people just arent happy without being miserable about something.

No Truer words have ever been spoken in this thread. Keep it up Tyrannical Fascists.

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.

Well, you have your answer as to why so many people hate Yanks

Yes, I totally agree with the gaining of "goodwill" and the "squandering" of same. By invading Iraq illegally, Bush has squandered more than goodwill. He has squandered the lives of over 1,800 US troops, over 100,000 Iraqi lives, and over $170 Billion. As one Democrat so aptly stated:


"This White House had made an art of creating crisis where a crisis does not exist," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57476-2005Jan7.html)

There was no "crisis" in Iraq before THE invasion, there sure the hell is now!! In most places, this boils down to an anti-Bush and NOT anti-American sentiment.[/QUOTE]

War squanders lives no matter who, what, when, where, why, and how we are fighting. I find it amazing that our casualties are as low as they are in Iraq. Normally wars of this magnitude have high death tolls. However, there are battles that have lost more people in 1 day than we have in this whole damn war.

As for Reid, he's a politician of the Democratic Party speaking out against a Republican President. Not surprising. Does this surprise anyone? No it doesn't. It is nice to know though CH that you don't believe in International Law. You do know that Saddam violated international law right?

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 your leader is an idiot.

Because our leaders follow your idiot.

And yes your always fuckin complaining about France and Europe so don't give me that bullshit.

Because your leader is an idiot.

Because our leaders follow your idiot.

And yes your always fuckin complaining about France and Europe so don't give me that bullshit.

I say that the Spanish Leader is an Idiot, Chirac is an idiot, Schroeder is an Idiot. Doesn't make it true. He's only an idiot because you don't like him.

As for following the President of the United States, they did the right thing. They know what is at stake! They know what freedom means. They know the coast of freedom. They know about the tyranny of Saddam Hussien.

Do you?

I say that the Spanish Leader is an Idiot, Chirac is an idiot, Schroeder is an Idiot. Doesn't make it true. He's only an idiot because you don't like him.

As for following the President of the United States, they did the right thing. They know what is at stake! They know what freedom means. They know the coast of freedom. They know about the tyranny of Saddam Hussien.

Do you?

We didn't go to war to end tyranny, we went to war to remove his ability to pepper the middle east with wmd's.

Which turned out not to be there after all.

If the war had been jusitifed simply on the grounds of removing an evil man, the chances are none of us would have gone.

Doesn't mean Chirac or Shroeder aren't idiots though ;)

I say that the Spanish Leader is an Idiot, Chirac is an idiot, Schroeder is an Idiot. Doesn't make it true. He's only an idiot because you don't like him.

As for following the President of the United States, they did the right thing. They know what is at stake! They know what freedom means. They know the coast of freedom. They know about the tyranny of Saddam Hussien.

Do you?

See the second part only works for you because you don't agree with me.

*hits over dramatic pose* Isn't it?? DUN DUN!!!

Jeez tone down the bad rhetoric.

We didn't go to war to end tyranny, we went to war to remove his ability to pepper the middle east with wmd's.

That wasn't the only friggin reason why we went in there. It was just ONE, I repeat ONE, reason why.

Which turned out not to be there after all.

Faulty intel will do that.

If the war had been jusitifed simply on the grounds of removing an evil man, the chances are none of us would have gone.

Or violating UN Resolutions plus a Cease-fire. That makes it justifiable to me.

Doesn't mean Chirac or Shroeder aren't idiots though ;)

HAHA!

See the second part only works for you because you don't agree with me.

*hits over dramatic pose* Isn't it?? DUN DUN!!!

Jeez tone down the bad rhetoric.

Bad rhetoric? Sorry but I know the cost of Freedom. I know what Saddam did to his people. They also know what is at stake as well.

I guess I struck a nerve with you.

I don't care if you were for or against it but to call someone an idiot is rather quite immaturish.

Unless youre a terrorist, were not out to get you. The US isnt the monster its made out to be
I assume you believe that everyone who has ever been (or still is) detained in Guantanamo is a terrorist.
Even those released?

A nation who abducts and imprisons civilians ILLEGALY without proper representation, without bringing up charges against them, without access to any legal system is no better than Saddam's Iraq IMHO

Also, I don't feel that I'm an arrogant person - and none of the people I knew when I lived in Korea and/or visited the UK thought I was arrogant either.

An arrogant person would say that wouldn't he/she? ;)

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

...Like Tony Blai :sniper: r here in England

I can't comment on the way in which the war in the US was justified, but here in Britain it was on the grounds of removing the threat of WMD's; the continuous breaking of UN resolutions since GW1 et al was simply window dressing.

As for the war, yes, with what we've accomplished so far it's been a good thing - but I do think the cost paid in British and US dead, along with other nations out there who have lost folk, is too high.

However, all this is for another thread.

As for US / Europe bashing, especially the more troll like postings that appear here reguarly, it's just a phenomena seen on message boards across the net since the days of early bulletin boards; if anyone hasn't come across it before, do a Google search for Greater Internet F*ckwad Theory, summarised thus:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2004/20040319l.jpg

A nation who abducts and imprisons civilians ILLEGALY without proper representation, without bringing up charges against them, without access to any legal system is no better than Saddam's Iraq IMHO

When did they become citizens of the United States? As far as I know if your detained by the US Military Personel in a warzone and are not a citizen, you have no rights in the eyes of the law.

Anyway, this statement is even more false because:

1) They do have legal representation in the name J.A.G. lawyers and Civilian Attornies.
2) They have been charged with aiding and abetin terrorism and other charges.
3) They are being tried by military tribunals.

Interesting. Arrested, charged, have lawyers, AND a court trial. Not bad.

When did they become citizens of the United States? As far as I know if your detained by the US Military Personel in a warzone and are not a citizen, you have no rights in the eyes of the law.

Anyway, this statement is even more false because:

1) They do have legal representation in the name J.A.G. lawyers and Civilian Attornies.
2) They have been charged with aiding and abetin terrorism and other charges.
3) They are being tried by military tribunals.

Interesting. Arrested, charged, have lawyers, AND a court trial. Not bad.
That's just it isn't it. Unless you're an american citizen you have less rights (assuming that not being properly charged for YEARS and not getting to chose your representation means less rights) and in a warzone (everything outside the U.S.) defined by the the U.S.

Now, why would that bother people?

That's just it isn't it. Unless you're an american citizen you have less rights (assuming that not being properly charged for YEARS and not getting to chose your representation means less rights) and in a warzone (everything outside the U.S.) defined by the the U.S.

Now, why would that bother people?

Welcome to war kid. Rules change when there's a war on.

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.

As in.... unlike the american dipshits that burn time in NS?

Or violating UN Resolutions plus a Cease-fire. That makes it justifiable to me.

The Hague Conventions (IV,1907): "It is especially forbidden (a) to employ poison or poisoned weapons; (b) To kill or wound treacherously ... (e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering..." (Article 23). "The attack or bombardment, by whatever means,of towns,villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended is prohibited." (Article 25).

United Nations Charter (1945): The primary purpose of the United Nations is "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" (Preamble). Accordingly, "All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means" and "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state ..." (Article 2).

Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS charter,1948): "No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state [Article 15].... The territory of a State is inviolable; it may not be the object,even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State, directly or indirectly,on any grounds whatever [Article 17]."

North Atlantic Treaty (1949): "The parties undertake,as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means ... and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." Force is contemplated only when a member nation is attacked.nbsp; In any case, the parties are to carry out the provisions of the treaty "in accordance with their respective constitutional processes."

Geneva Conventions (1949): "Civilian hospitals ... may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the parties to the conflict."

Nuremberg Principles (as adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations,1950): The fact that a person committing a crime under international law acted as head of state or a government official or pursuant to orders "does not relieve him from responsibility under international law." Crimes against peace include "Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances." War crimes include "murder, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace or a war crime is itself a crime.

War Powers Resolution (1973): Sending forces into hostilities requires (1) a war declaration, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.
This U.S. law was disregarded by Clinton and predecessors.

Final Act of the Helsinki Conference (or Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe,1975): It affirmed respect for sovereign equality,the inviolability of frontiers, the peaceful settlement of disputes, non-intervention in international affairs, and the avoidance of the threat or use of force.
All of those provisions were violated in all of Clinton's acts of aggression.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 Requiring the protection of civilians from military operations, it prohibits (1) attacking civilians; threatening or conducting violence designed to spread terror among the population, and (2) launching an indiscriminate attack that harms civilians or civilian objects as well as military targets. Violations "shall be regarded as war crimes" (Articles 51 and 85).


You were saying? :mad:

Welcome to war kid. Rules change when there's a war on.

You declared war on the world and wonder why the world is getting nervous about that?

Welcome to war kid. Rules change when there's a war on.

I'm 42 years old thank you. If you want to ensure further irritation from people feeling patronized by the U.S. you're successful. And the "might makes right" arguments don't bite on me, sorry.

You declared war on the world and wonder why the world is getting nervous about that?

Care to point out the resolution that declared war on the world? We only had a resolution in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm 42 years old thank you. If you want to ensure further irritation from people feeling patronized by the U.S. you're successful. And the "might makes right" arguments don't bite on me, sorry.

Rules still change in war. That is a rather known fact. Shall we go back in time and see just how much rules change in war? I know a certain president that technically suspended the constitution back during the civil war. Or how about the changes in freedoms during World War II?

Care to point out the resolution that declared war on the world? We only had a resolution in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan.

That point plus that of how people hate Bush so America falls into the same category of 'omg stupid' as Bush seems to fall into.

Care to point out the resolution that declared war on the world? We only had a resolution in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan.

"If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" in combination with declaring "war on terror" certainly sounds more than hostile to most nations, I can assure you.

War Powers Resolution (1973)[/b]: Sending forces into hostilities requires (1) a war declaration, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.
This U.S. law was disregarded by Clinton and predecessors.

Your last sentence here is wrong.

Clinton:
1) Congressional Authorization to go into Kosovo
2) Congressional Authorization to bomb Iraq

Bush:
1) Congressional Authorization to go into Afghanistan
2) Congressional Authorization to go into Iraq

How about Saddam's violations of 17 UN resolutions? How about Saddam's violation of the Cease Fire? How about Saddam's violation of the Declaration of Human Rights?

That point plus that of how people hate Bush so America falls into the same category of 'omg stupid' as Bush seems to fall into.

Excuse us while the US has the balls to actually enforce International law.

Rules still change in war. That is a rather known fact. Shall we go back in time and see just how much rules change in war? I know a certain president that technically suspended the constitution back during the civil war. Or how about the changes in freedoms during World War II?

Thank you for the history-lesson. If you want to fuck your own citizens rights in a civil war in the 1860's, feel free. As I recall you had slaves and shit back then as well so that feels really up to date. My point is that the U.S. are taking liberties with democratic principles and peoples rights as long as it's own citizens aren't affected.

"If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" in combination with declaring "war on terror" certainly sounds more than hostile to most nations, I can assure you.

Care to point to a resolution declaring war on the world. We only had a resolution to go into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Excuse us while the US has the balls to actually enforce International law.Bullshit Corneliu. The US violates international law more than most other countries.

When did they become citizens of the United States? As far as I know if your detained by the US Military Personel in a warzone and are not a citizen, you have no rights in the eyes of the law.

Anyway, this statement is even more false because:

1) They do have legal representation in the name J.A.G. lawyers and Civilian Attornies.
2) They have been charged with aiding and abetin terrorism and other charges.
3) They are being tried by military tribunals.

Interesting. Arrested, charged, have lawyers, AND a court trial. Not bad.

Who said they are not citizens?
Ah yes, Ramsfeld again.
They are not citizens, so they're not protected by International law or US law, and they are not soldiers protected by the Geneva Convention.
What are they, I forget... Ah yes, "Combatants"
And we all know there is no law regarding "combatants", is there?

1) The families of some of them have hired proper lawyers, who have REPEATEDLY protested about the way this "system" works
2) "Other charges" include: Being at the wrong place at the wrong time, looking suspicious, being ratted by a hostile neighbour over livestock differences.
3) They are tried by a military court even though they are not soldiers... Let me think... When was the last time this happened? Ah yes Nazi and Soviet People's Courts

As far as I know if your detained by the US Military Personel in a warzone and are not a citizen, you have no rights in the eyes of the law.
And who exactly makes the choice about whether you're a civilian?
The same US Military Personnel!
And who exactly says that you have no rights DESPITE all the International Treaties the US have signed?
The US!

Thanks for alleviating my fears.

Bullshit Corneliu. The US violates international law more than most other countries.

So did the USSR as well. Funny isn't it? I also could say that Britain violated International Law more than any other country since they have been around longer than we have. Or how about France? They also have been around longer than the United States. Spain too perhaps?

Care to point to a resolution declaring war on the world. We only had a resolution to go into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Metaphor (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/metaphor?view=uk)

I can't remember a resolution about th eCold War either, and yet you claimed you fought it.

Anyways, I think I'll discontinue posting on this thread until the emotional hype is over and we can continue a sensible, reasonable disucssion without the strained rethorics. Thank you.

Your last sentence here is wrong.

Clinton:
1) Congressional Authorization to go into Kosovo
2) Congressional Authorization to bomb Iraq

Bush:
1) Congressional Authorization to go into Afghanistan
2) Congressional Authorization to go into Iraq

How about Saddam's violations of 17 UN resolutions? How about Saddam's violation of the Cease Fire? How about Saddam's violation of the Declaration of Human Rights?

I apologise, I thought I removed all comments about the US constitution/legal system. The point made was about international treaties broken by the evil Saddam.

As for your last sentence.
Isn't it weird that in order to defend the US position you bring up the statement that "Saddam was worst"?
I would never even DARE to start comparing the US to Saddam's regime, as I would never dare to justify one crime because of another. Especially on a scale so grand!

So did the USSR as well. Funny isn't it? I also could say that Britain violated International Law more than any other country since they have been around longer than we have. Or how about France? They also have been around longer than the United States. Spain too perhaps?I never denied that. You claimed the US had the balls to enforce international law. Ever since "international law" has been around, the US has been a major violator. And you only managed to list about four countries. The UN has 191 members right now. If the US was the bottom of that list, then my statement "more than most other countries" still applies.
It's kinda galling for you to claim the US "has the balls to enforce international law" when the Iraq war was a clear violation of such. I don't see Bush arresting himself or punishing those that were responsible for it.

Who said they are not citizens?
Ah yes, Ramsfeld again.
They are not citizens, so they're not protected by International law or US law, and they are not soldiers protected by the Geneva Convention.
What are they, I forget... Ah yes, "Combatants"
And we all know there is no law regarding "combatants", is there?

Notice I didn't say international law? I said they aren't citizens of the UNITED STATES! NOWHERE did I mention that they weren't protected under international law. Nice of you to put words in my mouth that aren't there.

They have lawyeres, they have been charged, and they are being tried. Those that are innocent are being set free. Ok so whats your beef?

1) The families of some of them have hired proper lawyers, ho have REPEATEDLY protested about the way this "system" works

Not surprising that they do. I protest against the judicial system all them time.

2) "Other charges" include: Being at the wrong place at the wrong time, looking suspicious, being ratted by a hostile neighbour over livestock differences.

And those people are getting released.

3) They are tried by a military court even though they are not soldiers... Let me think... When was the last time this happened? Ah yes Nazi and Soviet People's Courts

If they aren't wearing uniforms of a militia or a national army.....

As far as I know if your detained by the US Military Personel in a warzone and are not a citizen, you have no rights in the eyes of the law.
And who exactly makes the choice about whether you're a civilian?
The same US Military Personnel!

And they have regulations to go by for that. If they violate those regs, the soldiers themselves get punished. Interesting isn't it?

And who exactly says that you have no rights DESPITE all the International Treaties the US have signed?
The US!

Thanks for alleviating my fears.

An illegal Combatant isn't protected under international law. Your lucky we're just not shooting. We could do that you know. In war, that's legal.

So did the USSR as well. Funny isn't it? I also could say that Britain violated International Law more than any other country since they have been around longer than we have. Or how about France? They also have been around longer than the United States. Spain too perhaps?

I have one word for you: Bygones. That's it for me. Can't even be bothered to comment on such utter bullshit. Bye.

This is one of the funniest things I have read all day.

It would be more funny if i did not know you are serious.

Considering we're doing the UNs dirty work for them because they don't have the balls to actually follow it up on their own, yes I am serious.

I can't remember a resolution about th eCold War either, and yet you claimed you fought it.

That's because there was no resolution for the Cold War at least nothing that was made public at least. I doubt there is one though.

Anyways, I think I'll discontinue posting on this thread until the emotional hype is over and we can continue a sensible, reasonable disucssion without the strained rethorics. Thank you.

I agree with you. Hope to chat with you again Cabra West.

Considering we're doing the UNs dirty work for them because they don't have the balls to actually follow it up on their own, yes I am serious.Corneliu, there was no more need for the UN to go into Iraq than there was for the UN to go into Florida after the election. Bring something up that supports that invading Iraq was something the UN was legally required to do.

So did the USSR as well. Funny isn't it? I also could say that Britain violated International Law more than any other country since they have been around longer than we have. Or how about France? They also have been around longer than the United States. Spain too perhaps?
You do it again!
The fact that others have violated International Law PREVIOUSLY, doesn't give the US the allibi to do it NOW!

As for the USSR, most (though not all) of the major violations occured in Afghanistan. Where they went to support their puppet regime and fight the US-backed Bin Laden and the Taliban... Isn't THAT an irony?

As for your last sentence.
Isn't it weird that in order to defend the US position you bring up the statement that "Saddam was worst"?
I would never even DARE to start comparing the US to Saddam's regime, as I would never dare to justify one crime because of another. Especially on a scale so grand!

So your denying that Saddam didn't break his agreements?

Corneliu, there was no more need for the UN to go into Iraq than there was for the UN to go into Florida after the election. Bring something up that supports that invading Iraq was something the UN was legally required to do.

How about following up on their god damn cease-fire?

How about following up on their god damn cease-fire?Source it please. Show me why you think force was necessary to secure peace and stability.

An illegal Combatant isn't protected under international law. Your lucky we're just not shooting. We could do that you know. In war, that's legal.
Because "Combatant" is a word you MADE UP and there are no laws that could ever cover a term that never existed.
If your definition of "lucky" is to be abducted, transported to the other side of the world and held illegaly, without trial for a couple of years, yes we're very lucky!
In a war it is ILLEGAL to shoot anyone who is not directly involved in a combat operation or carries arms.
But then again... this is NOT a war! Check the definitions of "War declaration" in International Law.


<edit>And btw International Law doesn't make a distinction between a US civilian and an Iraqi civilian!

So your denying that Saddam didn't break his agreements?
Of course not! (although your sentence is a double negative)
And I have never said that Saddam was a benevolent ruler that just happened to piss off the US.
But you are comparing US violations of International Law with Saddam's!
How low can the US go, when the proponents of its policy start making comparisons of the "largest democracy" with a brutal dictatorship????

... very few if any anti-European sentiments started, but each day someone takes every chance they get to rip on the US. ...?

For Christ's sake you dimwit; "liberty fries", that's how pathetic the U.S.A. is. The only reason there's very little 'europe-bashing' is because there's nothing wrong with europe worth commenting on.
You have capital punishment, the worst energy consumption in the world, ignorance of global warming, a torture camp in Guantanamo Bay and worse gun crime rates than almost the whole of europe put together.

If you can find anything so objectionable about europe, please see how many people agree with your sentiments, you reactionary scumbag.

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.

It's interesting you say that. "Temporariness" is also an oft used euphemism for reform and change. One painful example of European "permanence" is that its countries are far less welcoming to immigrants than the US. Part of the problem people have in England and will definitely have in France over the next decade or so is that foreigners, particularly muslims, are never assimilated into the culture. Most muslims in both countries are isolated in their own communites and highly resent the governments of both countries for their apparent lack of compassion and willingness to help make these newcomers a welcome part of their society. While no country is perfect in this regard, the US has done better than any European country at making immigrants feel welcome.

Most of these terror bombers in England have lived in that country for YEARS if not most of their lives.

Look at this article - http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18631

And people please read the article before saying something that makes you look truly ignorant here.

Of course not! (although your sentence is a double negative)
And I have never said that Saddam was a benevolent ruler that just happened to piss off the US.
But you are comparing US violations of International Law with Saddam's!
How low can the US go, when the proponents of its policy start making comparisons of the "largest democracy" with a brutal dictatorship????Psst! The US isn't the world's largest democracy!

WTC bombings happened in America, Clinton merely did noting about it

Ireland I would consider more of a civil war than terrorism. What i mean is that this is the first time the war on terror has been taken on in such a large scale. You have to admit that we are in uncharted waters, no one really has done this before.

Besides, my aim was to point out the hypocrisy in European culture in that we are expected to come storming to their aid, but god forbid we go to our own.
Clinton did do something about the bombings, it's just that if you are so rolled up in your own strange world of fancy you probably didn't notice. He liked things done quietly, that way they actually made progress. Bush made very loud noises about catching Osama bin Laden, and has that happened yet? Bin Laden was given about 3 months head start.

The IRA was a terrorist group, and they killed many British citizens over the years! I have (or rather had) family members who were killed in Ireland (admittedly both Irish and British, so both sides in some respects).
And what the hell are you talking about this sudden war on terror! Various countries have been fighting terrorists for many many years. As for the hypocrisy I seem to remember that the Americans only joined WW2 after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour.
Oh and I don't quite see how Iraq was a major problem for America, you have quite a large chunk of globe between you.

A nice little hint to any American Republicans, you are all trigger-happy, gung-ho morons! Vote Democrat next time!

And people please read the article before saying something that makes you look truly ignorant here.You really think a website that advertises conservative t-shirts is an unbiased source?

The guys being held by the Americans are being held illegally.

If they are civilians then they should be held and charged under civilian law.
If they are milita then they should be charged under military law in accordance with international guidelines.

Calling them "combatants" rather than 'milita' or 'soldiers' is something they government came up with to find a loophole. Which any sane person can see does not even exist and is an excuse to hold them illegally.

If they are milita then they can only be charged with "war crimes" if they have committed any. which is probably why they have not been charged like this as 'being on the other side' and 'killing in combat' are not regarded as war crimes.
Torturing prisoners is often considered a war crime for example.

Their citizenship is not an issue. If you are in the US (or anywhere) you are protected by the laws of the land and are obliged to follow the laws of the land. For example it is illegal to kill a tourist in the US even though they are not a citizen.

Psst! The US isn't the world's largest democracy!
That's why it's within qoutes :D

India is the world's largest democracy, although, on a separate note, that is no justification for British colonialism.

India is the world's largest democracy, although, on a separate note, that is no justification for British colonialism.Depends on your definition of "largest". By population, yes.

Psst! The US isn't the world's largest democracy!

Seconded, America is not the largest "democracy" by a long shot. Have you ever heared of India? Or Brazil? India has alomost four times the population of the US, and is a damn sight more democratic.

For Christ's sake you dimwit; "liberty fries", that's how pathetic the U.S.A. is. The only reason there's very little 'europe-bashing' is because there's nothing wrong with europe worth commenting on.
You have capital punishment, the worst energy consumption in the world, ignorance of global warming, a torture camp in Guantanamo Bay and worse gun crime rates than almost the whole of europe put together.

It's true. With the possible exception of the personal insults

It's interesting you say that. "Temporariness" is also an oft used euphemism for reform and change. One painful example of European "permanence" is that its countries are far less welcoming to immigrants than the US. Part of the problem people have in England and will definitely have in France over the next decade or so is that foreigners, particularly Muslims, are never assimilated into the culture. Most Muslims in both countries are isolated in their own communities and highly resent the governments of both countries for their apparent lack of compassion and willingness to help make these newcomers a welcome part of their society. While no country is perfect in this regard, the US has done better than any European country at making immigrants feel welcome.

I feel that the main difference is that in Europe we don't force people to conform to our beliefs or even our language if they don't want to. In America, and I speak with some experience, it is taboo to be different. In most European countries it is not even noticed in a majority of situations. Perhaps it is because many Americans have become lobotomised over the years to what they perceive as "right" and even "normal". As a country you have only two land-linked neighbours, so the majority of immigrants come from here. Admittedly earlier in the last century and before that people flocked from all over the world to America, many Europeans among them. But things are rather more sedentary in the US than in a lot of the rest of the world.

You really think a website that advertises conservative t-shirts is an unbiased source?


You wouldn't have said that if you'd read the article. It was obvious you didn't.

I feel that the main difference is that in Europe we don't force people to conform to our beliefs or even our language if they don't want to. In America, and I speak with some experience, it is taboo to be different. In most European countries it is not even noticed in a majority of situations. Perhaps it is because many Americans have become lobotomised over the years to what they perceive as "right" and even "normal". As a country you have only two land-linked neighbours, so the majority of immigrants come from here. Admittedly earlier in the last century and before that people flocked from all over the world to America, many Europeans among them. But things are rather more sedentary in the US than in a lot of the rest of the world.


The US forces all its citizens to have some kind of schooling. Many of the muslims in the US went to public schools because of this. You say Eurolpe didn't force anything on its immigrants, but you sure didn't make them feel welcome. To them, you have made most of them vassals in nations in which they feel they have no say in what goes on. You isolate them. Maybe not deliberately, but you do. They become a seperate nation inside a nation. Europe is not a melting pot like the US despite what some dissenters might want to believe.

In the US, most 2nd and 3rd generation muslims are highly westernized. We have muslims in our congress - and our senate. You don't see muslims in the British or French Parlaiments. Well that won't last because in the next 3 to 5 decades, their numbers will be sufficient to vote out the old guard. Western Europeans are reproducing at a rate of 1.5 children per female. Muslims atre reproducing at 2.1 children per female.

You wouldn't have said that if you'd read the article. It was obvious you didn't.That's a really stupid and bigotted thing to say. Reading a certain article doesn't make me more or less qualified to question a site.
Not that you answered my question :rolleyes:

The US forces all its citizens to have some kind of schooling. Many of the muslims in the US went to public schools because of this. You say Eurolpe didn't force anything on its immigrants, but you sure didn't make them feel welcome. To them, you have made most of them vassals in nations in which they feel they have no say in what goes on. You isolate them. Maybe not deliberately, but you do. They become a seperate nation inside a nation. Europe is not a melting pot like the US despite what some dissenters might want to believe.

In the US, most 2nd and 3rd generation muslims are highly westernized. We have muslims in our congress - and our senate. You don't see muslims in the British or French Parlaiments. Well that won't last because in the next 3 to 5 decades, their numbers will be sufficient to vote out the old guard.
Pray tell me, have you seen what muslims are like in Europe and how immigrants get treated?

That's a really stupid and bigotted thing to say. Reading a certain article doesn't make me more or less qualified to question a site.
Not that you answered my question :rolleyes:

Here's the answer to your question - if you'd posted an article with liberal ads on it, I'd have read it because I accept that I might learn something from it. You and I differ on that. That you call me bigoted for calling you on not reading the article makes me guess your age at somewhere between 16 and 20 - the age bracket where people still think they've figured everything out.

Take a bit of advice - read. You'll be a better debater if you stay informed. If you don't, you aren't going to earn any respect from anyone.

Pray tell me, have you seen what muslims are like in Europe and how immigrants get treated?


Read the article please? Just Dang!! You wouldn't need to ask ME all these questions if you'd read the article. All your answers are there.

In the US, most 2nd and 3rd generation muslims are highly westernized. We have muslims in our congress - and our senate. You don't see muslims in the British or French Parlaiments.
You are just quessing, aren't you..? There are 4 British muslims in the parliament at the moment - two of them were re-elected no less.

Read the article please? Just Dang!! You wouldn't need to ask ME all these questions if you'd read the article. All your answers are there.

No... no answers, really. Just opinions. That's what an interview is, opinions of the interview persons.

Here's the answer to your question - if you'd posted an article with liberal ads on it, I'd have read it because I accept that I might learn something from it. You and I differ on that. That you call me bigoted for calling you on not reading the article makes me guess your age at somewhere between 16 and 20 - the age bracket where people still think they've figured everything out.

Take a bit of advice - read. You'll be a better debater if you stay informed. If you don't, you aren't going to earn any respect from anyone.You'd be a better debater if you didn't post crap like "And people please read the article before saying something that makes you look truly ignorant here."
I pointed out that the website happens to sport something that could be considered offensive to socialists. I was questioning it's potential bias. Reading the article has nothing to do with it.
Btw, my age bracket is between 21 and 21. Figured everything out? Nope. I never will. Neither will anyone else for that matter. And I'm not calling you bigotted because you said I didn't read the article. I'm calling you bigotted because you seem to think that this disqualifies my opinion.

You'd be a better debater if you didn't post crap like "And people please read the article before saying something that makes you look truly ignorant here."
I pointed out that the website happens to sport something that could be considered offensive to socialists. I was questioning it's potential bias. Reading the article has nothing to do with it.
Btw, my age bracket is between 21 and 21. Figured everything out? Nope. I never will. Neither will anyone else for that matter. And I'm not calling you bigotted because you said I didn't read the article. I'm calling you bigotted because you seem to think that this disqualifies my opinion.

You called me bigoted because I disqualified your opinion. I'm saying you might have more insight into why I said what I did if you read the article. You aren't going to win any arguments if you don't have any sources to back up your opinions. And so far, you don't have ANY. All I see is your opinion, backed up by nothing but your discontent with my sources against it.

And I put that caveat in my post because I KNEW that there'd be at least one person that wouldn't read it and would be full of questions that would have been answered if that person had not ignored the content completely and been bigoted against the page because of the ads and simply read the article. {shakes head}.

You asked me how I knew how muslims felt. Here's the answer since you still refuse to read the article.
"Here is the picture: percentage-wise as well as in cumulative terms, France has the largest Muslim community in the EU. There are no official figures, since France does not collect numbers on religious affiliation, but according to official estimates, there are 6 million Muslims in France, that is 10 percent of the population. Unofficial estimates point at an even higher figure, suggesting as many as 8-9 million Muslims. What is more, given the low birth rate in the general French society, and the continuing immigration of Muslims from North Africa, this number is bound to increase.
"The issue I would like to raise in this context is not that we should be concerned that there are so many Muslims in France, rather it is that the Muslims in France see themselves at the margins of the society and resent that fact." -- Dr. Soner Cagaptay

"The French state succeeded in imposing the ideology of its model on a society which is not it. That's why, as Dr. Cagaptay pointed out, they are the worst integrated Muslim community in any EU country. France wants to build a French Islam but without Islamic institutions. It is impossible. The dilemma is that the French law is disconnected from the religious questions." --Mohamed Ibn Guadi

Also, I didn't guess your age, but you have to give me credit - I was very close!