NationStates Jolt Archive

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. 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 be answered if they'd just 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

So, who is Dr. Soner Cagaptay, and what qualifies him to speak about the Muslim situation in France?
He is just giving an opinion. That's all this article is about, as it is an interview, not an research- and fact-based report.

So, who is Dr. Soner Cagaptay, and what qualifies him to speak about the Muslim situation in France?
He is just giving an opinion. That's all this article is about, as it is an interview, not an research- and fact-based report.


Yes, it's an opinion. But it's one by an adjunct professor who's life work is the study of islamic culture in western societies. I know professors can be biased, but at the same time he has a LOT of empirrical evidence to back up his opinions. The existence of completely isolated communities in France, the population percentages. His "opinion" seems highly believable because he has hard data that supports his claims. So far, the oppositional argument has provided ZERO factual data. All I see here are dissenting opinions.

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. I haven't posted any opinions on immigration yet. I've only asked questions and told you you shouldn't be saying things you did.

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}.
I took one look at the "article" and noticed it was an "interview". Please refer to it as such. While you may not enjoy that people are naturally curious and not always willing to read something that makes them feel like this:
Sorry gentlemen, my eyes are starting to glaze over.
there are a lot nicer ways of saying this.

You asked me how I knew how muslims felt. No I didn't. I asked you whether you had seen what muslims are like and how they are treated. I assumed you hadn't because you're from the US, but I wanted to ask to make sure first.

Here's the answer since you still refuse to read the article.I actually read those parts. Doesn't really tell me anything. I've learned a heck of a lot more in my everyday life working for the Caritas than from reading that interview. It displays theories and no proper examples. It scratches the surface and fails to properly go into depth.

Also, I didn't guess your age, but you have to give me credit - I was very close!True, but age shouldn't be something you judge someone on. It's just another form of discrimination. There's probably some adults that don't stand a chance to some of the younger debaters.

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.

That was not my point. It was intended as a neutral observation and an attempt to explain anti-americanism. I apologise if it seemed otherwise.

I haven't posted any opinions on immigration yet. I've only asked questions and told you you shouldn't be saying things you did.
I took one look at the "article" and noticed it was an "interview". Please refer to it as such. While you may not enjoy that people are naturally curious and not always willing to read something that makes them feel like this:

there are a lot nicer ways of saying this.
No I didn't. I asked you whether you had seen what muslims are like and how they are treated. I assumed you hadn't because you're from the US, but I wanted to ask to make sure first.
I actually read those parts. Doesn't really tell me anything. I've learned a heck of a lot more in my everyday life working for the Caritas than from reading that interview. It displays theories and no proper examples. It scratches the surface and fails to properly go into depth.
True, but age shouldn't be something you judge someone on. It's just another form of discrimination. There's probably some adults that don't stand a chance to some of the younger debaters.


You judged me first. Your question was posed like an argument, so I responded accordingly. I meant to personal offense by it.

And the argument does aggregate a lot. I can respect your questioning of the abstraction but at the same time there are somethings that are hard to argue with. Three facts don't make a hard conclusion, I'll admit. But they should make you ponder.

No muslims in French or British Parliaments. Large isolated communities in France with nothing but muslims in them with little or no contact outside that community except by leaders and Imams with escalating violence. And a large population index.

Also regarding young debaters. Yes, I agree there are some young debaters out there that do better than their older counterparts, but those debaters are the exception rather than the rule. And those debaters do a lot of reading (not poking fun at you, just making a statement). You're obviously well educated. One of the best things a debater can do though is to better understand his opponents argument, even if he disagrees with it.

No muslims in French or British Parliaments.

Apparently you didn't get it the first time I pointed out that you are wrong...
http://islamonline.net/English/News/2005-05/06/article03.shtml

You judged me first. Your question was posed like an argument, so I responded accordingly. I meant to personal offense by it.

And the argument does aggregate a lot. I can respect your questioning of the abstraction but at the same time there are somethings that are hard to argue with. Three facts don't make a hard conclusion, I'll admit. But they should make you ponder.

No muslims in French or British Parliaments. Large isolated communities in France with nothing but muslims in them with little or no contact outside that community except by leaders and Imams with escalating violence. And a large population index.

Also regarding young debaters. Yes, I agree there are some young debaters out there that do better than their older counterparts, but those debaters are the exception rather than the rule. And those debaters do a lot of reading (not poking fun at you, just making a statement). You're obviously well educated. One of the best things a debater can do though is to better understand his opponents argument, even if he disagrees with it.Well, it's kind of silly to expect people to read something as long as that interview was. The thing is, I read some of the first things said there, but its mainly statistics and no real examples of how things are. I've had some experience in an immigrant community and I've seen what shitholes refugee camps are here in Germany. You shouldn't only base your opinion on second hand sources, especially not without questioning them. I'd be just as critical (though more approving) of a liberal site if I read it.
And I did try to read through it. The quote about the eyes glazing over was somewhere in the middle...

Apparently you didn't get it the first time I pointed out that you are wrong...
http://islamonline.net/English/News/2005-05/06/article03.shtml

So Britain now has 4 and France still has none. And Britain's 4 were such a big deal that it was newsworthy. That's also a new development as well. The US has had muslims in congress for years.

Well, it's kind of silly to expect people to read something as long as that interview was. The thing is, I read some of the first things said there, but its mainly statistics and no real examples of how things are. I've had some experience in an immigrant community and I've seen what shitholes refugee camps are here in Germany. You shouldn't only base your opinion on second hand sources, especially not without questioning them. I'd be just as critical (though more approving) of a liberal site if I read it.
And I did try to read through it. The quote about the eyes glazing over was somewhere in the middle...

I didn't base my opinion solely on that article. But I did feel it was a good source to back up my argument.

So Britain now has 4 and France still has none. And Britains 4 were such a big deal that it was newsworthy. That's also a new development as well. The US has had muslims in congress for years.
Obviously it was newsworthy for the Islamonline. They tend to report things like that, you know. New development... dunno about that... what does "re-elected" mean? Of course, 4 MPs is not representing the size of British muslim minority - not even close - but it is 4 more than what you said, isn't it?
I think the first British muslim MP was elected in 1997... not sure about that though.

Obviously it was newsworthy for the Islamonline. They tend to report things like that, you know. New development... dunno about that... what does "re-elected" mean? Of course, 4 MPs is not representing the size of British muslim minority - not even close - but it is 4 more than what you said, isn't it?
I think the first British muslim MP was elected in 1997... not sure about that though.


You're argument misses the whole point. So England has a couple of muslim ministers. The US has far more than that and muslims represent a much larger segment of the British population than they do the American population and England has had muslim immigrants far longer than the US has. They've just been asimilated into the American culture more easily than they have over there. Also, this isn't part of my argument, but it is very interesting. Here's a link to another forum where this very same issue was discussed and it has the "concerned" statements by Europeans about what they preceive to be a growing problem in their countries.

http://www.fatwallet.com/t/69/498248/

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.

Great post. As an American, I agree with you 100 percent.

You're argument misses the whole point. So England has a couple of muslim ministers. The US has far more than that and muslims represent a much larger segment of the British population than they do the American population and England has had muslim immigrants far longer than the US has. They've just been asimilated into the American culture more easily than they have over there. Also, this isn't part of my argument, but it is very interesting. Here's a link to another forum where this very same issue was discussed and it has the "concerned" statements by Europeans about what they preceive to be a growing problem in their countries.

http://www.fatwallet.com/t/69/498248/
My argument? What argument? To my knowledge, I have made no argument. I simply corrected you. You said There are no muslims in the British parliament. Much to everybody's surprise, I found 4. That's all. And here's some additional info for you; MP stands for member of parliament, not minister.
I'm not even remotely interested in comparing European and US merits in incorporating muslims into their respective societies. I just love to correct people when they are clearly wrong.

My argument? What argument? To my knowledge, I have made no argument. I simply corrected you. You said There are no muslims in the British parliament. Much to everybody's surprise, I found 4. That's all. And here's some additional info for you; MP stands for member of parliament, not minister.
I'm not even remotely interested in comparing European and US merits in incorporating muslims into their respective societies. I just love to correct people when they are clearly wrong.

Understood. You corrected a fact I used but even with that correction, it still supports my own argument which I admit you aren't debating.

My position is that Europe has not assimilated its muslim immigrants the way the US has.

"But what most sharply distinguishes European from American immigrants is their provenance, in the former most often from Muslim countries. Moreover, European Muslim immigrants tend to be indigent and to live in enclaves unlike their American counterparts. European Muslims typically live in banlieues (outer "inner cities"). American Muslims tend to be educated professional or business people who are far more affluent than their European equivalents." -- Peter Skerry, "Political Islam in the United States and Europe," in Dick Clark, ed., Political Islam: Challenges for U.S. Policy, (Washington, D.C.: The Aspen Institute), 2003: 41.

Back to the original post of what’s the cause of anti-American postings, I have provided an answer from a British viewpoint.

Firstly a number of posts from Americans have berated Europeans for daring to ‘bite the hand that feeds’ with regard to military protection. I can never get over the way some American’s mention the two World Wars and then assume that Europeans should fall on their knees and be thankful that we’re not all speaking German (the German’s and Austrians after all never received that benefit and continue to suffer the oppression of that language). I do not doubt that America was a most valuable ally in both wars, however:

1. The First World War was a stalemate from beginning to end. Ultimately the war was won by those nations able to feed and equip themselves for the duration, without the political structure of the country collapsing. That the USA was a major supplier of these goods to Britain is of greater relevance than the ultimate decision to send troops. As I recall this war changed Britain from a confident and solvent world empire into a heavily indebted creditor of America. Somehow I think that we more than paid the price for America’s eventual assistance in that one. Also, any suggestion that the French were “surrender-monkeys” in this war are woefully far off the mark, and an insult to the bravery of the French forces in defending their country.

2. The Second World War is the big one though. Whilst most of Europe succumbed to the Nazis, ultimate victory would not have been possible without American help. Britain had however been surviving on our own for a while. Conquering Britain was never Hitler’s original intention, and Britain could have got out of the war at any point if it had been willing to accept Nazi hegemony on the continent. We do not however expect the undying gratitude of the rest of Europe since we recognise that a free Europe was ultimately in our own interest and that is why we defended Poland and continued to fight alone after our allies had been overrun.

This is after all the same motive behind American intervention. It was in America’s interest for the Allies to win the war. Let us also not forget that the USA did not declare war on either Germany or Japan, and so the long awaited decision on intervention was never a choice made by America (although I’m sure they would have joined in the end anyway).

But all of this is history, and the rise of anti-Americanism in Europe (and Britain in particular) is most closely linked to a change in America’s attitude to the world since the end of the Cold War. As other posts have mentioned, the absence of any real check on American power has led to an increasingly unilateral foreign policy. This is undoubtedly viewed in Europe as arrogance and often as a threat to world stability. This is not anti-Americanism, but rather anti-Unilateralism and only Americans have the power to force their government into Multilateralism.

Britain is certainly not in fear of the United States, since we are their closest allies. We are however becoming increasingly embarrassed by our ‘special-relationship’. That it continues is testimony to it’s overall benefit to both parties; but these benefits are more-or-less taken for granted now by both sides, and the differences in world-view between the USA and Britain have come to viewed with some unease in this country.

Likewise we are not envious of American power. With the exception of a few on the extreme right, the end of empire and strength is not lamented. The British Empire was a good deal more benevolent than those of other contemporary countries despite its numerous shameful aspects, but is now treated as an almost embarrassing episode that most people seem to want to forget all about. We have been there, done that, and received as much (if not more) hostility for our troubles.

But all of this is criticism of the American government, not the American people.

It is true that the stereotypical view of American’s is that they are arrogant, brash and loud, just as the Americans stereotype the British as frigidly reserved. It just so happens that this stereotype also fits well with our feelings about the American government.

If American’s really feel that strongly about their country receiving criticism then perhaps they should chose a government less offensive to the rest of the world. Either that or invade everyone who dares to utter any dissension…

If American’s really feel that strongly about their country receiving criticism then perhaps they should chose a government less offensive to the rest of the world. Either that or invade everyone who dares to utter any dissension…

We'll elect whoever we damn well please to elect. If we elect someone that Europe doesn't like to bad. Its our election and not yours. Don't tell us who to elect. We'll do our deciding for ourselves.

We'll elect whoever we damn well please to elect. If we elect someone that Europe doesn't like to bad. Its our election and not yours. Don't tell us who to elect. We'll do our deciding for ourselves.What are you going to tell me? I'm American.

What are you going to tell me? I'm American.

Your an american so your vote counts. Their's don't! I'm not going to tell you how to vote because I don't care how you vote. However, no foreigner is going to tell us who to vote for.

"The conservative Islamic revival that has swept the Arab world from the Middle East to North Africa in recent years has reached Europe, where frustrated second- and third-generation Arab immigrants frequently say they feel rejected by European society."
Craig S. Smith, "In Mourning Slain Filmmaker, Dutch Confront Limitations of Their Tolerance," The New York Times, November 10, 2004.

"Neither the blood spilled by Muslims from North Africa fighting in French uniforms during both world wars nor the sweat of migrant laborers, living under deplorable living conditions, who rebuilt France (and Europe) for a pittance after 1945, has made their children … full fellow citizens. Since they are denied such recognition, the author demands, ‘Oh sweet France! Are you astonished that so many of your children commune in a stinging naal bou la France (f* France) and damn your Fathers and call them ‘infidel?’"
Gilles Kepel, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003): 168.

"Under classical "assimilation American style" the United States has pursued a mix of transmutation (Anglo-conformity), melting (fusion over generations), and cultural pluralism (a relative cultural autonomy) which does not demand sudden, dramatic assimilation in the first or even the second generation but rather a process which cedes a certain cultural autonomy not just in the private but also, to an extent, in the public square. The relative autonomy respecting religion pertains also to assimilation. The French ban the foulard in public schools; the Germans ban its wear by public employees. The British celebrate it. We tolerate it. Rules for the federal workplace require "government supervisors to respect individual expressions of faith by federal employees. Christians will be able to keep Bibles on their desks, Muslim women will be able to wear headscarves, and Jews can stay out on high holy days." One reason that assimilation seems to work better in the United States than in Europe is that the process avoids both the Charybdis of the (French) melting pot and the Scylla of pluralism and balkanization (Britain). The American compromise is squarely in the Western spirit of religious toleration: leaving the sphere of faith to the individual and political deliberation and coercion to the state."
Peter D. Salins, Assimilation, American Style, (New York: Basic Books, 1996); see also Philip Gleason, "American Identity and Americanization," in Stephan Thernstrom ed., (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980); Richard Alba, Ethnic Identity. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990); Alejandro Portes and Ruben G. Rumbaut, Immigrant America: A Portrait, (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1990).
Huntington 2004: 349-350.

"But while the French government is publicly supportive of Arab causes, it and other European governments are privately worried about future trends. Sept. 11 revealed that assimilation is working very poorly in much of Europe: terrorist ringleaders like Mohamed Atta were radicalized not in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, but in Western Europe. In a revealing incident that took place shortly after the attack on the World Trade Center, a crowd of mostly second- and third-generation French North Africans booed the Marseillaise during a soccer match between the French and Algerian national teams and chanted Osama bin Laden's name. Third-generation British Muslims have traveled to the West Bank to martyr themselves in suicide operations. Americans, looking at Europe, should be glad that they have made their country an assimilation powerhouse."
Francis Fukuyama, State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century (Cornell, 2005): 84.

Your an american so your vote counts.
That really depends on which state you're in. As your vote counts more in a smaller state than it does in a larger state, you should know that!

Your an american so your vote counts. Their's don't! I'm not going to tell you how to vote because I don't care how you vote. However, no foreigner is going to tell us who to vote for.That puts me into a tight spot. I care how you vote because it's my country. So I'd tell you what not to vote (though I wouldn't command you, it would still be your choice). I happen to be a foreigner too, though.

That really depends on which state you're in. As your vote counts more in a smaller state than it does in a larger state, you should know that!

Every vote counts Achtung. It doesn't matter what state you live in.

Your an american so your vote counts. Their's don't! I'm not going to tell you how to vote because I don't care how you vote. However, no foreigner is going to tell us who to vote for.
And can the Americans tell citizens of some foreign land whom to vote for?

That puts me into a tight spot. I care how you vote because it's my country. So I'd tell you what not to vote (though I wouldn't command you, it would still be your choice). I happen to be a foreigner too, though.

If your an American Citizen, your vote counts as does your opinion on the issues. If your a foreigner, your vote doesn't count and and your opinions don't matter.

We'll elect whoever we damn well please to elect. If we elect someone that Europe doesn't like to bad. Its our election and not yours. Don't tell us who to elect. We'll do our deciding for ourselves.

I wasn't trying to tell you who to elect. I tend to believe in a country's right to sovereignty.

Personally I don't care what people think of my governement, it's you guy's that are concerned with 'anti-americanism'. I was just saying that if you want to be popular then you've picked the wrong guy.

I wasn't trying to tell you who to elect. I tend to believe in a country's right to sovereignty.

Personally I don't care what people think of my governement, it's you guy's that are concerned with 'anti-americanism'. I was just saying that if you want to be popular then you've picked the wrong guy.

Last time I checked, we're not out to win a popularity contest.

My apologies for attacking you the way I did.

Every vote counts Achtung. It doesn't matter what state you live in.
I know I already showed you the math. Someone's vote in Wyoming counts ~3.5 times more than someone's vote in California. Furthermore, your vote doesn't count at all if your party's already going to win the state, such as California and Texas. That is why many college students came to Arizona in time to vote, as Arizona was more of a swing state than Calif so their vote would make more of a difference.

When I was checking over my nation of Traduce this morning, I saw the link to this thread in the left column. Needless to say it caught my eye. I spent several minutes reading over posts, some are enlightening, others horrendously ignorant.

I am an American Alien. I was born in England, but when I was still very young, moved to America. My parents are both American, and I have always considered myself the same. My father was stationed and England, so I was born on a U.S. Air Force base. Still, having lived in England, I feel a connection to that country. I've returned once since I left, and loved it even more. (Although, I could stand for more ice in my drinks.) :)

I'm sure many of you are wondering what in the world my point is. My love for the U.K. ignighted a passion for its history. I am by no means an expert, but I am at least educated in the subject. One person made a comment relating to Americans' ignorance for history. This is sadly true.

Not only do many Americans not know world history, we are also surprisingly ignorant about our own history. There are many reasons for this. One of which, is the amount of errors in our history books. Companies produce these volumes with gross amounts of mistakes. Another reason, is that many people (mostly among the lower and impoverished classes) can not afford to take an interest.

I feel that the biggest reason for Anti-American sentiment is probably not due to jealousy, but instead a difference of culture. Americans feel no ill-will towards the Brits., but many have animosity for the French. Yet, there is still a history of abrasion between the Brits. and French as well. We make fun of Canada, but still generally get along with it.

America is still a very young country, and like young children we can be egotistical, arrogant, and ignorant. We don't have the time as nations that Europe has, please be patient.

That being said, it makes one look sadly ignorant when they mock our President for not being a fluid public speaker. It is easy to write him off as a moron just because he is akward, however he is a very bright man. He is also stubborn, which is another trait many dislike. When Clinton was in office, I thought he was a liar, but I didn't insult his intelligence. I disagreed with him on many political issues. However, I know how to debate using points, not insults.

I am an American. I love my country, I serve my country militarily. I have qualms with many things. I am a right-winger, and a traditionalist. I am also an isolationist. I support Bush, yet I also disagree with many of his policies.

Now you know where I stand, so I ask those who hate America: Please, reconsider Americans, understand that our Nation is vastly different than yours, as well as a great deal younger. Know that many of our arrogant elitests are ignorant in a great many things. Our history stems from Europe, therefore we have commonality. Please, don't let a difference of opinions or politics sway you toward hatred.

Last time I checked, we're not out to win a popularity contest.

My apologies for attacking you the way I did.

No problem.

True about the popularity contest, but then you have to expect criticism. You can choose what you're country does so have no reason to complain about the course it takes. Everyone else is effected by it but has no choice. Hence we moan a bit.

If your an American Citizen, your vote counts as does your opinion on the issues. If your a foreigner, your vote doesn't count and and your opinions don't matter.Hence the problem, Corneliu, I am BOTH!

When I was checking over my nation of Traduce this morning, I saw the link to this thread in the left column. Needless to say it caught my eye. I spent several minutes reading over posts, some are enlightening, others horrendously ignorant.

I am an American Alien. I was born in England, but when I was still very young, moved to America. My parents are both American, and I have always considered myself the same. My father was stationed and England, so I was born on a U.S. Air Force base. Still, having lived in England, I feel a connection to that country. I've returned once since I left, and loved it even more. (Although, I could stand for more ice in my drinks.) :)

I'm sure many of you are wondering what in the world my point is. My love for the U.K. ignighted a passion for its history. I am by no means an expert, but I am at least educated in the subject. One person made a comment relating to Americans' ignorance for history. This is sadly true.

Not only do many Americans not know world history, we are also surprisingly ignorant about our own history. There are many reasons for this. One of which, is the amount of errors in our history books. Companies produce these volumes with gross amounts of mistakes. Another reason, is that many people (mostly among the lower and impoverished classes) can not afford to take an interest.

I feel that the biggest reason for Anti-American sentiment is probably not due to jealousy, but instead a difference of culture. Americans feel no ill-will towards the Brits., but many have animosity for the French. Yet, there is still a history of abrasion between the Brits. and French as well. We make fun of Canada, but still generally get along with it.

America is still a very young country, and like young children we can be egotistical, arrogant, and ignorant. We don't have the time as nations that Europe has, please be patient.

That being said, it makes one look sadly ignorant when they mock our President for not being a fluid public speaker. It is easy to write him off as a moron just because he is akward, however he is a very bright man. He is also stubborn, which is another trait many dislike. When Clinton was in office, I thought he was a liar, but I didn't insult his intelligence. I disagreed with him on many political issues. However, I know how to debate using points, not insults.

I am an American. I love my country, I serve my country militarily. I have qualms with many things. I am a right-winger, and a traditionalist. I am also an isolationist. I support Bush, yet I also disagree with many of his policies.

Now you know where I stand, so I ask those who hate America: Please, reconsider Americans, understand that our Nation is vastly different than yours, as well as a great deal younger. Know that many of our arrogant elitests are ignorant in a great many things. Our history stems from Europe, therefore we have commonality. Please, don't let a difference of opinions or politics sway you toward hatred.


Wow. That's one hell of a first post!

Hence the problem, Corneliu, I am BOTH!

Well now.... Since your an American Citizen I will listen to your opinions more than I have regarding American Policy.

Wow. That's one hell of a first post!

I only post when I feel as though I have something worth saying. :)

I wonder though if people will actually read it. I did make it rather long. :)

When I was checking over my nation of Traduce this morning, I saw the link to this thread in the left column. Needless to say it caught my eye. I spent several minutes reading over posts, some are enlightening, others horrendously ignorant.

I am an American Alien. I was born in England, but when I was still very young, moved to America. My parents are both American, and I have always considered myself the same. My father was stationed and England, so I was born on a U.S. Air Force base. Still, having lived in England, I feel a connection to that country. I've returned once since I left, and loved it even more. (Although, I could stand for more ice in my drinks.) :)

I'm sure many of you are wondering what in the world my point is. My love for the U.K. ignighted a passion for its history. I am by no means an expert, but I am at least educated in the subject. One person made a comment relating to Americans' ignorance for history. This is sadly true.

Not only do many Americans not know world history, we are also surprisingly ignorant about our own history. There are many reasons for this. One of which, is the amount of errors in our history books. Companies produce these volumes with gross amounts of mistakes. Another reason, is that many people (mostly among the lower and impoverished classes) can not afford to take an interest.

I feel that the biggest reason for Anti-American sentiment is probably not due to jealousy, but instead a difference of culture. Americans feel no ill-will towards the Brits., but many have animosity for the French. Yet, there is still a history of abrasion between the Brits. and French as well. We make fun of Canada, but still generally get along with it.

America is still a very young country, and like young children we can be egotistical, arrogant, and ignorant. We don't have the time as nations that Europe has, please be patient.

That being said, it makes one look sadly ignorant when they mock our President for not being a fluid public speaker. It is easy to write him off as a moron just because he is akward, however he is a very bright man. He is also stubborn, which is another trait many dislike. When Clinton was in office, I thought he was a liar, but I didn't insult his intelligence. I disagreed with him on many political issues. However, I know how to debate using points, not insults.

I am an American. I love my country, I serve my country militarily. I have qualms with many things. I am a right-winger, and a traditionalist. I am also an isolationist. I support Bush, yet I also disagree with many of his policies.

Now you know where I stand, so I ask those who hate America: Please, reconsider Americans, understand that our Nation is vastly different than yours, as well as a great deal younger. Know that many of our arrogant elitests are ignorant in a great many things. Our history stems from Europe, therefore we have commonality. Please, don't let a difference of opinions or politics sway you toward hatred.

Well said dudette. Well said indeed. And thanks for serving our fine nation :)

Well said dude. Well said indeed. And thanks for serving our fine nation :)

Actually, I'm a dudette. :D And you are quite welcome.

Actually, I'm a dudette. :D And you are quite welcome.

my apologies :)

I even fixed it for ya :)

I only post when I feel as though I have something worth saying. :)

I wonder though if people will actually read it. I did make it rather long. :)


I wasn't commenting on the length! I was commenting on the brevity, bro (er- I mean 'sis' ;-) ). Bravo!!!

my apologies :)

Not a problem. :)

I wasn't commenting on the length! I was commenting on the brevity, bro. Bravo!!!

LoL, I didn't want to write a book on the subject. At least, not yet. :D

LoL, I didn't want to write a book on the subject. At least, not yet. :D


Well I personally hope to see more posts from you in the future!

Well I personally hope to see more posts from you in the future!

I suppose that could be arranged.

Well I personally hope to see more posts from you in the future!

I second that!

Well now.... Since your an American Citizen I will listen to your opinions more than I have regarding American Policy.I s'pose that's something at least :)

Any reason why the MSN chat links don't work?

(sorry to get off-subject)

(some) People on both sides of this "debate" are largely presenting arguments based on their own (or somebody's) cultural myths. People in all places are generally the same, when you get down to it. Governments suck in general, because power corrupts.
Politicians who follow aparticular ideology or dogma rather than examine every issue to find where "the good of the people" lies, are dangerous and bad for their countries. The Nazis took the philosophy of Nietsche and others VERY LITERALLY and created a new society that of course was horrible. Bush and his cronies are pushing a semi-fundamentalist christian dogma to gain support of the religious right but are really interested in furthering the interests of big business, particularly big oil (energy). These are really his bosses.
As big business goes, so does America, and all of America's little people benefit
and it keeps us content.
Every nation, especially powerful ones, has its own propaganda. those who lose wars have theirs partly erased by the victors. But the winners of the conflicts have their propaganda written into their history, and it becomes part of their cultural myths. Americans are trained from childhood to believe that America is "the best place in the world" "the center of freedom" "fair and just"
etc. Much of this has been partly true at one time or another. However, many Americans accept these things as completely true no matter what, because it's more comfortable to cling to your cultural myth than to open your eyes and face the other angry defenders of the myth.
America still has many great things about it, but it is so ruled by money and the myth that wealth/money=truth/right/justice that corporations have become "the people" in the phrase "of the people, by the people, for the people." Americans are not bad people, they are misled, both internally and externally.

(some) People on both sides of this "debate" are largely presenting arguments based on their own (or somebody's) cultural myths. People in all places are generally the same, when you get down to it. Governments suck in general, because power corrupts.
Politicians who follow aparticular ideology or dogma rather than examine every issue to find where "the good of the people" lies, are dangerous and bad for their countries. The Nazis took the philosophy of Nietsche and others VERY LITERALLY and created a new society that of course was horrible. Bush and his cronies are pushing a semi-fundamentalist christian dogma to gain support of the religious right but are really interested in furthering the interests of big business, particularly big oil (energy). These are really his bosses.
As big business goes, so does America, and all of America's little people benefit
and it keeps us content.
Every nation, especially powerful ones, has its own propaganda. those who lose wars have theirs partly erased by the victors. But the winners of the conflicts have their propaganda written into their history, and it becomes part of their cultural myths. Americans are trained from childhood to believe that America is "the best place in the world" "the center of freedom" "fair and just"
etc. Much of this has been partly true at one time or another. However, many Americans accept these things as completely true no matter what, because it's more comfortable to cling to your cultural myth than to open your eyes and face the other angry defenders of the myth.
America still has many great things about it, but it is so ruled by money and the myth that wealth/money=truth/right/justice that corporations have become "the people" in the phrase "of the people, by the people, for the people." Americans are not bad people, they are misled, both internally and externally.

Very well-said. I couldn't agree more.

Any reason why the MSN chat links don't work?

(sorry to get off-subject)

well... if you want to talk more, I can give you my msn name though it isn't on at the moment :)

larrykehoe@hotmail.com is my msn addy.

Americans are trained from childhood to believe that America is "the best place in the world" "the center of freedom" "fair and just"
etc. Much of this has been partly true at one time or another. However, many Americans accept these things as completely true no matter what, because it's more comfortable to cling to your cultural myth than to open your eyes and face the other angry defenders of the myth.
America still has many great things about it, but it is so ruled by money and the myth that wealth/money=truth/right/justice that corporations have become "the people" in the phrase "of the people, by the people, for the people." Americans are not bad people, they are misled, both internally and externally.

My biggest complaint about our government (and I cherish that I am able to express complaints freely) is that it is no longer a democracy. The people are too complacent, and we do not take the power into our own hands. People complain about their representatives, but never call to harrass them over issues. A large number of people do not vote, and out of those who do, many are ignorant about the candidates. This peoples government has become a people of sheep, being lead by propaganda. I couldn't agree with you more there. However, I am very aware of who I vote for, and the issues. However, I believe it is a stretch to say that big buisness is the real agenda.

christian dogma to gain support of the religious right but are really interested in furthering the interests of big business, particularly big oil (energy)

This comment is interesting. I have heard many times that Pres. Bush is using Christianity as a motivation. Is it hard to believe that perhaps he is truly Christian, and has faith in it? Furthermore, we were accused of going to war with Iraq last time over it oil, as well as when we invaded Kuwait. I have yet to see a quote of the number of barrels we are stealing away from the country or the amount of money we are reaping from the oil. If we didn't steal it from other countries before when we had the chance, why would we now? I must say, the comment that we've furthered the interests as far as oil is concerned is unsubstantiated. Please, if I am ignorant, show me. But do not claim that Chrisitian dogma is a front, that is unjust.

well... if you want to talk more, I can give you my msn name though it isn't on at the moment :)

larrykehoe@hotmail.com is my msn addy.

I would, and mine is ablindmansees@yahoo.com

I would, and mine is ablindmansees@yahoo.com

Thank you :)

I also have yahoo messenger as well.

My biggest complaint about our government (and I cherish ...



This comment is interesting. I have heard many times that Pres. Bush is using Christianity as a motivation. Is it hard to believe that perhaps he is truly Christian, and has faith in it? Furthermore, we were accused of going to war with Iraq last time over it oil, as well as when we invaded Kuwait. I have yet to see a quote of the number of barrels we are stealing away from the country or the amount of money we are reaping from the oil. If we didn't steal it from other countries before when we had the chance, why would we now? I must say, the comment that we've furthered the interests as far as oil is concerned is unsubstantiated. Please, if I am ignorant, show me. But do not claim that Chrisitian dogma is a front, that is unjust.

I am only expressing what I believe. I NEVER said anything about the U.S. stealing oil. I supported the liberation of Kuwait. If the U.S. can be said to have an ulterior motive in the Middle east, it is primarily to stabilize the region that is the world's main source of oil, and therefore to stabilize oil prices which are the single largest controller of the U.S. economy. It has been said that just prior to the Iraq war, Iraq was attempting to negotiate to trade oil with the European Union and wished to trade oil in Euros instead of Dollars. All oil trade, worldwide, is conducted in U.S. Dollars.
I am not denying that Bush is a Christian or anything like that: But let's be clear- big business is the biggest bully in the political arena, with the most resources and connections, and the one with the least conscience.

I am only expressing what I believe. I NEVER said anything about the U.S. stealing oil. I supported the liberation of Kuwait. If the U.S. can be said to have an ulterior motive in the Middle east, it is primarily to stabilize the region that is the world's main source of oil, and therefore to stabilize oil prices which are the single largest controller of the U.S. economy. It has been said that just prior to the Iraq war, Iraq was attempting to negotiate to trade oil with the European Union and wished to trade oil in Euros instead of Dollars. All oil trade, worldwide, is conducted in U.S. Dollars.
I am not denying that Bush is a Christian or anything like that: But let's be clear- big business is the biggest bully in the political arena, with the most resources and connections, and the one with the least conscience.

My apologies for assuming. :)

That is an interesting theory, I hadn't heard it before. I agree that big buisness corrupts many things, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that what you say is true. Unfortunately big buisness is good for the economy, but bad for morality. I must agree with you on that point.

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.

ha. In the US congress there are 6 congressmen of arab decent. NOT muslim. It appears that the first muslim to run for congress was in 2002 and i don't think he won.

Britain has 4 muslim MPs.

so it appears you were mistaken

...
America is still a very young country, and like young children we can be egotistical, arrogant, and ignorant. We don't have the time as nations that Europe has, please be patient.
...
Now you know where I stand, so I ask those who hate America: Please, reconsider Americans, understand that our Nation is vastly different than yours, as well as a great deal younger. Know that many of our arrogant elitests are ignorant in a great many things. Our history stems from Europe, therefore we have commonality. Please, don't let a difference of opinions or politics sway you toward hatred.
I wouldn't put depleted uranium, or cluster bombs in the hands of a young child, would you?

I still haven't read any posts saying "I hate America". Personally, I hate the way you're conducting your external policies long before GW. But in the recent years your "projection of power" is wearing the cloak of righteousness, freedom and democracy. "We- good, they- evil"
I find all this power, this simple-mindness from official spokepresons and your general unwillingness to learn from your mistakes frightening for us all.

If the U.S. can be said to have an ulterior motive in the Middle east, it is primarily to stabilize the region that is the world's main source of oil, and therefore to stabilize oil prices which are the single largest controller of the U.S. economy.
And we can see that they did a great job on both respects, can't we?

I'm Nerion, I have no proper opions of my own, so I have to link you to other people's. I also seem to think quoting people who are not renowned in their fields and do not seem to have any authority on said fields, will add validity to my arguments.

Sorry to rip out the personal insults, however, "personal insults help to increase multi-cultural tolerance by stimulating the lower, right lobe of the brain" Henry Jones. *cough*

Sorry to rip out the personal insults, however, "personal insults help to increase multi-cultural tolerance by stimulating the lower, right lobe of the brain" Henry Jones. *cough*


They are not reknowned in their fields? The facts that they use to back up their arguments are false?

With all due respect -when pitting your (so far) completely and utterly unsupported opinions against theirs, you don't fare well at all.

You don't strike me as someone with the kind of knowledge my sources have.

Do you have any supporting arguments or statistics/facts whatsoever to back up your dissent? I'm going to bet your next post won't contain any.

They are not reknowned in their fields?


Don't TRY to correct my spelling - no 'k' in 'renowned' I'm afraid; I actually bothered to check before writing it.

And for your second point, I would like to say that I never disputed the opinions of your 'experts'. I was merely expressing my displeasure at the way in which you keep using other people's opinions to justify your own arguments, instead of using facts.

a small point. Many people on NS feel that it was right to change the gov. of iraq because of all the wrong things they did. Many NSers also feel that other countries need to make changes to benefit their citizens. Whether its child labour, women oppression, etc....

So why is it that when this is directed at the US instead of china/france/cuba/etc... it is considered anti-US???

I was only having a little experiment :) to see if fake quotes could be used.

Europeans are just jealous because we have more black women than they do, and theirs arn't even the real black women ;)

Seriously though, America gets blamed becuase it's always easiest to blame the person on top. If something's broken why arn't they fixing it? If something's fixed why did it take so long? Why do they get to have nice asses and not us!

Don't TRY to correct my spelling - no 'k' in 'renowned' I'm afraid; I actually bothered to check before writing it.

And for your second point, I would like to say that I never disputed the opinions of your 'experts'. I was merely expressing my displeasure at the way in which you keep using other people's opinions to justify your own arguments, instead of using facts.


That's how good debaters debate. If that bothers you, it's obvious you've got some painful memories from prior debates. And I've quoted other people for two reasons. One, to use the facts that they used to back up their statements, and two, to show that I've actually done some reading on the subject.

And as I predicted, you didn't come back here with anything but more statements of discontented off-topic personal baggage.

That point was a bit dubious

My biggest complaint about our government (and I cherish that I am able to express complaints freely) is that it is no longer a democracy. The people are too complacent, and we do not take the power into our own hands. People complain about their representatives, but never call to harrass them over issues. A large number of people do not vote, and out of those who do, many are ignorant about the candidates. This peoples government has become a people of sheep, being lead by propaganda. I couldn't agree with you more there. However, I am very aware of who I vote for, and the issues. However, I believe it is a stretch to say that big buisness is the real agenda.

Why? Big business votes. Not just with actual votes, but with dollars, which is one of the biggest votes there is. I could run for local office tommorrow and I'd probably get the vote of everyone I know. Including people who don't really like me that much or know me that well. But I'd still loose the vote of all the people here who've never heard of me. And that's a lot of people, because I can't afford to put ads on TV, nor can I mobilize the numbers of people I'd have to to put billboards up all over the place, or take the surveys of constituent concerns in the area. If someone was willing to foot the bill for all that stuff, then I'd probably shift my positions to accomodate him. Not because I'm greedy or immoral, but because if I don't, then I don't get to enact any of my policies, and if I do then I don't get to enact some of my policies. Statisticly, the people who are going to be willing and able to do that will probably be big business interests. If George Soros knew me, well then, that'd be different.

This comment is interesting. I have heard many times that Pres. Bush is using Christianity as a motivation. Is it hard to believe that perhaps he is truly Christian, and has faith in it? Furthermore, we were accused of going to war with Iraq last time over it oil, as well as when we invaded Kuwait. I have yet to see a quote of the number of barrels we are stealing away from the country or the amount of money we are reaping from the oil. If we didn't steal it from other countries before when we had the chance, why would we now? I must say, the comment that we've furthered the interests as far as oil is concerned is unsubstantiated. Please, if I am ignorant, show me. But do not claim that Chrisitian dogma is a front, that is unjust.

War for oil isn't just about carting the oil back here. It's also about controling the oil market making the US able to decide how much oil other countries can buy, regardless of how much money they're willing to spend on it (so much for laize faire economics). Especially China. Take a look at how the government acted pretty quickly to forcibly prevent the purchase of some US interests by a Chinese company.
Click here. (http://www.bartlett.house.gov/latestnews.asp?ARTICLE2900=7296)

You hear all the talk about going to war in Iran? You think it's about nuclear power generators? I'm not so sure.
Click here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3970855.stm)

Going to dine now Nerion, I'm not flummoxed by anything you've said, simply hungry my good man. ;)

That point was a bit dubious


But that's the method columnists, essayists and authors who write to further a particular point of view conduct their research and publish their findings. They quote other sources, sometimes with more expertise in the subject matter to lend credibility to their arguments. Those who counter those arguments will oft times quote dissenting experts to refute or discredit those arguments.

If you were arguing with my points, you did a very poor job. But in your defense, you said you weren't.

So you were arguing with the way most expert journalists post slated opinions and the methods they use. Go ahead and make fun of me - I'm in very good company.

Going to dine now Nerion, I'm not flummoxed by anything you've said, simply hungry my good man. ;)

Neither am I. Enjoy your meal, Sir.

Why? Big business votes. Not just with actual votes, but with dollars, which is one of the biggest votes there is. I could run for local office tommorrow and I'd probably get the vote of everyone I know. Including people who don't really like me that much or know me that well. But I'd still loose the vote of all the people here who've never heard of me. And that's a lot of people, because I can't afford to put ads on TV, nor can I mobilize the numbers of people I'd have to to put billboards up all over the place, or take the surveys of constituent concerns in the area. If someone was willing to foot the bill for all that stuff, then I'd probably shift my positions to accomodate him. Not because I'm greedy or immoral, but because if I don't, then I don't get to enact any of my policies, and if I do then I don't get to enact some of my policies. Statisticly, the people who are going to be willing and able to do that will probably be big business interests. If George Soros knew me, well then, that'd be different.



War for oil isn't just about carting the oil back here. It's also about controling the oil market making the US able to decide how much oil other countries can buy, regardless of how much money they're willing to spend on it (so much for laize faire economics). Especially China. Take a look at how the government acted pretty quickly to forcibly prevent the purchase of some US interests by a Chinese company.
Click here. (http://www.bartlett.house.gov/latestnews.asp?ARTICLE2900=7296)

You hear all the talk about going to war in Iran? You think it's about nuclear power generators? I'm not so sure.
Click here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3970855.stm)

Thank you for providing me links to read, I'll review them and get back to you. I haven't a doubt in the world that big buisnesses vote with money. I want to be an idealist and scream and rant that that's not how it should be. Still, I'm a realist, and I understand that that's the way it is. Therefore I'll vote along my moral lines, and try to find a candidate that matches it as closely as possible. All the while, I'll listen to all the wonderful conspiracy theories that get my brain going. :) Who needs crossword puzzles to prevent alzheimer when you have politics?

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

That's bullshit. He actually caught the guys who did it, and he investigated the networks behind it so that Bush actually knew who Osama bin Laden was when he took office. It was Bush who did nothing about terrorism. Oh he's done stuff in the name of fighting terrorism, but none of it has any actual baring on terrorism. After all, terrorism was unknown in Iraq before Bush removed the government.

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.

Terrorism is a tactic, not a political climate. What the IRA did was terrorism because they were hoping to destroy support for the government by setting off explosives in public places. Just like when the CIA helped the Contra rebels fight the Sandanista government in Nicaragua, the first thing they did was plan a terrorist bombing of two civilian bridges.

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.

No, the whole world was behind us when 9/11 happened, and they would have forgiven us anything right after 9/11. But bush stalled and stalled because he wasn't interested in preventing terrorism, he was interested in turning terrorism to his advantage. Europe can see that we aren't acting in self-defense in Iraq. If we were, then they'd probably have supported us. European opinion turned against empire building a generation ago. We're still in favor of it, the same way that new celebrities are all in favor of drug and alcohol abuse, and reckless anonymous sex, until they suffer liver failure, an overdose, or a venereal disease. Then they mend their ways and tell everyone how they wish they'd never become drug addicted, whore mongering, alcoholics and that those young turks shouldn't now that it's their turn in the limelight.

It's not exactly hypocrisy, just evolution. We're a generation behind, but we don't see it. Kobe doesn't look at Magic Johnson and say "I'd better shape up before I end up like him." He has sex with groupies and buys his wife jewelry to make up for it. The US doesn't look at France and England and say "we'd better not go conquering the world and making them hate us," we say "pussies! Step aside and let a real world power show you how to build an empire."

I agree, that isn't laize faire economics at all. Remember, I'm an isolationist. I would prefer that we weren't reliant on oil at all. As far as the war being about controlling the oil industry... it makes sense, I don't think that was the main reason, but its a good theory. Call me stubborn, or an idealist, perhaps I just don't want to believe that many of my brother and sisters-in-arms are dying for those reasons. Unfortunately, I don't think all the motives will come to light for a good many more years. Until something can truly convince me of otherwise, I will conclude that we went to war over human rights, national security, and a bit of big buisness thrown in. War is profitable, no doubts about that. Just read Catch-22, but I don't believe that it was the driving reason.

If I had my way, we'd get away from globalization (that's right a Republican that is anti-globalization) and go back to being a self-reliant country. George Washington is probably turning in his grave.

Terrorism is a tactic, not a political climate. What the IRA did was terrorism because they were hoping to destroy support for the government by setting off explosives in public places. Just like when the CIA helped the Contra rebels fight the Sandanista government in Nicaragua, the first thing they did was plan a terrorist bombing of two civilian bridges.

I agree that the IRA are terrorists, and even Ireland has admitted they've gotten out of control. The Contra incidents were an error on our part, that's for damned sure. I don't know enough about it to go in-depth, but I do know enough to admit we Fed up.

Terrorism comes in many forms, and the US can be guilty of it as well... after all, we were called terrorists when we threw the Tea in Boston's Harbor.

Nerion, the point about which I made the "dubious" comment was the one regarding more 'proper black women' in America.

ha. In the US congress there are 6 congressmen of arab decent. NOT muslim. It appears that the first muslim to run for congress was in 2002 and i don't think he won.

Britain has 4 muslim MPs.

so it appears you were mistaken

"Muslim Americans first began running for office in sizable numbers only in the 1990s, says Agha Saeed, national chairman of the American-Muslim Alliance, a civic education organization. But by the time elections rolled around in 2000, close to 700 Muslim Americans were candidates for a variety of offices.

That year, 153 Muslims - split almost equally between African-Americans and immigrants - were elected, including four to state senates and assemblies. And Muslims were coming out in increasingly large numbers to vote and support "their" candidates."

The US has representatives at municipal, state and federal levels. There are far more muslim representatives in our government than there are in the UK. Period.

Nerion, the point about which I made the "dubious" comment was the one regarding more 'proper black women' in America.


LOL!!!! Sorry about that one. You didn't quote the post you were responding to and it appeared immediately after mine.

And can the Americans tell citizens of some foreign land whom to vote for?

No, but we can arrange it so that you can't vote for people we don't like, or kill him if you do anyway. It's not a perfect system, and it didn't work with Hugo Vasquez, or Castro.

Or we can just set up a rebellion or a coup, like we did in Guatemala. We tried that in Venezuela too a couple of years ago, but it only worked for about a day or so, then Vasquez was back in power.

But don't think for a second that that gives Venezuela the right to have an opinion on American politics. [/sarcasm]

Finally Nerion, you used a quote which could, even if only very improbably, be interpreted as purposeful. Full stop.

Last time I checked, we're not out to win a popularity contest.

My apologies for attacking you the way I did.

Last time I checked this was a thread dedicated to where Anti-American sentiment is coming from.

And can the Americans tell citizens of some foreign land whom to vote for?
Also Olantia, I believe that if one's speech is going to be affected or pretentious enough to include whom, it should be used in its correct OBJECTIVE way - and following the preposition, not preceding it.

No, the whole world was behind us when 9/11 happened, and they would have forgiven us anything right after 9/11. But bush stalled and stalled because he wasn't interested in preventing terrorism, he was interested in turning terrorism to his advantage. Europe can see that we aren't acting in self-defense in Iraq. If we were, then they'd probably have supported us.

True. If an ally is attacked, Europe has its troops at the ready (and European troops are still in Afghanistan, thus indirectly supporting the war in Iraq, as the US could withdraw from the area) and will assist in any way possible.

If an ally feels attacked, but there is serious doubt as to the dircetion from which the attack is coming, Europe will ask for evidence before action, to make sure whatever action is taken will be effective.

If there is very little and highly dubious evidence, and on closer inspection no evidence at all, only the desire to attack another nation, you shouldn't ask for help in the first place.


European opinion turned against empire building a generation ago.
More like two generations...

I know I already showed you the math. Someone's vote in Wyoming counts ~3.5 times more than someone's vote in California. Furthermore, your vote doesn't count at all if your party's already going to win the state, such as California and Texas. That is why many college students came to Arizona in time to vote, as Arizona was more of a swing state than Calif so their vote would make more of a difference.

Dammit, don't go confusing republicans with facts when they've already made up their minds. Being accountable to reason and logic is flagrantly unamerican. Truth is determined by ideals and national mythology.

The president is fully acountable to the law.
What ever people decide their vote on, the best candidate always gets the job. Unless it's a democrat.
America is the freest country in the world, regardless of how many civil liberties we give up.
The whole country, all 50 states, was founded by a single boatload of Puritains from England seeking religious freedom.

To disagree is unpatriotic. You're not unpatriotic are you?

Finally Nerion, you used a quote which could, even if only very improbably, be interpreted as purposeful. Full stop.

Well the other quotes were useful at demonstrating Europe's failure at integrating their muslim immigrants, IMO. But YOUR opinion is noted.

You're being a bit sarcastic there Domici, I hope?

Well the other quotes were useful at demonstrating Europe's failure at integrating their muslim immigrants, IMO. But YOUR opinion is noted.

While I can't argue the fact that the Muslim community could be far better integrated in Europe than it actually is, what exactly is the point you are trying to make?

One really interessting fact, despite integration, I've yet to see a group of angry Muslims burning a EU flag on the evening news.

Sure did Traduce.

What I was trying to point out, was that Olantia was trying to be pretentious, but was failing and therefore..............blah....blah....blah.....I'm a hypocritical dickwod..........blah....mind deleting your quote? I've rectified the problem.

You're being a bit sarcastic there Domici, I hope?

With the Venezuela thing, or the national mythology thing?

Either way, perhaps just a bit. ;)

Dammit, don't go confusing republicans with facts when they've already made up their minds. Being accountable to reason and logic is flagrantly unamerican. Truth is determined by ideals and national mythology.
Ah, thank you for clearing that up. :D

Sure did Traduce.

What I was trying to point out, was that Olantia was trying to be pretentious, but was failing and therefore..............blah....blah....blah.....I'm a hypocritical dickwod..........blah....mind deleting your quote? I've rectified the problem.

LoL it's dickwad. You're amusing at least, and I deleted it.

While I can't argue the fact that the Muslim community could be far better integrated in Europe than it actually is, what exactly is the point you are trying to make?

One really interessting fact, despite integration, I've yet to see a group of angry Muslims burning a EU flag on the evening news.


No, they blow up buses and trains. You don't see muslims living in the US burning flags on the evening news. And the terrorists that attacked the US on 9/11 were not US citizens and didn't live here for most of their lives. Some of the terrorists that hit London were second generation muslims and citizens of the UK.

My point was that the US has assimilated its immigrants far better than EU nations have.

Anti-Americanism

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?<-------- Question


Answer---->EN-VY Pronunciation (nv)
n. pl. en·vies
1.
a. A feeling of discontent and resentment aroused by and in conjunction with desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
b. The object of such feeling: Their new pool made them the envy of their neighbors.
2. Obsolete Malevolence.
tr.v. en·vied, en·vy·ing, en·vies
1. To feel envy toward.
2. To regard with envy.

No, they blow up buses and trains. You don't see muslims living in the US burning flags on the evening news. And the terrorists that attacked the US on 9/11 were not US citizens and didn't live here for most of their lives. Some of the terrorists that hit London were second generation muslims and citizens of the UK.

My point was that the US has assimilated its immigrants far better than EU nations have.

1 point Nerion.

No, they blow up buses and trains.

One group of nutters did. Remember, most of the Irish weren't keen on explosions going off all over the place either.

:D Thank you indeed Traduce.

Anti-Americanism

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?<-------- Question


Answer---->EN-VY Pronunciation (nv)
n. pl. en·vies
1.
a. A feeling of discontent and resentment aroused by and in conjunction with desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
b. The object of such feeling: Their new pool made them the envy of their neighbors.
2. Obsolete Malevolence.
tr.v. en·vied, en·vy·ing, en·vies
1. To feel envy toward.
2. To regard with envy.


I wish it were that easy, unfortunately, I think that's a cop-out answer that doesn't look into the bigger issues, as well as history.

One group of nutters did. Remember, most of the Irish weren't keen on explosions going off all over the place either.

I won't dispute that. But my point is they were British citizens. To be sure, the problem of assimilation is nowhere near as bad it England as it is in France. That country is going to become a powder keg of tension over the next 10-20 years.

I won't dispute that. But my point is they were British citizens. To be sure, the problem of assimilation is nowhere near as bad it England as it is in France. That country is going to become a powder keg of tension over the next 10-20 years.

When isn't it a powder keg? France has revamped itself over and over again, and can't ever seem to settle into a government it likes. Perhaps it just doesn't like government?

I would like this Islamic integration thing to be cleared up a bit.

The policy in Europe has been multi-culturalism - not to force Muslims to sing Christian hymns in school, to let them pray when they want etc. because integration angered muslims (perhaps quite rightly) and parents threatened to remove their children from schools - which would have been even worse for creating closed communities.

Anyway, now the news in the U.K. is talking about how it may all have been a failure and doubting its future.

Just so you don't think we've ignored the issue or anything.

When isn't it a powder keg? France has revamped itself over and over again, and can't ever seem to settle into a government it likes. Perhaps it just doesn't like government?

It's always had tension. But I see lots of riots coming in that country much like the civil rights movement here in the US during the 60's. That country is 10% muslim and most of its muslims live in ghettos and segregated regions. Massive communities of them have come together in different parts of France and there doesn't seem to be any sign that those communities are melting into the pot as it were. France is going to have a hard core domestic problem if enough of those people feel disenfranchised by the government.

Anyway, now the news in the U.K. is talking about how it may all have been a failure and doubting its future.

Just so you don't think we've ignored the issue or anything.


Of course 2/3 Muslims reckon Multiculturalism's good. It's certainlybetter than trying to indoctrinate them into the Cult Brittania.

I would like this Islamic integration thing to be cleared up a bit.

The policy in Europe has been multi-culturalism - not to force Muslims to sing Christian hymns in school, to let them pray when they want etc. because integration angered muslims (perhaps quite rightly) and parents threatened to remove their children from schools - which would have been even worse for creating closed communities.

Anyway, now the news in the U.K. is talking about how it may all have been a failure and doubting its future.

Just so you don't think we've ignored the issue or anything.


I don't think they've ignored the issue. But things haven't worked as well as they have in the US.

I understand it is a bit late for this comment, but I cannot stand it when people criticize President Bush for his speech difficulties.

Stephen Hawking, probably one of the most brilliant men alive, arguably smarter than Albert Einstien, has a severe disability. He has ALS:
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), sometimes called Lou Gehrig's Disease, is a progressive neurological disease that attacks the nerve cells (neurons) that control voluntary muscles. This disease belongs to a group of motor neuron disorders (e.g., muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease) that are characterized by the gradual degeneration and death of motor neurons.
He talks in mumbles, and must have an interpreter during lectures to help him. Bush's speech difficulties don't even compare to Hawking's. Yet Hawking's is an incredibely brilliant man. Simply because Bush is not the greatest public speaker doesn't mean he is a bad president. If public speaking is a liberal's measure of a good president, why didn't all liberals fanatically support Regan?

I don't think they've ignored the issue. But things haven't worked as well as they have in the US.

But, I haven't bothered to look for evidence yet, I bet that Muslims in the U.S. have lost their culture and traditions.

That country [France] is 20% muslim and most of its muslims live in ghettos and segregated regions.
Or maybe even 10% muslim.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19960901faessay4226/milton-viorst/the-muslims-of-france-islam-abroad.html

I understand it is a bit late for this comment, but I cannot stand it when people criticize President Bush for his speech difficulties.

Stephen Hawking, probably one of the most brilliant men alive, arguably smarter than Albert Einstien, has a severe disability. He has ALS:
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), sometimes called Lou Gehrig's Disease, is a progressive neurological disease that attacks the nerve cells (neurons) that control voluntary muscles. This disease belongs to a group of motor neuron disorders (e.g., muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease) that are characterized by the gradual degeneration and death of motor neurons.
He talks in mumbles, and must have an interpreter during lectures to help him. Bush's speech difficulties don't even compare to Hawking's. Yet Hawking's is an incredibely brilliant man. Simply because Bush is not the greatest public speaker doesn't mean he is a bad president. If public speaking is a liberal's measure of a good president, why didn't all liberals fanatically support Regan?

Well, I have heard that Stephen Hawking may, possibly, have some wacko ...ideas. That aside, Stephen Hawking doesn't say stupid things, he just needs an electronic voice box to say some of his inspired opinions. George Bush has no Motor Neuronic Disease, he just speaks out of his a(rse/ss).

It's always had tension. But I see lots of riots coming in that country much like the civil rights movement here in the US during the 60's. That country is 20% muslim and most of its muslims live in ghettos and segregated regions. Massive communities of them have come together in different parts of France and there doesn't seem to be any sign that those communities are melting into the pot as it were. France is going to have a hard core domestic problem if enough of those people feel disenfranchised by the government.

Sorry to correct you again there, but your own sources state that the Muslim population in France is an estimated 10 %, not 20.

And I would like to point out that most European nations have been taking steps in the last 10 years to massively further the integration of the Muslim population. Unfortunately, on a political level, this has met with a rise of right-wing and extreme right-wing parties who are ready to do their utmost to hinder all such programs and to oppose all attempts at integration.
Europe has a lot to do on that sector, especially since it doesn't have a history of being an immigration continent. Any construcitve suggestions will be most welcome, I assure you. But please keep in mind that we cannot simply copy models that worked elsewhere due to different cultural situations and political climates.

But, I haven't bothered to look for evidence yet, I bet that Muslims in the U.S. have lost their culture and traditions.

Oh, I am sure they have! But I don't think it was forced on them.

Or maybe even 10% muslim.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19960901faessay4226/milton-viorst/the-muslims-of-france-islam-abroad.html

I fat fingered that one.

Sorry to correct you again there, but your own sources state that the Muslim population in France is an estimated 10 %, not 20.

That was a fat finger mistake. I've since corrected it - thanks!

Well, we didn't want them to lose any of their cultural identity.

I fat fingered that one.
That's okay. My source is 9 years old. If you insist, I'll go as far as to say it's 7 million strong today... making it what.. roughly 12%.

Well, we didn't want them to lose any of their cultural identity.

Which may be why, in the Muslim world, Europe has a slightly better image than the USA. If that's a good and desirable fact is up to you to decide...

It is nice to know though CH that you don't believe in International Law. You do know that Saddam violated international law right?
I DO believe in International law and that is why I am totally against the US invasion of Iraq.

It is interesting to note that the US and the UK wrote UN Resolution 1441 (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/1441.pdf), and ultimately it is those same two countries that violated that very same Resolution.

I have asked you to read Resolution 1441 numerous times and whether you read it or not, the message doesn't filter through the gray matter in your cranium. The fact remains that the US and UK violated Resolution 1441 and NOT Iraq. Here is a primary clause that YOU continually ignore:

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this
resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

The US and UK did not ALLOW the UN to finish their mandated job. The inspectors were NOT finding ANY WMD!!

Why did the US and UK invade Iraq? The world wants to know!!

Oh, and don't give me any of this ceasefire crap because it was not ever part of this resolution nor a determining factor.

I also believe in International Law, which states that regime change (the ultimate aim of the UUUUUUU.....SSSSSSS........ led invasion of Iraq) is an illegal motive for invasion.

Well, we didn't want them to lose any of their cultural identity.

One side effect is that it's left a lot of them feeling like their government doesn't care about them. It's a catch 22, but it's the price you pay. As an example of one cultural identity tradition lost for the most part in the US: Female circumcision is being practised more in the EU in recent years because that is one cultural tradition that muslims often still hold onto. I won't go as far as to say that it doesn't happen in the US, but it's certainly nowhere near as widespread.

Also, an Islamic man in Italy (thankfully) was arrested for publishing a work that, among other things, described the proper way for a muslim man to beat his wife (strike with a rod on the hands and feet so as not to bruise her body).

There have been some pretty deranged Christians too - Hitler...

I must admit, this is a very interesting thread.

There have been some pretty deranged Christians too - Hitler...

I won't dispute that. But Hitler was one individual. There are whole countrysides of people in the middle east that regularly circumcise their little girls. That's not being practised by some small number of nut jobs.

I must admit, this is a very interesting thread.

I fully agree!

There are also whole loads of Jews in Israel who actually believe that God promised them the "land of milk and honey" and as such they have the right to restrict the Arabs' movements etc.

It is odd how the thread has moved into discussing Muslims with no reference to the U.S.A.

Nerion, do you agree with the death penalty? Out of interest.

It is odd how the thread has moved into discussing Muslims with no reference to the U.S.A.

It'll drift back, they always do, sooner or later.

There are also whole loads of Jews in Israel who actually believe that God promised them the "land of milk and honey" and as such they have the right to restrict the Arabs' movements etc.

I won't dispute that either. My argument is that allowing or even insisting on immigrants keeping most if not all of their cultural identities has resulted in the beginning of what I see as a "disuniting" of certain countries.

The American cultural identity, with all of its faults and flaws, has been able to more easily assimilate different cultures into its population. The result is muslims who still practice their religion, but who adopt an American identity over 2 or 3 generations. They are still muslims, but decidedly and patriotically American.

many EU muslims, by contrast, still see themselves as expatriates even after 2 or 3 generations because most retain the cultural identity they, their parents or grandparents left their old country with and passed onto them for lack or sparsity of such an identity in their new nation.

Nerion, do you agree with the death penalty? Out of interest.

For what it's worth, yes I do, in extreme cases.

Aww, you disappoint me.

Aww, you disappoint me.

Hehe

No seriously, it does sadden me. :(

It is odd how the thread has moved into discussing Muslims with no reference to the U.S.A.

That was because someone posted that they'd rather live in the EU than the US, and I posted the first muslim immigrant piece in response to it. It's carried quite a wave.

No seriously, it does sadden me. :(

Point taken - we just have to agree to disagree. It's my belief that there are some crimes that are so heinous that the response is to remove the perpetrator from society in (hopefully) the most humane way possible. That's my opinion and I won't argue with anyone over it.

Removal from society could be prison though, surely...?

No seriously, it does sadden me. :(

If it makes you feel better, I don't.

It does :)

well I'm off

Removal from society could be prison though, surely...?

That is one way, I'll admit.

There are whole countrysides of people in the middle east that regularly circumcise their little girls. That's not being practised by some small number of nut jobs.
Actually it is much more common in africa than in the middle east and many muslim nations don't practise that

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.

This seems like an attempt to snipe back at europeans for puting your country down, Europeans are generaly frustrated with american politics, you may think it has nothing to do with them but americas foreign policy is not something to be patriotic about. and for some reason, arguing on the internet never sways the minds of the stubborn americans who think everything america does is the best and america always nows whats best for the planet. this is the impression america haters get from most americans.(stereotypical ones) America has bought a lot of problems to many parts of the world, some direct and indirect actions cause massive issues leaving many but american citizens sitting in shit, or worse starving to death.
it sounds far fetched to american people but your very unlikely to hear bad things about america.---this is far fetched but true as an example...america uses british territoty (an island in the indian ocean) to refuel a couple of battleships in the first gulf war, there is a civvy population on the island. the english have a small millitary presence and a small interest in the island and have always let the locals be(since i dont know when) know the island only has an american military presence, they threatened and deported the locals
to india. this is a great embaresment to the british government, they wouldnt let you guys know this on american news would they? why is that? why do other people resent america, this is one example as to why one mite not appreciate an almost imperial edge to america. and its also quite scary even to european countrys as this is the most powerful country in the world.
Talk to me at mejeef@hotmail.com

Actually it is much more common in africa than in the middle east and many muslim nations don't practise that

Many don't, but enough of them do in certain regions of middle eastern countries for some people to consider it a part of their cultural identity.

Last time I checked this was a thread dedicated to where Anti-American sentiment is coming from.

Its coming from those that don't like the fact that we said screw the UN and began enforcing UN resolutions that the world was to chicken to enforce.

Its coming from those that don't like the fact that we said screw the UN and began enforcing UN resolutions that the world was to chicken to enforce.

We don't like the UN either you know! It's your general selectiveness that bothers us. if you want oilthen say so, we won't like it any better but at least you're being honest for once.

What am I saying? The rationality of this thread plummets every time Corneliu posts.

You come to live in the United States to become an American (or permanent resident, which counts as being a U.S. person) not to be someone from another country who just so happens to be living in America. If America is such an awful place, stop coming here, or go live somewhere else. Many times you have people who are staunch anti-American, yet they continue to live here. I think most of the world as envious and jealous of American's, afterall, look what we have accomplished in 229 years and what Europe (for example) has done over thousands of years. Granted, those are two completly different history's, but the U.S. has quite a number of accomplishments (yes, and failures) under it's belt for being such a young country. Another reason for anti-Americanism, because it's cool to do it. Same reason for anti-Bush, because it's cool to do it. Of course, there are people who can list pages worth of reasons why they hate America or hate Bush, most of the time I see just one thing and the brilliant, intellectualy stimulating argument of "Bush is stupid". Brilliant! If you hate America, give some reasoning behind it. If you hate Bush, give some reasoning behind it. If you can't do that, while you are still entitled to your opinions, just sit back and watch the big kids have resonable discussions. Another reason for anti-Americanism, America is (economically, socially, culturally, militarily, and other -ily's) at the forefront of Western civilization. We are "the head of the snake" as bin Laden would say (towards all Western societies mind you). There is jealousy, envy, biterness, and outright hostility towards some of our, less than admirable, foreign policies. Still, we've only been on the global scene for 60+ years. I can think of more reasons to be anti-European than anti-American (though there are some for that camp too). Overall, depending how you word your posts, anti-America and anti-Bush speech are just cheap shots because its opportunistic and the cool thing to do right now.

You come to live in the United States to become an American (or permanent resident, which counts as being a U.S. person) not to be someone from another country who just so happens to be living in America. If America is such an awful place, stop coming here, or go live somewhere else. Many times you have people who are staunch anti-American, yet they continue to live here. I think most of the world as envious and jealous of American's, afterall, look what we have accomplished in 229 years and what Europe (for example) has done over thousands of years. Granted, those are two completly different history's, but the U.S. has quite a number of accomplishments (yes, and failures) under it's belt for being such a young country. Another reason for anti-Americanism, because it's cool to do it. Same reason for anti-Bush, because it's cool to do it. Of course, there are people who can list pages worth of reasons why they hate America or hate Bush, most of the time I see just one thing and the brilliant, intellectualy stimulating argument of "Bush is stupid". Brilliant! If you hate America, give some reasoning behind it. If you hate Bush, give some reasoning behind it. If you can't do that, while you are still entitled to your opinions, just sit back and watch the big kids have resonable discussions. Another reason for anti-Americanism, America is (economically, socially, culturally, militarily, and other -ily's) at the forefront of Western civilization. We are "the head of the snake" as bin Laden would say (towards all Western societies mind you). There is jealousy, envy, biterness, and outright hostility towards some of our, less than admirable, foreign policies. Still, we've only been on the global scene for 60+ years. I can think of more reasons to be anti-European than anti-American (though there are some for that camp too). Overall, depending how you word your posts, anti-America and anti-Bush speech are just cheap shots because its opportunistic and the cool thing to do right now.


Part of being an American is the desire to make it a better place.
Saying that anyone who complains should "move somewhere else" is saying that you want to live in a nation full of "yes men" who always agree with what the leadership does....is that what this country was founded on? No.

We don't like the UN either you know! It's your general selectiveness that bothers us. if you want oilthen say so, we won't like it any better but at least you're being honest for once.

Funny about that oil since we signed an energy legislation that's a start in cutting DOWN our depency on foriegn oil. NOW WHAT?

I think this thread has officially gotten off topic. Therefore I'm done with this one. Enjoy your rants and raves.

Thanks for all the people with serious arguments, long posts AND links to other long posts.

Unfortunately I do not have the time nor the energy to read 5 pages of personal remarks and/or insults to Bush/Chiraq/Blair.

Unsubscribed.

PS. This forum could certainly use more moderators.

Part of being an American is the desire to make it a better place.
Saying that anyone who complains should "move somewhere else" is saying that you want to live in a nation full of "yes men" who always agree with what the leadership does....is that what this country was founded on? No.

I have other posts that states if you disagree with the policies of the United States, try and change them or shut up. Basically. I do not believe in having a nation of "yes men" and I have never pushed that view. The problem is that people are criticizing without offering any suggestions. That is my problem.

I have other posts that states if you disagree with the policies of the United States, try and change them or shut up. Basically. I do not believe in having a nation of "yes men" and I have never pushed that view. The problem is that people are criticizing without offering any suggestions. That is my problem.

Here here.

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

Yea, were no better than Saddam. Its true, we do glue peoples lips shut then slowly cut off their limbs with hot knives while jerking off. Happens all the time. We also gas innocent civilians by the tens of thousands regularly and murder the family of any who politically oppose us. Then we round the day off with a little decapitation of POWs. Your right, were exactly the same.

The people at Gitmo are there for a reason, whether you know it or not, whether the government has disclosed it or not or do you presume to be such an expert on the matter that your word that they're really nice guys should fly unquestioningly? Dont here many people in the US complaining about not being blown up since 9/11 though...odd...

Because "Death to Ah-mare-ee-kah!" is the only English some Europeans choose to learn :D
And they still have a larger foreign language vocabulary then most American's. :D

Dont here many people in the US complaining about not being blown up since 9/11 though...odd...
However, people are still being blown up since 9/11, in Iraq (1,800 soldiers), 100,000 Iraqis, in the UK, in Saudi Arabia, in Spain, in Indonesia, in Turkey, and in Morocco. Terrorism has increased since 9/11, and Iraq has become a breeding ground.

Major terrorist attacks since 9/11 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523552,00.html)

As long as Americans aren't being blown up in the US, it is okay?

By the way, it seems like the Europeans cant make up their minds. First, they say we interfere too much, then, when you try to defend that they say we should be in more places doing more things. We arent the only ones capable of making a change. If Europe wants to see Africa fixed so much, do it. All I'm trying to say is that you guys should start taking responsibility for things going on in the world too, not just blame it on your scapegoat. I know the replies ill get will be "were doing it as part of the UN" were a part of the UN too and do just as much as you guys through them. You don't need the UN to hold your hand every step of the way.

Also, just because your culture is more liberal doesnt make it more advanced. It just makes it different. I think it makes you more idealistic and detached from the real world, but thats just me. We are in no way inferior to Europeans so stop saying it.

As for those of you who are complaining about an American Empire and US imperialism. There's no such thing. Iraqs constitution is being written as we speak so stop lying about our purpose. The transition may take a little longer than expected, but its not a colony or a state so stop implying it is.

However, people are still being blown up since 9/11, in Iraq (1,800 soldiers), 100,000 Iraqis, in the UK, in Saudi Arabia, in Spain, in Indonesia, in Turkey, and in Morocco. Terrorism has increased since 9/11, and Iraq has become a breeding ground.

Major terrorist attacks since 9/11 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523552,00.html)

As long as Americans aren't being blown up in the US, it is okay?

First of all, 1800 deaths in a war is pretty damn astounding(especially considering that the war has been going on for 3 years). Terrrorism has increased because they are becoming desperate. They know theyre fighting a losing battle and it scares the crap out of them. Even Pakistan is now turning away fundamentalists for training (Pakistan is usually the last step before blowing yourself up). As for the Iraqis, it is a tragedy, but you forget that they were trying to kill us as well, many of thosee deaths were Iraqi Soldiers, many more were insurgents, and besides, its less than Saddam would have killed in that time if he had remained in power. Its a tough war were in but Europeans should realize that it must be won. And no, its not ok that people are getting blown up but you guys need to fight it too. The only way this war is going to be won is a combined effort. The terrorists are trying to divide us and I'd say theyre doing a damn good job so far if you blame us for them blowing themselves up

I think a major problem is that a good majority of these posts have been from Americans showing how much they love their country. All this is admirable and all that, but how exactly does that help to explain anti-Americanism? (After all that is the point of the original post).

A lot of comments have been very knee-jerk reactions to some fairly sensible points (admittedly many posts from outside America have also been xenophobic and fully deserving of your contempt).

My main issue is that the nature of this post points to an underlying problem. Why do you care if a couple of (so called) jealous and frightened Europeans dislike your country/policies/you? The British are used as a synonym for everything that is evil/sadistic/perverted in many Hollywood films (see Braveheart or The Patriot and many others). You don't see us complaining that Hollywood is anti-British do you? (except here of course). I'm sure that being the number one and only superpower has some other benefits to outweigh the mild ramblings of us old Europeans.

If you're so proud of your country then anti-American sentiment really shouldn't be a problem. If however, you are a little worried about some of what your country does then you are the only ones with any power to change that.

As for those of you who are complaining about an American Empire and US imperialism. There's no such thing. Iraqs constitution is being written as we speak so stop lying about our purpose. The transition may take a little longer than expected, but its not a colony or a state so stop implying it is.
Then why is the US building 14 "enduring" bases in Iraq? Why did Bremer issue approximately 100 Orders (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/) that revamps Iraqi business?

14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm)

As long as US troops remain on Iraqi soil and as long as the US has a hand in how the economy is operated, then Iraq will not have full sovereignity.

Alright, Braveheart and the Patriot were based on actual events, so dont get history confused with Hollywood. You guys did those things so don't get pissed at us for showing them. Besides, as Americans, its generally not England we have a problem with. If you want to find a country treated like crap in hollywood, its Russia. Theyre the ones always shown as Terrorists.(Airforce One/ James Bond)

I believe it all comes down to envy. You can derive any hatred of Americans that you want, from envy. They desire our leadership, our ease of economic investment, and our power to get things done. They desire our moral compass and military strength. They desire to claim our ideals and promote them as their own. The whole scenario can be simulated by the childrens' game King of the Hill. Soon as you're on top of the pile, somebody is kicking you and trying to pull you down. As long as America has any wealth, freedom and moral leadership, they will be envious and make all sorts of ridiculous claims.

And I don't care to define who "they" are. They prove it with every idiotic hateful statement and act of violence.

As long as US troops remain on Iraqi soil and as long as the US has a hand in how the economy is operated, then Iraq will not have full sovereignity.
But it will get it. Itll just take time. If we had more support, itd take less. Im not talking about war support mind you, im talking about for the rebuilding effort. The bases are there for the protection of our soldiers for as long as they have to stay to ensure a smooth transition.

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?

Its an inherent part of being the major power of the world; besides, there is no power in the world that is liked by everybody and anybody. Get over it.

Alright, Braveheart and the Patriot were based on actual events, so dont get history confused with Hollywood.

based on is the operative word. Hollywood makes huge creative licenses. I.E. Sir William Wallace was a nobleman before he took up the anti-England movement, not a commoner as portrayed in the film. The French women in the film wasn't even born when Wallace kicked the bucket. The Celts never wore Woad (blue war pigment) during the reign of Edward I (aka Longshanks).

Someone want to do one for 'The Patriot'?

you guys are free do make the movies you want, no on will stop you, but the part of Braveheart youre doubtless complaining about, the way England butchered him and scattered parts of his body across the country, that is true. As for the Patriot, the only things made up were the characters, and not even that much. Mel Gibson was based on Francis Marion, or as you may know him the Swamp Fox, and as for the portrayal of Cornwallis as an arrogant pompous jerk, thats what he was. In fact, that was the attitude of the British in general at the time. I cannot emphasize this enough. I have NO problem with England, but Hollywood does enjoy the freedom of expression that we cherish so much here.

First of all, 1800 deaths in a war is pretty damn astounding(especially considering that the war has been going on for 3 years). Terrrorism has increased because they are becoming desperate. They know theyre fighting a losing battle and it scares the crap out of them. Even Pakistan is now turning away fundamentalists for training (Pakistan is usually the last step before blowing yourself up). As for the Iraqis, it is a tragedy, but you forget that they were trying to kill us as well, many of thosee deaths were Iraqi Soldiers, many more were insurgents, and besides, its less than Saddam would have killed in that time if he had remained in power. Its a tough war were in but Europeans should realize that it must be won. And no, its not ok that people are getting blown up but you guys need to fight it too. The only way this war is going to be won is a combined effort. The terrorists are trying to divide us and I'd say theyre doing a damn good job so far if you blame us for them blowing themselves up

Careful T.F. He'll come back with a smart comment. I already told them that they are desperate and losing steam but so far, he hasn't believed a word of it.

BTW: Nice accurate statement! I applaud it :)

Then why is the US building 14 "enduring" bases in Iraq? Why did Bremer issue approximately 100 Orders (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/) that revamps Iraqi business?

14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm)

As long as US troops remain on Iraqi soil and as long as the US has a hand in how the economy is operated, then Iraq will not have full sovereignity.

How about oh giving them to the Iraqis when we leave? They do need modern bases. The bases they have now are not modern at all. The bases being built are modern and thus will serve the Iraqi military well.

Alright, Braveheart and the Patriot were based on actual events, so dont get history confused with Hollywood. You guys did those things so don't get pissed at us for showing them. Besides, as Americans, its generally not England we have a problem with. If you want to find a country treated like crap in hollywood, its Russia. Theyre the ones always shown as Terrorists.(Airforce One/ James Bond)


To take a few examples from each...

The law allowing English lords to 'take' the bride of any Scottish marriage was not in force during the period in which Braveheart is set.

William Wallace was not some pauper who was pushed too far. He was a Scottish nobleman.

The burning of the town in the church in the Patriot has no basis in fact.

Also to add to the list is the fact that the Enigma machine was not captured by the Americans (British I'm afraid).

Lots of things are 'based' on a true story. That doesn't mean that they are true. (Do you believe every word of Oliver Stone's "JFK" for example?).

History is best learned from books, preferably books from eminent historians who have proved their worth based on peer review. I'm afraid scriptwriters are no substitute.

:p First of all, 1800 deaths in a war is pretty damn astounding(especially considering that the war has been going on for 3 years). Terrrorism has increased because they are becoming desperate. They know theyre fighting a losing battle and it scares the crap out of them. Even Pakistan is now turning away fundamentalists for training (Pakistan is usually the last step before blowing yourself up). As for the Iraqis, it is a tragedy, but you forget that they were trying to kill us as well, many of thosee deaths were Iraqi Soldiers, many more were insurgents, and besides, its less than Saddam would have killed in that time if he had remained in power. Its a tough war were in but Europeans should realize that it must be won. And no, its not ok that people are getting blown up but you guys need to fight it too. The only way this war is going to be won is a combined effort. The terrorists are trying to divide us and I'd say theyre doing a damn good job so far if you blame us for them blowing themselves up


Most of what you say, in priciple i agree with, i beleive we should win this war, my country, britian is the one european country helping you but, two things i disagree with you here on.

1800 deaths in a 3 year capaign is astoundenly low, considering that was the death toll every day in starlinggrad for 9 months, or the 50,000 that died at waterloo in 1 day, histocicly, its pretty darn good, congrats for the US military controlling an entire country with such a low death rate.

The other thing is, though i agree we need to win this war, the reality is, it never will be won. Terroists historicly in the long run allways defeat civilisations, the romans are a good example. Terroists are barbarians, they use tactics that civilisations dont and they are defending a belief or ideal, not a country, and im afraid no army can conquer that.

Sure, you can try to kill or arrest every terroist, A. it wont happen B. even if it did, in 50 years time, someone will read about bin laden and think "hey this guy had a point" and just start it all over again, and it will continue to do so indefinately.

Untill you A. are defeated (histrocly, id be surpirised if america even exists in 200 years time, at the very least it WONT be the superpower) flame me for that, i dont care, but ive studied global history, and its shocking the resemblences between america and the romans.... and i beleive , as do a lot of other people at university, that america will share the same fate, eg the society tearing itself apart, and babarians.

Anyway B. you give the terroists what you want, or C. develop an ESP device that can brain wash every living person :p

for gods sake dont label me anti american, i have a greencard, i go there frequently, im engaged to a girl from huron SD, i love it, but i thought id point that out to you.

Alright, Braveheart and the Patriot were based on actual events, so dont get history confused with Hollywood. You guys did those things so don't get pissed at us for showing them. Besides, as Americans, its generally not England we have a problem with. If you want to find a country treated like crap in hollywood, its Russia. Theyre the ones always shown as Terrorists.(Airforce One/ James Bond)

I thought Air Force 1 dealt with kazakhstan and not Russia?

As long as US troops remain on Iraqi soil and as long as the US has a hand in how the economy is operated, then Iraq will not have full sovereignity.

Oh brother. I already dispelled this theory with the Energy Bill that was just signed. Its going to help us become LESS DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN OIL!!!!!

:eek: :eek: :eek:

you guys are free do make the movies you want, no on will stop you, but the part of Braveheart youre doubtless complaining about, the way England butchered him and scattered parts of his body across the country, that is true. As for the Patriot, the only things made up were the characters, and not even that much. Mel Gibson was based on Francis Marion, or as you may know him the Swamp Fox, and as for the portrayal of Cornwallis as an arrogant pompous jerk, thats what he was. In fact, that was the attitude of the British in general at the time. I cannot emphasize this enough. I have NO problem with England, but Hollywood does enjoy the freedom of expression that we cherish so much here.


With regard to Cornwallis: a bit of a jerk I admit. But then Ben Franklin was making a mint off of his 'diplomacy' with England and France at the same time. Not much of that in the film though. My point is that it is selective at best, and fabrication at worst.

you guys are free do make the movies you want, no on will stop you, but the part of Braveheart youre doubtless complaining about, the way England butchered him and scattered parts of his body across the country, that is true. As for the Patriot, the only things made up were the characters, and not even that much. Mel Gibson was based on Francis Marion, or as you may know him the Swamp Fox, and as for the portrayal of Cornwallis as an arrogant pompous jerk, thats what he was. In fact, that was the attitude of the British in general at the time. I cannot emphasize this enough. I have NO problem with England, but Hollywood does enjoy the freedom of expression that we cherish so much here.

And one more accurate post from Tyrannical Fascists. You sir know how to handle these people that have no clue as to what they are talking about.

Tyrannical Facists- I applaud your willingness to defend us, barring a few grammatical errors, I think you stated the case rather well. Personally, I have no problem with the entire world hating us. I could care less, as long as they are educated about us, and not just going on what the ever fallible media portrays.

Also, it pisses me off when people criticize our forces' efforts. A small faction of Insurgents are blowing up themselves in an effort to get to our boys. Yet, if you critics would step away from your arm chairs, and go into the zone and ask the troops what kinds of responses they're getting, you'd find it's rather similar to the ones we got when we RESCUED Italy. Not to mention France, and oh, by the way BRITAIN too. We're helping another country, and because it isn't your asses on the line, you're getting pissed. Screw the UN and they're hypocrisy, I don't need a world organization to tell me what's right and wrong, when they can't even handle their owned damned corruption. Reguardless of the reasons for going in they have more schools, more running water, more food, and MORE FREEDOMS.

:mad:

With regard to Cornwallis: a bit of a jerk I admit. But then Ben Franklin was making a mint off of his 'diplomacy' with England and France at the same time. Not much of that in the film though. My point is that it is selective at best, and fabrication at worst.

Now, I've only seen that movie maybe twice, but I don't recall Ben Franklin fighting in the war.

:


1800 deaths in a 3 year capaign is astoundenly low, considering that was the death toll every day in starlinggrad for 9 months, or the 50,000 that died at waterloo in 1 day, histocicly, its pretty darn good, congrats for the US military controlling an entire country with such a low death rate.



Thats what i meant, evidently i was not clear enough but 1800 casualties is amazingly good over 3 years. And I do not think youre Anti-American, the things you said are very true. The war is impossible to ever fully win, but we have to try.

Also, Corneliu, youre my new new best friend.

Alright, Braveheart and the Patriot were based on actual events, so dont get history confused with Hollywood.

You have to be joking. Both of those movies are about as historically accurate as Gone With the Wind.

Now, I've only seen that movie maybe twice, but I don't recall Ben Franklin fighting in the war.


He was your diplomat with England and France during the revolutionary years. You sort of confirmed my point though about selective history.

Now, I've only seen that movie maybe twice, but I don't recall Ben Franklin fighting in the war.

Ben Franklin didnt fight in the war, he was instrumental, however, in getting the French Support we needed to win.

Tyrannical Facists- I applaud your willingness to defend us, barring a few grammatical errors, I think you stated the case rather well. Personally, I have no problem with the entire world hating us. I could care less, as long as they are educated about us, and not just going on what the ever fallible media portrays.

Also, it pisses me off when people criticize our forces' efforts. A small faction of Insurgents are blowing up themselves in an effort to get to our boys. Yet, if you critics would step away from your arm chairs, and go into the zone and ask the troops what kinds of responses they're getting, you'd find it's rather similar to the ones we got when we RESCUED Italy. Not to mention France, and oh, by the way BRITAIN too. We're helping another country, and because it isn't your asses on the line, you're getting pissed. Screw the UN and they're hypocrisy, I don't need a world organization to tell me what's right and wrong, when they can't even handle their owned damned corruption. Reguardless of the reasons for going in they have more schools, more running water, more food, and MORE FREEDOMS.

:mad:

Well said.

TO those of you that DON"T have loved ones overseas, I'm hearing a vastly different story than what your getting. I'm getting one of a joyous people who are glad that Saddam is gone.

Guess what? They don't like the UN because that organization did shit to help them. They are pleased that they are free. Yes they want us out. We want to leave as well but they know that we are there to help them and will leave and not stay. This is a fact. They know we are their for security. Their Military is coming along and so is their police force.

Kids are now out at night playing SOCCER in MOSUL! Terror attacks are starting to decline across the country. The Insurgency is starting to lose steam and the people are turning against them.

We sill have a long road but things are looking up. These are truths that cannot be dissputed.

:) Tyrannical Facists- I applaud your willingness to defend us, barring a few grammatical errors, I think you stated the case rather well. Personally, I have no problem with the entire world hating us. I could care less, as long as they are educated about us, and not just going on what the ever fallible media portrays.

Also, it pisses me off when people criticize our forces' efforts. A small faction of Insurgents are blowing up themselves in an effort to get to our boys. Yet, if you critics would step away from your arm chairs, and go into the zone and ask the troops what kinds of responses they're getting, you'd find it's rather similar to the ones we got when we RESCUED Italy. Not to mention France, and oh, by the way BRITAIN too. We're helping another country, and because it isn't your asses on the line, you're getting pissed. Screw the UN and they're hypocrisy, I don't need a world organization to tell me what's right and wrong, when they can't even handle their owned damned corruption. Reguardless of the reasons for going in they have more schools, more running water, more food, and MORE FREEDOMS.

:mad:


did you ever hear of a treaty in the late 60's? its late and i cant remember the name, but i think it was president carter (im not good on US presidents) had talked with our current primemisister, (again, forgot, but can find out) about britian being the 51st state of america.

Now, altough i would love for britian to stay independent,, it wont happen, the world is getting smaller, and britian either joins the EU and the united dtates of europe (notice the lack of capitals) is founded, or we join you guys, anyday i pick america,

i hate being jusdged in europe cos im english, cos we supported the US over iraq, however in america, i get free drinks in resturants, cos of me brit accent, and people are so friendly there.

Just a little alternate history, if that treaty made it, and we were the 51st state, eventually there would be a brit presisdent, imagine margerat thacher as president of the USA

Ben Franklin didnt fight in the war, he was instrumental, however, in getting the French Support we needed to win.

My remark was in response to why he didn't appear in the movie. You can't go into the whole war in one movie. Sorry mates, check out the history channel instead.

Now, I've only seen that movie maybe twice, but I don't recall Ben Franklin fighting in the war.

He did diplomacy Traduce. He help get France onto our side.

Also, Corneliu, youre my new new best friend.


And your my new best friend too :)

:)


did you ever hear of a treaty in the late 60's? its late and i cant remember the name, but i think it was president carter (im not good on US presidents) had talked with our current primemisister, (again, forgot, but can find out) about britian being the 51st state of america.

Now, altough i would love for britian to stay independent,, it wont happen, the world is getting smaller, and britian either joins the EU and the united dtates of europe (notice the lack of capitals) is founded, or we join you guys, anyday i pick america,

i hate being jusdged in europe cos im english, cos we supported the US over iraq, however in america, i get free drinks in resturants, cos of me brit accent, and people are so friendly there.

Just a little alternate history, if that treaty made it, and we were the 51st state, eventually there would be a brit presisdent, imagine margerat thacher as president of the USA

I'm embarrassed to admit that Carter was one of ours. And in case you missed my earlier posts, I'm a big fan of Britain. (I don't like the term U.K.) Over a thousand years it was Britain, and suddenly its U.K. Bloody hell.

And your my new best friend too :)

We need a club.

I'm embarrassed to admit that Carter was one of ours. And in case you missed my earlier posts, I'm a big fan of Britain. (I don't like the term U.K.) Over a thousand years it was Britain, and suddenly its U.K. Bloody hell.
I prefer britian too , im british , not united kingdomish!

I prefer britian too , im british , not united kingdomish!

The land was good enough for my dad and mum to bring me into the world, and its good enough for me. But please, someone send over some ICE CUBES!!

We need a club.
Traduce can come too. By the way, if my typings a little sloppy or my grammars...terrible, I apoligize. Its just, sometimes I want to say sop many things my hands and my spellcheck don't function properly.

The land was good enough for my dad and mum to bring me into the world, and its good enough for me. But please, someone send over some ICE CUBES!!

You know one of the treats in america i love? mountain dew, the liberal EU banned it cos of the suger levels, lol, but, i love gettting it. Your mum and dad are brit you mean?

My remark was in response to why he didn't appear in the movie. You can't go into the whole war in one movie. Sorry mates, check out the history channel instead.

No he wasn't in the movie. But did your history lessons cover the fact that he benefited financially from his role? My minor point was that the British didn't get uptight about grossly inaccurate representations of our country. The larger point is that some Americans (on this forum at least) do.

Why bother? Stop being so sensitive and enjoy the power you have whilst it is still yours!

First of all, 1800 deaths in a war is pretty damn astounding(especially considering that the war has been going on for 3 years).
What will be the total 3 years from now? It is still 1800 lives that didn't need to be lost. Saddam has been a toothless tabby since the Gulf War.

Terrrorism has increased because they are becoming desperate.
Terrorism has increased because the US has supplied more motive to resist US imperialism? Terrorism has increased because the US invaded Iraq?

They know theyre fighting a losing battle and it scares the crap out of them.
Some articles suggest that the resistance is gaining in strength.

As for the Iraqis, it is a tragedy, but you forget that they were trying to kill us as well,
After illegally invading their country and bombing the crap out of them, can you blame them?

and besides, its less than Saddam would have killed in that time if he had remained in power.
Purely speculative on your part. Saddam has been relatively contained since the Gulf War.

Its a tough war were in but Europeans should realize that it must be won. And no, its not ok that people are getting blown up but you guys need to fight it too. The only way this war is going to be won is a combined effort. The terrorists are trying to divide us and I'd say theyre doing a damn good job so far if you blame us for them blowing themselves up
The US and UK have been mucking around with politics in the Middle East for over 60 years, so could you please explain how this has become a worldwide responsibility?

Canada did go into Afghanistan after 9/11 but rightly refused to go into Iraq. IMHO, the US invasion of Iraq has been a colossal failure!!

The land was good enough for my dad and mum to bring me into the world, and its good enough for me. But please, someone send over some ICE CUBES!!
Hey, its hot as hell over here as well.

You know one of the treats in america i love? mountain dew, the liberal EU banned it cos of the suger levels, lol, but, i love gettting it. Your mum and dad are brit you mean?

Nope Daddy was stationed at the good old Lakenheath AFB, mum was along for the ride. I'm as American as they come, family came over from the great land called England in 1590. :)

Nope Daddy was stationed at the good old Lakenheath AFB, mum was along for the ride. I'm as American as they come, family came over from the great land called England in 1590. :)

1590?!?!?! bloody hell, 200 years before the usa even existed! ive been to lakenheath on a school trip!!!!!!


Btw i have a question , aimed really at corneliu, cos he said hes studied american history, Why states? why did america have states? why not provinces or counties?

Hey, its hot as hell over here as well.

Join Corn and I on MSN, ablindmansees@yahoo.com

Anyone else care to join, feel free!

Sorry!!!

I've accidentally been logged in under my girlfriends nation:

For all posts by munkiki, please read harunki.

1590?!?!?! bloody hell, 200 years before the usa even existed! ive been to lakenheath on a school trip!!!!!!


Btw i have a question , aimed really at corneliu, cos he said hes studied american history, Why states? why did america have states? why not provinces or counties?

Yup my elder sister and I were the first generation born there since the mid-1500s.

Btw i have a question , aimed really at corneliu, cos he said hes studied american history, Why states? why did america have states? why not provinces or counties?

To be honest, the only hypothesis I can think of is that we wanted to be different than everyone else. Inside our states, we do have counties unless your in like Louisiana who refer to their counties as parishes.

That is the best answer I can think of is that we wanted to show that we are different than everyone else.

To be honest, the only hypothesis I can think of is that we wanted to be different than everyone else. Inside our states, we do have counties unless your in like Louisiana who refer to their counties as parishes.

That is the best answer I can think of is that we wanted to show that we are different than everyone else.

Or if you live in Penn. Virginia, or Kentucky, where they are referred to as burrows and villages.

Wow, there are so many things wrong with CanuckHeavens post, i dont know where to begin...

Toothless Tabby. Its nice to see youve given a pet name to one of the most ruthless and savage dictators of all time. Since the gulf war, he still has been murdering his own people, more than 100,000 every three years, by a long shot, so it wasn't speculation, i was banking on him not deciding hed been a grouch his entire life and changing.

Second, The overwhelming majority of the Iraqis supported our so-called Illegal invasion. By the way, we dont need a warrent from the corrupt UN to make an arrest. And we certainly dont need Canadas permission to act, you guys dont even have a foreign policy.

FOR THE LAST TIME WE ARE NOT IMPERIALISTS. If we had wanted the world we would have had a go at it by now. If we wanted Iraq it would be annexed by now. Im sick and tired of you fabricating imperialism where it does not exist. Their constitution is being Written as we speak. Do a little research before you post nex time. Everything you said was speculation and opinion, it has no basis in fact.

Wow, there are so many things wrong with CanuckHeavens post, i dont know where to begin...

Toothless Tabby. Its nice to see youve given a pet name to one of the most ruthless and savage dictators of all time. Since the gulf war, he still has been murdering his own people, more than 100,000 every three years, by a long shot, so it wasn't speculation, i was banking on him not deciding hed been a grouch his entire life and changing.

Second, The overwhelming majority of the Iraqis supported our so-called Illegal invasion. By the way, we dont need a warrent from the corrupt UN to make an arrest. And we certainly dont need Canadas permission to act, you guys dont even have a foreign policy.

FOR THE LAST TIME WE ARE NOT IMPERIALISTS. If we had wanted the world we would have had a go at it by now. If we wanted Iraq it would be annexed by now. Im sick and tired of you fabricating imperialism where it does not exist. Their constitution is being Written as we speak. Do a little research before you post nex time. Everything you said was speculation and opinion, it has no basis in fact.


I think I'm in love.

Or if you live in Penn. Virginia, or Kentucky, where they are referred to as burrows and villages.

Those are towns Traduce! LOL I live in PA and we call them counties. At least, that is what my NOAA weather radio always says! LOL

wont let me join you guys, what is it anyway, yahoo group? If so, whats its name, ill go the long way if its msn messanger, dont have it but can get it

To be honest, the only hypothesis I can think of is that we wanted to be different than everyone else. Inside our states, we do have counties unless your in like Louisiana who refer to their counties as parishes.

That is the best answer I can think of is that we wanted to show that we are different than everyone else.
It was just basically a result of the nature of colonization. Furthermore, states tend to be more independent than provinces of other countries. Don't know why the word "provinces" couldn't have been used. I guess United Provinces of America just wouldn't have sounded good enough!

wont let me join you guys, what is it anyway, yahoo group? If so, whats its name, ill go the long way
Do you have any instant messengers?

MSN is Microsoft

Wow, there are so many things wrong with CanuckHeavens post, i dont know where to begin...

I knew I wasn't going crazy! Thank you Thank you thank you for proving me right. I've told him several times he was wrong but he never believed me. Thank you for telling the truth :)

Second, The overwhelming majority of the Iraqis supported our so-called Illegal invasion. By the way, we dont need a warrent from the corrupt UN to make an arrest. And we certainly dont need Canadas permission to act, you guys dont even have a foreign policy.

*APPLAUDS LOUDLY*

FOR THE LAST TIME WE ARE NOT IMPERIALISTS. If we had wanted the world we would have had a go at it by now. If we wanted Iraq it would be annexed by now. Im sick and tired of you fabricating imperialism where it does not exist. Their constitution is being Written as we speak. Do a little research before you post nex time. Everything you said was speculation and opinion, it has no basis in fact.

YAHOOO!!!! Thanks for echoing my sentiments!

Second, The overwhelming majority of the Iraqis supported our so-called Illegal invasion. By the way, we dont need a warrent from the corrupt UN to make an arrest. And we certainly dont need Canadas permission to act, you guys dont even have a foreign policy.

.

Interesting. And presumably you are making your arrest within the legal jurisdiction of the United States? No? Then I don't think your sheriff analogy holds up really.

UN may be corrupt but then only because all the countries in it are. It's still the best expression of world opinion we have...

It was just basically a result of the nature of colonization. Furthermore, states tend to be more independent than provinces of other countries. Don't know why the word "provinces" couldn't have been used. I guess United Provinces of America just wouldn't have sounded good enough!

Not a bad explaination. I guess its one of those little mysteries.

I knew I wasn't going crazy! Thank you Thank you thank you for proving me right. I've told him several times he was wrong but he never believed me. Thank you for telling the truth :)
Wow, since when was a second opinion proof of being right?

America is being imperialistic--but not in the traditional sense. It is a new, subtler, imperialism. A type that has virtually total control over foreign governments, or at least more control than it should, while not annexing it.

Not a bad explaination. I guess its one of those little mysteries.
America just likes being different! :D

Interesting. And presumably you are making your arrest within the legal jurisdiction of the United States? No? Then I don't think your sheriff analogy holds up really.

UN may be corrupt but then only because all the countries in it are. It's still the best expression of world opinion we have...


the countries themselves aren't corrupt the diplomats are, they take bribes, i think the United States should pull out of the UN because realistically, we're the only ones holding it together.

And we wouldnt have to go without the other countries if the United Nations did it's job, if you wanna see how effective the UN is watch "Hotel Rwanda" yeah real angels they are.

Interesting. And presumably you are making your arrest within the legal jurisdiction of the United States? No? Then I don't think your sheriff analogy holds up really.

HA! We had Congressional authority to remove him from power. That was docterine thanks to Bill Clinton.

UN may be corrupt but then only because all the countries in it are. It's still the best expression of world opinion we have...

No wonder nothing gets done there.

Wow, since when was a second opinion proof of being right?

Because he sees the same flaws that I've pointed out to him in the pasted.

America is being imperialistic--but not in the traditional sense. It is a new, subtler, imperialism. A type that has virtually total control over foreign governments, or at least more control than it should, while not annexing it.

Funny, I thought we handed soveriegnty back to Iraq already.

Funny, I thought we handed soveriegnty back to Iraq already.
And we are going to pull out soon enough. Ignore the moonbats, Iraq is not a state, nor will it ever be. Ignore the moonbats, America is not imperialistic.

HA! We had Congressional authority to remove him from power. That was docterine thanks to Bill Clinton. .


Oh yeah, I forgot about that world election that voted power to the American congress over the entire world. Silly me.

Funny, I thought we handed soveriegnty back to Iraq already.
Yes we did, but that doesn't mean we don't have even a little bit of influence on their constitution and their government in years to come. For further evidence of my suggested American Emipire, just look at Israel. We have them under our wing, we've stood by their cause ever since we (the West) created them. We've supplied virtually their entire air force.

America is being imperialistic--but not in the traditional sense. It is a new, subtler, imperialism. A type that has virtually total control over foreign governments, or at least more control than it should, while not annexing it.

No, we're not. The US has handed back sovreignity back to all of the nations it has attacked during the War on Terror. We wield influence over them, but no more than we do over any nation as the world's sole superpower. Imperialism requires us to control them, either directly or indirectly, and we don't do that. All decisions are ultimately those of the sovreign nation.

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!

Yes we did, but that doesn't mean we don't have even a little bit of influence on their constitution and their government in years to come. For further evidence of my suggested American Emipire, just look at Israel. We have them under our wing, we've stood by their cause ever since we (the West) created them. We've supplied virtually their entire air force.

We had influence on the japanese and french too you moron. the french had a revolution after us, its not our fault we're cool like that

Yes we did, but that doesn't mean we don't have even a little bit of influence on their constitution and their government in years to come. For further evidence of my suggested American Emipire, just look at Israel. We have them under our wing, we've stood by their cause ever since we (the West) created them. We've supplied virtually their entire air force.

What's wrong with that? Israel has strategic value, and we need to keep them supplied and strong for our security in the region.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that world election that voted power to the American congress over the entire world. Silly me.

Yeah maybe if the un wouldn't sit and let thousands die as it has before we wouldnt have had to go without them, face it the UN is powerless, we're its only muscle, and we really dont need the rest of the world.

No, we're not. The US has handed back sovreignity back to all of the nations it has attacked during the War on Terror. We wield influence over them, but no more than we do over any nation as the world's sole superpower. Imperialism requires us to control them, either directly or indirectly, and we don't do that. All decisions are ultimately those of the sovreign nation.
Us saying we handed back soverignty doesn't mean a thing. It's our actions, or lack of actions, that mean we're really not an Empire and so far, we're not seeing those--or not, not seeing those? :confused: :D

Yeah maybe if the un wouldn't sit and let thousands die as it has before we wouldnt have had to go without them, face it the UN is powerless, we're its only muscle, and we really dont need the rest of the world.
Conservatory dude, your really not helping the US out. I agreee that the UN is evil, but saying we don't need the rest of the world is pure BS.

What's wrong with that? Israel has strategic value, and we need to keep them supplied and strong for our security in the region.
Our security? Our blatant backing of Israel is one reason why those 19 terrorists were inspired to attack our homesoil!

To be honest, the only hypothesis I can think of is that we wanted to be different than everyone else. Inside our states, we do have counties unless your in like Louisiana who refer to their counties as parishes.

That is the best answer I can think of is that we wanted to show that we are different than everyone else.

Almost correct. After the DOI from England, the 13 colonies became 13 independently sovereign states for a brief period. That of course changed with the articles of confederation. You couldn't call it a provence because that implied belonging to something.

Now for a brownie point. How many commenwealths are there and name them. ;)

Yeah maybe if the un wouldn't sit and let thousands die as it has before we wouldnt have had to go without them, Ah yes, because it was really about saving Iraqi lives when the US demanded right to invade, now was it? Revisionism is indeed fun.

face it the UN is powerless, The UNc is the premier international organization, with countless affiliate organizations that hinge on it and allow for smooth multinational relations. It is quite valuable, if just as a hubcap in the wheel.

we're its only muscle, Really now? I seem to recall there being plenty more nations involved in UN operations than simply US forces.

and we really dont need the rest of the world. Good luck with the juche philosophy there, can't wait to see the US devour itself trying to go-it alone.

Really, did you have any reasonable points? Like at all?

Conservatory dude, your really not helping the US out. I agreee that the UN is evil, but saying we don't need the rest of the world is pure BS.


ok ok ok, we need england. thats it canada can come too but only because he's our little annoying brother. englands the cool cousin.

Almost correct. After the DOI from England, the 13 colonies became 13 independently sovereign states for a brief period. That of course changed with the articles of confederation. You couldn't call it a provence because that implied belonging to something.

Now for a brownie point. How many commenwealths are there and name them. ;)

Commonwealth of Virginia
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Commonwealth of Massachuttess
Commonwealth of Kentucky

There are only 4 Commonwealth states Queen Maud

Ah yes, because it was really about saving Iraqi lives when the US demanded right to invade, now was it? Revisionism is indeed fun.

The UNc is the premier international organization, with countless affiliate organizations that hinge on it and allow for smooth multinational relations. It is quite valuable, if just as a hubcap in the wheel.

Really now? I seem to recall there being plenty more nations involved in UN operations than simply US forces.

Good luck with the juche philosophy there, can't wait to see the US devour itself trying to go-it alone.

Really, did you have any reasonable points? Like at all?


YOU ARE A RETARD, you really dont think we saved lives, HE WAS A DICTATOR oh my god you liberals are such idiots its insane

Almost correct. After the DOI from England, the 13 colonies became 13 independently sovereign states for a brief period. That of course changed with the articles of confederation. You couldn't call it a provence because that implied belonging to something.

Now for a brownie point. How many commenwealths are there and name them. ;)
8 and virginia is one of them. I at least get a piece of brownie

We had influence on the japanese and french too you moron. the french had a revolution after us, its not our fault we're cool like that
Thank you for the free insult. In case you forgot what I was talking about, not just indirect influence, but direct influence in other country's actoins. Maybe you should unwrap yourself from the flag and look at the world through a clear lense.

Ah yes, because it was really about saving Iraqi lives when the US demanded right to invade, now was it? Revisionism is indeed fun.

The UNc is the premier international organization, with countless affiliate organizations that hinge on it and allow for smooth multinational relations. It is quite valuable, if just as a hubcap in the wheel.

Really now? I seem to recall there being plenty more nations involved in UN operations than simply US forces.

Good luck with the juche philosophy there, can't wait to see the US devour itself trying to go-it alone.

Really, did you have any reasonable points? Like at all?

well put.

Anyone remember why this post was started? Why all the anti-Americanism? See the last few posts as an adequate explanation for anti-American feeling. Who gave America the right to disregard the rest of the world? It wasn't me or my country. Where is all this democracy that America is so proud to export?

YOU ARE A RETARD, you really dont think we saved lives, HE WAS A DICTATOR oh my god you liberals are such idiots its insane
Conservatory dude, can we be friends?

YOU ARE A RETARD, Stop flaming.

you really dont think we saved lives, I never said that. I implied that the very basis of the invasion was never about saving Iraqi lives. Which is true. Read the text before you criticize.

HE WAS A DICTATOR As are the leaders of half of the world's nations. Your point is?

oh my god you liberals are such idiots its insane At least I can spell.

Commonwealth states of the US:

Kentucky
Pennsylvania
Massachuttess
Virginia

Stop flaming.

I never said that. I implied that the very basis of the invasion was never about saving Iraqi lives. Which is true. Read the text before you criticize, you might actually make some points.

As are the leaders of half of the world's nations. Your point is?


At least I can spell.
nice comeback, and i plan on taking out the rest of the worlds dictators, its on the agenda.

Commonwealth of Virginia
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Commonwealth of Massachuttess
Commonwealth of Kentucky

There are only 4 Commonwealth states Queen Maud

And he gets the brownie point! ;)

nice comeback, and i plan on taking out the rest of the worlds dictators, its on the agenda.
LET ME BE YOUR GD FRIEND

nice comeback, It was more a statement of fact than a comeback.

and i plan on taking out the rest of the worlds dictators, its on the agenda. Say what? Oh god, this statement is priceless.

And he gets the brownie point! ;)

*bows*

Thank you thank you. No pictures please, just toss brownies

nice comeback, and i plan on taking out the rest of the worlds dictators, its on the agenda.
I'm up for the friend thing as well

And he gets the brownie point! ;)
Sorry, you can blame it on my 5th grade teacher. OR on my being a dumbass, your choice

Our security? Our blatant backing of Israel is one reason why those 19 terrorists were inspired to attack our homesoil!

So we should appease the terrorists and give them what they want? They hate Israel because it is Jewish and Christian, and they will do anything to ensure the death of every single Jew and Christian in that country. To sell out those people to appease murderers is a grave wrong and a strategic blunder.

Sorry, you can blame it on my 5th grade teacher. OR on my being a dumbass, your choice

I'll blame it on your 5th grade teacher! She might've included our territories in that list because I know Puerto Rico is called the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico but they aren't a state.

I'll blame it on your 5th grade teacher! She might've included our territories in that list because I know Puerto Rico is called the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico but they aren't a state.
thanks, that means a lot.

thanks, that means a lot.

Not a problem :)

So we should appease the terrorists and give them what they want? They hate Israel because it is Jewish and Christian, and they will do anything to ensure the death of every single Jew and Christian in that country. To sell out those people to appease murderers is a grave wrong and a strategic blunder.
what the fuck?

GEEZ CAN YOU LIBERALS PLEASE JUST GO TO FRANCE ALREADY? you'd fit right in there

what the fuck?

If the terrorists attacked us because of our support of Israel, then you argue that by withdrawing support from them the terrorists would be appeased and not attack us. However, by withdrawing support, we lose a strategic ally and condemn Israel to destruction at the hands of the murderous terrorists.

If the terrorists attacked us because of our support of Israel, then you argue that by withdrawing support from them the terrorists would be appeased and not attack us. However, by withdrawing support, we lose a strategic ally and condemn Israel to destruction at the hands of the murderous terrorists.again...what the fuck? How can you predict the future like that?

GEEZ CAN YOU LIBERALS PLEASE JUST GO TO FRANCE ALREADY? you'd fit right in there
And leave only people that think like you? I could never do that to my own country I love!

I would really just like to be this conservatory guys friend already. REPLY TO ME, I NEED ATTENTION

again...what the fuck? How can you predict the future like that?

By looking at the past. Before Israel was fully protected by the US, it was attacked again and again by the autocratic nations around it, and they nearly destroyed the country. It's the same today; the Middle Eastern nations hate Israel because it's Jewish and on land they consider theirs; they use this to whip up hatred in their people and keep themselves in power. We can only withdraw support from Israel when the nations around it are free and democratic.

And leave only people that think like you? I could never do that to my own country I love!

Remember, freedom only applies to those who agree with the leaders in power.

By looking at the past. Before Israel was fully protected by the US, it was attacked again and again by the autocratic nations around it, and they nearly destroyed the country. It's the same today; the Middle Eastern nations hate Israel because it's Jewish and on land they consider theirs; they use this to whip up hatred in their people and keep themselves in power. We can only withdraw support from Israel when the nations around it are free and democratic. That's because they didn't want these Jews to occupy land that they thought was theirs. I'm not saying the creation of Israel was a mistake, it was needed, but so was some consideration of those who occupied the land. The U.S. has continued to support Israel and not offer any rational compromises until just recently, and it's not moving that far that fast either.

That's because they didn't want these Jews to occupy land that they thought was theirs. I'm not saying the creation of Israel was a mistake, it was needed, but so was some consideration of those who occupied the land. The U.S. has continued to support Israel and not offer any rational compromises until just recently, and it's not moving that far that fast either.

Funny thing is, the land Israel originally sat on was paid for. They bought form the people who were their and they gave it to them. now what?