NationStates Jolt Archive

I was talking to a friend about the gas prices rising and it started a big smart discussion (whinch I HATE) over how she saw Americans, heres some of the chat. Sorry for the stupid nicks.. we were jokin around when we started talking..

<BlackPencil> gas is expensive
<BlackPencil> elise guess how much gas is
<BluePencil> 2 dollars per gallon?
<BlackPencil> $3.19
<BlackPencil> the day before it was $2.70
<BlackPencil> no wait
<BlackPencil> it went up to $3.19 the same day
<BluePencil> a place up north it's 2.13 PER LITER
<BluePencil> SO SHUT YOUR MOUTHS
<BlackPencil> eelise
<BluePencil> oops lots of caps
<BlackPencil> you,ve had that gas price for how long??
<BluePencil> long
<BlackPencil> ours is going up like hell in hours so you shut yer hole
<BluePencil> they say it might get up to 2.45 PER LITER
<BluePencil> why the hell should I shut it?
<BlackPencil> damn assholes taking advantage of a hurricane
<BluePencil> your gas is cheap
<BlackPencil> eelise, hunny
<BlackPencil> hunny hunny hunny
<BluePencil> stupid spoiled americans
<BlackPencil> estimated price for a gallon in winter is $5
<BluePencil> cool
<BlackPencil> eelise you gotta understand..
<BlackPencil> we went from lowish prices
<BlackPencil> to outragus ones
<BlackPencil> IN HOURS
<BluePencil> so?
<BluePencil> even if you have to pay 5 dollars it's way cheaper than here
<BlackPencil> thats just wrong
<BluePencil> that's cus you are spoiled
<BlackPencil> spoiled?
<BluePencil> yes
<BlackPencil> oh yes soo spoiled
<BluePencil> spoiled brats
<BlackPencil> you can afford your gas
<BlackPencil> do you know how many poor people who nee thir cars to get to work there are here?
<BlackPencil> they dont make much of a profit now do they?
<BluePencil> if the us had been smarter that wouldn't have been a problem
<BluePencil> if you would make a better public transport system people wouldn't need cars
<BluePencil> and you'll get rid of lots of problems
<BlackPencil> do you really see americans as spoiled right now?
<BlackPencil> i cant see how
<BluePencil> well it's cheaper to take a bus than the car
<BlackPencil> major hurricane in neworleans
<BluePencil> but you don't have busses there
<BlackPencil> shipping our ppl to iqar
<BlackPencil> poor getting poorer
<BlackPencil> oh we are soo spoiled
<BlackPencil> i tell ya

from there it turned into a huge talk about how the USA should have public transortation and how we would have less drunk drivers..

<BlackPencil> and everyone can afford the bus?
<BluePencil> i don't feel sorry for the americans at all when it comes to anything, it's your own fault
<BluePencil> most people can
<BlackPencil> you have an idea of what the word "poor" means here?
<BluePencil> if they can afford a car they can afford to take the bus
<BluePencil> and that you have lots of them
<BlackPencil> and notice they suffer the rising prices?
<BluePencil> prices go up and down, it's a part of life
<BluePencil> everyone can't have the same
<BlackPencil> in norway, its kinda fixed at that rate
<BlackPencil> here they go up and if you cant afford it you're basicly fucked
<BlackPencil> americans are hardly spoiled
<BlackPencil> please dont say we are

ok..
1. what the hell does every outsider think of americans???
2. i honestly think amercans are suffering worse than most places.. this doesnt make me a self centered american..

I guess it's all what you're used to, mm? Your friend doesn't seem to realize that. Then again, I do agree that more mass transportation is a good idea... Americans aren't spoiled, but... we do tend to eat up the energy a little too quickly.

Meh.

well frankly i'm too bored, tired and lazy to read all of that big-ol conversation there, so i'll just chuck in my two cents anyway... as a non-american i think you've had too low 'gas' prices for far too long - not enough tax - as how else could you have so many fuel-inefficient, 'gas-guzzling' massive SUV's, small trucks of cars and the like on your roads for so long?
petrol is a finite resource, and pissing it away on having bigger and roomier, ridiculously sized cars doesn't make sense with respect to this - nevermind the important environmental connotations.

if it takes a natural disaster and massive fuel price rises to spark debate about public transport, then perhaps that hurricane wasn't all bad after all... even if the extra cash from the price rises is going into the pockets of multinational petrol companies rather than the government...

[/rant]

well frankly i'm too bored, tired and lazy to read all of that big-ol conversation there, so i'll just chuck in my two cents anyway... as a non-american i think you've had too low 'gas' prices for far too long - not enough tax - as how else could you have so many fuel-inefficient, 'gas-guzzling' massive SUV's, small trucks of cars and the like on your roads for so long?
petrol is a finite resource, and pissing it away on having bigger and roomier, ridiculously sized cars doesn't make sense with respect to this - nevermind the important environmental connotations.

if it takes a natural disaster and massive fuel price rises to spark debate about public transport, then perhaps that hurricane wasn't all bad after all... even if the extra cash from the price rises is going into the pockets of multinational petrol companies rather than the government...

[/rant]

Yeah, I agree it's about time for people to stop driving SUV's because they are "in style". But raising taxes on gasoline is not an appropriate solution - this hits hardest those who need SUV's for their family or business, followed by the poorer automobile drivers. The wealthy could quite honestly care less. So what do you do? Place heavy taxes on SUV's, to increase the cost of purchase by perhaps 50%. And drastically raise tax benefits to large families (6 or more people, perhaps) to compensate these people.

They are spoiled. While Hurricane Katrina may have affected them, at least they can expect help. Other parts in the world can't.

They are spoiled. While Hurricane Katrina may have affected them, at least they can expect help. Other parts in the world can't.

So then almost every industrialized nation is spoiled?

yea bash america ! stupid fat americans!

havent read that enough on the fourms...

alot of countries do get help though, I am not american and I say its crazy that the prices can go up like that that that quickly. You could o to sleep and the prices will be 1 dollar more?

Green with envy aren't you all?

You know, if the UK had gas prices that were $0.50 a gallon, my attitude would be, "Hey, let's see what they are doing right over there so we can get OUR gas down to $0.50 a gallon."

But you guys see us with prices in under $2.00 a gallon (usually) and you say, "Hey, those idiots have their gas prices too low. They're using all the gas! They are irresponsible. They have unbelievable freedoms. They should quit that!"

:p

Like we care what you think!

Cheerio!

The people who drive SUVs aren't going to be discouraged by higher taxes on gasoline because they can afford it. Higher taxes are only going to punish people like my mother who at this rate can't even afford to go to work.

Americans aren't spoiled; gas prices are all relative. If you've been paying six or seven bucks a gallon for as long as you remember, then you probably don't understand why Americans would be outraged by three dollars a gallon. If Americans are spoiled, then Europeans are complacent.

Yeah, I agree it's about time for people to stop driving SUV's because they are "in style". But raising taxes on gasoline is not an appropriate solution - this hits hardest those who need SUV's for their family or business, followed by the poorer automobile drivers. The wealthy could quite honestly care less. So what do you do? Place heavy taxes on SUV's, to increase the cost of purchase by perhaps 50%. And drastically raise tax benefits to large families (6 or more people, perhaps) to compensate these people.

That wouldn't help. Instead, it would just stoke inflation and make the situation worse for US automakers and consumers. We just need to include SUVs under a stricter level of the CAFE standards, and we'll save more oil than we would get from drilling ANWR.

That wouldn't help. Instead, it would just stoke inflation and make the situation worse for US automakers and consumers. We just need to include SUVs under a stricter level of the CAFE standards, and we'll save more oil than we would get from drilling ANWR.

To temporarily drive down oil prices, people should 1) carpool as often as possible to work, 2) not drive unless absolutely necessary, and 3) not buy more gasoline than necessary because increased demand will just drive up gasoline prices even more.

I've seen people trying to fill up their gas tanks over the limit because they're panicked about prices going up and shortages. WRONG MOVE. You're only sending a message to oil companies that you'll pay out the ass for gasoline no matter how much it costs.

To temporarily drive down oil prices, people should 1) carpool as often as possible to work, 2) not drive unless absolutely necessary, and 3) not buy more gasoline than necessary because increased demand will just drive up gasoline prices even more.

I've seen people trying to fill up their gas tanks over the limit because they're panicked about prices going up and shortages. WRONG MOVE. You're only sending a message to oil companies that you'll pay out the ass for gasoline no matter how much it costs.

I couldn't agree more.

I agree we are spoiled my friends are always bitching about the price of a gallon of gas and I constantly remind them that they pay much more for a gallon of water

I agree we are spoiled my friends are always bitching about the price of a gallon of gas and I constantly remind them that they pay much more for a gallon of water

I can get a gallon of water at WinCo for 78 cents.

well i live in BC in canada and gas went from 1.09.9/litre to 1.22/litre. I just plain hate bush. lets blame it on him.

alot of countries do get help though, I am not american and I say its crazy that the prices can go up like that that that quickly. You could o to sleep and the prices will be 1 dollar more?
Uh yeah. See that’s what happens when domestic oil production shuts down due to damage and when one of your nation's largest sea ports (and coincidentally the area where a ton of oil is shipped in through) is destroyed.

Uh yeah. See that’s what happens when domestic oil production shuts down due to damage and when one of your nation's largest sea ports (and coincidentally the area where a ton of oil is shipped in through) is destroyed.


Yea but why should it affect us in canada? We have our own damn oil.

Uh yeah. See that’s what happens when domestic oil production shuts down due to damage and when one of your nation's largest sea ports (and coincidentally the area where a ton of oil is shipped in through) is destroyed.

Well, it's coming back on line now. We need to keep the SPR open and fuel coming in until the refineries are all operating again. Prices are starting to cool as well; here in Mentor gas was $3.09 yesterday and $2.99 today, and that's even before the most recent drop in gasoline prices (-22.53 cents) has taken effect.

Yea but why should it affect us in canada? We have our own damn oil.

Gasoline prices are traded as a commodity, and so any change in price in the US affects the price for all countries to a certain degree. Since Canada shares so much infrastructure and refining capacity with the US, prices tend to move almost identical to the US's.

Yea but why should it affect us in canada? We have our own damn oil.

Canada isn't completely self-sufficient in oil production. There's a lot more to producing oil than simply drilling, like refining, so that's one reason for Canada feeling the impact of the global market. There's also just less oil in the world because of American problems, which drives down the supply and increases the price.

Personally I think Americans should handle the effects of the hurrican on their on.
But when it comes to Americans being spoiled, I don't care. America literally SAVED THE WORLD in WWII. They backed up, armed, supplied, paid, fed, and rebuilt every allied nation on Earth.
So I think they've earned the right to be spoiled.

Personally I think Americans should handle the effects of the hurrican on their on.
But when it comes to Americans being spoiled, I don't care. America literally SAVED THE WORLD in WWII. They backed up, armed, supplied, paid, fed, and rebuilt every allied nation on Earth.
So I think they've earned the right to be spoiled.

Oh my god, will you be my new lover?

Thumbs up to this guy. Even large families should be more appealed to a mini van to an SUV.

Personally I think Americans should handle the effects of the hurrican on their on.
But when it comes to Americans being spoiled, I don't care. America literally SAVED THE WORLD in WWII. They backed up, armed, supplied, paid, fed, and rebuilt every allied nation on Earth.
So I think they've earned the right to be spoiled.

Wait, WHAT? America SAVED the world in World War II? I suppose we
re just ignoring the efforts by the Soviet Union or the United Kingdom, not to mention the 30+ other Allied countries during World War II.

When did America join World War II? That
s right, December 7th, 1941, after Pearl Harbor. When did World War II start? You guessed it, September 1, 1939, with the German attack on Poland. That
s over TWO YEARS of fighting that America missed, almost HALF of the entire war! Sure you could argue that, yes, we were sending aid, but were we actually sacrificing LIVES to help win the war?

Then even after we did enter the war, we did almost nothing in the European front! London was enduring the constant firebombings from Germany and the Soviet Union was getting pounded on. And when did we join the war in Europe? Not until June 6, 1944. There was no real point to us joining at that time the Soviet Union had turned the war around far before that with the Battle of Stalingrad. Yes, by conducting D-Day we probably did prevent all of Europe from becoming communist, but that has nothing to do with what we're discussing purely wining World War II.

We did fight Japan pretty much single-handedly, but Japan was an extremely minor threat compared to Nazi Germany. When America sacrifices 20 million people to win a war, half of them being civilians for a war effort, then maybe we can claim that we saved the world in a war.

I'd like to blame all of this minor rant on George Bush and the rest of the U.S. Government, and much of it will be, but unfortunately an awful lot of the U.S. populace could and should do more to help themselves, and this doesn't just restrict itself to petrol prices.

For example, the Venezuelan president (I'm pretty sure it was Venezuela) was recieving a lot of political support from the U.S... until he started to withhold oil rights to them. All of a sudden their desire for democracy and in freedom in Venezuela dried up - ostentatiosly for political reasons, but even the layman can figure out that Bush - and no doubt a large number of his associates (a large number of whom happen to be involved in oil companies at high levels, Bush himself included) was pissed off at the lack of oil imports. Granted this is gonna screw around with U.S. oil/petrol prices etc, and therefore a lot of blame can be placed on Bush, but also the American people could do a little to help. Now I'm not sure whether this is true, and I expect some of it has been blown out of proportion, but America is famous for not walking anywhere . What I mean is, rather than bitching about rising petrol prices, and blaming the government all the time, why not try to wean yourself off the car a bit? Imagine how much you'd knock down your petrl spending just by walking to the shops rather than driving!

Slightly related, the whole climate-change/global warming thing. As I'm sure many of you are aware, the U.N. recently drafted a charter detailing an awful lot of good stuff - financial assistance for developing countries, emergency aid for the poor and starving, and particularly climate change. This charter basically said we should do a hell of a lot more to help get rid of these things than we are now, and whoops - along comes this new U.S. ambassador and buggers it all up, pretty much saying 'America doesn't want this, helping those who can't help themselves isn't a good thing, and climate change? Who gives a crap? We're making money by destroying the world, and whats the world and the lives of everyone in it compared to a little cash lining the pockets of our major companies? America doesn't want any of this, so we're gonna bugger up the rest of the world too!'

Does anyone else find this policy just the tiniest bit selfish? Not to mention incredibly, and I mean unbelievably, stupid. I'm no tree-hugger who thinks we should all live in caves, but I really don't think we should go melting any ice caps, at least until we all evolve gills. Besides which, AMerica seems to think that it's friggin invincible! 'We've got the most nukes in the world, so we don't have to worry about natural disasters, or millions of people being drowned by rising sea levels!' What the hell is that about? Again, a lot of this can be blamed on Bush and the government, and so I rightly do so, but despite all this doesn anyone ever hear any news of AMerican citizens raising their voices to protest against this? America is a democracy, which means that the populace has power - real power. Biased though I am in this situation, I hardly think I can be blamed for thinking re-elcting Bush was a bad move - and I mean baaaaad. Also on the bad ideas list is not doing anything about this whole bloody mess! Not once in all of this have I heard about a protest. Everyone who is protesting - a disspiriting minority I think - seems to be up in arms about Iraq. DOn't get me wrong, I think it was about the worst idea since the movie Dungeons and Dragons, and I'm thoroughly ashamed as a British citizen that England got involved in it, but I do think that the world coming to an untimely end is slightly more important. Another shining example of how U.S. citizens could do more to help themselves.

Incidentally has anyone noticed that the New Orleans disaster hasn't attained even a tiny fraction of the international support that the Asian Tsunami has? Sure you can put it down to America being one of the wealthiest countries in the world, so people think it can look after itself, and granted the scale isn't nearly as drastic, but I think a lot of it is because people simply don't care that much any more. Nearly everyone I know - myself included - is seriously pissed off with America, not only for the things I mentioned above - particularly the U.N. Charter thing - but because it's so bloody arrogant!

Allow me to explain. I don't know where to start properly, so I'll start around the middle. First off, someone decided that it'd be an absolutely brilliant idea to build a huge city between three huge water masses - Lake pontcharian, the Mississippi, and the ocean. And had it escaped their notice that the Mississippi is prone to massive and catastrophic flood every so often? That in itself is asking for trouble, and it's hugely increased by building the whole bloody place below sea level. Now the Miss. flooded back in 1927, and in 1993, and both times the artificial levees were breached, with terrible result, purely because the U.S. Government tried to stop one of the most powerul rivers in the world with earthwork levees. On each occasion the earthworks crumbled. Some bright spark eventually came up with the idea of reinforcing them with concrete 'mattresses' but that idea didn't seem to reach New Orleans. Can you imagine the idiocy? Protecting a massive population centre with crappy earthworks that have been proven to break? Seems like someone could've learned a lesson from the Nehterlands - the whole country is below sea level practically, and do you ever hear of huge floods there? No? Didn't think so - that's because the Dutch reinforce their dykes with steel and concrete and stuff, so they don't break.

As if this weren't enough to turn the world away from helping America, they're also the most politically arrogant nation on Earth - they're like the only country that still hasn't agreed to the Kyoto protocol (another agreement trying to lessen climate damage) and now this U.N. charter thing - just seems to keep springing up doesn't it! Since America has basically given the world the finger when it's trying to stop the immense damage we're about to cause, it's hardly a surprise that the world is doing the same to them when the shit hits the fan. Basically it seems to me that the whole world's so pissed off with America that no-one's in a hurry to help them out, and yet no-one ever tries to do anything about them! And why? Probably because the average politician is about as spineless as a worm, and would sell any number of elderly relatives to get money/power/anything good for them.

So, in summation, yes I would say that America as a country is incredibly spoiled, and is about ready to take the whole world down with them, even if some (perhaps lots) of it's actual inhabitants are perfectly reasonable people - but I hate to say this, it doesn't show! Perhaps it's fear of repercussion, perhaps it's just laziness - political or otherwise - that prevents the citizens of America from speaking out against the decisions it's government is making, but you're gonna have to soon, or thats the world down the crapper. For the love of all that you hold dear, next time the elections come around, don't put a complete dickhead in a position of absolute power, in fact - try to stay away from the Republican party completely. If you want the world to change, try doing something about ti yourselves, rather than leaving the decisions up to corrupt politicians who's only focus is where the next bribe is coming from!

If any of what I've said if heinously wrong, or just stupid, please don't hesitiate to say so, but please don't just flame me, make sure you give me valid reasons for why it's wrong - that way my next rant will be even more well informed :D Also I'm pretty sure there was a whole load more I was gonna say that would have made this argument much more powerful and, I'm sure, coherent, but I've forgotten it. Put it down to the fact that its about half two in the morning here, and I haven't had all that much sleep in the last few days.

I'd also like to point out that this rant wasn't particularly aimed at anything or one with a purpose in mind, it was just an angered outburst attempting to bring some of the idiocy of modern politics to your attention. Addtionally please don't let me leave you with the impression that I don;t care about New Orleans at all - I think it's tragic, but I think it's still more tragic that Bush et al took no steps to prepare for such an eventuality, especially when he was warned years that the most likely disasters to happen was such a hurricaine with these results in the area (incidentally the second most likely thing was a terror attack against New York - did anyone notice measures being taken against that before 9/11? Because he was warned well before then.)

God it feels good to have got that off my chest.

p.s. To that guy with WW2 saving the world thing - basically all of what The Clarkster said, with the addition that the Fall of Germany would've happened without the U.S. - all they did was hasten the end. The war in Europe had pretty much ground to a halt, and was even beginning to turn against the Nazis - occupied France was giving them hell, and cast amounts of troops were having to be wasted policing it, they were getting nowhere against Britain - the RAF was dominating the Luftwaffe, despite being hugely outnumbered, Spain was having none of it, largely because they were fighting themselves, and in Africa Rommel was getting his arse kicked on a regular basis. The Axis were running low on supplies, it's citizens were on substitute substitute-foods, and it's military endeavours - in Russia, Africa and against Britain, were going nowhere and were indeed starting to turn against them. So America dealt with Japan - so what? They weren't really a threat. They were on the other side of the world, and the support they gave the actual German army was nonexistent. They were having enough trouble trying to subdue China and South-East Asia to bother with Europe. All the Americans did of use was speed up the D-Day landings, and give us a few supplies. You say they armed and fed and paid etc all the Allied countries - if you check, I think you'll see that America's contributions to the rest of the world were minimal at best, and the task of rebuilding was left to us. No one ever earns the right to be spoiled, and even if you could, America's actions in WW2, and since - Vietnam, Iraq, the Cold War (wasn't there some action in Korea too?) - anyone else think that they're the most idiotic wars ever embarked upon? The only reason America bothered with Vietnam was to stop the 'spread of Communism and the evil Soviet Communist Empire'. I don't know if you ever realised this, but if Communism actually worked it'd be the most perfect system of government there is - those actions certainly wouldn't 'earn them the right to be spoiled'. It's exactly that kind of arrogance I'm talking about! They think everything they do is such a huge thing! It people like The Clarkster that are one of America's few redeeming features! That and Chris Tucker, who is frankly hilarious, and Family Guy, for the same reason.

Heh, I filled up on 50 gallons of diesel today....not too shabby at 2.51 a gallon.

I'd like to blame all of this minor rant on George Bush and the rest of the U.S. Government, and much of it will be, but unfortunately an awful lot of the U.S. populace could and should do more to help themselves, and this doesn't just restrict itself to petrol prices.

For example, the Venezuelan president (I'm pretty sure it was Venezuela) was recieving a lot of political support from the U.S... until he started to withhold oil rights to them. All of a sudden their desire for democracy and in freedom in Venezuela dried up - ostentatiosly for political reasons, but even the layman can figure out that Bush - and no doubt a large number of his associates (a large number of whom happen to be involved in oil companies at high levels, Bush himself included) was pissed off at the lack of oil imports. Granted this is gonna screw around with U.S. oil/petrol prices etc, and therefore a lot of blame can be placed on Bush, but also the American people could do a little to help. Now I'm not sure whether this is true, and I expect some of it has been blown out of proportion, but America is famous for not walking anywhere . What I mean is, rather than bitching about rising petrol prices, and blaming the government all the time, why not try to wean yourself off the car a bit? Imagine how much you'd knock down your petrl spending just by walking to the shops rather than driving!

Slightly related, the whole climate-change/global warming thing. As I'm sure many of you are aware, the U.N. recently drafted a charter detailing an awful lot of good stuff - financial assistance for developing countries, emergency aid for the poor and starving, and particularly climate change. This charter basically said we should do a hell of a lot more to help get rid of these things than we are now, and whoops - along comes this new U.S. ambassador and buggers it all up, pretty much saying 'America doesn't want this, helping those who can't help themselves isn't a good thing, and climate change? Who gives a crap? We're making money by destroying the world, and whats the world and the lives of everyone in it compared to a little cash lining the pockets of our major companies? America doesn't want any of this, so we're gonna bugger up the rest of the world too!'

Does anyone else find this policy just the tiniest bit selfish? Not to mention incredibly, and I mean unbelievably, stupid. I'm no tree-hugger who thinks we should all live in caves, but I really don't think we should go melting any ice caps, at least until we all evolve gills. Besides which, AMerica seems to think that it's friggin invincible! 'We've got the most nukes in the world, so we don't have to worry about natural disasters, or millions of people being drowned by rising sea levels!' What the hell is that about? Again, a lot of this can be blamed on Bush and the government, and so I rightly do so, but despite all this doesn anyone ever hear any news of AMerican citizens raising their voices to protest against this? America is a democracy, which means that the populace has power - real power. Biased though I am in this situation, I hardly think I can be blamed for thinking re-elcting Bush was a bad move - and I mean baaaaad. Also on the bad ideas list is not doing anything about this whole bloody mess! Not once in all of this have I heard about a protest. Everyone who is protesting - a disspiriting minority I think - seems to be up in arms about Iraq. DOn't get me wrong, I think it was about the worst idea since the movie Dungeons and Dragons, and I'm thoroughly ashamed as a British citizen that England got involved in it, but I do think that the world coming to an untimely end is slightly more important. Another shining example of how U.S. citizens could do more to help themselves.

Incidentally has anyone noticed that the New Orleans disaster hasn't attained even a tiny fraction of the international support that the Asian Tsunami has? Sure you can put it down to America being one of the wealthiest countries in the world, so people think it can look after itself, and granted the scale isn't nearly as drastic, but I think a lot of it is because people simply don't care that much any more. Nearly everyone I know - myself included - is seriously pissed off with America, not only for the things I mentioned above - particularly the U.N. Charter thing - but because it's so bloody arrogant!

Allow me to explain. I don't know where to start properly, so I'll start around the middle. First off, someone decided that it'd be an absolutely brilliant idea to build a huge city between three huge water masses - Lake pontcharian, the Mississippi, and the ocean. And had it escaped their notice that the Mississippi is prone to massive and catastrophic flood every so often? That in itself is asking for trouble, and it's hugely increased by building the whole bloody place below sea level. Now the Miss. flooded back in 1927, and in 1993, and both times the artificial levees were breached, with terrible result, purely because the U.S. Government tried to stop one of the most powerul rivers in the world with earthwork levees. On each occasion the earthworks crumbled. Some bright spark eventually came up with the idea of reinforcing them with concrete 'mattresses' but that idea didn't seem to reach New Orleans. Can you imagine the idiocy? Protecting a massive population centre with crappy earthworks that have been proven to break? Seems like someone could've learned a lesson from the Nehterlands - the whole country is below sea level practically, and do you ever hear of huge floods there? No? Didn't think so - that's because the Dutch reinforce their dykes with steel and concrete and stuff, so they don't break.

As if this weren't enough to turn the world away from helping America, they're also the most politically arrogant nation on Earth - they're like the only country that still hasn't agreed to the Kyoto protocol (another agreement trying to lessen climate damage) and now this U.N. charter thing - just seems to keep springing up doesn't it! Since America has basically given the world the finger when it's trying to stop the immense damage we're about to cause, it's hardly a surprise that the world is doing the same to them when the shit hits the fan. Basically it seems to me that the whole world's so pissed off with America that no-one's in a hurry to help them out, and yet no-one ever tries to do anything about them! And why? Probably because the average politician is about as spineless as a worm, and would sell any number of elderly relatives to get money/power/anything good for them.

So, in summation, yes I would say that America as a country is incredibly spoiled, and is about ready to take the whole world down with them, even if some (perhaps lots) of it's actual inhabitants are perfectly reasonable people - but I hate to say this, it doesn't show! Perhaps it's fear of repercussion, perhaps it's just laziness - political or otherwise - that prevents the citizens of America from speaking out against the decisions it's government is making, but you're gonna have to soon, or thats the world down the crapper. For the love of all that you hold dear, next time the elections come around, don't put a complete dickhead in a position of absolute power, in fact - try to stay away from the Republican party completely. If you want the world to change, try doing something about ti yourselves, rather than leaving the decisions up to corrupt politicians who's only focus is where the next bribe is coming from!

If any of what I've said if heinously wrong, or just stupid, please don't hesitiate to say so, but please don't just flame me, make sure you give me valid reasons for why it's wrong - that way my next rant will be even more well informed :D Also I'm pretty sure there was a whole load more I was gonna say that would have made this argument much more powerful and, I'm sure, coherent, but I've forgotten it. Put it down to the fact that its about half two in the morning here, and I haven't had all that much sleep in the last few days.

I'd also like to point out that this rant wasn't particularly aimed at anything or one with a purpose in mind, it was just an angered outburst attempting to bring some of the idiocy of modern politics to your attention. Addtionally please don't let me leave you with the impression that I don;t care about New Orleans at all - I think it's tragic, but I think it's still more tragic that Bush et al took no steps to prepare for such an eventuality, especially when he was warned years that the most likely disasters to happen was such a hurricaine with these results in the area (incidentally the second most likely thing was a terror attack against New York - did anyone notice measures being taken against that before 9/11? Because he was warned well before then.)

God it feels good to have got that off my chest.

Don't forget oil is a large part of the economy-without it prices skyrocket for almost anything under the sun that involves trucking...and shipping...and flying....

People bitch when gas prices are high, so the president does something about it, and people bitch some more. It's a no-win situation for W.

Fair point, but even so he could do so much more to help himself - like encouraging a public transport system. And it seems to me that he isn't even making the effort to win, he's just doing whatever benefits him/ his associates financially... eer, I was going to add some completely valid and exceptionally poignant point to this, but again I've completely forgotten it. Bugger.

Personally I think Americans should handle the effects of the hurrican on their on.
But when it comes to Americans being spoiled, I don't care. America literally SAVED THE WORLD in WWII. They backed up, armed, supplied, paid, fed, and rebuilt every allied nation on Earth.
So I think they've earned the right to be spoiled.

We should all start sending free oil to the US for free as thanks for their saving us in the war. They can have our women as well, as thanks for saving every allied nation on Earth.

I've always been a leading advocate of a E.U. Supertax on Petrol, we have to punish our peoples, they must learn not to use the petrol and use public transportation, which in Europe at least, is damn good.

The people who drive SUVs aren't going to be discouraged by higher taxes on gasoline because they can afford it. Higher taxes are only going to punish people like my mother who at this rate can't even afford to go to work.
Ummm, not necesarily true, I drive an SUV and I cannot afford the new prices any more than someone who is drive an economy car. But then I didn't buy mine as a status symbol, I bought it because it has 4-wheel drive and high ground clearence.

Ummm, not necesarily true, I drive an SUV and I cannot afford the new prices any more than someone who is drive an economy car. But then I didn't buy mine as a status symbol, I bought it because it has 4-wheel drive and high ground clearence.

But that's the point. You bought an SUV and you're unable to pay the cost of gasoline, which means you'll either have to get a new job, find an alternative way to get to work and around town, sacrifice a luxury item or two in your life (internet, cable, eating out) or sell your SUV and buy a new car. If you have enough money to buy an expensive SUV and maintain it, you'll probably be able to afford the increased cost of gasoline. If not, you'll have to work out a new plan.

"what the hell does every outsider think of americans???"

That easy. They think we are "the great satan" until they need us for something. then after the need is done, right back to "the great satan" status.

"what the hell does every outsider think of americans???"

That easy. They think we are "the great satan" until they need us for something. then after the need is done, right back to "the great satan" status.

Read Eating Christmas in the Kalahari (http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/editors_pick/1969_12_pick.html) by Richard Borshay Lee. Besides it being an interesting read, the article reminds me of just what you refer to in your post. The world needs the US for its economic resources, medical advancements, military and technology, yet also resents the power the US wields. A relationship becomes necessarily strained when you both rely on and resent another individual.

I've always been a leading advocate of a E.U. Supertax on Petrol, we have to punish our peoples, they must learn not to use the petrol and use public transportation, which in Europe at least, is damn good.

Try public transport in Essex!

1. what the hell does every outsider think of americans???
2. i honestly think amercans are suffering worse than most places.. this doesnt make me a self centered american..
1. Americans consume twice the resources that Europeans do. That is, too much! Quit hogging the petrol.

2. You're a crybaby. America is a prosperous country. Sure you have Hurricane Katrina, but then again Southeast Asia had a tsunami.


We did fight Japan pretty much single-handedly, but Japan was an extremely minor threat compared to Nazi Germany. When America sacrifices 20 million people to win a war, half of them being civilians for a war effort, then maybe we can claim that we saved the world in a war.
Well, Japan did take over moist of Southeast and East Asia and killed millions of the people living there.

1. Americans consume twice the resources that Europeans do. That is, too much!

2. You're a crybaby. America is a prosperous country. Sure you have Hurricane Katrina, but then again Southeast Asia had a tsunami.


I cant argue with you about how much americans consume.

However, do not think that every place in this country is a land of opportunity, where the streets are paved with gold.

There is real poverty here, too.

"what the hell does every outsider think of americans???"

That easy. They think we are "the great satan" until they need us for something. then after the need is done, right back to "the great satan" status.

You're more of a homogeneous soar on the face of the planet.

No just joking. We love you really.

Boohoo. We pay over a dollar a litre for petrol over here.

Boohoo. We pay over a dollar a litre for petrol over here.


True, but you generally do less driving as well.

True, but you generally do less driving as well.

I'd disagree, but I can't really compare with the USA having never been there.

The vast majority of people drive to work every day rather than use public transport.

I'd disagree, but I can't really compare with the USA having never been there.

The vast majority of people drive to work every day rather than use public transport.


Im not 100% positive, but I believe we tend to drive farther to work on average, and drive more often.

In wich case..its almost like getting a "bulk discount".

We buy a shit-ton of the stuff, and get a little discount.

Im not 100% positive, but I believe we tend to drive farther to work on average, and drive more often.

In wich case..its almost like getting a "bulk discount".

We buy a shit-ton of the stuff, and get a little discount.

Hmm. Well...

60% of our population is concentrated in just 5 large cities...considering most people drive into the city (to get to work) from suburban areas, there wouldn't be much difference, if any.

Hmm. Well...

60% of our population is concentrated in just 5 large cities...considering most people drive into the city (to get to work) from suburban areas, there wouldn't be much difference, if any.


and whats the population of Austrailia, roughly?

and whats the population of Austrailia, roughly?

20,100,000.

So America dealt with Japan - so what? They weren't really a threat. They were on the other side of the world.

Well there's a lot on your comment that I can endorse, although you depict Americans in a significantly more negative light than I would, and I personally wouldn't be comfortable with making some of these points in the middle of a desperate natural diasaster. But what I wanted to address was the apparent Eurocentrism of the above quote.

If you've travelled in South East Asia as I have quite extensively, the importance of defeating the wartime Japanese regime becomes very apparent. Some of the atrocities committed in the name of the Empire rank up there alongside the worst things Hitler or Stalin perpetrated. The Japanese may not have been a direct threat to Europe, but Europe's only one rather small part of the world, however significant to you or me.

20,100,000.


Gracias.

We've got about 280,000,000.

Lots more drivers.

So, even if our average distance isnt greater, we still can claim to be the biggest fuel whores.
No..actually I think China just surpassed us in all respects a while ago.

Gracias.

We've got about 280,000,000.

Lots more drivers.

So, even if our average distance isnt greater, we still can claim to be the biggest fuel whores.
No..actually I think China just surpassed us in all respects a while ago.

Well, I wasn't intending to deny you that title :p

Most of our fuel price is tax, anyway. Which is offset by the fact that we have lower income taxes than most first-world countries.

Well, I wasn't intending to deny you that title :p

Most of our fuel price is tax, anyway. Which is offset by the fact that we have lower income taxes than most first-world countries.

So, you pay more for certain taxed items, such as gas, but you end up keeping more of your hard earned money?

So...it all works out then?

We get the holy snot taxed out of us each November, but pay less for gas.

Fair is fair, right?

So, you pay more for certain taxed items, such as gas, but you end up keeping more of your hard earned money?

So...it all works out then?

We get the holy snot taxed out of us each November, but pay less for gas.

Fair is fair, right?

Meh, if it works. :p

I don't drive anyway. Hehehe.

Originally Posted by Samsonica

Originally Posted by Mooseica
So America dealt with Japan - so what? They weren't really a threat. They were on the other side of the world.


Well there's a lot on your comment that I can endorse, although you depict Americans in a significantly more negative light than I would, and I personally wouldn't be comfortable with making some of these points in the middle of a desperate natural diasaster. But what I wanted to address was the apparent Eurocentrism of the above quote.

If you've travelled in South East Asia as I have quite extensively, the importance of defeating the wartime Japanese regime becomes very apparent. Some of the atrocities committed in the name of the Empire rank up there alongside the worst things Hitler or Stalin perpetrated. The Japanese may not have been a direct threat to Europe, but Europe's only one rather small part of the world, however significant to you or me.

Yeah that's true, and if I came across as fanatically anti-American there (which I did) I apologise. I didn't mean to slate everything and anything American, but I do resent the general assumption that by dealing with the Japanese in WW2 they automatically 'saved the world', and the further assumption that this gives them the right to do all the things they've been doing of late, and the general arrogance that goes with it. For example:

Originally Posted by Orangians The world needs the US for its economic resources, medical advancements, military and technology, yet also resents the power the US wields.

Now someone outline to me a situation in the last, say, thirty years when the rest of the world has needed, needed , the U.S. military. Vietnam? They didn't do much good there did they? Massacre of innocent civilians in a war that didn't even concern them. Iraq? Would America have cared about the oppressive dictatorship or mass executions if not for the bounty that lay in Iraq? Would the rest of the world? Because there's a whole lotta shit going on in Africa - genocide, oppression et al - and no-one seems to care. Call me a cynic if you like, but it seems a bit too much of a coincidence that these places that no-ones bothering with don't have any valuable resources as people see them.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work America did against Japan in WW2, but I still don't think that should give them as much swing as they seem to think it does. And as for saying all this during a terrible disaster, I really don't mean to sound uncaring - I know I can't even begin to comprehend the horror the people affected are going through, but even so my heart goes out to them. I was directing the rant at the U.S. government for the shoddy, even feckless preparations they took against such disasters, and the poor attempts they've made so far to try and deal with it.

i was searching the web and i found this picyire inthink its kidna funyn. but true with the recent iraqi war. and the fact that george bush is a self arrogant swine. but i do agree with many of the things said here. all the oil trouble is all bush's fault. and i found a few pictures showing what others think
rude george W bush picture (http://www.oiloiloil.com/images/paintings/george_bush.jpg)
http://www.gagreport.com/images/bush%20pimp3.jpg
http://www.bjorn-comic.com/images/damn_you_george_w_bush.jpg

1. Americans consume twice the resources that Europeans do. That is, too much! Quit hogging the petrol.

2. You're a crybaby. America is a prosperous country. Sure you have Hurricane Katrina, but then again Southeast Asia had a tsunami.


Well, Japan did take over moist of Southeast and East Asia and killed millions of the people living there.

1. BULLSHIT!! http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html
The US consumes 19,650,000 vs the EU's 14,540,000 (bbl/day).

2. And it still sucks. Had this happened in Holland, it'd be the same thing for the EU.

Well, Germany did take over most of Europe and killed millinos of people living there. With almost no governmental resistance except from the USSR & UK.

.

Troll.

I was talking to a friend about the gas prices rising and it started a big smart discussion (whinch I HATE) over how she saw Americans, heres some of the chat. Sorry for the stupid nicks.. we were jokin around when we started talking..

<BluePencil> even if you have to pay 5 dollars it's way cheaper than here
<BlackPencil> thats just wrong
<BluePencil> that's cus you are spoiled
<BlackPencil> spoiled?
<BluePencil> yes
<BlackPencil> oh yes soo spoiled
<BluePencil> spoiled brats
<BlackPencil> you can afford your gas
<BlackPencil> do you know how many poor people who nee thir cars to get to work there are here?
<BlackPencil> they dont make much of a profit now do they?
<BluePencil> if the us had been smarter that wouldn't have been a problem

Ah. Ignorance is bliss. The minor detail that EU nations tax the hell out of gas is why Americans are spoiled? :headbang:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0826/p01s03-woeu.html
On average, 60 percent of the price European drivers pay at the pump goes to their governments in taxes.

In Britain, the government takes 75 percent, and raises taxes by 5 percent above inflation every year (though it has forgone this year's rise in view of rocketing oil prices, and the French government has promised tax rebates this year to taxi drivers, truckers, fishermen, and others who depend heavily on gasoline.) On August 8, for example, the price of gas in the US, without taxes, would be $2.17, instead of $2.56; in Britain, it would be $1.97, instead of $6.06.

well frankly i'm too bored, tired and lazy to read all of that big-ol conversation there, so i'll just chuck in my two cents anyway... as a non-american i think you've had too low 'gas' prices for far too long - not enough tax - as how else could you have so many fuel-inefficient, 'gas-guzzling' massive SUV's, small trucks of cars and the like on your roads for so long?
petrol is a finite resource, and pissing it away on having bigger and roomier, ridiculously sized cars doesn't make sense with respect to this - nevermind the important environmental connotations.

if it takes a natural disaster and massive fuel price rises to spark debate about public transport, then perhaps that hurricane wasn't all bad after all... even if the extra cash from the price rises is going into the pockets of multinational petrol companies rather than the government...

[/rant]

Since you ought to think; what would Jesus drive? :D

Yeah that's true, and if I came across as fanatically anti-American there (which I did) I apologise. I didn't mean to slate everything and anything American, but I do resent the general assumption that by dealing with the Japanese in WW2 they automatically 'saved the world', and the further assumption that this gives them the right to do all the things they've been doing of late, and the general arrogance that goes with it. For example:



Now someone outline to me a situation in the last, say, thirty years when the rest of the world has needed, needed , the U.S. military. Vietnam? They didn't do much good there did they? Massacre of innocent civilians in a war that didn't even concern them. Iraq? Would America have cared about the oppressive dictatorship or mass executions if not for the bounty that lay in Iraq? Would the rest of the world? Because there's a whole lotta shit going on in Africa - genocide, oppression et al - and no-one seems to care. Call me a cynic if you like, but it seems a bit too much of a coincidence that these places that no-ones bothering with don't have any valuable resources as people see them.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work America did against Japan in WW2, but I still don't think that should give them as much swing as they seem to think it does. And as for saying all this during a terrible disaster, I really don't mean to sound uncaring - I know I can't even begin to comprehend the horror the people affected are going through, but even so my heart goes out to them. I was directing the rant at the U.S. government for the shoddy, even feckless preparations they took against such disasters, and the poor attempts they've made so far to try and deal with it.


The United States is the only country in the world that can realistically respond to international conflicts and crises--war, skirmishes, genocide, what have you. The US' failure to respond in no way compromises the US' ability to respond. (See: Africa.) And if it fails in its response (see: rescuing France in Vietnam), that doesn't mean any country in the world could have done better or remotely as well. The UN can't successfully operate without the threat of force--basically, the American military--to coerce countries into compliance with its mandates. You seem to have an unfocused rant about Iraq, so I'm not exactly sure how to respond. You're complaining that the US didn't need to go to war with Iraq (false) because Iraq didn't pose an immediate threat to the US (arguably true, arguably false) and that Bush waged the war out of self-interest (perhaps) and for the US' economic benefit (probably partially true). All right, assuming you're correct in all your assertions, you haven't refuted my argument. The US is the only country capable of responding to serious international crises in the long-term. Its military is bigger, stronger, more technologically advanced, and its budget is unparalleled in the world. Whether or not the US should have invaded Iraq, the US is the only country that could have in all likelihood. And sure, the world needs the might of the US. The US doesn't always respond, but there's definitely a need. If you ask me, Saddam needed to be toppled. Then there was Kosovo. And the various instances of genocide around the world. The US should have interfered in all those situations and it didn't always, but there's really no other country that could have.

Incidentally, the disaster zone is bigger than the size of England. Imagine if England were just completely flooded within few days. I know federal and state governments didn't respond quickly enough, but it's quite a task to mobilize and coordinate disaster relief efforts quickly, over such a widespread area and to such a large population.

Originally Posted by: Orangians

The United States is the only country in the world that can realistically respond to international conflicts and crises--war, skirmishes, genocide, what have you. The US' failure to respond in no way compromises the US' ability to respond. (See: Africa.) And if it fails in its response (see: rescuing France in Vietnam), that doesn't mean any country in the world could have done better or remotely as well. The UN can't successfully operate without the threat of force--basically, the American military--to coerce countries into compliance with its mandates. You seem to have an unfocused rant about Iraq, so I'm not exactly sure how to respond. You're complaining that the US didn't need to go to war with Iraq (false) because Iraq didn't pose an immediate threat to the US (arguably true, arguably false) and that Bush waged the war out of self-interest (perhaps) and for the US' economic benefit (probably partially true). All right, assuming you're correct in all your assertions, you haven't refuted my argument. The US is the only country capable of responding to serious international crises in the long-term. Its military is bigger, stronger, more technologically advanced, and its budget is unparalleled in the world. Whether or not the US should have invaded Iraq, the US is the only country that could have in all likelihood. And sure, the world needs the might of the US. The US doesn't always respond, but there's definitely a need. If you ask me, Saddam needed to be toppled. Then there was Kosovo. And the various instances of genocide around the world. The US should have interfered in all those situations and it didn't always, but there's really no other country that could have.

Incidentally, the disaster zone is bigger than the size of England. Imagine if England were just completely flooded within few days. I know federal and state governments didn't respond quickly enough, but it's quite a task to mobilize and coordinate disaster relief efforts quickly, over such a widespread area and to such a large population.

How is America the only nation able to front a military effort? Almost every nation on Earth has it's own military, many of which are highly efficient, and many of which have mounted successful campaigns. For example the British Army during the Falklands War - we won that with relative ease (which is, unfortunately, more than can be said for the U.K./U.S. effort in Iraq). Alright that was more of land-dispute than a moral thing, but it was still a successful military thing. And you say that the U.N. needs the U.S. army to put it's mandates through - what about the armies of the rest of them? Russia, China, the U.K., France, Germany, and so on. Besides which, I'd like to think that a lot of the U.N.'s major charters are put through because they make global sense, and are accepted as such, rather than because someone told them to or else.

Yeah, that whole Iraq thing was a bit undirected, but since you've made some points I might be able to structure a coherent response (hey, there's gotta be a first time for everything right? :) ) You say America did need to go to war, and I'm not saying the shouldn't have. I am saying that the reasons they gave for it were completely ludicrous. If they were going to invade, they should've done it years ago before all the mass murders and oppression, not wait until it was done, realise that something should be done (and incidentally that there was lots of oil that we weren't getting any more) and fabricate some rubbish about weapons of mass destruction (which, surprise surprise, we haven't found yet). And don't get me wrong, I'm just as disgusted with our own government (U.K.) for getting involved without U.N. permission. And what about Afghanistan? Osama Bin Laden? The hunt for him? A pathetically insignificant number of troops were dumped there and achieved not very much, and no-one seems bothered despite the lack of results. Doesn't seem like realistic response to that crisis - successful or otherwise.

And now there's still thousands of American troops left in Iraq again not achieving much except leaving more families bereaved as suicide bombers strike again and again - I thought the deal was that they'd leave policing the place up to the Iraqi government. And what was your point about Kosovo? I don't mean that aggressively, I just mean you didn't seem to make a point about it, you just mentioned it. If you mean that America should've got involved - it did. It was a N.A.T.O. excercise, and America, as part of N.A.T.O., was involved, and it again wasn't the most successful campaign ever. And if you meant that America was the only country that could have got involved - again, a N.A.T.O. excercise invlves many more countries than just America. If you meant to make a different point please do so.

And I wasn't criticising the efforts of the government to help out the disaster affected area, although to be fair, and as you yourself admitted, it could've been better, but Lord knows it must be a logistical and managerial nightmare, but rather the stupidity of the situation in the first place. New Orleans itself was built in about the highest risk area you could wish for, and the measures taken to protect it were poor at best, and already proven to be ineffective under pressure - pressure that had been predicted; I already mentioned how Bush was warned a long time ago that the most likely disaster to affect America was a hurricaine and flooding the affected region. I just think that much better efforts could and should have been taken to remedy the situation before the disaster happened at all.

and whats the population of Austrailia, roughly?

4 wallabies, a cricket team, 2 dingos and Rolph Harris :D

Why is it necessary to insult others when you dont like something about them? I think it is in really bad taste to hurl insults about us when you havent even met the whole population. Yes we are going to gripe about the gas...especially since it has almost tripled in a year and a half..anybody would. Right now we are suffering due to an act of nature and I am personally not griping now but when your price jumps so quickly ..you dont have a chance to slowly get used to it you get pissed off! Not all cities and towns can afford a mass transport system .The city I live in is way too small so what I should drive a horse and buggy? Everybody likes to tell others what to do but they dont have all the facts. Yes we use more resources but we are larger than Europe as well..so you do the math. From what Ive notice about British culture its not that different than ours, so dont be so high and mighty and think youre better than us...because you arent. Im sorry you have to pay so much..bitch about it if you want. Just quit the American bashing its getting old.

There's a difference between hurling insults at a nation and criticising it's governmental decision, and if you noticed I didn't criticise the whole nation - I made several comments to that effect.

You say that your city is too small to afford a mass-transit system. If it's so small, why can't you walk or cycle to wherever you need to be going rather than drive?

Originally Posted by: Sezyou

Everybody likes to tell others what to do but they dont have all the facts. Yes we use more resources but we are larger than Europe as well..so you do the math.

I hate to say this, but it seems like you don't have all the facts. America's fuel and energy consumption is in nearly every case (each different fuel I mean) at least 25% of the total world consumption, sometimes more. So let's do the maths then shall we? The population of the U.S. is 295,734,134 - let's round it up to 300,000,000 for the sake of ease. That's approximately 1/21 of the total world population (slightly less, but this is just an approximation). So 1/21 of the world is using 1/4 of it's resources. That's more than five times their share.

Then you say that you're bigger than Europe, so it's natural that you'd use more resources. Wrong again I'm afraid. The population of the E.U. is 456,953,258 - again we'll round it off to say 450,000,000 for the sake of convenience. We use about 20% of total fuel consumption (less in the case of coal - that's more like 15%). So okay, 450,000,000, that's roughly 1/14 of the total world population using slightly less than 1/5 of it's resources. Sure that's still way more than we should be using, but it's a lot better than the U.S. - we're two thirds bigger, yet use more than 5% less than you, 10% in the case of coal.

Anyway I wasn't having a go at your culture, more at your fuel consumption rates. However, you can't deny that American culture is heavily car-reliant, which is half the problem. I'm not fussed about our petrol rates - if anything they're a good thing, because it discourages unnecessary car usage. I'm more concerned about the huge environmental damage caused by not just car emissions, but all other kinds of greenhouse gas emissions, in which the U.S. is again leading.

Now please note I'm not insulting you, im simply pointing out various facts, and making criticisms against your government and environmental policies

p.s. If you don't believe any of the facts I've stated I can give you links:

Populations: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html

Energy consumptions: http://www.nef1.org/ea/eastats.html

Greenhouse gas emissions: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

1. BULLSHIT!! http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html
The US consumes 19,650,000 vs the EU's 14,540,000 (bbl/day).

Population vs consumption
US: 295 000 000/ 19 650 000
EU: 457 000 000/ 14 540 000
An American consumes 0,666 bbl/day
An EUnian consumes 0,318 bbl/day

Well not all of us can live in metropolitan regions where rapid transit is available. Many towns and cities do not have it available and when it is many people do use it. Spoiled Americans...who could possibly be offended by that title? :rolleyes: I will not apologize for driving my car because I need to get my kids to school, go to work or get groceries for my family. I dont see the need for SUV garbage and Im not against environmental protection or recycling etc. but I am tired of being dumped on , yes I agree the US should have signed the environmental policy but unfortunately our government doesnt always do what the citizens want. Im very busy and unfortunately I havent had time to research all these facts everyone else seems to have but I will take your word for it. But when I watch TV I seem to see plenty of other people in other countries loading up their cars and driving away as well so it aint just us!!

Population vs consumption
US: 295 000 000/ 19 650 000
EU: 457 000 000/ 14 540 000
An American consumes 0,666 bbl/day
An EUnian consumes 0,318 bbl/day

Without a link, your numbers are worthless.

Without a link, your numbers are worthless.
I used your own link.

Without a link, your numbers are worthless.

Or else try this one here:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html

well frankly i'm too bored, tired and lazy to read all of that big-ol conversation there, so i'll just chuck in my two cents anyway... as a non-american i think you've had too low 'gas' prices for far too long - not enough tax - as how else could you have so many fuel-inefficient, 'gas-guzzling' massive SUV's, small trucks of cars and the like on your roads for so long?
petrol is a finite resource, and pissing it away on having bigger and roomier, ridiculously sized cars doesn't make sense with respect to this - nevermind the important environmental connotations.

if it takes a natural disaster and massive fuel price rises to spark debate about public transport, then perhaps that hurricane wasn't all bad after all... even if the extra cash from the price rises is going into the pockets of multinational petrol companies rather than the government...

[/rant]


Nice rant, but I have a few things to point out to you...

-Here, it's the law that kids have to be put in car seats or belted in, meaning you can't just toss two or three kids in the back of your car along with the groceries and sports equipment and dog any more. You have to have a larger vehicle if you have kids.

-If people want to pay the extra gas prices for their SUVs, who are you to tell them they can't? It's their money, not yours.

-The higher prices after the hurricane are caused by the simple fact of supply and demand. Lower supply and high demand = high prices. A lot of oil rigs and refineries were offline due to the storm, and that constitutes a major interruption of supply.

I used your own link.

Thanks. Now explain how personal consumption makes a difference when I was replying to a poster that was erroniously claiming that the US uses twice the oil of the EU. :)

Per capita? Fine. That's true. But it's not what he said.
It's also true that Europeans live in their capitals and Americans live in suburbs and widely spread out cities. The UK is the size of Oregon. Sweden is the size of California. EU consumption would be no different if Kosice or Budapest was the size of Los Angeles...

Nice rant, but I have a few things to point out to you...

-Here, it's the law that kids have to be put in car seats or belted in, meaning you can't just toss two or three kids in the back of your car along with the groceries and sports equipment and dog any more. You have to have a larger vehicle if you have kids.

Just the same here in Europe...


-If people want to pay the extra gas prices for their SUVs, who are you to tell them they can't? It's their money, not yours.

Well, in that case those people shouldn't moan about gas prices, don't you think?


-The higher prices after the hurricane are caused by the simple fact of supply and demand. Lower supply and high demand = high prices. A lot of oil rigs and refineries were offline due to the storm, and that constitutes a major interruption of supply.

Unfortunately, that will be fixed before long, so everybody can go back to wasting limited resources just like before :rolleyes:

Or else try this one here:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html

Population link? Okay... but since Swimmingpool didn't say "per capita", what's the point?

Alright I saw the CIA link and yes we use only 5 trillion more big deal...yall are almost as bad as us! You are using your share of the resources as well! Get off your moral high horse you arent all that!

Thanks. Now explain how personal consumption makes a difference when I was replying to a poster that was erroniously claiming that the US uses twice the oil of the EU. :)

Per capita? Fine. That's true. But it's not what he said.
It's also true that Europeans live in their capitals and Americans live in suburbs and widely spread out cities. The UK is the size of Oregon. Sweden is the size of California. EU consumption would be no different if Kosice or Budapest was the size of Los Angeles...
He said Americans, not America

Thanks. Now explain how personal consumption makes a difference when I was replying to a poster that was erroniously claiming that the US uses twice the oil of the EU. :)

Per capita? Fine. That's true. But it's not what he said.
It's also true that Europeans live in their capitals and Americans live in suburbs and widely spread out cities. The UK is the size of Oregon. Sweden is the size of California. EU consumption would be no different if Kosice or Budapest was the size of Los Angeles...

Sure, all Europeans live in capitals. Like me, for example, I grew up in the big city of Bamberg, with a population of 70 000... and guess what? It has a fairly adequate bus service.
I never had a car in my live, whether I was living in cities or villages...

He said Americans, not America

Right. And Americans use 19,650,000 b. barrels per day, while those living in the European Union use 14,540,000 b. barrels per day.

That there are more people living in the EU is true.
That Swimmingpool pointed this out is not. That is a factor, but as mentioned, it's ALSO a factor that the wide majority of Europeans live in their nations capital (or #2 city), which makes their usage a lot less.

it's ALSO a factor that the wide majority of Europeans live in their nations capital (or #2 city), which makes their usage a lot less.
public transportation?

Sure, all Europeans live in capitals. Like me, for example, I grew up in the big city of Bamberg, with a population of 70 000... and guess what? It has a fairly adequate bus service.
I never had a car in my live, whether I was living in cities or villages...

Didn't say all. Said most. Please don't change my context. :)

Yep. And you never rode in a car either, eh?

US life is different. In Slovakia (which is a little bigger than New Jersey), I could take the bus into town. Here in Connecticut, the nearest bus stop is over 7km away.

How easily can you take a bus from Tullamore to Wexford? That's my commute to my old job, every day.

The US is a large, spread out place.

Sure, all Europeans live in capitals. Like me, for example, I grew up in the big city of Bamberg, with a population of 70 000... and guess what? It has a fairly adequate bus service.
I never had a car in my live, whether I was living in cities or villages...
But you have to agree that distances (to work, to another town etc) usually are shorter in Europe than in USA. I live in a rural country and I have to use my own car to go to work, cottage etc. The public transportation in towns is ok, but between small towns (not to even mention villages) is almost non-existant. It's also almost as expensive as using your own car, alone.

public transportation?

Exactly right.
Mass transit is only economical in large cities. And not always then. I can't think of a single city where the subway/metro doesn't shut down at night, including London, NYC, Washington DC or Prague...

The US is a large, spread out place.
so is the landmass of Europe, yet somehow we manage pretty decent public transport systems - even in the countryside in and between the small villages and towns that make up the gaps between our vastly populated capital cities... (which, i believe, was CW's point)

edit: evidently things aren't going to be exactly the same or as feasable in the states, but more effort could be made i think... all it requires is a little more taxation ;)

That Swimmingpool pointed this out is not. That is a factor, but as mentioned, it's ALSO a factor that the wide majority of Europeans live in their nations capital (or #2 city), which makes their usage a lot less.
Not true.

For instance Holland:
Biggest cities:
Amsterdam ~740.000
Rotterdam ~600.000

Total population: ~16.300.000

So there's still about 15 million people NOT living in the biggest cities. The wide majority

OH GREAT!!! Another post about the bad Americans and the rest of the world on it's high horse.

THIS GETS FUCKIN OLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

They are spoiled. While Hurricane Katrina may have affected them, at least they can expect help. Other parts in the world can't.


Name three countries we have gotten help from, I can't name one. Then again we may have gotten help, I wouldn't know cause I don't watch the news.

Right. And Americans use 19,650,000 b. barrels per day, while those living in the European Union use 14,540,000 b. barrels per day.

That there are more people living in the EU is true.
That Swimmingpool pointed this out is not. That is a factor, but as mentioned, it's ALSO a factor that the wide majority of Europeans live in their nations capital (or #2 city), which makes their usage a lot less.
How that changes the fact that Americans use much more gas than Europeans? There are reasons for it, but the fact remains. I'm not the one screaming, "Look at us, we are better than you! We consume less!"

We would have just as many SUVs if we could afford to buy and drive them.

Not true.

For instance Holland:
Biggest cities:
Amsterdam ~740.000
Rotterdam ~600.000

Total population: ~16.300.000

So there's still about 15 million people NOT living in the biggest cities. The wide majority
Honestly. Holland is one of the most densely populated countries inthe world. And small. Ok, the vast majority does not live in the two largest cities but anyway they don't have to drive too far to get to work, even if they work on the other side of the country.

you think your "gas" prices ar high? well in the UK they're the highest in the world so stop your arguing sheesh its like over £1.10 in some places per LITRE (or do you lot spell that liter?) never mind the gallon!

Honestly. Holland is one of the most densely populated countries inthe world. And small. Ok, the vast majority does not live in the two largest cities but anyway they don't have to drive too far to get to work, even if they work on the other side of the country.
Shhhh.

I was making a point. ;)

Anyway. You are very right, but people could always move closer to work or find a job closer to home.

Name three countries we have gotten help from, I can't name one. Then again we may have gotten help, I wouldn't know cause I don't watch the news.
Sweden, Canada, France

Sweden, Canada, France

Also Qatar, UK and Germany...

you think your "gas" prices ar high? well in the UK they're the highest in the world so stop your arguing sheesh its like over £1.10 in some places per LITRE (or do you lot spell that liter?) never mind the gallon!

Taxes. I've posted an article in this thread that shows that UK prices would be LOWER than US taxes if both eliminated their gas taxes.

Shhhh.

I was making a point. ;)

Anyway. You are very right, but people could always move closer to work or find a job closer to home.
:) I don't usually agree with Markreich but I think that Europeans try to look saints when they really aren't. I don't like to work 70km from home but then again, the other options are worse (part time cashier or no work). Of course I could move, but I don't think my boyfriend would like to move in a tiny village (and drive the same 70km to his work every day). Some also move further away from towns (and their working place) because they can't afford to live in centre. You have a point, but it's not always possible.

How that changes the fact that Americans use much more gas than Europeans? There are reasons for it, but the fact remains. I'm not the one screaming, "Look at us, we are better than you! We consume less!"

We would have just as many SUVs if we could afford to buy and drive them.

Americans use 19,650,000 b. barrels per day, while those living in the European Union use 14,540,000 b. barrels per day. That's 5,110,000 barrells per day difference. The EU uses 74% of the amount of oil that the US uses.
No, not you, but others are (ie: Swimmingpool).

And I hate that. I'd love to see a 5% or 10% per gallon tax levied on SUVs and other gas guzzlers. :(
However the US will, due to geography, always use more gas the Europe per capita.

well frankly i'm too bored, tired and lazy to read all of that big-ol conversation there, so i'll just chuck in my two cents anyway... as a non-american i think you've had too low 'gas' prices for far too long - not enough tax - as how else could you have so many fuel-inefficient, 'gas-guzzling' massive SUV's, small trucks of cars and the like on your roads for so long?
petrol is a finite resource, and pissing it away on having bigger and roomier, ridiculously sized cars doesn't make sense with respect to this - nevermind the important environmental connotations.

if it takes a natural disaster and massive fuel price rises to spark debate about public transport, then perhaps that hurricane wasn't all bad after all... even if the extra cash from the price rises is going into the pockets of multinational petrol companies rather than the government...

[/rant]


While in metro areas I agree like a few other countries we have so much SPACE making efficient public transport in places like central Minnesota is absolutely out of the question
A Buss wouldn’t make it within three miles of my house in the winter … and there are only 10 of us or so in a 3 mile circle so hardly efficient to send a bus out here on the CHANCE we will ride it

:) I don't usually agree with Markreich but I think that Europeans try to look saints when they really aren't. I don't like to work 70km from home but then again, the other options are worse (part time cashier or no work). Of course I could move, but I don't think my boyfriend would like to move in a tiny village (and drive the same 70km to his work every day). Some also move further away from towns (and their working place) because they can't afford to live in centre. You have a point, but it's not always possible.
Very right again. But still. 70 km is doable. I used to travel 3 hours a day to get to uni and back for 2 years.

Didn't say all. Said most. Please don't change my context. :)

Yep. And you never rode in a car either, eh?

US life is different. In Slovakia (which is a little bigger than New Jersey), I could take the bus into town. Here in Connecticut, the nearest bus stop is over 7km away.

How easily can you take a bus from Tullamore to Wexford? That's my commute to my old job, every day.

The US is a large, spread out place.

Daily, going every 2 hours. http://194.106.151.88/jplan/bin/bhftafel.exe/en/35551/15:08?protocol=http:&ident=&seqnr=&naehe=0&

Very right again. But still. 70 km is doable. I used to travel 3 hours a day to get to uni and back for 2 years.
So you didn't move either :)

Yeesh, 70km is not too bad. It takes about 50 min. I know many who spend more time in their cars in much shorter distances (due heavy traffic). Those are mostly idiots. If they would bother to walk 1-2 km a day they could use public transportation which is usually faster than cars in cities. I would rather sit an hour in a bus than 50 min in my own car. At least I could read newspapers etc.

So you didn't move either :)

Yeesh, 70km is not too bad. It takes about 50 min. I know many who spend more time in their cars in much shorter distances (due heavy traffic). Those are mostly idiots. If they would bother to walk 1-2 km a day they could use public transportation which is usually faster than cars in cities. I would rather sit an hour in a bus than 50 min in my own car. At least I could read newspapers etc.
I did move, but that was for different reasons.

And yes reading in public transportation is quite nice. Or sleeping. Can't do that in a car either

Very right again. But still. 70 km is doable. I used to travel 3 hours a day to get to uni and back for 2 years.

Personally, I only drive about 20km a day (10km back and forth to the train station), some more on the weekends.
It's 7km (read: almost there) to get to the bus to the train... so I need a car. I then take the train the 95km into New York City...

And moving closer is impossible. I've lived in my home for 7 years now. The house next door just sold for $415,000. (I assure you, I paid nothing CLOSE to that back then.) The closer one moves to NYC, the more expensive it gets. For example, in Stamford (about half way), it's nearly impossible to get anything for less than $1,000,000... and I'm not talking about anything special.

http://www.raveis.com/brokerpropdetail.asp?STATE=CT&ID=BA0486C0-080E-4F1C-B032-366DB75867BF&FROM=propfind&PG=1&KEY=1123363&FSTKEY=1023045&LASTKEY=1054901

Daily, going every 2 hours. http://194.106.151.88/jplan/bin/bhftafel.exe/en/35551/15:08?protocol=http:&ident=&seqnr=&naehe=0&

Er? (Don't see Tulamore). However, I see it's 3 hours each way to Dublin, which at 72 miles I can to in less than half the time while driving.

Er? (Don't see Tulamore). However, I see it's 3 hours each way to Dublin, which at 72 miles I can to in less than half the time while driving.

Then again, no European in their right minds would do that. You either select your work in managable distance to where you live, or else you move to where you find work.

While in metro areas I agree like a few other countries we have so much SPACE making efficient public transport in places like central Minnesota is absolutely out of the question
A Buss wouldn’t make it within three miles of my house in the winter … and there are only 10 of us or so in a 3 mile circle so hardly efficient to send a bus out here on the CHANCE we will ride it
well i can see that, to an extent, but, with regard to the quoted text, that doesn't mean you have to have such proliferation of massively fuel inefficient cars!
if you must use cars so much, there's nothing wrong with having a little more fuel efficiency

1. Americans consume twice the resources that Europeans do. That is, too much! Quit hogging the petrol.

2. You're a crybaby. America is a prosperous country. Sure you have Hurricane Katrina, but then again Southeast Asia had a tsunami.


Well, Japan did take over moist of Southeast and East Asia and killed millions of the people living there.

This comment is borderline trolling (mainly #1 and #2). I would suggest that you not do so in the future. Use facts to debate, rather than generalizing everyone (the US).

LOL!

Sadly, that's how so many people in this country are...

Then again, no European in their right minds would do that. You either select your work in managable distance to where you live, or else you move to where you find work.

This is perfectly normal (and manageable) for the US: You save money by living somewhere less expensive, and work wherever you can make the most money. Every day, over 1 MILLION people commute into Manhattan!

I've worked for my company (it's a fortune 10 company, and you probably own at least one of their products) for around 7 years. In that time, I've been in 6 posititions: one for 3 months, three for 6 months, one for 1.5 years, and one for 3.5 years.

I never know where or how long I will go for. The places I've worked in have been New York City, New Haven, Hartford, Stamford, Norwalk, and Danbury, with occassional (a week or two a year) to Boston, LA, Louisville, Miami, Las Vegas, and Washington DC.
This means that the areas I've locally worked in (NYC & CT) are a 90km circle; (read: 90km from Bridgeport CT directly on a map, not driving or rail distances). This is the same as being in Apeldoorn, Netherlands and working anywhere except Zeeland or Groningen... any given day.

It's a different existance. I would never make as much as I do in this job if I worked for a smaller, local company. For that matter, I don't even know if I *could* do what I do.

Personally I think Americans should handle the effects of the hurrican on their on.
But when it comes to Americans being spoiled, I don't care. America literally SAVED THE WORLD in WWII. They backed up, armed, supplied, paid, fed, and rebuilt every allied nation on Earth.
So I think they've earned the right to be spoiled.

Rebuilt = bullshit. You did nothing to help us Brits or the French. Only the Germans benefitted from the US. All your "aid" had to be paid for and you literally destroyed Britain's economy and it's Empire.
Thanks a bunch. America did shit all to save the world. It and it's politicians and businessmen sat back on their factories and towers and thought "Hey, a little war's brewin over there in Europe. Maybe we can make some cash outa this." Which is why we stopped paying only a few years ago for all the stuff we BOUGHT in the war.
The US was only dragged into the war when Japan attacked them. Let me remind you Hitler declared war on the US First. America denied many of Churchill/Stalins requests for military assistance.

Rebuilt = bullshit. You did nothing to help us Brits or the French. Only the Germans benefitted from the US. All your "aid" had to be paid for and you literally destroyed Britain's economy and it's Empire.
Thanks a bunch. America did shit all to save the world. It and it's politicians and businessmen sat back on their factories and towers and thought "Hey, a little war's brewin over there in Europe. Maybe we can make some cash outa this." Which is why we stopped paying only a few years ago for all the stuff we BOUGHT in the war.
The US was only dragged into the war when Japan attacked them. Let me remind you Hitler declared war on the US First. America denied many of Churchill/Stalins requests for military assistance.

ER, not to bring facts into the equation, but:
* The US sent many tons of muntions, food and supplies to the UK during the war. Not to mention small arms should the Germans actually invade.
* Hitler declared war on the USA on 10 April, 1941, 3 days AFTER Pearl Harbor.
* Under the Marshall Plan plugged 13 Billion USD (over 100 Billion today) into the European economy, and the UK nor France were certainly not lacking:
the UK got 3,297 BILLION, France got 2,296 BILLION. (West Germany? 1,448 BILLION.
* Britains empire was tenuous after WW1. Please explain how the US split you and India up. Or any other part.
* At the time of the Invasion of Poland, the US military was about equal to Denmark's. We couldn't have sent in aid much earlier than 1941 even if we WANTED to.

1.) Yes, but we PAID for them. And we paid hard.

2.) My statement stands, Hitler declared war on the US, not the other way
round. That fact is a crime in itself.

3.) Maybe I got that wrong then.

4.) Our Empire was hardly tenous. It was still extremely strong and powerful, (at least before the Washington Treaty) the US had always hated our Empire and what it stood for (Freedom and the Free World and specifically Europe) and they wanted to make sure they, after the inevitable fall of the USSR (which they thought would, and did, happen) would be the only superpower and no European could stand against them. America's anti british "imperialism" stance, showing in 1956 and other places, just showed how America forced Britain to back it's Empire down and turn into one goddamn small island after 300 years of world domination.

5.)So what? It may have been as powerful as Denmarks, but that means nothing. Countries like Poland and Greece and France put up fierce resistance against Nazi invasion. Should the US have stood with France and Britain at the start of the war, and sent troops as we did, France would have been able to hold and the whole concept of the Nazi blitzkrieg would have been halted. The beloved money of US taxpayers is, i'm afraid to say, less important than the mantainance of the Free World. While the US did not have an amazing army, neither did the British. Together we're a team, divided we're nothing. Not that cooperation has ever been any benchmark of the US.

On 3)... the Marshall aid was given largely on the condition that we wouldnt use it to support our Empire. We actually owed the US far more in debt than they ever gave us in aid. The US actually threatened to place sanctions on Britain and France during the Suez Crisis, and was largely responsible for the invasion of Egypt and indeed the British and French Empires in North Africa and Middle East collapsing. Which brings us to the question of who the US were really fighting in the war - well, they came in late, put most of their resources into the theatre which mattered most to them (Pacific) and devastated Germany with bombers even though it was no longer a military threat.

The answer is that the US was fighting everyone and for itself, and it won. The US wanted to destroy the old order of European great powers which could challenge it and, with the fall of the last of them (Soviet Russia) the US has succeeded. Britain is at its smallest, weakest and lowest in terms of importance since the 1600s and mainland Europe is ruled almost without exception by Social Democrats who are drowning their economies with welfare benefits (Germany springs to mind - in a decade or two their social security will actually bankrupt their entire country) and screwing up Africa with subsidies. Well, that's history for you. Let's just hope it all sorts itself out before China becomes too pwoerful.

On 3)... the Marshall aid was given largely on the condition that we wouldnt use it to support our Empire. We actually owed the US far more in debt than they ever gave us in aid. The US actually threatened to place sanctions on Britain and France during the Suez Crisis, and was largely responsible for the invasion of Egypt and indeed the British and French Empires in North Africa and Middle East collapsing. Which brings us to the question of who the US were really fighting in the war - well, they came in late, put most of their resources into the theatre which mattered most to them (Pacific) and devastated Germany with bombers even though it was no longer a military threat.

The answer is that the US was fighting everyone and for itself, and it won. The US wanted to destroy the old order of European great powers which could challenge it and, with the fall of the last of them (Soviet Russia) the US has succeeded. Britain is at its smallest, weakest and lowest in terms of importance since the 1600s and mainland Europe is ruled almost without exception by Social Democrats who are drowning their economies with welfare benefits (Germany springs to mind - in a decade or two their social security will actually bankrupt their entire country) and screwing up Africa with subsidies. Well, that's history for you. Let's just hope it all sorts itself out before China becomes too pwoerful.

Germany was no longer a threat? :headbang:

That whole arguement is silly. If it were true, the UK would have landed on D-Day ALONE, and could have won back Africa and gone up in to Italy ALONE.

Please. ALL of the Allies needed each other.

After the Battle of the Bluge no, Germany was no longer a threat (if you want to be pedantic, Germany wasnt a 'threat' to the sovereignty of any more nations after the Battle of Britain which is before the US entered the war). But what Im trying to say is not that Britain could have shot across Europe and won the war on its own and get back to blighty in time for tea and medals, Im saying that the US wasnt actually fighting on anyone's side, it was fighting on its own side, and it was a US policy decision to destroy the British Empire. It burnt Europe and Japan to the ground and rebuilt them in its own ideolised pacifist self image, which is why Britain and Eastern Europe are the most Conservative of the European nations (they were never occupied by the allies).

After the Battle of the Bluge no, Germany was no longer a threat (if you want to be pedantic, Germany wasnt a 'threat' to the sovereignty of any more nations after the Battle of Britain which is before the US entered the war). But what Im trying to say is not that Britain could have shot across Europe and won the war on its own and get back to blighty in time for tea and medals, Im saying that the US wasnt actually fighting on anyone's side, it was fighting on its own side, and it was a US policy decision to destroy the British Empire. It burnt Europe and Japan to the ground and rebuilt them in its own ideolised pacifist self image, which is why Britain and Eastern Europe are the most Conservative of the European nations (they were never occupied by the allies).

I'm impressed with the anti-American outlook in your view. With revisionism like this, I'll be surprised if in a generation or two the books won't be rewritten so that it'll look like the US was allied with Germany, and then changed sides after the Franco-British victory at Dunkirk. :rolleyes:

The US Air Force & RAF were bombing Germany for nearly 18 months by the Battle of the Bulge!