NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, just a random thought, but why do leftists and more recently the world in general single out the United States for such abusive treatment? Seriously, while I am generally in agree with opponents of the war in Iraq, the PATRIOT ACT, and other Bush boondoggles like the Kennedy/Bush NCLB act, I've noticed that nobody ever critcizes other countries, except when it dovetails with US actions. I offer two explanations.

First, because you can. Simply put, the countries that have far worse problems, will not tolerate any uppity dissent, while in the US, you can generally rail agianst the man to your hearts content, without consquence. Countries like France know they can rail against us all they want, because like a sucker, we'll save them from when Germany regrows a set and marches on Paris once again. Hell, even North Korea rests easy knowing America food aid will continue.:)

Also, you might actually get listened to in America. I dare one of you American bashers to post an anti-North Korean leadership stick on your car in Pyongyang.:sniper:

Second, it's trendy. Chicks dig guys who bash America. I know all sorts of guys who get laid after bashing America in some incoherent rant. I didnt get any after pointing out the Russians have massacred up to 10% of the Chechen population, something far worse than we've done in Iraq.

Now, you're saying, what countries could be worse than America? Well, I've got the answers.

Burma- Check out Finding George Orwell in Burma for an interesting travelogue in this Orwellian hellhole state, where posting anti-government fliers gets you killed and makes you the recepitent of real torture, not glorified BDSm practiced at Gitmo, which I oppose and think should end.:mp5:

Russia- check out Amnesty international and other groups work on the Chechen conflict.

Sudan- I'd love for the US to intervene here, but doing so would open us up to cries of imperialism given Sudan's oil.

Kashmir, the democratically elected Indian government makes frequent use of extra-judicial executions, dissapearances, and rape to bring this area to heel. Ever wonder why so many minorities in India wanna escape it?

North Korea- Another orwellian diaster where starvation is the norm, while the fearless (and fat) leadership boozes it up with Cognac and statues to themselves.

End rant.

*yawn*

*yawn*

Old, yes. But I still find this ovefocused view slightly intersting, considering how blind a person has to be not ot see all the threads going against the European Union, France (glances at Eutrusca), the UK, Sweden, China and all the other nations and unions. The human brain truely is amazing when it comes to filtering information...

... I know all sorts of guys who get laid after bashing America in some incoherent rant. I didnt get any after pointing out the Russians have massacred up to 10% of the Chechen population, something far worse than we've done in Iraq.

I suspect there are other factors involved here.

I was referring to a much broader context, like say the real world that exist outside this game. But hey, yeah, all those anti-Burma threads really are clogging u the game.

I was referring to a much broader context, like say the real world that exist outside this game. But hey, yeah, all those anti-Burma threads really are clogging u the game.

People are essentially only interested in themselves and what affects them.
And Burma didn't try to bully Germany into a war it didn't want, and doesn't have an airbase at Shannon... :p

Firstly, good on you for starting off with a large post, containing only two unforgivable smilies.

Okay, just a random thought, but why do leftists and more recently the world in general single out the United States for such abusive treatment?
Judging from this forum, I think it's mutual. And when people accuse people of being anti-American, that's often because they criticise things validly, like the government or the military.
The problem is just that some easily offended Americans have trouble keeping such criticism apart in their minds from unreasonable hatred.

Seriously, while I am generally in agree with opponents of the war in Iraq, the PATRIOT ACT, and other Bush boondoggles like the Kennedy/Bush NCLB act, I've noticed that nobody ever critcizes other countries, except when it dovetails with US actions. I offer two explanations.
Again, on this forum, many countries get their share of criticism. France particularly.

First, because you can. Simply put, the countries that have far worse problems, will not tolerate any uppity dissent, while in the US, you can generally rail agianst the man to your hearts content, without consquence.
Who are you talking to? I think the country most likely to see you in trouble with authorities because of political views observed on the web that is actually represented here is the US. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act and all that.

Countries like France know they can rail against us all they want, because like a sucker, we'll save them from when Germany regrows a set and marches on Paris once again.
So many things wrong with that, I don't even know when to start. I'll just keep it to "It happened once, and not really as you describe it. Hardly enough to see a pattern."

Hell, even North Korea rests easy knowing America food aid will continue.:)
I don't think the DPRK's leadership cares all that much. This way, they get their soldiers' food in easily transportable bags, rather than having to steal it off the peasants first.

Also, you might actually get listened to in America. I dare one of you American bashers to post an anti-North Korean leadership stick on your car in Pyongyang.
In Pyongyang, car puts sticker on you.

Second, it's trendy. Chicks dig guys who bash America. I know all sorts of guys who get laid after bashing America in some incoherent rant. I didnt get any after pointing out the Russians have massacred up to 10% of the Chechen population, something far worse than we've done in Iraq.
Maybe I should try that.

Anyways, it hasn't helped me on this internet forum. ;)

Kashmir, the democratically elected Indian government makes frequent use of extra-judicial executions, dissapearances, and rape to bring this area to heel. Ever wonder why so many minorities in India wanna escape it?
Oh, you're gonna cop it for that one.

End rant.
You forgot Turkmenistan.

But what is your point? Are you saying that criticising America is automatically invalid because of the reasons you mention?

I think that the reason why the US is singled out so much is that they’ve taken so many steps back under the current regime, in terms of human rights, honouring treaties, and international relations. Perhaps the most important factor that seems to bring out so much criticism of the US these days is that the World (including most Americans) expects the US to behave better than a psychotic dictatorship does.

It’s not that people honestly believe that the US is currently a worse dictatorship than North Korea, it’s that we expect them to set a benchmark and not lower it. It’s not that there aren’t psychotic dictatorships out there doing worse things than the US (although in many cases the people doing the bad things are backed by the US), it’s that most people find it sad to use psychotic dictatorships as a benchmark for the US to measure their human rights against. If you have to go hunting for the worse abuses in the World to say that someone else is also doing worse things, it says something very bad about how things are going in America these days.

The Bruce

Okay, just a random thought, but why do leftists and more recently the world in general single out the United States for such abusive treatment?For one, it isn't all that recent. It's been going on for quite some time.

One of the main reasons the US gets singled out so often is because the US messes with everyone.
Russia's Yukos scandal was pretty big, and so is the whole issue of Chechnya, but US intervention in Iraq and looming intervention in Iran is much bigger.

Countries like France know they can rail against us all they want, because like a sucker, we'll save them from when Germany regrows a set and marches on Paris once again.

Thank you for demonstrating your shocking ignorance of world politics. When you display such mind-boggling ignorance, it sort of undermines your whole point, doesn't it?

To address the point all the same, two of the main reasons why there is such criticism of the US is because of the US regime's hypocrisy and double-talk, and because of the ignorance of propaganda-fed morons who blindly support it.

No-one questions the fact that governments such as those of Myanmar, Belarus, Turkmenistan or Equatorial Guinea are objectionable. But when you see millions of starry-eyed American ignoramuses glorifying their country with a knee-jerk rejection of any criticism, then criticism is fully warranted.

I didnt get any after pointing out the Russians have massacred up to 10% of the Chechen population, something far worse than we've done in Iraq.

"Hey, baby, wanna come back to my place and discuss the Russian massacre of up to 10% of the Chechen population? I can talk dirty politics to you all night long, sweetheart...hey, where are you going?"

[QUOTE=Ariddia]Thank you for demonstrating your shocking ignorance of world politics. When you display such mind-boggling ignorance, it sort of undermines your whole point, doesn't it?
[QUOTE]

If you're referencing my mocking of France, learn some basic European history. The last of the three times France and Germany went at it, Germany took Paris. We, at least in America, call this conflict the Second World War or WWII. In conflict before that World War One, the Germans just missed Paris. And the time before, a little spat referred to as the Franco-Prussian war, I do believe the Krauts captured the French emperor.

India supports Nazi views in School though.

If you're referencing my mocking of France, learn some basic European history. The last three times France and Germany went at it, Germany took Paris. We, at least in America, call this conflict the Second World War or WWII. In conflict before that World War One, the Germans just missed Paris. And the time before, a little spat referred to as the Franco-Prussian war, I do believe the Krauts captured the French emperor.
Oh boy :rolleyes:

a) You just refuted yourself.
b) "Krauts"? Excuse me, but you better shut yourself up.
c) Looks like you failed to explain how the US saved anyone the first two times, and in the last the saving only happened after you had declared war on you.
d) What in fuck's sake has this to do with criticising the US?

These threads were cool in when... 2003 maybe?

Okay, just a random thought, but why do leftists and more recently the world in general single out the United States for such abusive treatment? Seriously, while I am generally in agree with opponents of the war in Iraq, the PATRIOT ACT, and other Bush boondoggles like the Kennedy/Bush NCLB act, I've noticed that nobody ever critcizes other countries, except when it dovetails with US actions. I offer two explanations.

First, because you can. Simply put, the countries that have far worse problems, will not tolerate any uppity dissent, while in the US, you can generally rail agianst the man to your hearts content, without consquence. Countries like France know they can rail against us all they want, because like a sucker, we'll save them from when Germany regrows a set and marches on Paris once again. Hell, even North Korea rests easy knowing America food aid will continue.:)

Also, you might actually get listened to in America. I dare one of you American bashers to post an anti-North Korean leadership stick on your car in Pyongyang.:sniper:

Second, it's trendy. Chicks dig guys who bash America. I know all sorts of guys who get laid after bashing America in some incoherent rant. I didnt get any after pointing out the Russians have massacred up to 10% of the Chechen population, something far worse than we've done in Iraq.

Now, you're saying, what countries could be worse than America? Well, I've got the answers.

Burma- Check out Finding George Orwell in Burma for an interesting travelogue in this Orwellian hellhole state, where posting anti-government fliers gets you killed and makes you the recepitent of real torture, not glorified BDSm practiced at Gitmo, which I oppose and think should end.:mp5:

Russia- check out Amnesty international and other groups work on the Chechen conflict.

Sudan- I'd love for the US to intervene here, but doing so would open us up to cries of imperialism given Sudan's oil.

Kashmir, the democratically elected Indian government makes frequent use of extra-judicial executions, dissapearances, and rape to bring this area to heel. Ever wonder why so many minorities in India wanna escape it?

North Korea- Another orwellian diaster where starvation is the norm, while the fearless (and fat) leadership boozes it up with Cognac and statues to themselves.

End rant.


does tha fact that none of the mentioned countries pretends to be the paladin of freedom and democracy give you any clue?

...
Probably because when the USA messes about, the whole world notices. Although American global dominance is slowly eroding the old say "when America sneezes, the world catches a cold" is still true today. When the North Korean Government removes personal freedoms, it's not going to be able to nuke the entire world five times over. We have a big interest as what's going on in America because it has such a big impact everywhere else.

Secondly, if you have freedom of speech, you can't complain if people use that freedom to say things you don't like.

Finally, just because other counties do bad things it certainly does not mean you turn a blind eye to the bad things going on in your country simply because it's 'not as bad as them.' If anything, you should be whiter than white, in order to be in the best position to criticise. Look at the Chinese releasing its list of 'American Human Rights Abuses' in response to the American document about them as proof of how it's hard to preach when you're up to your knees in crap yourself.

I think that the reason why the US is singled out so much is that they’ve taken so many steps back under the current regime, in terms of human rights, honouring treaties, and international relations. Perhaps the most important factor that seems to bring out so much criticism of the US these days is that the World (including most Americans) expects the US to behave better than a psychotic dictatorship does.

It’s not that people honestly believe that the US is currently a worse dictatorship than North Korea, it’s that we expect them to set a benchmark and not lower it. It’s not that there aren’t psychotic dictatorships out there doing worse things than the US (although in many cases the people doing the bad things are backed by the US), it’s that most people find it sad to use psychotic dictatorships as a benchmark for the US to measure their human rights against. If you have to go hunting for the worse abuses in the World to say that someone else is also doing worse things, it says something very bad about how things are going in America these days.

The Bruce


excellent post dude

You guys just hate America because we're stupid. And that's not fair.

Well, maybe its the same as in an old dutch saying:

Hoge bomen vangen veel wind

literary translated it means something like:

High trees catch a lot of wind.

The US is a "high" tree. It is powerful, it's in the news every single day and (in our hearts) we all envy the US for their power.

a) You just refuted yourself.

No, I made a learning disability induced typographical mistake. You didnt quote the edited version.

b) "Krauts"? Excuse me, but you better shut yourself up.

Please, goosestep yourself out of here man. It's just a website.

c) Looks like you failed to explain how the US saved anyone the first two times, and in the last the saving only happened after you had declared war on you.

I didnt say we saved them the first time. (and if I did, because I dont remember saying such or my post in general, I was wrong) During WWI, we saved you all by arriving in time to stop the penetrations caused by the German shift to Riga tactics on the Western front. You know that series of offensives where German forces plowed through French and British lines, the later of which resorted to point defense because of manpower problems. You can thank the 1st infantry for that victory.

d) What in fuck's sake has this to do with criticising the US?

Nothing, it was a semi-ignorant remark, in response to another, slightly more ignorant remark. Hence why I used the quote feature, however badly I mangled it.

I didnt say we saved them the first time. (and if I did, because I dont remember saying such or my post in general, I was wrong) During WWI, we saved you all by arriving in time to stop the penetrations caused by the German shift to Riga tactics on the Western front. You know that series of offensives where German forces plowed through French and British lines, the later of which resorted to point defense because of manpower problems. You can thank the 1st infantry for that victory.
It's generally best not to use the American history "we saved everyone! USA! USA!" version of events unless you're being deliberately provocative. You'll find there are many people who have a more accurate knowledge of history who will take issue with it.

Please, goosestep yourself out of here man. It's just a website.
And even though it is just a website, there is such a thing as common courtesy and manners. Perhaps nobody ever taught you. Perhaps that "learning disability" is at fault for that too?

See, insulting people is fun.

I don't mind people saying all sorts of things, as long as they are at least half-way good natured. This wasn't.

During WWI, we saved you all by arriving in time to stop the penetrations caused by the German shift to Riga tactics on the Western front. You know that series of offensives where German forces plowed through French and British lines, the later of which resorted to point defense because of manpower problems. You can thank the 1st infantry for that victory.
That has got to be a joke. The bloody ANZAC did more to stop that offensive than the US did.
At any rate, you can thank German High Command for that one.

Nothing, it was a semi-ignorant remark, in response to another, slightly more ignorant remark.
No mate. I have managed to get it established on this forum that no one makes a dumb French surrender joke without getting called for it.
You made a dumb French surrender joke, and you will have to justify it.

It's generally best not to use the American history "we saved everyone! USA! USA!" version of events unless you're being deliberately provocative. You'll find there are many people who have a more accurate knowledge of history who will take issue with it.

What exactly wrong with my post besides hurting your feelings?

What exactly wrong with my post besides hurting your feelings?
It's completely inaccurate. My feelings are fine. Thank you for your concern.

Well, maybe its the same as in an old dutch saying:

Hoge bomen vangen veel wind

literary translated it means something like:

High trees catch a lot of wind.

The US is a "high" tree. It is powerful, it's in the news every single day and (in our hearts) we all envy the US for their power.

The Chinese have exactly the same saying, but instead of high tree they say 'big tree'.

Just something I picked up from my Mandarin language course. Amazing how two cultures 6,000 miles apart come to share a saying.

Jesus, did you watch Gallipoli for that factoid? That was a great movie, particularly the part where they substitute a Briitsh general to cover up the indeptness of the real Australian one.

That has got to be a joke. The bloody ANZAC did more to stop that offensive than the US did.
At any rate, you can thank German High Command for that one.

Yeah, they did a swell job, which is why Petain and Allies pleaded with Pershing to change his initial plan which was to avoid any combat with American forces until the enter expeditionary force was ready, to one where the 1st infantry division was used to beat back German forces. :sniper:

You're ever notice that after over 3 years going nowhere, the Allies crushed the Germans mere months after the entry of American forces into the war, despite the massive influx of German reinforcments from the Eastern Front? Despite the hammering they gave Italy? Seriously, the Germans were rolling right up to the point the Americans entered, and mysteriously, then lose quickly.


Na, it couldnt have been the Americans.

You're ever notice that after over 3 years going nowhere, the Allies crushed the Germans mere months after the entry of American forces into the war, despite the massive influx of German reinforcments from the Eastern Front? Despite the hammering they gave Italy? Seriously, the Germans were rolling right up to the point the Americans entered, and mysteriously, then lose quickly.

Na, it couldnt have been the Americans.
Na, it couldn't have been four years of hard struggle that wore the Germans down.
Na, it couldn't have been the British naval blockade that was starving the German home front and eroding popular support for the war.
Na, it couldn't have been that after so long fighting for so little gain, the Germans were just unhappy at the prospect of another four years of stalemate and were ready to agree to fair conditions to end the war.
Na, it couldn't have been that the Germans were never military 'beaten' and Germany was never occupied.
Na, it had to be the tiny number of American troops that arrived before the end of the war.

Obviously, the USA won it. (USA! USA!)

If you're referencing my mocking of France, learn some basic European history. The last of the three times France and Germany went at it, Germany took Paris. We, at least in America, call this conflict the Second World War or WWII. In conflict before that World War One, the Germans just missed Paris. And the time before, a little spat referred to as the Franco-Prussian war, I do believe the Krauts captured the French emperor.Maybe you should learn the difference between past and present. The time is not in 1914 or 1940.
As for your comment about "Germany grows a pair", what do you think takes more guts: Saying no to France, or to the world's greatest Superpower the USA?

You're ever notice that after over 3 years going nowhere, the Allies crushed the Germans mere months after the entry of American forces into the war, despite the massive influx of German reinforcments from the Eastern Front? Despite the hammering they gave Italy? Seriously, the Germans were rolling right up to the point the Americans entered, and mysteriously, then lose quickly.


Na, it couldnt have been the Americans.There were massive influxes from the Eastern front? That's a mistake. The forces there kept milling about ordered by their Generals and fighting Russians after Brest-Litovsk was signed instead of being sent to where they would have had an effect on the war.

Philosophy pointed out the main real reasons why things went down. I'd like to add a couple:

Na, it couldn't have been the masses of tanks opposed to the sparing few that Germany had
Na, it couldn't have been the red revolution in Kiel that spread and forced the Kaiser to surrender

Jesus, did you watch Gallipoli for that factoid? That was a great movie, particularly the part where they substitute a Briitsh general to cover up the indeptness of the real Australian one.
How about this little bit here?
http://www.defence.gov.au/ARMY/AHU/On_This_Day/September/27_September.htm
ON THIS DAY ... 27 SEPTEMBER
1918
Battle of the Hindenburg Line. On this particular day the 3rd and 5th Divisions were ordered to attack as the second echelon after an attack by troops of the US 2nd Corps. It was planned that the Australians were to pass through the US line and move onto new objectives. However the eager but inexperienced Americans left pockets of resistance intact. When it came time for the Australians to advance they found that they had to refight for the ground. Further, due to the uncertainty of the US positions the Australian artillery could not be employed effectively. It was a long day before the situation was restored and the attack on the Hindenburg Line continued. The Battle of the Hindenburg Line was not ended until 5 October 1918.

Why would you insist that totally inexperienced fresh troops who've never seen a rifle fired in anger are somehow capable of keeping it up with men who've been fighting that war for four years?

Oh, and the Allied commander in Gallipoli was a Brit, Sir Ian Hamilton. The Australian was General Monash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Monash), who actually had a pretty good record, considering the circumstances.

Yeah, they did a swell job, which is why Petain and Allies pleaded with Pershing to change his initial plan which was to avoid any combat with American forces until the enter expeditionary force was ready, to one where the 1st infantry division was used to beat back German forces. :sniper:
You take what you can get. I think it says a lot more that Pershing was ready to spend months making holiday while British, French and Colonial boys were dying every day.

And besides...one division?

You're ever notice that after over 3 years going nowhere, the Allies crushed the Germans mere months after the entry of American forces into the war, despite the massive influx of German reinforcments from the Eastern Front?
Correlation does not imply Causation.

The German war machine was at its end. With the reinforcements, German General Command had the choice of either reinforcing the defences and wait for another year or two with starvation at home and the Allies (including the Americans) steadily becoming stronger, or to gamble.
They needed to break through and force the Allies to end the war, and they had this one last chance. Ludendorff didn't get Hutier's tactics, and kept using storm troopers against heavily fortified positions, losing hundreds of thousands in that spring, including at least one family member of mine.
The Allies (all of them together putting in) held the line together. ANZAC did a particularly good job, and believe me, I'm not one to particularly respect Australian achievements. The Americans did get involved, but usually they didn't perform more than you would expect from rookies.

Once the offensive got stuck, the war was lost, and the Germans knew it then.

Good god, this American-central history always pisses me off. Look chum, the US forces helped the allied forces win the final parts of the conflict, but there were many more reasons for the conflict ending when it did that have been listed. You guys just came in at the end and helped clear up really.

Na, it couldn't have been four years of hard struggle that wore the Germans down.
Na, it couldn't have been the British naval blockade that was starving the German home front and eroding popular support for the war.
Na, it couldn't have been that after so long fighting for so little gain, the Germans were just unhappy at the prospect of another four years of stalemate and were ready to agree to fair conditions to end the war.
Na, it couldn't have been that the Germans were never military 'beaten' and Germany was never occupied.
Na, it had to be the tiny number of American troops that arrived before the end of the war.

Obviously, the USA won it. (USA! USA!)

"Na, it couldn't have been the British naval blockade that was starving the German home front and eroding popular support for the war."

I believe this theory has been somewhat debunked, thoughout my sources in front of me, I hesitate to make this claim. I believe the book is called Argrian interpretation or something.

Yeah, so little gain, you know. The Germans (insert credit to Austria and Bulgaria as approriate) conquered Belgium, Serbia, Romania, and a large part of Russia, but clearly they gained nothing.

"another four years of stalemate " yeah, right up until the Germans deployed Riga tactics to devastating effect.

"Na, it couldn't have been that the Germans were never military 'beaten' and Germany was never occupied."

They call this the stabbed in the back myth, for a reason caue it was myth. You know the fact that theGermans were reeling from the massive American attacks against them, and the fact their combat strength was 50 divisions, their allies had already surrendered, and the fact that the Armistice terms, (not Versailles) the ceasefire agreements were fairly brutul.

Also, we didnt occupy the Old USSR, but from odd reason, nobody claims the US didnt win that conflict.

Na, it couldn't have been four years of hard struggle that wore the Germans down.

Na, it couldn't have been the British naval blockade that was starving the German home front and eroding popular support for the war.

Na, it couldn't have been that after so long fighting for so little gain, the Germans were just unhappy at the prospect of another four years of stalemate and were ready to agree to fair conditions to end the war.

Na, it couldn't have been that the Germans were never military 'beaten' and Germany was never occupied.

All these points are very valid, so I'll ask you...

Do you honestly believe that Germany would have surrendered without the threat of constant streams of American manpower which were sure to arrive over the next few years?

If America had not entered World War I, would we have seen a similar result?

All these points are very valid, so I'll ask you...

Do you honestly believe that Germany would have surrendered without the threat of constant streams of American manpower which were sure to arrive over the next few years?

If America had not entered World War I, would we have seen a similar result?First question: Yes.
Second question: No. There wouldn't have been a League of Nations.

Do you honestly believe that Germany would have surrendered without the threat of constant streams of American manpower which were sure to arrive over the next few years?

If America had not entered World War I, would we have seen a similar result?
That is an interesting question. I think that with the way the "Riga Tactics" (which are actually called Hutier tactics, but anyway) weren't employed, the spring offensives couldn't have succeeded.

So the question is whether the Germans would have attacked in spring 1918, as soon as possible. The answer: Maybe not. But starvation due to the blockade, the civil war in Russia and the resulting unrest, shortages in resources and so on meant that Germany couldn't have held on much longer either way.

I'd tip for an Allied victory by default in 1919.

"Na, it couldn't have been the British naval blockade that was starving the German home front and eroding popular support for the war."

I believe this theory has been somewhat debunked, thoughout my sources in front of me, I hesitate to make this claim. I believe the book is called Argrian interpretation or something.

Yeah, so little gain, you know. The Germans (insert credit to Austria and Bulgaria as approriate) conquered Belgium, Serbia, Romania, and a large part of Russia, but clearly they gained nothing.

"another four years of stalemate " yeah, right up until the Germans deployed Riga tactics to devastating effect.

"Na, it couldn't have been that the Germans were never military 'beaten' and Germany was never occupied."

They call this the stabbed in the back myth, for a reason caue it was myth. You know the fact that theGermans were reeling from the massive American attacks against them, and the fact their combat strength was 50 divisions, their allies had already surrendered, and the fact that the Armistice terms, (not Versailles) the ceasefire agreements were fairly brutul.

Also, we didnt occupy the Old USSR, but from odd reason, nobody claims the US didnt win that conflict.1. What do your sources say?
2. Why didn't the Riga tactics win the war?
3. What does the "stabbed in the back myth" have to do with all of that?
4. Why do you ignore the revolution in Kiel?

1. What do your sources say?
I didnt mean to say throughout, I meant without. Damn LD.

2. Why didn't the Riga tactics win the war?

Cause the Americans arrived, and the Germans were beaten by them

3. What does the "stabbed in the back myth" have to do with all of that?

The entire stabbed in the back myth is predicated on the idea that germany wasn't militarily defeated.

4. Why do you ignore the revolution in Kiel?

They have three names, one based off the inventor of them and the other where they first saw deployment, and the one that describes what they are infiltration tactics.

Man, I love riled up Europeans with their jingoist historical interpretations.

Man, I love riled up Europeans with their jingoist historical interpretations.
I am now officially convinced that you are a puppet.

1. What do your sources say?
I didnt mean to say throughout, I meant without. Damn LD.

2. Why didn't the Riga tactics win the war?

Cause the Americans arrived, and the Germans were beaten by them

3. What does the "stabbed in the back myth" have to do with all of that?

The entire stabbed in the back myth is predicated on the idea that germany wasn't militarily defeated.

4. Why do you ignore the revolution in Kiel?
You have an astonishing view of history. I have never seen a historian claim that American 'won WWI.' It was a war between Empires; even the most patriotic, flag waving American should be able to see that America didn't even enter the war until the last few months, and only a few thousand troops had arrived by time it finished. I don't know where you're getting your history books from, but I'd take them back and ask for a refund if I were you.

Kid, have you ever questioned anything in your life? Or have you just comforted yourself with the idea that 'America's best, ok?'

I am now officially convinced that you are a puppet.

I prefer the term troll.

I prefer the term troll.
That's a relief. The thought of a generation of American youngsters growing up actually believing in their own infallibilitity is quite worrying.

I didnt mean to say throughout, I meant without. Damn LD.And yet you make the claim that American forces arriving was the decisive factor in ending the war.
Cause the Americans arrived, and the Germans were beaten by themA silly notion. We've been pointing out to you that that wasn't the major decisive factor.
The entire stabbed in the back myth is predicated on the idea that germany wasn't militarily defeated.Incorrect. The myth predicates that Germany couldn't have lost the war militarily, so only a communist/jewish plot could be the logical explanation.
I think you misinterpreted the "not defeated militarily" bit. Germany didn't surrender due to a decisive military defeat, but because of civil unrest and a looming military defeat. Military defeat would have happened, but it didn't. The war was over before it got that far.

Why do you ignore the revolution in Kiel?

That's a relief. The thought of a generation of American youngsters growing up actually believing in their own infallibilitity is quite worrying.

Who says that isn't happening?

I'm just sad that this American apparently not only doesn't know that ANZAC took the new American reinforcements under its wings and taught them how to deal with trench warfare, but that this very ANZAC is even being belittled by him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hamel

You have an astonishing view of history. I have never seen a historian claim that American 'won WWI.' It was a war between Empires; even the most patriotic, flag waving American should be able to see that America didn't even enter the war until the last few months, and only a few thousand troops had arrived by time it finished. I don't know where you're getting your history books from, but I'd take them back and ask for a refund if I were you.

Kid, have you ever questioned anything in your life? Or have you just comforted yourself with the idea that 'America's best, ok?'

"I have never seen a historian claim that American 'won WWI.'

Clearly, you have a limited grasp of the historiography. Thats what most American historians claim. As for my reading, I found Pity of war interesting, Verdun was fun because its facts helped me troll people complaining about French weakness. Passchendale the untold story was sorta boring, but Keegan's book was very nicely done. Some book by a guy name beckett was fun because it helped debunk the Lost Arcadia nonsense and lost generation stuff in general.

Ohh Gee, the American reads English/Australian historiography. Yes I do.

"only a few thousand troops "? yeah okay, but given that we took 126,000 KIA and suffered only a tiny casual percentage, I am guessing you're wrong.

Kid, have you ever questioned anything in your life? Or have you just comforted yourself with the idea that 'America's best, ok?'

Yeah, hence why opposition to the Iraq war, Gitmo, and the rest.

I prefer the term troll.
Phew.

Who are you then? Do tell!

Yeah, right, you see the 1st Infantry division was a regular army outfit with extenstive fighting experience, against unconventional opponents. You all got remember our wars with the Indians that lasted until 1890, then the Spanish American war, followed by the Phillipine Insurrection that lasted until 1903. Not to mention some other imperial brushups in Latin America.

Now, compare that to the British forces who arrived in 1914 for their first European based conflict since I believe the Crimina war.:gundge:

That's a relief. The thought of a generation of American youngsters growing up actually believing in their own infallibilitity is quite worrying.

Even better, I am proud history graduate from an American university.:sniper:

Yeah, right, you see the 1st Infantry division was a regular army outfit with extenstive fighting experience, against unconventional opponents...
And did any of these have anything to do with 1918 trench warfare?

The point is that the British, the French, the Canadians, ANZAC and all the rest of them had the experience of having fought a war for four years. The Americans didn't.

Let's just end this now by summarising:

- The US did not enter any war in order to save France.

- There were many reasons Germany lost the war in 1918. The most powerful of those were the problems at home, followed by the disastrous end to the spring offensives.

- When the Americans first landed in France, they trained and didn't want to join the fighting.

- Eventually they had to during the spring offensives, and most performed as you would expect from the new guys. There weren't that many of them either then.

- Pershing didn't exactly know much about trench warfare either, he started off doing the same full frontal assaults other commanders had given up on years ago. That explains some of the high casualty figures for the AEF.

- As the German offensives collapsed, the Americans were starting to reach adequate strength. In the following months the AEF was a part of the successful offensives that drove the Germans back. At the end of the war, the AEF was pretty strong, and Pershing led a few pretty big operations.

- Nonetheless, to claim that the US won WWI for the Allies is ridiculous.

Why does the world single out America for criticism?

Because America singles itself out as the great bastion of liberty, justice, democracy etc and so when it does not conform to these values its all the more hypocritical. Russia and N.Korea dont do the same sort of thing.

"The point is that the British, the French, the Canadians, ANZAC and all the rest of them had the experience of having fought a war for four years. The Americans didn't."

Yes, but the Americans came with decades of experience fighting irregular (as in different than the norm) types of warfare, which matter given Riga tactics were an irregular way of fighting. Not to mention our extensive trench warfare experience during our civil war.:sniper:

Also, the Americans had decades of experience fighting wars of mobility, which Allies lacked after 4 years of static trench warfare

Even better, I am proud history graduate from an American university.:sniper:Why do you continue to ignore the revolution in Kiel then? :confused:

Yes, but the Americans came with decades of experience fighting irregular (as in different than the norm) types of warfare, which matter given Riga tactics were an irregular way of fighting. Not to mention our extensive trench warfare experience during our civil war.:sniper:
Not any of the soldiers that landed in 1917 and 1918. And the American commanders didn't show any particular skill, it has to be said.

And as I said before, the correct application of Hutier tactics would have required the stormtroopers, which were well-trained veterans, to move around heavily defended targets and cut them off.
Ludendorff instead used wave after wave to take out such targets, resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties that could not be replaced.

Thus, I don't believe the tactics were really used as they were developed by Hutier on a tactical level.

Also, the Americans had decades of experience fighting wars of mobility, which Allies lacked after 4 years of static trench warfare
Well, all I can say is that the Allies didn't seem to do any worse at it than the Americans.

Why do you continue to ignore the revolution in Kiel then? :confused:
Maybe they don't teach about commies in US universities. :p

Maybe they don't teach about commies in US universities. :pDon't worry. I've heard a much worse story about historical ignorance on behalf of someone in a historical honors society. ;)
"You mean there's another Waterloo and it's in Belgium?" :p

by concluding, whatever America's faults, we're better than the French.:mp5: :mp5:

by concluding, whatever America's faults, we're better than the French.:mp5: :mp5:
You still haven't told me whose puppet you are.

And I like the French. Usually.

Not when they go all berserk over tiny reforms and start fighting police just for the sake of fighting the police.

whats up with this latest round of French rioting? Muslims riot, and its 24- coverage on CNN, but when the white people do it, nobody cares.

Even better, I am proud history graduate from an American university.


Now, compare that to the British forces who arrived in 1914 for their first European based conflict since I believe the Crimina war.

No comment on the standards of said university...


by concluding, whatever America's faults, we're better than the French.

Hardly. We tend to feel rather sorry for Americans. When we're not laughing at the (many) dumb ones.

Not when they go all berserk over tiny reforms and start fighting police just for the sake of fighting the police.

They're hardly "tiny reforms". And we're not going "berserk". A tiny minority are rioting, but I suppose foreign media like to sensationalise and are only covering the actions of those small few?

One million people took to the streets in peaceful protest a week ago (myself included), and many again yesterday. And we will again tomorrow. We're proud of our tradition of peaceful protest. It's helped us consolidate our rights over the decades. Many French people find it difficult to understand why people in other countries just take everything lying down.

No comment on the standards of said university...



Hardly. We tend to feel rather sorry for Americans. When we're not laughing at the (many) dumb ones.

Yeah, American universities are required to make accomodations for people with LDs and other handicaps, you know dumb people, cause we Americans are unenlightened savages.

But clearly my decision to be born to a mother on crack is proof I am stupid.

[QUOTE=Algori]Yeah, right, you see the 1st Infantry division was a regular army outfit with extenstive fighting experience, against unconventional opponents. You all got remember our wars with the Indians that lasted until 1890, then the Spanish American war, followed by the Phillipine Insurrection (snip)[QUOTE]

Insurrection!!! it was the Philipine-American war, my forebears had defeated the spaniards and were set to take over the islands when our colonial masters decided to 'sell' us to the 'non-imperialist' USA, this led to conflict in which one million filopino civilians died as a result of US military tactics, it also halted social reform as the US co-opted the corrupt land owning clans that still run the Philipine republic today.

Yeah, American universities are required to make accomodations for people with LDs and other handicaps, you know dumb people, cause we Americans are unenlightened savages.

But clearly my decision to be born to a mother on crack is proof I am stupid.

I have two friends with severe learning disabilities. I would never mock them, or anyone in a similar situation, so cut it out. I'm sorry about your LDs, obviously, so please don't try to make me say things I haven't said.

I have two friends with severe learning disabilities. I would never mock them, or anyone in a similar situation, so cut it out. I'm sorry about your LDs, obviously, so please don't try to make me say things I haven't said.

But you did mock me. You referred to me as a "dumb American" and " mock my university because they had provide some leeway regarding my issues with spelling and placement. Does this ring a bell?
No comment on the standards of said university..."

Look, if the board or myself had spell check I'd use to minimze my spelling, but they don't, so I am sorry. I'll splink back into my dark corner.

A tiny minority are rioting, but I suppose foreign media like to sensationalise and are only covering the actions of those small few?
I suppose that's what it is. Although yesterday they did report on the peaceful protests.

Anyways, we probably won't agree on this issue. The French economy has some serious problems that are going to have to be sorted out, one way or another. My field of study (economics) doesn't exactly help me understand your point of view either. I just feel that before you can hand anything out and give concessions, you have to have something to be distributing.

That goes for the French government as well, and soon they will be paying all receipts from income tax just on interest on the debt they have collected. Surely you can see that this can't go on forever...at some point they will have to cut back and let the economy pick up.

Job flexibility works in America (yes, I know there are many poor people in bad condition there, but you'll find very similar scenes in some French suburbs), why shouldn't it work in France?

But you did mock me. You referred to me as a "dumb American" and " mock my university because they had provide some leeway regarding my issues with spelling and placement. Does this ring a bell?
No comment on the standards of said university..."

Look, if the board or myself had spell check I'd use to minimze my spelling, but they don't, so I am sorry. I'll splink back into my dark corner.I don't think spelling mistakes on their own were what was being criticized, but the fact that you misspelled "Crimean" did it.

But you did mock me. You referred to me as a "dumb American"

I did not.


and " mock my university because they had provide some leeway regarding my issues with spelling and placement. Does this ring a bell?
No comment on the standards of said university..."


No, not because they had provided leeway. I wasn't aware of your difficulties, for which I've apologised. But that's hardly the issue anyway. I was commenting on a history graduate spelling "Crimean" as "Crimina". It wasn't your spelling in general.

<SNIP>

A strong economy for the sheer sake of it, and at the expense of important social rights, is hardly what I'd call an attractive prospective. France still has the sixth most powerful economy in the world, and quite frankly I wouldn't want to live in any of the five countries which are above us (except possibly Germany). Let them keep their stronger economies, if they want to lose more from it than they gain.

The new law is not a necessary one. What purpose is served, for example, by giving employers the right to sack young employees without providing a word of explanation?

Nice post:
Second, it's trendy. Chicks dig guys who bash America. I know all sorts of guys who get laid after bashing America in some incoherent rant.
Yup, I've done that.

I do not like the Bush administration, nor do I care much for organized religion. But the asinine and vitriolic attacks on them, really does not promote thought.

whats up with this latest round of French rioting? Muslims riot, and its 24- coverage on CNN, but when the white people do it, nobody cares.

French riots last year - more cars than usual being burned off.

French riots this year - too peaceful.

Last time I checked, the US media likes violence.

No comment on the standards of said university...

Spelling isn't the universities fault and it hardly defines intelligence.


Hardly. We tend to feel rather sorry for Americans. When we're not laughing at the (many) dumb ones.

Dumb people exist in all countries. Some rather boorish people I have met concluded they were smarter then most.

Yeah, American universities are required to make accomodations for people with LDs and other handicaps, you know dumb people, cause we Americans are unenlightened savages.

But clearly my decision to be born to a mother on crack is proof I am stupid.

Eh what? What are you going on about?

Usually when you hear dumb american comments; they are NEVER talking about aflictions of the body or mind.

You can hardly defend us as all smart especially when you hear teenagers declare the Axis powers of WWII were Japan, Germany and England! Now shall we talk about how many even know WWII outside of movies....

I suppose that's what it is. Although yesterday they did report on the peaceful protests.

Anyways, we probably won't agree on this issue. The French economy has some serious problems that are going to have to be sorted out, one way or another. My field of study (economics) doesn't exactly help me understand your point of view either. I just feel that before you can hand anything out and give concessions, you have to have something to be distributing.

That goes for the French government as well, and soon they will be paying all receipts from income tax just on interest on the debt they have collected. Surely you can see that this can't go on forever...at some point they will have to cut back and let the economy pick up.

Job flexibility works in America (yes, I know there are many poor people in bad condition there, but you'll find very similar scenes in some French suburbs), why shouldn't it work in France?

you advocate for american style job flexibility? fine, let's advocate for a flexible society too, otherwise the flexible young men and women will be crushed by an extremely rigid and codified economy.
same thing happening in italy; i look my younger friends in anger as I see they way they're supposed to enter the work world.

There's an old Russian joke...


Army Officer 1: "Look, I'm sorry, but the boys in the mess have had a vote and it has been decided to ban you from the swimming pool."

Army Officer 2: "Oh c'mon! Everyone does that!"

Army Officer 1: "Yes, but not from the diving board."


Guess where that puts the US with the rest of the world. :rolleyes:

Second, it's trendy. Chicks dig guys who bash America. I know all sorts of guys who get laid after bashing America in some incoherent rant. I didnt get any after pointing out the Russians have massacred up to 10% of the Chechen population, something far worse than we've done in Iraq.

Well, thats an interesting chat up technique, something i've not seen since the late 80s, and then only in certain right on student households.

And speaking from personal experience, it never worked then :p

As to the rest of your question, are you so blind as to why? One word: Hegemony. If Burma does something, it doesn't tend to affect the rest of the world. Yanno?

Spelling isn't the universities fault and it hardly defines intelligence.


Did I say it does? Again, don't make me say things I haven't said.

Did I say it does? Again, don't make me say things I haven't said.

Actually you did.

You Bolded the misspelling and questioned the university.

What am I supposed to think from that?

There's an old Russian joke...


Army Officer 1: "Look, I'm sorry, but the boys in the mess have had a vote and it has been decided to ban you from the swimming pool."

Army Officer 2: "Oh c'mon! Everyone does that!"

Army Officer 1: "Yes, but not from the diving board."


Guess where that puts the US with the rest of the world. :rolleyes:

*snore*

Old, yes. But I still find this ovefocused view slightly intersting, considering how blind a person has to be not ot see all the threads going against the European Union, France (glances at Eutrusca), the UK, Sweden, China and all the other nations and unions. The human brain truely is amazing when it comes to filtering information...
It's not about threads. Criticising stuff on this forum doesn't achieve anything because hardly anyone reads them. In the media and among people in general, the US gets a lot of criticism, but the Russians and the Chinese (which is a more abusive government) don't get enough criticism.

Who are you talking to? I think the country most likely to see you in trouble with authorities because of political views observed on the web that is actually represented here is the US. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act and all that.
China and many other totalitarian regimes are rather less tolerant of domestic criticism. Not saying that the US record is flawless, but they're far from the worst.

But what is your point? Are you saying that criticising America is automatically invalid because of the reasons you mention?
No, I just think that people are insufficiently criticial of countries who are much more abusive to human rights.

I think that the reason why the US is singled out so much is that they’ve taken so many steps back under the current regime, in terms of human rights, honouring treaties, and international relations. Perhaps the most important factor that seems to bring out so much criticism of the US these days is that the World (including most Americans) expects the US to behave better than a psychotic dictatorship does.

It’s not that people honestly believe that the US is currently a worse dictatorship than North Korea, it’s that we expect them to set a benchmark and not lower it.
You're definitely on the right track here Bruce. I criticise US abuses, and I want other people to do the same. But I also want people to criticise other human rights abuses elsewhere, especially when on a greater magnitude than what the US does.

Though it's not like things got so much worse under Bush. They were mostly pretty bad before. Clinton was just better at hiding shit behind his smile.

If you're referencing my mocking of France, learn some basic European history. The last of the three times France and Germany went at it, Germany took Paris. We, at least in America, call this conflict the Second World War or WWII. In conflict before that World War One, the Germans just missed Paris. And the time before, a little spat referred to as the Franco-Prussian war, I do believe the Krauts captured the French emperor.
This is another problem. People criticise France, but it's always for stupid. Republican Party reasons (like "they cowards"). Why not criticise them seriously for imperialist abuses in Africa and nuclear testing, etc?

How about discrimination against non-whites in France? That's a serious issue. Mocking their performance in WWII is not. If America lost 14 million people in a war, I doubt they would exactly come out swinging less than a generation later.

Obviously, the USA won it. (USA! USA!)
;)

Yes Americans, keep chanting and it might just grow another inch or two. :p

Even better, I am proud history graduate from an American university.:sniper:
Patriot?

Someone finally gets it. The US has flaws, but is nowhere near the worse offender of human rights out there.:headbang: :headbang:

China and many other totalitarian regimes are rather less tolerant of domestic criticism. Not saying that the US record is flawless, but they're far from the worst.
Obviously. But are they represented on NSG? He is telling us that we criticise the US because we can't criticise our own countries, yet I don't think we have a single poster here who doesn't come from a fairly free society.

Obviously. But are they represented on NSG? He is telling us that we criticise the US because we can't criticise our own countries, yet I don't think we have a single poster here who doesn't come from a fairly free society.
Algori was not just talking about criticism that occurs on this forum (and why should we limit criticism to countries whose citizens are on the forums?) but in the media in general. China doesn't get criticised enough.