BF2S Forums What is behind Anti-American feelings?

usmarine2005 wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Define empire.

empire     

–noun
1.    a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.

"Scholars debate about what exactly constitutes an empire (from the Latin "imperium", denoting military command within the ancient Roman government). Generally, they may define an empire as a state that extends dominion over areas and populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power. Other definitions may emphasize economic or political factors. The term generally implies military hegemonic power"

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

RicardoBlanco wrote:

You still don't have an empire. Look up 'hegemony'.

usmarine2005 wrote:

fatherted13 wrote:

So you think because the US has a large military, present in countries around the globe, it has a empire. Tell me, how many of those countries are the military succesful in organizing? Seen afganistan recently? Seen iraq?

Nobody said we had to bomb and stay right?  We could have just done what we wanted and left.

usmarine2005 wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

You still don't have an empire. Look up 'hegemony'.

"Scholars debate about what exactly constitutes an empire"

Sorry, didn't know you were a scholar.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

You still don't have an empire. Look up 'hegemony'.

"Scholars debate about what exactly constitutes an empire"

Sorry, didn't know you were a scholar.

I'm not. Fact is, neither are you, and until I see "The American Empire" anywhere in the annuls of history my argument stands.

motherdear wrote:

fatherted13 wrote:

ATG wrote:

But it's like 25:1 ratio.

On a side note, the poster that said we sit back and watch, may i remind you, that when the US, led by the Bush administration decided to go into Iraq, we were one of few countries that supported, and went in with you guys. And don't think we haven't lost in this war, albeit not on the casualty scale the US has unfortunately suffered.

why do you take this as a bashing of Britain, Britain is doing the right thing, the way I read what he said he meant the European in general

fatherted13 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Define empire.

"Scholars debate about what exactly constitutes an empire (from the Latin "imperium", denoting military command within the ancient Roman government). Generally, they may define an empire as a state that extends dominion over areas and populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power. Other definitions may emphasize economic or political factors. The term generally implies military hegemonic power"

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

So you think because the US has a large military, present in countries around the globe, it has a empire. Tell me, how many of those countries are the military succesful in organizing? Seen afganistan recently? Seen iraq?

motherdear wrote:

fatherted13 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

"Scholars debate about what exactly constitutes an empire (from the Latin "imperium", denoting military command within the ancient Roman government). Generally, they may define an empire as a state that extends dominion over areas and populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power. Other definitions may emphasize economic or political factors. The term generally implies military hegemonic power"

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

So you think because the US has a large military, present in countries around the globe, it has a empire. Tell me, how many of those countries are the military succesful in organizing? Seen afganistan recently? Seen iraq?

if you look at Afghanistan it's doing fine actually, almost no fighting anymore, and their infrastructure is getting really up and runnning again, they only need to get the last few troops stationed in the north-eastern part of the country, because the have already handed a number of provinses over to the afghans. in Iraq though they got a lot of hatred against each other because of the sunni favoring by Saddam.

usmarine2005 wrote:

fatherted13 wrote:

Helmad province aint lookin too stable...

Neither is Compton near LA...what is your point?

ELITE-UK wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

fatherted13 wrote:

Helmad province aint lookin too stable...

Neither is Compton near LA...what is your point?

Thats nothing like Helmand province!

All we hear on the news it 2 British soldiers have been killed or 3 killedin a roadside bomb or the british basecamp was attacked, helamd is very unstable right now and needs alot..ALOT of work doing to make the region stable again.

ATG wrote:

m3thod wrote:

This bitch captures what most people think,

Most people bear no animosity towards the Americans and care little what they do on their own soil. They do, however, bitterly resent the ultra-violent foreign policy of the US government. With its love for wars of aggression, the principal exports of the US are suffering, death and destruction. And of course its blind support to Israel in the enslavement of the Palestinian people is monstrous and unforgiveable.

Annie McStravick, Paris

Would you like a tissue? Your frothing at the mouth and the drool is splattering everywhere.

Do you have any idea how much food, medicine and goods and services the United States exports every year?

http://www.agr.gc.ca/mad-dam/img/bi/v19n04-3_e.gif

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/rice/G … orting.gif

ghettoperson wrote:

Miller wrote:

ELITE-UK wrote:

Thats nothing like Helmand province!

All we hear on the news it 2 British soldiers have been killed or 3 killedin a roadside bomb or the british basecamp was attacked, helamd is very unstable right now and needs alot..ALOT of work doing to make the region stable again.

No area is stable anymore it seems... Look, I could say that Iraq isn't stable, which is very wrong.  It is extremely stable compared to other things that have happened. One or two dead soldiers a day isn't much at all. Go back to WWII when thousands died each day. Vietnam had a high casualty rate. Korean war had a relatively high casualty rate.  When it comes to war, this is a very good one.  The only war better than it was the First Gulf War. Quit bitching over how people have died, it happens. This is a very successful campaign to others in the past. But I suppose since it's 2007 any deaths are not worth it.  "The risk and sacrifice of a few are worth the freedoms of many" -Unknown

200 people just died last week in a bombing, and you say that it's stable?!