Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 26

 

2006-01-04 08:29:24
Vartan
Member
+10|6945|Belgium

Jeroen wrote:

People from the united states always talk about how they won world war 1 and 2,  how they have won every other war, but never talk about how they lost to Canada in the war of 1812, one of the most important time periods in history of our developing countries, and is never tought in US schools that i have heard of.
AHahah true, but don't generalize, I don't think those are "brags", I guess it's more like telling us Europeans (they tend to think most of us hate them, and this isn't TOTALLY untrue) not to take our freedom for granted.

If we say we don't like the United States, we obviously blame it on the stupid people that are sometimes ruling the country.
2006-01-04 08:49:53
EstebanRey
Member
+1|6890

whittsend wrote:

I lived in the UK for three years.  Please do not take any of what I am about to say the wrong way.  I REALLY like the UK; but with two exceptions, everything you said about the US can be said about the UK.  The two exceptions are: 1) Your news is more thorough than ours; and 2) Your soldiers tend to be better prepared for low intensity conflicts than ours.  The man in the street in the UK is no more well informed than in the US, and I wouldn't have to try very hard to find a "Rah Rah, Britain Kicks ass" clown spewing bullshit.  Every country has them, so don't paint the US as unique in that regard, please.

As far as History goes, the city I live in is coming up on it's 400th anniversary.  400 years ago Britain saw the end of the Tudor Era and the beginning of the Stewarts.  Please tell me how any of your history prior to that has any bearing whatsoever on what we are talking about now?  In fact, it is a completely irrelevant nonsequitur; it is a ragged attempt to draw attention away from the fact that your arguements, like those which preceded you, are based on your limited experience and not on any facts.
You may find a Patriotic guy in the UK but they are normally labbled racists (the only aspect I hate about Britain) but you get the odd "my country rules" nut case everywhere.  In America you are brought up to believe that you are, and I quote, "The Greatest Country On Earth" (I remember Donald Rumsfeld making a similar statement which I though was pretty bad coming from someone who should be building relations with other countries) and force fed patriotic statements like "God Bless America" and I have seen many, many documenteries where American youths' attitude to their country was comparable with the fanaticism of the Islamic Fundementalist to their religeon (without the bombings and stuff).  Someone above made the point about "Let's turn Iraq into a parking lot" and other crap that SOME of your people DO believe.

You say that anything prior to the birth of America is irrelevant which is soooo naive.  For a start, what did you just celebrate?  Christmas which we (i.e the Europeans) brought to your country and YOU celebrate every year and in turn was brought to us by the Catholics I suspect.  More locally, we celebrate St George's day every year to mark our patron saint who died 303!    If we were to disregard anything older than recent history as irrelevant then we can't learn from our mistakes and learn how we got where we are today.  If I were American I would be sooo interested to know where my family decended from before the US but the attitude I get is "I'm American through and through", wake up call there's no such thing, not for at least another 600 years when you can say you have some heritage.  The point I was trying to make, and which you've obviously missed, is that when we go to school to learn history we learn about times, kings and cardinals that built our country long before we even knew America exsisted.  You don't have that which IMO leads to compensating attitude by many Americans of over-patriotism.

The reason I concentrate on history is because I see the Americans making a lot of the same moves as we did hundreds of years ago like a dad seeing his son making all the same mistakes.  We used to think we were the World's police once.....

P.S.  Your country is named after a Welshman which I always find funny.....

whittsend wrote:

but it is a simple fact that without the US the war would not have been won.
And I could say that about any factor of WW2.  Without Britain fighting the war seven years before the US finally decided to take part it would not have been won, without the Russians seeing the light and kicking the Germans asses all over Russia it would not have been won even if the yanks enetred the conflict from day one so although your statement is debateably correct, it can be applied to virtually anything.
2006-01-04 08:51:41
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7043|Cologne, Germany

whittsend wrote:

B.Schuss:

Most countries will reserve the right to use force when they deem it necessary.  I think it would be a mistake for the US to renouce that right.  Germany's Constitutional restrictions are the exception rather than the rule.

Do I think we (the US) have resorted to the use of force too much in the past couple of decades?  Yes. 
Do I think that is due to a "Gunslinger Mentalilty"?  No.

The latter characterisation is what I have a problem with.  I don't think it is valid.  I believe it is based on your perception, shaped by your experience and your surroundings (i.e. your government and your media), which do not encompass enough information to make an informed generalization of that kind.
1. well, of course my opinion is based on my perception of the issue, shaped by my experience and my surroundings. what else would it be based on ? I realize that it is just an opinion, not fact. But I haven't claimed otherwise, have I ?. We are merely exchanging opinions here. Not even those who make the decisions we discuss here know all the facts.
2. every generalization is uninformed to a certain extent. the "gunslinger" expression was a metaphor I used trying to get my point across. A generalization is just that. I certainly did not say everyone in the US was like that. but one cannot describe the actions of a nation without resorting to generalization in some form. The "gunslinger" seemed a viable comparison, at it is deeply imbedded in US cultural history.
If you feel it is not apt to describe the US approach to foreign policy in a general way, please feel free to provide your own interpretation.

whittsend wrote:

Do I think we (the US) have resorted to the use of force too much in the past couple of decades?  Yes. 
Do I think that is due to a "Gunslinger Mentalilty"?  No.
so what do you attribute that to then ? maybe the US society is in general more violent than others ?

whittsend wrote:

Most countries will reserve the right to use force when they deem it necessary.  I think it would be a mistake for the US to renouce that right.  Germany's Constitutional restrictions are the exception rather than the rule.
I agree. But since the UN came to pass, the use of extensive military violence between sovereign nations has been somewhat limited, at least compared to earlier times. But maybe I am overestimating the importance of the UN in that context.

I am certainly not demanding that the US renounce that right. I just wish they would define their national security interests more carefully. I am still not sure what threat iraq posed to the integrity of US territory.

As far as Iran is concerned, I am also worried about the situation developing there. But it is still a free world.
Who are you to decide who should be allowed to have nuclear technology and who shouldn't ?
Diplomatic efforts are under way, the UN is on it, the IAEO is on it.

I believe that a military conflict with Iran about this is imminent. Isreal will not tolerate that one of their neighbours will possess enrichment capabilities, and it is almost certain that they will pressure the US heavily to get involved. Taking into account how important the middle east seems to be to US security interests, I can only hope Iran can be persuaded to accept the diplomatic efforts.
2006-01-04 08:57:58
EstebanRey
Member
+1|6890

Jeroen wrote:

People from the united states always talk about how they won world war 1 and 2,  how they have won every other war, but never talk about how they lost to Canada in the war of 1812, one of the most important time periods in history of our developing countries, and is never tought in US schools that i have heard of.
Or Vietnam, they hate the fact they lost that one......
2006-01-04 09:05:10
Vartan
Member
+10|6945|Belgium
Last thing we want to do is to praise our losses.

After all, about Vietnam, the US isn't the only one to blame..

*cough France *cough

I think the french general was on drugs when he told his soldiers to wait in that bunker like sitting ducks while the viets were mounting up artillery <<

Last edited by Vartan (2006-01-04 09:06:18)

2006-01-04 09:06:11
-=THC_RU=-
Member
+0|6910
America won a war?
which one?
the one against the natives?
and don't give me that crap about america winning the 1st and 2nd world wars, lol thats just BullShit
2006-01-04 09:25:09
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6960|MA, USA

EstebanRey wrote:

You may find a Patriotic guy in the UK but they are normally labbled racists (the only aspect I hate about Britain) but you get the odd "my country rules" nut case everywhere.
My point.  Thanks.  Although I would disagree that national pride in the UK makes one a racist.

EstebanRey wrote:

In America you are brought up to believe that you are, and I quote, "The Greatest Country On Earth"
I would argue that the same attitude is present in the UK.  Over three years I had to endure many comments about Colonials.  Is it a joke?  Sure, but it was on the same level as comments that you are taking quite seriously.

EstebanRey wrote:

You say that anything prior to the birth of America is irrelevant which is soooo naive.
No, I am arguing that the bulk of what happened hundreds of years ago is not relevant to the current discussion.  I stand by it.

EstebanRey wrote:

For a start, what did you just celebrate?  Christmas which we (i.e the Europeans) brought to your country and YOU celebrate every year and in turn was brought to us by the Catholics I suspect.  More locally, we celebrate St George's day every year to mark our patron saint who died 303!    If we were to disregard anything older than recent history as irrelevant then we can't learn from our mistakes and learn how we got where we are today.
What's your point?  Are you saying we are missing a lesson of history?  Please be specific.

EstebanRey wrote:

If I were American I would be sooo interested to know where my family decended from before the US but the attitude I get is "I'm American through and through"
If you were an American you would know that most Americans are deeply proud of their ethnic heritage.  By saying it is not so, you display your lack of knowlege on the subject.

EstebanRey wrote:

The point I was trying to make, and which you've obviously missed, is that when we go to school to learn history we learn about times, kings and cardinals that built our country long before we even knew America exsisted.  You don't have that which IMO leads to compensating attitude by many Americans of over-patriotism.
Not so.  We learn about the times, kings and cardinals that built your countries long before we even knew America existed.  Do you think we don't learn about history before 1492?  Don't be silly.  Do you learn about British history between the Roman invasion and 1066?

EstebanRey wrote:

The reason I concentrate on history is because I see the Americans making a lot of the same moves as we did hundreds of years ago like a dad seeing his son making all the same mistakes.  We used to think we were the World's police once.....
Again, please be specific.  I should warn you, I have better than average knowledge of history, having studied it for six years at the University level (part of which was in the UK).

EstebanRey wrote:

P.S.  Your country is named after a Welshman which I always find funny.....
I have heard that said, but I'm not sure it is true.  My understanding was that it was named after Amerigo Vespucci...an Italian.

EstebanRey wrote:

And I could say that about any factor of WW2.  Without Britain fighting the war seven years before the US finally decided to take part it would not have been won
Seven years?  The war started in 1939.  The US entered in 1941.  Where do you get seven years?
I already conceded that the Russians did the lions share of the fighting.

Jeroen wrote:

People from the united states always talk about how they won world war 1 and 2,  how they have won every other war, but never talk about how they lost to Canada in the war of 1812, one of the most important time periods in history of our developing countries, and is never tought in US schools that i have heard of.
British troops based in Canada burned Washington DC.  That battle did not decide the war, and the troops were not Canadian as such.  The largest battle of the war was the battle of New Orleans, which the US won handily several months after a treaty had been signed in Europe, ending the war on terms favorable to the United States.  Your account is factually incorrect on several counts...not the least of which is saying that I didn't learn anything about it in High School.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-01-04 09:42:34)

2006-01-04 09:33:33
Vartan
Member
+10|6945|Belgium
not even in 1939, yes war was declared, but no one fought just yet.

The French were waiting, I guess it took a year for Hitler to pass through Belgium and the Ardennes


but it is known that the British really stood up against the Germans and that the tide of the battle was nearly turning to their favor

Last edited by Vartan (2006-01-04 09:34:41)

2006-01-04 09:39:18
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6960|MA, USA

B.Schuss wrote:

1. well, of course my opinion is based on my perception of the issue, shaped by my experience and my surroundings. what else would it be based on ? I realize that it is just an opinion, not fact. But I haven't claimed otherwise, have I ?. We are merely exchanging opinions here. Not even those who make the decisions we discuss here know all the facts.
2. every generalization is uninformed to a certain extent. the "gunslinger" expression was a metaphor I used trying to get my point across. A generalization is just that. I certainly did not say everyone in the US was like that. but one cannot describe the actions of a nation without resorting to generalization in some form. The "gunslinger" seemed a viable comparison, at it is deeply imbedded in US cultural history.
If you feel it is not apt to describe the US approach to foreign policy in a general way, please feel free to provide your own interpretation.
My point is simply that your characterizations are unfair.  Would it be fair to characterize Germans as violent due to the attitude of some who beat up Turkish workers?  Probably not.  I don't think that the characterizations people are making are accurate, and most of the folks making them are basing them on opinion rather than fact (which I thank you for noting openly).  I think enough has been said on the subject.

B.Schuss wrote:

so what do you attribute that to then ? maybe the US society is in general more violent than others ?
Some of it was idealistic altruism.  Some was plain bad policy.  The US isn't the only country that does it (Suez 1956) we are just the ones who have done it lately.  I don't think we are more violent than others on the whole (and crime figures do not paint a clear picture: Our murder rates are higher, but parts of Europe have more non-lethal violent crime).  I won't argue that last point, we can throw numbers back and forth all day and get nowhere.

B.Schuss wrote:

I agree. But since the UN came to pass, the use of extensive military violence between sovereign nations has been somewhat limited, at least compared to earlier times. But maybe I am overestimating the importance of the UN in that context.
In the past thirty years or so, the UN has become openly hostile to the US (with exceptions).  In that light the US attitude toward the UN is understandable.  You cannot expect the US to cede sovereighnty to a body that would reduce it dramatically.

B.Schuss wrote:

I am certainly not demanding that the US renounce that right. I just wish they would define their national security interests more carefully.
Me too.

B.Schuss wrote:

As far as Iran is concerned, I am also worried about the situation developing there. But it is still a free world.
Who are you to decide who should be allowed to have nuclear technology and who shouldn't ?
Diplomatic efforts are under way, the UN is on it, the IAEO is on it.
Normally I would agree that invading a sovereighn country is a bad thing.  I don't want to debate the philisophical basis for Iran as an exception to that.  I don't think any rational person wants to see them with nuclear weapons.  Here's to hoping Diplomacy succeeds.  Given the history of the negotiations, I don't have much hope.  It appears that they are playing for time.

I don't believe the US will invade Iran any time soon...certainly not without heavy backing from the rest of the world...but that is just a guess.
2006-01-04 09:47:13
Trobow
Member
+1|6918|Kettering, Ohio
Yes, WW2 was won because of the help from the Americans.  Germany was on the verge of a full invasion of England till the plan of D-Day came up.
2006-01-04 09:53:27
Vartan
Member
+10|6945|Belgium

Trobow wrote:

Yes, WW2 was won because of the help from the Americans.  Germany was on the verge of a full invasion of England till the plan of D-Day came up.
They already tried it several times and arrived on the shores of England too...tried to bomb the place, I don't think they would have invaded Britain, else it would have worked the first time(s)
2006-01-04 09:59:26
jimian
Member
+0|6890
I haven't read all the articles so please forgive if i repeat anyone else.
Just a short piece as working.

The reason no one likes americans is because they think they're so intelligent and better than anyone  else. In reality they are just a bunch of thick, arrogant, gullible burger munchers.
They all think they have got a degree in witt and interlect ,but in fact  the sad reality is that the average american is about as inteligent as Homer Simpson .
They are a nation of glutony and i have seen with my own eyes that  the average American would love to be as slim as Homer Simpson!
The image they portray of themselves on TV and films is laughable . They are all winners , "the land of the free" is truley the way to be if you want to have a 10 bedroom mansion with olympic size swimming pool in the "yard"!!
The sad reality is a vast majority live in slums ( Los Angeles  anyone??) .

Allah bless America!!!

Last edited by jimian (2006-01-04 10:02:21)

2006-01-04 10:01:20
joewardog
Member
+6|6892|Great Plains (USA)
When you say you've seen America, what parts?
2006-01-04 10:09:02
{AW}Hatey
Member
+0|6970|Texas

LaidBackNinja wrote:

You can shove it up your American ass.

My reasoning is this:
Bush sucks. Over half of you voted for bush. So over half of you suck.
That means, averagely speaking, that Americans suck.

But what really takes the biscuit is this:

You guys remember the international agreement where all countries would reduce their carbon-dioxide production by 7%?
America being the generous people they are volunteered to help poorer countries get to that 7% if they couldn't do so themselves. On the condition that every percent they helped another country do, they wouldn't have to do themselves. Yes, you got that right: if say they helped Nigeria reduce their CO2 production by 4%,
they would only have to do 3% in the US. In other words:
"Yeah sure, we'll help other countries change just so long as it means we don't have to change ourselves."

I could go on and on but frankly I'm getting depressed just thinking about the US too much.
God bless America and nobody else.
And whay fine country are you from?
2006-01-04 10:09:29
{AW}Hatey
Member
+0|6970|Texas

LaidBackNinja wrote:

You can shove it up your American ass.

My reasoning is this:
Bush sucks. Over half of you voted for bush. So over half of you suck.
That means, averagely speaking, that Americans suck.

But what really takes the biscuit is this:

You guys remember the international agreement where all countries would reduce their carbon-dioxide production by 7%?
America being the generous people they are volunteered to help poorer countries get to that 7% if they couldn't do so themselves. On the condition that every percent they helped another country do, they wouldn't have to do themselves. Yes, you got that right: if say they helped Nigeria reduce their CO2 production by 4%,
they would only have to do 3% in the US. In other words:
"Yeah sure, we'll help other countries change just so long as it means we don't have to change ourselves."

I could go on and on but frankly I'm getting depressed just thinking about the US too much.
God bless America and nobody else.
And whay fine country are you from?
2006-01-04 10:21:49
Husker~ifh~
Beer Consumption Expert
+25|6932|Beerville, USA
I....I....I... can't...... stop..... laughing....

Truth be told, no matter what America/American's do for the good it is never going to be recognized by most countries.  This is basically due to the fact that most news agencies outside the U.S. do nothing but air and print endless stories about the things we don't do or do wrong.

For those of you who habor ill feelings towards the U.S. and can quote (cut n paste) countless foriegn news articles written about all the bad things we do I can show you an article written in the U.S. that glorifies the same story.

As for Bush, yeah he's the president, why, because of the 2 choices Americans were faced with last election he was the obvious choice.  Atleast Americans new what to expect out of him for the next 4 years vs. his Democractic counterpart who couldn't lead a marching band let alone this country.  So that BUSH is the issue statement is old like sun dried dog poop, so quit trying to role it up and smoke it, your not Cheech or Chong..

As for life in general, living in our outside the U.S.  Want a real life experience, might I suggest the military or some type of humanitarian work in a country suffering hardships.  That way instead of just sitting behind your computer or t.v. believing every news story you hear or read about you could experience it first hand.  After 14 years spent in the U.S. Army I can assure you, things are not what they seem when delivered second hand news, and that is what newspapers and news channels are, second hand news.

"We will not do anything that harms our economy, because first things first are the people who live in America"
George W. Bush.
2006-01-04 10:23:31
EstebanRey
Member
+1|6890

whittsend wrote:

EstebanRey wrote:

P.S.  Your country is named after a Welshman which I always find funny.....
I have heard that said, but I'm not sure it is true.  My understanding was that it was named after Amerigo Vespucci...an Italian.
If you have a "higher than average" knowledge of history you'd know that newly discovered land masses that are named after a person are always done by said person's surname unless they are Royalty, e.g Cook islands because James Cook was not royalty as opposed to the Victoria islands because she obviosuly was etc.  This rule is pretty steadfast and thus would mean you would be called Vespuccia if your theory was correct.  John Amerik was a Welshman that....oh screw it look him up on Google and buy a copy of the Qi DVD and you'll probably learn loads more facts...which reminds me, Rich Hall (an American) was a panalist on there and he said that the Americans invented the car until Stephen Fry quite rightly put him right by telling him a couple of Germans got there years before the yanks.  Nothing scientific or conclusive but yet firther proof that American kids are taught to believe the Americans invented everything.  It is a whole new thread but you'd be suprised how many Americans claim they invented something when they didn't.  Proof 2, also from Qi, 40,000 Americans are insured against Alien Abduction, enough said......
2006-01-04 10:28:58
Erkut.hv
Member
+124|6937|California

jimian wrote:

I haven't read all the articles so please forgive if i repeat anyone else.
Just a short piece as working.

The reason no one likes americans is because they think they're so intelligent and better than anyone  else. In reality they are just a bunch of thick, arrogant, gullible burger munchers.
They all think they have got a degree in witt and interlect ,but in fact  the sad reality is that the average american is about as inteligent as Homer Simpson .
They are a nation of glutony and i have seen with my own eyes that  the average American would love to be as slim as Homer Simpson!
The image they portray of themselves on TV and films is laughable . They are all winners , "the land of the free" is truley the way to be if you want to have a 10 bedroom mansion with olympic size swimming pool in the "yard"!!
The sad reality is a vast majority live in slums ( Los Angeles  anyone??) .

Allah bless America!!!
You just listed why most Americans hate Americans. I walk around, when I dare to be around people sober, and I can honestly say, people suck. I can't really disagree with any of your points. Except that our youth is screwed, from a lack of parenting, and their lack of initiative to be something other than a bad imitation of a rap video. It's sad, go to an American mall sometime, if you are ever here. Every little bastard is a gangster now, it is laughable. kids who don't know shit about shit, acting like they are somehow "streetwise". And parents who throw money at their kids problems, instead of being actual parents.

Please don't get me started. You live on the outside and don't see what we see by living here.
2006-01-04 10:29:35
joewardog
Member
+6|6892|Great Plains (USA)
Naming of America:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas#Naming_of_America

Decide for yourself.

PS
Richard Amerike

Last edited by joewardog (2006-01-04 10:32:31)

2006-01-04 10:32:39
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6960|MA, USA

EstebanRey wrote:

If you have a "higher than average" knowledge of history you'd know that newly discovered land masses that are named after a person are always done by said person's surname unless they are Royalty
Higher than average does not indicate that I know everything.  But I suspect I know more than you.

It's an interesting theory...are you saying that Historians who have advanced the Amerigo Vespucci theory for hundreds of years now are dead wrong?  Based on information you saw on a television show, if I gather correctly?  Uh huh.  The use of the word "Always" is usually a warning sign.

You are not the first Brit who has told me this since it appeard on TV.  Amazing that you accept it so readily.

Have you nothing to say about my other points?  That's fine too.
2006-01-04 10:40:01
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6898|NJ
Well I've only read half of these posts, but I do have a few things to say. First of all the popular vote in the USA doesn't matter, we have an electoral collage that does the voting for the average dumb American.  I live in New Jersey which is a blue state and everything that I've been seeing on the News and reading in the paper is saying that we don't support the war or the president, I think he has a 31% over all approval rating, which is lower then Nixon’s when he got impeached. About half of our senators are voting for pulling out of the war right now, and all the states in our Union(California, New York who was attacked, New Jersey, Connecticut, and all the other blue states) that make money don't want to be there.  I love my country and a lot that it has to offer, I however in no way would say it's a democracy or the most powerful in the world.
  We're losing all our well paying high school diploma jobs like call center work to India and overseas, and our economy is week(china could bankrupt the dollar any time they wanted seeing how they have over 500 billion in there banks that they can release into the world market). 

On a side note I lost several friends due to 9/11 and ride the train to work which is a scary thing, considering the Bush administration has not done a thing to improve the security here. America is not perfect but we don’t deserve to be hated by other countries. Most the people we’re fighting and hunting for right now were put into power by us, and now we’re trying to clean out our messes. So to the rest of the world allow us to clean up our messes and try to understand that we have a dumb redneck from Texas running the show.
2006-01-04 12:00:06
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6973|Atlanta, GA USA

joewardog wrote:

Naming of America:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas#Naming_of_America

Decide for yourself.

PS
Richard Amerike
According to the article you cite:
A few alternative theories regarding the continents' naming have been proposed, but none of them have any widespread acceptance or any for that matter.

Based on this, it sounds like the accepted theory is still that it is named after Amerigo Vespucci.
2006-01-04 12:27:25
Vartan
Member
+10|6945|Belgium
Yayyy I added the "or any for that matter"...they didn't change it? :p
2006-01-04 12:32:45
wooly-back-jack
Jihaaaaaad!!!
+84|6942|England
Im from England and I do not hate America, some things baffle me about it, some things I dont agree with, sometimes I think our country is ending up more and more like yours and I dont like it but thats only because I dont think it suits our country.
2006-01-04 12:56:06
acsteffy87
Member
+6|6890|Waco, Texas, USA
I'm sorry but I'm an american and i lived in europe for 6 years and they really do not like us. so whoever says that most europeans don't hate americans you are sadly mistaken

 

Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 26

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard