Stop the America-bashing!

[Dauphin]

No, I only hope it does, and I believe we have a better chance of that now than in previous times.

Maybe I'm a pessimist but I don't think thats true.

Information is more freely available, accessable and presentable. Doesn't mean it is more likely to be correct or accurate information.

In the past we had no facts, now we are awash with them - some true, some misleading. Misleading facts are often worse than none at all.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

Maybe I'm a pessimist but I don't think thats true.

Information is more freely available, accessable and presentable. Doesn't mean it is more likely to be correct or accurate information.

In the past we had no facts, now we are awash with them - some true, some misleading. Misleading facts are often worse than none at all.

I agree that we are awash in information and that some is "true" and some is "false". It requires us to critically examine that information and to determine if what is presented is "true". In the long term, I believe this to be a better situation than the spoon-feeding of "truth" from some authority such as the church, government, or your friendly neighborhood scientist.

[lorddread]

I sit here night after night reading the posts from the Europeans and I sometimes have to wonder if I am living in the same world as they are.

Let's start with Iraq. Europe cannot and should not blame the US for any civilian (other than the 40 killed in the bunker). Instead of blaming the US which is only 1 nation of the UN Security Council, you should place the blame squarely on Saddam Hussein. He is allowed to sell oil to pay for food and medicine. Instead he cuts off that oil whenever it suits him. The money he does raise from that oil he has used to rebuild 11 palaces, rebuild a shattered army, rebuild his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Yet do you Europeans rage against him for neglecting his own people? Do you rage against him for using chemical weapons on entire villages? Or a neighbor? No you apply your rage against the Americans. How easy it is........ If you blamed Saddam you might feel you should do something about it.

Oh and by the way, do you know what companies supplied the machinery for his weapons of mass distruction programs??? I'll give you a hint... they didn't come from North, Central or South America. A couple did come from Japan. England, Belgum, Germany, France, Norway and Sweden were the biggest suppliers of fermentors (biological), high speed lathes and precision cutting (nuclear), presses (nuclear), reactors (nuclear) laboratories (chemical and biological). Gusess you feel no responsiblility for that either huh?

As for Afghanastan. Let me ask those of you from countries that don't like going beyound your boarders to deal with dictators and rogue governments a question. What do you do when the enemy hides anti-aircraft batteries in mosques. Or tanks and weapons in UN food warehouses? Or shoots at soldiers from hospitals. The Taliban did all this, but all Europe could do was castigate us for persuing these targets.

It is so easy to sit back and watch someone else take care of the bullies on the block and then criticize them for doing it.

I do not know what irritates us Americans more, the fact that you guys don't have the guts to go out into the world and take care of things on your own continent and expect us to do it for you, or the fact that you criticize us for doing it.

Let me ask you highly cultured Europeans something. Why did it take the US to get involved to stop the genocide on your doorstep (Yugoslavia). We had to intervene twice. Why didn't you guys handle this on your own?

Why did you allow the Serbs to haul off men and boys from a UN safe zone while yourpeace keepers watched them being put on buses, never to return?

Maybe the isolationists are right. Maybe we should let Europe alone for 10-20 years. Tell them tisk tisk you don't like the way we handle things you deal with your own problems.

[Whoha]

you forgot to bash them over east timor

[Eddin]

[SIZE=1]
As do we, which is why we are not indescriminately slaughtering civilians. If we really wanted a bunch of them dead we would not have sent food and medical supplies to the refuge camps in pakistan. There would have been several million dead if that were the case, as many of them chose to leave afghanistan(very good move) in preparation for our attack. this argument is getting old, so lets switch it over to this one: Do you feel what the US did in afghanistan, and what it will do in other countries, is wrong? We can only guess that you do, but you seem to be dodging this one. If you dont, then you are complaining for the sake of complaining, if you do, you dont care about the rights of the people in these countries who are being oppressed.

About medical and food supplies... yeah... peanutbutter in Afghanistan... great help...

But you are right in stating America gave help (albeit less than it could and (I think) SHOULD be).

Saying I am against America would be going too far... I don't mind americans, they are really nice blokes, and what they do with their interior policy is their problem, not mine. BUT (you could have known that was coming ) I think the Americans are selfserving in their foreign policy. I don't mind that, well I do, burt it doesn't really bother me. What DOES bother me is the hypocrit opinion on this policy. Americans like to think of themselves as saviours of the world, or at least protectors of democracy. However, they only do things when they feel they should. That is not odd, don't get me wrong. It's just that... well let me put it this way. I was not very much surprised that there were terrorists capable of doing such a thing to the heart of Manhattan. Appaled, but not surprised.

The reaction was even more typical. Suddenly, Americans start a witchhunt for 'terrorism' all over the world. Sudden;y, Chechnia is forgotten, Israel is allowed to bomb Jenin (at least long enough to make hundreds of casualties in a very brutal way) and Hussein is suddenly unsure of his position. Yet Americans keep the death penalty (I personally think this is your own form of Terrorism. I am quite alone on this however. Please don't comment on it, unless you wantto know why), veto resolutions about a criminal court which would prohibit their ways of working, as well as diminish Israel's options to slaughter people.

Personally, the entire notion of the situation of the world is summarised in one situation in the UN.

the US where thrown out of the Human rights committee, because the UN think they have done too little to support it (Death penalty is against the Declaration of Human Rights you know(!)) and they threaten the UN with stopping their financial support to it.

And it is a perfect picture. The US owns the world, no matter what it does, and when the world gets pissed, the US simply ignores that and sails its merry course.

Now I'm not saying Europe is a saint (by all means no!) but I definitely think they are better in some ways, worse in others (their passive take on world politics being the foremost). And Europe is definitely taking a turn for the worse. Xenophobia and right wings are increasing daily, and I'm frightened. Very frightened. But man would not be man if he would not find a solution to all problems.

I'm with Beren by the way. Is there anyone who could give me some stats and numbers other than vague 'you are crazy, not so much people died' and 'no YOU are crazy, much MORE people died'

For my conclusion... a little anecdote.

Reporter reads parts of the American constitution to a Floridan Republican. He asks the Republican what he thinks it is. The Republican answers contemptfully: "commy stuff"

O tempora, o mores. How deep a good idea can fall, it is remarkable.

[Eddin]

Originally posted by lorddread
I sit here night after night reading the posts from the Europeans and I sometimes have to wonder if I am living in the same world as they are.

Let's start with Iraq. Europe cannot and should not blame the US for any civilian (other than the 40 killed in the bunker). Instead of blaming the US which is only 1 nation of the UN Security Council, you should place the blame squarely on Saddam Hussein. He is allowed to sell oil to pay for food and medicine. Instead he cuts off that oil whenever it suits him. The money he does raise from that oil he has used to rebuild 11 palaces, rebuild a shattered army, rebuild his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Yet do you Europeans rage against him for neglecting his own people? Do you rage against him for using chemical weapons on entire villages? Or a neighbor? No you apply your rage against the Americans. How easy it is........ If you blamed Saddam you might feel you should do something about it.

Agreed, as I said, one of the many weaknesses of europe. You can say a lot about America, at least it acts (sometimes and not always for the better, but still)

Oh and by the way, do you know what companies supplied the machinery for his weapons of mass distruction programs??? I'll give you a hint... they didn't come from North, Central or South America. A couple did come from Japan. England, Belgum, Germany, France, Norway and Sweden were the biggest suppliers of fermentors (biological), high speed lathes and precision cutting (nuclear), presses (nuclear), reactors (nuclear) laboratories (chemical and biological). Gusess you feel no responsiblility for that either huh?

Well, I don't. I'm not supporting the current European government. By the way, Europe is only a lackey of the US, not that makes us irresponsible

As for Afghanastan. Let me ask those of you from countries that don't like going beyound your boarders to deal with dictators and rogue governments a question. What do you do when the enemy hides anti-aircraft batteries in mosques. Or tanks and weapons in UN food warehouses? Or shoots at soldiers from hospitals. The Taliban did all this, but all Europe could do was castigate us for persuing these targets.

As the Europeans and also the US should. It is when you see as innocent people dying as 'acceptable' you are going into the wrong direction. The Taliban did so, and the US apparently did so as well. End doesn't justify means if innocent people must die (hell, we could just kill all muslims and be rid of their fanaticism while you're at it, why not?)

It is so easy to sit back and watch someone else take care of the bullies on the block and then criticize them for doing it.

I do not know what irritates us Americans more, the fact that you guys don't have the guts to go out into the world and take care of things on your own continent and expect us to do it for you, or the fact that you criticize us for doing it.

I do not criticise you for that you do something, I criticise your motives and methods. And I agree, we (THROUGH THE UN!!! <-- important! Entirely abolishing the SC, or at least partly. Alas, that will never be done.) should act more. But I would never have directly have innocent blood on my hands. I'd rather do nothing than be responsible for innocent casualties (though that is me)

Let me ask you highly cultured Europeans something. Why did it take the US to get involved to stop the genocide on your doorstep (Yugoslavia). We had to intervene twice. Why didn't you guys handle this on your own?

We actually tried, but we failed. We lack the experience, abilty unity.... you name it. We're working on it though.
No need for cynicism btw

Why did you allow the Serbs to haul off men and boys from a UN safe zone while yourpeace keepers watched them being put on buses, never to return?

Maybe the isolationists are right. Maybe we should let Europe alone for 10-20 years. Tell them tisk tisk you don't like the way we handle things you deal with your own problems.

Actually, Europe itself is quite stable, this is the Balkans you're talking about. And even more actually, the Balkan has always been a mess (heck, I'm from the Balkans, I should know). Europe would be fine without the US. Apparently you have not really dug deep into EU history, have you?

[lorddread]

Originally posted by Eddin

the US where thrown out of the Human rights committee, because the UN think they have done too little to support it (Death penalty is against the Declaration of Human Rights you know(!)) and they threaten the UN with stopping their financial support to it.

And Eddin, who replaced America on the UN's High Horse for Human Rights? Have you looked at their human rights record? I didn't think so.

Oh and by the way, maybe you can answer the question that I have asked of your fellow countryman.

Whay did your peace keepers allow 4000 men and boys to be hauled away to be executed by the serbs from a UN safe zone? Since you are from such a civilized country, this makes no sence.

[Dauphin]

Because the chain of command had a catastrophic failure. Namely those in command didn't tell the soldiers on the ground what to do. Depth of juristiction, purpose of mission and level of acceptable force to use, were not discussed beforehand.

It caused many Dutch government ministers to become ex-ministers, for their ineptitude.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

NO WAY

that I'll be reading everything that's been mentioned on this threead before.

Three weeks ago it was the first time that I visited 'Civilizations' forum and I read many pages from this thread and then quit ...


there was nothing new under the sun, I suppose.

I remember a couple of months ago I was posting on a general forum, but stupid me, I had the 'guts' to post some criticism on some of America's politics ...

a couple of hours later the Americans 'attacked': accusing me of being another America basher and so forth and so on ...
(I'm NOT, got me?)

Those repeated acts of severe subjectivity when reflecting on their own (especially foreign) politics (eg Kyoto protocol) seems to prove a general European feeling that Americans are very good in criticizing every- and anyone on this globe, except for themselves, that is.

My fellow friends, dear Americans, you shouldn't take words/thoughts/feelings/expressions of criticism as personal insults, like many of you seem to do. That's just way too simplistic and only points out a certain lack of debate culture ...

Al Gore, where are you? Many of us (other and EQUAL human beings on our world) would just love to see you where you should have stood if not for fraude and 'friendly politics' by your former adversary ...

YOU wouldn't have acted so selfishly regarding eg the Kyoto protocol ...

at least, I hope.

I'm wandering off I guess.

I've just wanted you guys to know that I'll be reading these posts from now on, only intervening in a such objective manner as possible ...

just trying to be

FAIR
AJ

PS: Nederlanders, jullie meningen heb ik in het verleden ook al meermaals geuit. Ik ben blij dat er nog andere 'overtuigde' verdedigers bestaan van enkele aspecten van het Europese gedachtengoed. Eendracht maakt macht (zoals een bekend gezegde in België luidt )

PPS: Just greeting some of my European neighbours (the Dutch in particular)!

[lorddread]

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR
NO WAY
( Al Gore, where are you? Many of us (other and EQUAL human beings on our world) would just love to see you where you should have stood if not for fraude and 'friendly politics' by your former adversary ...

YOU wouldn't have acted so selfishly regarding eg the Kyoto protocol ...
at least, I hope.

I shudder at the thought of Al Gore being our president when the WTC's were attacked. His first action would have been to take a poll. Then another. Then go on TV and blame the buildings engineers for all the polution that was caused when they collapsed. Then MAYBE fired a cruise missile or two (like his predecessor). America's position in the world would have been even more damaged. But at least the Afghani people would have been safe for the Righteous Taliban regime to persecute and kill.

I wondered when one of the Green Europeans would bring up the Kyoto treaty. Let me educate you why the US backed out of it. To put it simply, it was flawed badly. It let developing countries like India dump more pollution into the atmosphere in 1 year than the US produces in 10. It took no notice of natural pollution such as from farm animals. (laugh if you will but the UN did a study and found that sheep in Australia produce more greenhouse gases than the pollution produced by its people.)

The KT did nothing to stop the deforrestation of the Amazon or Indonesia. The KT imposed penalties on the US for its amount of automobile pollution but did not take into account the size of the US compared to other nations.

If you were the president and told that you had to cut 20-30% of your automobile exhaust in 10 years or face billions in fines what would you have done, taking into account there are 130,000,000 cars in the US.

The treaty looked good on paper but it was absurd to think the US could implement it. It was another Clinton photo op.

It is so easy for a continent the size of the United States to criticise us. It is so easy for countries who have almost no industry anymore to criticize those of us who are heavily industrial. When you start building your own cars, computers, furniture, textile, farm equipment, bulldozers, trains, planes etc. then you can criticize us. (Of course this isn't directed to France or Germany, they actually produce things other than tulip and chocolate)


Knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially when used incorrectly.

[Whoha]

"About medical and food supplies... yeah... peanutbutter in Afghanistan... great help... "

I dont care if they didnt get their favorite junk food to eat, the point is there werent mass civilian deaths as a result of our action.


"But you are right in stating America gave help (albeit less than it could and (I think) SHOULD be)."

few died, we achieved our goals, how much more then that is there?

"Saying I am against America would be going too far... I don't mind americans, they are really nice blokes, and what they do with their interior policy is their problem, not mine. BUT (you could have known that was coming ) I think the Americans are selfserving in their foreign policy. I don't mind that, well I do, burt it doesn't really bother me. What DOES bother me is the hypocrit opinion on this policy. Americans like to think of themselves as saviours of the world, or at least protectors of democracy. However, they only do things when they feel they should. That is not odd, don't get me wrong. It's just that... well let me put it this way. I was not very much surprised that there were terrorists capable of doing such a thing to the heart of Manhattan. Appaled, but not surprised. "

Of course we are looking out for our own interests, everyone is and has the right to do so.

"The reaction was even more typical. Suddenly, Americans start a witchhunt for 'terrorism' all over the world. Sudden;y, Chechnia is forgotten, Israel is allowed to bomb Jenin (at least long enough to make hundreds of casualties in a very brutal way) and Hussein is suddenly unsure of his position. Yet Americans keep the death penalty (I personally think this is your own form of Terrorism. I am quite alone on this however. Please don't comment on it, unless you wantto know why), veto resolutions about a criminal court which would prohibit their ways of working, as well as diminish Israel's options to slaughter people."

terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objects.

Nice to get that definition out of the way. We are not, and can not be terrorists by exercising our rights as a nation. And some people are so bad that they have to be terminated to make society safe. What if a violent criminal escapes and kills again?

and this "well as diminish Israel's options to slaughter people."
huh? how does this figure into your argument? we want a temporary stop in the violence so we can eliminate some despotic governments in that region of the world, this isnt being hypocritical, its thinking about the larger picture. If Iran were out of the way, and saddam couldnt pay terrorist bombers, then things would improve for both sides in Israel.

"Personally, the entire notion of the situation of the world is summarised in one situation in the UN.

the US where thrown out of the Human rights committee, because the UN think they have done too little to support it (Death penalty is against the Declaration of Human Rights you know(!)) and they threaten the UN with stopping their financial support to it."

And when we do not support the UN it flops over and dies. Look at east Timor, and my reference to it in my earlier post. Yet ANOTHER slaughter you europeans LET happen. Good job guys.

"And it is a perfect picture. The US owns the world, no matter what it does, and when the world gets pissed, the US simply ignores that and sails its merry course."

? examples of this? is this another one of those "damn those isolationist imperialist bastards" post? Why should we care if the world gets pissed, more evil has come out of Europe then will ever come out of America, with nazism and Marxism being but 2 examples of the many.

"Now I'm not saying Europe is a saint (by all means no!) but I definitely think they are better in some ways, worse in others (their passive take on world politics being the foremost). And Europe is definitely taking a turn for the worse. Xenophobia and right wings are increasing daily, and I'm frightened. Very frightened. But man would not be man if he would not find a solution to all problems."

Conservatism is evil... k...

"I'm with Beren by the way. Is there anyone who could give me some stats and numbers other than vague 'you are crazy, not so much people died' and 'no YOU are crazy, much MORE people died' "

Beren's sources are third hand Al Jazeera rantings, very accurate... More to the point, what does it matter, Ill point you back to my first post on this issue..

"In both cases, Iraq and Afghanistan, those civilians that died did so because they chose to remain in these countries, even when the shooting started. No where in the Quran does it state that you have to remain in one place, and indeed it states to the contrary that if you do not like where you are there is no reason why you should not leave. God states something to the effect of "My earth is vast". And when you have over a months warning that a devistating attack by a bunch of really, really angry people will be happening, there is no excuse."

Not because we targeted them.

"For my conclusion... a little anecdote.

Reporter reads parts of the American constitution to a Floridan Republican. He asks the Republican what he thinks it is. The Republican answers contemptfully: "commy stuff"

O tempora, o mores. How deep a good idea can fall, it is remarkable."

There are communists in the united states, being the only place in the world that hasnt suffured under some form of communist oppresion this is quite natural. How is putting all the power into one or two hands a good idea? All Das kapital is is a RANT, he is *****ing about problems, which is quite easy as you can no doubt attest, coming up with solutions is quite a bit more difficult then that. Plus bashing commies is good and gets you votes :P

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by lorddread
...
It is so easy for a continent the size of the United States to criticise us. It is so easy for countries who have almost no industry anymore to criticize those of us who are heavily industrial. When you start building your own cars, computers, furniture, textile, farm equipment, bulldozers, trains, planes etc. then you can criticize us. (Of course this isn't directed to France or Germany, they actually produce things other than tulip and chocolate)
...

I don't know whether you realize, but the EU actually IS as/more industrialized than the USA ... and we have started building everything you've mentioned ages ago, haven't we? Yet, we were willing to go along with Kyoto. One of the problems is that oil/gasoline is so cheap in America and thus is overconsumed there, causing many environmental problems.

Do you know the calculations about the pollution produced by a single American compared to a single person any other country on this planet??? Yes, we Europeans pollute a lot as well, but at least we were committed to act.

What does this tell you? All world acknowledges things must be done and ONE COUNTRY backs down and makes the agreements become worthless.

But, point taken, at this moment I'm not that informed about the Kyoto report myself, so I'd better lay off.

Kind regards, though

AJ

PS: I agree with you on Gore PERHAPS not being the best option to deal with terrorism/WTC (but we don't know do we?, Bush himself also had some time to reflect upon his strategy before he spoke the country)

PPS: Al Gore WAS the elected president, not Bush (he pushed the courts, but after all votes were counted days later, Gore had more votes than Bush !!)

PPPS: Peace to all peoples

edit:

PPPPS: Gore makes you laugh, well, umm, ..., Bush makes me cry

(I would love to see him acting side by side with Ronald though

[lorddread]

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR

Al Gore WAS the elected president, not Bush (he pushed the courts, but after all votes were counted days later, Gore had more votes than Bush !!)

FOR THE RECORD THE ABOVE SATEMENT IS WRONG. 14 news orginzations from around the US retallied the Florida vote. Do you know what they found, Bush won the state by 230 votes. Only in 1 senario did Gore win, but it would have been against the Florida law.

Gore DID win the popular vote by a couple hundred thousand, but in this country that won't get you elected. We have the Electoral College here in the US which prevents people like Gore winning 7 states and taking the election. You must win a majority of the Electoral Votes (which Bush did). Bush won 43 states. That should tell the Europeans something about our country. The US in not a leftist country like most of Europe is. We are a capitalistic country not socialist. The are 7 states that are socialist in our country out of 50.

To suprise of many here, I agree with some of Gore's enviromental positions. It is the one area where the Republican (right) Party is wrong in. I do not believe though that the Democrats (leftist) are correct in all their positions though.

Is we had a third party here in the US that was pro business and pro enviroment - I would belong to it.

I would also like another treaty similar to Kyoto but fair to everyone. One that tells ALL nations that they should reduce pollution, not just some.

PS: Is there any French people here? Can someone tell me why the tail section is falling off all the Airbuss 300's?

[Eddin]

Originally posted by lorddread


And Eddin, who replaced America on the UN's High Horse for Human Rights? Have you looked at their human rights record? I didn't think so.

It is quite some time ago, and I forgot, but it shall probably not have been a very good country. But that is not even relevant, you should understand.

Oh and by the way, maybe you can answer the question that I have asked of your fellow countryman.

Whay did your peace keepers allow 4000 men and boys to be hauled away to be executed by the serbs from a UN safe zone? Since you are from such a civilized country, this makes no sence.

Oh shut up! We make mistakes, we lack will and training, we lack everything a policing power needs, I admitted that as a fault of the EU, and of Holland in particular. I am ashamed, but what can I do? I can't vote, I am a minor. I can do little right now... what do you want me to do? I can do little more but apologise, admit my faults.

But you sicken me. Pointing at other peoples mistakes and defending your own. You have done equally bad things. He who claims America is rotten is not dumb, but he who claims that Europe isn't IS dumb, we are nearly as rotten as you are, if not more so for the fact that we are your lackeys, and do not stand up for ourself.

But you should notice that I am ashamed of our policy, but I find your attitude sickening, for the fatc that you wont be ashamed... you are proud of your what you do, and that sickens me.

And as I understand it, it sickens many other besides.

[lorddread]

Originally posted by Eddin
It is quite some time ago, and I forgot, but it shall probably not have been a very good country. But that is not even relevant, you should understand.

Sudan replaced the US on the UN Human Rights Commission. A country that still practices slavery, murder of its citizens because of their religion, drug smuggling, torture, money laundering and murder of foriegners. Yeah good choice huh?

Europe is not a US lackey. We can't stand many of the policies of your governments, nor can we understand how as a group you stay together. You are as difficult for us to understand as we are to you.

But you sicken me. Pointing at other peoples mistakes and defending your own. You have done equally bad things. He who claims America is rotten is not dumb, but he who claims that Europe isn't IS dumb, we are nearly as rotten as you are, if not more so for the fact that we are your lackeys, and do not stand up for ourself.

I am sorry you feel ill because I defend what my country feels it must do because others in the world won't. When you get a little older (out of college and into the real world of the job and family) your opinions will change. It is good to be an idealist when you are young. It helps you develop goals you wish to accomplish as an adult. But please don't criticize me because you don't like my country. I do not bash any other country, but I will point out that no country is entirely blameless today.

I am terribly proud of my country and what it stands for. Many nations in Europe beat immagrants, we accept everyone. You have quotas for how many from this country or that, you let in. We do not. People from 83 nationalities worked at the WTC towers. I have neighbors from Azerbijan. Friends at work from Mongolia. I have worked for Russian bosses. Our third largest ethnic group is Latino.

Our constitution is copied and forms the basis for 19 other countries. Our dollar is the world benchmark for currancy.
We are the worlds largest exporter and importer. Our schools train the best doctors in the world. Engineers come from India, China, Germany, France, Brazil etc, to come to schoold here and then stay here and work (although a lot of Indians are going home to the Asian Silicon Valley).

I will admit that many of our policies especially in the 80's and in Central America sucked and were wrong. But just because you don't agree with our policies do not mean they are wrong.

Finally, why should our country or any country have to ask another country's permission to exercise its authority and fullfill its duty to its citizens in time of war and need. If the world does not have the will to fight terrorism, does that mean we shouldn't?

PS: I would like to know what policies you find sickening. The only policy I have heard in this thread so far was our backing out of the Kyoto treay. Which I explained why we did it.

Bring me examples of our flawed policies and I will discuss them with you. BUT get your facts straight first. Too many people here throw out wrong facts and then expect others to refute them!

[Spiffor]

Reporter reads parts of the American constitution to a Floridan Republican. He asks the Republican what he thinks it is. The Republican answers contemptfully: "commy stuff"

It looks like you LordDread. As soon as we intellectual leftist Europeans give an info against US policies, you immediately tell it's wrong, it cannot be true. I think esp. to the critics you said after I talked about 150.000 civilian casualties during the Gulf War.
Let me put this straight : 150.000 civilian casualties was announced on all our media (including the most serious ones) shortly after the war. It's not the number of deaths caused by the sanctions : according to the UN, international sanctions have killed 1 million people in 10 years. Of course, as not everybody is equal about hunger, it mostly targeted children, elders and women.

The are 7 states that are socialist in our country out of 50.

That's an example of conflict of values. In my country, I was educated to think "one voter = one vote", and that in democracy, the one colecting most votes wins. I consider that the sytem is flawed when a minority has the power. In Europe, we have unrepresentative systems too (In France, it is theroritically possible to be PM if you have a minority of the whole population), but it's as bad as in the US, or as in Cameroon or whatever.
I'm almost sure you'd find it shocking if the situation was the opposite : if the "socialist" ( ) Gore had won with less votes than Bush. If the majority of the Americans preferred Bush and still had not been satisfied.

If we Europeans act like intellectuals, you sure act like a redneck (you like prejudices, I'll use them). In Europe, we have done many mistakes in our history. For example, in Germany, if a German says he's proud of his country, he can be considered as a fascist by other Germans. As we've done mistakes, we fancy ourselves doing something : thinking before acting.
Get my point : a terrorist organization strikes bloodly the US. What's the result of the US revenge ? The fall of a regime, and Bin Laden still unfindable. I hate the Taliban (as a European leftist intellectual, I hated how they threw their country back to the middle ages), but thay were not the adequate target... While the Saudi Arabia is still the "friend" of the free world while being a ruthless obscurantist state, which gives loads of money to muslim fundamentalism (and terrorism which comes with it).
I'm French, and you'll say the French military was laughable during the war in Afghanistan. Absolutely right. But French secret services were in Afghanistan for a long time, and furnished many valuable info about the terrorists. In whole Europe, the police worked to dismantle the terrorists networks. Maybe there were some mistakes, but in general, only the culprits were punished.
I was surprised and pleased when I heard that, just after Sept 11, most Americans wanted a reflected counter-attack, and not a blind revenge. We had this to some extent, as only the Afghani regime was targeted, and colateral damage was much smaller than what I expected.

Still, LordDread, you act as a caricatural American, one of those who make America getting bashed. You refuse any other data than the ones you love, and say that what we provide is utter bullsit (oh, it's a nice word, isn't it ? ). You refuse to acknowledge that things could have been done better. You refuse to understand -or at least try- another logic than yours, saying the intellectual leftist Europeans are crybabies (that's not completely false, but far from being completely true). As you provide much data, I won't say you're the ignorant / arrogant American. But you sure are arrogant. And you sure fall in the "bashable" category of Americans.

[Whoha]

"It looks like you LordDread. As soon as we intellectual leftist Europeans give an info against US policies, you immediately tell it's wrong, it cannot be true. I think esp. to the critics you said after I talked about 150.000 civilian casualties during the Gulf War.
Let me put this straight : 150.000 civilian casualties was announced on all our media (including the most serious ones) shortly after the war. It's not the number of deaths caused by the sanctions : according to the UN, international sanctions have killed 1 million people in 10 years. Of course, as not everybody is equal about hunger, it mostly targeted children, elders and women. "

They have the most fertile growing lands IN THE WORLD. If they dont farm they wont eat, simple as that. If they can smuggle in banned weapons components they can smuggle food for their people, if they gave a **** about them. How many times do I have to repost this any ways?


quote:

The are 7 states that are socialist in our country out of 50.

That's an example of conflict of values. In my country, I was educated to think "one voter = one vote", and that in democracy, the one colecting most votes wins. I consider that the sytem is flawed when a minority has the power. In Europe, we have unrepresentative systems too (In France, it is theroritically possible to be PM if you have a minority of the whole population), but it's as bad as in the US, or as in Cameroon or whatever.
I'm almost sure you'd find it shocking if the situation was the opposite : if the "socialist" ( ) Gore had won with less votes than Bush. If the majority of the Americans preferred Bush and still had not been satisfied.

If we Europeans act like intellectuals, you sure act like a redneck (you like prejudices, I'll use them). In Europe, we have done many mistakes in our history. For example, in Germany, if a German says he's proud of his country, he can be considered as a fascist by other Germans. As we've done mistakes, we fancy ourselves doing something : thinking before acting.
Get my point : a terrorist organization strikes bloodly the US. What's the result of the US revenge ? The fall of a regime, and Bin Laden still unfindable. I hate the Taliban (as a European leftist intellectual, I hated how they threw their country back to the middle ages), but thay were not the adequate target... While the Saudi Arabia is still the "friend" of the free world while being a ruthless obscurantist state, which gives loads of money to muslim fundamentalism (and terrorism which comes with it).
I'm French, and you'll say the French military was laughable during the war in Afghanistan. Absolutely right. But French secret services were in Afghanistan for a long time, and furnished many valuable info about the terrorists. In whole Europe, the police worked to dismantle the terrorists networks. Maybe there were some mistakes, but in general, only the culprits were punished.
I was surprised and pleased when I heard that, just after Sept 11, most Americans wanted a reflected counter-attack, and not a blind revenge. We had this to some extent, as only the Afghani regime was targeted, and colateral damage was much smaller than what I expected.

Still, LordDread, you act as a caricatural American, one of those who make America getting bashed. You refuse any other data than the ones you love, and say that what we provide is utter bullsit (oh, it's a nice word, isn't it ? ). You refuse to acknowledge that things could have been done better. You refuse to understand -or at least try- another logic than yours, saying the intellectual leftist Europeans are crybabies (that's not completely false, but far from being completely true). As you provide much data, I won't say you're the ignorant / arrogant American. But you sure are arrogant. And you sure fall in the "bashable" category of Americans."

The elections have already been discussed, its over, its passed, deal with it, wtf do you care anyway, you arent an american. One thing I cant figure out from your post, are you for, or against, what we did in afghanistan? considering how you brought up saudi arabia if i had to guess id say that you are for it, dont know though.

One more thing:
do you have any idea just how vague this sentence is?
"You refuse to acknowledge that things could have been done better. "

what things? how could they have been done better? 20/20 hindsight is great, but you only get it after the fact.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by lorddread
Sudan replaced the US on the UN Human Rights Commission. A country that still practices slavery, ...

And what do you call having to work 20 hours a day to barely survive? The American dream? Consider this an opportunity for Sudan (which once was one of the most civilized parts of the world) to catch up.

I am terribly proud of my country and what it stands for. Many nations in Europe beat immagrants

Pardon?

, we accept everyone.

Really? How about (even former!) members of communist parties? And what are those patrols doing at the Mexican border?

Our constitution is copied and forms the basis for 19 other countries.

Nice. It was itself derived from the Iroquois constitution.

We are the worlds largest exporter and importer.

Dutch exports are larger than Dutch consumption, can you say the same? (And with a positive balance, year after year.)

Our schools train the best doctors in the world.

Doubtful. I rate Australian doctors higher in western medicine, and there is no way to compare western to eastern medicine.

Engineers come from India, China, Germany, France, Brazil etc, to come to schoold here and then stay here and work

Interesting. Dutch engineers go to school in the Netherlands and then go to work all over the world where they're needed.

Finally, why should our country or any country have to ask another country's permission to exercise its authority and fullfill its duty to its citizens in time of war and need.

Because we signed a treaty to do so, perhaps?

[CRAZY]

Lets take a look at this thread. Its says stop the american bashing. Let me take a look now at the events that have unfolded in the last week and then lets really ponder why people bash america.

A us fighter pilot who has watched a few too many top gunn movies drops a bomb on canadian soldiers helping them fight terrorism in Afganistan.

Then the soldiers bodies are flown home and were honered with a large ceramony. Not a single US official present.

The same day of the cermony in Detroit at a pistons playoff game against the Toronto Raptors the Detroit fans boo the canadian National anthem.

Now how much more ignorant and self absorbed can you get? It seems like nothing in the US, but people in this country are very upset. Its in all our newspapers but yet in the US it hardly is even mentioned! I have never in my life heard regularly canadians talk the way the do now about the US. I hear everyday people talking about how much they hate the US and the government and how ignorant and self absorbed the people there are. Its getting very serious over here.

Here of all places!!! This is Canada, the US could do almost anything before people get upset, except what you have done. We are the closest allies of the US and even here people are really starting not to like the US.

This should be a sign guys. I am not exagerating either, this has gotten out of hand, US ignorance has no boundries even people on my busride home every night for the last week have had something to say!

[lorddread]

Originally posted by Ribannah

And what do you call having to work 20 hours a day to barely survive? The American dream? Consider this an opportunity for Sudan (which once was one of the most civilized parts of the world) to catch up.

I have never met anyone who works 20 hours a day in the US.

Really? How about (even former!) members of communist parties? And what are those patrols doing at the Mexican border?

McCarthyism went out in the 50's during the hysteria concerning communism. As for the patrols along the Mexican boarder, just because we allow millions of legal immegrants into our country each year, we wish to stop illegal immagrants. Nothing wrong with that.


{quote]Nice. It was itself derived from the Iroquois constitution.
[/quote]

I am going to say something here that is going to touch off a firestorm but what the hell. The US Constitution is NOT based on the Iriquois one, but on the Masonic Constitution which was created in England, Scotlans and Ireland by their Grand Lodges.

Dutch exports are larger than Dutch consumption, can you say the same? (And with a positive balance, year after year.)

Actually US imports outrank our exports year after year.

Doubtful. I rate Australian doctors higher in western medicine, and there is no way to compare western to eastern medicine.

I don't see foriegn dignataries going to Australia for Cancer treatments. Of for their heart conditions. No they go the Mayo Clinic or Cedar Sinia or Beth Israel.

Interesting. Dutch engineers go to school in the Netherlands and then go to work all over the world where they're needed.

Because we signed a treaty to do so, perhaps?

What treaty did we sign? What magical piece of paper gave up our soveriegnty?

[SpencerH]

I'm not saying I agree with all the comments to which you were answering but I thought these points could be clarified

Originally posted by Ribannah

And what do you call having to work 20 hours a day to barely survive? The American dream?

Perhaps you can point these Americans out to us? Maybe we can employ them in our huge goverment bureaucracies to get something done. I'm not saying there arent hard-working poor people in America, there are, just as in every other country. Its simply that in America, unlike some other countries, if you dont work you will remain poor (unless you win the lottery).

And what are those patrols doing at the Mexican border?

They are attempting to keep out a flood of illegal immigrants (as you well know). I'm not aware of any country that doesnt have immigration laws.

Nice. It was itself derived from the Iroquois constitution.

I'm almost tempted to ask if you're Iroquois

Because we signed a treaty to do so, perhaps?

What treaty would that be exactly?

[Spiffor]

Whoha :

As a European leftist intellectual, I have some interest with the rest of the world. I considered there was an error when Italy elected Berlusconi. I felt there was an error when Austria elected Haider. I felt there was an error when Israel elected Sharon. I felt there was an error when the US elected a president most Americans didn't want. All of these countries are not mine, but this world is mine, and I care for it a little bit.

As for my position about Afghanistan : at the beginning, I was completely against. I thought it would be the failure as in Irak and in Yugoslavia. I awaited a massacre, since the Taliban are crazy, and the Mudjahidin don't mind the Civilians (their rule, between the Soviets and the Taliban, truly ruined the country), and the US tend to support blindly their allies on the ground : remeber how the UCK in Kosovo was condired.
But I was surprised : despite my fears, the operation went quite well, there were many less civilians killed than I expected, the hated Taliban lost, and there are serious chances of stability. The operation was well led, and well done... As if there were the good points of being American (acting, using the big gun) and European (thinking not only about destructing, but also constructing).
But, in theory, I'm still against the bombardment of Afghanistan (this is purely theoretical) : the Taliban regime hosted terrorist camps, but did not especially back them. BTW at the beginning, they hesitated to give Bin Laden to the Americans : they asked for irrefutable proof, which the US nor the UK gave. We still don't have any irrefutable proof that it was Al Qaeda's doing. In theory, bombing Afghanistan was like bombing Belgium if Belgian terrorists decided to strike. Again, this is theoretical.
What I'm against is how terrorism is used as a reason for Bush Jr. to complete the work of his father : having every country accept the "new world order" under American and capitalist rule. I don't know if Cuba is considered a "rogue-state", but all other unconventional countries are considered so. Every country which disagrees with the rules is considered a rogue, is considered as a murderer. With his "axis of evil" rethoric, Bush Jr is destroying independance of countries. I don't say this si good that rogue states are led by despots, I'm saying there are despots everywhere, even among our close friends (Saudi Arabia, Koweit etc.).

About Irak : now that is a true shame for the whole western world. We westerners backed this country during the Iran-Irak war because it's the only non-religious country in the region, and because it was the wall against fundamentalism. When this horrible war ended (it was as dreadful as WW1), our friend Saddam suddenly turned evil in our eyes... We've seen this dictator having an extremely large army, eager to use it. So, as soon as he begun conquering, we beat his country badly : blocus, destruction right at the beginning of his army, then destruction of all infrastructure in the country. Tons of explosives. Thousands dead under it. And everything was said : to protect the Kuweiti democracy and freedom (Kuweit is a country comparable to Saudi Arabia when it comes to fundamemtalism)
Then, we decided to hinder Irak to rebuild at all : hence the "petroleum for food" deal. As Saddam remained in power, the only way we found to punish him for some things (like hindering UN inquirers to enter some factories) was to bomb his country. Medication and food lack in this former rich country, in the only country in the region who was autonomous for food. Yes, the fertility of the land was used before the gulf war... And today no more... Are the Irakis more lazy than 10 years ago ? Or do they simply lack the tools to produce food, and the resources to produce these tools ? A tractor is made of steel, and Irak has no tractors nor steel, and cannot buy them because of the embargo. And, Irak cannot export anything else than petroleum.
Did this situation hurt Saddam Hussein ? No, he's as despotic and powerful as before. Did this situation hurt the Iraki people ? Yes definitely. Did this spawn hate against the western world, esp against the US ? I think so.

About how things could have been done better : In Yugoslavia, Europe decided to talk with Milosevic, Rugova (the Kosovar democratic leader) and the Kosovar guerilla, all at the same table. The US came and used their good old cowboy method : right from the beginning, they said Milosevic was evil, the UCK was a valuable ally, and Rugova couldn't do anything... While doing this, Albright used this "American" logic we can see by most caricatural American here : there is a villain and a good one struggling against him. The only solution is to shot at the villain. The peace talks turned into a preparation of war, with Europeans unable to do something about it (esp. because Britain is both a member of EU and the 51st American State).
What's the conclusion ? The peace talks turned into an utter failure. NATO bombed Yugoslavia right away, destructing many infrastructures without hurting the actual military (it's said less than 5% of the Yugoslavian military was destroyed... Of course, it's harder to aim in a forest than in a desert). Yugoslavia answered immediately, and turned its low-intensity genocide into a high intensity genocide : 300.000 Kosovar dead in the first 3 days of bombing. At least that's what I heard at the time.
That could have been done better : the peacetalks could have created something nt great, but some autonomy of Kosovo, which would have been partially ethnic cleansed (before the peace talks).

What we can see in the US foreign policy is that the US certitude to strike is radicalizing the opponent : the Taliban hesitated to give Bin Laden at the beginning, Milosevic wasn't waging a high-intensity genocide. I'm not saying that discussing with them would have certainly brought something good, I'm saying it was worth trying. That's why I think the "cowboy" policy of the US is unforgivable in some cases.

[Dauphin]

Gore winning 7 states and taking the election. You must win a majority of the Electoral Votes (which Bush did). Bush won 43 states. That should tell the Europeans something about our country

All it tells me is that US states have varying populations, and that less populated states voted for Bush.

[CRAZY]

did people see my last post or do you choose to ignore it? I would love to hear the response to it. There is no doubt its factual so why not comment on it?

[Dauphin]

Even the bit about watching Top Gun?

[CRAZY]

lol actually that bit about top gun I heard on the news!! The CBC interviewed canadian soldiers that are now over in afganistan and that is what one of them said. Just by that comment you can see that there is some anamositity with the cdn and american soldiers that are there now.

[lorddread]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Whoha :
As a European leftist intellectual, I have some interest with the rest of the world. I considered there was an error when Italy elected Berlusconi. I felt there was an error when Austria elected Haider. I felt there was an error when Israel elected Sharon. I felt there was an error when the US elected a president most Americans didn't want. All of these countries are not mine, but this world is mine, and I care for it a little bit.

You Europeans got the wrong impression of the 2000 election. Gore didn't have a landslide in the popular votes. He won the popular vote by a couple of thousand. The popular vote doesn't matter though in our presidential elections. It is the Electoral College which is won by winning 51% of the Electoral Votes> Look at a map of the country the Bush carried. He won almost the entire country. Only certain cities did he loose in. Once again get your facts straight!

As for my position about Afghanistan : at the beginning, I was completely against. I thought it would be the failure as in Irak and in Yugoslavia. I awaited a massacre, since the Taliban are crazy, and the Mudjahidin don't mind the Civilians (their rule, between the Soviets and the Taliban, truly ruined the country), and the US tend to support blindly their allies on the ground : remeber how the UCK in Kosovo was condired.
But I was surprised : despite my fears, the operation went quite well, there were many less civilians killed than I expected, the hated Taliban lost, and there are serious chances of stability. The operation was well led, and well done... As if there were the good points of being American (acting, using the big gun) and European (thinking not only about destructing, but also constructing).

Finally a moderate European

But, in theory, I'm still against the bombardment of Afghanistan (this is purely theoretical) : the Taliban regime hosted terrorist camps, but did not especially back them. BTW at the beginning, they hesitated to give Bin Laden to the Americans : they asked for irrefutable proof, which the US nor the UK gave.

Osama bragged on world television about the planning and execution of the attack on the WTC. What more proof do you wish us to give.

We still don't have any irrefutable proof that it was Al Qaeda's doing.

Huh? Osama has bragged about. The one terrorist we have in custody and awaiting trial detailed how his cohorts carried out the plan and stated in open court he wished he was aboard the planes.

What I'm against is how terrorism is used as a reason for Bush Jr. to complete the work of his father : having every country accept the "new world order" under American and capitalist rule. I don't know if Cuba is considered a "rogue-state", but all other unconventional countries are considered so. Every country which disagrees with the rules is considered a rogue, is considered as a murderer. With his "axis of evil" rethoric, Bush Jr is destroying independance of countries. I don't say this si good that rogue states are led by despots, I'm saying there are despots everywhere, even among our close friends (Saudi Arabia, Koweit etc.).

Huh? Cuba is not considered a terrorist state. NEver has been even when it was overthrowing countries in Central, South America and Africa (remember a little 20 year old war involving Angola and South Africa? The soldiers in Agola where Cuban)

We do not consider any country a terrorist nation unless that one supports and actively helps terrorist. Ask Israel about 20+ year of Iranian back terrorists. How about the highjacking of the TWA flight in the 80's. The Israeli atheletes at the Berlin Olympics.

North Korea was listed because it launches terrorist actions into South Korea all the time. There are commando raids, patrols along the dmz are attacked. It organizes student demostrations which are made violent by North Korean operatives. When the police crack down, the North uses it for propaganda.

Iraq was listed because it is truly a rogue nation. 57 years ago we used 2 nuclear weapons to end a horrific war. We are still denounced for this. Iraq has used chemical weapons 29 times, once against his own people. No one says anything.

Then, we decided to hinder Irak to rebuild at all : hence the "petroleum for food" deal. As Saddam remained in power, the only way we found to punish him for some things (like hindering UN inquirers to enter some factories) was to bomb his country. Medication and food lack in this former rich country, in the only country in the region who was autonomous for food.

Saddam uses the money he gets from the sale of his oil not to feed his people or get medicine for thembut to rebuild his palaces, improve his army and reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction program. What should the west do, release him from the sanctions and allow him to build more chemical and biological weapons and then become a massive threat to the middle east again? He has shown no intentions on feeding and caring for his people now, do you think that would change if the sanctions were dropped?

The US did not go in and destroy the farmer's tractors. We didn't bomb farms. Kill cattle etc.

About how things could have been done better : In Yugoslavia, Europe decided to talk with Milosevic, Rugova (the Kosovar democratic leader) and the Kosovar guerilla, all at the same table. The US came and used their good old cowboy method : right from the beginning, they said Milosevic was evil, the UCK was a valuable ally, and Rugova couldn't do anything... While doing this, Albright used this "American" logic we can see by most caricatural American here : there is a villain and a good one struggling against him. The only solution is to shot at the villain. The peace talks turned into a preparation of war, with Europeans unable to do something about it (esp. because Britain is both a member of EU and the 51st American State).

How many people had to die before you could see that Milosevic had no intentions of stopping the genocide? 250,000 Bosnians were raped, killed or pushed out of their homes, and the European nations sat there going tisk tisk tisk. The American people watched tv everynight asking themselves what were you thinking? This happened in the 40's and you watched 6 million Jews, 3 million gypsies, 1 million retarded or handicapped people be exterminated by Hitler, and now the same thing was happening on your doorstep and you did nothing. When the US acts, it does so in a decisive manner. We learned the lesson the hard way than when you act you do so with might. It drives the lesson home.

But what happened when the US acted? Europe threw up its hands declaring we were acting unilaterally.

1. We acted with Nato
2. So what! You weren't doing anything constructive. Chamberlain tried talking Hitler out of WWII, guess what happened........

What we can see in the US foreign policy is that the US certitude to strike is radicalizing the opponent : the Taliban hesitated to give Bin Laden at the beginning

The Taliban would never have turned over Bin Laden.

1. Bin Laden's daughter was married to Omar's son.
2. Bin Laden was the force that kept the Taliban in power. It was his Arab soldiers, not the Talibans that were successful against the Northern Alliance.
3. Ther interpretation of the Koran forbid it.

Milosevic wasn't waging a high-intensity genocide. I'm not saying that discussing with them would have certainly brought something good, I'm saying it was worth trying.

Tell that to the 250,000 Bosnians raped and killed. The 120,000 Croates.

[Whoha]

I refuse to dig up the year and a 1/2 old arguments about the election that ive made, it does not matter(plus drudge took down the memo the democrats sent to their people to try to get all the absentee ballots thrown out so I can not back up this anymore, but i do find it doubtful that the military personel would vote for democrats...)

I finally think i understand where the 150,000 figure is coming from. Not from bombing, but from where George Bush Senior asked the Iraqis to revolt against saddam, and then did not support them and take saddam out(at the behest of the international community but still) and that was unacceptable, ill agree.

[Spiffor]

LordDread :

About the 2000 elections, I stated that it was a conflict of values : I know it is perfectly legal to win an election when you have less citizens with you than your opponent. It's perfectly legal in other countries too, incl. Europe. And as it is a conflict of values, I find it unforgivable. If this is forgivable or not is not a fact, it's a judgment. Don't bother me asking about facts on this, I have many less than you, but I know a bit how American elections work (I study political sciences).

About the Kosovar genocide : when did most of these people get killed ? After the beginning of the bombings. I'm not saying there were no victims before this : Milosevic, like Saddam are pure garbage, and I dream to see them in jail for the rest of their lives. My point is : maybe it was possible to build something, something unstable and with nobody content about, but which would have avoided the Kosovar ethnic cleansing, then the Serb ethnic cleansing and the maffiaization of Kosovo under the reign of the UCK. I'm not sure about this. I'm saying it was worth trying. Instead of seeing if the discussions were a success, the US sabotaged it with the help of the UCK, leaving Europe and Rugova powerless, and Milosevic radicalized.
(BTW, when I talked about the low-intensity genocide, I was precisely talking about Kosovo before the bombings : it was mostly population movements rather than extermination, even if I acknowledge this is bad... When the bombings began, 300.000 Kosovar died. That's what I call high-intensity genocide. Pease don't throw the Croats in, I was specifically talking about Kosovo).

The Taliban would never have turned over Bin Laden.

Unlike you, I don't turn assumptions into certitudes, even when they are backed. Even if the Taliban were psychorigid, they cared for their power, and knew they were no match for the US army. I'm not sure they'd have handed him, but I'm also not sure they would never had, even if their tradition forbid it. But we never know now.
About Bin Laden bragging about this, Ok, I didn't have the info sorry. I still thought he said he supported the attacks but didn't participated in them. He may lie also. I don't give a rat's ass to what a prisoner avows in a court. Bullying someone to make him avow what we want to hear is as old as justice itself. It's used everywhere, even in democratic countries, when justice must find a culprit. Today in France, we have currently an affair of this kind.

Don't get me wrong : I bash the US because of one thing : it's the most bullying nations I wish my country and my continent will always be at peace with, always be friend with. I dislike the American methods, and there are plenty of things I dislike in the US, but I consider the US much better than Saddam's Irak or Kim's North Korea, or even Putin's Russia. Saddam is rotten to the core, he gazed his own people, he avoids the reconstruction of Irak, because it wouln't serve his interests. Even if Bush seems a backward, redneck cowboy to me, at least he's not genocidal. Even if I hated the hypocrisy of Clinton, he was never directly responsible for any massacre.

As a side note, on my personality (it helps knowing who talks to understand the message) : I'm a left-winged French, meaning I'm attached to the values of solidarity and human dignity rather than to the values of free-for-all. I bash America since I'm 7, because at the beginning, I was disappointed such a great country, as presented in hollywood movies, had its flaws like racism, poverty etc. It leads me to think that, if America gets bashed more than Irak (America obviously doesn't deserve it), it's because of its arrogance to show abroad how good it is, while it isn't better or worse than any other democratic country. Put simply : we know Irak is terrible place, so there is no need to bash it. But we are permanently exposed to a cultural imperialism, an expansionism of the way of life, which isn't as good as it seems => bashing this imperialism is needed.
Everyone saying antiamericanism is only motivated by envy is completely wrong, and participates to antiamericanism, simply because he participates to American arrogance.

[CRAZY]

The US government is run by corporations in the interest of corporations. The elections are paid for by corporations. Look at the bush administration, how many corporations are represented? These are the people who make US policies.
This is not something that I have thought up, this was first coined by a US president named Isenhower(sp).
The US government maybe an elected entity but by no means represent the US public. As I said the interests of corporations are first and foremost in the bush admistration. If pleasing a few voters here and there will keep him in power longer then so be it he will do what he has to do, but not a bit more. The thing that gets me is the US publics willingness to go along with this. Why? Look at military spending..

Can you really justify this? the missle defence plan? In case you haven't realized the threat is not the Soviets anymore but terriosts. This is not something missle defence will have a deterence on.

But what it will have an effect on is the corporations that cator to the pentagon and the pockets of those who in fact sit on boards and commities within the US government itself!! It is plain and obvious for anyone to see this corruption if they look through the constant barrage of media that the bush administration spews at the public. How many of the US citizens on this board sound like regerjataed cnn comercials?

BUt the majority of the US public in its self interest and ignorance of facts will continue to chant USA no matter what the truth. Its a pity, nothing lasts forever.