Off topic!!! BUT THIS I THINK IS WORTH SHARING !!!!!

[GreasyPig]

hmmmm

There aint a damn thing the States can do that wont be second guessed by some people.

We extend a hand, its taken, then criticized. We don't extend a hand then we're chastised.

Some talk like we're some global crack dealer handing out freebies at the playground. "First ones free, First ones free". The big evil that snakes its way into everyones life.

Its funny when a thread like this begins. A series of replies soon follow with thinly veiled disdain for the US and the poster then digress into "Not all Americans are bad, just the loud patriotic ones". Yet in knowing this they still post their replies and their point of view on USA. Theres certainly no shortage of loud NON-US opinions. Opinions that must be heard else some arogant, under-educated, American continue beleiving the propaganda.

Fionn,

"I never remember asking the "good ol' US of A" to be a "world leader". I NEVER remember asking it to stick its nose into EU business."

Ive looked around and I can't find anyone here THAT ASKED to be a "World Leader". A strange predicament for sure. One day you wake up, declared a "World Leader", then ridiculed for it.

But honestly I really don't care. Really I don't. But maybe thats what other counties dislike about us the most. I worry about feeding my kids, providing a home and education. I worry about the weather and if Dad can get his field planted on time. I guarantee he doens't have time to worry about foreign policy. It must be a nice Luxury.

GreasyPig

[killmore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GreasyPig:

We extend a hand, its taken, then criticized. We don't extend a hand then we're chastised. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The hand is extended to the selected and there is always a price to pay for accepting it... Most people don't undestand that the hand is never extended without some gain for US.

Not that I think USA is an evil empire - it is uncomparably better then Communism (Soviet Union) but once you lived in both countries you start to notice some similarities in some things.

BTS PLEASE CLOSE ALL POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS DEBATES! (Like this one)

[Fionn]

Kilmore,

I don't think this thread needs to be closed. It has been polite and, so far, both sides have simply expressed their views. Debate isn't bad you know? It's when it degenerates into shouting etc that it is bad. So far we're not at that stage yet.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I've looked around and I can't find anyone here THAT ASKED to be a "World Leader". A strange predicament for sure. One day you wake up, declared a "World Leader", then ridiculed for it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My simple point is that America is NOT a world leader. It operates under the same principle as every other country... It operates under a variation of the "selfish gene hypothesis". The USA aids its allies only insofar as such aid helps its greater geopolitical goals. When such aid would run contrary to the US' best interests it isn't offered.

MY point is that a LOT of Americans seem to think that the world is crying out to be "led" by America in a crusade to right wrongs etc etc. As a matter of fact most people are quite prepared to deal with their own internal problems themselves and the only time the US gets involved is when either:

1. It aids US security or economic interests OR

2. there are votes to be gotten.

Now, there's nothing wrong with this since. IMO, all governments generally work this way in the world of realpolitik HOWEVER there is something seriously wrong when Americans go off believing that their country does things "out of the goodness of its own heart". While that may be true as far as charity contributions by individuals go governments are FAR more pragmatic and decidated to realpolitik.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But honestly I really don't care. Really I don't. But maybe thats what other counties dislike about us the most. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. I would be DELIGHTED if the US would simply become isolationist again ( as it has usually been). I would be even MORE delighted if US citizens would stop peddling some stupid line about being the world's guardian and "leading" us little ones in the rest of the world "along the path of goodness". It is EXTREMELY patronising and blinkered.

The American government does what it does for the good of America. It gave out aid to countries committed to the fight against communism and encouraged guerilla movements ( with the attendant slaughter of civies) in communist countries.

Now, there's nothing wrong or condemnable about that since it is just a consequence of realpolitik and I support the right of countries to carry on covert conflict and forment revolution in other countries as a legitimate means of keep that unfriendly country's government fully occupied with internal events. What I DO object to is American and non-Americans who misrepresent the motivation for actions.

IMO there is absolutely nothing wrong in saying... "We're maintaining the kurds in Iraq because they serve as a means of focussing Saddam's attention inward. With Kurds to the north and south, Iran to the east and Syria etc to the West we have a good buffer zone around Iraq. It is NOT in our interest for the Kurds to gain control of Iraq since that would threaten Turkey and therefore we only feed in enough support to make the Kurds a threat to Saddam without giving them enough to overthrow him since that'd hurt Turkey."

THAT is realpolitik and that's what really happens. Misrepresenting it is just being blind to reality IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I guarantee he doens't have time to worry about foreign policy. It must be a nice Luxury. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great. Most of the world wishes your government bothered less about external policy too ( except of course whenever another country's aims coincide with those of American foreign policy... In that case the country can count on American support to ensure that America's aims are achieved by proxy.)

My simple point is that the viewpoint espoused in the article quoted and in some follow-ups are quite naive and seem based on a mass media based understanding of geopolitical inter-relatedness and realpolitik ( or rather, mass media based ignorance of geopolitical inter-relatedness and realpolitik).

[This message has been edited by Fionn (edited 07-11-2000).]

[killmore]

In that case Fionn:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn:

Kilmore,

I don't think this thread needs to be closed.

My simple point is that the viewpoint espoused in the article quoted and in some follow-ups are quite naive and seem based on a mass media based understanding of geopolitical inter-relatedness and realpolitik.

[This message has been edited by Fionn (edited 07-11-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MANY good points Fionn. I like your comments.

Can I post a joke about Fionn and CM2? (It is tastefull)

[crossfire]

I don't think USA has a luxury of becomming isolationist. Why?

Because there are too few world powers in the world. (Unlike before WWII when many European countries were percived as strong military powers)

USA is needed as a counter-balance to Russia and China.

[GreasyPig]

killmore,

"The hand is extended to the selected and there is always a price to pay for accepting it... Most people don't undestand that the hand is never extended without some gain for US."

Really, I are you certain?

You have help prove my points exactly.

Did anyone else hear that loud broad based, way over generilized "SLAP"

You paticipated in 3 replies of this thread, stating your opinion on the matter. I find ironic you wish it closed so soon. The statements you made could be taken as harsh but by all means close the thead, YOUR truth has been spoken RIGHT?

GreasyPig

[patboivin]

Which newspaper was it from, I wonder?

Not one of the Conrad Black papers, I hope.

Canada built its own jetfighter if I remember correctly, but the US pressured the Canadian Government to quash it (The Avro Arrow).

Most of the engineers who worked on it moved (were shipped?) to the United States.

The U.S. does a lot of good, but so do other countries, let's not forget.

[penubly]

I have to agree with some of what was stated in the opening post, but like anyone's opinion, mine included, you can't generalize on such a topic and have any hope of being entirely correct.

I am a citizen of the United States, and relatively proud of my country and our legacy. That said, the United States has as much dirty laundry as any other world power, and more than many.

For every generous act there are acts of malice and greed.

Our country has be favored by geography, resources and timing. Some times we have handled our position with grace and dignity, and other times we have acquited ourselves terribly. This is the country that exports cultural gems such as Hooters and McDonalds to the rest of the world while being capable of helping in many more important and meaningful ways. (I will never get over the feeling of the beauty of Austria and then noticing the Hooters being built.) I sometimes feel that the communists were correct about our decadent capitalism. I also feel that deep down most of us want to experience such decadence.

Even though these thoughts and feelings bother me, I am proud of my country in many other ways.

------------------

Always with the negative waves, Moriarty.

[Formerly Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by patboivin:

Which newspaper was it from, I wonder?

Not one of the Conrad Black papers, I hope.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was from CKRB 1010 Radio. The date was June 5, 1973. Sinclair had an editorial spot on there, much like Dick Smyth has on 680 & City. He was as famous in his day as Lorne Greene was during WW2.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Some great discussion, and interesting points being made in this thread. One question to ponder that hasn't been addressed: The US often does help with purely humanitarian, (mostly) apolitical missions (eg the Earthquake in Turkey last year). The only example that I can recall of another country helping the US was in 1993, when Bangladesh send aid to help the Mississippi flood victims. Quite interesting the one of the poorest countries in the world extended at least some token of aid to the richest, while nobody else lifted a finger. Not to say that we even needed it, but some moral support would have been nice if nothing else. Just some food for thought, and not meant to point fingers at anyone else...

[BillWoodAgain]

I have to agree/disagree with you. I agree that much US policy is driven by simple greed and pride, but an under current of morality is there.

The primary motive for US wars in this Century were all about free trade. In the 19th Century, we damn near went to war with Britain on more than one occasion (the one occasion being the War of 1812, a trade war) because she, like other powers believed in Mercantalism and its derivatives.

AMOF, we would still have this as National Policies active now without our insisting it was changed after the Second World War.

We also have a strong history of wanting human right protected, and this was always true. Not always followed, but always wanted.

The AmerRev was fought for our percieved violation of trade rights and human diginity. Our Constitution, built on The Rights of Man, was framed with those two principles inherent to it. Nearly all US wars were fought because of Human Rights and Trade, not for the sake of killing off our neighbor or taking all of his land with the one HUGE exception of the plight of the American Indian, a policy justified because of the passages in the Bible commanding us to be "fruitful and multiply" and the right of man by God to have Dominion over the Earth and all of its creatures to use in our developement. Native populations were not using it, so they lose it, so to speak. This was a policy first executed with great sucess by the Christian nations in the Crusades and honed to ferocious cruelty by Spain, and used by Britain (except Britain wanted to take care of the "Children", not pillage and burn their nations).

True, we fought many actions, persued many policies, and wronged many peoeple in many ways in our history, but we alway have a thread of decency, humanity and fair play morality running through our veins.

We do not fight becuase of some event that happened hundreds of years ago, we do not fight for revenge (we have used it as an excuse, but not as a policy) and we do not fight because of the archane beleif that the world is a "Zero-Sum" game, like all other nations have and most still do.

No we are not perfect, but we have been "more" perfect than other nations. We eventually admit our wrongs and correct them. We oppose the strongest of evils in the world to preserve our freedoms and extend freedoms to others becasue it is believed that only governement of the people for the people with rampant education and free trade will achieve peace and prosperity.

We had slaves, we fought a bloody war about State's Rights that had a core reason of slavery in it to free the slave. It was fought to protect the white man from his own indignety of being a slaveholder, and to extend the Constitution to the 3/5ths people.

We nearly defanged Britain and other Imperial Powers with the 14 points of Wilson and definitely did so in WW2 when we announced that we fought this war for Democratic principles.

Our decision to aid the defeated powers was amazing. Certainly the desire to protect us from the Soviet Union was inherent, but we could of done like anyother power in Europe before then and practiced RealPolitik blalnce of power games and surreneder Europe to them. That we did not goes beyond the actions any other power would of taken.

Post-War Britain somehow managed to demolish its Empire with relative peace, Suez 1956 being one notable excepetion, while France, Portugal and others preferred to use coersion and force to hold their Empires, a practice still in use by Russia.

Communism was a two edged sword for the American ethos. We had to fight it, but to do so, we had to due some wrong things, like the Shah, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.

The Gulf War was to protect our oil interests, but it also was to protect the World's oil interests. If it was just for us, then we would occupy the place and save it for ourselves. Our current high gas prices would not exist as we, if we though like an imperial power, would force the Arab nations to sell cheap to us and screw the rest of the world.

And what benefit did we gain from Kosovo? None, except that we got sick of what we saw Mr. M doing. (As a side note, I really think that any other President would of done it, Clinton would never of done it, except for that damned blue dress).

Are we on top of the Morality Mountain with foregin policy? No, but we are on the Moral high ground relative to everyone else.

Our Empire is not generally won by the sword, it is done by consumerism and mass media. The world is importing America, we rarely have to export it; and I ain't talking economics here.

And BTW, the article that started this was quite "sappy", but relatively true.

[GreasyPig]

Fionn

Arent you being just a little too Nihilistic.

The US does give away huge sums of food, money, and general aid. And..I beleive 100% that she does this with intent on achieveing some agenda (polital or otherwise). In fact I am upset when there isnt some GAIN for the effort.

But.. Isn't this HUMAN? I know you agree from reading you post: "The USA aids its allies only insofar as such aid helps its greater geopolitical goals. When such aid would run contrary to the US' best interests it isn't offered."

Not only is this human but isnt it LOGICAL as well? Certainly the USA didn't pioneer this technique.

But your point:

"MY point is that a LOT of Americans seem to think that the world is crying out to be "led" by America in a crusade to right wrongs etc etc."

and

"HOWEVER there is something seriously wrong when Americans go off believing that their country does things "out of the goodness of its own heart". "

My point or arguement is with statements like these. You insinuate that we are under educated about not only our own country but the rest of the world, too nieve or too stupid to realize nobody wants our help and because we have a "whole bunch of really cool nukes" we ARE world leaders.

Im saying your wrong. VERY wrong. You and MANY others take this righteous stand of "awareness". My point is you've fallen into your own HOLY trap of making broad, general claims about another country and thus placing your self amongst an elite few, of which NO American is allowed with out excessive scrutiny.

Im sure you know Americans BUT do you REALLY know us, REALLY? If you think so then HOW? Apperently not as well as you think because Yes, Im an American and Its safe to say I know a LOT of Americans. I have faith in my country, I served her and will die for her. But my thoughts are MINE. I know better, my friends and family know better. Theres no such thing as a "Free Ride" or "You dont get nothin for nothin".

So.. obviously your not blinded by propaganda and can TRUELY see. The LOTs Americans you speak of must be actually be the few. Again my piont is if you dont know this then In my opinion your wrong. If you do know this then why is there this urge to feed such a post.

Your

GreasyPig

[lucero1148]

Quite an interesting post and I'm surprised how civilized its been.

What many people fail to realize is that the Pax Americana is an entirely different form of "controlled peace". Unlike the Roman and British empires were rules of might, the American version is one of cooperation, essentially.

What is Nato, but a collective military agreement where all members are supposed to act as a united group against aggression.

How about the Gulf War, which I agree was only for the protection of oil, but don't forget it wasn't only the USA that benefited from a free oil source (Western Europe benefited from this war too).

American leadership was crucial in maintaining the Gulf War Alliance and no other country had the political will or military might to produce anything similar.

The American government doesn't always get involved for purely selfish reasons. Did we want to get involved in Yugoslavia initially. NO. If we were as selfish as others state we would not have gotten involved except to provide transport and logistical services to the EU. We had no economic or political motivation to get involved there. The French and British governments literally twisted our arms into becoming physically involved on the ground which we were loathed to do in the 1st place. Our allies certainly couldn't win the peace on their own because realistically they didn't have the political will, or the military forces to win a conflict on their own (if a conflict goes over 2 weeks max the Euro armies will be out of ammo).

When it comes to American Aid there are no strings attached except when it comes to military aid. American food aid must logically come from our farm supplies. Economic aid to foreign countries has no strings where the beneficiary is forced to buy American goods (tractors, hvy equipment), unlike the Japanese or the French e.g.

As an expatriate American I am proud of what my country has achieved in the world. That we are an empire is ridiculous for anyone to state. Do we collect tribute and taxes from any other country or their citizens? Not to my knowledge. Unlike other past empires, ,America is the only one that seeks to improve the world order. We export more than Big Mac's and Levi's, but also solid political concepts as described in "The Bill Of Rights" and a belief in a "Rule Of Law".

America is not perfect, but we also do our best to correct our wrongs sooner or later.

Patrick

[lucero1148]

Quite an interesting post and I'm surprised how civilized its been.

What many people fail to realize is that the Pax Americana is an entirely different form of "controlled peace". Unlike the Roman and British empires were rules of might, the American version is one of cooperation, essentially.

What is Nato, but a collective military agreement where all members are supposed to act as a united group against aggression.

How about the Gulf War, which I agree was only for the protection of oil, but don't forget it wasn't only the USA that benefited from a free oil source (Western Europe benefited from this war too).

American leadership was crucial in maintaining the Gulf War Alliance and no other country had the political will or military might to produce anything similar.

The American government doesn't always get involved for purely selfish reasons. Did we want to get involved in Yugoslavia initially. NO. If we were as selfish as others state we would not have gotten involved except to provide transport and logistical services to the EU. We had no economic or political motivation to get involved there. The French and British governments literally twisted our arms into becoming physically involved on the ground which we were loathed to do in the 1st place. Our allies certainly couldn't win the peace on their own because realistically they didn't have the political will, or the military forces to win a conflict on their own (if a conflict goes over 2 weeks max the Euro armies will be out of ammo).

When it comes to American Aid there are no strings attached except when it comes to military aid. American food aid must logically come from our farm supplies. Economic aid to foreign countries has no strings where the beneficiary is forced to buy American goods (tractors, hvy equipment), unlike the Japanese or the French e.g.

As an expatriate American I am proud of what my country has achieved in the world. That we are an empire is ridiculous for anyone to state. Do we collect tribute and taxes from any other country or their citizens? Not to my knowledge. Unlike other past empires, ,America is the only one that seeks to improve the world order. We export more than Big Mac's and Levi's, but also solid political concepts as described in "The Bill Of Rights" and a belief in a "Rule Of Law".

America is not perfect, but we also do our best to correct our wrongs sooner or later.

Patrick

[Fionn]

Killmore,

Oh, if it's clean then no you can't post it . If it's filthy and obscene then I want to see . (seriously... go ahead.)

Greasypig,

You can't start talking in generalities ( as you did) and then smack others down for also talking in generalities. I think we ALL would accede that none of the points ANY of us make here is 100% applicable to all people.

We can't talk about a nation of 250+ million people without being "general". It's simply impossible.

I think Penubly has it said well.... The US is just the same as any other country with power. It does some good ( in the pursuit of its own interests and within its ideological constraints) and does some bad. My beef was simply that to read some posts here you'd think the USA exported peace and goodwill to all mankind in an air of giving without expecting . (Kind of naive and unrealistic ).

Mannheim,

I agree. Also though you've got to remember that the USA does project a sense of overwhelming manpower etc at such times. Also, why did Bangladesh send aid? Not out of the goodness of its heart obviously. It send aid because it knew that such aid would be returned many times over. It was a way of strengthening a bond and was a decision taken on political and pragmatic grounds and not cause the Bangladeshis could do much ( remember they also sent troops to fight in the Gulf War).

BillWoodagain?

Hmm, human rights eh? The abuse of human rights nowadays isn't a reason a big country like the US goes to war. Saying you're going to war to protect some oppressed minority elsewhere is just more "sellable" to the masses than saying " Well, we're going to war because we don't want to allow an avalanche of re-definition of borders which would destablise a pivotal region..."

Also, if America was SO caught up in human rights etc then why was segregation, racism and bigotry still institutionalised and upheld by law less than 40 years ago throughout much of the country? See, my point is that while manyt Americans might have disagreed with it they didn't disagree strongly enough ( en masse) to do something about it ( although thankfully many young idealists ( both white and black) DID get up and help propel change). Same thing with human rights abuses in other countries.... It is something you dissaprove of but it isn't WHY you go to war. It's a convenient "selling point" to get the public to support a war but it isn't WHY the war is undertaken ( elsewise America would be at war with MANY countries which abused human rights. However, only those countries which threaten national interests are ever gone to war with.

War isn't the pursuance of morality via force. War is the pursuance of national policy. If you can ensure support of the masses by "selling" it as a war against an evil dictator who kills women and children then so much the better BUT the US doesn't go to war because kids are being tortured.. It goes to war because its national interests are threatened. ( Even if 1 million kids were killed it still wouldn't constitute a threat to national interest. It WOULD however, be noted as a great "selling point" for intervention if something else in that country began to threaten national interests).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> but we alway have a thread of decency, humanity and fair play morality running through our veins. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's quite simply false. I'm not one of these bleeding heart liberals who objects to the use of force etc. I DO however object to using force and then lieing about why it was used.

Vietnam wasn't very much about fair play when young Vietnamese guys who were suspected of knowing where arms dumps were located were taken up in choppers and dropped from them if they wouldn't talk.

The habitual shooting of SS prisoners in 1944-45 wasn't about "fair play". Allowing Saddam to gas the kurds so long as he kept the Iranians occupied wasn't about morality and THEN turning on him once he took Kuwaiti oil wasn't about morality either. Threatening the oil was an economic threat and so it was dealt with. Massacres of kurds and kuwaitis etc just sold the war to the folks in the US and Europe. It didn't cause any government to decide to go to war.

I could give many more examples but I think these suffice. Realpolitik is NO PLACE for morality. You have to sacrifice people left right and centre for the greater good and IMO only pragmatism can reign.

As for extending freedom to others... When another country has a left-wing or communist government which the US doesn't like it chooses to "extend freedom" to that country. When a right-wing dictatorship reigns and people are oppressed JUST AS MUCH as under a left-wing dictatorship the US does nothing since the right-wing dictatorship is not a threat to national security ( via the old domino theory).

IF morality was the determinant of foreign policy and action BOTH of these dictatorships would be treated equally. They are not, thus, morality is not the determinant. I hold that realpolitik is the determinant.

As for slavery... Care to tell me how long the Civil War had been going on before the abolition of slavery was FIRST mentioned as a war aim ? If you don't know then you really should look it up. Both the search and the answer are MOST illuminating and shatter one comfort myth which I find many Americans hold.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Our decision to aid the defeated powers was amazing. Certainly the desire to protect us from the Soviet Union was inherent, but we could of done like anyother power in Europe before then and practiced RealPolitik blalnce of power games and surreneder Europe to them. That we did not goes beyond the actions any other power would of taken.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all. That you aided the defeated powers was PURELY due to the fact that you (and everyone else) realised that the "peace" of Versailles had made WW2 inevitable. You simply aided Germany and Japan because you knew that was the best way to:

a) ensure they'd never fight you again (/seek vengeance) and

you wanted buffers on both sides of Russia.

You should read more about European history also... Britain realised long ago that it was SAFEST when the continent was divided into 3 powers... One part was Britain, the other was Russia or Austria etc and the 3rd part was the "buffer" in between. The USA needed Europe around since Europe gave it a "buffer" against the Soviet Union. If the worst happened then Europe could be sacrificed later and the USA would still be safe. However, if Europe had been given to the USSR then the USSR would have been free to aim directly at the USA. My simple point is that morality didn't come into the equation.. What came into the equation was the need to keep the rump of Europe anti-Soviet so as to create a buffer. IF morality had reigned supreme than Hungary and other countries wouldn't have been sacrificed for quietness sake.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

And what benefit did we gain from Kosovo? None, except that we got sick of what we saw Mr. M doing. (As a side note, I really think that any other President would of done it, Clinton would never of done it, except for that damned blue dress).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm going to presume that you know WW1 started when a Serbian nationalist assasinated the Archduke Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian ( Magyar if you wish) Empire. The region of Serbia/Macedonia/Greece/Turkey has always been one in which the borders of nations have been quite imperfect as regards ethnic groupings. The US and Europe got involved primarily to prevent the entire region being destabilised and sparking increased tensions between Greece and Turkey, Rumania, Bulgaria, Albania, Slovenia etc.

In effect the US fought a small war now to prevent any risk of a larger one gradually being created over the next few years... The deaths etc of the Kosovar Albanians were pretty much just a good thing to use to justify it to the press and public.

I believe America WAS right to get involved since the benefits of the action outweighed the risks etc but I also believe that the line they fed the networks about going in to protect the people was a load of bull.

As for the GUlf War... Listen, I'm not saying America is "EVIL" or anything like that. I'm just saying that its foreign policy is determined by realpolitik and not worry about how many teenagers were tortured to death last week. If I was in charge over there I'd probably get involved in the same places etc and I'd use the exact same propaganda methods to justify my actions to the public. My only attempt here is to show that no foreign affairs minister commits his country to war because of torture or human rights abuse ( unless the peopple being tortured are ethnically from his country).

Now onto Greasy's post.

Greasy, I don't say that what is being done is WRONG. I simply say that it is wrong to say it is being done for reasons of morality etc.

Simple example... Saddam invades Kuwait... Kuwait has the daughter of the ambassador to the UN testify about seeing babies taken out of incubators and left to die by Iraqi troops as they took the incubators to Iraq. The USA KNOWS that this girl wasn;'t even IN Kuwait since months before the invasion occured and KNOWS her story is a lie yet the US lets her lie and makes sure it gets good publicity...

Is this evil? Nope... Would I sanction it if I was a US foreign minister? Hell yes... By the time it becomes known who she is the war'll be over and her testimony will make the war more pallatable to folks back home.

All I'm saying is that WE owe it to ourselves to look beyond the public spin and into the deeper and real reasons. Anyone who has followed this forum for a long time knows that I don't condone war crimes etc. I argue strongly that ALL sides committed them but refuse to condone any since my attitude is simply that war is hell and bad things happen.

In the same way I'm not trying to portray the US as evil etc etc. I'm just trying to say " Listen, here's why it REALLY does what it does... Don't believe what the networks tell you."

Now as for your statement that:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You insinuate that we are under educated about not only our own country but the rest of the world, too nieve or too stupid to realize nobody wants our help and because we have a "whole bunch of really cool nukes" we ARE world leaders. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't actually say that. Obviously you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about Europeans being condescending to Americans ( as you make clear in the paragraph below the above quote)...

What I SAID was that you ARE being naive if you believe ANY country ( including your own) does things out of the goodness of its heart.

One other thing... Most Americans ( and obviously people here don't come under this heading) DO have a poor grasp of world history and how other nations and cultures interact. I've heard absolutely frightening statistics just 3 days ago in which something like 84% of High School Americans believe WW2 started in 1941 with the attack on Pearl Harbour . I DO believe that your high school history is too Amerigo-centric and gives your young a poor understanding of the importance of other nations which contributes to the "loud ignorant American" stereotype.

Personally I had 40 Americans in my year in college ( 1/4 of my year were from the US) and I roomed with several and my best friend is from LA and I KNOW that many Americans DO have a very good grasp of history etc. The pity is that, as with many other things, a few uneducated yobs DO create a stereotype overhere. Also, we DO have to realise that wargamers are often quite self-selective and do, generally, do more reading than most other gamers and we definitely know more about history and international relations than most.

P.s. My WIFE was American so I think it's safe to say I know y'all pretty well. She also thought in high school and I've read many of the history texts they used.. They were abysmal and very badly biased IMO. OTOH I think that college-level history in America IS very well-thought from some course transcripts I've read from friends who did history degrees.

P.p.s. Umm, obviously you were getting a bit upset by the end of your last post because I honestly can't understand what you were trying to say due to some strange structures. Could you repeat it?

P.p.p.s. Why do you feel so threatened simply because I'm saying America does NOT work on some higher moral principle which the rest of the world's governments can't utilise? Can't you simply accept that America pursues realpolitik just like all the other countries do?

[lucero1148]

Quite an interesting post and I'm surprised how civilized its been.

What many people fail to realize is that the Pax Americana is an entirely different form of "controlled peace". Unlike the Roman and British empires were rules of might, the American version is one of cooperation, essentially.

What is Nato, but a collective military agreement where all members are supposed to act as a united group against aggression.

How about the Gulf War, which I agree was only for the protection of oil, but don't forget it wasn't only the USA that benefited from a free oil source (Western Europe benefited from this war too).

American leadership was crucial in maintaining the Gulf War Alliance and no other country had the political will or military might to produce anything similar.

The American government doesn't always get involved for purely selfish reasons. Did we want to get involved in Yugoslavia initially. NO. If we were as selfish as others state we would not have gotten involved except to provide transport and logistical services to the EU. We had no economic or political motivation to get involved there. The French and British governments literally twisted our arms into becoming physically involved on the ground which we were loathed to do in the 1st place. Our allies certainly couldn't win the peace on their own because realistically they didn't have the political will, or the military forces to win a conflict on their own (if a conflict goes over 2 weeks max the Euro armies will be out of ammo).

When it comes to American Aid there are no strings attached except when it comes to military aid. American food aid must logically come from our farm supplies. Economic aid to foreign countries has no strings where the beneficiary is forced to buy American goods (tractors, hvy equipment), unlike the Japanese or the French e.g.

As an expatriate American I am proud of what my country has achieved in the world. That we are an empire is ridiculous for anyone to state. Do we collect tribute and taxes from any other country or their citizens? Not to my knowledge. Unlike other past empires, ,America is the only one that seeks to improve the world order. We export more than Big Mac's and Levi's, but also solid political concepts as described in "The Bill Of Rights" and a belief in a "Rule Of Law".

America is not perfect, but we also do our best to correct our wrongs sooner or later.

Patrick

[Hundminen]

Let's not forget another thing American's gave the rest of the world...

Combat Mission!!!

God Bless America.

Besides, My mom's a Yankee, so I can't bash 'em too much

[Trooper]

Lads.. I'll save you all a lot of time...

Go to http://www.irishabroad.com, go to the politics section of the discussion boards and read the topic entitled "God bless America". At present there are almost 300 posts, it was started by this exact same article, and quite heated.

Right now though, it seems to have degenerated into a point of view that the British gave the world Monty Python, Yes Prime Minister and Blackadder, and America provided Barney, Jerry Springer, and Dan Quayle.

Actually.. Quayle was pretty funny....

NTM

[jackhammer]

hey fionn go **** yourself. we don't do anything unless theres votes there? what interests orvotes do we have in bosnia or kosovo? people were getting butchered left and right and what did you pussy europeans do about it? you practically begged the us to take care of it. we give more aid and money to needy countries than all you euros put together. you did not ask for the usa to be a world leader? if the usa had been the world leader back in the 1930s, which we very well could have been, you think hitler would have started his crap? I'm in the us air force and i'm sick and tired of deploying around the world because you euros can not do anything for yourselves or anybody else. as for a "barrier policy" if it was not for the usa all you europeans would either be goosestepping around saying sieg heil or speaking russian and calling each other comrade! you know how to hate america but when you guys need something you all turn to us.

[jackhammer]

after reading some more of that asshole fionns comments i was rolling on the floor laughing. fionn, why is it your always talking out of your ass you jerkoff. nobody does anything out of the goodness of their hearts? EVERY TIME THERE IS A DISASTER SOMEWHERE, WHO IS ALWAYS ON THE SCENE WITH MONEY,FOOD AND MEDICAL AID? IRELAND? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH. THE USA IS ALWAYS HELPING OTHER COUNTRIES WITH NO STRING ATTACHED! so before you go bad mouthing another country know what your talking about asshole!

[Lorak]

well Jackhammer...

That was colorful.

So much for "adults" being able to discuss things in a civil manor.

As an american who has served, I will state wholehartedly that I love my country. Yes I did hate being sent to godforsaken dirtpiles to be the world police. But hell, someone has to do it.

I also admit that most of the US policy revolves around what is in its best intrest. Thats just the way countries operate. We do offer a lot of Aid and help to countries that are in need. And yes.. No one offers any aid to us. I guess it is the "they are the USA, they can take care of themselves" syndrom. Living here in North Carolina and seeing a third of my state underwater last year after Hurricanes... I can attest that most other countries just don't give a ****. But in fairness, Except for money from washington, It seemed none of our own states give a **** either.

Well now that I've managed to ramble and go no where, I'll sign off.

Lorak

------------------

"someone you trust is one of us"..........the illuminati

*

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub

Lorak's FTX for CM <--Proud member of the Combat Mission Webring

[argie]

jackhammer, I really hopes nobody never judges USA for people like you.

Or maybe I must said, for people like you USA is judged the way it is.

Ariel,

from a country in Third World in which the only good thing USA does is MacDonald

[This message has been edited by argie (edited 07-11-2000).]

[Speedy]

As to the topic I generally agree with Fionns comments on international politics as practiced by ALL countries.

Now as for Jackhammer, your comments were totally uncalled for and I personally believe you owe Fionn and apology for the abusive tone of your post.

------------------

IN VINO VERITAS

[Simon Fox]

Now guys I know Titan's post wasn't too current (1973 hehe) but remember NZ is in a time warp and I think that is the date there now.

While he might attempt to use not having CM yet as an excuse for starting such a dopey, guaranteed to start trouble, thread it's not good enough. The only reasonable explanation is his brain has been swallowed by a blackhole.

On the subject of Rugby, who won the world cup nah nah ne nah nah.

Shhh! Don't mention the CRICKET. Oops! that just slipped out.

And yes it is off-topic and NO it was not worth sharing, now back in your little kiwi hideyhole.

[Smack]

Jackhammer you are sadly mistaken about Kosovo, The Americans will use thier airforce but not their army. Kuwait was retaken but you left Saddam in power, Milosovich killed thousands, you made him leave Kosovo, but you left him in power. There are Political reasons behind this, first off all Americans remember the Vietnam fiasco and America will not send in ground troops for fear of high casualties in a land that no-one REALLY cares about. Also the Americans leave these guys in power because they need an excuse to keep a large military. In someways Jackhammer the Americans failure to use there army and to physically remove him from power could be called pussyfooting. All I know is that when the U.S {NATO too} bombs Saddam or Milosovich for killing a few thousand people, why aren't they bombing the Chinese because they are killing people too aren't they...But there is money to be made there...The Americans are no better than the Europeans in that respect. In another respect, should anyone be there militarily at all...