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

[Spook]

To Mirage2K:

My job status is a technician for the Air Force Research Lab, which is far more aligned to "systems acquisition" (and all of the attached red-tape regulations for same) then to government/international relations. But in trying to get my wife over to here from the Philippines last year, I got a healthy dose of the regulations the both of us had to work with under the State Dept. (Embassy Services) and the Justice Dept. (INS). And the reams of paperwork we've filled out so far may only be the tip of the iceberg.

If your interest is government/international relations while in college, I would recommend that you make a regular habit to access the web sites for the US State Dept. and the Congressional Records (Foreign Relations Committees). The latter will give you some guidance on the congressional appropriations breakouts (modified from the earlier-submitted President's Budget) based on nation.

[PeterNZer]

I'm not sure if this thread is dead or not, but i've never been one to shirk from jump starting a comotose corpse! So here's something my co-worker sent to everyone here in our little group. He read this same thing somewhere else and was rather annoyed! What's more, he's an American. He avoids getting off into the wider issues, and instead quite cleverly takes the article appart point by point, worth a read.

PeterNZ

************************

"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the

Americans as the most generous and possibly the least

appreciated people on all the earth."

Actually, the US gives the LEAST to 3rd world countries in terms of aid of any industrialized Western country as a percentage of its GDP. The Irish Republic, much poorer in absolute terms, gives the highest percentage of its GDP away to poor 3rd world countries.

"Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and

Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the

Americans who poured in billions of dollars and

forgave other billions in debts. None of these

countries is today paying even the interest on its

remaining debts to the United States."

That's not true at all. This is a very complex issue. First of all, the US was itself facing financial ruin at the end of WW2. It emerged largely intact and with an industrial production capacity exceeded by none else. The big problem after the war was that there wasn't any country left intact in the world to BUY the things the US produced. Having no market for such a vast industrial capacity would have been disastrous for the US and would have easily plunged us into a recession along the lines of the Great Depression again. This time, because we had a more left-wing interventionist government in place at the time, they came up with a bright idea: shore up the fragile and largely destroyed European economy so they could buy our goods!

This wasn't done out of 'charity' but out of self-interest and necessity, not even considering the obvious political goals of making Western Europe 'safe' from the 'evil commies'.

The Marshall Plan accounted for LESS THAN 1% of US GDP for each year it was in place, and since the economy was growing in leaps and bounds at the time (thanks to the purchasing power which the Marshall Plan gave to the Europeans at the time to buy US products), it is important to view the Marshall Plan as a very clever way of spending almost nothing but getting really high returns with really good results.

It is *very important* to remember that the rebuilding of the European economies after the war, and especially of the French economy, was almost completely due to the efforts of Europeans themselves. As for the German economy, much of it simply wasn't destroyed during the second world war because US companies and shareholders in German firms did not want to see their assets go up in flames. In contrast, Eastern Germany after the war was systematically de-industrialized by the Russians, who were known to dismantle entire factories, ship them in pieces to Russia, and then reassemble them in the Russian hinterland (!).

"When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956,

it was the Americans who propped it up, and their

reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets

of Paris. I was there. I saw it."

France is perpetually in danger of 'collapsing'. In 1958 (I don't know where they hell he picked out the year 1956) there were issues with crazed right-wing types from Algeria threatening to overthrow the government for deciding Algeria should be independent. The constitution of the 4th Republic (1945-1958) was crap anyway. Basically, de Gaulle was the one who 'saved France' again by coming in and being impressive and presidential (the French like those sorts of displays). I've never heard of America doing anything in particular in 1958, although perhaps the CIA was heavily involved in making sure that de Gaulle was successful.

Just imagine the outrage if the French intelligence agency was involved in overthrowing or manipulating US electoral results!

I've been to Paris many times, and I've never been insulted or swindled on the streets of Paris. Most French people like Americans. I think this Canadian might be transferring his anti-Quebec sentiments to France or something.

"When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the

United States that hurried in to help. This spring, 59

American communities were flattened by tornadoes.

Nobody helped."

Like I said above, the US gives less of its national wealth to poor countries than every other industrialized western country. As far as I know, the EU gives more to Africa when particular disasters stike, and the US tends to give more to Latin America in particular crises.

The interesting thing about these evil 'floods and famines' is that they are increasingly the result of World Trade Organization (WTO) policies forcing poor countries to 'export, export, export' and forcing them to CUT government spending on health, education and road and infrastructure building! The WTO is blindly supported by the US government and exclusively represents the interests of large multinational companies.

" The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped

billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now

newspapers in those countries are writing about the

decadent, warmongering Americans."

I already debunked the myth of the Marshall Plan's 'generosity' above. I read plenty of newspapers in France and England and, as everywhere, some newspapers write critical things about America, and some write good things about America. There's certainly plenty of pro-America stuff here in England.

Anyway, it's just a fact that Americans are decadent. They drive lots of huge cars and consume 30% of the world's energy output yearly, even though the US population accounts for less than 5% of the world's population. That can't be very good, can it?

As for 'warmongering' it is a fact that America has started the most wars of any other country since WW2. Just ask anyone in Latin America, the Balkans, or Southeast Asia. However, I have never seen anyone in any mainstream foreign paper accuse America of being a 'warmongering' state. And I read a lot.

"I'd like to see just one of those countries that

is gloating over the erosion of the United States

dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country

in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo

Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10?

If so, why don't they fly them?"

Was this article written 15 years ago? It reads like it was. What 'erosion of the US dollar?'. Anyway, the dollar is STRONG now against the Euro and the pound, but weak against the yen. A weak currency can be a very good thing, especially for exporters, and so could benefit the US immensely (as it did in the mid 1980s) by lowering our trade deficit with the rest of the world.

About the planes........Europe builds great planes. There's BAe and Airbus. As far as I know, American Airlines is now an Airbus client!

"Why does no other land on earth even consider putting

a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese

technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German

technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about

American technocracy, and you find men on the moon -

not once, but several times - and safely home again."

Germans make good washing machines and refridgerators too!

Yes, American put a man on the moon and that was a great thing. But maybe other countries thought it best to spend the billions of dollars that would have cost them to caring for the welfare of their own people by making sure they all have health insurance, unemployment insurance, and housing.

If I had to choose between 'man on the moon' and a house and money, I know which one I would want.

It's just a matter of what one society values compared to what another society values.

"You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs

right in the store window for everybody to look at."

Since this article appears to be so anti-French, I'll give a French example to start with:

- President Mitterrand had a mistress and an illegitimate daughter, and they both turned up and stood next to his wife at his funeral.

- Ever hear of the Profumo Affair in England?

There are plenty more scandals which I could list! But American news probably doesn't cover them in its broadcasts, because it tends not to cover lots of things that occur outside of the US, in favor of fuzzy "info-tainment" items on the health benefits of lettuce or how a recent study showed eating one egg a day might reduce your chances of dying from a heart attack by 0.6 percent.

"When the railways of France, Germany and India

were breaking down through age, it was the Americans

who rebuilt them. "

Just not true at all! The French and Germans pay for their excellent railways through massive state subsidies and through their own income and corporate tax revenues! As for the Indians, it was the English that built that system and it is the Indians who are using their ingenuity in the midst of abject poverty to keep it running.

I certainly hope people don't believe everything they read. This article is truly an unbalanced, warped rant with little factual basis on which to substantiate its very disparate and varied claims.

Evan

[Dogg]

As an American I will say one thing,,,,whoever starts anymore IGNORANT wars anywhere again like happenned in Euorope in both WW1 and WW2, I will personnally recommend the use of nuke weapons,rather than fight in one of your primative wars.

Hey, by the way, are the Germans happy now? Are they happy with their borders? Personnally after reading the anti American garbage in here..I recommend it goes nuclear next time the Euoropeans have one of their ignorant tribal problems.......

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Hey, by the way, are the Germans happy now? Are they happy with their borders? /B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh?

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

Andreas

[PeterNZer]

Ahh, Dogg exhibits a trait that perhaps the rest of the world finds the oddest.

That is that the criticism of govt = the criticism of the state.

I think after my few years on the planet it's something i've noticed as the BIGGEST difference between the political discources of various nations and their peoples.

Let me provide an example.

New Zealand, my home country. It's ok, but it's foreign policy I believe is flawed. In recent years it has been weak in the South Pacific, not stepping up to play a leadership role the south pacific wants it to play, unhelpfull in regards to fishing and environmental efforts, and has failed to act with any balls in Fiji or the Solomon Islands recently.

Now, there's some criticism! Does that mean i 'hate' New Zealand? Does it mean I am 'kiwi bashing'? Does it mean I think all New Zealanders are driveling fools, does it mean I think our political system is joke? well incase you hadn't guessed, the answer is NO. It's simply, -a criticism-.

If i say, America's foreign policy has tended to be self serving, it's aid levels weak, (% GDP wise) and tied to tough conditions, its stand on IMF/World Bank issues un-visionary, does that mean I hate america? Am I america bashing? Do i think the American armed forces are a joke/not needed whateverthehell? NO! It's merely a criticism of a political policy enacted by a leader-group.

Now, I don't know why, but quite a few Americans i've argued with over the years don't see how all the above works. However, most people from other democracies do? Why is that? I honestly have no idea myself. Maybe it's because the rest of us have been treated worse over the years and so are more jaded? hehe. Or maybe it's that the American education system has a different focus? I don't know, and won't presume to answer!

So my point, if you're an American, and reading these threads, don't get all crazed and think it's some big plot by the rest of us to abuse america, tear down your people/achievements/military/whatever, see it as VALID criticism or otherwise of policies enacted by your governments. Hey, at the same time, feel free to hassle OUR governments, (we're likely to agree with you ).

And those damn irish, you should read about the mischief they get up to with EU fishing laws, (nah, don't actually, it's pretty dull ).

As a final note, I think -everyone- should read critical views of their own history. New Zealanders should read a bit of James Belich, or maybe some Maori accounts, the English.. hmm, Read some John Pilger, (although i think the majority of english would agree that Thatcher was an evil wench hehe .. and American's, read a bit of Noam Chompsky. He's pretty controversial, but you can't deny his logic or reasoning.

And always remember, we don't HATE america, we don't really HATE american's, (just those tourists in matching jumpsuits), 'we' do however sometimes think that the goals of american policy are not always what the american politicians would have you believe, this is as true now as it was 100, 200 years ago, and it's true for America as it has been for EVERY country on the plannet, (except maybe Sweeden and Norway, jolly nice places hehe )

PeterNZ

[Guest Mirage2k]

I think (and I'm pretty sure most high school teachers would agree) that Dogg needs a more coherent thesis statement. Nukes? Borders? Germany? Huh?

-Andrew

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

Throw me a frickin' smiley people!

[Sten]

PeterNZ,

your opinion of Swedish politicians is waaay too good. Not that the Swedish politicians themselves wouldn't agree, mind you.

Sten

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

Keep your whisky on the rocks and your tanks on the roll.