What the world hoped would come of 9/11

[cut]

Since we are approaching the 3rd anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, this is a perfect time to mention this. Not too soon after 9/11 but on a date that it is thought about.

The US has unleashed more firepower on civilians then any other country in history. I have always had a problem with this, because the UK and Germany may have bombed the **** out of each other in WW2 but it was mutal tit for tat. The US bombed Nazi Germany, nuclear bombed the japanese, carpet bombed the Vietnamese, etc.... But the US has only ever been attacked twice, only once prior to 9/11.

What the world hoped was that the US would realise the affect of what their bombing does. 9/11 was only two, albeit big buildings and yet, everyone in America was affect and felt anger towards the perpatraitors.
Still americans don't link 9/11 to "shock and awe" and the insurgencies that followed.

"But we liberated the iraqis, why do they hate us?" some of you say, You didn't like it when people you know were killed because of the actions of your government why should they.

Of course the US no longer targets civilians (much) but when colateral damage adds up to the 9/11 death toll, those people who's country you're bombing are intitle to feel exactly as americans do. That is why Iraqis fight americans, they are not brainwashed by islam they are serving their nation, exactly as americans wanted to do after 9/11.

The difference is americans dessimate armies which means there is only one way to avenge lives lost and that is to join al quaeda or become insurgents.

This is why people like me take offence to Bush being compared to Churchill. There is a huge difference between the threat of invasion by Nazis who have already taken over Europe and terrorists who pull off the biggest ever act of terrorism but are unlikely to manage it again.

[fantassin]

Amen.

May Sir Winston rest in Peace, miles away from the republican convention.

[Freibier]

Good post, I agree completely

[panzrman]

Since we are approaching the 3rd anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, this is a perfect time to mention this. Not too soon after 9/11 but on a date that it is thought about.

The US has unleashed more firepower on civilians then any other country in history. I have always had a problem with this, because the UK and Germany may have bombed the **** out of each other in WW2 but it was mutal tit for tat. The US bombed Nazi Germany, nuclear bombed the japanese, carpet bombed the Vietnamese, etc.... But the US has only ever been attacked twice, only once prior to 9/11.

What the world hoped was that the US would realise the affect of what their bombing does. 9/11 was only two, albeit big buildings and yet, everyone in America was affect and felt anger towards the perpatraitors.
Still americans don't link 9/11 to "shock and awe" and the insurgencies that followed.

"But we liberated the iraqis, why do they hate us?" some of you say, You didn't like it when people you know were killed because of the actions of your government why should they.

Of course the US no longer targets civilians (much) but when colateral damage adds up to the 9/11 death toll, those people who's country you're bombing are intitle to feel exactly as americans do. That is why Iraqis fight americans, they are not brainwashed by islam they are serving their nation, exactly as americans wanted to do after 9/11.

The difference is americans dessimate armies which means there is only one way to avenge lives lost and that is to join al quaeda or become insurgents.

This is why people like me take offence to Bush being compared to Churchill. There is a huge difference between the threat of invasion by Nazis who have already taken over Europe and terrorists who pull off the biggest ever act of terrorism but are unlikely to manage it again.


uhhh, sure. :cantbeli:

[cut]

uhhh, sure. :cantbeli:

care to elaborate? If you can that is.

[Zarathustra]

rofl

[scm77]

Somehow I don't believe you know what the "world" wanted to come frome 9/11. Maybe that's what you wanted.

What most of the world wanted (at least the free parts) was to see the terrorists being brought to justice. The terrorists who killed 3,000 innocent men women and children. They never did anything to deserve what happened to them. They were going about their lives. At least when Pearl Harbour was attacked it was an attack on a military facility by another military. Flying passenger planes into buildings full of innocent civillians just proves how gutless these thugs are.

[cut]

Somehow I don't believe you know what the "world" wanted to come frome 9/11. Maybe that's what you wanted.

Nor do I it's just a good title. I intended to show that the Bushist idea that people either supported the terrorist or were quite happy to see afghanistan blown to smitherines is wrong.



What most of the world wanted (at least the free parts) was to see the terrorists being brought to justice. The terrorists who killed 3,000 innocent men women and children. They never did anything to deserve what happened to them. They were going about their lives. At least when Pearl Harbour was attacked it was an attack on a military facility by another military. Flying passenger planes into buildings full of innocent civillians just proves how gutless these thugs are.

Bringing the terrorists to justice and attacking Iraq are not mutually exclusive. Iraqis have no inocent civilians then? When innocent civilians become collateral damage, it is somehow more righteous then terrorist killing civilians? Why should there be double standards? Are Iraqis not entitled to act like they have to the invasion.

Few people are going to criticise the US action in Afghanistan, even though it was a war against the Taleban not al qaeda. But going to War in Iraq so soon after 9/11 shows the Republican government learnt nothing from 9/11.

You say that I cannot possibly know what the world felt which I admit is true, but then you go right ahead and say what you think the world wanted. I know that the majority of the world are to the left of my politics and you are right of it. That is where you lose touch with world view despite being canadian you've adopted the republican way of thinking.

[scm77]

The US isn't deliberately attacking civillians in Iraq. They try to avoid civillian casualties at all costs. Sometimes smart bombs miss their target or a civillian building is mistaken for a military target, and that is unfortunate.

But that in no way compares to terrorists flying a planes full of innocent civillians into buildings full of innocent civillians.

[usa320]

The US has unleashed more firepower on civilians then any other country in history. I have always had a problem with this, because the UK and Germany may have bombed the **** out of each other in WW2 but it was mutal tit for tat. The US bombed Nazi Germany, nuclear bombed the japanese, carpet bombed the Vietnamese, etc.... But the US has only ever been attacked twice, only once prior to 9/11.


Perhaps weve only been attacked on our homeland twice because of our excessive use of firepower?

;)

[cut]

The US has unleashed more firepower on civilians then any other country in history. I have always had a problem with this, because the UK and Germany may have bombed the **** out of each other in WW2 but it was mutal tit for tat. The US bombed Nazi Germany, nuclear bombed the japanese, carpet bombed the Vietnamese, etc.... But the US has only ever been attacked twice, only once prior to 9/11.


Perhaps weve only been attacked on our homeland twice because of our excessive use of firepower?

;)

hope you enjoy 9/11 then, because that is the result

[cut]

The US isn't deliberately attacking civillians in Iraq. They try to avoid civillian casualties at all costs. Sometimes smart bombs miss their target or a civillian building is mistaken for a military target, and that is unfortunate.

But that in no way compares to terrorists flying a planes full of innocent civillians into buildings full of innocent civillians.

how about this:

some people go off the rails and commit acts of terrorism and that is unfortunate.

[Midav]

First of all, I won't even go into WW II.

That war speaks for itself.

Now, who besides the Vietnamese has the US "carpet bombed"?

I realize the US is not innocent. It was involved in other conflicts and coups and has donr some bad things. That is not going to be argued.

However, the US is far from being the only nation to having done so. Also, almost all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.

What evil things have Americans done to Saudi Arabia?

I'm just curious.

[Siddar]

Just goes to show you that rest of World doesnt understand America.

[cut]

Just goes to show you that rest of World doesnt understand America.

vice versa

why should 5.7 billion bend over backwards for 270 million, that is one thing americans should understand.

[platform389]

The US has unleashed more firepower on civilians then any other country in history. I have always had a problem with this, because the UK and Germany may have bombed the **** out of each other in WW2 but it was mutal tit for tat. The US bombed Nazi Germany, nuclear bombed the japanese, carpet bombed the Vietnamese, etc.... But the US has only ever been attacked twice, only once prior to 9/11.


Reading remarks such as this makes it easier to understand why England and much of Europe are in the condition they are in.

Revisionist history lessons and moral equivalency do not change the facts. Were it not for US involvement, the British would have been soundly defeated by the Germans. Churchill worked hard to pull the US into the war, if you care to do the research.

And yet again, the nuclear strikes on Japan are brought as some "crime against humanity". :roll: Take time to read about what was expected to take place during Operation Downfall. Here is a link to a brief overview.

http://www.bobhenneman.info/downfall.htm

An excerpt:


The Japanese defense plan was called Ketsu-Go. The Japanese planned to meet the Americans with 15 divisions, 7 independent mixed brigades, 3 independent tank brigades and 2 fortress units, 19 destroyers, 38 subs, 750 mini-subs, 12,750 planes (mostly kamikaze), 3300 suicide attack boats, and 4000 suicide frogmen (to attack landing craft). There were no plans to declare 'open cities' or evacuate the 2,400,000 civilians on southern Kyushu. Every male between 15 and 60 and every female between 17 and 40 (except those exempted as vital workers or for medical reasons) was expected to play a part in the defense. They were trained to fight with grenades, spears, or knives, and were supposed to use mass attacks to blur the front lines and make the Americans reluctant to use poison gas or even their overwhelming air power.

The Americans expected the Japanese to mount only a token resistance, then fall back to defend the main island of Honshu. The Japanese planned a final battle on Kyushu, defending the beaches at all costs to repel the Americans. No forces were to be held in reserve to defend Honshu; the Japanese were ready to expend their entire Army, Navy, and civilian population to defend Kyushu.

Because of this error in estimating the Japanese defense, post-war military experts estimate casualties of 94,000 killed and 234,000 wounded on the American side, and nearly 2 million killed and wounded on the Japanese side, in the first30 days of the Kyushu operation alone.

In light of the above, to say using nuclear weapons was some sort of "crime" flies in the face of sound military doctrine.

And there is the teeny tiny little fact the Japanese started this with their actions at Pearl Harbor, a fact overlooked by most of the revisionists. Don't start something you are ill prepared to finish, as the Japanese found out.

I am at a loss to understand your "carpet bombing of Vietnam" remark. US forces were attempting to keep the Communists from overrunning the country. You do remember communists? Most folks think they are bad guys. Trying to help people defend themselves against totalitarian regimes has been part of American history for a long time. The Europeans were recipients of this assistance TWICE. Another fact easily forgetten or diminished by the revisionists.

I could go on and on, but casting pearls before swine is a pointless exercise. :roll:

[Siddar]

Just goes to show you that rest of World doesnt understand America.

vice versa

why should 5.7 billion bend over backwards for 270 million, that is one thing americans should understand.

We need to fly you to New York and let you read your little speach before the RNC in prime time for everyone in America to see.

Bush would then win with 90% of vote and we could stop wasteing are time with politics and get back to killing terrorists.

[afrographX]

the usa are supporting the saudi theocratic dictatorship. without their help the regime couldn't have managed to stay in power for so long!

@platform389
do you remember who won the war? the communists. all teh killing all the victims on the civlian side the vietnamese side and the american side were totally senseless. they died for nothing! only for the false idea of a 'domino effect'

[Seiyuuki]

That is why Iraqis fight americans, they are not brainwashed by islam they are serving their nation, exactly as americans wanted to do after 9/11.

"Freedom fighters (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23377) my butt."

[cut]

First of all, I won't even go into WW II.

That war speaks for itself.

that's no reason to ignore the fact that the US did


Now, who besides the Vietnamese has the US "carpet bombed"?
did I say they had carpet bombed anyone else?
One nation is more than enough.. Who else has used carpet bombs against civilians, who else has bombed cities when their own cities weren't being bombed? Who else has used a nuke?


I realize the US is not innocent. It was involved in other conflicts and coups and has donr some bad things. That is not going to be argued.

The US has done plenty of good things but the lives of others are not there to be taken because some dictator has upset your president.


However, the US is far from being the only nation to having done so. Also, almost all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.

What evil things have Americans done to Saudi Arabia?

Do you know how long americans have been present on Saudi Land? Do you know the promise Roosevelt made to the Saudi monarch at the time (I forget his name, perhaps King Saud)? Do you know the conditions of that promise? Do you know where the petrol in america has come from for the past 50 years?

The people that are pissed off are not the saudi rulers but the religious leaders. The king who was betrayed by the US was King Faisal who was shot for not doing enough about it.

I'm just curious.[/quote]

[cut]

That is why Iraqis fight americans, they are not brainwashed by islam they are serving their nation, exactly as americans wanted to do after 9/11.

"Freedom fighters (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23377) my butt."

I didn't call them freedom fighters, but since you mention it, americans didn't fight the taliban they fought the Taliban for revenge, the insurgents likewise. "fighting for Freedom" is bull**** whether it comes from the mouth of Bush or Sadr

[Midav]

that's no reason to ignore the fact that the US did
What part of World War is there not to understand? We can sit here and complain “Oh man, the US nuked Japan. Bad, bad US.” Put yourself into the shoes of anyone involved in that World War.


did I say they had carpet bombed anyone else?
One nation is more than enough.. Who else has used carpet bombs against civilians, who else has bombed cities when their own cities weren't being bombed? Who else has used a nuke?

Yes, you implied that. Carpet bomb the Vietnamese etc…
Again, you are mainly talking of WW II. I believe I have clarified that already.
Besides, hmmm, there were a few nations that carpet bombed civies during that war.


Do you know how long americans have been present on Saudi Land? Do you know the promise Roosevelt made to the Saudi monarch at the time (I forget his name, perhaps King Saud)? Do you know the conditions of that promise? Do you know where the petrol in america has come from for the past 50 years?

I ask again, what evil has the US done to SA? What carpet bombings, what evil things to the populous? What?

There are plenty of people on US land. Dun see many Americans flying planes into their buildings.

Btw, it's 290 million. Also, I don't want anyone to bend over backwards for me.

I beg to use the example of the Jews in pre WW 2 Germany. This reminds me a lot of their plight.

Reason being, many were successful and held high esteemed jobs or were responsible for a lot of innovations. A lot of people became jealous and blamed all their woes on the Jews.

“Der Jude hat an allem schuld”. My Oma, German grandmother, even partook in Kristallnacht. I’m ashamed about that, but something that happened. Anway, she blamed the Jews for anything and everything, nearly until she died.

Why? She was indoctrinated. It didn’t matter what happened, a Jew was behind it somewhere. I loved her very much, but did not respect her for her ignorant views.

Like it, or not, much the same is happening with the US today. I’ve met too many people when living overseas that hated America, just for the sake of hating it. They didn’t even know why.

It’s as if humanity started right at WW II and everything was the fault of the US.

From any food crisis that happened in Africa to the history of Afghanistan. Just the type of people I have met.

It’s good to focus on one “evil”, but that just means you are leaving someone else alone, someone that may just be a “tad” worse than the US.

Think about it.

There are suicide bombings going off, children are taken hostage, beheadings, hurricanes, explosions at train stations, problems in general you name it.

Yet, US soldiers torture some people and it’s still news in the Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,316312,00.html

Just an example.

And, as said, I realize that the US is not innocent. Far from it. This country has done a lot of bad things.

However, having lived through it, a US community in Darmstadt, Germany can do a lot of good things for the surrounding German community. One US soldier, or civilian suddenly does something bad, and boom, all Americans are branded as, bad, despicable and all Amis should go home.

No, not the mentality of all German people. Just a good number.

Anyway, hope I made myself understood.

[cut]

Just goes to show you that rest of World doesnt understand America.

vice versa

why should 5.7 billion bend over backwards for 270 million, that is one thing americans should understand.

We need to fly you to New York and let you read your little speach before the RNC in prime time for everyone in America to see.

Bush would then win with 90% of vote and we could stop wasteing are time with politics and get back to killing terrorists.


You just don't get it. The US has created terrorists since 9/11 not diminished them. Europeans know that fighting terrorism successfully is not achieved by killing them let alone the regimes around them.

The world does not belong to the US, stop expecting everyone to make guns legal, keep the death penalty and be protestant christians.

[fantassin]

God forbid....

:roll:

[Laworkerbee]

cut

your one to bloody talk, the world is in quite a mess thanks for your friggin country leaving a sink whole left over from your collasping empire.

India/Pakistan=British responsibility
Israel/Palestine=British responsibility
Iraq/Kuwait=British responsibility

want me to go into how many natives were murdered at the hands of the British for contesting Englands empire?

FU and your blame game

[Operation Ivy]

Cant see how u can blame just America for bombing cities in WWII when you Brits did the same exact thing

and mabe europe needs a 9/11 to see how we feel
(not that i want that happen though)

[Siddar]

Just goes to show you that rest of World doesnt understand America.

vice versa

why should 5.7 billion bend over backwards for 270 million, that is one thing americans should understand.

We need to fly you to New York and let you read your little speach before the RNC in prime time for everyone in America to see.

Bush would then win with 90% of vote and we could stop wasteing are time with politics and get back to killing terrorists.


You just don't get it. The US has created terrorists since 9/11 not diminished them. Europeans know that fighting terrorism successfully is not achieved by killing them let alone the regimes around them.

The world does not belong to the US, stop expecting everyone to make guns legal, keep the death penalty and be protestant christians.

Nope you just dont get it. Europes (Along with America pre 9/11) with its weak response to terrorists is what creates terrorists.

The world doesnt belong to Europe eather so stop trying to tell America to get rid of are guns not kill are crimnals and to stop worshiping as we see fit.

[afrographX]

europe's whole history consists of numerous 9/11s,

[Midav]

That is one of the points I wanted to get to.

Many people think history started with WWII. Of course, that is not so. Many countries and many a politician from dozens of nations have helped form the world into what it is today. Sadly, that is conveniently and collectively forgotten.

I do sincerely wish that all "first world" nations, mainly the G-8 nations, would combine money, food, medicines, school books and the like and start helping the world.

I honestly wish that would happen. It's not just in the hands of one nation, but rather, many.

[Operation Ivy]

I do sincerely wish that all "first world" nations, mainly the G-8 nations, would combine money, food, medicines, school books and the like and start helping the world.

i doubt that will ever happen, great idea but wont happen :|

[achilles]

One of the best posts i have read so far in this forum, written by yourself and only.


The US has unleashed more firepower on civilians then any other country in history. I have always had a problem with this, because the UK and Germany may have bombed the **** out of each other in WW2 but it was mutal tit for tat. The US bombed Nazi Germany, nuclear bombed the japanese, carpet bombed the Vietnamese, etc.... But the US has only ever been attacked twice, only once prior to 9/11.


But we liberated the iraqis, why do they hate us?" some of you say, You didn't like it when people you know were killed because of the actions of your government why should they.

Its amazing how much the 'liberation' doctrine has been used so far to justify american interventionism. It is also amazing how much the american people neglect (or are unaware of) the trend of global hatred against them. That is a fact and should be alarming. Why does a very large part of the world hate the US? There must be something wrong here.
It would be nice to listen to some american views on that...why do people around the world hate you and your policy?




Of course the US no longer targets civilians (much) but when colateral damage adds up to the 9/11 death toll, those people who's country you're bombing are intitle to feel exactly as americans do. That is why Iraqis fight americans, they are not brainwashed by islam they are serving their nation, exactly as americans wanted to do after 9/11.


I believe that they are in fact braiwashed by their religion and to a very large extent. But religion is a parameter that aggrevates their fanaticism and hatred...it does not and cannot generate hatred on its own. In order to have reaction an action must have occured...physics...but it applies everywhere. Given the lack of western oppression and intervention in the middle-east, i dont things Arabs and muslims in general would be those allegedly 'barbarians' that some people are calling them today.




This is why people like me take offence to Bush being compared to Churchill. There is a huge difference between the threat of invasion by Nazis who have already taken over Europe and terrorists who pull off the biggest ever act of terrorism but are unlikely to manage it again.

As i have already posted elsewhere, that comparison was not only unfortunate but idiotic. As you said Cut, there is absolutely no reasonable comparison between the Nazi threat over the world and the arabic terrorism threat addressed mainly to the United States.
There is no comparison between the opposition that Bush faced and the opposition that Churchill faced for his preemptive approach of Hitler.
There is nothing in common between the two men...personality, intelligence, political magnitute, eloquency, credibility and motivation behind their claims for warfare. Nothing...even speaking about it feels weird. Yet for the purposes of the forthcoming elections might work for people who have never bothered doing some bed time history reading.

[afrographX]

That is one of the points I wanted to get to.

Many people think history started with WWII. Of course, that is not so. Many countries and many a politician from dozens of nations have helped form the world into what it is today.

I do sincerely wish that all "first world" nations, mainly the G-8 nations, would combine money, food, medicines, school books and the like and start helping the world.

I honestly wish that would happen. It's not just in the hands of one nation, but rather, many.

you're right it's in the hand of the whole first world to overcome their attitude of exploiting the rest of the world and start to develop an oeconomically, oecologically and socially balanced world

[cut]

that's no reason to ignore the fact that the US did
What part of World War is there not to understand? We can sit here and complain “Oh man, the US nuked Japan. Bad, bad US.” Put yourself into the shoes of anyone involved in that World War.


I have many a time. We only started bombing German cities because they bombed one of ours and even that was by mistake. Why didn't americans do the same? Japan attacked a military base.. the US bombed Tokyo. Fine if you want to shock the enemy into submission, but make sure it is a absolute last resort. Did you enjoy 9/11, do you think bombed civilians ever enjoy it?

Of all the countries at war in WW2, the one that wasn't attacked should have been the one that kept it's head.




did I say they had carpet bombed anyone else?
One nation is more than enough.. Who else has used carpet bombs against civilians, who else has bombed cities when their own cities weren't being bombed? Who else has used a nuke?

Yes, you implied that. Carpet bomb the Vietnamese etc…
Again, you are mainly talking of WW II. I believe I have clarified that already.
Besides, hmmm, there were a few nations that carpet bombed civies during that war.

Could you name the company that you're in?




Do you know how long americans have been present on Saudi Land? Do you know the promise Roosevelt made to the Saudi monarch at the time (I forget his name, perhaps King Saud)? Do you know the conditions of that promise? Do you know where the petrol in america has come from for the past 50 years?

I ask again, what evil has the US done to SA? What carpet bombings, what evil things to the populous? What?

extortion, getting all the oil you want by having troops in saudi for "protection", then the US helped aided Israel which broke the one condition for the supplying of oil. The Monarchy tried to do something about it but was powerless all they could do was raise oil prices but faced retribution from the US. Because the monarchy didn't do enough the religious heads put the pressure on them as well as getting the population against the US.

Basically, if a country does you a big favour don't abuse, and if you continue to abuse it for 50 years you get planes flying into buildings.

Of course no only will you not understand this but like George Bush prior to 9/11, you think the US is untouchable, whoever you screw over won't come back to **** you up.



There are plenty of people on US land. Dun see many Americans flying planes into their buildings.
1. americans are rich 2. americans dont get bombed 3. the US armed forces does the killing so you don't have to!

imagine you were unhappy with your puppet government which is controled by the king of england, what did you do? Revolt! and do you think that was an army you revolted with? Normal people with weapons, or as dubya calls them...terrorists.



Btw, it's 290 million. Also, I don't want anyone to bend over backwards for me.

so what? 20 million makes such a dent in 5.3 billion non-americans.


I beg to use the example of the Jews in pre WW 2 Germany. This reminds me a lot of their plight.

Reason being, many were successful and held high esteemed jobs or were responsible for a lot of innovations. A lot of people became jealous and blamed all their woes on the Jews.

“Der Jude hat an allem schuld”. My Oma, German grandmother, even partook in Kristallnacht. I’m ashamed about that, but something that happened. Anway, she blamed the Jews for anything and everything, nearly until she died.

Why? She was indoctrinated. It didn’t matter what happened, a Jew was behind it somewhere. I loved her very much, but did not respect her for her ignorant views.

Like it, or not, much the same is happening with the US today. I’ve met too many people when living overseas that hated America, just for the sake of hating it. They didn’t even know why.

Maybe you are right, maybe the US and only the US are the victims here. But considering we've all been influenced in the way we've been brought, you are right that many Europeans are influenced in their upbringing to lean towards anti-americanism. I can accept that, I know it's true, but then when you look at your own upbringing do you really think that american kids too don't have an influenced up bringing?

What makes you think that you have not been affected, why is it always everyone else?

I know that anti-americanism is part of our upbringing, at least I acknowledge that, why can't do the same and acknowledge that americans are brought up to think only about american intrests and not think of what life is like for others in the world.

It's always easy to point out faults in others and difficult to accept your own. Are you going to accept this now or blame all this on everyone but yourselves?




It’s as if humanity started right at WW II and everything was the fault of the US.

From any food crisis that happened in Africa to the history of Afghanistan. Just the type of people I have met.

It’s good to focus on one “evil”, but that just means you are leaving someone else alone, someone that may just be a “tad” worse than the US.

Think about it.

There are suicide bombings going off, children are taken hostage, beheadings, hurricanes, explosions at train stations, problems in general you name it.

Yet, US soldiers torture some people and it’s still news in the Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,316312,00.html

Just an example.

And, as said, I realize that the US is not innocent. Far from it. This country has done a lot of bad things.

However, having lived through it, a US community in Darmstadt, Germany can do a lot of good things for the surrounding German community. One US soldier, or civilian suddenly does something bad, and boom, all Americans are branded as, bad, despicable and all Amis should go home.

No, not the mentality of all German people. Just a good number.

Anyway, hope I made myself understood.


I answered this further up.

[Knutsen]

Revisionist history lessons and moral equivalency do not change the facts. Were it not for US involvement, the British would have been soundly defeated by the Germans. Churchill worked hard to pull the US into the war, if you care to do the research.


Another common mistake. One of the most unknown episodes of that war for the majority of the people is that the RUSSIANS won that war.
Yeah man, 75% of german casualties were inflicted by the russians, the biggest and most important battles happened there ( Kursk, Stalingrad).
So many hollywood movies do not change the facts rofl .
Obviously the US helped a lot in that war but without them the russians would have defeated Germany sooner or later

[achilles]

Cant see how u can blame just America for bombing cities in WWII when you Brits did the same exact thing

and mabe europe needs a 9/11 to see how we feel
(not that i want that happen though)

Your argument does not hold for the following reasons:

Europe never used nuclear firepower either on military targets on civilians.

Why do you stick only to WWII? Look at all the American wars afterwards.

We are sensitive enough to feel how you feel you dont have to worry about that and be sure that we share the grief for the 9/11 innocent victims.

PS: just to avoid any misunderstandings: i aknowledge the american contribution towards defeating the Nazis...most likely without your help we wouldnt have made it. And i realize the positive impact of your 'western' umbrella against the communist Soviet monster. But we cannot just skip criticising the good and bad aspects of the whole process.
America has comitted many fouls all along. Thats almost self-evident.

Siddar:

Nope you just dont get it. Europes (Along with America pre 9/11) with its weak response to terrorists is what creates terrorists.

Dont try to drag Europe to what happened to you, in a "pre-9/11, pro-republican" manner...we are trying to talk facts here and not politics.

9/11 was the outcome of the American and Isreali policy (whatever that is) towards the middle-east. Why is that too difficult to understand and accept?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Revisionist history lessons and moral equivalency do not change the facts. Were it not for US involvement, the British would have been soundly defeated by the Germans. Churchill worked hard to pull the US into the war, if you care to do the research.


Another common mistake. One of the most unknown episodes of that war for the majority of the people is that the RUSSIANS won that war.
Yeah man, 75% of german casualties were inflicted by the russians, the biggest and most important battles happened there ( Kursk, Stalingrad).
So many hollywood movies do not change the facts rofl .
Obviously the US helped a lot in that war but without them the russians would have defeated Germany sooner or later

....with US help, that is. The US was helping Russia with supplies and equipment. Another common mistake.

[Midav]

cut-- I'm not even going to bother wasting my time with you.

I stopped reading after the first paragraph.

You have an issue with the United States.

As you said, get your head together, then come on back and debate. Not before.

Met too many people like you in Europe and I know when I'm wasting my time.

Take care of yourself.

Midav

[achilles]

europe's whole history consists of numerous 9/11s,

could you please refresh my memory cause apparently i am missing something here...

[Operation Ivy]

Revisionist history lessons and moral equivalency do not change the facts. Were it not for US involvement, the British would have been soundly defeated by the Germans. Churchill worked hard to pull the US into the war, if you care to do the research.


Another common mistake. One of the most unknown episodes of that war for the majority of the people is that the RUSSIANS won that war.
Yeah man, 75% of german casualties were inflicted by the russians, the biggest and most important battles happened there ( Kursk, Stalingrad).
So many hollywood movies do not change the facts rofl .
Obviously the US helped a lot in that war but without them the russians would have defeated Germany sooner or later

So you wanted the USSR to run threw the rest of Europe and make everybody in Europe live under communism?

[Romulus]

Wow, Another thread that implies the US is the cause of all the worlds problems and evils. Posted by a European no less.

How original cut.

[Siddar]

Revisionist history lessons and moral equivalency do not change the facts. Were it not for US involvement, the British would have been soundly defeated by the Germans. Churchill worked hard to pull the US into the war, if you care to do the research.


Another common mistake. One of the most unknown episodes of that war for the majority of the people is that the RUSSIANS won that war.
Yeah man, 75% of german casualties were inflicted by the russians, the biggest and most important battles happened there ( Kursk, Stalingrad).
So many hollywood movies do not change the facts rofl .
Obviously the US helped a lot in that war but without them the russians would have defeated Germany sooner or later

So you wanted the USSR to run threw the rest of Europe and make everybody in Europe live under communism?

I think are European friends need to read these posts and understand that 60years ago they were given two choices eather be fasicts are communists.

Then they should thank God and America that America gave them a third choice.

[Operation Ivy]

Europe never used nuclear firepower either on military targets on civilians

It was either nuke them or have up too 1million casualties by invading Japan....and because of the destruction that the nuke brang on Japan has to be a reason why another one has never been used after that. So in way we saved lives for both sides and into today. I dont like it that we nuked Japan but those people who died from the nuke showed how horrible it was and why it should not be used again.


Why do you stick only to WWII? Look at all the American wars afterwards

was not aware that i was supposed to use example from other wars.


America has comitted many fouls all along. Thats almost self-evident
So has every other country in the world

[Knutsen]

Why do you read things i didn't write????
History is there, take it the way you want. The FACT that the biggest war effort was made by the russians doesn't mean i want to live under communism.
Following your logic, if i ever hear an american saying that the Vietnamese won the war, should i admit he's a communist?

[Trigger]

I love it. The world according to cut: The terrorists attacked you because of WW2 and Vietnam. rofl
Please. Stay in school.

[Knutsen]

This is a question for my american amigos in the forum. ( i dont want to start a new topic for this question):

Yesterday during Cheney's appearance at the republican convention he said that God wanted Americato free the world. Also Bush has said in several occasions that he is doing right cause God told him.
The thing is, whats the difference between an islamist blows himself up cause Allah told him and this sucker that invades countries cause God told him?
Why one is a good leader and the other one is a phanatic motherf****?
Or, are both sent by God?
Maybe both should be in an asylum?

Please someone explain to me the reason of this double-moral

[Operation Ivy]

Why do you read things i didn't write????
History is there, take it the way you want. The FACT that the biggest war effort was made by the russians doesn't mean i want to live under communism.
Following your logic, if i ever hear an american saying that the Vietnamese won the war, should i admit he's a communist?

I know Russia did a lot of the work, but if it wasnt for the Americans Europe would have fallen under communism

[cut]

cut

your one to bloody talk, the world is in quite a mess thanks for your friggin country leaving a sink whole left over from your collasping empire.

India/Pakistan=British responsibility
Israel/Palestine=British responsibility
Iraq/Kuwait=British responsibility

want me to go into how many natives were murdered at the hands of the British for contesting Englands empire?

FU and your blame game

Those are nations my friend not terrorist groups. If it wasn't pakistan vs india then it would have been tamil nadu vs karnataka, punjab vs rajastan etc..

I used to think Israel/Palestine was caused by british rule, but it infact was going to happen sooner or later the fact that we promised it to both of them didn't change the fact that they both thought that it belongs to them.

As for Iraq/Kuwait, you can piss right off, we did exactly the same as the Coaltion is doing now we went there for oil, at least we admitted to it, the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait had nothing to do with us.

[cut]

I love it. The world according to cut: The terrorists attacked you because of WW2 and Vietnam. rofl
Please. Stay in school.

typical yank simplify it when it can't be simplified,
please. go back to primary school ;)

[Operation Ivy]

Europeans seem to think that they are superior in every way on these fourms.

[achilles]

Siddar:

I think are European friends need to read these posts and understand that 60years ago they were given two choices eather be fasicts are communists.

Them thay should thank God and America that America gave them a third choice.

As far as i am concerned i have aknowledged what you said Siddar:

Achilles:

i aknowledge the american contribution towards defeating the Nazis...most likely without your help we wouldnt have made it. And i realize the positive impact of your 'western' umbrella against the communist Soviet monster

And i am sure every sensible European does so. (perhaps in cotrast to what you think, yes there is such a thing as a sensible european ;) )

Operation Ivy:

It was either nuke them or have up too 1million casualties by invading Japan....and because of the destruction that the nuke brang on Japan has to be a reason why another one has never been used after that. So in way we saved lives for both sides and into today. I dont like it that we nuked Japan but those people who died from the nuke showed how horrible it was and why it should not be used again.

Well lets not make it one more WWII-Japan-nuke thread ...all i have to say is that i disagree with your black-and-white approach on what could have happened in Japan. Either this...or that...i have heard elsewhere...either nuke...or carpet bombing...i am a big fan of those shades of grey between black and white. My belief is that there could have been other solutions towards crushing (indeed crushing cause they deserved it) Japan...instead of vaporizing a few hundred thousands of civilians...it might have taken longer under a hypothetical conventional operation but the cost would be lesser i believe.
And i do not agree with your trial-and-error kind of approach , at least when it comes to nuclear weapons. Given your logic we could just use a new super-nuclear (or any sort of WMD) just to demonstrate how bad it is and prevent it from happening again. Thats cannot justify the use of any WMD or just any weapon for that matter.
So yes you saved lives but there are many different ways to do so and nothing compells me to adopt the methods that have been actually used.


was not aware that i was supposed to use example from other wars.

But i didnt mean that. Speaking about the rights and wrongs of the US or any other country i think its better to view things from a holistic perspective than stick with 1 or 2 isolated events. My impression is that its the aggregate we are interested in.


So has every other country in the world

I am not talking on a personal level but it seems that when it is convenient "America rocks and kicks ass" and when its not "America its just like any other country". Bud, america is not like any other country (i have seen both sides of the atlantic and thats why i am talking)...its been number 1 for more than half a century (much more most probably) and the magnitude of its actions and the responsibility it should bare is not the same and should not be the same with 'any' country.
When we are talking about USA, the scale of everything just changes and comparisons with other countries may be biased.

I am afraid we are getting off topic here but i think such clarifications are still useful, at least for me

[Knutsen]

Operation-Ivy , that's right, i prefer this capitalist lifestyle rather than living under communism , and i really thank the US for what the did . I'm only saying that americans didn't do it themselves as many people think, they did a big thing, but the biggest thing was done by others (in this case russians).
But americans shouldn't remember that thing constantly. During the French opposition to the war in Irak americans used to say that they freed France. Ok , they did it, but for that France doesn't have to do what the US says all the time. In fact the Bush administration took France as an enemy instead of as an advice from a friend.

[Operation Ivy]

Operation-Ivy , that's right, i prefer this capitalist lifestyle rather than living under communism , and i really thank the US for what the did . I'm only saying that americans didn't do it themselves as many people think, they did a big thing, but the biggest thing was done by others (in this case russians).
But americans shouldn't remember that thing constantly. During the French opposition to the war in Irak americans used to say that they freed France. Ok , they did it, but for that France doesn't have to do what the US says all the time. In fact the Bush administration took France as an enemy instead of as an advice from a friend.

Yea i know what u mean, America did not to face the full force of the German Army like Russia, but remember we also had to fight two fronts while Russia was only one, so really Germany didnt see the full force of the American Army either.
Yea France doesnt have to listen us just like how we dont listen to them p-)

[cut]

Cant see how u can blame just America for bombing cities in WWII when you Brits did the same exact thing
read what I bloody wrote! we used incederary bombs on german civilians, yes, stop making yourself out to be the victim. All I pointed out was that not a single british or german bomb was intentionally dropped first.

Translation: the germans dropped a bomb on a british city, first but by mistake and that's waht started the tit for tat bombings, such as the destruction of Dresden and Coventry.




and mabe europe needs a 9/11 to see how we feel
(not that i want that happen though)

maybe but if it happened we'd feel exactly like you did AND exactly like iraqis feel now.

[Laworkerbee]

Those are nations my friend not terrorist groups. If it wasn't pakistan vs india then it would have been tamil nadu vs karnataka, punjab vs rajastan etc..

I used to think Israel/Palestine was caused by british rule, but it infact was going to happen sooner or later the fact that we promised it to both of them didn't change the fact that they both thought that it belongs to them.

As for Iraq/Kuwait, you can piss right off, we did exactly the same as the Coaltion is doing now we went there for oil, at least we admitted to it, the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait had nothing to do with us.


Typical

Indian/Paki conflict has spawned endless STATE SANTIONED TEROR AND MURDER
Israeli/Palestine in a way created modern terorism

BOTH simply because the British "CUT" AND RAN WITH THEIR TAILS BETWEEN THEIR LEGGS leaving a mess in their wake, period! at least be man enough to own up to it while accusing of horrible Americans of butchering the world.

In 1897, Kuwait was made a British protectorate. Cut from the cloth of Iraq and also left to fester while your empire crumbled... of course you have no responsibility there either

shall I go into the British adventures in Africa and the millions of people who suffer today because of lines drawn on maps by your empire?.

BRING IT.

[Knutsen]

and mabe europe needs a 9/11 to see how we feel
(not that i want that happen though)


Maybe we don't know how you feel, but you've never lived a war, you've never been a refugee, you have never had to be afraid of your neighbour cause he has a different side. You haven't had your cities destroyed, your women raped and your men shot and buried in a mass grave.
Maybe that's the point that makes US and Europe soooooo different about wars and the use of military force.

And don't talk about WW2 , it's not the same to go to another country knowing you'll have a place to come back than fighting for your own home.

[Operation Ivy]

the germans dropped a bomb on a british city, first but by mistake

Mistake?? never herd of a mistake like that

[achilles]

Ok, i expect the next post to be referring to Alexander the Great and his imperialist approach to Asia....and after that i will blame the Persians for doing the same... ;)

PS: i though this thread was about US now if we start digging up everyone's sins...we better call it a day ;)


PS: goes to laworkerbee's post

[Maj Kong]

Actually I thought the Germans did start it with Warsaw and Rotterdam. And I don't really buy that "oops ve have droppenzie eine bomb by mistake" stuff. That started in WW1 with zepplins over London.

I would just like to say I don't hold the U.S. up to be perfect but hey we've only been at it for a little over half a century...white Europeans exploited and murdered colored peoples of the world for some 500 years...now we're just dealing with the aftermath of troubles created when all of your empires collapsed..."all the pink parts" right?

[steel bonnet]

Well as a Brit,

I`d first off like to say l don`t support or believe in Cuts Anti Bush/Anti US thinking.

Britain as already has been pointed out are responsible for a lot of the mess in the world since we starting letting our Empire slip away.
I don`t think any UK/European person can blame the US for it`s going on`s as they have tried to wade through the messes left in Asia/Afica/Mid East which were started by British & other European nations.

Vietnam is more a French problem than US,at least the US wanted to help.

We carved up Arabia along with other Euros,yet alas the US is the nation to suffer the blight of that ever since.

Also l agree we have done as much if not more harm to civilians than the US,after all we Brits invented the Concentration camps,that the Nazi`s went onto refined it (sick as it sounds that`s what they basically did).

What`s more when we used the concentration camps in S.Africa,it was against mainly women & children,Not Soldiers.

If Great Britain was still as powerfull today & with the modern armarments of todays world at it`s disposal,good god,there would have been a few Atom bombs dropped if we had them.

We in the UK alas have been slowly brainwashed to be lilly livered Liberal Minded idiots who hate anything that`s not PC.

The Churchill/Bush comparison or the way l see it,is Churchill buggered up several times prior to taking the leader role of GB,though whilst there still made a few callious calls.

Bush too has made some bad calls,though also some Good calls too.

Not often we get any Leader in the world that is 100% correct all the time.

I think it`s bad that a nation that`s relied on the US so many times since they took the centre stage (even if they didn`t ask for it) has so many people who are willing to stab them in the back,just because the rest of Europe has plans to become a Unified NATION to take on the US in the near future does not mean the UK should falter away in shouldering up to our one true friend.

Also look at Germany now,it`s one of the main leaders of Europe now,tried twice via war,now via politics has done just that & again France is happy to lap it up. So of course they & there underling Euro nations have taken a stance against the US,as they have some negative feelings to the US.
We`re accepted only because they want us to fall into line & finally give in,hopefully not though.

So someone has to take a stand & bring these murdering Religious fantatics to justice/impliment justice out in the field. The US has done just that.

If we had old Vickie (Queen Victoria) on the throne still today,good god Arabia would be in flames if the same was done on GB mainland (9/11 disaster).

That one tinpot country is the Arabias has been tackled & freed,now to the next & so on.

SB

[Operation Ivy]

Maybe we don't know how you feel, but you've never lived a war, you've never been a refugee, you have never had to be afraid of your neighbour cause he has a different side. You haven't had your cities destroyed, your women raped and your men shot and buried in a mass grave.
Maybe that's the point that makes US and Europe soooooo different about wars and the use of military force
And what happened when your cities were destroyed,and your women were raped exc u fought back!

So we were just supposed to sit around and do nothing? I fully support what we did in Afganistan, Iraq is a different story

[Sir Zach of R.]

Cant see how u can blame just America for bombing cities in WWII when you Brits did the same exact thing
read what I bloody wrote! we used incederary bombs on german civilians, yes, stop making yourself out to be the victim. All I pointed out was that not a single british or german bomb was intentionally dropped first.

Translation: the germans dropped a bomb on a british city, first but by mistake and that's waht started the tit for tat bombings, such as the destruction of Dresden and Coventry.




and mabe europe needs a 9/11 to see how we feel
(not that i want that happen though)

maybe but if it happened we'd feel exactly like you did AND exactly like iraqis feel now.

I still don't understand what you mean by "how the Iraqis feel." I don't think the Kurds give a **** what happens to the shiites or the suunis. Vice Versa. Understand that after 9/11 America was up in arms because this was intentional. I guess you have to be American to understand it. Not just conservatives were pissed off that day, but everyone in America. Some people just know how to stay the course until the favor is returned. What happens to Iraqi civilians is a terrible, but that's war, it's hell ya'know. It's not like we went around intentionally killing civilians. I could name a few instances where a few British Challenger tanks killed a group of civilians. :bash: :backhand:

I just realized how stupid we all sound in this Europe vs. America battle royal. :cantbeli:

[Laworkerbee]

steel bonnet

Thank you, our countries have shared to much blood together to play these blame games.

I will cease fire, though not if Cut crosses into my LOF again, my finger might twitch

[Maj Kong]

I'm with Steel Bonnet. Let's not arrrrgue about whooo killed who...

I think Great Britain and the US will always be great friends because we have a common suspicion of "ze Germans" and the French. Actually from a military perspective I've always found great friendship with exchange officers from Britain, Australia, and Canada. The continentals have been friendly but they were always a little leery. My contacts with Polish and Estonian soldiers have been more positive.

[Knutsen]

Operation Ivy, although i don't think a war is an appropriate response to a terrorist act i support the intervention in A-Stan for some reasons.
A-Stan was without any trace of doubt a country that supported terrorists, and being such a closed country it was impossible to apply the normal methods.
But i think it was a "good" war, i mean , a war like that , carried out by a small number of highly trained soldiers has small impact on civilian population ( not like in Irak)

Anyways, i think the US is going in the wrong direction, i mean , invading irak is unacceptable and if you want to fight islamic terrorism then you should go to the source , that is , Saudi Arabia and all those rich saudis that help terrorist organisations.

But a war has to be the last resource, for example here in Spain when we are hit by terrorist , our police forces and intel agency work really hard to take the responsibles to prision, and that doesn't mean we are coward and don't fight terrorism , as many americans think

[2Sheds_Jackson]

This is a question for my american amigos in the forum. ( i dont want to start a new topic for this question):

Yesterday during Cheney's appearance at the republican convention he said that God wanted Americato free the world. Also Bush has said in several occasions that he is doing right cause God told him.
The thing is, whats the difference between an islamist blows himself up cause Allah told him and this sucker that invades countries cause God told him?
Why one is a good leader and the other one is a phanatic motherf****?
Or, are both sent by God?
Maybe both should be in an asylum?

Please someone explain to me the reason of this double-moral

A valid and interesting question. The reason why one is an insane suicide bomber, and a US Soldier is not, is becuase America is a Democracy. A US Soldier is not a puppet on strings controlled singularly by George Bush. Bush and Cheney can use God, their dogs, or read tea leaves for inspiration, but we have a process in place that prevents them from acting alone - like a suicide bomber does. People are free to think as they wish, it is action that must be scrutinized. Who can police inside another's head?

There are checks and balances, agencies that gather data, asses impacts, coordinate with allies and the UN, look at contingencies etc. We may not always agree with the UN or all our allies, but they were not bypassed in the process. There is a big difference. This is not a one man show. The President as well as all government agencies are also obliged to follow established law and cannot (at least openly) just start harvesting an endless supply of replacement organs for **** Cheney from a secret human farm of captive Mexicans.

For your analogy to ring true, our Congress, Senate, Joint Chiefs, a long string of commanders down to individual soldiers, not to mention the Press, and the electorate would all have to be religious zealots.

Personally I do not as a rule find fault with people that look to religion for guidance. The alternative is a self-generated morality that can be far more radical than any dogma agreed to by two or more people.

[scm77]

The US isn't deliberately attacking civillians in Iraq. They try to avoid civillian casualties at all costs. Sometimes smart bombs miss their target or a civillian building is mistaken for a military target, and that is unfortunate.

But that in no way compares to terrorists flying a planes full of innocent civillians into buildings full of innocent civillians.

how about this:

some people go off the rails and commit acts of terrorism and that is unfortunate.

The US doesn't intentionally bomb civillians. Terrorists do intentionally kill civillians.

[Siddar]

Cut said.
maybe but if it happened we'd feel exactly like you did AND exactly like iraqis feel now.

Now I dont agree with your analogy but sense you made it and also feel qualified to say how America should have reacted to 9/11 could you also give us your views on how Iraq should have reacted?

[cut]

Those are nations my friend not terrorist groups. If it wasn't pakistan vs india then it would have been tamil nadu vs karnataka, punjab vs rajastan etc..

I used to think Israel/Palestine was caused by british rule, but it infact was going to happen sooner or later the fact that we promised it to both of them didn't change the fact that they both thought that it belongs to them.

As for Iraq/Kuwait, you can piss right off, we did exactly the same as the Coaltion is doing now we went there for oil, at least we admitted to it, the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait had nothing to do with us.


Typical

Indian/Paki conflict has spawned endless STATE SANTIONED TEROR AND MURDER
Israeli/Palestine in a way created modern terorism

BOTH simply because the British "CUT" AND RAN WITH THEIR TAILS BETWEEN THEIR LEGGS leaving a mess in their wake, period! at least be man enough to own up to it while accusing of horrible Americans of butchering the world.

In 1897, Kuwait was made a British protectorate. Cut from the cloth of Iraq and also left to fester while your empire crumbled... of course you have no responsibility there either

shall I go into the British adventures in Africa and the millions of people who suffer today because of lines drawn on maps by your empire?.

BRING IT.



first off calm down, I'm not blaming the worlds troubles on the US. I'm blaming the US's troubles on the US.

That's why it's uncalled for you to start blaming the British Empire for the worlds hotspots.
Pakistan split from India a bit like Ireland split from Northern Ireland/Britain, that problem can't be fixed overnight

[cut]

Cut said.
maybe but if it happened we'd feel exactly like you did AND exactly like iraqis feel now.

Now I dont agree with your analogy but sense you made it and also feel qualified to say how America should have reacted to 9/11 could you also give us your views on how Iraq should have reacted?

Good question. Simply said, I'm saying that you cannot criticise iraqis for the insurgency and praise americans for the war on terror (Afghanistan). They are one and the same reaction, a patriotic one. On such a patriotic forum I would expect you to understand that.

[cut]

The US isn't deliberately attacking civillians in Iraq. They try to avoid civillian casualties at all costs. Sometimes smart bombs miss their target or a civillian building is mistaken for a military target, and that is unfortunate.

But that in no way compares to terrorists flying a planes full of innocent civillians into buildings full of innocent civillians.

how about this:

some people go off the rails and commit acts of terrorism and that is unfortunate.

The US doesn't intentionally bomb civillians. Terrorists do intentionally kill civillians.

that's true but does that really make a difference when your loved one is dead?

[cut]

I would just like to say I don't hold the U.S. up to be perfect but hey we've only been at it for a little over half a century...white Europeans exploited and murdered colored peoples of the world for some 500 years...now we're just dealing with the aftermath of troubles created when all of your empires collapsed..."all the pink parts" right?

I was wondering how long it would take one of you to come up with something entirely off-topic like this. White americans also exploited and murdered black people and upheld slavery a lot longer then we did. In fact we convinced countries like Brazil to abolish slavery before you did.
Criticise the British Empire all you want but it backs up my point, Bush is acting exactly like the "Evil" British Empire did. The "white man's burden" is exactly Bush's ethos, bringing "freedom to the world" all this jargon was first used by the British Empire. It was as true then as it is now.

[achilles]

Just a question to this thread:
Going back in time without any restriction, would you say that the US has been a more 'bloody' empire than preceeding ones?

[DE_Six]

This thread should have been asorted to a highly flammable sign. Another blame-game thread.

Someone said "the Americans are ignorant about the world".

To which someone replied "the world is ignorant about America".

To which someone rebutted "well, there's more non-Americans than Americans, so you open up first."

To which I'm tempted to reply "America is the world's dominant power, so you better understand it"...

This obviously ain't going nowhere.
Truth is, my travels to the US and Europe has brought me to meet a lot of interesting people, but what struck me, as I already mentioned in an old thread, is the mutual ignorance. Mutual being the key word. Some Europeans have a thorough grasp of America. Some Americans know Europe to a great extent. And there's a lot of ignorant people surrounding these two types of person. People that know each other well, strength and weakness alike, know better than blame the other and try to present him in a bad way. Because they are equally subject to criticism.

Why don't you just drop it already?

[Operation Ivy]

Just a question to this thread:
Going back in time without any restriction, would you say that the US has been a more 'bloody' empire than preceeding ones?

are u trying to start an argument......come on you know thats flamebait

[achilles]

This thread should have been asorted to a highly flammable sign. Another blame-game thread.

Someone said "the Americans are ignorant about the world".

To which someone replied "the world is ignorant about America".

To which someone rebutted "well, there's more non-Americans than Americans, so you open up first."

To which I'm tempted to reply "America is the world's dominant power, so you better understand it"...

This obviously ain't going nowhere.
Truth is, my travels to the US and Europe has brought me to meet a lot of interesting people, but what struck me, as I already mentioned in an old thread, is the mutual ignorance. Mutual being the key word. Some Europeans have a thorough grasp of America. Some Americans know Europe to a great extent. And there's a lot of ignorant people surrounding these two types of person. People that know each other well, strength and weakness alike, know better than blame the other and try to present him in a bad way. Because they are equally subject to criticism.

Why don't you just drop it already?

DE6 this is supposed to be political discussion and RANTS right? ;)
Let everyone bring it on p-)

But seriously i think the thread started really well, with a well thought topic and first post but turned into, as usually, into a ****-hitting-the-fan war, where everybody is blaming everybody else just in order to escape criticism. What is striking is the inability/unwillngness of some people to do some self-criticism....eg: a brit says US has done this and that and is doing this and that...a huge majority of american go like: yeah but brits have been butchers before us, brutal colonialists and a bloody empire...i see a reluctance, especially from the american side to do some serious self-criticism...the line between patriotism and blindness can be very thin sometimes and easy to cross and that includes myself as well.

[achilles]

Just a question to this thread:
Going back in time without any restriction, would you say that the US has been a more 'bloody' empire than preceeding ones?

are u trying to start an argument......come on you know thats flamebait

No not at all...it can become a flamebait depending on how people will react...if we start flaming i m out of here as i did earlier when i saw that this thread was not really going anywhere apart from being 'fun' for all posters. Its a reasonable question, historically speaking. You can take it as my curiosity to see what are the opinions around here on that.

My asnwer to that (surprisingly?) is no...USA is not the bloodiest empire and in fact may be one of the less bloody...the Ottomans for instance can be considered one of the bloodiest 'empires' ever, and i am quoting since they have not been notorious for creating any particular civilization, as most typical empires. Other bloody empires? Britain no doubt about that...
We got no actual numbers to base an answer but perhaps we can speak in terms of any empire's attitude or practice or image....you name it.
If i were to nominate one...Ottomans get the gold...strangely US appears moderate historically speaking.

[DE_Six]

You are right, it is quite civil.

But it was still a highly-opinionated flame-bait to start with. ;)

[Operation Ivy]

Just a question to this thread:
Going back in time without any restriction, would you say that the US has been a more 'bloody' empire than preceeding ones?

are u trying to start an argument......come on you know thats flamebait

No not at all...it can become a flamebait depending on how people will react...if we start flaming i m out of here as i did earlier when i saw that this thread was not really going anywhere apart from being 'fun' for all posters. Its a reasonable question, historically speaking. You can take it as my curiosity to see what are the opinions around here on that.

My asnwer to that (surprisingly?) is no...USA is not the bloodiest empire and in fact may be one of the less bloody...the Ottomans for instance can be considered one of the bloodiest 'empires' ever, and i am quoting since they have not been notorious for creating any particular civilization, as most typical empires. Other bloody empires? Britain no doubt about that...
We got no actual numbers to base an answer but perhaps we can speak in terms of any empire's attitude or practice or image....you name it.
If i were to nominate one...Ottomans get the gold...strangely US appears moderate historically speaking.

I know it was a good question but you know some1 is going to freak out about it one way or another and thus that=4 pages of flames p-)

and being American im biased so of course im gonna say no and of course some1 in Europe will say yes and thus it begins ;)

[BarkingSquirrel]

The entire idea that we shouldn't bomb an enemy stonghold - that they knowingly put in the middle of a city - for the sole reason that ours aren't being bombed is preposterous.

That is so far into the realm of idiocy, that I wouldn't give you a shapened pencil, for fear that you'd win the Darwin award with it.

[James]

Just a question to this thread:
Going back in time without any restriction, would you say that the US has been a more 'bloody' empire than preceeding ones?

No. We have brought and helped to bring freedom to far more people than we ever hurt - in fact, far more people than any other nations combined, in history. Since late 2001 alone, we have removed two oppressive dictatorships and offered the potential for democracy and freedom to more than 53 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We do have a messy past, though.

[Knutsen]

James, you may have brought freedom for those countries, but YOUR freedom, a kind of freedom they don't want.
It may surprise you but they don't wan't McDonalds, they don't want an end of school party....they don't wat our kind of freedom.
The other day i watched a documentary about irak, and the majority of people said that the only freedom they could get nowadays was on TV and Internet. The situation in irak is worse, there's more insecurity and with Saddam they were opressed but they could still have a normal life.
I'm not saying that, it's what some irakis say (and not some militia men, just normal irakis).

Imagine if you were at home and then you were bombed by another country cause they think it's their duty.I know it's difficult but make the effort.

[radon]

and mabe europe needs a 9/11 to see how we feel
(not that i want that happen though)

What do you suggest? WW1 redone? I think maybe they down there have had enough of that already, even if it's another generation but it must affect the culture there.

[Maj C]

I was wondering how long it would take one of you to come up with something entirely off-topic like this. White americans also exploited and murdered black people and upheld slavery a lot longer then we did. In fact we convinced countries like Brazil to abolish slavery before you did.
Criticise the British Empire all you want but it backs up my point, Bush is acting exactly like the "Evil" British Empire did. The "white man's burden" is exactly Bush's ethos, bringing "freedom to the world" all this jargon was first used by the British Empire. It was as true then as it is now.

I'm not saying we're good guys - white Americans have been just as guilty as white Europeans of doing bad things and I have the utmost respect for what the British were able to accomplish in their time, in fact I think many countries were better off in some ways as part of the commonwealth....but...I think in our young (relatively) naive kind of way we still try to do good things for people too. We're still learning - and maybe we're wrong to interfere but sometimes it seems like the right thing to do..for our interests and for some altruistic reasons too. Like they say "y'all that have not sinned can cast the first stone"

you mentioned Vietnam - suggest you visit some of the expat Vietnamese communities here to see if they think we fought for the wrong side. I went to school with and served in the Marine Corps with refugees who fled the Communists and there is no doubt in their mind we tried to do the right thing.

[szr]

The US has unleashed more firepower on civilians then any other country in history. I have always had a problem with this, because the UK and Germany may have bombed the **** out of each other in WW2 but it was mutal tit for tat. The US bombed Nazi Germany, nuclear bombed the japanese, carpet bombed the Vietnamese, etc.... But the US has only ever been attacked twice, only once prior to 9/11.


Perhaps weve only been attacked on our homeland twice because of our excessive use of firepower?

;)

hope you enjoy 9/11 then, because that is the resultYour logic is flawless.. :cantbeli:
9/11 came at the heels of the most passive administration the US has had in half a century.

[Vihta]

James, you may have brought freedom for those countries, but YOUR freedom, a kind of freedom they don't want.
It may surprise you but they don't wan't McDonalds, they don't want an end of school party....they don't wat our kind of freedom.
The other day i watched a documentary about irak, and the majority of people said that the only freedom they could get nowadays was on TV and Internet. The situation in irak is worse, there's more insecurity and with Saddam they were opressed but they could still have a normal life.
I'm not saying that, it's what some irakis say (and not some militia men, just normal irakis).

Imagine if you were at home and then you were bombed by another country cause they think it's their duty.I know it's difficult but make the effort.


Excellent post. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Also, I think that it is very hard to export things like "freedom" and "democracy". Usually people have to fight themselves to get them and they will do it if they want it badly enough.

I also agree with Cut that to me it looks like the Americans are making things harder for themselves with their actions. Many other countries are doing that, too. I find it very hard to understand how terrorism could be won with a war as there is no fixed number of terrorists. It would be easy to say "We have now killed approximately 21% of terrorists and at the current rate of killed terrorists / day the war will end at 25th Oct 2005" or something similar.

Terrorism will exist as long as people feel that they are being exploited, oppressed etc by others. When the world starts to get more balanced (economically and socially) terrorism will slowly die away as people no longer have reasons to strap dynamite around them. Or at least that what I believe. Violence results in more violence.

I'm sorry if my english is bad, it's only my third language.

[steel bonnet]

Well as l`ve already said,the US is doing the right thing in a century it was pushed to the front by other nations.

With that & all the Anti US way of doing things,maybe the US should just pull the plug & do what so many feared Bush was going to do as soon as he took office.

That fear if any can recall was make the US an Isolated Nation. Leave the world to it`s own devises.

Though he was swayed from that & again the US has had to take the lead role.

Now once the US pulls all it`s might & resources back to it`s own borders only.
What happens to the rest of the world??
Just to please the bleeding Liberal/Commie minded,Thousands if not Millions of people will be killed,countries destroyed,bad idealists will be able to take control of Nations.
Result a worse World than we have now & what will the civillians be doing from all of these nations........They`ll be banging on the walls of the US of A begging refugee status.

People are using quotes about Iraqis claiming it`s a worse country,to a part yes till the new Gov truely establish itself & the Foriegn terrorists stop acting on the bahalf of Alla it will be a Horrible place.
That`s why the US & Coalition forces are there,to help protect those innocents,those who do want a new peacefull life though not an opressed life.
It will come it`s just going to take time & if the Media stopped it`s biased reporting maybe things would get sorted quicker.

We in Europe have tried to take from others by force as & when it was needed.Check your history books before you deny this.
The US as too,though since pushed to centre stage as the World leader has taken a more active part in protecting people from terror & tyranny.

It`s ashame a Great shame too many Euros/Brits/whatever you are just want to knock the US when something is snagged & then not say anything for all the good the US has done.

We in the free world should be thankfull to the US as if not for there centre stage seat (forced by Churchill & others),the free world wouldn`t be where it`s at now with all the gripers,we`d be suffering the same fate as those who are surpressed now.

We need to have the US be there,good god if they did close borders,do you think Europe would lead in taking over,think again. To busy wanting to play the fractions in another nation against there Euro neighbour. It`s ol hat & it`ll NEVER change.

SB

[steel bonnet]

Terrorism will exist also as long as the Media keep covering it also.

SB

[cut]

Terrorism will exist also as long as the Media keep covering it also.

SB

it would even if the media don't cover it.

[steel bonnet]

Yes l do agree though not as much IMHO.

Ever since Media parasites started travelling the globe,the art or terrorism has used a willing service to there ends (Or is it TWO parasites feeding off each other l wonder??).
In effect having an extra weapon against whoever there grief is with.

I do know it would continue,though how many in the past wouldn`t have happened had it not been for the Media coverage?
High level Shock tactics & coming off as the victims is still a main goal of terrorists,unless there the Fanatic types (Religious or not).

SB

[James]

James, you may have brought freedom for those countries, but YOUR freedom, a kind of freedom they don't want.
It may surprise you but they don't wan't McDonalds, they don't want an end of school party....they don't wat our kind of freedom.
The other day i watched a documentary about irak, and the majority of people said that the only freedom they could get nowadays was on TV and Internet. The situation in irak is worse, there's more insecurity and with Saddam they were opressed but they could still have a normal life.
I'm not saying that, it's what some irakis say (and not some militia men, just normal irakis).

Imagine if you were at home and then you were bombed by another country cause they think it's their duty.I know it's difficult but make the effort.

Read my post again - I said we brought the POTENTIAL for peace and democracy to those countries. They need to work at it on their own, but it wouldn't have happened without us.
The people I talked to in Afghanistan are VERY happy that we are there and that the Taliban is gone. They want us to stay until things get settled.
McDonalds? WTF?

[BadKarma26]

"Bringing the terrorists to justice and attacking Iraq are not mutually exclusive. Iraqis have no inocent civilians then? When innocent civilians become collateral damage, it is somehow more righteous then terrorist killing civilians? Why should there be double standards? Are Iraqis not entitled to act like they have to the invasion. "

Yes it is more righteous because they purposely target civilians and we don't. Simple as that.

[BadKarma26]

James, you may have brought freedom for those countries, but YOUR freedom, a kind of freedom they don't want.
It may surprise you but they don't wan't McDonalds, they don't want an end of school party....they don't wat our kind of freedom.
The other day i watched a documentary about irak, and the majority of people said that the only freedom they could get nowadays was on TV and Internet. The situation in irak is worse, there's more insecurity and with Saddam they were opressed but they could still have a normal life.
I'm not saying that, it's what some irakis say (and not some militia men, just normal irakis).

Imagine if you were at home and then you were bombed by another country cause they think it's their duty.I know it's difficult but make the effort.

Idoubt Japan wanted our kind of freedom after WWII too but that doesn't mean they dont appreciate it now. And guess what!? They LOVE McDonalds! It just takes time thats all. Give them time and theyll learn to love freedom.

[pistol]

The US has unleashed more firepower on civilians then any other country in history.

Firepower? Maybe. On civilians? That's debateable. Has the US killed more civilians than any other country in history? Probably not. I guess since there are those in England who, despite their government's involvement in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, feel like they can sufficiently distance themselves from this fact and place all blame squarely on the citizens of the United States, I suppose we could take a look at British history. How many men, women, and children died in the name of British imperialism? How many people in Ireland, India, Africa, North America, and SE Asia were slaughtered, imprisoned, or humliated for refusing to submit to British rule? Yet you, as a citizen of Britain, are still self-righteous enough to chastise Americans for Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Hiroshima? You don't speak for the world, nor are, I suspect, the people of America intersted in a lecture base upon your holier-than-thou hypocritical swill.

[Knutsen]

Ok , James, i think you didn't uderstand me so i'll explain myself in some kind of philosophical way:

We (the western world) think we are right and everyone should live the way we live, and they (no matter who) think the way they live is the best one. What we (and they) don't understand is that the other side don't want to live like we do. All the powerful civilisations had the same feelings, who would ever imagine that the romans were beaten by some savages with stones and sticks? who would think Napoleon was to be beaten by some poor Spaniards in Bailen in the 19th century?
the problem is that when some people are the dominant military power (now the US) they tend to think that they can change the world to make it look like them. Everyone felt on their own arrogance, what's good for you might be bad for them and vice versa.
No matter how many carriers you have , and how many nuclear warheads you have, one day someone will kick your ass and then they'll think they own the world and can change it and then they'll be kicked by someone and it will never end.
You can't impose your culture to anyone, diversity is the wealth of humanity, it's our best treasure and at the same time is what kills us.

Personally i prefer our lifestyle (wich basically is the same as yours) , but they don't , and you can't change it.

Don't take it as an attack to the US, it will always be the same

[Knutsen]

pistol , just one thought:
Is it worse to kill 200 people at the same time or killing 1000 one by one?

[James]

Ok , James, i think you didn't uderstand me so i'll explain myself in some kind of philosophical way:

We (the western world) think we are right and everyone should live the way we live, and they (no matter who) think the way they live is the best one. What we (and they) don't understand is that the other side don't want to live like we do. All the powerful civilisations had the same feelings, who would ever imagine that the romans were beaten by some savages with stones and sticks? who would think Napoleon was to be beaten by some poor Spaniards in Bailen in the 19th century?
the problem is that when some people are the dominant military power (now the US) they tend to think that they can change the world to make it look like them. Everyone felt on their own arrogance, what's good for you might be bad for them and vice versa.
No matter how many carriers you have , and how many nuclear warheads you have, one day someone will kick your ass and then they'll think they own the world and can change it and then they'll be kicked by someone and it will never end.
You can't impose your culture to anyone, diversity is the wealth of humanity, it's our best treasure and at the same time is what kills us.

Personally i prefer our lifestyle (wich basically is the same as yours) , but they don't , and you can't change it.

Don't take it as an attack to the US, it will always be the same

I agree with that, though I don't count myself as one who thinks our way of life is for everyone. I stand by my earlier answer to the question about U.S. History. We have helped far more people than we have hurt.

[cut]

The US has unleashed more firepower on civilians then any other country in history.

Firepower? Maybe. On civilians? That's debateable. Has the US killed more civilians than any other country in history? Probably not. I guess since there are those in England who, despite their government's involvement in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, feel like they can sufficiently distance themselves from this fact and place all blame squarely on the citizens of the United States, I suppose we could take a look at British history. How many men, women, and children died in the name of British imperialism? How many people in Ireland, India, Africa, North America, and SE Asia were slaughtered, imprisoned, or humliated for refusing to submit to British rule? Yet you, as a citizen of Britain, are still self-righteous enough to chastise Americans for Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Hiroshima? You don't speak for the world, nor are, I suspect, the people of America intersted in a lecture base upon your holier-than-thou hypocritical swill.

Don't worry mate, I'm not trying to lecture you, just give you an idea of a point of view shared by many, many people across Europe and the world. And I'm talking about your "free world" not the likes of arab countries. It's funny you came up with that "holier-than-thou" comment. "holier-then-thou" perfectly sums up american attitude to a lot of places.

[pistol]

The US bombed Nazi Germany, nuclear bombed the japanese, carpet bombed the Vietnamese, etc.... But the US has only ever been attacked twice, only once prior to 9/11.

What the world hoped was that the US would realise the affect of what their bombing does

So on 9/11 all across Europe people were going: "I hope those lousy Americans finally learn their lesson from all that bombing during WWII and Vietnam"? :roll:

If you are going to use examples like this to try to shame America, at least pick conflicts that didn't involve large numbers of Europeans. It only makes you sound more and more hypocritical.

[cut]

The US bombed Nazi Germany, nuclear bombed the japanese, carpet bombed the Vietnamese, etc.... But the US has only ever been attacked twice, only once prior to 9/11.

What the world hoped was that the US would realise the affect of what their bombing does

So on 9/11 all across Europe people were going: "I hope those lousy Americans finally learn their lesson from all that bombing during WWII and Vietnam"? :roll:

If you are going to use examples like this to try to shame America, at least pick conflicts that didn't involve large numbers of Europeans. It only makes you sound more and more hypocritical.

get it into your thick skull that I'm not trying to shame america. People in Europe and elsewhere in the world (like india where I happened to be at the time) said that 9/11 was obviously a terrible terrible thing to happen to anyone but that perhaps the US could take something from this.

I have said it before in this thread but you clearly chose not to read it; the war in Afghanistan was acceptable, but going to war in Iraq did nothing but help al qaeda and endanger everyone. The problem with people like you, pistol is that the world is black and white for you, as Bush says goodies and baddies, unfortunately this is bollocks and most people realise that when they are teenagers.

I for one was for the war in Iraq unlike the vast majority of Brits. The problem that I have is with the timing. Iraq should have waited.

Had Bush been less hawkish and cared about the safety of the free world and america, if he had not been so eager to finish his dad's business, not only would americans in my estimation quite happily given him his second term, but he would have had world support. Bush himself said that the war on terror was an important war, why did he have to start a war in Iraq then?

[Midav]

People, why do you waste your time with cut? He has a personal issue with the United States and the people of this country.

If he actually visited here and found everyone the way he explains it in this forum, then he was just looking for a problem.

If you just want to see negative things, then that's all you will see.

In my travels and years being in Europe, I met a lot of arrogant, rude and holier than thou people, the same types of people as he descbribes Americans to be in "al lot of places". However, I have met many more good and generally nice Europeans in my travels and won't let the few judge the many.

Europe, or better yet, the EU is a powerful entity and capable of changing a lot in the world. Just the same as politics anywhere in the world ne it the US, ME, Asia etc, EU politicians look after their own gain, wealth and power and anyone with some intelligence will realize that.

A lot can be changed and done but nothing happenes.

Cut already has his mind made up. Met too many people like him and it's worthless to debate someone with an opinion.

Just my $0.02: just let the thread die. It's pointless.

Already said I am wasting my time here and I'm off.

[cut]

I have no personal issue with the people of my country, you pressume too much about brits.

you have the same opinion of the EU as I have of the US, let's leave it at that shall we midav?

[Midav]

You did not even try to comprehend what I said.

Btw, what opinion do you have of the US?

[cut]

You did not even try to comprehend what I said.

Btw, what opinion do you have of the US?

as a nation?

[Midav]

What opinion do you have of the US in general?

Come on, no games. Just answer.

[Midav]

Ok, this is taking too long.

My opinion in general on the EU: I like it. Having a united Europe is fantastic! Being a dual citizen and having benefits has its good sides.

However, in intl politics and intervetion wise, I wish the EU would do more.

And yes, this is how I have always felt. I disagree with certain issues of the EU, but as whole, I think it's great.

You.

[cut]

Nice people, nice country, skewed politics (to the right) which is not necessarily a bad thing, but I think some kind of counter balance is needed. Even if it is in eternal opposition.

as a place to visit, albania in neon was my favourite quote, meaning that everything is nice to look, but lacks something.

I prefer my own country, but then few people on this forum prefer a country other than their own. I also prefer my own continent which is an issue that devides Brits..

If there's anything I didn't answer you'll have to narrow it down.

[cut]

Ok, this is taking too long.



sorry dodgy connection atm

[pistol]

get it into your thick skull that I'm not trying to shame america. People in Europe and elsewhere in the world (like india where I happened to be at the time) said that 9/11 was obviously a terrible terrible thing to happen to anyone but that perhaps the US could take something from this.

I have said it before in this thread but you clearly chose not to read it; the war in Afghanistan was acceptable, but going to war in Iraq did nothing but help al qaeda and endanger everyone. The problem with people like you, pistol is that the world is black and white for you, as Bush says goodies and baddies, unfortunately this is bollocks and most people realise that when they are teenagers.

I for one was for the war in Iraq unlike the vast majority of Brits. The problem that I have is with the timing. Iraq should have waited.

Had Bush been less hawkish and cared about the safety of the free world and america, if he had not been so eager to finish his dad's business, not only would americans in my estimation quite happily given him his second term, but he would have had world support. Bush himself said that the war on terror was an important war, why did he have to start a war in Iraq then?

I'm not arguing with you about Bush and I strongly resent you equating my views on the "war on terror" with Bush's "for us or against us" ideology when I have not said one word with respect to that topic. In fact, I agree with you about the timing of the Iraq war and the appropriateness of the Afghanistan conflict. I don't see how you extrapolate my opinions on such matters from my previous posts. Remember the majority of Americans didn't vote for Bush (including myself). It sounds like your problem is with Bush and not the American people. Your simplistic view of Americans as all being blind to the rest of the world is foolish and ignorant.

However, with regards to your original posting that America should have "learned a lesson" when terrorists fly airplanes into buildings...has history taught you nothing? Violence breeds more violence. If you walk up to a random person on the street and punch them in the face, the only lesson they are going to learn is how not to get punched in the face the next time.

[cut]

get it into your thick skull that I'm not trying to shame america. People in Europe and elsewhere in the world (like india where I happened to be at the time) said that 9/11 was obviously a terrible terrible thing to happen to anyone but that perhaps the US could take something from this.

I have said it before in this thread but you clearly chose not to read it; the war in Afghanistan was acceptable, but going to war in Iraq did nothing but help al qaeda and endanger everyone. The problem with people like you, pistol is that the world is black and white for you, as Bush says goodies and baddies, unfortunately this is bollocks and most people realise that when they are teenagers.

I for one was for the war in Iraq unlike the vast majority of Brits. The problem that I have is with the timing. Iraq should have waited.

Had Bush been less hawkish and cared about the safety of the free world and america, if he had not been so eager to finish his dad's business, not only would americans in my estimation quite happily given him his second term, but he would have had world support. Bush himself said that the war on terror was an important war, why did he have to start a war in Iraq then?

I'm not arguing with you about Bush and I strongly resent you equating my views on the "war on terror" with Bush's "for us or against us" ideology when I have not said one word with respect to that topic. In fact, I agree with you about the timing of the Iraq war and the appropriateness of the Afghanistan conflict. I don't see how you extrapolate my opinions on such matters from my previous posts. Remember the majority of Americans didn't vote for Bush (including myself). It sounds like your problem is with Bush and not the American people. Your simplistic view of Americans as all being blind to the rest of the world is foolish and ignorant.

However, with regards to your original posting that America should have "learned a lesson" when terrorists fly airplanes into buildings...has history taught you nothing? Violence breeds more violence. If you walk up to a random person on the street and punch them in the face, the only lesson they are going to learn is how not to get punched in the face the next time.

whatever happened to turning the other cheek? ;)

[Midav]

Thank you. So why the sometimes generalizations?

As said, met plenty of asshole Americans. Still do. Yet, can be said about Brits as well.

I don't reflect the actions of the few on the many. I also realize US politics isn't the greatest. A lot more could be done.

Yet, the EU, heck, most first world nations are not acting much differently.

[James]

The US has unleashed more firepower on civilians then any other country in history.

Bull****. Nazi Germany/USSR/China/Cambodia/Rwanda/Somalia

Any one of those nations killed more civilians in a few years than the U.S. killed from 1776 until now.

[cut]

Thank you. So why the sometimes generalizations?

As said, met plenty of asshole Americans. Still do. Yet, can be said about Brits as well.

I don't reflect the actions of the few on the many. I also realize US politics isn't the greatest. A lot more could be done.

Yet, the EU, heck, most first world nations are not acting much differently.

Generalisations occur when anyone types out responses without wanting to write a thesis. You should know that it happens all the time on this forum, all it comes down to is frustration and lack of patience. This thread actually started out OK until, people started skipping the start of the thread and jumping in to flame.

Anyway, this section is called Political Discussions and Rants, I'm satisfied I have done both. :D

[cut]

The US has unleashed more firepower on civilians then any other country in history.

Bull****. Nazi Germany/USSR/China/Cambodia/Rwanda/Somalia

Any one of those nations killed more civilians in a few years than the U.S. killed from 1776 until now.

james, I said firepower, you call hutus and tutsies with machetes firepower?

I'm talking bombs.

[Midav]

Generalisations occur when anyone types out responses without wanting to write a thesis. You should know that it happens all the time on this forum, all it comes down to is frustration and lack of patience. This thread actually started out OK until, people started skipping the start of the thread and jumping in to flame.

Anyway, this section is called Political Discussions and Rants, I'm satisfied I have done both. :D

That's a shame. You probably being one of the more intelligent posters in here shouldn't be stooping down so low now should you?

[Midav]

I do apologize for some of the things I did say. I sincerely mean that.

However I do stick to some things, one being: Met a lot of "blame America Euros".

Those were some of the most narrow minded POS people I have ever met. Hell, they'd make any redneck, hick American proud.

Plz, don't be one of those people.

[cut]

Generalisations occur when anyone types out responses without wanting to write a thesis. You should know that it happens all the time on this forum, all it comes down to is frustration and lack of patience. This thread actually started out OK until, people started skipping the start of the thread and jumping in to flame.

Anyway, this section is called Political Discussions and Rants, I'm satisfied I have done both. :D

That's a shame. You probably being one of the more intelligent posters in here shouldn't be stooping down so low now should you?

It's a guilty pleasure, a bit like cigarettes and alcohol

[James]

The US has unleashed more firepower on civilians then any other country in history.

Bull****. Nazi Germany/USSR/China/Cambodia/Rwanda/Somalia

Any one of those nations killed more civilians in a few years than the U.S. killed from 1776 until now.

james, I said firepower, you call hutus and tutsies with machetes firepower?

I'm talking bombs.

Oh. Uhh, okay then, let's play word games... :roll:

Hutus and Tutsis killed more people with machetes in a couple of years than we have in 228 with bombs.

Never mind...

[cut]

I do apologize for some of the things I did say. I sincerely mean that.

However I do stick to some things, one being: Met a lot of "blame America Euros".

Those were some of the most narrow minded POS people I have ever met. Hell, they'd make any redneck, hick American proud.

Plz, don't be one of those people.

no worries

I know the score, I've met a lot of blame Europe americans and blame america euros, I feel sorry for all of them.

I get called anti-european about as much as I get called anti-american.

[cut]

The US has unleashed more firepower on civilians then any other country in history.

Bull****. Nazi Germany/USSR/China/Cambodia/Rwanda/Somalia

Any one of those nations killed more civilians in a few years than the U.S. killed from 1776 until now.

james, I said firepower, you call hutus and tutsies with machetes firepower?

I'm talking bombs.

Oh. Uhh, okay then, let's play word games... :roll:

Hutus and Tutsis killed more people with machetes in a couple of years than we have in 228 with bombs.

Never mind...

yep and the USSR killed way more people too, I'm not talking about a body count.

[Midav]

It's a guilty pleasure, a bit like cigarettes and alcohol

I don't get pleasure in stooping low and I quit smoking several years ago.

If I can do it, I know others can.

[cut]

It's a guilty pleasure, a bit like cigarettes and alcohol

I don't get pleasure in stooping low and I quit smoking several years ago.

If I can do it, I know others can.

bet you still enjoy beer though p-)

[Midav]

It's a guilty pleasure, a bit like cigarettes and alcohol

I don't get pleasure in stooping low and I quit smoking several years ago.

If I can do it, I know others can.

bet you still enjoy beer though p-)

Having one right now and have no nation or narrow minded person to blame other than me, myself and I ;)

Cheers!

[Kilgor]

James, you may have brought freedom for those countries, but YOUR freedom, a kind of freedom they don't want.
It may surprise you but they don't wan't McDonalds, they don't want an end of school party....they don't wat our kind of freedom.
.

Funny.. you being from europe. The united states and the soviets brought you freedom, then the united states sheltered you from the soviets. And you kinda like mcDonalds too i hear.

And as for you cut, your one of those disgraces of the left.

Chances are without american support in ww2, and the atlantic convoy's your country would have starved itself to death.

So you can take your "bombed more civilians than blah blah " comment and stick it where the sun doesnt shine. (england)

[Knutsen]

Kilgor, and we (europeans) built the US.
Anyways, since you didn't read my post and took only what benefited you, i'm not gonna explain any more. As we say in Spain: "a buen entendedor pocas palabras bastan".

McDonalds is ok if you want to die of a heart attack being obese.

[Knutsen]

And yeah, you freed europe, but not Europe as a whole (don't generalise)
When you were freeing the world in Spain we had this fascist dwarf who had won the war in spain thanx to a non intervention pact signed by all the military powers of the time (pact that Germany and Italy never accepted).
And you freed the world with the help and hard work of britons, indians, french, belgians ,norweigians, dutch, german spanish and italian dissidents, yugoslav partisans, russians, brazilians, canadians, aussies, kiwis, poles and a lot more people.

And when WW2 ended most people in spain thought the allies would help us but they did nothing, so we had to live with that fascist scumbag til 1975 when we regained our freedom without the help of anyone ( a help we would have thanked so much).

[cut]

James, you may have brought freedom for those countries, but YOUR freedom, a kind of freedom they don't want.
It may surprise you but they don't wan't McDonalds, they don't want an end of school party....they don't wat our kind of freedom.
.

Funny.. you being from europe. The united states and the soviets brought you freedom, then the united states sheltered you from the soviets. And you kinda like mcDonalds too i hear.

And as for you cut, your one of those disgraces of the left.

Chances are without american support in ww2, and the atlantic convoy's your country would have starved itself to death.

So you can take your "bombed more civilians than blah blah " comment and stick it where the sun doesnt shine. (england)

I'm not even left wing, but since you have such a great avatar, I'll let you off.

Yes that's right talk about the past. I could just as easily say that if Britain hadn't guaranteed the US' freedom it would not be where it is now.

Let me just say thanks for your support in WW2 but remember that we fought the Nazis we bore the brunt of their attacks year after year. For you to dismiss that as if it never happened is disgraceful and a dishonour to those who died in the UK.

by the way the sun is shinning nice and bright here right now. :P

[Deuterium]

This is going no where. (mouse moving to locked icon...RATS!!!! Curse you Hood)

[Kilgor]

Let me just say thanks for your support in WW2 but remember that we fought the Nazis we bore the brunt of their attacks year after year. For you to dismiss that as if it never happened is disgraceful and a dishonour to those who died in the UK.



As a example, where do you think 100% of your avation gas came from ?
None other than great satan herself. No US, no gas, no battle of britian. You would have lost.

[achilles]

James:

Hutus and Tutsis killed more people with machetes in a couple of years than we have in 228 with bombs.

make that a few weeks...it is not a good comparison though...we are talking about a US international play while Rwanda was just a local attrocity...it just doesnt fit.
And numbers can be deceiving anyway...if you add the side-effects of american interventionism, for example civilian deaths in Iraq due to trade sanctions from 1991 up to now, then US has definitely surpassed many genocides accross history. (estimates vary from 500,000 to 1,000,000 dead civilians in Iraq due to sanction-generated diseases-famine etc).

But there is no point actually in that...what does genocide (rwanda style) have to do with american interventionism and sanctions?

[achilles]

Cut:

by the way the sun is shinning nice and bright here right now.

Is it britain you are talking about? :roll: tell me where you are and i ll be there in no time...the colour of my skin is changing here mate...if i go to denmark noone would be able to tell the difference...i can pass as a native ;)

[cut]

Cut:

by the way the sun is shinning nice and bright here right now.

Is it britain you are talking about? :roll: tell me where you are and i ll be there in no time...the colour of my skin is changing here mate...if i go to denmark noone would be able to tell the difference...i can pass as a native ;)

when I wrote that post there wasn't a cloud in the sky!

[James]

...if you add the side-effects of american interventionism, for example civilian deaths in Iraq due to trade sanctions from 1991 up to now, then US has definitely surpassed many genocides accross history. (estimates vary from 500,000 to 1,000,000 dead civilians in Iraq due to sanction-generated diseases-famine etc).


The sanctions were UN, not U.S.

[achilles]

...if you add the side-effects of american interventionism, for example civilian deaths in Iraq due to trade sanctions from 1991 up to now, then US has definitely surpassed many genocides accross history. (estimates vary from 500,000 to 1,000,000 dead civilians in Iraq due to sanction-generated diseases-famine etc).


The sanctions were UN, not U.S.

right ...officially ;)

[Deuterium]

...if you add the side-effects of american interventionism, for example civilian deaths in Iraq due to trade sanctions from 1991 up to now, then US has definitely surpassed many genocides accross history. (estimates vary from 500,000 to 1,000,000 dead civilians in Iraq due to sanction-generated diseases-famine etc).


The sanctions were UN, not U.S.

right ...officially ;)

Oh God, you are so very tiresome.

BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh.

Never a scintilla of reason with you, just bashing away. By your reasoning the Dutch people should be blamed for massacre at Srebrenica.

[achilles]

Deuterium:

Oh God, you are so very tiresome.

Really? Says who? The epitomy of interest and excitement of this forum? Tell us something interesting about the 'UN' sanctions in Iraq then...shake us allover


BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh, BAsh.

Are you sure a teenager didnt crack your account and started posting instead of you, Deuterium? I am used to you posting decent, well thought posts...now what is this?


Never a scintilla of reason with you, just bashing away. By your reasoning the Dutch people should be blamed for massacre at Srebrenica.

Again, someone has granded you to be the king of judgement...judging who is reasonable and who is not..."never a scintilla of reason with me?"...this is exaggeration to say the least.
Your parallelism with dutch people and srebrenica probably makes only sense to you...let me recapitulate my point...

The UN is not an independent organization and is heavily influenced by the US. Consequently, the decision on the sanctions in Iraq was not a 'supra-national' multilateral decision but rather a US-induced decision.
Am i the one to indicate how dilplomacy works? No, you are older than me and more experienced than me regarding those matters...i really dont know how and why this narrown-mided post of yours came up. Forgive my language but i am still far more polite and 'moderate' than you.

[Deuterium]

Are you sure a teenager didnt crack your account and started posting instead of you, Deuterium? I am used to you posting decent, well thought posts...now what is this?



Yeah you're right, not on my "A" game today, hey I'm trying to watch a motorcycle race and surf at the same time. I'll log-off and get back to the race. Then we'll finish this...

[Kilgor]

And numbers can be deceiving anyway...if you add the side-effects of american interventionism, for example civilian deaths in Iraq due to trade sanctions from 1991 up to now, then US has definitely surpassed many genocides accross history. (estimates vary from 500,000 to 1,000,000 dead civilians in Iraq due to sanction-generated diseases-famine etc).

But there is no point actually in that...what does genocide (rwanda style) have to do with american interventionism and sanctions?

This is so absurd i dont know why im even replying to it ?
:cantbeli:

Sanctions arent genocide.
There was money in iraq at the time. Just a shame that saddam didnt give a **** about his people and was quite happy to look after his friends and see his people starve. And blame america for all his problems.

Calling sanctions = genocide is nothing but absolute stupidity.

Why not look up the definition of genocide and stop rambling anti US **** all the time.

[radon]

Let me just say thanks for your support in WW2 but remember that we fought the Nazis we bore the brunt of their attacks year after year. For you to dismiss that as if it never happened is disgraceful and a dishonour to those who died in the UK.



As a example, where do you think 100% of your avation gas came from ?
None other than great satan herself. No US, no gas, no battle of britian. You would have lost.

So what? What does this change? You have still to respect all the efforts made by other countries.

Usa did still not win Ww2 in Europe alone. Someone would have lost if there were no Commonwealth troops fighting against Germany. I don't hear any Brittish people complaining "but we helped and saved you" . No, but the Americans were not directly threathened like the Brittain was. Say whole Western Europe had been conquered by the Soviet Union? In this case The cold war would have looked very different.

[achilles]

[


This is so absurd i dont know why im even replying to it ?
:cantbeli:
Indeed you shouldnt have because you just flushed down the toilet a few kilobytes of this site's capacity


Sanctions arent genocide

Calling sanctions = genocide is nothing but absolute stupidity.

exactly my point: quoting part of my previous post:
achilles:

But there is no point actually in that...what does genocide (rwanda style) have to do with american interventionism and sanctions?

Since you seem incompetent to understand imlications i ll spell it out for you...what does genocide have to do with US intervention? Nothing...and thats what i meant. The results in terms of crude death numbers may be similar but that does not make US actions genocidal for gods sake....clear now?



Why not look up the definition of genocide and stop rambling anti US **** all the time.

So why dont you learn how to read, think first and then **** on other people's posts...

[pistol]

get it into your thick skull that I'm not trying to shame america. People in Europe and elsewhere in the world (like india where I happened to be at the time) said that 9/11 was obviously a terrible terrible thing to happen to anyone but that perhaps the US could take something from this.

I have said it before in this thread but you clearly chose not to read it; the war in Afghanistan was acceptable, but going to war in Iraq did nothing but help al qaeda and endanger everyone. The problem with people like you, pistol is that the world is black and white for you, as Bush says goodies and baddies, unfortunately this is bollocks and most people realise that when they are teenagers.

I for one was for the war in Iraq unlike the vast majority of Brits. The problem that I have is with the timing. Iraq should have waited.

Had Bush been less hawkish and cared about the safety of the free world and america, if he had not been so eager to finish his dad's business, not only would americans in my estimation quite happily given him his second term, but he would have had world support. Bush himself said that the war on terror was an important war, why did he have to start a war in Iraq then?

I'm not arguing with you about Bush and I strongly resent you equating my views on the "war on terror" with Bush's "for us or against us" ideology when I have not said one word with respect to that topic. In fact, I agree with you about the timing of the Iraq war and the appropriateness of the Afghanistan conflict. I don't see how you extrapolate my opinions on such matters from my previous posts. Remember the majority of Americans didn't vote for Bush (including myself). It sounds like your problem is with Bush and not the American people. Your simplistic view of Americans as all being blind to the rest of the world is foolish and ignorant.

However, with regards to your original posting that America should have "learned a lesson" when terrorists fly airplanes into buildings...has history taught you nothing? Violence breeds more violence. If you walk up to a random person on the street and punch them in the face, the only lesson they are going to learn is how not to get punched in the face the next time.

whatever happened to turning the other cheek? ;)

It is a noble idea, but not realistic. Were the British interested in turning the other cheek or "learning a lesson" in late 1944/early 1945 when German v1 and v2 rockets were raining down upon their cities? Were they thinking "Oh, we should have been nicer to the Germans in the Treaty of Versailles, this is really our fault"?

[cut]

get it into your thick skull that I'm not trying to shame america. People in Europe and elsewhere in the world (like india where I happened to be at the time) said that 9/11 was obviously a terrible terrible thing to happen to anyone but that perhaps the US could take something from this.

I have said it before in this thread but you clearly chose not to read it; the war in Afghanistan was acceptable, but going to war in Iraq did nothing but help al qaeda and endanger everyone. The problem with people like you, pistol is that the world is black and white for you, as Bush says goodies and baddies, unfortunately this is bollocks and most people realise that when they are teenagers.

I for one was for the war in Iraq unlike the vast majority of Brits. The problem that I have is with the timing. Iraq should have waited.

Had Bush been less hawkish and cared about the safety of the free world and america, if he had not been so eager to finish his dad's business, not only would americans in my estimation quite happily given him his second term, but he would have had world support. Bush himself said that the war on terror was an important war, why did he have to start a war in Iraq then?

I'm not arguing with you about Bush and I strongly resent you equating my views on the "war on terror" with Bush's "for us or against us" ideology when I have not said one word with respect to that topic. In fact, I agree with you about the timing of the Iraq war and the appropriateness of the Afghanistan conflict. I don't see how you extrapolate my opinions on such matters from my previous posts. Remember the majority of Americans didn't vote for Bush (including myself). It sounds like your problem is with Bush and not the American people. Your simplistic view of Americans as all being blind to the rest of the world is foolish and ignorant.

However, with regards to your original posting that America should have "learned a lesson" when terrorists fly airplanes into buildings...has history taught you nothing? Violence breeds more violence. If you walk up to a random person on the street and punch them in the face, the only lesson they are going to learn is how not to get punched in the face the next time.

whatever happened to turning the other cheek? ;)

It is a noble idea, but not realistic. Were the British interested in turning the other cheek or "learning a lesson" in late 1944/early 1945 when German v1 and v2 rockets were raining down upon their cities? Were they thinking "Oh, we should have been nicer to the Germans in the Treaty of Versailles, this is really our fault"?

Do you know what we did in reply? bearing in mind violence breeds violence, we used counter-espionage to make sure the buzz-bombs missed their targets. Don't know about that? look it up mate!

[n.ignomo]

Keynes was against this Treaty of Versailles and pushed after WWII for a world bank and an international money. You all know Keynes do you, because economical reasons are the reasons why the world goes on.

[achilles]

Keynes was against this Treaty of Versailles and pushed after WWII for a world bank and an international money. You all know Keynes do you, because economical reasons are the reasons why the world goes on.


bingo mate...perhaps thats the best way to explain the world in 4 lines

[Porta_jon]

this guy is dead on good post

[Skaman]

Cut Said:


The US has created terrorists since 9/11 not diminished them

The "success" of the War on Terror boils down to just that. All the war on Terror promotes is a false sense of security and over glorified tear-jerking’s to win votes.

[pistol]

Do you know what we did in reply? bearing in mind violence breeds violence, we used counter-espionage to make sure the buzz-bombs missed their targets. Don't know about that? look it up mate!

Well it must have been some pretty terrible "counter-espionage" (can you point me to a source on that because I can't find evidence of an intelligence program to misdirect V weapons) because almost 12,000 V weapons were launched killing and wounding over 50 thousand people.