An amusing analogy for America

Pelosi is a citizen too...that doesn't make anything she says worthwhile...

Obama may be a citizen, but we're not sure.... Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Orly Taitz on Stephen Colbert, for your viewing pleasure.

But actually the situation in Central Asia is so fucked up that no one really has a good strategy. Originally Posted by ..

Amen! And it's not made any easier by trying to get so many different countries on the same page.

C x

\


unduly harrassed, my ass.

I do not expect a drunk driver to care for a sobriety check...

Freaking drunks....always blaming the bartender or the cops!


. Originally Posted by WTF

You have missed my point. So let me simplify it. What would you say if NYPD decided to conduct sobriety check points in state of Wyoming because it does not think that WPD is doing its job the way it should.

Should residents of Wyoming feel gratitude and pay additional taxes for such self appointed service?

Something tells me not. Why? Because NOBODY asked to!

USA went into Iraq, destroyed the country, escalated terrorism towards non muslims, plunged itself into recession and lost number of young american boys at this war and all because of what? Burning desire to be the Cop of The World? Just because one CAN, does not mean one SHOULD.

Bush Jr had burning desire to prove to his old man that he is just as tough. Well, turns out he was not. Obama got elected on promises to end this senseless war. Instead we are increasing troops. Why? Because to bring them home will pose very real problem of having 100s of thousands of young men with combat experience and no jobs.


And as far as WWII is concerned, America still has to apologize for sending ships full of jews back to Hitler's germany.

America is not a puppy. Its a child. Child that is still learning, making mistakes and insists on doing what it wants when it wants and how it wants. Problem is, this kid is bigger and stronger (or it was stronger) than most of the grown ups. So it is kind of tough to discipline it.

Lina

Drivel my ass, look at our Defense spending as a % of GDP compared to Japan, Germany, Canada, England...

Yes we reaped the benefits, wait 'till you deal with the Chinese if you think we are bad.


unduly harrassed, my ass.

I do not expect a drunk driver to care for a sobriety check...

Freaking drunks....always blaming the bartender or the cops!




Some piss ant ambassador spouts off at a party. A stupid statement is a stupid statement no matter who says it.






Really? Do our women vote? Drive cars?

You think I want to give those backwards jacks credit for being ahead of us just because they are older? Think again. We are light years ahead of them. Religion has kept them in the dark ages. If you want to argue that religion is bringing this country back to their level, that has some merit.


No, it reflects on the country, we as individuals do not like outsiders talking shit. Every country has its own pride and prejudice, Nothing new there.

I think it BS that you try and hide your distaste for this country on something some two bit mid level government hack said.

I have plenty of things to slam this country over and do reguarly but I would tip toe lightly through a forum dominated by another country citizens were I trying discuss their fuc ups.

Do not try and credit me with some undesirable trait because you have not learnt the nuances of artful discussion of another's problems. Originally Posted by WTF

Bravo

From a personal perspective, in all the time I have posted on ASPD and here, I have never been afraid to call out Britain when necessary at the cost of defending US on issues but I've never been called "fair" for doing so...but my gosh, I've been told a few times that I have been "unfair" when I have defended the UK on some of their policies at the cost of the US. There seems to be a lot of "forgetfulness" of a similiar nature, from both sides of the pond, in this thread. Originally Posted by Camille

Bravo Originally Posted by macksback

And the prize for reiterating that point goes to....

And the prize for reiterating that point goes to.... Originally Posted by Camille

-->

On this idea of the US policing the wold -since another poster mentioned saving the world in WWII:

The question is not, did the USA save the human race in WWII - they cannot be given sole credit. It took a lot more then that one nation - it took united forces, it took people from within the German empire, it took the people within the walls of conquered countries.

The question is, would the USA have cared enough to save anyone, gotten into active combat and stopped being neutral, if America wasn't threatened?

If the US hadn't gotten involved Germany may have won - not taken over the world, but reaching a point of where they could not continue to expand. I imagine that new territory would reflect some of the totalitarian states that we have seen come to life, and we already know they're never easy to take down.

Germany had a war on every front - and it took all the soldiers, from all countries. It took a lot of lives, a lot of sacrifice to make that happen - not just American ones. Each one of those lives is valuable, their lives were not in vain, their contributions were significant and deserved to be recognized. The Soviets alone sacrificed over 20 million soldiers and countless civilians.

Had Britain fallen in 1941, even the US couldn't have defeated Germany. England invested a huge amount of blood and resources, going into debt with the US to fight and survive so that they might see another day. They gave up the last remnants of their empire to keep Germany at bay, preventing them from having enough power to remain an unstoppable force.

By the time the US had gotten involved, Germany was penetrating into the USSR - a suicidal move. When Japan had bombed Pearl Harbour the Germans were already beginning their 1st winter retreat on the Eastern Front. The tide really turned with the Battle of Stalingrad (August 1942 - February 1943) where Germans laid siege to the city for months. One can argue the Soviets won the war. The Soviets weren't a push over - fought hard, captured and killed over 650,000 German troops in that one battle alone - Germany never recovered on the Eastern Front . Hitler's own men were pleading with him to stop the mass killings - to use the trains, the soldiers, the resources for the war effort. Alas, Hitler could not be dissuaded, and as his situation grew worse, he put more effort into slaughtering people who could not fight back than he did fighting armed soldiers.

Now, one of my bookish friends who is of those "weak minded" people deeply in love with their books, pointed out that the US sent a lot of supplies (small arms, ammunition and trucks). from 1941. Pulling up a note on this very discussion:

"They made it to the Soviets in 1941 - before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour - and the British benefited from the "loan" of 50 American destroyers (obsolete destroyers, but valuable ships nonetheless) in 1940-41 . That program was called Lend-Lease. Americans may have entered the war in 1941 (27 months after Canada, BTW), they didn't really mobilized until the middle of 1943. "

the snobby attitude of the Europeans is a mask for the knowledge of their own inferiority. Originally Posted by John Bull

John...the most obvious contemporary counterpoint that would refute any idea of "European snobbery" is the European Union. How could anyone possibly suggest that a union created of countries at such differing developmental stages (particularly from a fiscal POV) suffers from snobbery? It's actually the exact opposite. The less developed countries aren't in there to meet some politically correct quota either...they are there because of the strong belief that all of those countries (whether it be Poland, Bulgaria, Germand or England) have something of value to bring to the table. 'Aint nothing' snobby 'bout that.

C

First off, let's clarify for the purposes of this thread that when Lauren's friend/co-worker/client was talking about "Europe" she was referring to the "European Union." Not even close to be being the same thing as "Europe.". Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, there are several countries in the Union that do not care for America's foreign policy....and people need to remember that when they are talking about the union..that it's 20 some plus countries, not one. Originally Posted by Camille

It is a well known fact that nations don't have "friends", they have "aligned interests". That being said, Great Brittan, Australia and Canada are the best friends we have -- over long periods of time.

Great post Lauren!!!

If the US hadn't gotten involved Germany may have won - not taken over the world, but reaching a point of where they could not continue to expand.

Not to point fingers, but Germany would have never had financial and technological resources to invade Europe if it was not for lucrative trade with its business partner - USA.

Germany a war on every front - and it took all the soldiers, from all countries. It took a lot of lives, a lot of sacrifice to make that happen - not just American ones. Each one of those lives is valuable, their lives were not in vain, their contributions were significant and deserved to be recognized. The Soviets alone sacrificed over 20 million soldiers and countless civilians.

There is not one single family is Russia that has not lost someone in WWII. My family alone lost 7 males between Ukranian, Russian and Jewish sides of it. My grandmother managed to escape from the cattle car that was supposed to take her to Germany. Great Uncle was killed in Alps. 5 other great uncles perished between 1941 and 1945. And my family is not alone. In most villages after war you were lucky if you found ONE male in age group between 18 and 50. And he did not necessarily had all his limbs intact.



By the time the US had gotten involved, Germany was penetrating into the USSR - a suicidal move.

Them damn winters And yes, Battle of Stalingrad was indeed a turning point in war. Germany never recovered from that defeat. Also, there was siege of Leningrad. Long stand off between Nazi armi and city cut off from the rest of the country. Siege during which people died of starvation but did not capitulate.


Now, one of my bookish friends who is of those "weak minded" people deeply in love with their books, pointed out that the US sent a lot of supplies (small arms, ammunition and trucks). from 1941. Pulling up a note on this very discussion:

"They made it to the Soviets in 1941 - before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour - and the British benefited from the "loan" of 50 American destroyers (obsolete destroyers, but valuable ships nonetheless) in 1940-41 . That program was called Lend-Lease. Americans may have entered the war in 1941 (27 months after Canada, BTW), they didn't really mobilized until the middle of 1943. "

Actually, Lend Lease was not free lunch - Allies got repaid in diamonds and other valuable natural resources.

Now, I am not saying that USSR was this fuzzy little kitten. We lost 20M people to Hitler and about the same to Stalin. Soviet army also was not on its best behaviour in Germany on its way to Berlin. However, can you really blame a guy who saw his entire family slaughtered for being inconsiderate on his way to whoop the occupant's ass?

Lina

Ok, but before you go, pay back your war debts with interest. Originally Posted by oden

I heard on NPR that Germany just paid the last war payment about a month or two ago. As I recall, the final payment was an interest payment. Took a while.

Honestly, the reactions so far are about on par with what you should have expected. It pissed me off too. Camille is right. It should never have been said. If the American Ambasador said that, he clearly has an inferiority complex and was just trying to suck up to the European community he, I assumes, idolizes. At the very least, he should have his hand slapped. And for the record, the initial post didn’t reverence the American ambassador making such an absurd claim

We are not a puppy with gigantic paws bounding around reeking havoc because we are over exuberant, careless or have no concept of value. That’s just nonsense. News Flash: The Pax Americana is real. Like it or not.

…………… Using the term "Europe" is about as out of mode as saying "America" when you actually mean, North, Central and South America. Originally Posted by Camille

This has come up quite a bit lately. Mostly I hear it from Mexican immigrants that I know. Now it seems the world has an issue with the name of this country. We didn’t co-opt a great name. We created it. North America is called North American, and it contains: Canada, The United States of America and The United States of Mexico. Central America is called Central America and it contains: Panama, Beliz, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama. South America is called South America and it contains: Venezuela, Argentina, Columbia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia and Ecuador, (I apologize if I left any country out.) WE ARE AMERICA. We named our country. I don’t know who named the three regions and two continents, but it has nothing to do with the name of my country. I also refer to my country as the United States, the States, US and USA.

…………….Moving on, since this thread seems to pertain to Britian only (why??) and none of the other countries are being discussed, it's just plain wrong to suggest that Britain harbours ill feelings towards the US or has forgotten or is nonchalent about the help the Americans offered during WWII. That's utter bullshit. Second, Britain has done it's part for the US in return and continues to do so. Historically, Britian was the country that leapt of its arse after 9/11 not only to support the US BUT to embarrass the Union members that either didn't want to make a decision or were opposed to getting involved. The union has 500 million members (not including commonwealth countries too)...so I don't think that's anything to be sniffed at even if folks think that the US is stronger/better/whatever the counterpoint is. Presently, Britain, as a general rule, champions the US within the EU because they value the importance of past and potential future relations. If Britain were not in the EU then the US would be having a very different relationship with the Union. Britain know that but don't abuse it. Further, England particularly is no pussy when dealing with coalitions (even those that they need to be part of) or countries stronger than themselves. If they were, they would have shifted to the Euro a decade ago. Yes Blair was embarrassing to us but because he was so busy with Bush that he left us wide open...not because the US didn't deserve help. Thankfully, the UK seem to be on track now in terms of balancing their obligations to the EU with those of the US..and that's how it should be. As for Canada, well they are in one of the most sensitive positions of all. They are a Commonwealth country with strong ties to the US. I can't imagine it's always been easy to keep those relationships in balance.……………………... Originally Posted by Camille

For the life of me, I just can’t understand why Britton is even in the EU anyway. It is a great and powerfu,l stand-alone nation. It alwasy has been. What has the Continent really done for Britton lately besides drag them into epic World Wars? Britton and Israel are our greatest allies. Both nations have balls the size of Dallas; Briton is our kin; and I have the greatest respect for both. They have taken on and dominated the world from islands that had limited national resources compared to the monster nations like the US, Russia, Canada, China, etc.

The Germans, the French, the Russians take your pick just can’t stand us. But Western Europe sure accepted our troops to protect them from stormtrooping Soviets. I have a friend that commanded a tank brigade (or whatever a group of tanks is called) in Germany. He said the best estimates given to him for survival of the American soldiers and the Germans we were PROTECTING was two weeks. Without, American forces, really there was not a snowballs chance in hell that Stalin wouldn’t have come a calling. But we were willing to risk for the sake of all NATO – yes, including us – nations our armies for peace.

We may be guilty of some “sobriety” tests as someone said, but, as a rule, we are asked to engage. The Domino Effect, I personally believe, was valid. But on the other side, Iraq is American aggression. That said, we are not war starting assholes; we are not puppies; and we are not by design or decree the world’s police – but that’s what we have turned into. We were turned into that by those seeking protection. Again, everybody say it together: the Pax Americana is real.

Clerkwell is right on a great many points. One, we were late to the game in both World Wars particularly WWI. But one, we didn’t start those wars. Europe was struggling with the old style, entrenched monarchies (no matter how watered down they were.). Secondly, during WWI , our HELP wasn’t that needed. What was really needed was our munitions, food and weapons, and we were giving that albeit at a price. We’re looking at US participation in the WWI through hindsight. The United States was really in its infancy at the turn of the 20th century. We had raw power then nothing refined like we are now. What were to become could not have been guessed in that age of isolationism.

It just pisses me off to no end for people to bash and bash again America. We are a great country. However, in general we are neither the cure for nor the cause of the world’s woes. Could we, as Cromwell points out, stand to loose some arrogance? Sure. But dastardly, warmongering, halfwit puppies? No. We’re not. Is our world dominance being undermined by sniveling ambassadors and snipping comments made by other nations and other nations’ citizenry? No. If it is undermined by anything, it is undermined by us. And we’d be doing much better financially if we didn’t protect and police the world. Just sayin’……………..

We police the whole world without taxing it properly for doing so. You and other western countries have had a free ride for decades. Originally Posted by WTF

Go to Japan, ask how they feel about the continued US military presence.

America built the most powerful military in history, not to police the world, but in their own self interest. They wanted to be the biggest economic power, and made sure it stayed that way. That means control. There are many countries that have pleaded with the US NOT to be policed, and not to be protected. Even when politicians and elite classes have been silent, the general masses have voiced their protest. You set up military bases as much out of interest in having a pulse on everything going on in the world, get involved and cause more conflict within the boarders that existed before you ever entered, and then tell the world they should thank you for doing them a favor.

You take care of a world holding billions of people? You're in a crisis and your country is divided. You aren't even taking care of yourselves, never mind the rest of the world. Tired of giving the world a free ride? Stop the free ride. Take back your manufacturing, take back your IT industry, and everything else you've decided you no longer wanted to do on your own soil. Educate your people. Give them jobs. Give them a base line of health care they can afford that maintains human dignity, which is fundamental concept behind human rights. Unite yourselves a one people, with a common destiny, and mutual respect.

You thinking some stupid anology about this country being funny ... well that is a comment/opinion in and of itself. Sorry to point out that fact.

Interestingly the same people who cannot laugh at any joke focused on their country have no problem insulting other countries or laughing at the expense of other nations. To expect a different standard for your own country than any other is where intolerance and bigotry begin.

And so we see this bigotry at work, when the rest of the world's history and relevance is degraded, their very identity as countries mocked. Canada, Israel, Europe (and Asia and the Middle East I'm sure) - the entire world would not exist were it not for the US. Sounds like the Church insisting the earth was the center of the universe, despite evidence that reality is a complex interaction of many variables and parts, which are both independent and linked.

There is a joke in Canada (because we CAN laugh at jokes aimed at us) "When the US sneezes, Canada catches a cold". When your economy crashed, we waited, fearing that your cold would give us pneumonia. We waited and waited, and nothing happened. There was some hurt for those who worked in car manufacturing, but our banks, our real estate, our jobs continued on. We realized that we are not so desperately linked, and that joke hasn't been told since you economy crashed.

We have Asia, we have Europe.

You know what else we have? We have amazing access to raw resouces - your own Wallstreet boys nicknamed us "The Blue Eyed Arabs", Albertans called "Blue Eyed Sheiks"? We don't need to make crazy gamples on paper, our banks expect capital to support leveraging and no one gets away with 1-10.

We've got the wold's largest uncut forests. We have huge deposits of natural gas. Saskatchewan is sitting on almost 1/2 the world's know reserves of uranium (clean, long-lasting nuclear power in the future). And almost 2/3 of the world's potash (fertilizer for food production). Between those two I think our economy will do just fine. We produce more alumuminum in this country than anywhere in the world - because we have relatively easy access to giant volumes of water. It takes ENORMOUS amounts of water to smelt aluminum - without aluminum how long until the American military machine grinds to a halt?

But it doesn't stop there for us:
hydro electric power (aka: lots of fast flowing rivers)
bauxile
copper
zinc
gold
oil
diamond
nickle

fresh water (it will be the world's oil in the 21st Century)

Per capita, we are better educated, less in debt, and fewer of us are on psychological drugs.

So yes, Canada has done fine and we will continue to do so. We are indeed our own country and are not a charity case at USA's door begging for table scraps. Yet, for all the good things we have going for us: We do not stand alone. NONE of us stand alone.

We are Israel. Without our backing they are short lived. Why do you think they have their grips firmly around our politicians? It is for their own survival.

So the moral to the story is there is nothing wrong with being kind to an ignorant US ambassador and Iranian hookah lounge owners but realize that if your hope lies in Isreal then you are diametrically opposed to either of those folks views.

Wow, that's quite the contradiction, and down right antisemitic nonsense. Now lets drift into the realm of logic when assessing a person's argument: If the US is Israel - then it isn't possible for them to have a frim grip on your politicians, is it? You can't have both. Either Israel exists, or you are Israel and have a firm grip on their politicians.

A nation in crisis screaming: The Jews control our government. Sound familiar? Your comment may seem harmless but it isn't. That's bigoted, hateful, intolerant - it leads to violence, gives people an excuse to devalue their lives. That once upon a time set into motion a genocide. Adolf Hilter argued that Jews controled the governments of the west, and the flow of money - look where it got the world.

When did I say anything about blowing up Iranian reactors? I believe the only thing we can do is stall them by preventing access to the US dollar (which is still the center of trade), embargoes, and using technological warfare to slow the purification of Uranium. Stall until they achieve democracy - on their own. Their Supreme Leader has no religious legitimacy, and the people want a profitable country that treats them with respect.

I feel a nuclear Iran is inevitable, but hope that it comes to be during their democracy. Even a democratic Iran will push forward with the project, because like Bush, they can't be seen as submissive and weak when faced with a continent that hates them (burning Korans doesn't help). It will be argued as an issue of national defense.

When I say my hope lie in Israel, I say so because they haven't decapitated their intelligence, and the USA has. You are depending on third party information, I believe the person who gets the information first is the one who can take the right action. The right actions taken may mean no one ever needs to be bombed. It's good intelligence that will save lives, and interestingly, though they are constantly under threat, they do amazingly well maintaining their national security. They're probably the best in the world at it, and have a thing or two to teach your security and customs professionals.

It is a well known fact that nations don't have "friends", they have "aligned interests". Originally Posted by pjorourke

No rebuttal here on that point PJ.
It's exactly why I ponder why oh why the Union expects so many of its members to have anything other than aligned interests. Frustrating.

Olivia, as to why England (and Germany particularly given they had an very strong currency) joined the EU it was primarily for market flexibility (fluid movement of goods/services/people)...we'd have been stuffed otherwise. Cost of labour imparticularly has been a benefit to England where CoL was always very high. Sure we outsourced a lot of work to Newly Industrialized Countries, but there are some things that just have to be done on domestic soil. England has certainly benefited from a cheaper cost of labour afforded by the migration of residents from less affluent countries. No doubt about it..or the controversy surrounding that issue. We have certainly had to pay the price for that in other ways though such as adhering to the framework of the European Court of Human Rights. Being told we have to keep terrorists on our soil because it's not PC to send them back to their own country and see them killed is outrageous. It's a complex relationship as you pointed out that isn't easy to understand....

there are some really naive members on this message board

you all obviously haven't read the history textbooks approved by the Texas Board of Education

you all obviously haven't read the history textbooks approved by the Texas Board of Education Originally Posted by atlcomedy