As a Brit I seem to be in the middle of some spat between the US and old Europe over Iraq. I really think it's very silly.

Just what did the French and Germans do that has so annoyed Americans? They are entitled to point out that you can't disarm a nation of WMD if it doesn't have WMD, after all. Friends are the people who try to stop you making your mistakes, not those who encourage them. Let's not get bogged down in the actual case for war please, both sides feel justified and that won't change.

Are there any Americans out there who think old Europe has been badly treated, or old Europeans who think the US deserves a better press?

The discord comes from the frustration of Americans over what we perceive to be the disloyalty of Western Europe (with a few notable exceptions, such as Britain).

It was American money rebuilding after WWII, it was American money and troops protecting Western Europe from Soviet aggression for 50 years. And we get little from Western Europe but hassles and a cultural distain for the American way of life which provided salvation.

Of course American's have disliked France, at least since the 80's when they refused to give permission for our bombers to fly over French airspace in order to bomb Libya.

This dislike is further compounded when we see ourselves giving more money than any other single nation to the UN and various aid programs...and then Europeans have the gall to tell us we should send troops here, or there, but not send them over to this other place, or suggesting that the US should allow nations of European choice to default on loans, when we were the primary benefactors of these nations to begin with.

We get irritated when a European problem, like the Balkans, is ignored by Europe other than a decision by the UN to send troops in...and the majority of the troops are American.

We get irritated when Europeans want us to Police the world...but then bitch at us for doing so as we see fit.

We really really hate it when France makes complaints in NATO and works to thwart US interests in NATO, some 35 years after France ceased providing military assistance to NATO (yet still benefiting from the protective alliance thereof).

We really really hate hearing Europeans complain about uncouth, rude, backwards Americans, when it was those uncouth, rude, backwards Americans who saved your bacon twice in war, and kept the entire lot of you from speaking Russian through our uncouth, rude, backwards, rash American ways.

We get no sense of appreciation for anything we've done for Europe. I have no doubt, that were the US invaded tomorrow by say, China, the majority of Europe would sit, Neutral. Hell, I bet Russia would be quicker to ally itself with the US than France or Germany.

The only nations, I fear, whom we could count on would be Britain, Australia, and possibly Canada (simply out of self preservation there).

We distain the French, who seem to want to be a world power...but won't put in the money, effort, or arms to be so. Hell, I'd love to see Frances permanent seat on the Security Council given, instead, to Japan.

There ya go. There's part of the reason why American's dislike Europe.

IMO it is more the case of a everyone that aren't with us are ennemy stategy from G.W. Bush for gathering members for his coalition vs Irak. Multiply the effects by a very good and efficient propagada machine and you get a cold between the 2.

Eridalafar

...nice post, in that it ignores reality exceptionally well.

France and Germany didn't refuse to help in Iraq because they didnt think there were WMDs there (They are both on record officially as stating that they believed saddam DID have WMDs).

No, they refused to help because Saddams regime was paying them off, as has been documented endless times throughout this oil-for-food scandal.

Plus, most Europeans are really arrogant, without cause. When youre the worlds largest superpower, you can afford a little arrogance. When you;re an insignificant pissant country in Europe the size of a single state in the US... well, then humility suits you far better.

Ya know Aidon, I think this is the first time we have ever agreed on something.

Nice post.

Just to make a point there.

I doubt anyone here would argue that Americans helped a considerable amount to win the world war 2.

However just a reminder you had no choice in the matter after pearl harbour so please dont write like it was US doing everyone a favour and helping out and if they couldnt be bothered they didn't have to. Even if they decided not to retaliate after Pearl harbour you would have inevitably been pulled into it ether way.

Every Allied country did their bit weather it was the US or any other Allied country EQUALLY and lost lives because of it.

It upsets me that some people forget that.

Tils

Actually, the US could have stayed out of the European conflict in WW2 very easily. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, not Germany. While Germany could have won the European conflict without Japan, Japan could not win without Germany. However, that's all speculation about Europe. The United States could have easily contained the Japanese threat to Japan and Ruso-China without entering into the European conflict. Germany was hard pressed to fight the battle on the Western European and Russian borders. Even if they won the European conflict, they were in no shape to immediately start attacking the United States on their own soil. It would have taken years of rebuilding to even contemplate such a strike.

As for losing lives equally, I think Russia would disagree with that.

I ment each life was equally as important as another if it be US or any other of the Allies.

And a question....do you think if Germany did win they would have stopped? Even if they recouped after years America would have been a target eventually..the guy was a nutter...

Tils

It doesn't matter; he couldn't have done it immediately, giving both sides ample time to build up arms, think about fighting, then probably come to a conclusion that war wouldn’t benefit anyone, and an uneasy truce would probably be better. Plus, there's the question of whether or not Hitler would have been able to take over Russia without the US's interference. Russia was beginning to hold it's own on its western frontiers, and the march to Moscow is a horrid one to make, even when you don't have snipers firing at you. If Germany couldn’t take over Russia, and it was obvious that Stalin didn’t want to be allies anymore, if Europe fell, the United States would probably have allied with Russia to stop Japan, and then stall Germany indefinitely.

I see it like this:

The USA wanted to have its way, but France and Germany used their weight in the UN to force the US to go solo and bring along the pals it could get, but without UN help.

But I also see it as a farce on the US's behalf. They wanted their way, but everyone else had to agree to it whether they wanted to or not. This is where the US's propaganda machine came into play and began pointing accusing fingers and things like that. Don't deny it, the simple fact most Americans today STILL believe you liberated Europe during WWII is evidence enough you know little to nothing about what was really going on and have watched Saving Private Ryan way too many times.

Lets not forget who trained Osama Bin Laden and who gave Saddam Hussein most of his weapons during the Irak vs Iran war... Everyone has their hands covered in blood but the US is the one screaming Rape!

Aldarion: I'd like to point out that it doesn't matter how big or small you are (as a country). Many of the big countries in the world have less power than much smaller ones. Check out Brasil, China, Argentina, in comparison to Great Britain, Japan, Australia... I rather prefer to look at the average level of education than chest pounding and saying you have a right to be arrogant. No one has a right to be arrogant. Everyone should act with a little more humility.
That arrogance you show as your country's Aldarion is what got you into this mess in the first place. Maybe before any country would bow and say yes to whatever the USA said, but not any more, and that lack of support is what is making you realise what real position you hold in the world.

Lets not forget all the past empires that have crumbled: Rome, Spain, China, etc.

History, IMO, doesn't repeat itself, but you are more likely to get a glimpse of the future by looking at the past.

:)

The US did a lot to provoke Germany and Japan... The lend-lease program is all but declaring war on Germany. Then there was the oil and steel embargos against Japan. Then there was "flying tigers" civilian volunteer air force that was put together by FDR.

Japan made a mistake by attacking the US but the US certainly asked for that war. FDR saw the problems of having one single dictator controlling Europe and provoked war.

I have a distain for France because that country can ignore problems around the world and the US seems to save its butt. France hides behind its political Magnot line trying to appease when history has proved that dictators seeking power can not be appeased.

More recently is this oil for food program scandal. This humanitarian program was riddled with corruption and the main benefactors were the elites of Russia and France and China. Now, I hold France to a higher standard than Russia and China. France is supposed to a democratic society and that implies a certain degree of ethics. Then for Chirqac to talk about an international tax to fund humaitarian programs... All that I can think is that his rich buddies need more money to grease the French political wheels.

France was initially against invading Iraq and remained so. Where Germany was initially for the war and then changed their policy. I wonder who was paid off to make that happen...

And a question....do you think if Germany did win they would have stopped? Even if they recouped after years America would have been a target eventually..the guy was a nutter...

Would Germany proceed to attack America on its own soil? I doubt it. When the U.S. first entered the war, Germany was starting to feel the stress of having its armies spread so far across Europe. Hitler had great difficulty crossing the English Channel, would he have even attempted to cross the Atlantic? I highly doubt he would given the severe consequences and the casualties that would result from that. Germany would have trouble, if they did break onto American soil, to keep the land they had conquered. Great Britain faced this same problem during the American Revolutionary War, one of the main reasons the U.S. even exists today. As for Japan, they were already being strangled by the U.S. embargo when they attacked Pearl Harbor, and the lack of natural resources in their own territory played a big factor in the war itself. Japan also relied heavily on naval power, which proved to be obsolete to Allied guns time and time again. So no, the United States didn't really have to fight Germany, but with the propaganda being poured in by British news agencies (which just so happened to be the only source that Americans got news about the war from), I find it difficult to believe that inevitably the U.S. would be sucked into the war.

As for the topic of U.S. vs Europe, this isn't anything new. Ever since the creation of our country, Western Europe has had hostilities to us and us to them. Americans have always been arrogant, and even worse many think that we should. If you look throughout history, Americans have always tried to pull out the "white man's burden" and the superpower of the world topics, just look at the Monroe Doctrine, the Imperialists of the early 1900s, etc. The hostilities that exist today are the result of "American culture" and world events of the past century. Europeans think of Americans as power hungry rich kids that stick their nose into everybody's business, which is true to a certain extent, but the fact that the U.S. has poured countless dollars into rebuilding Europe and many other nations and always get the middle finger when we ask for a favor in return exhibits the difference of culture and ideals.

With the recent war with Iraq and disputes with France/Germany, both France and Germany were receiving a lot of money from Iraq for various goods (including weapons) not to mention both had pretty nice oil contracts with Saddam's regime which neither wanted to part with. Instead of simply stating these facts, their governments decided to sugar coat the reason that they abandoned the U.S. saying that it wasn't in the best interest of their people (I think people may be substituted for bank accounts). Now I admit that Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed and is a huge embarrassment to the American people, but when the U.S. basically shoulders the war alone and after the dirty work is done, the rest of the world tries to jump in and reap the rewards, then you have the reason why Americans don't particularly like most Western Europeans, including France (but really, does anybody like the French?).

I think using a war that happened more than 50 years ago as a reason why another country should, or should not, have gratitude and be your bestest friend forever down into history is a little bogus.

We change administrations every 8 years (at the very least) and our relationships with other countries will definitely change with each leader. Some of our leaders are looking more towards being an integral part of the world community, others simply want to dominate it.

Getting away from the theoretical points of WW2 and the if's a but's, I'll say a piece on the 'we saved your butts in WW2' philosophy. In europe it is seen as something unpleasant, almost as if the people saying it are taking advantage of their countries fortunate geographical situation in WW2 and the bravery of a previous generation to extract a debt of gratitude. The gratitude is there, but we want to give it freely rather than have it expected of us. Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, and many others sacrificed their lives to fight across the other side of the world but I've never ever heard their countrymen demand thanks in the same way.

Lets not forget all the past empires that have crumbled: Rome, Spain, China, etc

Most people seem to forget that its a world wide economy, not national economies anymore. So if the United States went down the drain, you better believe we won't be going down alone.

Also Spain and China as an empire? I could see examples such as Persia, Macedonian Empire, Egyptian, and such, but China was ruled by foreigners for the majority of its history and Spain only partially controlled colonies in South America and Central America.

Lets not forget who trained Osama Bin Laden and who gave Saddam Hussein most of his weapons during the Irak vs Iran war... Everyone has their hands covered in blood but the US is the one screaming Rape!

If I remember right, Russia was the main benefactor of many of these terrorist groups forming for their independence (AK-47...), though with the Iraq situation, most if it the U.S. was asking for when funding a dictator that mutilates his own people for petty mistakes.

The gratitude is there, but we want to give it freely rather than have it expected of us. Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, and many others bravely sacrificed their lives to fight across the other side of the world but I've never ever heard them demand thanks in the same way.

I think the U.S. is treated like a rich gay uncle by the rest of the world. They don't like us and don't want us around until they need money. Then they come begging and complain loudly if we ever ask for repayment.

I think the U.S. is treated like a rich gay uncle by the rest of the world. They don't like us and don't want us around until they need money. Then they come begging and complain loudly if we ever ask for repayment.

If you want to use that argument, you have to consider that most third world debt is owed to American banks. American banks are crippling many of the poorest nations around the world through loan repayments. This isn't exactly making the US popular in some circles. Even the best banks have bad reputations with their customers.

Expect to see very strong moves from Europe and Britain in particular to reduce or restructure third world debt in the coming decade, not as anti-US or anti-capitalist policy but as a pro-africa policy.

Follun:

China was the most advanced country before even Christ was born. Their dynasties, culture, advances, etc. were second to none for hundreds of years. And many are still revered today.

Spain had so many riches and had so many colonies "the sun never went down on Spain" thus meaning the sun was always shining on a part of the world it controlled.

These were true empires and, at least in the case of Spain, true controllers of world economies and outcomes.
One of my history teachers told me that it wasn't the british who were the worst pirates of the seas, it was the Spanish (not that this is good, just trying to prove a point).

What it all comes down to is a struggle between world forces.
Yes, the US economy is the world's main motor, but it is too reliant on foreign investments and purchasers, which means all any other country has to do is pick up the industry that has gone downhill - which most likely isn't in the US anyway - and take control of it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm ot tryng to downsize anyone, I just think the US's arrogance and chestpounding is out of place.
I should know, I've been travelling since I was a year and a half old, and I've seen so many similarities between countries with respect to internal attitudes you would be surprised.
On one's turf everyone is always better than the person looking at you from abroad. /shrug

If you want to use that argument, you have to consider that most third world debt is owed to American banks. American banks are crippling many of the poorest nations around the world through loan repayments. This isn't exactly making the US popular in some circles. Even the best banks have bad reputations with their customers.
Sorry but not a lot of sympathy here.

Countries need to be fiscally responsible just like individual citizens. If you can't afford the payment, don't borrow the money. Thats why I ride a motorcyle to work instead of driving a Ferrari. 3rd world countries by defination are generally poor credit risks. I don't see anyone else stepping up to the plate offering to loan them money under better terms.

I have never been able to understand why every other country seems to feel that any debts owed to the U.S. should just be forgiven. Hell, Great Britain isn't willing to give up their rebate to support the rest of the EU charity cases. Why should the U.S. do the same?

I have never been able to understand why every other country seems to feel that any debts owed to the U.S. should just be forgiven. Hell, Great Britain isn't willing to give up their rebate to support the rest of the EU charity cases. Why should the U.S. do the same?

It's a perfectly valid point that third world debts were openly entered into and there is nothing illegal about them. The situation is a clash of two priorities, do you prioritise legallly entered financial loan repayments or prioritise the elimination of 3rd world poverty? I haven't suggested the US writes off any debt, I merely said governments will be increasingly looking for changes that will benefit the third world with conditions to ensure good governance. It's not simple and I for one don't have an easy solution.

Let's consider a poor third world nation that wants to spend money on medicine, food, and education for it's citizens. You or I can pay charitable money to help them, but our donations are only a part substitute for the money that nation has to pay a bank in London, New York, or elsewhere. The best people to provide for these people are themselves but until their debt burden is removed they continue to depend on our charity whilst making rich institutions richer.

Where do your priorities lie, with the banks or with people in poverty? Does it matter if they're american banks or not?

googled link - http://www2.gol.com/users/bobkeim/money/debt.html

(The UK does subsidise other countries in Europe already, even considering the rebate. Some other countries oppose further EU enlargement because their balance of contributions and benefits will change. It's all valid but ultimately tedious politics.)

Just to make a point there.

I doubt anyone here would argue that Americans helped a considerable amount to win the world war 2.

However just a reminder you had no choice in the matter after pearl harbour so please dont write like it was US doing everyone a favour and helping out and if they couldnt be bothered they didn't have to. Even if they decided not to retaliate after Pearl harbour you would have inevitably been pulled into it ether way.

Every Allied country did their bit weather it was the US or any other Allied country EQUALLY and lost lives because of it.

It upsets me that some people forget that.

Tils

Pearl harbor only gave us a way to officially enter the war. The US was keeping England afloat long before US troops were involved. Without the support of the US BEFORE Pearl, England and Europe would most likely have fallen before any US serviceman set foot on the continent. The United states was fighting the war long before we were at war.

It's a perfectly valid point that third world debts were openly entered into and there is nothing illegal about them. The situation is a clash of two priorities, do you prioritise legallly entered financial loan repayments or prioritise the elimination of 3rd world poverty? I haven't suggested the US writes off any debt, I merely said governments will be increasingly looking for changes that will benefit the third world with conditions to ensure good governance. It's not simple and I for one don't have an easy solution.
Then instead of talking about restructuring or complaining that the U.S. banks are crippling many of the poorest nations around the world through loan repayments. how about some of those countries get together and make their payments for them instead? In many cases I get the feeling the answer is that "because it would benefit the U.S."

In all honesty it may sound cold but in most cases I have to go with the prioritizing of the loan repayments. If we keep letting countries borrow and borrow and never repay all it does is cost everyone more in the long run with higher interest rates, and bigger deficits and sets the precedent for the circle to continue. Where do we draw the line? In my opinion, subsidizing 3rd world countries should be the bailiwick of charities and the U.N. Unfortunately since the U.S. is the biggest financial supporter of the U.N. it amounts to the same thing.

EDIT:

And no, I don't care whose debt it is. I am just sick of seeing that xxx country defaulted on xxx millions/billions of dollars in loan money while the U.S. deficit gets bigger and bigger and the only thing I hear from the rest of the world is that the U.S. is nothing but a bunch of arrogant bastards.

Just as an aside here, under other presidents, the chest pounding wasn't nearly as obnoxious as it is now. I don't recall Clinton ever chest pounding. Bush Sr. didn't do too much of it, although he did do a little when the Gulf War happened. Reagan only did it with the USSR, and even he did it covertly (via massive arms buildup) not overtly ("Bring it on!"). Carter was considered (and still is) a prime statesman of his day, being a significant player in the Egypt/Israeli conflict resolution. Ford was....well, he was kinda silly...hard to take chest pounding seriously when it's coming from the court jester. Nixon opened channels with China, no small feat at the time. Johnson did a bit of thumping, but wasn't taken real seriously given the fiasco in Viet Nam at the time. Kennedy did a whole lot of chest thumping, but he did it during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and his thumping actually caused the USSR to back off, so I would say his thumping was well orchestrated and not just someone trying to sound like the world's biggest bully.

Not all American's agree with GWB. Seems about half of them disagree with him as the polls show now.

I, personally, have nothing wrong with old europe, and believe each country should be entitled to state and hold their own opinions, and not have follow the US lockstep to be considered an ally.

I would be willing to put money on it that if another world war were to break out, France and Germany (assuming we or they weren't the aggressors) would have no problems with us.

Personally, I agree with a lot of the european sentiment that the US (note: not ME....the powers that run the country I live in) took a very politically unwise stance with the UN and with Iraq. In a global economy, one can't afford to piss off too many people.

my 2 euro's worth.

I would be willing to put money on it that if another world war were to break out, France and Germany (assuming we or they weren't the aggressors) would have no problems with us. That statement pretty much sums up a lot of my issues with much of the world. It's my "Gay Uncle" theory all over again.

"Stay the hell away from the rest of us...unless we **** up...then we expect you to save our ass."

EDIT:

Oh, and as for
I don't recall Clinton ever chest pounding.Clinton was too busy trying to distract the nation from the weekly scandals that erupted from his administration to do something as stupid as try to pound his chest and draw even more attention to himself.

The only think I remember Carter accomplishing in office was the signing of the Camp David Accords in which Egypt formally recognized Israel.

Well, that and boycotting the olympics.

He has accomplished MUCH more after he left office than he ever did during his 4 year term.

Reagan was covert? Carter was and is considered a prime statesman?

Not in this universe.

We get no sense of appreciation for anything we've done for Europe. I have no doubt, that were the US invaded tomorrow by say, China, the majority of Europe would sit, Neutral. Hell, I bet Russia would be quicker to ally itself with the US than France or Germany

I found this information on the US Central Command website about Operation Enduring Force in Afghanistan.

"French commitment to OEF has been strong and resolute since the beginning of the operation. As soon as United Nations Security Council Resolution 1378 was issued on 18 October 2001, France forces were sent in Afghanistan. Since October 21, French reconnaissance aircraft and air tankers have contributed to the air campaign. Indeed, France was the first country, along with the United States, to have flown bombing missions over Afghanistan in direct support of American ground troops. French forces arrived on the ground as early as 2 December 2001, securing Mazar-e-Sharif.

In total, some 5,500 French service members were sent to the region."

"Germany provides a significant contribution to Operation Enduring Freedom, including the Army, Air Force and Navy up to a total strength of 3900 soldiers. "

I don't blame the Russians for staying out of Afghanistan this time to be honest.

In total, some 5,500 French service members were sent to the region."

"Germany provides a significant contribution to Operation Enduring Freedom, including the Army, Air Force and Navy up to a total strength of 3900 soldiers. "
<!-- / message -->



We must have different definations of significant contribution.

A total of less than 10K soldiers between the two countries combined since 2001 sounds more like "lets send the minimum amount possible and still be able to say we participated."

I'm guessing they're in the top 5 contributors to OEF. Plenty of the countries involved sent less than 50 troops with wider contributions in medical or logistical support.

I'm also guessing that it was Germany's first military operation outside it's own borders since WW2.

You have to realise that the US military is MASSIVE compared to most nations and that those troop numbers are significant to the nations concerned, even nations such as France and Germany. France has a number of commitments to other allies and peacekeeping operations which are permanent drain on military resources, a problem also faced by the UK and US. The UK is overstretched currently in it's support of US military operations. As George Bush's might say ... "your remarks are demeaning their contribution" ;).

I see it like this:

The USA wanted to have its way, but France and Germany used their weight in the UN to force the US to go solo and bring along the pals it could get, but without UN help.

But I also see it as a farce on the US's behalf. They wanted their way, but everyone else had to agree to it whether they wanted to or not. This is where the US's propaganda machine came into play and began pointing accusing fingers and things like that. Don't deny it, the simple fact most Americans today STILL believe you liberated Europe during WWII is evidence enough you know little to nothing about what was really going on and have watched Saving Private Ryan way too many times.

Lets not forget who trained Osama Bin Laden and who gave Saddam Hussein most of his weapons during the Irak vs Iran war... Everyone has their hands covered in blood but the US is the one screaming Rape!



Woah, what kind of revisionist history do they teach in Spain?

Who liberated Western and Northern Europe, if not the US?

It sure as hell wasn't Fascist Spain. And it wasn't Russia (and I wouldn't call what Russia did in the East liberation, so much as redistribution control). It wasn't the French Resistance...and while the British at least helped alot, they couldn't have done it without the US.


Yes, the US did train some people it now regrets it had. But, those were different times. The Soviet Union was a threat to us and to foil their imperialism where possible, was an admirable goal. Iran, at the time, was a greater threat to the West than Iraq.

Let us recall, however, that it wasn't US weapons Iraq was using by '91 during the first Gulf War, but Russian.

I think using a war that happened more than 50 years ago as a reason why another country should, or should not, have gratitude and be your bestest friend forever down into history is a little bogus.

We change administrations every 8 years (at the very least) and our relationships with other countries will definitely change with each leader. Some of our leaders are looking more towards being an integral part of the world community, others simply want to dominate it.

I think, history has shown that 50 isn't a long time, and it wasn't 50 years ago. It was up until 1991, with the fall of the Soviet Union.

The US was the primary shield against Soviet Imperialism. I find it odd that Britain and Australia manage to consistantly support the US despite our changes in administration...yet France stands against us, regardless of our administration.

If you want to use that argument, you have to consider that most third world debt is owed to American banks. American banks are crippling many of the poorest nations around the world through loan repayments. This isn't exactly making the US popular in some circles. Even the best banks have bad reputations with their customers.

Expect to see very strong moves from Europe and Britain in particular to reduce or restructure third world debt in the coming decade, not as anti-US or anti-capitalist policy but as a pro-africa policy.

Again, you wonder why we dislike Europe? America pays over 1/5th of the UN's general budget. We pay close to 1/3 of the UN's peacekeeping budget. In addition, we give out more pure aid to other nations than any other nation on the planet. We even give aid to nations who habitually vote against US interests in the UN (and heaven forbid the US stop doing that...when the US even suggests maybe not giving aid to nations whose political agendas always run opposite of ours, the rest of the world cries at how unfair that is).

Yet you have the gall to get upset with us for wanting some of the loans we've given out, in addition, to be repaid eventually?

Europe is very keen on giving away American dollars.

Pearl harbor only gave us a way to officially enter the war. The US was keeping England afloat long before US troops were involved. Without the support of the US BEFORE Pearl, England and Europe would most likely have fallen before any US serviceman set foot on the continent. The United states was fighting the war long before we were at war.

Americans always exaggerate their contribution to WW2.

Facts:

Russia defeated Hitler. It would have done so whether or not America or Britain had helped. Yes, I know about lend/lease but the Russians produced over 90% of their own war material; and it was Russian troops who did most of the actual bleeding.
The Battle of Britain was won long before America entered the war. Britain stood alone against the Nazi's and fought them off - British troops won that battle, in British planes. Hitler had abandoned the rudimentary plans he'd made to conquer Britain during the fall of 1940.
America didn't provide military aid to the allies for free - or even on discounted terms, despite the rhetoric used in speeches at the time. What America did was to sell or lease military products to the allies at a margin. It wasn't until the Axis caught the American fleet with its pants down at Pearl Harbour that America made a non-profiteering contribution to the war.
Unlike the European nations, America didn't declare war on fascism until it had no alternative.

Again, you wonder why we dislike Europe? America pays over 1/5th of the UN's general budget. We pay close to 1/3 of the UN's peacekeeping budget. In addition, we give out more pure aid to other nations than any other nation on the planet.

In pure numbers, maybe yea. Calculate it per capita and the picture is vastly different. Last I checked CIA factbook my country's contribution was over thirteen times per capita than the USA.

Either way, of course we (Europe) are happy that the WW2 ended like it did. But if any of you think for a second that the US contribution in that war gives us an obligation to toss out the window the very basic principles we fought for in that war simply because GWB tells us to, you've got to be seriously kidding me. We're guaranteed the right to our own opinions, and we expect respect for those even when they differ from yours. That's the very foundation of democracy, and if any of you think we're giving that up because GWB goes on TV and states we're either with you or against you.. think again.

And seriously, if the situation was reversed - would you? Would you go against the foundation of your beliefs to follow someone who you disagree with simply because he tells you to? Or because he thinks you owe it to him?

Americans always exaggerate their contribution to WW2.

Facts:

Russia defeated Hitler. It would have done so whether or not America or Britain had helped. Yes, I know about lend/lease but the Russians produced over 90% of their own war material; and it was Russian troops who did most of the actual bleeding.
The Battle of Britain was won long before America entered the war. Britain stood alone against the Nazi's and fought them off - British troops won that battle, in British planes. Hitler had abandoned the rudimentary plans he'd made to conquer Britain during the fall of 1940.
America didn't provide military aid to the allies for free - or even on discounted terms, despite the rhetoric used in speeches at the time. What America did was to sell or lease military products to the allies at a margin. It wasn't until the Axis caught the American fleet with its pants down at Pearl Harbour that America made a non-profiteering contribution to the war.
Unlike the European nations, America didn't declare war on fascism until it had no alternative.


Note: Russia was able to stave off Germany, while Germany was attempting to fight Britain. Yes, Britain survived the Battle of Britain. Which meant, simply, that Germany just had to keep Britain bottled up on her island while it crushed Russia. Russia was not going to defeat Germany and Japan both (and yes, Japan was working its way into Russia from the other side), alone.

Russia did not defeat Nazi Germany. What defeated Nazi Germany, ultimately was US bombers destroying their infrastructure and supply lines, and then giving Germany a second front to fight, without the manufacturing or resources to fight it.

Regarding Lend/Lease, 31 Billion Dollars to the British Government, 11 Billion to Russia (They may have produced 90% of their own war materials, but significant portions were either US or built with US money). Over 2/3 of Soviet military trucks in 1945 were US trucks. 13 Million Soviet soldiers were wearing US boots, and most of the rations Soviet soldiers were eating were from US sources.

Further, regarding the British Lend/Lease...the terms of repayment were very simple, and very favorable. Anything destroyed during the war, was written off. Anything the United States wanted back, was given back. Any surplus left over was sold to Britain at 20% commercial value. Any surplus Britain had of US equipment they purchased for 20% that they ended up selling, those funds were given to the US. Further, the US provided Britain with an additional 3.75 billion dollar loan for rebuilding efforts.

We're talking about huge sums of money for the time...the overwhelming majority of it, Britain never had to give back.

Regarding Russian Lend/Lease...they felt they didn't owe us any funds back, but did return some of our equipment after negotiation.

No, the United States did not sell or lease items to Britain at a margin. We gave them, free and clear, what they needed to wage war with, to be repaid sometime after the war...and then we allowed that repayment to dwindle to virtually nothing.

But you Europeans just love to forget these facts, and create new "facts"

In pure numbers, maybe yea. Calculate it per capita and the picture is vastly different. Last I checked CIA factbook my country's contribution was over thirteen times per capita than the USA.

Either way, of course we (Europe) are happy that the WW2 ended like it did. But if any of you think for a second that the US contribution in that war gives us an obligation to toss out the window the very basic principles we fought for in that war simply because GWB tells us to, you've got to be seriously kidding me. We're guaranteed the right to our own opinions, and we expect respect for those even when they differ from yours. That's the very foundation of democracy, and if any of you think we're giving that up because GWB goes on TV and states we're either with you or against you.. think again.

And seriously, if the situation was reversed - would you? Would you go against the foundation of your beliefs to follow someone who you disagree with simply because he tells you to? Or because he thinks you owe it to him?

Figuring it per capita is a fallacy promoted to soothe the egos of European nations. The fact remains, if the US pulled out of the UN...the UN would falter and die, if for no other reason, it couldn't afford to continue (especially considering the likelihood that if the US pulled out, Britain and Japan probably wouldn't be far behind, leaving the UN with less than half of its resources).

Further, that doesn't take into the consideration the hundreds of billions of dollars the US gives out in aid, outside of the UN, every year.

And France and Germany didn't just "not follow us", they actively fought against support for us in the UN.

While I don't agree with Bush, and want nothing more than to see him leave power here...our supposed friends have shown just how much they value us.

Figuring it per capita is a fallacy promoted to soothe the egos of European nations. The fact remains, if the US pulled out of the UN...the UN would falter and die, if for no other reason, it couldn't afford to continue

The only reason this is true* is because you are a large nation. You want credit for that? If so - wow grats, you guys sure are many! I'm not clear on why this qualifies for applause, and I'm definitely unsure of why this is MORE commendable than myself and my fellow countrymen contributing 13 times more than yours, please enlighten me.

*I'll take your word for it, regardless of documentation or lack thereof, math isn't that much fun.

Russia was able to stave off Germany, while Germany was attempting to fight Britain. Yes, Britain survived the Battle of Britain. Which meant, simply, that Germany just had to keep Britain bottled up on her island while it crushed Russia. Russia was not going to defeat Germany and Japan both (and yes, Japan was working its way into Russia from the other side), alone.

Sure it was. Russia virtually did do this.

In 1941, things looked pretty dicey for Russia. In fact, one German reconnaissance regiment got to within sight of the Kremlin... in 1941, the Germans destroyed over twice as many Russian divisions than German intelligence actually believed existed. But the winter of 1941 put paid to that.

In 1942 and on, the Russians simply outmanned and outproduced Germany to the extent that there was never any question that they were going to win. Stalingrad turned the tide, and the battle of Kursk in 1943 was the moment when Germany began to suffer really crushing defeats. From 1943 onwards it was clear that Germany was doomed.

The US/British/ANZAC invasion of Italy in 1943, and subsequently Normandy in 1944, was certainly important and it certainly helped to bring fascism to its knees faster, I'm not disputing that in the slightest. But if it hadn't happened, Russia would - eventually, and at the cost of literally millions more lives - have defeated the Axis.

Russia did not defeat Nazi Germany. What defeated Nazi Germany, ultimately was US bombers destroying their infrastructure and supply lines, and then giving Germany a second front to fight, without the manufacturing or resources to fight it.

US (and British) bombers did do a lot of damage to Germany, and the Western nations' contribution to the war certainly wasn't irrelevant. The courage and skill of the men who took part in those bombing raids was incredible, and the work they did and the sacrifices they made were certainly a very important part of the war. In no way am I sneering at them.

But Russia won WW2, Russia would have won even without America or Britain or the ANZAC forces who also helped.

I don't think we'd have liked the world which would have resulted, if America and Britain and the ANZACs had stayed at home. Quite possibly, mainland Europe would have finished up as a part of the USSR, and that would have been disastrous.

__________________________________________________ _____________________

I suppose what annoys me about the American contribution to WW2 is the difference between the reaction of America to the reaction of Britain and France to fascism. Hitler invaded Poland in September 1939; Britain declared war within a couple of days, France declared war the day after.

Neither nation was under any obligation to do this. We simply did it because declaring war on fascism was the right thing to do. It would have been better had we declared war earlier, I agree - appeasement was a disgrace - but at least we woke up and smelled the coffee and stood up for the little guy.

America stood on the sidelines and cheered us on, but didn't actually get its hands dirty doing any of the real fighting until, in 1941, it was left with no choice.

It's playground politics. Germany, a big kid, was beating up on the little kids. Britain and France were the kids who stood up and told him to stop; America was the kid holding our coats.

After France got its butt kicked, Britain got a bloody nose, and Germany was slugging it out with Russia, one of Germany's cronies kicked America in the shins. It wasn't until then that America stopped holding coats and started to fight.

None of this is particularly relevant to the thread, it just annoys me when Americans try to say they won WW2 and pulled the rest of the world's fat out of the fire. Some individual Americans showed remarkable heroism, but not the nation as a whole.

I suppose the difference is, in The War Against Terrorism (hereafter to be known as TWAT) - British soldiers stood up and actually went to Iraq and actually fought. We didn't just cheer you on and sell you cheap boots and wait for the terrorists to blow up our precious buildings before we started fighting.

It can't be proven one way or the other which nations provided the greatest contribution to the war effort. Contribution can be measured in lives lost, money spent, territory conquered, intelligence gathered, honour upheld, and many other ways. Different ways of measuring will find different outcomes. Rather than arguing about contributions and looking for 'debts of gratitude' the allies should congratulate themselves on their combined efforts.

Something Americans should remember is that large parts of Europe suffered under Hitler, something the US avoided only through geography. The French didn't choose to be the target of the utterly pioneering armour attacks launched by the German army. While the US was preparing it's military and supplying valuable monies to other countries to fight Hitler, those countries were spending all their economy and the blood of their countrymen in war. The two pivotal battles in WW2 were arguably the Battle of Britain (in the air) and Stalingrad, neither fought by Americans, but nobody devalues the contribution of the US because of that.

Actually, Russia was winning on its own soil, but could not advance without Germany fighting a battle on a dual front. Neither Hitler nor Stalin were stupid people, that's why Russia began as an Axis power, allied with Germany, later switching sides when it felt threatened by the German war machine (that's the simple explanation, anyway). Once Russia felt that its border was secure, I highly doubt that Russia would have put forth major effort to liberate the rest of Europe. I get the feeling that Stalin would have done a "Hey Hitler, see we can beat you guys, how about you stay on your side of the fence now and we'll stay on ours." Just like Germany, Russia could hardly afford a war on two borders – don’t forget that Japan was winning many of its sorties with the Russian army (see: Sakhalin Island).

Don’t forget that the majority of Germany’s production problems were centered on oil, and that’s a big part of why Germany started invading parts of Russia. Russia was a big oil source for the German army, and with Stalin pulling out of the alliance, that left German oil supplies threatened. Southern Europe was pretty much conquered, Rommel was having little to no resistance in Africa. The Middle East at that time had no real (advanced) army to speak of. Should Germany take over the oil fields of the Middle East, it would have gone a long way towards resolving many of its production problems.

This is all hypothetical anyway, but the way I see it playing out in my mind is that if the US stayed neutral, Germany would have conquered all of Europe to the old USSR border and down to the Middle East and some of Africa. Russia would have formed an uneasy alliance again with Germany and allowed Japan to occupy the Sakhalin Island as well as part of Indo-China. Germany would probably have given up on the British Isles, taking a passive route of doing a trade and supply blockade until Britain acquiesced and allowed Germany to leave an occupation force. The US would enter into negotiations for trade while at the same time, denouncing Germany’s war acts in public.

If you don't want to repay money you don't go get a loan...right???? You ask for a donation or something like that. Having Pearl Harbor referred to as a "kick in the shins" is just wrong.

Yes, the US was spared the majority of damage on it's own lands. But, What bugs me is that a lot of people downplay the significance of the US entering the War.

Let's say the US played no role in WW2 at all. No Lend Lease program. No shipping supplies and food to the UK, no Troops.

Would England have fallen without the Pre-Pearl Harbor aid given by the US. Some say no, I think most historians would, however, agree that England would probably have been knocked out of the picture or bottled up on their Island.

Without The US, would D day ever of happened? Would Australia, England, Canada etc have fielded enough troops to take the beaches?

Without D day and a war on two fronts would the Soviets have been able to drive all they way to Berlin?

How much more effective would the German war machine have been without the portion of bombing that the US did in the war?

Then there are other things to consider. Germany was on the brink of many technological advances. If the war had been extended it could have possibly breathed new life into the German offensive. The ME-262 ushered in the Jet age and was poised to change the balance of power. Given another year this weapon alone could have changed the outcome of the war. Germany was also hot on the trail of the A-Bomb and wasn't that far behind the US in it's development. Certainly, given more time, that could have changed the outcome of the war.

The next questions is, what would France and all of Germany look today if it was the Soviets that "liberated" them from the Germans? What happened to all of the countries that the Soviet's "liberated" after the war?

No American thinks that the US won WW2 on their own. We know that it was a huge effort involving all our allies. Anything less, probably would have yielded nothing more than a Europe united under Hitler. But, when people start claiming that the US wasn't of Vital importance in the war and that the war would have been won eventually without us, not only is it downplaying the importance of our efforts, It's downright insulting and shows no respect to the countless Americans that sacrificed their lives on the European Continent. I challenge you to ask your Grandparents or any of those old enough to remember WW2 what they think of the US's role in the war. Certainly it wouldn't be the opinion of some of the people on this board.

I must say... who gives a flying crap?

Were any of you alive during ww2? How can you continue to demand respect and friendship from your allies in a war that was more than half a century ago. Jeez, if I helped out a friend 10 years ago I wouldn't keep going back to the incident and reminding them why they owe me their allegiance. That would be obnoxious and would probably make my "friend" dislike me right there.

Maybe France should go back a couple hundred years and remind us, several times a day, how they were the only reason America even exists right now.

The balance of WW2 contributions are pretty irrelevant since the contributions of most countries were as much as they could give. Nobody has said that Americans weren't major contributors. I think the point is that Britains and Russians don't still say to the French, Dutch, Poles, or anyone else 'we won the war for you, where's some gratitude?' Americans do say that sort of thing, they have in this thread.

Sure it was. Russia virtually did do this.

In 1941, things looked pretty dicey for Russia. In fact, one German reconnaissance regiment got to within sight of the Kremlin... in 1941, the Germans destroyed over twice as many Russian divisions than German intelligence actually believed existed. But the winter of 1941 put paid to that.

In 1942 and on, the Russians simply outmanned and outproduced Germany to the extent that there was never any question that they were going to win. Stalingrad turned the tide, and the battle of Kursk in 1943 was the moment when Germany began to suffer really crushing defeats. From 1943 onwards it was clear that Germany was doomed.

You completely discount the fact that were it not for the US entering the war, Germany could have all but stripped its western front, and sent it to the eastern front. Further, had the US not been supplying Britain and disrupting German shipping in the Medi., odds are very strong Rommel would have marched his way into the Mideast, securing the resources Germany needed for a prolonged battle vs Russia. Further, without US intervention, Japan would have pressed hard against Russia's eastern frontier and embroiled it in a two front war it could not have won. Further, Stalingrad didn't turn the tide. It stopped the tide, up until that point, Germany had pretty much had its way with Russia and the Russian winter, which Russia depended upon, was going to end in months.


But Russia won WW2, Russia would have won even without America or Britain or the ANZAC forces who also helped.

Again, without the rest of the Allies, Russia would have been ground between the millstones of Germany and Japan. They would not have even defeated Germany alone. They might have fended Germany off for some time, if it were just Germany, but with Japan in as well, Russia was doomed.

I suppose what annoys me about the American contribution to WW2 is the difference between the reaction of America to the reaction of Britain and France to fascism. Hitler invaded Poland in September 1939; Britain declared war within a couple of days, France declared war the day after.

Neither nation was under any obligation to do this. We simply did it because declaring war on fascism was the right thing to do. It would have been better had we declared war earlier, I agree - appeasement was a disgrace - but at least we woke up and smelled the coffee and stood up for the little guy.

Actually, you are wrong.

Britain and France both sat by and let Germany run over Czechoslovakia, because they had no obligation. However, in the case of Poland, France had a military treaty with Poland dating back to 1921 (I believe), and shortly after Czechoslovakia, Britain had given a guarantee of Polish territorial independance. Both nations were, indeed, obligated by treaty and statements to war against Germany upon its invasion of Poland.



America stood on the sidelines and cheered us on, but didn't actually get its hands dirty doing any of the real fighting until, in 1941, it was left with no choice.

America did indeed, stay out of it. At the time, we were attempting to recover from the Great Depression, and after WWI, had an isolationist viewpoint. It was Europe's problem and we had no alliances with anyone involved.


It's playground politics. Germany, a big kid, was beating up on the little kids. Britain and France were the kids who stood up and told him to stop; America was the kid holding our coats.

More like Germany, a nation that a decade previously was the runt of Europe, decided enough was enough. Britain and France hemmed and hawed as Germany broke arms treaty after arms treaty and finally forcibly annexed a sovereign nation..and still Britain and France did nothing. Then, after Germany effectively threw the gauntlet down by invading a nation Britain and France had obligations to, then they finally went to war...

Meanwhile America, under no obligation to anyone, watched...and even helped in indirect way.

Britain and France weren't fighting against Fascism (they ignored, completely Fascist Spain), they were fighting to keep Germany from becoming a major player in their pond again.

None of this is particularly relevant to the thread, it just annoys me when Americans try to say they won WW2 and pulled the rest of the world's fat out of the fire. Some individual Americans showed remarkable heroism, but not the nation as a whole.

Um, except we did. If the United States had stayed completely neutral, you'd all be speaking German right now. The nation as a whole, rallied to provide Britain and Russia with supplies it needed, but we had no real Cassus Belli with Germany, and had plenty of our own problems on our side of the world. We were under no obligation to send aid, let alone troops, yet we sent billions in aid. When we finally had the excuse we needed...we won the war. Not Russia. The US.

I suppose the difference is, in The War Against Terrorism (hereafter to be known as TWAT) - British soldiers stood up and actually went to Iraq and actually fought. We didn't just cheer you on and sell you cheap boots and wait for the terrorists to blow up our precious buildings before we started fighting.

That's because the British government (if not its people) recognized that the US is their true friend, who had spent almost a century helping Britain ensure its survival, directly and indirectly, through two world wars and the cold war against Soviet Russia...

I must say... who gives a flying crap?

Were any of you alive during ww2? How can you continue to demand respect and friendship from your allies in a war that was more than half a century ago. Jeez, if I helped out a friend 10 years ago I wouldn't keep going back to the incident and reminding them why they owe me their allegiance. That would be obnoxious and would probably make my "friend" dislike me right there.

Maybe France should go back a couple hundred years and remind us, several times a day, how they were the only reason America even exists right now.

If your friend saved your life 10 years ago..then asked you to help them with something that you didn't agree with, or may even be illegal. Would you help them, or even turn them into the Police?

Regarding French help during the revolutionary war (and later during the war of 1812), well, many Americans died on French soil during WWI. Discounting WWII altogether ;)

The balance of WW2 contributions are pretty irrelevant since the contributions of most countries were as much as they could give. Nobody has said that Americans weren't major contributors. I think the point is that Britains and Russians don't still say to the French, Dutch, Poles, or anyone else 'we won the war for you, where's some gratitude?' Americans do say that sort of thing, they have in this thread.

Because it extends beyond WWII.

It started with WWII and continued for the next 50 years as we provided the big stick used to keep Soviet Russia from expanding into Western Europe.

America stood true to its European allies against their threat from the East...we've sunk and insane amount of money and lives into the security of nations half a world away, and all we seem to hear from them is scorn.

Regarding French help during the revolutionary war (and later during the war of 1812), well, many Americans died on French soil during WWI. Discounting WWII altogether

I see... so you're the official scorekeeper of who owes what to whom for deeds over the quarter century mark?


Would you help them, or even turn them into the Police?

It depends. If my friend had turned into a murderer, I'd turn them into the police. If they were smoking pot, I wouldn't. But the fact that they had saved my life would matter one whit if they treated me like crap.

I think a better analogy would be if you saved a friends life 10 years ago and had been constantly loaning him money and watching his back ever since just so he could tell you you are an arrogant ********, that you need to do more, and that no, you don't deserve a ****ing thank you.

Then asks to borrow another $200M which he has no plans to repay.

EDIT:
I find it amusing that Ass hole is censored but ****ing isnt.

I forget why the censors are what they are... I think we had problems with childish behavior more on EZBoards than here. We haven't had to add many new words to the list. We don't really see'em enough outside of Unkempt to bother, I suppose.

As for this thread...

I still say France sucks.

I think a better analogy would be if you saved a friends life 10 years ago and had been constantly loaning him money and watching his back ever since just so he could tell you you are an arrogant ********, that you need to do more, and that no, you don't deserve a ****ing thank you.

Then asks to borrow another $200M which he has no plans to repay.

Exactly which one of the Europeans posting here stating their point would fall in under these categories? Exactly where do you think we are from, and what "constant" loans and recent requests for more are you refering to?

Specifically.

America stood true to its European allies against their threat from the East...we've sunk and insane amount of money and lives into the security of nations half a world away, and all we seem to hear from them is scorn.

The British and French also still spend a lot of money and lives on the security of nations half a world away, usually from old colonial obligations. We get some scorn for our efforts but don't seem as bothered by it as some Americans seem to be. Instead of calling the recipient nations ungrateful, have you ever questioned whether the US is actually using its global efforts to best effect? When I look at Zimbabwe, I don't just see an anti-British tyrant there, I see a decade of diplomatic failure from Britain as well.

Third world debt is relevant here. The loan money probably helped initially but now more money is now repaid by the third world as interest payments than it recieves as international aid. That is, from the third worlds point of view, the wrong sort of help.

Exactly which one of the Europeans posting here stating their point would fall in under these categories? Exactly where do you think we are from, and what "constant" loans and recent requests for more are you refering to?
My apology for not being specific.

My post was not targeted to any one poster on this thread. It was simply an attempt to explain the overall impression I get from this board, other forums I post on with international posters and Non-U.S. acquaintences I interact with on a day to day basis.

I think Aidon has pretty much covered the bases on what the U.S. has done for Europe and in exchange the attitude we get is But I also see it as a farce on the US's behalf. They wanted their way, but everyone else had to agree to it whether they wanted to or not. This is where the US's propaganda machine came into play and began pointing accusing fingers and things like that. Don't deny it, the simple fact most Americans today STILL believe you liberated Europe during WWII is evidence enough you know little to nothing about what was really going on and have watched Saving Private Ryan way too many times.


The U.S. and Japan alone are responsible for just under 42% of the U.N. budget. (http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/en/aussenpolitik/vn/vereinte_nationen/finanzen_html) The U.S. part of that is 22% If you add the total contributions of Germany, France, and the U.K. it totals to less than the U.S. individual contribution. In fact, if you add up the percentages for every other country on that chart it is STILL less than the U.S. and Japan combined.

Look, I don't think that every nation on earth needs to grovel at the feet of the U.S. I am just sick and tired of my country being bashed everytime I turn around when we spend more in Foreign aid than any other country on earth.

While WW2 may have ended almost 60 years ago, It's still pretty relevant on the world stage. National pride and national grudges go on long after the principle players are dead and gone. Law suites all over the world are STILL going on over properties siezed by the Nazi's in WW2. How many Centuries did France and England stay at odds? Even in the middle east, a large portion of Malice towards the Western world stems from wars centuries old. The Crusades are STILL a sore point to many in the middle east. (where was the US involved there?). Let's not forget France's role in Persia.

For me, I just get annoyed when countries like France and Germany cop this superior "tude" towards the US, especially given Their own recent histories. Yes, WW2 is recent history. My Parents were alive then, they saw their parents risk their lives there.

Just because it is that way doesn't mean it makes any sense at all and it certainly doesn't stand as a valid excuse for the way it should continue to be.

At some point you just gotta move on and stop harboring old grudges or stop feeling like you're "owed" because 200 years ago someone did something bad to one of your ancestors. Reliving WW2 over and over and trying to make it some sort of basis for why everyone should bow and scrape to the US now is sickening. You'd probably, I should hope, not act that way as one individual to another.

If you want to argue war history for the sake of war history, by all means do it. But to a 60 year old war as an excuse to demand respect today is pathetic.

My parents were alive during WW2 as well. In fact, they were adults then. But so what? I enjoy hearing the stories but the hardships they went through have nothing to do with the original topic.

Getting back to the original topic, what "tude" does France and Germany have towards the US?

With that resolution, then all sins from the past should be forgiven and forgotten. Someone kill your parents ten years ago? Fergitaboutit. Nazi war criminal captured forty years in the future? Let bygones by bygones. The US kicked you off your lands or allowed people to keep you as slaves? Meh, why worry!?

As interesting and important as WW2 is (I've studied it quite thoroughly for years and years, and some of you need to read more than just their localized versions of events. Remember who history is written by...) to say that it's recent history is a cop out. It's not recent. The people who fought in that war will all be dead in 10-15 more years, tops, and that will be the end of any personal debts or scores, which are the only ones that have any relevance. Nations owe only their own people, ultimately. Sure, it's great to have allies, but they are a means to an end, a guarantee of security or trade. And the bottom line is, nobody who has posted in this thread contributed in any way, shape, or form to the efforts of all the brave men and women from every country who fought or suffered in WW2, and for anyone to cop any attitude based on what their grandparents did is juvenile at best. "My dad can beat up your dad!" Good for you and your dad. My grandfather landed on Omaha beach, my family has a long history of American military service, but you wont see him or anyone else spout off about who deserves what because of what happened 60 years ago.

And now back to the 21st century, already in progress.

Look, I don't think that every nation on earth needs to grovel at the feet of the U.S. I am just sick and tired of my country being bashed everytime I turn around when we spend more in Foreign aid than any other country on earth.

I agree, you shouldn't be bashed for trying to make a positive difference.

You should, however, be bashed when you expect other nations to follow your president when said president is telling (not asking, telling) them to go against their beliefs and convictions.

If my country's leader had gone to you and said "Hey, you're either with us and do this the way we want it done, or you're against us and as such part of the problem", wouldn't you have gone "uh oh, you're not my president, you don't tell me what to do, thankyouverymuch, and I'd appreciate if you didn't take that tone with me in the future."?

Seriously. Think about it. How would you react?

What I suspect is that most Americans do not understand just how deeply rooted the basic principles of international law is here in Europe. We've been attacked several times on our own soil in recent history, and as such, we know the dark side of breaking these principles. During and after the Nurnberg trials, USA was an integral part of creating these principles and getting them on paper and signed, and all was well.

Big big principle: It doesn't matter your reasoning, it doesn't matter your intentions, if you as a nation attack another nation, you are wrong. Big principle. We've felt first hand what happens if that principle is not in place, and we didn't like it.

And now you tell us to break it ourselves? To follow the proverbial good-intentional-paved road to hell? You ask us to break one of the very basic principles our grandfathers died for, and you have the NERVE to guilt-trip us about it, to call us chicken, to try to make it about debt either monitary or solidaritary when we decline?

No. We as nations sat down and decided these rules for a reason. Now, if someone feels the threat is a different one now and our reactions need to adjust to the new threats, so be it. But do not expect any good will for your suggested alternatives when they are presented as they are, when we are treated like dirt and spoken to like children.

History dictates that no nation stays large forever, and eventually the USA will also be history as a world power. Not today, maybe not tomorrow, but eventually. Since you can never expect to get back more than you gave yourseld, make sure that you treat today's smaller nations with the same respect and dignity that you'll like for your great grandchildren to be treated. The way this whole thing has been handled is not setting a good example for the future.

/speach off

(disclaimer: the word "you" is used as a general "you" and is not specifically aimed at jtoast.)

If my country's leader had gone to you and said "Hey, you're either with us and do this the way we want it done, or you're against us and as such part of the problem", wouldn't you have gone "uh oh, you're not my president, you don't tell me what to do, thankyouverymuch, and I'd appreciate if you didn't take that tone with me in the future."?If you are saying that the main reason Europe doesn't support the U.S. is because he didn't ask politely then we have bigger issues than I thought.

Big big principle: It doesn't matter your reasoning, it doesn't matter your intentions, if you as a nation attack another nation, you are wrong. Big principle. We've felt first hand what happens if that principle is not in place, and we didn't like it.
I completely disagree here...just like I disagree there is never a need for personal violence. If I feel someone is a real and viable threat to my family(in this case the U.S.) I will call the police(the U.N) and if they don't want to handle it then I might ask my neighbors for help(the coalition), and if they won't help I will bring whoever I can get with me and take care of it myself, resorting to physical violence if necessary as my children are more important to me than your sense of decorum, safety and security.

But do not expect any good will for your suggested alternatives when they are presented as they are, when we are treated like dirt and spoken to like children.If you base a decision as important as going to war on the politeness of the request for assistance and the tone of voice then that sounds pretty childish and petty to me.
*shrug* but thats just my opinion.

Look, I don't think that every nation on earth needs to grovel at the feet of the U.S. I am just sick and tired of my country being bashed everytime I turn around when we spend more in Foreign aid than any other country on earth.

No, the US spends less as a % of GDP on foreign aid than many developed nations. (This might have changed in 2004 if you include the massive amounts on Iraqi reconstruction I suppose). Foreign aid is all about wealth distribution from the richest to the poorest, so saying the US is so rich that it pays less as % doesn't really cut it. The US is entitled to set whatever budget it likes for foriegn aid, but please realise you're not necessarily the most generous nation on earth as you claimed.

I saw another argument recently from someone saying the US shouldn't be taking on any challenging pollution targets as it's a rich nation and needs strong industry. Just imagine a Bangladeshi with the floodwater rising above his home saying 'It's perfectly fair that the Americans pollute more than we do, it's very hard being rich and they need to make much more smog than we do'.

No, the US spends less as a % of GDP on foreign aid than many developed nationsActually as a percentage of GDP we are the lowest but in pure dollars we more than doubled the amount of the next closest contributers(Germany and Great Britain) per this chart (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp).

Should we give more? Thats a different debate. The point is in numbers that matter...pure total dollars given, we give more.

If a homeless person needs $3 to eat dinner he doesn't care whether the $.50 you gave him is a bigger percentage of your income than the $2.50 the next guy gave him.

All he cares about is SOMEBODY gave him enough to eat.

I completely disagree here...

It's not an opinion I'm stating that you can or cannot agree to. It -is- one of the basic principles upon which current international law is built. Read the Nurnberg transcripts, read the UN charter, read just about anything dealing with the relationships between nations. I was not stating my opinion on wether or not such a principle should exist. I was saying that it does in fact exist.

If you are saying that the main reason Europe doesn't support the U.S. is because he didn't ask politely then we have bigger issues than I thought.

uhm.. okayyyyy.. so if the manner in which you are spoken to is irrelevant, then what was the point you were trying to make when you did this little analogy earlier:

I think a better analogy would be if you saved a friends life 10 years ago and had been constantly loaning him money and watching his back ever since just so he could tell you you are an arrogant ********, that you need to do more, and that no, you don't deserve a ****ing thank you.

I thought your point was about treating others with respect. Now you say this, and I'm confused. And you didn't even answer my question. What would you tell us if my country's leader told you to go against your principles?

The point is in numbers that matter...pure total dollars given, we give more.

You might want to re-phrase that. You're coming across as saying that the act of the homeless man who shares his only loaf of bread with another is basically worthless.

Percentage of GDP is an utterly meaningless statistic, and is only used by insignificant nations who want to make the US look bad.

Let me put it this way. Im a poor mofo. I make ca. 20k a year. Lets imagine I give a full 5% of this (1000$) to, say, Haiti. Meanwhile, the US has given(fictional number) 0.0001% of its GDP to Haiti (this would be 1.1 Billion $).

Now youre trying to say my insignificant 1k contribution somehow outweighs the 1 billion dollars given by the US? Youre saying that mine will do more good, will affect more lives, will accomplish more good?

The only useful purpose of looking at contributions on a % of GDP basis is to identify the rabidly anti-American European apologists in our midst.

Dollars are all that matter. Percentages are, in this case, not only misleading but ridiculous.

You might want to re-phrase that. You're coming across as saying that the act of the homeless man who shares his only loaf of bread with another is basically worthlessNot saying its meaningless and, having been homeless, I recognize the person he is sharing it with is very appreciative....BUT, if Bill Gates came up to that same homeless person, bought him a house(150K), a car(30K), put him through medical school(100K), and gave him another 100K to open his own practice who did the most good? The man who gave 50% and fed the man for a few hours or the man who gave under .01%(guessing..didnt check the percentage) of his net worth but not only gave this man a new chance at life but added a physician to the world to help the sick and created new jobs by helping the man start his own business?

There is nothing wrong with looking at percentages but they are far from telling the entire story.

Percentage of GDP is an utterly meaningless statistic, and is only used by insignificant nations who want to make the US look bad.

No it isn't. The flat figure is misleading. If Andorra gives a million dollars in foreign aid that's something special. If the US gives a million dollars in foreign aid it's petty cash.

As I said before, Internation Aid is all about the rich giving to the poor. Saying that your nation is so rich that it needs to share less of its wealth isn't an argument that is going to get sympathy. This is especially true if you're wanting appreciation around the world for the good work America does, which seems to be a core topic of this thread.

It's not an opinion I'm stating that you can or cannot agree to. It -is- one of the basic principles upon which current international law is built. Read the Nurnberg transcripts, read the UN charter, read just about anything dealing with the relationships between nations. I was not stating my opinion on wether or not such a principle should exist. I was saying that it does in fact exist.I was disagreeing with your statement as a whole that international law is based on whoever throws the first rock is always wrong. That is not the case. International law is based on keeping peace. This does not mean when a country becomes a threat and ignores U.N. resolutions for 12 years(Iraq), and violates sanctions(Oil for food scandal) you smile and act like everything is hunky dory.


uhm.. okayyyyy.. so if the manner in which you are spoken to is irrelevant, then what was the point you were trying to make when you did this little analogy earlier:If I am asking to borrow $20 to go drinking it matters. If I run up to you and say "Someone is raping my wife...I need help!...Lets go!" then who gives a damn how its said or if its an order or a politely worded request. Just go save the woman.

I thought your point was about treating others with respect. Now you say this, and I'm confused. And you didn't even answer my question. What would you tell us if my country's leader told you to go against your principles?I would tell your countries leader to go to hell of course. The problem is that I just never understood how taking away the power of a homicidal dictator who used chemical weapons against his own people(kurds), ignored U.N.resolutions for 12 years, and perpetuated the oil for food scandal could violate anyone's principals....Unless of course the principal violated was cutting Oil for Food profits.

As I said before, Internation Aid is all about the rich giving to the poor. Saying that your nation is so rich that it needs to share less of its wealth isn't an argument that is going to get sympathy. This is especially true if you're wanting appreciation around the world for the good work America does, which seems to be a core topic of this threadNo its not. It's about the poor getting helped. Period.

Using percentages to make yourself feel better about the amount you give doesn't doesnt get the children fed.

I am not trying to minimize the efforts of countries who cannot give as much. I am saying that using strictly percentages allows others to minimize the U.S. contribution while at the same time allowing them to ignore the fact that in pure dollars we lead.

This is especially true if you're wanting appreciation around the world for the good work America does, which seems to be a core topic of this thread
you raise a good point - that being the utter futility of expecting appreciation for our good deeds.

The people who hate the US hate the US because it is the biggest and strongest. They dont give a rats ass about our policies, our % of GDP given, or our culture. They hate us because we are the King of the Hill. Its the funny thing about being on top - you make a clearly visible target. You can save the world, you can sacrifice yourself, you can do anything, and theyll still hate you. Because youre on top.

The world will never appreciate everything the US has done for it until the US is gone and someone else is on top, because the real root of their hatred for us is our position, not our actions.

Fortunately, we arent doing it to be popular, so whether the rest of the world hates us or loves us, we will continue giving these incredible, deficit-creating amounts of foreign aid because its the right thing to do.

we will continue giving these incredible, deficit-creating amounts of foreign aid because its the right thing to do.

The whole point is that they're not incredibly deficit creating. The deficit a nation can handle is related to GDP, there are no absolute numbers. If you compare US military spending to foreign aid the difference is massive, and that's a reasonable enough choice, but don't try to tell anyone else that it's foreign aid that's busting your budgets.

If you set your stall out and say someone is generous by the total amount they give, how is any country other than the US ever going to be rated as generous? How much of a budget deficit would Poland have to create for their foreign aid to be generous by your standards?

After 5 pages of meaningless back and forth on issues that most EQ players are scantly qualified to comment on, all I have to say is this:

It's "disdain", for the love of God!

If you set your stall out and say someone is generous by the total amount they give, how is any country other than the US ever going to be rated as generous? How much of a budget deficit would Poland have to create for their foreign aid to be generous by your standards?Thats like asking how anyone other than Bill Gates could ever be considered wealthy or how any retailer other than Walmart could be considered successful.

After 5 pages of meaningless back and forth on issues that most EQ players are scantly qualified to comment on, all I have to say is thisIt's still less than a full page for me. If you haven't went in and set your posts per page to 100 yet you're a forum N00b :D

Americans always exaggerate their contribution to WW2.

Facts:

Russia defeated Hitler. It would have done so whether or not America or Britain had helped. Yes, I know about lend/lease but the Russians produced over 90% of their own war material; and it was Russian troops who did most of the actual bleeding.
The Battle of Britain was won long before America entered the war. Britain stood alone against the Nazi's and fought them off - British troops won that battle, in British planes. Hitler had abandoned the rudimentary plans he'd made to conquer Britain during the fall of 1940.
America didn't provide military aid to the allies for free - or even on discounted terms, despite the rhetoric used in speeches at the time. What America did was to sell or lease military products to the allies at a margin. It wasn't until the Axis caught the American fleet with its pants down at Pearl Harbour that America made a non-profiteering contribution to the war.
Unlike the European nations, America didn't declare war on fascism until it had no alternative.


It is fun to read the interpertation of America's opinion pre pearl Harbor. Britian would have starved to death without our destroyers and transports delivering food. America did not provide free products to its former colonial enslaver. America did indeed get spanked badly on dec 7 1941, a day my father was recovering from an operation. America did not enter entangling european alllinaces with Britain and Poland until it was actually attacked for selling goods to another country...

[QUOTE=Panamah]I see... so you're the official scorekeeper of who owes what to whom for deeds over the quarter century mark?
[QUOTE]

Is your sense of friendship so shallow that you keep score? For me, sometimes a friend in need is something I won't question but answer the request without question or complaint but with a sincere loyality given to a true friend.

Big big principle: It doesn't matter your reasoning, it doesn't matter your intentions, if you as a nation attack another nation, you are wrong. Big principle.
/speach off

(disclaimer: the word "you" is used as a general "you" and is not specifically aimed at jtoast.)

So, if a country is selling nuclear war heads, portable via truck, to terrorists is or is not a viable reason for invasion? Do you or do you not believe that Sadam was seeking Nuclear bombs? Do you or do you not believe that Sadam would seek a warhead to terrorists if he thought he could get away with it? does this fall within your nice and neat definition of "safe" politics? Whether bought or built, countries that would sell nuclear "arms" to individuals that would drive such weapons to locations which allow massive casualties seem to be an appropiate stance? Or should you take Nelville as your middle name?

Personnaly I don'T care if the US are the king of the hill. What I find bad it when the US use their king of the hill position to bully other country to sign contract that help the US to keep their position.

EX: Special position into the "OMC" ("organisation mondial du commerce") and that they put taxt on the "bois d'oeuvre" from Canada about eatch 5-10 years and that they alway lost this special taxation in the international court (or the "elena" ones too) Because the special taxe is unfounded but during this time normal peoples lose their jobs and their house because of the decition of the US.

You are so big that you can destroy the live of ordinary peoples without even realising it. Don't be surprised when someone that you have make a jobless and homeless don't love you as big that you think that he must because you have helped to free their greatparents 60 years ago.

Look at the Irak, layoff like 800 000 peoples just after the invasion and buying wall at 1 000$ from other states when they will have costed 100$ if they have make in Irak (but giving job to Irak peoples) was a very bad idea. Look at the result now.

Eridalafar

PS: Sorry for the french, but it is like 1 am here.

Look at the result now.

Eridalafar

PS: Sorry for the french, but it is like 1 am here.


With respect, get a friend to translate your true feelings. I find your words difficult to understand and that leads assumptions about what you mean.

No, the US spends less as a % of GDP on foreign aid than many developed nations. (This might have changed in 2004 if you include the massive amounts on Iraqi reconstruction I suppose). Foreign aid is all about wealth distribution from the richest to the poorest, so saying the US is so rich that it pays less as % doesn't really cut it. The US is entitled to set whatever budget it likes for foriegn aid, but please realise you're not necessarily the most generous nation on earth as you claimed.

I saw another argument recently from someone saying the US shouldn't be taking on any challenging pollution targets as it's a rich nation and needs strong industry. Just imagine a Bangladeshi with the floodwater rising above his home saying 'It's perfectly fair that the Americans pollute more than we do, it's very hard being rich and they need to make much more smog than we do'.

Why should we give more of our percentage? What we give is already more than anyone else...by a huge margin. This percentage crap is just another way the world spits in our face, despite the truly insane amount of money we give away to other nations.

As for that poor bangledeshi...odds are US money helped build his home in the first place...and will rebuild it. The world is always trying to interfere in our internal affairs, and we never hear a word of thanks for the fact that we subsidize half the world.

Ingrates. The lot of you. Imagine how americans could live if we stopped giving aid to nations, like Egypt, India, most of africa, nations who habitually stand against us in the UN. We wouldn't have a health care problem. We could afford to nationalize healthcare. We could afford to revamp our public school infrastructure. There are a ton of things we could afford to do...if we stopped giving away 3 billion dollars here, 10 billion there, to nations that take our money and then condemn us in public.

EX: Special position into the "OMC" ("organisation mondial du commerce") and that they put taxt on the "bois d'oeuvre" from Canada about eatch 5-10 years and that they alway lost this special taxation in the international court (or the "elena" ones too) Because the special taxe is unfounded but during this time normal peoples lose their jobs and their house because of the decition of the US.

Tried to google those examples you gave since I have never heard of the "OMC" but got no results in english and the translations were mostly gibberish.

I am going to refrain from posting a response to the rest of your message as I am unclear exactly how we made people jobless and homeless and destroyed the lives of ordinary people.

As to Iraq, before you talk about how terrible conditions are now you need to take a look at how bad the people had it under Saddam. I've been there and seen it first hand. Have you?

I was disagreeing with your statement as a whole that international law is based on whoever throws the first rock is always wrong. That is not the case. International law is based on keeping peace. This does not mean when a country becomes a threat and ignores U.N. resolutions for 12 years(Iraq), and violates sanctions(Oil for food scandal) you smile and act like everything is hunky dory.

You're right, and then you're wrong. It is based on keeping peace, and the way the countries sat down and decided to ensure peace was to say "any nation that attacks another nation is wrong. Period. No exceptions. Never. If we are going to attack another nation, we are going to do so by agreeing to do so, and here are the protocols which explain how such an agreement is to be reached. Any objections? No? Cool. It's decided then."

When you decide to break these rules, nomatter your intentions, a signal is sent. Not just to the world as such there and then, but to the next guy who comes along with nothing but the best of intentions, only this guy doesn't like the way YOU do things. Like I pointed out before, the USA will not be the largest nation forever. What you do now, MUST reflect the way you wish to be treated when the shoe is on the other foot. Philosophiles change, who's to say that in a hundred years time, elements of the American way isn't generally seen as huge injustices? Will it be worth it then? Will this war in Iraq have good enough results to justify your grandchildren living in an occupied nation?

So then what? Then there's a presedence set. He can chose to ignore the demand for international agreement and go after you himself with a handful of friends. And there is nothing you can really say about it, since you opened that door in the first place. Principles are a bitch, aren't they, since they have to be valid for everyone, regardless.

I would tell your countries leader to go to hell of course. The problem is that I just never understood how taking away the power of a homicidal dictator who used chemical weapons against his own people(kurds), ignored U.N.resolutions for 12 years, and perpetuated the oil for food scandal could violate anyone's principals....Unless of course the principal violated was cutting Oil for Food profits.

It's not about the primary goal. It's about the doors that are broken down and the principles that are thrown out the window in order to achieve the goal.

So, if a country is selling nuclear war heads, portable via truck, to terrorists is or is not a viable reason for invasion?

I'd think that would qualify, yes. But it's not up to me alone, since I signed papers and stuff agreeing not to do things like invade other countries without agreement from my co-signers. So i'd take my case to them, and if I didn't manage to sway them, I'd work on my convincing skills and my evidence-gathering and try again.

I might even kick myself once or twice for signing that in the first place, if I believed strongly enough that it was an extremely urgent matter that could not stand to wait until I've had time to sway my co-signers. But a deal is a deal, and if I'm about to invade another country because they do things they agreed not to do, I'd look very dumb if I did it by doing things I'd agreed not to do, don't you think? :)

European nations are always fickle about what they decide is a wrong invasion.

No European nation got up in arms about the Yom Kippur war...

I'm not sure I understand, exactly where in the process were we called upon to assist in invading another country without following proper agreed upon protocol here? I don't claim to be an expert on the middle eastern conflict, so I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the paralell. Please explain.

Israel was attacked on Yom Kippur, by arab forces, from Syria, Egypt, and Jordan.

Europe didn't get up in arms, or complain, or say boo to the Arab nations.

But then, perhaps Europe finds the oil form Arab nations to be more useful than the friendship of like thinking nations..like the US.

I'm sure there's a truckload of invations that neither Europe nor the US have made a huge international mess about. I doubt this qualifies, however, seeing the HUGE international crisis it created, where basically no country left the issue untouched. However, even that aside, it doesn't make a good comparison.

Had Egypt/Syria come to us prior and during that conflict and said that we had better join them in attacking, our own principles aside, because they bailed us out of a war 60 years ago and because (true or not) we owe them money and keep asking for more and because we're either with them and do as we're bloody well told or we're against them and so on and so on, THEN it would be valid to compare the European reaction in the two cases.

But what you're saying is the equivilant of saying "You and your double standards, you get pissed off as hell when I try to bully you around, but look at that time earlier when someone else smacked that other guy around, that didn't piss you off*. wtf is up with you?"

We have, as nations, disagreed on issues before, and handled it fairly well, so thinking that the current climate is based completely on a disagreement on the issues doesn't hold up. It's happened because of the way the disagreement has been handled. Probably by both sides.

*Disregarding for the sake of the argument that it pissed the entire -world- off, Europe included.

Ingrates. The lot of you. Imagine how americans could live if we stopped giving aid to nations, like Egypt, India, most of africa, nations who habitually stand against us in the UN. We wouldn't have a health care problem. We could afford to nationalize healthcare

Foriegn aid accounts for 00.14% of your foreign budget. That is exactly how much the US spends on foreign aid. It has risen from 00.1% 5 years ago. It does not break your budget. When you also consider that (like many other aid donors) you require the recipients to buy US products and services with the aid money, you're not breaking the bank here.

Americans give a lot of money abroad as aid. Fine. Well done. It's something to be proud of. But don't stand on the rooftops and tell everyone you paid the most for everything, everywhere in the world, and think everyone ought to owe you some sort of debt. The French, Dutch, and Germans together give more aid than the US, so consider how much Europe spends as a whole.

its very funny to hear a debate of 'US vs.OLD europe"... you who think europe owes america something, dont realize the pain they endured for world wars to be fought on their soil, not ours. just as now we are fighting another war on someone elses soil, and we arent loved much there. after we pull out of iraq... do you believe for one minute that iraqis will be selling oil to us on the cheap? or supporting us when we go into iran to dismantle that terrorist regime? those of you who support this war in iraq for bush's reasons, would support any war any time as long as you were sold a bunch of b.s. we made a grave error in judgement attacking iraq, before we got to kill bin laden. he was number one emeny.. still is in my book...and we arent going to win the hearts and minds of the iraq people , that is apparent. just like we arent winning the hearts and minds of old europe....and hell, in america, we havent finally come to grips with our civil war days... so why in gods name would anyone think things should be anything different with foriegners. we sell nations weapons, chemicals and support hateful dictators like saddam and then they get to big and we have to take them out...this is a stupid pattern that one day should end.we are a divided nation and we think the rest of the world should look like us? such arrogance. how many young american lives will this war take from us, and when its done, what words of wisdom for their sacrafice, will we be speaking to soothe our sorrow for our misjudgements. or do you who support this war in iraq believe we won the war in vietnam? we fought that war to prevent the spread of communism? that reason for that war fails to meet the sobriety test. and this war fails also.... but i know one thing about wars, they bring out the rabidness of nationalism. you either support the war or youre an enemy of us. god help us, any god...please!!!

Ok here's something I've noticed in this thread. Americans seem determine to be the best. Here's how this post has shaped up.

1. Americans tell themselves they're the best, biggest, and greatest
2. They tell everyone they're the best
3. The don't believe any evidence which show they're not the best
4. Tell everyone which evidence to use to show they're best
5. Say people are anti-US for not looking at things their way
6. Tell everyone they're disrespectful for not realising just how great the US is

We've discussed two things at length where America doesn't need to be the best, foreign aid and WW2. America made great contributions in both these areas and Americans can be proud with that. But someone had to say 'we won the war for you', disagree with any debate otherise, and feel insulted when people didn't agree. This thread has been a whole load of arguments on whether the US is the best at anything and everything when it shouldn't really matter.

If you look at something like foreign aid there is always going to be more than one way of looking at the figures. By setting your stall out as the best you're always going to find someone who disagrees because everyone looks at things differently. Telling everyone you're the best compounds that. Refusing to look at things from other people's point of view only makes it worse still.

This debate has really all been about America and not old Europe because all the reasons people put down for disliking the French were actually all to do with the US. Nobody said the French were cultural snobs, have misguided social values, misruled an empire, or anything like that, all the reasons were about how the French had done this, that, or the other to the US. I was slightly surprised by that but there you go.

Anyway, I'm probably not the right person to make this observation since I'm European, obviously anti-US, I'm reading the posts entirely wrong, being ungrateful for your time graciously spent answering my posts, and not recognising Americans as the most modest people in the world. However, would anyone agree that if you stick your chin out too often someone is going to take a swing at it?

(Don't anyone dare answer by saying 'but we are the best'. It doesn't matter!)

Foriegn aid accounts for 00.14% of your foreign budget.
00.14% of GNP not foreign budget.

All this hatred sickens me, why don't you all just nuke America and be done with it if you hate them that much?

If the United States had stayed completely neutral, you'd all be speaking German right now. The nation as a whole, rallied to provide Britain and Russia with supplies it needed, but we had no real Cassus Belli with Germany, and had plenty of our own problems on our side of the world. We were under no obligation to send aid, let alone troops, yet we sent billions in aid. When we finally had the excuse we needed...we won the war. Not Russia. The US.

Any American with a history degree care to comment on this?

Why don't you all just nuke America and be done with it if you hate them that much?

Eh, Americans are fine, I don't have anything against them. I just don't think America's quite as wonderful as Americans would like us all to believe.

do you believe for one minute that iraqis will be selling oil to us on the cheap?

Provide proof that the US is buying oil for significantly lower prices from Iraq than the world market sells for.

European nations are always fickle about what they decide is a wrong invasion.

No European nation got up in arms about the Yom Kippur war...

I think there is a cultural, value and philosophical difference in Europe compared to Jews. Europeans do not see themselves as their brothers keeper. It is easy to express outrage from afar and keep your country free of engagement.

To blindly lump all Americans into this profile as "King of the Hill" that is being repeated throughout this thread, is ignorance to the Nth degree. Just like it's a load of manure to profile all Europeans as ungrateful and arrogant. No one has the right to label any culture as one thing or the other, because who are you to do so? Have you met every American or European to be able to draw such a conclusion? Just because the selected "leader" of a nation does something does not mean that the entire nation agrees with it. Honestly, this whole thread and the entire situation in the world that exists today is a gigantic pile of garbage. For once, I just wish everyone could leave each other the hell alone, move on, and live in peace.

I might even kick myself once or twice for signing that in the first place, if I believed strongly enough that it was an extremely urgent matter that could not stand to wait until I've had time to sway my co-signers.

Should the US have invaded Afganistan before 9/11 if it knew of the plot to destroy the trade towers and thwarted the attempt? Or do 2000 people have to die first? Would a nuclear detination in downtown NYC have changed your point of view on Iraq? Clearly, Sadam was trying to get a bomb. What about a nuclear detination within Isreal? Or do Jews matter? Fellow Muslims did not seem to matter to Sadam.

(Don't anyone dare answer by saying 'but we are the best'. It doesn't matter!)
I won't say it but I will quote you! I think the US has seen the French in all the ways that you have said but Americans can look beyond those type flaws if the intent is in the right place. Then Americans see French say noble things while monetarily benefitting from those noble stances.

Is France a Noble leader for democaracy or politically expedient with an eye on other country's wallets?

Is France so passionate about their point of views or is it that their decision employs French workers?

"New Europe" is emerging from a half century of communism. Will France lead or obstruct the hopes and dreams of these new democarcies for French benefit?

I think these new democarcies want to help spread democarcy to all countries but they want to be part of the EU as well. The point of view is one of the establishment versus the "new kid on the block".

Face it, the world is changing. China is the most populas country in the world and it will soon have the largest economy. Europe is changing as well. France can either help influence the world by demonstrating integrity or the world will look apon France as abusive.

The US is not perfect. The US is not always right. The US talks and discusses and changes its direction. I think this notion of old vs new Europe hits at the heart of this issue I have talked about.

Any American with a history degree care to comment on this?

One already did.

Europeans do love to revise history in their light, though.

You can try all the reasoning you want, it won't change the fact that had the US sat that one out, and hadn't sent billions in aid to the other allies prior to entering the war, Europe almost certainly becomes the Third Reich.

Ok here's something I've noticed in this thread. Americans seem determine to be the best. Here's how this post has shaped up.

1. Americans tell themselves they're the best, biggest, and greatest
2. They tell everyone they're the best
3. The don't believe any evidence which show they're not the best
4. Tell everyone which evidence to use to show they're best
5. Say people are anti-US for not looking at things their way
6. Tell everyone they're disrespectful for not realising just how great the US is


1. Overall, we are. We are the dominant nation on the planet, and have arguably been so since the end of WWII. The only nation on the planet which comes close to the combination of American wealth and military might is China...and well, I'd rather live in the worst area in the US, than just about anywhere in China, but that's because I happen to enjoy relative freedom to do as I wish.

2. Well, when you hear nothing but snide, condescending remarks about Americans and America coming from most of the western world..it helps to remind them of certain facts.

3. So far, in this thread at least, I've seen little evidence thereto. I've seen manipulation of data, revisionistic history, and outright lies, but little evidence.

4. See above.

6. No. If a nation like Mexico, or Paraguay want to say disparaging things about the US, I could care less. If North Korea wants to say disparaging things about the US, I could care less. When those nations who have gained wealth and prosperity in large part because of US protection start acting snide and snobbishly towards the US...then we get irritated.


If you look at something like foreign aid there is always going to be more than one way of looking at the figures. By setting your stall out as the best you're always going to find someone who disagrees because everyone looks at things differently. Telling everyone you're the best compounds that. Refusing to look at things from other people's point of view only makes it worse still.

No, there is only multiple ways of looking at the figures when attempting to assuage your nationalistic pride because you don't give as much as other nations.

This debate has really all been about America and not old Europe because all the reasons people put down for disliking the French were actually all to do with the US. Nobody said the French were cultural snobs, have misguided social values, misruled an empire, or anything like that, all the reasons were about how the French had done this, that, or the other to the US. I was slightly surprised by that but there you go.

First of all, there is no need for us to articulate that part of our distaste for the French is because they are cultural snobs, don't shave appropriately, hate any culture which doesn't speak french, and only look out for their interests. These are all self-evident. As for mis-ruling an empire...we don't really care.

Provide proof that the US is buying oil for significantly lower prices from Iraq than the world market sells for.

We're not. We're buying it for significantly higher prices from Kuwait =D

I think there is a cultural, value and philosophical difference in Europe compared to Jews. Europeans do not see themselves as their brothers keeper. It is easy to express outrage from afar and keep your country free of engagement.


Yes, which is why Europeans are right bastards. It was happening in the Balkans, in the 90's and still Europe turned a blind eye to genocide...(as an aside, particularly to Panama, a number of Muslim families were brought out of the Balkans during the war by Jews whose parents and grandparents had been protected and hidden by the parents and grandparents of those Muslims during WWII, some people do remember moral debts half a century later).

I do have to admit, a good part of my personal bias against Europeans is due to what I know of Jewish European History.

France, Germany, Spain, Britain, all of Eastern Europe, all of Mediterranean Europe...they've all done horrible things to their Jewish populations over the centuries. While the past 50 years have been relatively kind to Western European Jews (Eastern European Jewry outside of Russia proper being all but extinguished), history has shown European Anti-Semetism tends to be generationally cyclical, loosely.

Aidon, you've just validated my last post in your reply against it.

Ok I have sleep a bit.

This is time for some translation:

"organisation mondial du commerce" = world trade organisation
(http://www.wto.org/index.htm)

Primary in the negociation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Where the US want the other countrys to open their borders to the the US goods, but in the same time the US want to be able to close their borders to the other country's goods. But the other countrys also ask for no so small wishs.

"Aléna" = North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
(http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/index.html)
(sorry for the the typing error, I have put a E instead of a A).

"bois d'oeuvre" = solid-wood / softwood
history: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eicb/softwood/chrono-en.asp

1982, 1986, 1991-1996, 2001-2004
Eatch time the tribunal have say that the Canada didn't have do any dumping.

general link:
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eicb/softwood/menu-en.asp
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/pubs/exp/exp0202.pdf

And for the US economy's politic in Irak:
http://harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
is an interesting reading about the reason about the troubles with the Iraqi's citizens.

And what did we need to think when US diplomat are saying that the present US president administration is killing the international legitimacy of the US?

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/transcripts/2003/mar/030307.kiesling.html
http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_9967.shtml
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0604/153034.html

Eridalafar

PS: Event if we will not agree on anything in this topic, at last the dialogue may begin anew and we can finish by understanding the thinking of the other. When you meet a friend 15 years later, it never easy to talk to eatch other after so much time.

ok, ive sat here and read every post on this subject... my belief is that you all have very informed opinions about how you percieve your world! "america is the best! america is a bully! europe owes us! europe doesnt need another dictator telling it what they should do!" lotsa talk about money and material spent. lotsa comments about percieved debts! debates about whos the most generous! the most reliable!

all this leads to what? do you feel you can bash a friend? or do you even believe that you can bully a person into becoming your friend? if i give you stuff... will you die for me? all it takes is a little diplomacy to get friendships for alliances. and diplomacy is not just a four letter word. its not found in "my favorite goat" book. it is a word that some work must go into it, not just throw money at it and hope it works out.
today we face a world threat... terrorism. its not very well defined as of yet.we know killing innocent people can be easily part of that definition, but then how do we justify killing so many innocent iraqis during our invasion? ok well, we call that collateral damage... ok fine! after all we invaded iraq to get all those nuclear bombs and stuff. some innocent people must die, ok fine. but wait! we were wrong!!!!! no wmd were there! hmmm... it wasnt our fault!we were told wrong intel! damn them intel 'tellers'.we know he had them and hell, we know he wanted them so now its again ok to kill all those innocent people.ok fine. now we are at war... if you dont agree with this war, youre a commie... wait, there arent many commies anymore... hmmm.. ok your a terrorist, too!after all if you arent on bushs side, youre an enemy.ok now hows that playing so far for making good friendships?
most of you can see that we americans arent in high esteem in this world at the moment. ok fine. who needs the rest of the world anyway. france is only good for well.. their love of life! we know thats for ****... hell... they dont work as hard to make money as us. the dumb asses, actually enjoy life. the germans, well, we beat them in war and they dont like us much, the pussies... hell, we beat them soooo bad so they wouldnt want to ever fight a war again, but wait... why dont they want to come kill iraqis with us.hmmm.... and mother russia... well we know all about them, we made a nuclear race with them and we won... haha haha only problem is after this race they couldnt turn their arms into glue, so they said screw it we'll sell em and get some money . holy **** batman... thats not good! now we are worried about america getting nuked by terrorists! lets see... i read in a post here that we should attack anyone first who we think might attack us! please let me help you take your head out of your ass for a moment and try to explain to you... thats not a possiblity...bud! so close your favorite goat book and think! north korea is more a threat then iraq was/is. iran is more a threat also...hell in my opinion saudi arabia is too. what you gonna do... invade all of them! and just who is going to do the invading? our office clerk militia! i love our military, thank god for them, but we have strecthed them to their limits and you will see how badly in the next 4 years. what we need to do is fianace the new costa nostras , pay them millions of dollars to go kill people who we dont like, theyll do it better , faster and for a whole lot cheaper. sure we will always be afraid of them doing it to our leaders, but ok fine, make them secrectary of war. i know you all have wonderful, thoughtful opinions and that truthfully i think you are all bright, but war is the worst solution to any problem, it is not ever a good one. it may be necessary to go to war, but we will all be the worse off after its over...you all talk about ww2 as if it couldnt have been avoided... well it sure couldve... as with this war, which couldve been avoided... but i know most people dont believe in diplomacy anymore. after all it was diplomacy that only won the war on nuclear haulicost.
heres a thought about all you U.N. haters! ok abolish the U.N. ... go ahead. its fine.... now you dont hear any voices from any countries speaking as a group anymore. great start to a diplomactic solution. you can always send a 'powell' to talk to a nation... course then they might not want you to enter their country, but no problem there, you just make up lies about them going to attack you and then you can invade them.
'sorry no time for eq... got to clean my gun, going to attack canada tomorrow. hell, they get cheaper drugs then me.why not.' america is many ideas... good and bad... wish we werent so divided about some of the very basic principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of freedom. we, will always need to defend ourselves, but to defend our nation on a pack of lies, is probably the best way for our own destruction. america should stand for truth and equal justice for all... but now truth is evausive... is oral sex, really sex... does it really matter if saddam had wmd's or not, after all what really is the truth and who would really be able to handle it, if they heard it!!! well im sorry if i offended. and for gods sakes, please forgive my spelling, when i do spell check, if it doesnt recognize a word of mine, i just add it to my dictionary, haha .

Skyer, I tried to read your post but it made my eyes hurt.

Paragraphs are our friends.

You can try all the reasoning you want, it won't change the fact that had the US sat that one out, and hadn't sent billions in aid to the other allies prior to entering the war, Europe almost certainly becomes the Third Reich.

Now that's a revision of history.

The decisive battle in which Hitler failed to establish the air superiority which could make Operation Sealion (the invasion of Britain) work - and also the decisive battle in which Hitler failed to take the Kremlin - were fought long before America entered the war.
American troops were not deployed in the North African theatre of operations until after British troops were already driving the Germans back.
American troops were not deployed in the European theatre of operations until 1943, when Germany was already deeply in retreat.
Even after the Western Front against Germany was fully opened in 1944, over 70% of German troops were deployed against Russia, not the West.

It is reasonable to say that mainland Europe might be a province of Russia, had America not entered the war, although this is not certain.

All this is aside from the central point, which is this: Selling war material to the people who're fighting fascism is not the same as actually standing up and fighting fascism yourself.

Imagine if, instead of taking part in the war in Iraq and actually going out there and doing the bleeding, Britain had sold cheap boots to the Americans and waited for Bin Laden to blow up one of our buildings before doing anything else.

In practise, of course, Great Britain was participating in an ongoing war against terrorism for nearly a century. I'm talking about Northern Ireland. Our equivalent of 9/11 - the Docklands bombings - took place well before America's War Against Terrorism.

Of course, there is a significant difference. The IRA terrorists who were shooting, or blowing up, our husbands and fathers and brothers and sons for most of the twentieth century were largely armed and funded by... who was it now... oh yes, Americans.

Maybe, following the Docklands bombings, we should have asked for American help in invading and taking over Dublin. You think America would have gotten our backs in the way we got theirs during TWAT?

I'm British. My tax money pays aid to third world countries, and helps support subsidized loans to them, just like yours does, and in roughly similar proportions. My country sends its husbands and fathers and brothers and sons to die for what's right, just like yours does. My country's history is, perhaps, a little chequered - not everything Britain has done is morally supportable - but I don't have the illusions about it which Americans do about theirs.

And I absolutely refuse to be dissed as an "ungrateful" European by self-righteous Americans. Possibly some European nations deserve some criticism for their inactivity in the face of terrorism or their failure to stand up for human rights, but by God, mine doesn't.

I agree mostly with Shadowfrost.

Speaking as a member of a family that has a history of serving in the British armed forces for the past 10+ generations and as an ex Royal Marine myself, I find the United states postion on terrorism hypocritical.

While europe has been dealing with terrorism for decades the US has sat back and done nothing apart from let there citizens fund some of the terrorist groups.

Where was the US war on terror when Spain/germany/france/italy/greece and the UK were fighting terrorist ?

But when the US is attacked it suddenly becomes an international effort.

:ohwell:

Now that's a revision of history.
[list]
The decisive battle in which Hitler failed to establish the air superiority which could make Operation Sealion (the invasion of Britain) work - and also the decisive battle in which Hitler failed to take the Kremlin - were fought long before America entered the war.

Again, you fail to take into account a few vital issues. Without American support, it is likely Britain would, indeed, have fallen. Even had Britain not falled to the invasion, it did not have the forces to invade Europe w/o America, and Hitler could have afforded to simply bottle Britain up their island.

As for Russia, winter had caused the invasion to stall out. However, (as I mentioned before and will go into again), without America, Rommel would not loose to Montgomery, and would have broken through to the Suez and then the oil rich (and sympathetic) Arab lands of the Mid-East, securing the oil which was essentially the only thing holding the Third Reich back.

American troops were not deployed in the North African theatre of operations until after British troops were already driving the Germans back.

US forces (it was an Allied landing, but contained significant US forces) landed in North Africa in Nov. of 1942. It was a large operation run specifically to take some of the pressure off of the Russian front (Operation Torch). However, the main reason Germany lost North Africa was because they ran out of supplies. Again, because of the US aid to Britain and the interruption of German supply lines. Had the US not done these things, the battle for Stalingrad in Feb. of '43 would almost certainly had turned out differently, as at that point Germany was again fighting a truly two front war. Instead, because of US aid, Germany was unable to reinforce, or adequately supply either front, and was forced to surrender at Stalingrad in Feb. of '43 and then in Tunisia in May of '43.

While Rommel was forced into retreat by Sept of 42, again, and lost at Al Amein (sp?) in Nov. '42 this was due to a lack of supplies, and the fact that British forces were successfully supplied.


American troops were not deployed in the European theatre of operations until 1943, when Germany was already deeply in retreat.

The Allied invasion of Southern Europe. July '43 Battle of Kursk. July '43.

I don't call fighting the Russians on Russian soil, a mere 500 km south of Moscow, deeply in retreat. The Russians didn't make to Ukraine until '44, nor did they break the siege at Leningrad until '44. By this time, the 24/7 bombing runs of German industrial centers, and the loss of oil supplies (which was the object of the North African campaign), are playing a heavy role.

All this is aside from the central point, which is this: Selling war material to the people who're fighting fascism is not the same as actually standing up and fighting fascism yourself.

Again, you misrepresent. We didn't sell war material. We gave it away. Not until after the war was any amount of money paid, and then it was a pittance compared to the amount given.

Imagine if, instead of taking part in the war in Iraq and actually going out there and doing the bleeding, Britain had sold cheap boots to the Americans and waited for Bin Laden to blow up one of our buildings before doing anything else.

Ah, and now the goods the US freely gave were cheap?

In practise, of course, Great Britain was participating in an ongoing war against terrorism for nearly a century. I'm talking about Northern Ireland. Our equivalent of 9/11 - the Docklands bombings - took place well before America's War Against Terrorism.

Woah, you want to compare a bombing where 2 people died, and roughly 100 were injured to 9/11? Less people have died from the IRA in total, since the '70s (roughly 700) than died in New York on 9/11.

Of course, there is a significant difference. The IRA terrorists who were shooting, or blowing up, our husbands and fathers and brothers and sons for most of the twentieth century were largely armed and funded by... who was it now... oh yes, Americans.

It was illegal for Americans to fund the IRA, and after this so called apolocyptic Docklands Bombing, there were arrests in the US of some of those directly involved.

Maybe, following the Docklands bombings, we should have asked for American help in invading and taking over Dublin. You think America would have gotten our backs in the way we got theirs during TWAT?

If Britain had asked, I strongly suspect the US would have helped.

And I absolutely refuse to be dissed as an "ungrateful" European by self-righteous Americans. Possibly some European nations deserve some criticism for their inactivity in the face of terrorism or their failure to stand up for human rights, but by God, mine doesn't.

If you read what I've posted, I always stated that Britain was the only nation that hadn't spit in the face of its largest friend and ally, the United States. However, I'm under no illusion that this was popular by the majority of Brits, but rather an act of the Government. About the only thing I hear from Brits, themselves, are snide remarks regarding the US and her citizens.

you all think that when you occupy another nation, that those who fight you are ...terrorists? that is the problem with trying to define ...terrorism. if any other country came to occupy america, believe me.... much innocent blood would spill. but we would call those freedom fighters not terrorists.
doesnt it make any sense to anyone that we as a world should maintain realistic borders. and that is one of the main reasons for wars, oh well, i see no end to terrorism in my lifetime, and i see so many still supporting the killing of so many people in the name of fighting terrorism. it'll never stop.
if you killed my family... id live only to try to kill you! you wouldnt win my heart or mind! period.

Believe it or not Aidon, it's not very populist to tell Europeans that the US could happily have chosen to let us fight single handedly against one of the worst tyrants the world have ever seen. Just think, if the US had stationed troops in Poland and the low countries before WW2, you could have prevented the holocaust.

If Britain had asked, I strongly suspect the US would have helped.

No way is any American politician gonna piss off that large amount of voters in his own country :)

You have to remeber that all these European countrys that didn't support the war in Iraq have democratic systems of goverment. Its hard for politicians to go against the vast majority of the voting public.

I didn't and still don't support the war in Iraq but I must give credit to Tony Blair for being willing to stand up for what he thinks is right even though it might cost him the next election.

If and election was held in the UK today I would be voting for him. Mainly because he's the best of a bad lot. :sleep:

I agree mostly with Shadowfrost.

Speaking as a member of a family that has a history of serving in the British armed forces for the past 10+ generations and as an ex Royal Marine myself, I find the United states postion on terrorism hypocritical.

While europe has been dealing with terrorism for decades the US has sat back and done nothing apart from let there citizens fund some of the terrorist groups.

Where was the US war on terror when Spain/germany/france/italy/greece and the UK were fighting terrorist ?

But when the US is attacked it suddenly becomes an international effort.

:ohwell:

I would hardly call the Bosque Seperatists in Spain a terrorist group. They've failed in all but I think 2 of their half dozen "Attacks" and they all targetted political or military personnell.

Ah yes, German terrorists. Like the Baader-Meinhof gang. Robbed some banks. Killed 12 entire people. I don't think West Germany was ready to call in the US Marines quite yet...

France: **** the French. Dirty bastards wouldn't let us fly over to bomb Qaddafi.

Italy, not familiar with italian terror off the top of my head, but I'm guessing its similar to the above examples.

Same with Greek terrorism, with an aside that I suspect much of it had to do with the Greco-Turkish dispute over Cyprus, where both being NATO members, the US had its hands tied other than via diplomacy.

But yes...I can see how these examples of supreme terror compare to the likes of 9/11 (hell they don't even compare to your average day in Israel, not that Europe ever condemned the PLO).

Believe it or not Aidon, it's not very populist to tell Europeans that the US could happily have chosen to let us fight single handedly against one of the worst tyrants the world have ever seen. Just think, if the US had stationed troops in Poland and the low countries before WW2, you could have prevented the holocaust.

Oh trust me, I have plenty to say on the Unites States lack of concern for Jewish Europe. American Anti-Semetism was less violent than European, at the time, but it existed..quite heavily. That's a different issue, however.

Of course, somehow I doubt the US would have been permitted to station troops in Europe prior to WWII, even if we had been willing to.

No way is any American politician gonna piss off that large amount of voters in his own country :)

You have to remeber that all these European countrys that didn't support the war in Iraq have democratic systems of goverment. Its hard for politicians to go against the vast majority of the voting public.

I didn't and still don't support the war in Iraq but I must give credit to Tony Blair for being willing to stand up for what he thinks is right even though it might cost him the next election.

If and election was held in the UK today I would be voting for him. Mainly because he's the best of a bad lot. :sleep:

I'll say this, it'd have been interesting to see the political battle. British Olde Money Protestant Republicans vs Irish Catholic Democrats. Hehe.

I would hardly call the Bosque Seperatists in Spain a terrorist group. They've failed in all but I think 2 of their half dozen "Attacks" and they all targetted political or military personnell.

Ah yes, German terrorists. Like the Baader-Meinhof gang. Robbed some banks. Killed 12 entire people. I don't think West Germany was ready to call in the US Marines quite yet...

France: **** the French. Dirty bastards wouldn't let us fly over to bomb Qaddafi.

Italy, not familiar with italian terror off the top of my head, but I'm guessing its similar to the above examples.

Same with Greek terrorism, with an aside that I suspect much of it had to do with the Greco-Turkish dispute over Cyprus, where both being NATO members, the US had its hands tied other than via diplomacy.

But yes...I can see how these examples of supreme terror compare to the likes of 9/11 (hell they don't even compare to your average day in Israel, not that Europe ever condemned the PLO).

Ohh so it's a matter of degree is it ?

K so someone doesn't become a REAL terroist until they kill a certain number of people.

What is that figure 10 ? 100 ? 1000 ?

If I remeber correctly Israel had it's fair share of Terroist groups trying to kill the british Palestian police and soliders.

I do have to admit, a good part of my personal bias against Europeans is due to what I know of Jewish European History.

France, Germany, Spain, Britain, all of Eastern Europe, all of Mediterranean Europe...they've all done horrible things to their Jewish populations over the centuries.
The US has done horrible things to its Native/African American populations. Do you feel a similar bias against Americans as a result?

For some reason, this thread brings to mind Monty Python's Mr. Neutron is Missing (http://arago4.tn.utwente.nl/stonedead/tv-series/sketches/fc-44/mr-neutron-is-missing.html) sketch.

/sigh

We all know why Europeans dislike the US so much no point trying to hide it anymore.

It's because you export Jerry Springer !!!!

Stop it ! and everything will be forgiven :popcorn:

Ohh so it's a matter of degree is it ?

K so someone doesn't become a REAL terroist until they kill a certain number of people.

What is that figure 10 ? 100 ? 1000 ?

If I remeber correctly Israel had it's fair share of Terroist groups trying to kill the british Palestian police and soliders.

Trying to kill police and soldiers isn't terrorism. Its when civilians become the targetted aim, for the sole purpose of...scaring the populous into meeting demands. Hence, terrorism.

Killing police, soldiers, governmental figures, is insurrection.

Ohh so it's a matter of degree is it ?

K so someone doesn't become a REAL terroist until they kill a certain number of people.

Of course, havent you been paying attention? It's all about the numbers. Whoever has the highest number wins.

/barf

And Aidon's post to Shadowfrost where he blatantly pisses on the graves of the British terror victims since they apparently weren't many enough to bother with, totally ignoring the point Shadowfrost was making and going on only to nitpick at numbers.. and then he goes on to claim "true friendship"... Sheesh. I have to stop reading this thread, it makes me sad and scared for the future.

The US has done horrible things to its Native/African American populations. Do you feel a similar bias against Americans as a result?

For some reason, this thread brings to mind Monty Python's Mr. Neutron is Missing (http://arago4.tn.utwente.nl/stonedead/tv-series/sketches/fc-44/mr-neutron-is-missing.html) sketch.


Well, no. I'm not personally Native American (well I'm 1/32 Blackfoot, evidently), nor am I African-American, so I can't possibly hold the same bias.

I am, however, Jewish.

Do I find America's history against the Native Americans horrible? Yes.

Do I find America's history regarding African Americans horrible? Some parts of it, yes.

But I was discussing my personal bias.

/sigh

We all know why Europeans dislike the US so much no point trying to hide it anymore.

It's because you export Jerry Springer !!!!

Stop it ! and everything will be forgiven :popcorn:

If we promise to stop Jerry from being exported...will you take David Hasslehoff away and keep him forever?

Trying to kill police and soldiers isn't terrorism. Its when civilians become the targetted aim, for the sole purpose of...scaring the populous into meeting demands. Hence, terrorism.

Killing police, soldiers, governmental figures, is insurrection.

Nooo they didn't kill any innocents at all.

http://www.wyevalley.worldonline.co.uk/historypolice.htm

If we promise to stop Jerry from being exported...will you take David Hasslehoff away and keep him forever?

Sorry that's a deal breaker.

We don't want him, Germany might but the rest of europe don't :bonk:

I would hardly call the Bosque Seperatists in Spain a terrorist group.

Try living in Spain and say that. All of the ridiculous things you've said in this post this is one of worst. My brother works in Spain and that terrorism that you think is petty and insignificant could lose him his life, his family, and since he works in tourism it could easily cost him his livelihood too. I don't suppose you'd want to apologise to any of the families who have died from ETA terrorism?

It was illegal for Americans to fund the IRA

Not for a long time it wasn't. Noraid was, at least in part, a front for IRA fund raising and terrorist propoganda for many years and sucessive British governments asked the US to ban or restrict them. I'm sure many Americans don't realise just how much the Noraid issue rankles the British public, even to this day, even after the excellent peace efforts of Bill Clinton.

But yes...I can see how these examples of supreme terror compare to the likes of 9/11.

The US is not a victim nation. Is one massive terror attack worse than 30 years of fear from smaller terror attacks? Is one terrorist attack worse than the 50 years of intermitent civil war and genocide found all across africa? Is one terrorist attack worse than 20 years of suffering under a brutal middle eastern dictator? These things are just not quantifyable but you seem to be dismissing the suffering of people all round the world because it seemingly is isn't american suffering or big enough to be worthwhile.

9/11 was the largest ever terorrist attack and had a suitably large response, the immediate formation of a large international coalition to immediately remove one of the worst regimes in the world. Nobody regrets that help or expects any debt of gratitude for that help, which seems to be a good thing really.

Try living in Spain and say that. All of the ridiculous things you've said in this post this is one of worst. My brother works in Spain and that terrorism that you think is petty and insignificant could lose him his life, his family, and since he works in tourism it could easily cost him his livelihood too. I don't suppose you'd want to apologise to any of the families who have died from ETA terrorism?

The ETA targets security forces, politicians, judges, etc. Political and military figures. These are legitimate targets.

Of the 750ish deaths laid at the hands of the ETA, over half are purely security forces. The rest, almost exclusively it seems, were political figures.

The closest thing to terrorism about the group is their means of finance, which seams to be kidnapping for ransom, robberies, and extortion.

Are they a criminal organization? Certainly. Terrorists? No.




Not for a long time it wasn't. Noraid was, at least in part, a front for IRA fund raising and terrorist propoganda for many years and sucessive British governments asked the US to ban or restrict them. I'm sure many Americans don't realise just how much the Noraid issue rankles the British public, even to this day, even after the excellent peace efforts of Bill Clinton.

I'll take this at face value until I have time to do further research.



The US is not a victim nation. Is one massive terror attack worse than 30 years of fear from smaller terror attacks?

European nations haven't the slightest idea of what true terrorism is like. Even Americans, only now, have the barest taste of it. The only nation in Europe with even a glimpse of it is Britain and now Russia.

Your average European and American has more to fear from its police than from "terrorists" (And it seems axiomatic, almost, that governments call any criminal seperatist group "terrorists" even their targets are not civilian in nature).

Is one terrorist attack worse than the 50 years of intermitent civil war and genocide found all across africa? Is one terrorist attack worse than 20 years of suffering under a brutal middle eastern dictator? These things are just not quantifyable but you seem to be dismissing the suffering of people all round the world because it seemingly is isn't american suffering or big enough to be worthwhile.

What the hell do african civil wars have to do with the discussion at hand? And if you want to get into discussion of Brutal Middle Eastern Dictators...Old Europe just pressed hard to stop the overthrow of one (and continually support the rest of the bastards, diplomatically speaking).

9/11 was the largest ever terorrist attack and had a suitably large response, the immediate formation of a large international coalition to immediately remove one of the worst regimes in the world. Nobody regrets that help or expects any debt of gratitude for that help, which seems to be a good thing really.

Large, perhaps. 18,000 American troops under US command. Soon to be 9000 NATO troops (Unsure the national makeup of those troops, I presume some portion will be US troops, in addition. It was, initially, only 2000 NATO troops, but more are being brought in for the upcoming elections). 5000 UN troops.

France sent...300. 300 troops to provide security for aid missions.

Britain, Italy, and Germany offerred 2-3000 troops each. I'm not sure the final tallies.

Canada was willing to send 1000 troops to provide security for aid.

Except for the Brits, I don't believe any nation but the US provided troops for actual offensive military functions. I could be wrong.

Except for the Brits, I don't believe any nation but the US provided troops for actual offensive military functions. I could be wrong.

Pretty sure the aussies sent some SAS teams to operate with the British SAS and SBS but I can't find anything to confirm that :P

I've already posted figures from Centcom showing the French sent 5500 troops, captured one major city, and the French air force flew in the first bombing runs with the US Air force.

Again, you fail to take into account a few vital issues. Without American support, it is likely Britain would, indeed, have fallen. Even had Britain not falled to the invasion, it did not have the forces to invade Europe w/o America, and Hitler could have afforded to simply bottle Britain up their island.

Britain was hardly bottled up. British bombers were in the skies over Berlin, and British troops were engaged with Rommel in the desert.

It is true to say that we lacked the forces for a seaborne invasion of France. This isn't the same as being powerless to fight fascism.

As for Russia, winter had caused the invasion to stall out. However, (as I mentioned before and will go into again), without America, Rommel would not loose to Montgomery

Rommel lost to Montgomery basically because he wasn't actually present at the battlefield. He was in Germany for medical reasons. His second in command was killed in action on the first day - and Montgomery's generalship was undoubtedly outstanding.

Britain would have won that fight unaided (or rather, Britain and the ANZAC forces who had our backs - Australia and New Zealand were never scared to stand up against fascism.) However I do not dispute that the US forces might well have been necessary if the German command/control had been in place.

...and would have broken through to the Suez and then the oil rich (and sympathetic) Arab lands of the Mid-East, securing the oil which was essentially the only thing holding the Third Reich back.

Let's get this straight: What was holding the Third Reich back were hundreds of divisions of Russian soldiers who were dying to defend their country. German military units didn't start going out of action from lack of fuel until 1944.

US forces (it was an Allied landing, but contained significant US forces) landed in North Africa in Nov. of 1942. It was a large operation run specifically to take some of the pressure off of the Russian front (Operation Torch). However, the main reason Germany lost North Africa was because they ran out of supplies.

See above for the reasons Germany lost North Africa in 1942. But the reality was that the Germans didn't really lose North Africa, the Italians did... the reason so many Italians survived that particular campaign is because they were retreating faster than we could catch them.

Had the US not done these things, the battle for Stalingrad in Feb. of '43 would almost certainly had turned out differently, as at that point Germany was again fighting a truly two front war. Instead, because of US aid, Germany was unable to reinforce, or adequately supply either front, and was forced to surrender at Stalingrad in Feb. of '43 and then in Tunisia in May of '43.

I think you overstate the value of American "aid" and you understate the importance of the Russian soldiers. Yes, possibly the Russians who defended the Dzerhinsky Tractor Works were wearing American boots - but they were firing Russian bullets from Russian guns. And they were bleeding Russian blood.

I find it offensive that an American would try to claim that this victory in any way belonged to America.

While Rommel was forced into retreat by Sept of 42, again, and lost at Al Amein (sp?) in Nov. '42 this was due to a lack of supplies, and the fact that British forces were successfully supplied.

El Alamein.

Logistics, while important, doesn't win wars. It's the people who fire the rifles and mortars and artillery pieces, the people who drive the tanks, the people who carry the stretchers, and the generals who led them who deserve the credit for El Alamein.

The Allied invasion of Southern Europe. July '43 Battle of Kursk. July '43.

Arguably Kursk was the turning point of the war in Russia, since that's when the Germans started seriously to give ground. However, it's also arguable that the turning point in that theatre was Stalingrad, or even back in 1941 when the Germans failed to take the Kremlin.

We didn't sell war material. We gave it away. Not until after the war was any amount of money paid

Sales with a delayed invoice is still sales.

Ah, and now the goods the US freely gave were cheap?

They weren't given freely, see above. What the US failed to give freely was what Britain and Australia and New Zealand did give freely: soldiers who were willing to fight fascism. It wasn't until America's own precious ox got gored that we saw US troops in action.

Woah, you want to compare a bombing where 2 people died, and roughly 100 were injured to 9/11?

Perhaps not the Docklands bombing specifically so much as the entire preceding century of American-funded terrorism in my country.

Less people have died from the IRA in total, since the '70s (roughly 700) than died in New York on 9/11.

What the... ? I venture a guess that from 1900 to the 1980's the IRA killed more than 700 British citizens through their so-called "punishment beatings" alone.

It was illegal for Americans to fund the IRA, and after this so called apolocyptic Docklands Bombing, there were arrests in the US of some of those directly involved.

Yes, this is true. Millions of dollars worth of funding pumped into the IRA over the course of the preceding century, resulting in some deaths, many maimings, and a monstrous hundred-year reign of terror. As a result of America's disapproval of this, a couple of people were indeed arrested by the US authorities.

It might have been illegal for an American to fund the IRA during the later stages of their terrorist campaign, but America failed to take decisive action to stop it.

If Britain had asked, I strongly suspect the US would have helped.

I strongly suspect the US would have hemmed and hawed and subsequently fudged.

If you read what I've posted, I always stated that Britain was the only nation that hadn't spit in the face of its largest friend and ally, the United States. However, I'm under no illusion that this was popular by the majority of Brits, but rather an act of the Government. About the only thing I hear from Brits, themselves, are snide remarks regarding the US and her citizens.

I'm in the minority. I was personally in favour of that particular war.

Yes, the pretext for the war was rather questionable. Iraq didn't blow up any skyscrapers on 9/11, and Iraq very clearly didn't possess any weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, the regime in Iraq was distasteful, Saddam Hussein is a very evil man, and military force was the only way to oust him. Therefore using military force to take him down was an appropriate reaction.

I think that the war was, in fact, fully justified. It's just the pretext for the war which was lame.

As for snide remarks about Americans - I'm not snide. I'm downright indignant.

I live in a country which is heavily scarred by war and by terrorism. As a child I used to play in a pillbox (a kind of concrete bunker) down the bottom of my road. My neighbourhood's largely Victorian, but there are buildings near my house which are newer; they replace the buildings destroyed by German bombs and V2 rockets. There's a bomb crater in the woods near my house. Thanks to the blitz, my father was born in a heavy rescue vehicle with sirens going off all around - my grandmother's told me the tale many times, but I never tire of hearing it.

Yes, listening to Americans try to take credit for standing against terrorism, or take credit for being "the" nation that won WW2, does make me pretty indignant.

The ETA targets security forces, politicians, judges, etc. Political and military figures. These are legitimate targets

Absolutely not. Are you saying the Brighton bombing which targeted Margaret Thatcher was any sense anything other than terrorism? Is anyone with a bomb legitimate in killing politicians, judges, and policeman because they have self-righteously appointed themselves soldiers for their cause?

ETA's attacks are deliberately used to subvert the democratic and legal processes in Spain, causing fear in the judiciary and politicians. Spain is a democratic nation with human rights and free elections. I don't think the majority of Basques actually want full independence, and if they did there is no shortage of peaceful and legitimate ways for them to campaign for it.

ETA typically uses a mix of real bombs and hoax calls and warnings. They blame the Spanish police for deaths when areas aren't evacuated quickly enough. This strategy is designed at causing the maximum fear of attacks within the Spanish populace. They hide behind a veneer of paramilitary action to defend the indefensible. It is classic terrorism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3086627.stm

Logistics, while important, doesn't win wars. It's the people who fire the rifles and mortars and artillery pieces, the people who drive the tanks, the people who carry the stretchers, and the generals who led them who deserve the credit for El Alamein.

This is just an example of how much you do not understand the subject. Logistics aren't just important, they are right up there with the men.

Russians without Boots can't fight for long.
Germans without fuel can't drive their tanks.
Germans without Ammunition can't fight.
Artilary without shells can't bombard the enemy.
Starving troops can't fight.

The US escorted, with it's destroyers, supplies to Britain long before we were at war.
The US spent 50 billion dollars on the Lend Lease Act alone. An additional 290 Billion more when we entered the war officially. Compaired to Englands total of 120 billion spent. The US lost over 400,000 people during the conflict as well. And you are trying to tell me that our efforts weren't needed.

Apparently Churchhill thought the US was significant to the war effort. Accordign to his Own rightings anyway. Certainly he though the US was important enough to Put in Charge of The Allied forces under Ike.

Your distain for the US is so great that you can't even bring your self to see the reality of its contribution to the well being of Europe. And you wonder why American's have problems with The European mind set.

No American thinks that we could have won the war without our Allies. But anyone that thinks the war could have been won without us is Ignorant, Blind, and just plain arrogant.

"No American thinks that we could have won the war without our Allies."

Reading some of the replies here...I get a different view.


Tils

Perhaps that should read "no educated American thinks we could have won the war without the allies".

Personally, Europe couldn't have won the war without the Americans. The Americans couldn't have won the war without the Europeans. At issue is that in today's climate, neither side wants to give the other any credit for what has been done by both sides.

I'm not terribly thrilled that our current leadership isn't exactly encouraging good will between historical allies. In a global economy, no one nation can stand to 'go it alone' as it were. I can only hope the next round of leadership in our country can repair some/most of the damage caused by the current leadership. Under previous administations (democratic or republican) our international relations were not this horrendous (not counting the cold war, which was not the US against the USSR, rather the west against the east).

If the US were to break off all ties to the UN and old Europe, we'd shoot ourselves in the foot economically. If old Europe was to break off ties to the US, they wouldn't fare much better.

It is a sad state of affairs we've gotten ourselves into. Not ALL Americans are as narrow minded or as blindered by ego and machismo as our current administration. Unfortunately for everyone, the current administration does seem to be that way.

Britain was hardly bottled up. British bombers were in the skies over Berlin, and British troops were engaged with Rommel in the desert.

It is true to say that we lacked the forces for a seaborne invasion of France. This isn't the same as being powerless to fight fascism.

You mean the British bombers which America helped pay for...and helped pay to maintain.




Rommel lost to Montgomery basically because he wasn't actually present at the battlefield. He was in Germany for medical reasons. His second in command was killed in action on the first day - and Montgomery's generalship was undoubtedly outstanding.

Noone doubts Montgomery didn't do a good job. He took over an army that was getting beat on..and won the day ultimately. But the Afrika Corps lost, not because of Rommel's absence for a part of the campaign. It was because when he told Hitler he needed more fuel and supplies, and Hitler told him no, because there wasn't enough and they had a hell of a time getting them to Africa anymore.

Britain would have won that fight unaided (or rather, Britain and the ANZAC forces who had our backs - Australia and New Zealand were never scared to stand up against fascism.) However I do not dispute that the US forces might well have been necessary if the German command/control had been in place.

If Rommel had the supplies he needed, he would have almost certainly run over Montgomery like he ran over every other force that he went up against.

Oh, and by the way, Australia and New Zealand didn't have much choice...the entire Eastern side of the Commonwealth was under threat from Japan. It was a matter of time, only, before Japan moved on ANZAC land directly.



Let's get this straight: What was holding the Third Reich back were hundreds of divisions of Russian soldiers who were dying to defend their country. German military units didn't start going out of action from lack of fuel until 1944.

What was holding the Germans back was the fact that they were under renewed assault from both the South and the East (During Russian Winter at that) and couldn't provide the required manpower or supplies to fight both fronts. This is largely because the US by that time had gotten involved directly. Again, please recall that Russian forces essentially weren't able to break out of land they had lost to Germany already, until well after American and British forces were on Europe proper.



See above for the reasons Germany lost North Africa in 1942. But the reality was that the Germans didn't really lose North Africa, the Italians did... the reason so many Italians survived that particular campaign is because they were retreating faster than we could catch them.

The Italians, militarily speaking, were essentially a non-issue. They did, indeed, run like school girls more often than not, requiring German troops in areas which Italian troops should have sufficed.



I think you overstate the value of American "aid" and you understate the importance of the Russian soldiers. Yes, possibly the Russians who defended the Dzerhinsky Tractor Works were wearing American boots - but they were firing Russian bullets from Russian guns. And they were bleeding Russian blood.

I think you underestimate 11 billion dollars worth of aid (directly), and the importance of forcing Germany to split its supply lines and disrupting them.

Oh, and most of them weren't firing Russian bullets from Russian guns...they were running in waiting for the guy next to him who had a Russian gun to get shot, so then they could have a Russian gun.

I find it offensive that an American would try to claim that this victory in any way belonged to America.

I find your utter willingness to discount all American aid, fiscal, political, or direct military, as unimportant. It was vital. Time and time again you insist it wasn't and ignore everything showing how vital it was.



El Alamein.

Logistics, while important, doesn't win wars. It's the people who fire the rifles and mortars and artillery pieces, the people who drive the tanks, the people who carry the stretchers, and the generals who led them who deserve the credit for El Alamein.

There is where you are wrong. Logistics does win wars. Its the most important part of winning a war, especially Total Wars. Yes, the people that fight win wars...but they can't fight if there are no round for those bullets, nor fuel for their tanks and artillery trucks. It does no good to carry a stretcher when have no medical supplies to treat the wounded with. You can be the most brilliant tactician in the world..and it won't help you win if your army can't run.

Ruling the skies isn't important for close ground support (though close ground support is helpful to those on the ground). Ruling skies is if you can fly with impunity, you can destroy the enemies supply lines.

Ruling the seas isn't important so you can shell the beach before a landing (though amphibious assault teams are greatly appreciative of a well shelled beachhead). Ruling the seas is important because you can stem the flow of supplies and reinforcements across said seas (and with the advent of the Carrier based sea combat, its an important aspect of ruling the skies).

German submarines weren't effective because of the military ships they torpedo'd. They were effective because of the supply ships they sunk.

Logistics win wars.


Arguably Kursk was the turning point of the war in Russia, since that's when the Germans started seriously to give ground. However, it's also arguable that the turning point in that theatre was Stalingrad, or even back in 1941 when the Germans failed to take the Kremlin.

Stalingrad was important. So was Leningrad holding off the germans for 900 days. The amazing part of the Russian front was simply that they managed to hold Germany off long enough. They were not going to force their way out of Russian territory without Germany facing a 2 front war it couldn't supply.



Sales with a delayed invoice is still sales.

Ok, allow me to explain it again, since obviously it didn't sink in the first time.

Anything the US sent to Britain, that was destroyed during the war...Britain didn't pay for. Anything, the US deemed essential to have back...Britain gave back to the US, and didn't pay a dime for it. Anything Britain wanted to keep that the US considered surplus beyond what it needed, after the war was over, Britain paid for, at an 80% discount from standard commerical value.

Britain only paid for goods they kept after the war was over. If it was used up, or destroyed during the war...no charge.

And then, the US loaned Britain an additional 3.75 billion dollars for reconstruction.

We gave you, tens of billions of dollars worth of goods, straight up, no charge, no repayment, here you go, save your ass with it.


They weren't given freely, see above. What the US failed to give freely was what Britain and Australia and New Zealand did give freely: soldiers who were willing to fight fascism.

Again, see above. You're wrong. Freely given. Oh, and once again Britain didn't give soldiers freely. They were more concerned with Germany than Fascism, btw. They acknowledged the Fascist government of Spain.

Britain entered into mutual protection pacts with France, Poland, Turkey, and a slew of other European states after Czeckoslovakia ceased to exist, figuring it would provide the political balk to Germanies expantionistic aspirations.

And when Britain fights, so does the rest of the Commonwealth, especially when Japan is breathing on their doors.

It wasn't until America's own precious ox got gored that we saw US troops in action.

Of course, we were preparing for war as early as '39, gave billions in aid, and essentially were ramping up our forces.



What the... ? I venture a guess that from 1900 to the 1980's the IRA killed more than 700 British citizens through their so-called "punishment beatings" alone.


Yes, this is true. Millions of dollars worth of funding pumped into the IRA over the course of the preceding century, resulting in some deaths, many maimings, and a monstrous hundred-year reign of terror. As a result of America's disapproval of this, a couple of people were indeed arrested by the US authorities.

America isn't perfect. You don't even want to know how much American money has been pumped into various arab terror funds. Until the past couple decades, the laws weren't effectively in place, nor was it easy to differentiate between what nations deemed legitimate political organizations and terrorist organizations (PLO, Sinn Fein vs IRA, Hama, for instance).


I strongly suspect the US would have hemmed and hawed and subsequently fudged.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree on that issue.



I'm in the minority. I was personally in favour of that particular war.

Yes, the pretext for the war was rather questionable. Iraq didn't blow up any skyscrapers on 9/11, and Iraq very clearly didn't possess any weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, the regime in Iraq was distasteful, Saddam Hussein is a very evil man, and military force was the only way to oust him. Therefore using military force to take him down was an appropriate reaction.

I think that the war was, in fact, fully justified. It's just the pretext for the war which was lame.

I actually don't support the war, personally. The reasons given were not valid. Removing a totalitarian regime was a back-up reason that doesn't fly consider the number of totalitarian regimes which fund and aid terror in the Mid-East.

As for snide remarks about Americans - I'm not snide. I'm downright indignant.

Which is why Americans dislike Europeans more and more. No gratitude, and downright indignance. Well F-U, then. Me, if I had my way, I'd have the US ally with Russia and the former Soviet Bloc nations, and Britain (so long as they don't get too embroiled with this EU crap), and leave the rest of Europe to rot. Right bastards, the lot of em.

I live in a country which is heavily scarred by war and by terrorism. As a child I used to play in a pillbox (a kind of concrete bunker) down the bottom of my road. My neighbourhood's largely Victorian, but there are buildings near my house which are newer; they replace the buildings destroyed by German bombs and V2 rockets. There's a bomb crater in the woods near my house. Thanks to the blitz, my father was born in a heavy rescue vehicle with sirens going off all around - my grandmother's told me the tale many times, but I never tire of hearing it.

And I've relatives that died in foxholes on foreign soil, across an ocean helping nations whos children ended up like yourself.

You realize, the US could have ignored the European theatre if it had wanted to, and concentrated all of its efforts on the Pacific theatre. Germany wasn't going to press a war across the Atlantic before we would have been able to crush Japan.

And no, Britain is not heavily scarred by Terrorism. Live in Israel for a while. Then you'll understand heavily scarred by Terrorism. Oh, but wait, I forgot, most Brits seem to support the PLO and Palenstinians over Israel (yet then they complain about the IRA..).


Yes, listening to Americans try to take credit for standing against terrorism, or take credit for being "the" nation that won WW2, does make me pretty indignant.

This isn't about America taking a stand against Terrorism, because ultimately it hasn't. This is about America asking its allies and friends to jump aboard and help them in something we felt needed doing..and our friends not only saying no..but in the case of the Franco-German "bloc" standing against us politically.

And sorry, we did win WWII. Very simply. Before we got involved, Germany controlled all of the Mainland from the Atlantic to fairly deep inside European Russia. With the exception of Fascist Spain/Portugal, Switzerland, and Sweden, who remained "neutral".

Britain did a marvellous job of not letting Germany march right over them (unlike the French), and the bravery and skill of British pilots during the Battle of Britain is one of the greatest moments in military history, but they never could have done so without US aid.

The Russians got their ass kicked until winter set in, and the pressures of a two front war was causing very real supply issues with the German forces. That and the Russians had an inordinate number of cannon fodder and their leadership didnt' mind sacrificing them by the millions.

All the revisionistic views in the world will not change it.

I've already posted figures from Centcom showing the French sent 5500 troops, captured one major city, and the French air force flew in the first bombing runs with the US Air force.


France has an air force? What the hell are they flying, Raphaels?

"No American thinks that we could have won the war without our Allies."

Reading some of the replies here...I get a different view.


Tils

I don't think anyone has said America would have won the war without the Allies (or at least without Britain). If for no other reason, invading Europe without being able to stage out of British territory would have been all but impossible.

If anything the 'problems americans have with the european mindset' has nothing to do with the 'saving of the european asses' during WWII, it has to do with contemporary issues. It is a well known fact that apart from a few chosen who happen to have converged on this message board no one is really as knowledgeable in last century history to use WWII events as a basis to 'dis' european behaviour.
And I also disagree other countries are 'friends' to another. During a certain mandate they can share 'visions' and 'ideals', but are in no way 'friends'.
I don't understand how you can demand a country to be rid of its ideals because of that invisible friendship tie. Would you disregard yours and follow a friend into what you consider wrong and attainable by other means?
I would be the first to call out a friend if he asked me to join him in a taks I thought was wrong. Don't try to deny that.

And I would also like to point out that when you get every single being in your country (this goes out to everyone, not just the USA, even to myself in Spain) to have the same thoughts on the different issues that pop up worldwide, then you can start asking a whole foreign nation to think exactly as you do.

Until then I suggest not acting so wounded and baffled when you say 'come join me in my own misguided little war' and get 'no' as an answer.

Britain was hardly bottled up. British bombers were in the skies over Berlin, and British troops were engaged with Rommel in the desert.

I won't comment on this topic further after this post. This thread is getting a bit away from the original post. However, FDR could not declare war without the consent of congress and public sentiment did not allow that. FDR did sign agreements to provide transport ships and out of date destroyers to the British. These transports were built at a rate faster than the Germans could sink them and thus provide Britain with food, ammunition and Fuel. If these items were not available, the British population would have starved.

The German U boat was very effective and for the effort to build one, Germany could sink a couple transports which could not get replaced as quickly.

To my understanding, two European countries repayed the US in full. I think Norway and one of the low countries. I don't expect our money back but I do expect some appreciation from the French.

The British have done all that I have expected of them with regards to the post 9/11 world eventhough Blair has taken hard critism from his own electorate. I respect Spain's former gov't for taking a stand. I respect Spain's current government for following the peoples will. I respect France for taking a stand and staying with that stand.

To me, the term Old Europe is aimed directly at the French. The term New Europe is aimed at Eastern Europe.

I had cited various "back room deals" and other dubious acts that Bush was calling Chirqac on. When does the phrase "with a friend like you, who needs enemies" become applicable. Maybe it is cultural or maybe it is language but to reads statments by the French gov't and to see less than 'above board' deals... makes Americans question Fance's true intent.

In any case, I am an American who does appreciate all countries that followed Bush's lead. I appreciate government officials that did not participate in trade deals that have questionable ethics or accepted bribes from Sadam. I appreciate countries that appreciate democarcy and want to spread that ideal.

The Cold War is over but the world is still recovering from it. Tommorow's tyrants are being created today. The US can't ignore this and Old Europe can't either. Where people are being treated unfairly becomes a breeding ground for the likes of Hitler or Stalin.

I think a common approach and leadership is what is needed. This may not require large amounts of money but a single effort to push the world to a more democratic style governement.

France has an air force? What the hell are they flying, Raphaels?

Some Raphaels but mostly mirage 2000 I think. They have quite a large defense industry and prefer to design,produce and use there own equipment rather than buy from the other big producers.

Logistics, while important, doesn't win wars. It's the people who fire the rifles and mortars and artillery pieces, the people who drive the tanks, the people who carry the stretchers, and the generals who led them who deserve the credit for El Alamein.

Sorry Shadow while I agree with most of your points this is incorrect. A solider without logitics support behind him is just a man in a uniform with a pissed off attitude :P

Or at least that's what one of my instructors told me :D

Araxx you've just said the most intelligent thing anyone has said in this thread so far.

You can look at one single country and see a variety of opinions that differ extremely radically. While America and Europe have a lot in common we also have a lot that is different.

So what purpose is there to assuming any sort of ongoing common purpose other than ones that have been spelled out by treaty?

We have a lot of things in common, democracy being the main one, but that doesn't mean we're all best buddies and always agree on everything.

Araxx you've just said the most intelligent thing anyone has said in this thread so far.

Agreed.

So what purpose is there to assuming any sort of ongoing common purpose other than ones that have been spelled out by treaty?

Thing is, though, this has been spelled out. ("This" being the "We shall not attack other nations"-thing that we are told to ignore.)

However, FDR could not declare war without the consent of congress and public sentiment did not allow that.

Anyone up for a game of "spot the irony"?

Let me try this one more time.

One man stands and fights against fascism. Maybe he takes out a machinegun nest; maybe he operates an anti-tank gun; maybe he loses both legs to a grenade; maybe he merely fires his rifle at the enemy. Maybe he dies. This man is a soldier.

Another man provides him with some of his equipment.

The contributions of these two men are not equal. Both are important - but one man has paid to defeat fascism in dollars, another has paid to defeat fascism in blood.

While both are necessary, blood > dollars.

As I said, logistics is important. But logistics does not win battles (although the lack of logistics can lose them.) A pile of supplies is useless unless you have men with the courage to obey orders under fire.

America can take credit for many things in WW2. Just to name one example, the Battle of the Bulge was won by America.

British troops were nearby during the Battle of the Bulge, and in fact a certain amount of British equipment was used by the American troops who won the battle. America could not have won that battle without British troops securing their Northern flank, helping to guarantee their lines of supply, etc. But Britain does not deserve the credit for winning the Battle of the Bulge because it was American troops who did the bleeding. This makes it an American victory... more accurately an Allied victory, but you don't see Britain trying to take credit as an individual nation for winning it.

And, ladies and gentlemen, the same principle applies to Stalingrad and many other battles throughout the war. America can take credit for a dollar contribution but not for the actual victory.

So that's enough credit-taking for WW2 as a whole. America did win certain battles, and had a hand in many more. America did defeat Japan and win the entire Pacific campaign. But, an objective assessment has to be that America can no more take credit for being "the" nation that won WW2 than many others, and an objective assessment has to be that if any nation can say "we did the most" then that nation is Russia.

Let me try this one more time.

One man stands and fights against fascism. Maybe he takes out a machinegun nest; maybe he operates an anti-tank gun; maybe he loses both legs to a grenade; maybe he merely fires his rifle at the enemy. Maybe he dies. This man is a soldier.

Another man provides him with some of his equipment.

The contributions of these two men are not equal. Both are important - but one man has paid to defeat fascism in dollars, another has paid to defeat fascism in blood.


While both are necessary, blood > dollars.

See it how you will. Obviously you will try to believe anything to soothe your national pride, regardless of the truth. That man, without his gun, isn't a soldier but a target. America was in no position to jump into combat. It isn't as if Europe gave us much time to ramp up. We did what we could, and it kept you in the war long enough for us to join. You revisionists are ingrates who hate the notion that Europe no longer rules the world at its whim, and will attempt to puff up your importance in your own minds, through any means possible, including discarding history, for one of your own choosing.

As I said, logistics is important. But logistics does not win battles (although the lack of logistics can lose them.) A pile of supplies is useless unless you have men with the courage to obey orders under fire.

Logistics win wars. The basic concept is simple. All the will to fight, in the world, won't help you if you have nothing to fight with.



British troops were nearby during the Battle of the Bulge, and in fact a certain amount of British equipment was used by the American troops who won the battle. America could not have won that battle without British troops securing their Northern flank, helping to guarantee their lines of supply, etc. But Britain does not deserve the credit for winning the Battle of the Bulge because it was American troops who did the bleeding. This makes it an American victory... more accurately an Allied victory, but you don't see Britain trying to take credit as an individual nation for winning it.

Britain doesn't try to take credit for winning the war...because they didn't? Because without US help, they would have starved on their island, and been forced to throw rocks.

And, ladies and gentlemen, the same principle applies to Stalingrad and many other battles throughout the war. America can take credit for a dollar contribution but not for the actual victory.

So that's enough credit-taking for WW2 as a whole. America did win certain battles, and had a hand in many more. America did defeat Japan and win the entire Pacific campaign. But, an objective assessment has to be that America can no more take credit for being "the" nation that won WW2 than many others, and an objective assessment has to be that if any nation can say "we did the most" then that nation is Russia.

Why? Because more Russians died? That's a testimate only to Soviet lack of technology, tactics, and regard for the wellbeing of their own men. They made no advances outside their own territory until US forces were on Europe.

I suspect the word objective doesn't mean what you think it means.

Understand this: Virtually the entire military might of Germany was arranged against Russia in 1941-3; the German forces which Britain and America tied up were important, but it was relatively small potatoes compared to the massive number of German divisions on the Eastern Front during those years. Even in 1944-1945, between two thirds and three quarters of German military forces were engaged on the Eastern Front at all times.

Because more Russians died? That's a testimate only to Soviet lack of technology, tactics, and regard for the wellbeing of their own men.

Soviet technology was behind in some respects, ahead in others.

Russian rifles and machineguns were certainly inferior to the German or Western Allied equivalents, and they had nowhere near enough of them. Their planes were embarrassingly bad. At the start of the war, many of their tanks didn't even have radios. But they did partly compensate for this by having the best tanks in the world; the T-34 was an astoundingly good tank by the standards of the start of the war, and later on, the IS series tanks were more than a match for the German heavy tanks. Their 76mm and 122mm guns were also excellent - high poundage, reliable, low maintenance, cheap, and very effective. By comparison the British tanks were well-armoured, but horribly slow, and seriously undergunned, and the only half decent piece of British artillery was the 25 pounder.

American troops had excellent rifles and machineguns, a range of portable anti-tank weapons including recoilless rifles and bazookas, and outstanding air support. However, Americans were seriously behind in tank technology until 1945, when they finally managed to field the first worthy American main battle tank, which was the Pershing. The Sherman (aka Tommy-Cooker) might be assessed like this: American eyewitnesses claimed it usually took a platoon of Shermans to take down one Tiger.

It is true to say that Russian tactics sometimes left quite a bit to be desired, and they had little regard for the wellbeing of their troops, and that this certainly contributed to the high Russian casualty figures. Western generals commanding the same troops would certainly have lost far fewer men.

Nevertheless the Russians bore the brunt of the fighting from 1941 to 1945. They won because they simply outnumbered and outproduced Germany - in some years literally manufacturing ten times as many tanks and guns as Germany did - and because of the assistance of the Western allies who did manage to bomb Germany and, by 1944-5, tie up perhaps 30% of the Wehrmacht on the Western Front.

We Western Allies can claim the defeat of Japan and Italy as our own, though.

It's my understanding that a big difference between the Russian vs German tanks was the track width. German tanks had a very narrow width wich made them virtually unusable in the snowy and icy conditions during the Russian winter. Russian tanks however had nice wide tracks wich allowed them to be more mobile. In mechanized warfare mobility = the win.

For that matter the weather played such a key roll in tying up German troops on the eastern front it cannot be discounted. If you look at the numbers weather alone killed more men then guns and grenades. Had the Nazis been able to reach Moscow before winter history would have been very different but, alas they fell to the same mistake many had made before.

It's my understanding that a big difference between the Russian vs German tanks was the track width. German tanks had a very narrow width wich made them virtually unusable in the snowy and icy conditions during the Russian winter. Russian tanks however had nice wide tracks wich allowed them to be more mobile. In mechanized warfare mobility = the win.

It was numbers that counted and the speed at which replacments could be made.

The German tanks were superb pieces of equipment but over engineered and complex to produce. The russian tanks in comparison were simple but effective and fast to produce.

In the end the Russians had a massive advantage in sheer numbers of tanks.

Fenmarel is correct the russian tanks were designed for the russian weather while the German tanks were produced with the western european terrain in mind with its milder climate ranges.

Even IF Russia could have won the war by themselves, which it couldn't have. How much longer would it have taken? Germany was about 1 year behind the Manhattan Project. If Germany held on one more year that would have made the difference alone. Let's say Russia won before that eventuality, What happened to every territory the Soviets "liberated" after the war? Do you think that situation would have been preferable to Europeans?

I think the point, which people are repeating over and over again, which is getting argued to a standstill, is that all the contributing nations had a role to play in the defeat of Germany. Nobody needs to have been the best. Nobody needs to have "won the war" any more or less than anyone else. If this or that country hadn't done this, that, or the other then certainly the war may have been lost. It could be argued that the French Resistance and Free French were of as much assistance as the American money in the Battle of Britain, as pilots were more important than planes and the French rescued many airmen, but it's all a totally pointless argument.

You might as well say that a car can't drive without an engine and the engine is quite expensive, therefore the engine is more important than the axle, wheels, brakes, radiator, and steering wheel. It's a pointless argument. No single part is more important than the whole.

My grandfather died (in the late 60’s or early 70’s) from wounds he received in the Second World War. He fought in many battles, including the battle of the bulge. I grew up during the Vietnam War, and believed I would, one day, fight in that conflict (although in reality it ended when I was still very young.) As such, I continually quizzed my grandpa about war, fighting, soldiers, honor and dying.

He always expressed a positive attitude towards the soldiers and people of the allied nations (with the minor exception of the French military leaders). He reserved his highest praise for the British soldiers he had fought alongside. He told me they, the British; were fearless fighters, they never gave up, and that they loved the “yanks” that had come along and helped out (he explained this meant not only the American soldiers but the US citizens who had been helping in many different ways for a long time.)

I recall asking him if America had won the war. He ask me what I meant and then answered this way (I am paraphrasing from my memory so this is not a quote but a recollection from my childhood.) If you mean “we” as in were we on the winning side, then yes. If you mean “we” as in did America win the war single handedly then no. If you mean “we” as in the US was the key element and without it the war could have been lost then yes, but so were the British and the French resistance and even the damn Russians. No countries contribution was greater than another for each gave all they had and no less.

I think about his stories when I read this thread and it saddens me when I see people diminishing the contributions of the soldiers and citizens of any country (including the US) that literally gave their food, resources, way of life and in may cases their blood to further the cause.

As to the issue of the friction between the US and greater Europe I think this old joke sums up my position.

A friend will come bail you out of jail when you do something stupid, a true friend will be in the cell beside you. Great Britain is a true friend.

In general, Tony Blaire is so loved by Americans he could give either Presidentail candidate a run for their money if he would simply immigrate here! :)

Deller

Britain doesn't try to take credit for winning the war...because they didn't? Because without US help, they would have starved on their island, and been forced to throw rocks.

I don't think anyone has said America would have won the war without the Allies (or at least without Britain). If for no other reason, invading Europe without being able to stage out of British territory would have been all but impossible.

So by your own words, the same would apply the other way around. Without the European allies, USA wouldn't have won. You're saying we'd all have lost if it weren't for the other part. So why are you acting like the USA did us a favor? How about YOU show some gratitude? Without European action, you'd all be speaking.. hmm.. Japanese? So, if you're to avoid those pesky double-standards, you kinda have to show the same level of gratitude as the one you're expecting in return.

Lead by example, Aidon, let's see that you can.

So by your own words, the same would apply the other way around. Without the European allies, USA wouldn't have won. You're saying we'd all have lost if it weren't for the other part. So why are you acting like the USA did us a favor? How about YOU show some gratitude? Without European action, you'd all be speaking.. hmm.. Japanese? So, if you're to avoid those pesky double-standards, you kinda have to show the same level of gratitude as the one you're expecting in return.

I know my history is a little sketchy, but I still know the US pretty much won the Pacific Theatre alone. As for gratitude, it isn't only WWII, if you can even say WWII has anything to do with the hostilities at all, as much as the trillions of dollars that the US has dumped into other countries. Most Americans are tired of being the ones who seem to carry the world on our shoulders when somebody screws up, and I for one would like to see, if even for a short while, the impact that US funding has on the world if all of it was pulled.

So by your own words, the same would apply the other way around. Without the European allies, USA wouldn't have won. You're saying we'd all have lost if it weren't for the other part. So why are you acting like the USA did us a favor? How about YOU show some gratitude? Without European action, you'd all be speaking.. hmm.. Japanese? So, if you're to avoid those pesky double-standards, you kinda have to show the same level of gratitude as the one you're expecting in return.

Lead by example, Aidon, let's see that you can.

I've said already, America could not have won the European campaign without Britain, if for no other reason than the US needed British territory to stage off of. Island hopping across the Pacific is one thing...invading Europe from across the Atlantic is a whole new cup of tea.

I know my history is a little sketchy, but I still know the US pretty much won the Pacific Theatre alone.

Aye, this is true. Britain and China did contribute troops which helped to bring down Japan but most of this action took place in Burma rather than in the PTO proper.

So by your own words, the same would apply the other way around. Without the European allies, USA wouldn't have won. You're saying we'd all have lost if it weren't for the other part. So why are you acting like the USA did us a favor? How about YOU show some gratitude? Without European action, you'd all be speaking.. hmm.. Japanese? So, if you're to avoid those pesky double-standards, you kinda have to show the same level of gratitude as the one you're expecting in return.

Lead by example, Aidon, let's see that you can.

Roflmao.

Thanks for trying, Tinsi, but if Americans go about being grateful to Europeans then they can't call us a bunch of ungrateful swine who hide behind America whenever there's a war or a need to send aid.

So I think it's unlikely you'll get very far with that one. Americans are deeply ungrateful to Europeans and very dismissive of our contribution, as this thread has demonstrated.

Hello Dead Horse, meet Foot.

Germans still speak German.
Japanese still speak Japanese.
Both still hold on to their cultures, funnily enough, just like before WWII.
And I guarantee Irakians will still speak Irakian (or whatever) when they finally settle down, 30 years from now.

So I doubt the rest of Europe would be speaking German or the USA speaking Japanese should the war have come out differently.

I don't see the point in all this argument. Events have turned out as they have so let it be. What are you waiting for now? Eternal gratitude?
Is not the gratification of carrying out a good deed enough?
Do you expect a blind lady to pay you with a lifetime of thank you's just for helping her cross the road?
Do you expect a person you have given the Kiss of Life to after dragging them out of the swimming pool they were drowning in to pay you a lifetime wage?

I thought the USA was the end all of all that is good in this world (according to a few chosen visionaries) yet you seem to be asking for gratitude for just beeing 'so darn cool and awsome'.

I don't even wanna get into the argument of how well you did your job of disrupting the governments of all the south american countries and stole their natural resources leaving them in a poverty so deep they will never see the light of day.

So much for good will and compassion.

Is there an end to this discussion or will it all continue being a dragging out of our dirty laundry instead of moving ahead together?

I know what I prefer.

Now, will someone please help me bury this dead horse? It's starting to smell.

I've said already, America could not have won the European campaign without Britain, if for no other reason than the US needed British territory to stage off of. Island hopping across the Pacific is one thing...invading Europe from across the Atlantic is a whole new cup of tea.

Good, now you've said it, now start talking to people as if you mean it.

I know my history is a little sketchy, but I still know the US pretty much won the Pacific Theatre alone. As for gratitude, it isn't only WWII, if you can even say WWII has anything to do with the hostilities at all, as much as the trillions of dollars that the US has dumped into other countries.

Well you didn't dump a dime into mine, so stop expecting that I act and talk as if you did.

Good, now you've said it, now start talking to people as if you mean it.

Eh? Pfft. I think it self evident that Europe needed the US more than the US needed Europe. US could have let the lot of your rot safely across the atlantic, and ended the war against Japan all the sooner for not sending resources to the European Campaign.

So, feel free to get off the high horse.

And I guarantee Irakians will still speak Irakian (or whatever)

Probably depends on the region, but I think it is Farsi.

Eh? Pfft. I think it self evident that Europe needed the US more than the US needed Europe. US could have let the lot of your rot safely across the atlantic, and ended the war against Japan all the sooner for not sending resources to the European Campaign.

...in which case one of two things would have happened.

Scenario 1: (The Aidon scenario) - Germany defeats Russia and starves Britain into submission. Without European scientists working on the Manhattan Project, it is a serious question whether Germany or America develops the H-bomb first; there is little question that Hitler would have used the H-bomb against America, so it seems entirely possible that America would presently be a nuclear wasteland. But even if America develops the H-bomb first and thereby holds the Reich at bay, then we have America, the Pacific, and the ANZAC countries as the last bastions of democracy in an otherwise-fascist world. During the 1950's and 60's the superior economic strength of a unified Europe -v- America begins to tell, and the importance of America dwindles.

Scenario 2: (The Shadowfrost scenario) - Russia defeats Germany. Communism stretches from the coast of France to the coast of China, excepting only Britain, where the economy does not recover for decades. Meanwhile, without British support in Burma or Russian support in China (bearing in mind that in August 1945, it took Russia less than a month to take an area of Manchuria larger than Western Europe) - America is locked in combat with a Japan which has all the resources of China at its disposal. America wins this conflict, but no quicker than it did historically.

During the 1950's and 60's, the superior economic strength of a unified Europe -v- America begins to tell, and the importance of America dwindles.

US could have let the lot of your rot safely across the atlantic, and ended the war against Japan all the sooner for not sending resources to the European Campaign.

If you want to tell me the US should have let Hitler continue the holocaust for longer and across more countries then fine. I don't think you for one moment believe that though Aidon. It's hard to quantify lives in this manner, but I'm guessing you'd be able to justify US intervention in terms of stopping the holocaust, with or without considering the impact on the European allies.

Eh? Pfft. I think it self evident that Europe needed the US more than the US needed Europe. US could have let the lot of your rot safely across the atlantic, and ended the war against Japan all the sooner for not sending resources to the European Campaign.

So, feel free to get off the high horse.

My intention is not to have, or want, a higher horse than you. My point is the same as my point would be if my friend gets drunk and is about to go home with someone who.. uhm.. how do I say this nicely.. someone he/she definitely shouldn't go home with. I'm fully aware that I can't stop you, but I also know that historically, this isn't how you behave, so I nudge (or smack - whatever is needed to get the point across) you and pour coffee in you, and if you want to hate me for it when you're sober, that's fine.

Back to your point of who needs who the most - wether you're the ignition or the wheels, it doesn't really matter does it - without either, the car ain't moving, and as such, the ignition is just as important as the weels. So it's not my intention to say that my horse is bigger than yours. Quite the oposite, I have been trying to say that by your own words, the level of respect and gratitude should be equal. And that leading by example usually works better than arrogance and we-are-better-than-you-attitude.

That's all. Feel free to hate me in the morning, but truthfully, you are not representing your nation in a positive way.

Well if we are talking cars here. The French are more like Fuzzy dice. Only useful if your trying to pick up chicks.

Well if we are talking cars here. The French are more like Fuzzy dice. Only useful if your trying to pick up chicks.

Hmmm what kind of Women get turned on by fuzzy dice ?

And can I have there number
:D

Probably depends on the region, but I think it is Farsi.

Farsi is modern Persian, which is spoken mostly in Iran, who are Persians, not Arabs, technically speaking.

In Iraq, the primary language is Arabic, from what I understand.

If you want to tell me the US should have let Hitler continue the holocaust for longer and across more countries then fine. I don't think you for one moment believe that though Aidon. It's hard to quantify lives in this manner, but I'm guessing you'd be able to justify US intervention in terms of stopping the holocaust, with or without considering the impact on the European allies.

I wasn't talking about shouldas. I was talking about couldas.

But its safe to say that German persecution of its Jewish population played a negligible role in starting WWII.

...in which case one of two things would have happened.

Scenario 1: (The Aidon scenario) - Germany defeats Russia and starves Britain into submission. Without European scientists working on the Manhattan Project, it is a serious question whether Germany or America develops the H-bomb first; there is little question that Hitler would have used the H-bomb against America, so it seems entirely possible that America would presently be a nuclear wasteland. But even if America develops the H-bomb first and thereby holds the Reich at bay, then we have America, the Pacific, and the ANZAC countries as the last bastions of democracy in an otherwise-fascist world. During the 1950's and 60's the superior economic strength of a unified Europe -v- America begins to tell, and the importance of America dwindles.

Scenario 2: (The Shadowfrost scenario) - Russia defeats Germany. Communism stretches from the coast of France to the coast of China, excepting only Britain, where the economy does not recover for decades. Meanwhile, without British support in Burma or Russian support in China (bearing in mind that in August 1945, it took Russia less than a month to take an area of Manchuria larger than Western Europe) - America is locked in combat with a Japan which has all the resources of China at its disposal. America wins this conflict, but no quicker than it did historically.

During the 1950's and 60's, the superior economic strength of a unified Europe -v- America begins to tell, and the importance of America dwindles.


I think you place too much faith in "the superior economic strength of a unified Europe".

Farsi is modern Persian, which is spoken mostly in Iran, who are Persians, not Arabs, technically speaking.

In Iraq, the primary language is Arabic, from what I understand.

Aye Arabic is the most used language with the second most used being kurdish.

I think you place too much faith in "the superior economic strength of a unified Europe".

Pff, that's not faith, that's reality. The GDP of Europe as a whole exceeds that of America by a fairly wide margin, and in the Fascist Europe or Communist Europe scenarios, you'd have to add in the GDP and resources of Russia to the equation. In the 1950's, 60's and 70's, that wasn't small potatoes. I think that if America had been in the Space Race against a unified European dictatorship that included Russia, rather than against Communist Russia alone, America would have lost.

Mind you, it would have been an Arms Race rather than a Space Race in any case.

The situation for America with the Democratic Europe scenario which actually evolved, is far preferable to what the situation would have been in a Fascist Europe or a Communist Europe scenario. Even if you hadn't sunk in your precious 30-odd billion dollars.

I'm not in favour of a unified Europe, mind. A unified Europe would be considerably bigger than America but that doesn't mean it would be any better... besides which, I'm very glad not to share a nation or system of government with mainland Europe. God put twenty miles of water between our island and the French coast for a good reason! ;)

I'm glad things worked out the way they did, and I think Americans should be too.

Pff, that's not faith, that's reality. The GDP of Europe as a whole exceeds that of America by a fairly wide margin, and in the Fascist Europe or Communist Europe scenarios, you'd have to add in the GDP and resources of Russia to the equation. In the 1950's, 60's and 70's, that wasn't small potatoes. I think that if America had been in the Space Race against a unified European dictatorship that included Russia, rather than against Communist Russia alone, America would have lost.

Mind you, it would have been an Arms Race rather than a Space Race in any case.

The situation for America with the Democratic Europe scenario which actually evolved, is far preferable to what the situation would have been in a Fascist Europe or a Communist Europe scenario. Even if you hadn't sunk in your precious 30-odd billion dollars.

Of course it is preferable, to the US to have a Democratic Europe, which is why we sunk further billions into rebuilding the continent after the war...

I'm not in favour of a unified Europe, mind. A unified Europe would be considerably bigger than America but that doesn't mean it would be any better... besides which, I'm very glad not to share a nation or system of government with mainland Europe. God put twenty miles of water between our island and the French coast for a good reason! ;)

I'm glad things worked out the way they did, and I think Americans should be too.

Actually, I think it would have worked out better if we had given what France to what became West Germany.

I think we can both agree that the French suck.

I think we can both agree that the French suck.

I'll agree with that but, the problem is they are too prissy to swallow.

"The French" don't suck in general... some of them are lovely people. What sucks are some of the recent political and economic decisions made by the French leadership. They also distinguished themselves in WW1 as a military nation.

"The French" don't suck in general... some of them are lovely people. What sucks are some of the recent political and economic decisions made by the French leadership.

The same can be said for Americans. I, for one, hold nothing against europe, and as much dialog as has happened on this thread about WWII, realistically, neither side would have "won" without the other. If old Europe had fallen to Hitler (unlikely it would have lasted long, he didn't have the manpower to keep that much land mass under his thumb), the Americans would have had a real problem to deal with. All in all, the Americans helped, but much of their help would not have been possible without the assistance provided by the old european underground/spies etc.

Our current administration is doing us no good in terms of international relations. But our administration does not speak for all of us, only for their own agenda. Neither does the french administration speak for all french people.

Very good point Shadowfrost.

No..the french suck =P

Aidon is not only bitter about EQ, he's just bitter about everything...

Fleas maybe?

Hmmmm. I wonder if the U.S. (and coalition of the willing) would have invaded Iraq if Gore had become president? Could it be that 'ungrateful' Europeans were merely ignoring the wishes of a handful of Floridian voters?
(Yes, this is tongue-in-cheek)

There's been much said of World War II. I'm a German by birth, Canadian by choice and proud of both. I was born and raised in post-war Berlin. Many of my family fought in WW2. My father spent five years as a German POW in Russia. The opinion I'm about to state about the outcome of WW2 is mainly from my family that lived through the war.

Nazi Germany could never have won WW2. All the scenarios on this thread that suggest otherwise are just plain wrong. Hitler had too many enemies in too many places to ever succeed. Germany's opponents didn't only include the obvious war participants such as Russia, Britain, France and America. It included conquered countries such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Benelux countries, Denmark, the Ukraine and a few others. All the Allies contributed to the defeat of Germany. Without America, the war would have lasted longer, but would have had the same end result. Russia was by far the biggest factor in the defeat of Germany. If you read Russian history of WW2, America is barely acknowledged -- certainly not fair, but then neither is overstating America's importance. To suggest that America deserves special loyalty for efforts in WW2 from Europe in general is unfair especially if the expectation is one-sided.

The biggest wildcard to prolonging the war was German nuclear capability. Technically Germany was ahead in the race to build the bomb. Whether Germany could practically have used the technology is debatable. Knowing how to build a bomb, and the associated delivery system (V2 rocket technology at Penemuende) is fine but Germany was resource poor towards the latter stages of WW2.

On a more personal note, I would state that there continues to be a strong pro-American feeling in the former West Berlin. When you're surrounded by the 'enemy' you know who your friends are. The Berlin airlift in particular stands out. I know many that believe that the Berlin Wall would have been breached during Kennedy's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' speech if he had directed the crowds to do so... and yes, we were there.

Thicket

Kennedy's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' speech

Lol.

Did Kennedy really say "I am a jam donut?"

Berliners have their own unique sense of humor. It comes from decades of adversity. For example a popular cartoon when I was a youngster in Berlin showed two young boys having a contest to see who could spit the farthest in the snow. It was easy to see who the winner was because the spit was blood-stained from tuberculosis.

A "Berliner" is indeed a jelly-filled doughnut. It does lose something in the translation though. It's like using Romanian and describing an American "hot dog" as a beef and byproducts sausage. There are two other popular pastries in Berlin. They are half-moon shaped and look yellow in the center. They are covered with icing. The ones with white icing are called "Amerikaner". The ones with chocolate icing are called "Morokkaner".

It wasn't until after Kennedy's rousing speech that the Berlin wags made jokes about the jelly-filled doughnut. During the speech there was raw emotion and no sign of humor. I had relatives in the East that loitered near the West Berlin border in an attempt to hear something. Of course, they couldn't hear the speech, but they did hear the roar of the crowd.

Thicket

Lol.

Did Kennedy really say "I am a jam donut?"

/nods

Now I admit that Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed and is a huge embarrassment to the American people,

ROFLOL !! Bush is hardly an "embarrassment to the American people" Follun. Maybe to those liberal left-wing socialists who hate him but not to the rest of us.

ROFLOL !! Bush is hardly an "embarrassment to the American people" Follun. Maybe to those liberal left-wing socialists who hate him but not to the rest of us.

This kind of attitude is exactly what makes me sick of the ultra-conservatism in this country that seems to be growing lately. Now I tend to be more conservative in my beliefs, but when people like you go around shouting out about how Bush does no wrong and is the savior of America, it makes me want to pound my head on the wall. I would like to know your definition of an embarrassment because, when you elect a President to lead a country for the people, you expect that President to do so. Few people seem to realize the facts about his presidency however. In 2000, Bush talked about how he would only use military force when it was the last resort and only if he had a sure plan for removal of American troops. What happened to this in Iraq? Evidence shows that the United States government had received warning well ahead of the 9/11 attacks and ignored the warnings, yet the media buried these facts underneath the surge of patriotism at that time. Or how about Bush's foreign policy of "you are either with us or against us, f*** you guys we can do it alone" that seems to be making us so many international friends? People talk relentlessly about Kerry's bad decisions, and for the most part I agree with a lot of them, but when somebody starts to criticize Bush, people start screaming communist terrorist or stupid liberal.

Bush isn't a leader for the people, he is a leader for personal gain. The Iraq War wasn't for freedom and democracy in Bush's eyes, it was for money. Bush and Cheney's buddies over at Halliburton and all the other big oil companies have received billions from the government illegally, yet neither of them have said anything about it. Surprised? I for one and disgusted by paying over $50 to fill up my car each week just so Bush and his buddies can take more out of my taxes so they can get even more money out of me. I fail to see why so many people see Bush as a great leader and "uniter of nations" when all he has done is bring the United States to its knees and abandon her allies. Bush is in his own little world at the White House, and I'm ready to kick him out.

Oh, oh, but Kerry is worse right? While voting against bills such as supplying troops with the needed arms and such are bad, the decisions that a President makes far outweigh the decisions of one Senator. Bush has shown time and time again that he not only makes bad decisions, but he is a fully incompetent leader and a disgrace to that position. Bush has destroyed the credibility and respect that not only the President has, but the United States as a whole. When the majority of his campaign funding comes from big oil companies, who do you think Bush is supporting? I know its not me. "Liberal left-wing socialists" aren't the only people who hate Bush, most of the world does too.

I'm not a liberal left socialist by any definition of those terms and I'm embarassed by the current administration. Gathering from the number of republican generals, ambassadors, and other republicans that have split ranks with the current administration, I think there are a lot of people who find the current administration embarassing.

When the majority of his campaign funding comes from big oil companies, who do you think Bush is supporting? I know its not me.As opposed to the ketchup special interests?

Bush's approval ratings are hoving around 50%. That means that he is representing at least half of the people in the U.S

If anything Bush embarrases himself, his family, and those who undyingly support him just because...
Those of us outside the US don't feel he embarrases the rest of you who don't support him, we just feel sorry you have to put up with him and his Bushisms... *chuckle*

nukular :banghead:

As opposed to the ketchup special interests?

Bush's approval ratings are hoving around 50%. That means that he is representing at least half of the people in the U.S

No, that just means the other 50% think Kerry is just as bad as he is :gunfight:

The rest of the world thinks Bush is an embarrassment, it's just parts of the US that hasn't realised it yet. It's a bit like Uncle Joe singing his favourite song to the family, again, and Auntie Jane clapping along because she thinks it's fun too.

when somebody starts to criticize Bush, people start screaming communist terrorist or stupid liberal.

Modern day McCarthyism.

Ok here's something I've noticed in this thread. Americans seem determine to be the best. Here's how this post has shaped up.

1. Americans tell themselves they're the best, biggest, and greatest
2. They tell everyone they're the best
3. The don't believe any evidence which show they're not the best
4. Tell everyone which evidence to use to show they're best
5. Say people are anti-US for not looking at things their way
6. Tell everyone they're disrespectful for not realising just how great the US is

We've discussed two things at length where America doesn't need to be the best, foreign aid and WW2. America made great contributions in both these areas and Americans can be proud with that. But someone had to say 'we won the war for you', disagree with any debate otherise, and feel insulted when people didn't agree. This thread has been a whole load of arguments on whether the US is the best at anything and everything when it shouldn't really matter.

If you look at something like foreign aid there is always going to be more than one way of looking at the figures. By setting your stall out as the best you're always going to find someone who disagrees because everyone looks at things differently. Telling everyone you're the best compounds that. Refusing to look at things from other people's point of view only makes it worse still.

This debate has really all been about America and not old Europe because all the reasons people put down for disliking the French were actually all to do with the US. Nobody said the French were cultural snobs, have misguided social values, misruled an empire, or anything like that, all the reasons were about how the French had done this, that, or the other to the US. I was slightly surprised by that but there you go.

Anyway, I'm probably not the right person to make this observation since I'm European, obviously anti-US, I'm reading the posts entirely wrong, being ungrateful for your time graciously spent answering my posts, and not recognising Americans as the most modest people in the world. However, would anyone agree that if you stick your chin out too often someone is going to take a swing at it?

(Don't anyone dare answer by saying 'but we are the best'. It doesn't matter!)

Not only that but they made fun of that poor french guy that was trying to state a valid point. Well excuse him for not being american. Oh wait, english is the world's language!!!

ROFLOL !! Bush is hardly an "embarrassment to the American people" Follun. Maybe to those liberal left-wing socialists who hate him but not to the rest of us.

I am a liberal left-wing socialist and proud of it.

You conservative right-wing evangelical greed mongers scare the living hell out of me.

Oh wait, english is the world's language!!!

If only Americans could speak it...

Actually english is about the third language nowadays.

Oh, don't get me wrong, it is still the main language to get understood, but it has lost ground and is doing so faster each day.
In a few years (10, 15, 20, you be the judge) it will be more important to speak Spanish than English.

Hmmm... I don't know about that Araxx. Just because there's a larger number of people speaking Spanish doesn't mean they weild much clout to dictate what the international language of commerce or art or anything else is going to be. Take chinese, hasn't that been sort of the biggest language for quite some time? But chinese speaking countries have been isolated and not exactly meccas of research or commerce or even tourism. So there hasn't been a huge incentive to learn chinese. But probably the sheer numbers of people who speak chinese is huge because it was where they were born.

/nods

No that's a myth.

Originally, Follun, YOU made the sweeping statement that "Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed and is a huge embarrassment to the American people, . ." and I responded in jest "ROFLOL !! Bush is hardly an "embarrassment to the American people" Follun. Maybe to those liberal left-wing socialists who hate him but not to the rest of us."

Now, you retort back that "[t]his kind of attitude is exactly what makes me sick of the ultra-conservatism in this country". My statement was written while I was in a sarcastic and humorous mood (note the ROFLOL, hint hint). Obviously, you don't have to be a "liberal left-wing socialist" to dislike Bush (even HATE :burn: him, why anyone would "hate" a man they've never personally met I'll never know, but to each their own).

Follun then continues "but when people like you go around shouting out about how Bush does no wrong and is the savior of America, it makes me want to pound my head on the wall." :banghead:

Pound away Follun, :banghead: pound away! But just to set the record straight, I've never claimed "Bush does no wrong and is the savior of America, . . ." I do respect him as the President of the United States of America and like it or not he is OUR President (right or wrong).

I would like to know your definition of an embarrassment because, when you elect a President to lead a country for the people, you expect that President to do so.

From dictionary.com Embarrassment "1. the shame you feel when your inadequacy or guilt is made public."

Pretty standard definition that I would accept. However, I do not feel any shame or inadequacy or guilt for supporting George W. Bush! And, surprise surprise, I'm not the ONLY ONE!!
Follun's comments seem (at least to me) to indicate he believes the propaganda spewing forth from Michael Moore's movie, "Fehrenheit 911" when he says Bush isn't a leader for the people, he is a leader for personal gain. The Iraq War wasn't for freedom and democracy in Bush's eyes, it was for money. Bush and Cheney's buddies over at Halliburton and all the other big oil companies have received billions from the government illegally, yet neither of them have said anything about it. Surprised? I for one and disgusted by paying over $50 to fill up my car each week just so Bush and his buddies can take more out of my taxes so they can get even more money out of me.
Hmmm, where's your proof? You gonna point at Michael Moore's movie? ROFLOL!!! One of the reason gas prices in the U.S. are so high may have less to do with the war in Iraq and more to do with the fact that their are LESS oil refineries in the U.S. now then there were 15 years ago when gas was less than a buck a gallon! If we had MORE oil refineries here in the U.S. producing more gas, guess what?! maybe the price of gas would go down. It's so easy to make George W. into the scapegoat I suppose. But then, what if John Kerry were to win the presidential election, do you honestly think he's going to become "the savior of America" as you accuse "people like [me]" of believing about Bush?

Unlike you hate-mongers, I will support MY President, whether it be Bush, Kerry, Nader (giggle), or whomever happens to fill that position within my lifetime. I may not always agree with their positions, but as a citizen of the *United* States of America I would be ashamed of anyone who tries to trample on my right to support MY President!

I do respect him as the President of the United States of America and like it or not he is OUR President (right or wrong).

He might be YOUR President. He sure as heck isn't mine, a fact which gives me great pleasure.

(even HATE :burn: him, why anyone would "hate" a man they've never personally met I'll never know, but to each their own).

I can think of quite a few people I hate without any desire or need to meet. Louis Farrakan. Yasser Arafat. Osama bin Laden. Jane Fonda. Jesse Jackson. And yes, our President.






However, I do not feel any shame or inadequacy or guilt for supporting George W. Bush!

Jose Padilla.

A right thinking American should feel guilt and downright fear for supporting Bush. "It Can't Happen Here."

Hmmm, where's your proof? You gonna point at Michael Moore's movie? ROFLOL!!! One of the reason gas prices in the U.S. are so high may have less to do with the war in Iraq and more to do with the fact that their are LESS oil refineries in the U.S. now then there were 15 years ago when gas was less than a buck a gallon! If we had MORE oil refineries here in the U.S. producing more gas, guess what?! maybe the price of gas would go down.

The lack of refineries in the US, as far as I know, has little or nothing to do with the pricing OPEC places on oil. I'd venture to guess the $55 a barrel pricing has more to do with our gas prices. But that is only partially Bush's fault..and then only in that by now the increased supply we should have been getting from Iraq should have helped deflate those costs...except the flow of oil from Iraq has been stymied to a large extent. That's due to our mismanagement of the situation there.

What is Bush's fault is how much money is being given to certain companies in no-bid contracts...(interestingly enough..when it was the Dems handing out the no-bid contracts during Vietnam, then Senetor Cheney was all riled up and screaming for head laden platters for daring to give out no-bid contracts...to the company which eventually became the core of Halliburton...but this was before he was on the board ;))

It's so easy to make George W. into the scapegoat I suppose. But then, what if John Kerry were to win the presidential election, do you honestly think he's going to become "the savior of America" as you accuse "people like [me]" of believing about Bush?

He doesn't need to be a savior. He just needs to not destroy our civil liberties, not ignore the constitution (except when he needs to amendment for hateful policy), and actually pretend to have some sort of fiscal sense (I don't understand why republicans want to vote for Bush...they are supposed to be all about fiscal responsibility. Then again, its no secret that most republicans don't care about fiscal responsibility...they just care about having to pay less taxes..personally).

Unlike you hate-mongers, I will support MY President, whether it be Bush, Kerry, Nader (giggle), or whomever happens to fill that position within my lifetime. I may not always agree with their positions, but as a citizen of the *United* States of America I would be ashamed of anyone who tries to trample on my right to support MY President!

Noone ever tramples the right to support a President...but all too frequently people trample the right to express dismay, disgust, and distrust of the President. And it is a naive little sheep who supports any President, regardless of whom it may be.

Do not mistake the United part of our Nation's name, to mean some sort of mindless lockstep to the tune of the administration. That way leads to tyrrany. Nothing is more vital to a healthy, free, liberal nation than dissenting opinion...hence the single most important guiding rule of our Government and way of life. The freedom of expression.

No that's a myth.

Depends on what you say is a myth. Did he say it? Yes. Does it mean Jelly dougnut? Yes. Is it also technically gramatically correct in meaning what he obviously MEANT to say? Yes.

It's like "I am a Hamburger" is technically gramatically correct if you want to state that you're from Hamburg. However, if you said that, you can later not claim that it's a "myth" that you've stated to be a piece of ground meat with salad, dressing and buns. That wasn't the intention of the statement, obviously, but what you said does indeed have that meaning, and furthermore, it's the by far most used meaning of the words you've chosen.

Myth? I disagree, but I guess it's a matter of definition. Historically relevant as anything but a piece of "fun facts"? Neh.

Depends on what you say is a myth.

A story that isnt entirely true... Which we appear to agree that the story isn't entirely true.

Eh, it's apparently true that McCarthy said to an audience of Germans, "Ich bin ein Berliner."

It is also true that "ein Berliner" has a dual meaning. It can mean a person from Berlin, and it can also mean a kind of jam donut (which Americans apparently call a jelly donut.)

So it is true to say that McCarthy said to an audience of Germans something which could accurately be translated as "I am a jam donut."

I do wish he'd said it in a different German city, though. The best one would probably have been "Ich bin ein Frankfurter."

Eh, it's apparently true that McCarthy said to an audience of Germans, "Ich bin ein Berliner."

It is also true that "ein Berliner" has a dual meaning. It can mean a person from Berlin, and it can also mean a kind of jam donut (which Americans apparently call a jelly donut.)

So it is true to say that McCarthy said to an audience of Germans something which could accurately be translated as "I am a jam donut."

I do wish he'd said it in a different German city, though. The best one would probably have been "Ich bin ein Frankfurter."

McCarthy ?

Wasn't it Kennedy ?

Also I hope Berliner does mean Doughnut, If not the company I work for has been shipping mislabelled doughnut premixs to Germany for years :)

To reiterate, it was Kennedy who said "Ich bin ein Berliner". Not a myth. It happened. Did he intend to say he was a jelly doughnut - no. Did people think he said he was a jelly doughnut - no. Is it a funny story that the word Berliner also means jelly doughtnut - yes.

Others have already mentioned the double meaning of "Ich bin ein Hamburger" and "Ich bin ein Frankfurter". There is another one -- "Ich bin ein Wiener". Wien is the German name for Vienna. It's really not that strange since the English words wiener, hamburger and frankfurter actually originate from the names of the respective German/Austrian cities.

Thicket

He might be YOUR President. He sure as heck isn't mine, a fact which gives me great pleasure.

What country are you from Shadowfrost? I don't mean to say that the current or future presidents of the U.S. should be considered anyone's president except those of us who are United States Citizens. But that's just my personal opinion.

I can think of quite a few people I hate without any desire or need to meet. Louis Farrakan. Yasser Arafat. Osama bin Laden. Jane Fonda. Jesse Jackson. And yes, our President.

I think life's too short to go around hating people. I don't mean you have to be all lovey dovey with everyone. But I honestly can't say I know of anyone that I truly hate. You may hate their actions, you may hate their idiology and opinions, but how can you hate someone you don't really know?

I don't agree with the ideas and opinions of the people you listed above (excluding our President), but I feel no hatred toward them personally. Not to sound like Yoda, but hate leads to violence which I thought you liberals so loathed. I guess this is just another example of liberal hypocricy.

I don't mean to say that the current or future presidents of the U.S. should be considered anyone's president except those of us who are United States Citizens.

While my prime minister, Tony Blair, effectively acts as a US diplomat because so many nations in the world find the Bush presidency unacceptable to deal with, I think I've got an interest.

Not to sound like Yoda, but hate leads to violence which I thought you liberals so loathed. I guess this is just another example of liberal hypocricy.

Yup, totally agree. Most of "us liberals" dislike hate. That's the provenance of "you conservatives".

What country are you from Shadowfrost?

I'm British, thank God. It is a pleasure, a privilege, and also a solemn duty, to be one of Her Majesty's subjects.

I have a very, very low opinion of GWB. This is possibly the only thing that I've ever agreed with Aidon about. ;)

I'm British, thank God. It is a pleasure, a privilege, and also a solemn duty, to be one of Her Majesty's subjects.

Agreed :grin:

There's a lot to be said for having a Monarch as head of state, If you don't like them at least you know them being there was not your fault :flipbg:

I have a very, very low opinion of GWB.

Since you admittedly are not a U.S. Citizen, perhaps you could shed some light as to why you have a low opinion of GWB, from a outsider's perspective. Perhaps, I being a U.S. Citizen and a Bush supporter, am guilty of the ol' fishbowl syndrome. I think it would be refreshing to read your opinion from outside the "fishbowl."

List some valid reasons why you would have a low opinion of George W. Bush.

Since you admittedly are not a U.S. Citizen, perhaps you could shed some light as to why you have a low opinion of GWB, from a outsider's perspective.

His election was dubious. The rest of world quite liked Clinton, didn't care whether he kept his trousers on or what his wife did, and wouldn't have minded his sensible looking deputy to take over.

He seemed tainted by big business corruption from day 1, long before Haliburton.

His command of the english language makes him look stupid. Reagan appeared folksy, Bush appears like the village fool.

We have never heard so many lies come out of America as we have ender Bush. Tony Blair gave up trying to say Al Qiada was supported by Saddam Hussein two years ago. Cheney said it last week. Anyone remember those mobile chemical weapons factories?

The UN is an important forum for the rest of the world. It is genuinely scary for us if Bush tries to take the world military superpower outside of international law.

Even more than most presidents, he says things like 'we can't let that happen, those are americans'. It's fair to look after his own, but the implication is stronger than ever that us non-americans aren't worth a bean and anything can happen to us and it doesn't matter.

Global climate change is important. Bush expects science and free markets to come up with solutions for him. They might not. The risks are on a catastrophic scale if things go wrong. He should show leadership instead of blocking environmental progress in deference to big business.

"You're for us or against us". He made up my mind for me. I wasn't for him so suddenly I was against him. Give me a reason to actually like George Bush.

Give me a reason to actually like George Bush.


Ermm.

Ermm.

Well he provides hours and hours of footage for people to take the piss out of him. :wiggle:

I think life's too short to go around hating people. I don't mean you have to be all lovey dovey with everyone. But I honestly can't say I know of anyone that I truly hate. You may hate their actions, you may hate their idiology and opinions, but how can you hate someone you don't really know?

I don't agree with the ideas and opinions of the people you listed above (excluding our President), but I feel no hatred toward them personally. Not to sound like Yoda, but hate leads to violence which I thought you liberals so loathed. I guess this is just another example of liberal hypocricy.

This liberal doesn't hate violence. I would say I find pointless violence distasteful. But there are times when violence is necessary for right to defend against wrong.

And yes, I can hate people without having met them.

Give me a reason to actually like George Bush.

I could give you several reasons. However, my reasons for supporting Bush may not align with your ideology. I will however, give you some reasons posted by another Bush supporter with whom I whole heartedly agree with.
George W. Bush thinks the best defense against terrorism is a good offense. Hitting them before they hit us seems to be a pretty effective strategy. It's a strategy we should've undertaken 11 years ago. It's a strategy our opponents really didn't think we'd ever take.

George W. Bush agreed with all those, on the Left and the Right, who came before him and declared Saddam Hussein a threat to the world. And he took action. Despite an uphill battle, roller coaster polls and some so-called allies who were conspiring with the enemy to prevent us from taking the necessary action. It's a stand our opponents thought we'd lose.

George W. Bush recognizes the need to let hard working Americans keep more of what they earn. He understands that people can't help the needy when they're struggling to pay their tax bill to fund inefficient and ineffective government programs. He fought like hell to get the tax package passed, even while his opposition fought like hell against it. It's an effort his opponents thought would cost him.

George W. Bush sees the wisdom in not discriminating against Faith-based organizations when handing out federal money just because his opponents position it as some hostile religious takeover over the government while still maintaining they, themselves are religious. It's a cause his opponents thought he would have to abandon.

George W. Bush sees the promise of stem-cell research, but understands the potential cost as well. Even while his opponents mischaracterize the debate, he presses on, being the first President to support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research at all. It's an issue on which his opponents thought they could shake him.

George W. Bush knows that we're all Americans and as such, we should all be afforded an equal opportunity. His opponents still call him racist, despite the fact his success in diversity is measured by powerful blacks, not a simple slogan of black power. It's a vision his opponents thought wouldn't work.

George W. Bush sees the abortion issue as affecting more than just one life. It's a fact his opponents try to deny.

George W. Bush understands that September 11th changed this country, for better and worse. he acknowledges that we have to enact protection while maintaining the freedoms that make this country great. He also understands that common sense should prevail over political correctness. Pandering should never replace true respect for those who are different. It's a concept his opponents still haven't learned.

George W. Bush has seen the impact of real education reform. He knows that simple social promotion isn't real education. He sees the value true learning can have on the American spirit. He believes in our citizens armed with the power of knowledge. It's an issue his opponents thought they owned.

George W. Bush gets it when it comes to Social Security. He understands that in the private sector, such a ponzi scheme would result in jailtime for those perpetrating it. He knows the plan won't be available for folks my age, so he wants to give us an option of preparing ourselves for retirement, the old fashioned way - personal responsibility. It's an issue his opponents try to capitalize on.

George W. Bush doesn't think a government-run healthcare system is the best answer and all he has to do is point at most every other government program to prove it will be a failure. He understands that the best way to make healthcare affordable is to reduce the lottery-ticket-litigation. It's an issue his opponents are intimate with.

George W. Bush recognizes the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil - for security and financial reasons. He understands there are places in the U.S. that could be used for supplies. It's an issue his opponents don't understand.

George W. Bush says that it is his faith that sustains him. He says it's his faith that guides his decisions. He's not ashamed to spread the joy of his faith and not afraid to ask for prayers from others. It's a gift his opponents try to hide.

George W. Bush is not afraid to be himself, even if it costs some political points. He knows the real heart and soul of America. He believes America must seize this moment in history and America must lead. He knows we must give our prosperity a greater purpose, a purpose of peace and freedom and hope. He knows we're a great nation of good and loving people. originally from http://www.blogsforbush.com/

Now maybe you take exception to me using his words, but he said what I believe much more eloquently than I could have written.

"As General Tommy Franks said at the Convention, "I've looked into this man's eyes and I've seen his character. I've seen courage, I've seen consistency, the courage to stand up to terrorists and the consistency necessary to beat them."

George Bush is the real deal." Thanks Faye for the quote.

So what does any of those points do to increase my opinion of W? I live in Europe and I'm not overly interested in his faith, social services, education, etc. If he's pointing to my government run health system and saying it's a failure it doesn't please me that much to be honest.

As for the international stuff ... most of this is my personal politics but it'll give some idea of the possible sentiments out there in the rest of the world.

I don't think hitting terrorists 'first' is a great idea if it involves acting on entirely false intelligence, that's just a bad mistake. George Bush manufactured a case for an Iraq war from nothing, he didn't bring together like minded people who were already wanting it. Nobody in the UK or Poland felt any threat from Saddam before George Bush asked for weapon inspectors to go in, and he typically ignored their results because they didn't provide the evidence he wanted. His 'leadership' consisted of bullying nations into supporting his ideas, not listening to their opinions and concerns. The fact that he ignored international conventions to declare war is to his detriment, not to his benefit, especially if you live outside the US.

He knows the real heart and soul of America. He believes America must seize this moment in history and America must lead. He knows we must give our prosperity a greater purpose, a purpose of peace and freedom and hope. He knows we're a great nation of good and loving people

Please, this isn't endearing George to me. See if you can find something else.

To summarize what a Bush cabinent member told a journalist the Bush administration was unhappy with, We're making the new reality here and you can either be a part of it or not. I.e. If you report news the Bush administration doesn't like, you'll be frozen out. And "making a new reality"? Isn't that what I did when I was a child playing make believe?

I want my government to be based on *the reality* not a new reality, not faith, not the steely look in someone's eye or the bravado in their swaggering. I want my leaders to be smart and willing to listen to bad news and act on it, rather than shooting the messenger. I want a government that is honest about the threats we face and doesn't use them to scare people into behaving like sheep. I want a government that can occassionally forsee problems and act on them (medicine shortages, social security shortages, terrorist acts) like England did in this flu vaccine shortage. I don't want leaders who make terrible mistakes and then think that correcting their mistakes is an act of weakness. I want leaders who feel that America should be a part of the free governments of the world and not the dominators of the world.

Judging from recent polls, I'd say about 50% of the likely voters feel the same way.

If George W. Bush represents my heart and soul then I'm going to hell for sure.

Bush is slime.

He wasn't elected. That other American, whoever he was, got more actual votes; Bush got into power in despite of the will of the people, on the back of a court case. It wasn't a good start to his presidency; I could have understood those events if it were some Generalissimo taking power in a third world country, but they had no place in a supposed democracy. The people should decide who rules, not the courts.

Then his speeches started to get broadcast... and, wow. Bush is a politician. He talks for a living. You'd sort of expect him to be better at it, no? To the American ear, perhaps he sounds colloquial and sincere, but to my British ear, he sounds like a fool.

Then I got past the inferior delivery of the speeches and look at the content. That man's horribly, horribly right wing. And his whole attitude is a case of "my way or the highway." And his way is so often wrong... his thoughts on the viability of national health systems, in particular, show a frightening lack of understanding.

In fact, I'll come out and say it. I think Bush is too stupid to run a country. And I'm sometimes really scared about what his particular combination of dimwitted, super-sincere bloodymindedness might cause him to do one day.

making a new reality

What if I don't want to live in HIS reality? I'm kinda fond of my own reality. I made it myself from bits of twine and odd lost buttons I found lying around. I'm not sure what his is made of, and I don't really care to look deeply enough to find out. I'm sorta scared of what I might find.

Well, i have to comment on this.

It was American money rebuilding after WWII,
Stalin and Roosevelt agreed at Jalta Conference on a 50:50 deal to get 10 Billion Dollar each from Germany after WW2. German private property in 75 countries all over the world worth approx. 20 Billion $ was never returned to their owners. I am fine with that because Germany lost the war. But the US Marshall Plan to rebuild whole Europe was only about 13 Bn Dollars and 70% of this money were used to buy american products. The USA made a big surplus on the whole issue. Not the best argument to prove generosity.




It was American money and troops protecting Western Europe from Soviet
Well, there was no agression. The "Cold War" was a dislike of both sides. As much as Soviets threatened West Europe, USA threatened East Europe. Actually the American Money feared the virus of communism is going to spill over to America itself. Remember the fifties? McCarthy and the american hunt for communists? Very very similar to terrorist hunting of today....



Of course American's have disliked France, at least since the 80's when they refused to give permission for our bombers to fly over French airspace in order to bomb Libya.
Ahh, yes Lybia. Muhammed Gaddafi. Well known terrorist and killer of at least hundreds of innocent people. Much more terrorist than Sadam Hussein ever was. Ohh. wait.. he is becoming the new best friend of Americans and Europeans nowadays. How is that possible?

Btw. the territory of Lybia was a former french colony. And by that time quite a few french citizens owned property there. I doubt americans will give a go to an european air-force bombing their real estate somewhere in the world.

And just rethink it please. If Germany got in trouble with Mexico. Do you really think german Bombers would be allowed to start from american Airports? I highly doubt this.



This dislike is further compounded when we see ourselves giving more money than any other single nation to the UN and various aid programs...
In 1998 the americans owed 76% of their regular contribution. Maybe the US has to pay a lot. But they don't do in reality. The contributions to UN are based on the "capacity to pay" which is based on a countries share of Gross World Product. Only the USA benefits on a special rule "to cut" their contribution. So in fact, the USAs share on contributions is relatively less than those of any other country.

Regarding the various aid programs one should notice that most of this aid is american crop or american medics, not money. This aid are programs to finance your own countries farmers and companies by the tax payer as well.



We get irritated when a European problem, like the Balkans, is ignored by Europe other than a decision by the UN to send troops in...and the majority of the troops are American.
Europeans didn't ignore the problem. They just hesitated to interfere because they remember how WWI begun: It was a small conflict on the Balkan...



We get irritated when Europeans want us to Police the world...but then bitch at us for doing so as we see fit.
Actually i am not aware of anyone wanting the US to be the worlds police squad. Your goverment claims to be it, regardless what anyone else thinks about it.



We get no sense of appreciation for anything we've done for Europe. I have no doubt, that were the US invaded tomorrow by say, China, the majority of Europe would sit, Neutral.
Dream on. Your country isn't able to keep peace in Iraq which is of Californias size. No way you ever invade China which is slightly smaller than USA but has 5 times more citizens (1.298.847.624 (Juli 2004 est.) vs. 293,027,571 (July 2004 est.)).

And there is a difference between appreciating something and blind following wrong leadership.

The only nations, I fear, whom we could count on would be Britain, Australia, and possibly Canada (simply out of self preservation there).
Well, you are aware that most Brits aren't complying to their goverments action? I doubt Mr. Blairs Party will rule another legislation period. French, Germans, almost all Europeans still consider USA a friend. But you have to accept that each nation got the right to have an own mind on certain issues. We are not mindless minions of USA. Sooner or later China will be the economic and military superpower of this world, prepare yourself by having real friends not supressed allies.

(Sorry for bad english. I got a bit rusty since quitting EQ)

Stalin and Roosevelt agreed at Jalta Conference on a 50:50 deal to get 10 Billion Dollar each from Germany after WW2. German private property in 75 countries all over the world worth approx. 20 Billion $ was never returned to their owners. I am fine with that because Germany lost the war. But the US Marshall Plan to rebuild whole Europe was only about 13 Bn Dollars and 70% of this money were used to buy american products. The USA made a big surplus on the whole issue. Not the best argument to prove generosity.

Don't get me started on German private properties after WWII. Private properties built up with slave labor from concentration camps..and then there is the enormous amount of property confiscated by the Nazi's from Jews, Gays, Gypsies, and other "undesireables". But hey, if the Nazi's really want to get some of their stolen goods and monies back, maybe they can sue the Vatican...billions there. Of course alot of it belonged to other people before the Nazi's got their hands on it.

And wait...we're not generous because we only spent 13 billion dollars rebuilding Europe? Um, **** off? Oh and we used american products...I know we should have used German products...oh wait, German manufacturing was literally in ruins? As was the manufacturing abilities of most of western europe. I know...we should have spent american money rebuilding your nation and purchased products produced...um..where? Soviet Union? Britain? They were kind of trying to rebuild their own stuff.

Of course don't forget the 200 million spent keeping the people in Berlin from starving or freezing during the Airlift.

****ing ingrates.


Well, there was no agression. The "Cold War" was a dislike of both sides. As much as Soviets threatened West Europe, USA threatened East Europe. Actually the American Money feared the virus of communism is going to spill over to America itself. Remember the fifties? McCarthy and the american hunt for communists? Very very similar to terrorist hunting of today....

There was no aggression in large part due to the US military presence in Europe..and then due to Mutually Assured Destruction. I can assure you it wasn't the threat of French military action which kept Russia out of your neck of the woods.


Ahh, yes Lybia. Muhammed Gaddafi. Well known terrorist and killer of at least hundreds of innocent people. Much more terrorist than Sadam Hussein ever was. Ohh. wait.. he is becoming the new best friend of Americans and Europeans nowadays. How is that possible?

He's not a new best friend, but because he opened his nuclear developmental plans to public inspection and dismemberment...he's given the carrot vs the stick.

Btw. the territory of Lybia was a former french colony. And by that time quite a few french citizens owned property there. I doubt americans will give a go to an european air-force bombing their real estate somewhere in the world.

And just rethink it please. If Germany got in trouble with Mexico. Do you really think german Bombers would be allowed to start from american Airports? I highly doubt this.

The US wanted the ability to fly over french airspace.

And the differences between Mexico and '80's Libya would take way to long to list. Suffice to say its not a fair comparison..and you know it.




In 1998 the americans owed 76% of their regular contribution. Maybe the US has to pay a lot. But they don't do in reality. The contributions to UN are based on the "capacity to pay" which is based on a countries share of Gross World Product. Only the USA benefits on a special rule "to cut" their contribution. So in fact, the USAs share on contributions is relatively less than those of any other country.

Yes, the US didn't pay its yearly "dues". Of course the UN also refused to count any of the billions we spent in other UN projects which far exceeded any "dues" we owed. Typical.

Regarding the various aid programs one should notice that most of this aid is american crop or american medics, not money. This aid are programs to finance your own countries farmers and companies by the tax payer as well.

Regardless of how its given...the worth is there. The crops aren't free, it costs money..and we give it away. We give away medicine, doctors, facilities, etc. Hells bells, its cheaper for Americans to go out of country to obtain medicine than get it here, because Americans are being forced to pay for the rest of the world.

Europeans didn't ignore the problem. They just hesitated to interfere because they remember how WWI begun: It was a small conflict on the Balkan...

Right. The end result is, the US once again had to in and help clean up a European problem. Because the world wanted to know why weren't helping.


Actually i am not aware of anyone wanting the US to be the worlds police squad. Your goverment claims to be it, regardless what anyone else thinks about it.

Everytime some ****kicker dictator or revolutionary starts raping and murdering people..the world wants the US Marines to start busting down doors. Or US troops for some Portugese general to command under some sort of "UN Mission".




Dream on. Your country isn't able to keep peace in Iraq which is of Californias size. No way you ever invade China which is slightly smaller than USA but has 5 times more citizens (1.298.847.624 (Juli 2004 est.) vs. 293,027,571 (July 2004 est.)).

I said if we were to be invaded by China...not if we were to invade China.
I'll admit, my sentance structure was somewhat convoluted, but that's what I said.

Hell no, we couldn't invade China. I don't think we'd actually be able to conquer it, let alone integrate it into some sort of pan-terran US empire.

If we wanted to win a war against China...we'd have to destroy it utterly, driving it into a pre-industrial dark age, which wouldn't do anyone any good.


Well, you are aware that most Brits aren't complying to their goverments action? I doubt Mr. Blairs Party will rule another legislation period. French, Germans, almost all Europeans still consider USA a friend.

You have a funny way of showing it, at times.


But you have to accept that each nation got the right to have an own mind on certain issues. We are not mindless minions of USA. Sooner or later China will be the economic and military superpower of this world, prepare yourself by having real friends not supressed allies.

I don't forsee it in the near future. Their technology is far behind US technology, and they haven't fully embraced the economic reforms required. They are an industrial nation...where the rest of the "First World" is moving beyond industry to tech and service based economies.

Japan has a better chance of becoming the next Superpower than China, I suspect.

But this is all relatively uneducated speculation. Unless I turn into Nostradamus sometime soon.

Bush is slime.

He wasn't elected. That other American, whoever he was, got more actual votes
You're factually, objectively wrong, and clearly dont understand how the American electoral system works. It is not based strictly on popular votes, so your claim has as much meaning as saying "Gore was ahead on the CNN poll so her should have won!" its not how the system works. There was no wrongdoing involved.

There was no wrongdoing involved.

From an outsiders perspective, the US Supreme court should have been able to make some sort of ruling that was agreed by all the judges. Instead a deeply partisan ruling came out with some judges in total disagreement of the verdict. I was quite shocked by the statements they produced. Tell me if I'm not understanding how the US electoral system worked, but didn't a number of the highest authorities on that election come out with clear statements that his Florida victory was at best "dubious".

As a rather tangential point, why are US judges allowed to have political allegiances at all? It seems rather odd to have presidential appointees deciding in effect who should have been president. If they're meant to become impartial when taking office then that clearly didn't happen when you look at the Bush/Gore verdict.

You're factually, objectively wrong, and clearly dont understand how the American electoral system works.

I understand how constituency-based representative democracies work in the rest of the civilized world. You're right, though. Following the election of Bush, I have to admit that I don't understand what the hell kind of halfassed system, held together with the lawyerly equivalent of duck tape, that America apparently uses.

I'm talking about how a democracy in a reasonable, decent society ought to work... and in the circumstances surrounding the Bush/Gore election, clearly a revote was called for.

There should be no circumstances in which the courts decide who is President.

The US once again had to in and help clean up a European problem.

Eh, we come and hold your precious hands when you want to invade Iraq. But my nation is happy to solve its own military problems (e.g. Falkland Islands, Ulster) without asking for help from America.

The term "European" includes Britain and therefore means me, and I object rather profoundly to an American implying that they solve Britain's problems without getting anything in return. Say what you like about the mainlanders, I'll probably agree with a lot of it, but leave Britain out of your sneers.

Well, you are aware that most Brits aren't complying to their goverments action? I doubt Mr. Blairs Party will rule another legislation period.

Blair will be back for another term, I rather strongly suspect.

He isn't all that popular any more but the other British political parties simply do not present a credible alternative. The only other party with a significant parliamentary presence are the Conservatives, and the average age of the Conservative voter was nearly 60 in the last election... it'll probably be over 60 in the next one.

The current generation of Britons would, by and large, vote for Lucifer himself in preference to seeing the return of a Conservative government.