English is Easy?

[HansBolter]

We are loved the world over Ike. Everyone in the world loves to take our money in the form of handouts.

If we weren't so loved we wouldn't have a rampant problem of illegal immigrants striving to get into our great land of oppurtunity.

Just curious, how many illegal immigrants sneak accross your borders each year in pursuit of prosperity?

There is absolutley nothing blind about the patriotism in this country. Excatly the opposite. The simple fact that we are almost exactly balanced between right and left holds us in check to such a degree that it is actually threatening to paralyse us completely. We aren't capable of "blindly" doing anything when any path one side attempts to take is attacked by the other side. We, as a matter of public debate, weigh the options of every move we make far, far more heavily than the peoples of most other nations. Indeed, we tend to agonize over every decision. We are not the blind automatons the people of the Germany of the 1930s seem to have been, We don't long for a strong man to lead us, to dictate to us, to deliver us from the detestable democracy of our own "Weimar Republic".

If we were really such a threat to everyone else and were really something to be feared, the lot of you would be walking on eggshells out of the fear of antagonizing us.

It's the simple fact that you know you have nothing to fear from us that allows you to feel free to denegrate, antagonize and provoke us.

[Ike99]

Just curious, how many illegal immigrants sneak accross your borders each year in pursuit of prosperity?

I don´t know. Thousands though. Mainly from Bolivia. They gather up the Bolivians in trucks and send them back to Bolivia. Why?

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Just curious, how many illegal immigrants sneak accross your borders each year in pursuit of prosperity?

I don´t know. Thousands though. Mainly from Bolivia. They gather up the Bolivians in trucks and send them back to Bolivia. Why?

I was curious if your country was as "hated" as ours.

Kudos to you guys for having the brains to ship them home.

We don't seem to be smart enough to do that.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: yoshino

English is very very very difficult for me.[:D] I'm learning a few years to participate this forum(and other game forums),but still can't writing well.

Though,I think that Japanese language is more difficult for many westerners.

Oh... so THAT is the reason why this forum has more active finns than japanese users [:D]

If language barrier is THAT great, I wouldn't be surprised anymore if someone told me that War in the Pacific has more finnish players than japanese ones... [8|]

[SireChaos]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

We are loved the world over Ike. Everyone in the world loves to take our money in the form of handouts.

That´s not really even worthy of comments.

If we weren't so loved we wouldn't have a rampant problem of illegal immigrants striving to get into our great land of oppurtunity.

Just curious, how many illegal immigrants sneak accross your borders each year in pursuit of prosperity?

Not as many as there used to be. Immigration from the Balkans has dried up when the civil war in Yugoslavia stopped. Mass defections from socialist East Germany stopped when we decided to get this over with and took in the whole country at once. Other than that, we have plenty of legal immigrants instead. About 5% of our population has a Turkish passport, for example. Plenty of Greek, Italians, Russians, more than a few Poles and Vietnamese - maybe another 5% all told.

There is absolutley nothing blind about the patriotism in this country. Excatly the opposite. The simple fact that we are almost exactly balanced between right and left holds us in check to such a degree that it is actually threatening to paralyse us completely. We aren't capable of "blindly" doing anything when any path one side attempts to take is attacked by the other side. We, as a matter of public debate, weigh the options of every move we make far, far more heavily than the peoples of most other nations. Indeed, we tend to agonize over every decision. We are not the blind automatons the people of the Germany of the 1930s seem to have been, We don't long for a strong man to lead us, to dictate to us, to deliver us from the detestable democracy of our own "Weimar Republic".

You still don´t understand what I´m talking about. I´d appreciate if you could grow beyond the blind there-is-nothing-wrong-with-us you´re demonstrating (which kind of proves my point) to actually take a look at reality. Or for that matter, at what I actually wrote.

[Mike Dubost]

ORIGINAL: SireChaos

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost

ORIGINAL: HansBolter





One could probably successfully argue the case that it is a necessary counterbalance to constanty being put down by everyone else and denounced as the Great Satans of the universe. [;)]

I think we need to be a bit careful in this discussion, so as to avoid it degenerating into politics or a personal flamewar, but let's see if we can stay civil.

The idea of the US as the greatest country in the world is nothing new. I remember some years ago, American Heritage magazine had a 19th Century cartoon of political cliches, which included "spread eagle" as one of them. The term derived from the idea of spreading the US out to include other parts of North America (since the eagle is the national symbol). For further evidence, I cite Abraham Lincoln "We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of Mankind". It appears to be a long-standing part or the US self-image, for better or worse.

As to wether it is healthy; I don't know for sure, but I think it is OK as long as we don't suffer from the delusion that we are perfect. I happen to believe that we are the best, but as humans, even our best is imperfect. What I don't want to see is a desire to become more perfect become a desire to copy others blindly. Let us examine ideas from elsewhere, by all means, but let us test them against our current ideas.

I feel that being told we are the greatest is better than being told we are the worst (which I heard from some residents of Berkeley). According to them, the US was never good enough no matter what. If I felt that way, I would not be interested in trying to make the US better. Since I believe that it is the best, and that others look up to us, I am inspired to try to make us worthy of that high regard.

Starting about 100-odd years ago, the "patriots" of my country began to grow the idea that their country was the best there ever could be, and that they needed to export this goodness. In their words, "Am Deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen", i.e. roughly, the world shall be cured by the (wholesome) German example. We all know what consequences that had - two world wars and a holocaust, for example.

Now, whenever I hear the tireless repetition (impervious to criticism or inconvenient fact, of course) that America is good, America is great, and America must remake the world in its image, I remember my history lessons.

Well, as I feared, this thread is vering toward politics and polemics. I will make an attempt to remain civil, but I may allow my anger to show through.

If you intend to refer to recent events by "remake the world in its image", then my interpretation of the no politics rule prevents me from arguing the pros and cons of Iraq, etc.

However, I would like to point out that you are the one who brought up forcibly remaking the world in our image. As you can see from my post, I merely advocated reducing the flaws of the US in order to make us a nation that can provide an example that others will desire to voluntarily emulate.

At the risk of venturing into "tu quoque" territory, I will also point out that in the recent past, other nations tried to remake portions of the world into their own image (with varrying degrees of success from total failure in Uganda or Algeria, through limited success in Ireland, general success in India, and near total success in New York and Quebec).

Do you regard it as always a bad thing to try to change the world? If you examine the history of Germany, I think you would agree that the conscious effort to remake Germany in the mid-1940s was not a bad thing for the German people. We niether destroyed German culture nor made you a carbon copy of us.

Indeed, the major difference between the US and Prussia/Nazi Germany is that we still seek to make the US more closely match our view of perfection. Your view of perfection is not the same as ours, and that is posssibly the source of some of the heat in this debate. But how can anyone look at US history (recent or older) or the current presidential / vice presidential candidates and still think the US is static and unchanging?

As far as "impervious to criticism" much of what I see on this thread reads as insult, not constructive criticism (e.g., the cartoon implying US troops are viscious murderers when the cameras are off, or the statement that only fear of the USSR caused us to rebuild Europe). As such, it tends to make patriotic Americans angry and makes us unwilling to listen to what you have to say (as my countrymen sometimes regrettably demostrate).

[Neilster]

The Allies did plan to turn Germany and Austria into two basically agrarian states with little in the way of industry. This was seized on by the Nazi propagandists and used to inspire Germans to keep fighting and producing, there seemingly being no alternative.

Later they realised that an economically strong Western Europe would be vital as a bulwark against the coming Soviet Bloc, and with West Germany in the front line, she would be a vital part of this plan. The Marshall plan was generous and far sighted, but it must be seen in this context.

Cheers, Neilster

[Mike Dubost]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

The Allies did plan to turn Germany and Austria into two basically agrarian states with little in the way of industry. This was seized on by the Nazi propagandists and used to inspire Germans to keep fighting and producing, there seemingly being no alternative.

Later they realised that an economically strong Western Europe would be vital as a bulwark against the coming Soviet Bloc, and with West Germany in the front line, she would be a vital part of this plan. The Marshall plan was generous and far sighted, but it must be seen in this context.

Cheers, Neilster

Well, that is an over-simplification. Turning them into agrarian states was never adopted as official policy. It was being strongly pushed by influential members of the US Cabinet, and FDR considered the idea favorably for a time, but never formally endorsed it.

I believe there was a mixture of motives for the Marshall Plan. Another poster explicitly asserted that only anti-communism prevented a re-run of the reparations of 1919. I believe that a desire to avoid the mistakes of 1919 played a role too.

The Allies adopted the unconditional surrender demand in order to avoid the "stab in the back" idea from taking hold again as it did after the First World War, thus showing a desire to avoid what they saw as the mistakes made in 1919. By 1945, the reparations were condsidered one of these mistakes.

PS, thanks for a civil post and a rational discussion.

[Neilster]

Well, that is an over-simplification. Turning them into agrarian states was never adopted as official policy. It was being strongly pushed by influential members of the US Cabinet, and FDR considered the idea favorably for a time, but never formally endorsed it.

This is from Wikipedia...

The Morgenthau Plan was a plan for the occupation of Germany after World War II that advocated measures intended to remove Germany's ability to wage war. It was proposed by and subsequently named after Henry Morgenthau, Jr., United States Secretary of the Treasury.

In the original proposal this was to be achieved in three main steps.

* Germany was to be partitioned into two independent states.
* Germany's main centers of mining and industry, including the Saar area, the Ruhr area and Upper Silesia were to be Internationalized or annexed by neighboring nations.
* All heavy industry was to be dismantled or otherwise destroyed.

At the Second Quebec Conference on September 16, 1944, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Morgenthau persuaded the initially very reluctant British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to agree to the plan, likely using a $6 billion Lend Lease agreement to do so. Churchill chose however to narrow the scope of Morgenthau's proposal by drafting a new version of the memorandum, which ended up being the version signed by the two statesmen.

The memorandum concluded "is looking forward to converting Germany into a country primarily agricultural and pastoral in its character."

News of the existence of the plan was leaked to the press. President Roosevelt's response to press inquiries was to deny the press reports.

In wartime Germany, Joseph Goebbels was able to use the plan to bolster the German resistance on the Western front.

In occupied Germany, the Morgenthau plan lived on in the U.S. occupation directive JCS 1067 and in the Allied "industrial disarmament" plans, designed to reduce German economic might and to destroy Germany's capability to wage war by complete or partial de-industrialisation and restrictions imposed on utilization of remaining production capacity. By 1950, after the virtual completion of the by then much watered-out "level of industry" plans, equipment had been removed from 706 manufacturing plants in the west and steel production capacity had been reduced by 6,700,000 tons.

The rest of the article basically spells out in detail how the plan was gradually abandoned from 1947 onwards (actually, it's all a bit damning).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_plan

I wasn't even aware that it was actually implemented for a time. I only thought it was a wartime plan that evaporated in the face of post-war realities.

Cheers, Neilster

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: SireChaos


You still don´t understand what I´m talking about. I´d appreciate if you could grow beyond the blind there-is-nothing-wrong-with-us you´re demonstrating (which kind of proves my point) to actually take a look at reality. Or for that matter, at what I actually wrote.

No more than I wish you would demonstrate possession of sufficeint intelligence to grasp that I am playing the devil's advocate to your "argument" and not necessarily arguing out of a blind belief.

You infer far too much from my posts. You infer that my argument is a presentation of a blind belief that we can do no wrong. This is not a discussion of all the aspects of our society so I felt no need to add a listing of all the negative aspects of our country, it's beliefs, it's way of like and it's policies toward other countries. To infer that I follow a blind belief that we can do no wrong simply because I listsed no negative aspects in the effort to provide a postive counter argument to your presentation of nothing but negative aspects is the epitome of naivete. [8|]

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

The Allies did plan to turn Germany and Austria into two basically agrarian states with little in the way of industry. This was seized on by the Nazi propagandists and used to inspire Germans to keep fighting and producing, there seemingly being no alternative.

Later they realised that an economically strong Western Europe would be vital as a bulwark against the coming Soviet Bloc, and with West Germany in the front line, she would be a vital part of this plan. The Marshall plan was generous and far sighted, but it must be seen in this context.

Cheers, Neilster

No the Allies most certainly did NOT plan to do that. One, misguided public official within the Roosevelt administration, Henry Morganthau, came up with that plan and it was rejected by everyone else in positions of power amongst the Allies. That Morganthau's plan was ever allowed to be made public was one of the greatest mistakes Roosevelt ever made perhaps second only to allowing hemself to be duped by Uncle Joe.

[Lützow]

Who knows whether that evil plan had not been realized though if Roosevelt didn't die prior to end of war.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Neilster

The Allies did plan to turn Germany and Austria into two basically agrarian states with little in the way of industry. This was seized on by the Nazi propagandists and used to inspire Germans to keep fighting and producing, there seemingly being no alternative.

Later they realised that an economically strong Western Europe would be vital as a bulwark against the coming Soviet Bloc, and with West Germany in the front line, she would be a vital part of this plan. The Marshall plan was generous and far sighted, but it must be seen in this context.

Cheers, Neilster

No the Allies most certainly did NOT plan to do that. One, misguided public official within the Roosevelt administration, Henry Morganthau, came up with that plan and it was rejected by everyone else in positions of power amongst the Allies. That Morganthau's plan was ever allowed to be made public was one of the greatest mistakes Roosevelt ever made perhaps second only to allowing hemself to be duped by Uncle Joe.

Did you read my post above? They did plan it but it was shelved after the negative public reaction. Roosevelt didn't allow other planning for the occupation of Germany, however, so effectively much of it was implemented anyway. It took about two years before it was realised that it could lead to anarchy or Communism and policies were changed.

[Edited to clarify and correct]

Cheers, Neilster

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Neilster

The Allies did plan to turn Germany and Austria into two basically agrarian states with little in the way of industry. This was seized on by the Nazi propagandists and used to inspire Germans to keep fighting and producing, there seemingly being no alternative.

Later they realised that an economically strong Western Europe would be vital as a bulwark against the coming Soviet Bloc, and with West Germany in the front line, she would be a vital part of this plan. The Marshall plan was generous and far sighted, but it must be seen in this context.

Cheers, Neilster

No the Allies most certainly did NOT plan to do that. One, misguided public official within the Roosevelt administration, Henry Morganthau, came up with that plan and it was rejected by everyone else in positions of power amongst the Allies. That Morganthau's plan was ever allowed to be made public was one of the greatest mistakes Roosevelt ever made perhaps second only to allowing hemself to be duped by Uncle Joe.

Did you read my post above? They did plan it but it was shelved after the negative public reaction. Roosevelt didn't allow other planning for the occupation of Germany, however, so effectively much of it was implemented anyway. It took about two years before it was realised that it could lead to anarchy or Communism and policies were changed.

[Edited to clarify and correct]




Cheers, Neilster

No, I'm sorry to say I did not read your other post before adding the one you quoted. I have a bad habit of reacting to a post as I encounter it before reading the rest of the thread. I was inded, not aware that it was partially implemented. You can perhaps glean from my comentary how idiotic I feel it was since it was a significant factor in prolonging the war.

However, it still does not serve to support at all the contention that we were seeking to remake Germany in our "image of perfection". Instead it can be seen as a reflection of desperate thinking searching for a way to contain the "monster" that that the rest of the world perceived Germany had become. After all, the efforts to stop Germany from rebuilding the military strength necessary for it to be a threat to the rest of Europe following WWI proved to be a miserable failure. It is perfectly natural for people to attempt to take the restraining measures to the next level. Instead of just attempting to forbid Germany from building tanks and planes as was done after WWI, the logical next step would be removing their capacity to build them at all. Certainly not an effort to remake them in our image.

[Neilster]

No, I'm sorry to say I did not read your other post before adding the one you quoted. I have a bad habit of reacting to a post as I encounter it before reading the rest of the thread. I was inded, not aware that it was partially implemented. You can perhaps glean from my comentary how idiotic I feel it was since it was a significant factor in prolonging the war.

No worries. I wasn't aware either until I looked it up.

I didn't make any judgements on the stuff you mentioned in the second paragraph.

Cheers, Neilster

[SireChaos]

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost

ORIGINAL: SireChaos

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost



I think we need to be a bit careful in this discussion, so as to avoid it degenerating into politics or a personal flamewar, but let's see if we can stay civil.

The idea of the US as the greatest country in the world is nothing new. I remember some years ago, American Heritage magazine had a 19th Century cartoon of political cliches, which included "spread eagle" as one of them. The term derived from the idea of spreading the US out to include other parts of North America (since the eagle is the national symbol). For further evidence, I cite Abraham Lincoln "We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of Mankind". It appears to be a long-standing part or the US self-image, for better or worse.

As to wether it is healthy; I don't know for sure, but I think it is OK as long as we don't suffer from the delusion that we are perfect. I happen to believe that we are the best, but as humans, even our best is imperfect. What I don't want to see is a desire to become more perfect become a desire to copy others blindly. Let us examine ideas from elsewhere, by all means, but let us test them against our current ideas.

I feel that being told we are the greatest is better than being told we are the worst (which I heard from some residents of Berkeley). According to them, the US was never good enough no matter what. If I felt that way, I would not be interested in trying to make the US better. Since I believe that it is the best, and that others look up to us, I am inspired to try to make us worthy of that high regard.

Starting about 100-odd years ago, the "patriots" of my country began to grow the idea that their country was the best there ever could be, and that they needed to export this goodness. In their words, "Am Deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen", i.e. roughly, the world shall be cured by the (wholesome) German example. We all know what consequences that had - two world wars and a holocaust, for example.

Now, whenever I hear the tireless repetition (impervious to criticism or inconvenient fact, of course) that America is good, America is great, and America must remake the world in its image, I remember my history lessons.

Well, as I feared, this thread is vering toward politics and polemics. I will make an attempt to remain civil, but I may allow my anger to show through.

Essentially the same as me, then? Fine, that´s something I can work with.

If you intend to refer to recent events by "remake the world in its image", then my interpretation of the no politics rule prevents me from arguing the pros and cons of Iraq, etc.

Including, but not limited to recent events. I guess everyone who has a high opinion of their own opinion tends to grow a missionary complex, but the US is in the unique position to be able to act on it on a global scale.

However, I would like to point out that you are the one who brought up forcibly remaking the world in our image. As you can see from my post, I merely advocated reducing the flaws of the US in order to make us a nation that can provide an example that others will desire to voluntarily emulate.

Well, yes, you advocate this. And, assuming you are serious, (and I have no reason to assume otherwise) it is a rather noble goal.
Yet at the same time, I see in many American self-proclaimed patriots a profound unwillingness to take a critical look at themselves and their country, and work at its actual flaws - instead they see such flaws like "too many unpatriotic people badmouthing our great country", or "those despicable *insert rival party here* traitors scheming to destroy what makes America great".
Mind you, I see such tendencies elsewhere, too, including my own country - but for one thing, these tendencies are a lot more pronounced in the US than elsewhere in the West, and for another, by virtue of its sheer massive weight it can throw around, any wrong actions the US takes are pretty much by definition going to have much more of an impact than what smaller countries can do.

At the risk of venturing into "tu quoque" territory, I will also point out that in the recent past, other nations tried to remake portions of the world into their own image (with varrying degrees of success from total failure in Uganda or Algeria, through limited success in Ireland, general success in India, and near total success in New York and Quebec).

I´ll concede that this is not automatically bad, given a number of conditions. To avoid drifting too far into politics, I´ll be circumspect and say that the people doing such thing need to have (or have access to) and be willing to make use of, a number of skills and fields of knowledge that current world leaders, including those of the US, don´t have or refuse to use, and personality traits I don´t necessarily see them as having, and a lack of other traits that I do see some of them as having, and basing their decisions on.

(I guess if this was too confusing, you can always ask for clarification - by PM, I guess?)

To make it shorter - FDR and Truman and Churchill (or Lincoln or Washington, for that matter) were one calibre of statesmen; other people I could name who hold office these days are a different calibre

Do you regard it as always a bad thing to try to change the world? If you examine the history of Germany, I think you would agree that the conscious effort to remake Germany in the mid-1940s was not a bad thing for the German people. We niether destroyed German culture nor made you a carbon copy of us.

German culture post-45 was not the same as pre-33, and not just limited to the elements of it that, by necessity, had to be excised to make it safe for the rest of the world to have Germany be part of it again. Though I do not necessarily see this as a bad thing.

Indeed, the major difference between the US and Prussia/Nazi Germany is that we still seek to make the US more closely match our view of perfection. Your view of perfection is not the same as ours, and that is posssibly the source of some of the heat in this debate. But how can anyone look at US history (recent or older) or the current presidential / vice presidential candidates and still think the US is static and unchanging?

I think if you look closely you will see that Prussia and Nazi Germany were also trying to make themselves match their own views of perfection more closely. Of course, the Nazi view of perfection is too different from yours for any but a complete madman to not notice the total incompatibility. Prussia, on the other hand... I won´t say the US is like Prussia, but I can see parallels, and these parallels worry me.

I guess that I would have to say about the current president/VP candidates would go too far into politics. But... well, not so much static and unchanging, but more "what´s the real difference?" If you subtract all the posturing and the mutual character assassination, how different are these people from each other?

As far as "impervious to criticism" much of what I see on this thread reads as insult, not constructive criticism (e.g., the cartoon implying US troops are viscious murderers when the cameras are off, or the statement that only fear of the USSR caused us to rebuild Europe). As such, it tends to make patriotic Americans angry and makes us unwilling to listen to what you have to say (as my countrymen sometimes regrettably demostrate).

In my experience, the unwillingness to listen exists right from the start in too many cases, although of course any excuse for them is welcome. Those who are willing to discuss things at all do not tend to take criticism as an insult to begin with.
I would like to point out that I neither posted said cartoon nor agreed with it. And as for the reason the US rebuilt Germany - do you not think that the primary motive for this was enlightened self-interest, rather than the sudden and inexplicable desire to pour massive amounts of resources into a country that, shortly before had been considered the incarnation of evil?

[invernomuto]

ORIGINAL: Treale

There is a two-letter word that perhaps has more meanings than any other two-letter word, and that is'UP.'

[:D][:D][:D]

[andym]

what about "NO"?

[Ike99]

As far as "impervious to criticism" much of what I see on this thread reads as insult, not constructive criticism (e.g., the cartoon implying US troops are viscious murderers when the cameras are off, or the statement that only fear of the USSR caused us to rebuild Europe). As such, it tends to make patriotic Americans angry and makes us unwilling to listen to what you have to say (as my countrymen sometimes regrettably demostrate).

As if ¨Patriotic Americans¨ care what the rest of the world says, thinks or feels anyways? I don´t think so.

However, I would like to point out that you are the one who brought up forcibly remaking the world in our image. As you can see from my post, I merely advocated reducing the flaws of the US in order to make us a nation that can provide an example that others will desire to voluntarily emulate.

I have to echo SireChaos.

This is what you say at a personal level. But with 702 overseas military bases in 130 countries as of 2003, more now, a defense budget larger than the rest of the world combined, obviously some other people don´t. Not to mention the fleets.

Don´t be so naive. The cold war ended a long time ago. All this has very little to do with defending USA and a lot to do with expanding USA global dominance at every level with the ¨voluntarily¨ part being optional.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

As far as "impervious to criticism" much of what I see on this thread reads as insult, not constructive criticism (e.g., the cartoon implying US troops are viscious murderers when the cameras are off, or the statement that only fear of the USSR caused us to rebuild Europe). As such, it tends to make patriotic Americans angry and makes us unwilling to listen to what you have to say (as my countrymen sometimes regrettably demostrate).

As if ¨Patriotic Americans¨ care what the rest of the world says, thinks or feels anyways? I don´t think so.

However, I would like to point out that you are the one who brought up forcibly remaking the world in our image. As you can see from my post, I merely advocated reducing the flaws of the US in order to make us a nation that can provide an example that others will desire to voluntarily emulate.

I have to echo SireChaos.

This is what you say at a personal level. But with 702 overseas military bases in 130 countries as of 2003, more now, a defense budget larger than the rest of the world combined, obviously some other people don´t. Not to mention the fleets.

Don´t be so naive. The cold war ended a long time ago. All this has very little to do with defending USA and a lot to do with expanding USA global dominance at every level with the ¨voluntarily¨ part being optional.

So we come full circle back to the root of your envy of, and despise for, us........the simple fact that the rest of the world desperately needs us to be it's police force while it envies and despises us because we CAN be. [:-]

Since you so fimly believe we don't care what you think, why bother posting it? [8|]