English is Easy?

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

Post Reply
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: English is Easy?

Post by anarchyintheuk »

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.

Granted its Wiki, but they only list about 30 bases in 16 countries. Can you give me any ideas where the other 670 bases are located?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un ... s#Overseas

User avatar
Ike99
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: A Sand Road

RE: English is Easy?

Post by Ike99 »

Granted its Wiki, but they only list about 30 bases in 16 countries.

This is incorrect.
Can you give me any ideas where the other 670 bases are located?

Every continent except Anartica.
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.

You keep going back to envy. There is no envy. I´m happy I don´t have to pay for such an enormous military with taxes.

But there is more than just the financial side of it. I don´t have to read (or see) about people from my cities and villages losing arms, legs, lives, etc. etc. for (what I consider) vague and very questionable reasons.

No envy. You want to play cowboy your welcome to this. I think the world does not envy you so much as you assume.

But I disagree with your claims of ¨World Policeman¨ to start with. If a person accepts what you say at face value, you go around the world to keep order and tranquility out of the goodness of your hearts. Global dominance and corporate interest seem more to truth of the matter.
¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8362
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: English is Easy?

Post by JudgeDredd »

Ok...time for a little step in on the side of the US

It appears that whilst some US citizens take it upon themselves to jump at the jugular of anyone mentioning the slightest negative thing about America (God....one US citizen suggested that some Danish spoke better English than some Americans...a fact that is probably very acturate), Ike99....it needs to be said that you do certainly post some rather offensive anti US posts....in particular your latest one with the half good half evil US soldier.

I'm not American and I find it offensive.

The US soldier, as the UK soldier and the French soldier and German soldier (and any other nation taking part...sorry for your ommitence), do a very, very difficult job. Have you ever been trained as a killing machine only to be put in a police roll and told to behave?...all the while being sniped at by civilians?

These soldiers spend years together and watch each other dying at the hands of civilians (terrorists too cowardly to put a uniform on and be identified) and have to try and control themselves when under fire in densely populated areas. If you've been there done that, go ahead...throw stones. But you really ought to be whiter than white before you do.

I submit the US is the Wests police force. Absolutely. And they get a bad press for it...because they are fully in view of the public eye.

However, I do resent the constant mentioning of being bailed out in two world wars and how I have to thank one country, or another, for not speaking German or Russian. I also resent the constant apparent implication that it is only US bodies that have "fertilised" the backyards of western europe.

I do realise the US have a difficult job. They are the Worlds police force. They are under scrutiny from the worlds press. You are fighting people with both arms tied behind your back whilst the enemies are allowed to use both of theirs. You are fighting with ROE whilst the enemy is not....but you are not the only ones. That's all..........there are others.......there are plenty of other nations who have helped fertilise Western Europe and there are plenty of other nations who have helped Western Europe NOT speak German or Russian.

This post was more directed at the posters of more direct assaults on the US....not the made up ones by some individuals.
Alba gu' brath
User avatar
Ike99
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: A Sand Road

RE: English is Easy?

Post by Ike99 »

Have you ever been trained as a killing machine only to be put in a police roll and told to behave?...all the while being sniped at by civilians?

Have you ever considered this?

If you invade a country under the guise of freeing and liberating a group of people and then later these same people are sniping at you maybe you shouldn´t have invaded in the first place and maybe you shouldn´t be there?

Just a thought. Seems logical though.

¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8362
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: English is Easy?

Post by JudgeDredd »

Wrong m8...very wrong. There were plenty of people chanting and singing the praises of NATO/the UN for taking out Saddam Hussein. And I ahve no problem with taking him and his regime out. What I do have a problem with was how it was done, politically, both in the US and the UK, but I understand that it is illegal to declare war on a  country to oust a government, so I understand why they did it that way.

Also, with this...
If you invade a country under the guise of freeing and liberating a group of people and then later these same people are sniping at you maybe you shouldn't have invaded in the first place and maybe you shouldn't be there?
Not necessarily. You have to take into account fundamentalists...financial rewards...propaganda. There were plenty of French who collaborated with the Germans in WWII because they thought it was right....doesn't mean the Allies were wrong to try and stop the flow that, at that time, was Nazi Germany.

Abstinence does not make for world peace, as Mr Chamberlain found out in 1938/39!

Alba gu' brath
User avatar
Ike99
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: A Sand Road

RE: English is Easy?

Post by Ike99 »

Not necessarily. You have to take into account fundamentalists...financial rewards...propaganda. There were plenty of French who collaborated with the Germans in WWII because they thought it was right....doesn't mean the Allies were wrong to try and stop the flow that, at that time, was Nazi Germany.

Abstinence does not make for world peace, as Mr Chamberlain found out in 1938/39!

And the percentage of the French population who collaborated with the Nazis was extremely fractional for your above said reasons.

If you had went down the streets asking French people if they want to be occupied by the Germans they would have said ¨NO!¨

If they didn´t feel in danger of saying the truth that is.

Now if you go through ¨?¨ and repeat same survey with ¨?¨ under same circumstances what will they say?

You and I both know the answer. Now does this sound like a ¨World Police¨ force to you?

Doesn´t to me.
¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8362
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: English is Easy?

Post by JudgeDredd »

Yes it does. Regardless of the UK or the US motives in Iraq and Afghanistan (as much as I question them) there is one thing you have to remember...the troops are not there as an occupying force. They are there to release and protect the population. And they absolutely want to do that.

They may well be prevented from doing so by politicians or laws...but that is not what they want to do....the average soldier in the street wants to protect and help the innocent and kill the bastards...plain and simple. In todays wars (from WWII really from my knowledge) they are prevented from fighting such a straight war with cowards hiding bombs and coming out dressed as civilians before attacking, then melting back into the community. Most of these buggers don't even live in the country.

Of course one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

But suggesting that the "local community" don't want it? You and I both know that Mr Saddam Hussein was not required by the majority of his country...and I'm asking you to consult your personal opinion here....not your politicians reasoning.
Alba gu' brath
Mike Dubost
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

RE: English is Easy?

Post by Mike Dubost »

ORIGINAL: 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



Interesting. I must admit that I stand corrected. I had remembered reading somewhere that the Morgenthau Plan was not adopted. When I consulted my copy of Roy Jenkin's biography of Churchill, I find that Wikipedia is correct up to a point.

It was signed off on by both PM and PotUS. Per Chapter 39 (page 754-755 of my copy), "In any event, both Roosevelt and Churchill formally endorsed the Plan on 15 September. The Foreign Ministers of both countries were appalled. Eden told Churchill it would never get through the War Cabinet. Cordell Hull, exercising more stategic influence than usual, mobilized the full resources of the State Department to kill the Plan."

It sounds as though the Plan was effectively rendered inoperative by the respective cabinets. I guess this is where I formed my impression that it was not officially adopted.

As I say, Nielster, you are correct and I was wrong.
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: English is Easy?

Post by Terminus »

So, another GD thread gone to hell...[8|]

Ike99 with his America-hating trolling on one side, and Sarge/HansBolter with their America-does-everything-right-and-the-world-should-kiss-our-feet garbage on the other. Both sides are catastrophically blind to how the world really works, and equally insipid.[8|]
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Ike99
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: A Sand Road

RE: English is Easy?

Post by Ike99 »

Yes it does. Regardless of the UK or the US motives in Iraq and Afghanistan (as much as I question them) there is one thing you have to remember...the troops are not there as an occupying force. They are there to release and protect the population. And they absolutely want to do that.

Let´s ask the Iraqis what they think.


Iraq Poll September 2007

More than 2,000 people were questioned for the BBC, ABC News and NHK survey.

(You can find this survey through Google JD in PDF)

I am going to name a number of organizations. For each one, please tell me if you have a great deal of confidence, quite a lot of confidence, not very much confidence, or none at all?

US and UK occupation forces...


85% responded very little to no confidence.

Since the war, how do you feel about the way in which the United States and other Coalition forces have carried out their responsibilities in Iraq? Have they done a very good job, quite a good job, quite a bad job, or a very bad job?


80% Bad to very bad job.

Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq?

79% oppose from somewhat to strongly.


The pace of economic development in Iraq.

97% worse to no effect.

Overall, do you think the presence of US forces in Iraq is making security in our country better, worse, or having no effect on the security situation?

Worse 72%


There are 100+ plus questions like this with results like this JD. The Emporer has no clothes on M8. What your trying to defend is not defensible.
¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.
User avatar
Toby42
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 11:34 pm
Location: Central Florida

RE: English is Easy?

Post by Toby42 »

Does anyone have any idea where this Ike99 "person" is located?
Tony
User avatar
Ike99
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: A Sand Road

RE: English is Easy?

Post by Ike99 »

Argentina.
¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.
User avatar
Toby42
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 11:34 pm
Location: Central Florida

RE: English is Easy?

Post by Toby42 »

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Argentina.

I didn't realize that the Argentines hated us so much!!!
Tony
Mike Dubost
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

RE: English is Easy?

Post by Mike Dubost »

ORIGINAL: SireChaos

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost

ORIGINAL: SireChaos




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?

I reacted to your remark about "remaking the world" under the impression that you were putting words into my mouth, and then I wrote something that looks like I was putting words in your mouth[:(]. I wish to apologize unreservedly. I did not intend to state or imply that you stated or endorsed the opinion of the cartoon. I had intended to use it as a readily available example of unconstructive criticism, not of your opinions.

I do admit that it is possible to be closed-minded and use excuses for the rejection of opinions, but I would like to think the majority of us are capable of avoiding that trap. Maybe I am a bit naive about human nature, but I do try to be charitable about other's faults, knowing I have a fair number of my own. [:)]

Unfortunately, the no politics rule does mean we need to be careful about how we discuss our views on when nation-building is or is not acceptable. Tell you what, let's table that issue for now. If we decide to continue the debate in that direction, maybe we can go over to the Steakhouse (note to self, check out the Steakhouse and see what the "temperature" of debate is like), and have our debate a bit more free to range.

Yeah, German culture did change somewhat, but so did the culture of all countries involved WWII. Therefore, I was mentally writting much of the change off as an inevitable result of total war combined with close contact with other cultures in the form of the Occupation. That may have been an error.

As far as Prussia attempting to remake itself closer to its ideal, the drive seems to have been more directed outward to remake that part of Europe, at least to me. There was limited and muted dissent in the Kaiser's Germany, compared to then-contemporary US and UK politics, or at least that is the way history reads to me. I admit there was some, and there was no repression, it was mostly social conformity that enforced it, but still...

My intent on bringing up the pres/VP tickets was not so much to point out individual pluses and minuses of them. As you say, that gets into politics. I had intended to use them as a convienient and immediately visible symbol of the fact that the US is changing itself. A nation completely convinced of its own perfection does not change.

I would also like to point out the fact that the US (at least to my eyes) has a vigorous and sometimes racuous debate ongoing about issues ranging from purely domestic (such as abortion) to such foreign policy issues as what (if anything) to do about Iran. I will avoid specifics, but I do wonder if that debate is muted to outsiders? The US still has a tradition (weakening but not dead) that "politics stops at the water's edge", and our mainstream media is monolithic and monotone in comparison to the UK for example. How much of the debate gets through to the outside world? Even in the US, you almost have to read the blogs to get a real sense of the extent and fervor of the debate.

In one of my posts above in response to Nielster, I stated my belief that the reconstruction of Europe was carried out for a mixture of motives. If you wish to have a single phrase to describe all of them, then "enlightened self-interest" will do nicely. I do sometimes get a bit sensitive about this point as I have seen several people (including one of the other posters on this very thread) take the least creditable motive of the mixture and assert that it is the only one. I guess this leads back to my point about constructive versus non-constructive criticism, which is where I began this post.

Thank you very much for a rational and civil post to provide food for thought. I would like to know more about the specific similarities you see between Prussia and the modern US, but that might start getting too much into politics. If so, let's think about a visit to the Steakhouse.

Note: I will be offline for a day or so. I may not be able to give you a rapid response to further posts, but don't worry, like McArthur, I shall return.[:)]
Mike Dubost
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

RE: English is Easy?

Post by Mike Dubost »

ORIGINAL: Treale

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Argentina.

I didn't realize that the Argentines hated us so much!!!


Ah, well that may explain a fair bit. If we are being honest, our track record in Latin America is not one to inspire pride. By and large during the Cold War, we would go in and set up "our son-of-a-bitch" as the guy in charge when we did not like what the Latin Americans were doing. I think that further dicussion of the subject will do major violence to the no-politics rule, so let's leave it at this.
E
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:14 am

RE: English is Easy?

Post by E »

...
"Lose" is the opposite of "win." "Loose" is the opposite of "tight."

Friends Don't Let Friends Facebook.

Twitter is for... (wait for it!) ...Twits!
User avatar
Doggie
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Under the porch
Contact:

RE: English is Easy?

Post by Doggie »

ORIGINAL: Ike99
Have you ever considered this?

If you invade a country under the guise of freeing and liberating a group of people and then later these same people are sniping at you maybe you shouldn´t have invaded in the first place and maybe you shouldn´t be there?

Just a thought. Seems logical though.

At least Argentina didn't invade a country under false pretenses. The Falklands was all about conquest, land grabs, and maybe a little raping, looting and pillaging. You got to give them credit for not pretending it was about anything else, like liberating people who wanted no part of the most fascist regime in the Southern hemisphere.

Maybe you should consider the fact that a member of a dictatorial banana republic which threw thousands of it's own citizens out of aircraft into the South Atlantic and turns soccor stadiums into torture chambers should think twice about criticizing the actions of people from civilized countries.

I aint got much patience with some Europeans, but at least you can visit Europe without much fear of being grabbed up by the secret police and tortured to death. That's not something you can say about Argentina.

Fortunately, the Argentine military is world renowned for it's cowardice and incompetence, so it doesn't present much of a threat to anyone else. I suppose this would be an argument in the plus column if you consider impotence and corruption as a positive national attribute.

So we understand about you being bitter about your entire nation being humiliated by a single under equipped naval task force. Get over it. Some day, fascists like you will die out and the few decent people in your country who haven't been murdered might have a chance to turn Argentina into a respectable first world democracy. Until then, you should maybe try telling people you're from Brazil.

Mike Dubost
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

RE: English is Easy?

Post by Mike Dubost »

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.

On an indvidual level, if I did not care what the rest of the world thought, I would not bother responding to your posts. This also begs the question of why you bother to respond since you think I don't care.

On a national level, we do know what others think of us, and we care somewhat, but we did not give any other nation a veto on our policy. If we truely did not care, we could save enormous sums of money by bringing home the troops and conducting diplomacy via ICBM. Yeah, the rest of the world would hate us, but a country that didn't care about world opinion would hardly lose any sleep over it.

As far as the US bases, the end of the Cold War is actually of limited relevance. Let me explain why I say that. After WWII, the US political leadership examined recent history with the intention of avoiding future world wars and (espcially) future Pearl Harbors. The majority of them (Senator Robert Taft is the main dissenter I can think of off the top of my head) concluded that if US national security had ever stopped at the North American coastline, it no longer did so. This conclusion drove both the start of the Cold War, and the establishment of permanent bases outside US teritory for the first time. Since the conclusion was based on events outside the Cold War, the end of the Cold War did not obviate the need for the bases, in the opinion of the majority of the US voting public (including me).

If this make me naive, then there are worse things to be than naive.
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8362
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: English is Easy?

Post by JudgeDredd »

ORIGINAL: Doggie
...
I aint got much patience with some Europeans, but at least you can visit Europe without much fear of being grabbed up by the secret police and tortured to death....
In an attempt at some light heartedness, Doggie...I couldn't imagine ANY country in Europe where the police wouldn't pick you up! [:D]
Alba gu' brath
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 2989
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: English is Easy?

Post by Neilster »

As I say, Nielster, you are correct and I was wrong.

Don't worry about it. It happens all the time [:'(] [;)]

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”