Why do Europeans hate Americans?
jackkincaid
some of them. Unfortunately the ones they hate tend to be the ones
exercising political and economic power.
And Americans are given an astonishingly easy ride by their own media.
It's as if a single minute's break from the relentless outpourings of
pseudo-patriotic fervour (let alone the odd nugget of well meant
critiscism) will cause the entire nation to dry up and blow away...
Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote in message news:<c5mp4uc8u9ui2squk...@4ax.com>...
[snip]
> >
> >Any criticism of American actions are greeted with reminders about WW2
> >and how we should bend down and kiss any American butt that passes our
> >way in humble appreciation and how American might in its role as the
> >world's policeman is feared around the world.
This is undeniably true (and in its use factually inaccurate).
> WW2 was a long time ago
> >and correct me if I'm wrong but the US military did not do too well in
> >Vietnam.
>
> Allow me to correct you: the American military did quite
> well in Vietnam. It won all its battles. Just ask General
> Giap, North Vietnam's Defense Minister, if you don't believe
> me.
America lost in Vietnam - and they lost after bombing the country, and
two more countries next door, flat. Let's move on shall we?
>
> > American forces got pulled out of Lebanon after US soldiers
> >actually got killed. This was repeated in Somalia.
Not quite. See the movie *Blackhawk Down* for what happened in
Somalia, or better still the recent BBC documentary - the US action
was a disaster from the start, but once the soldiers had been
captured, the bravery of the rescue mission was amazing. In fact, the
soldiers exhibited a kind of resourcefullness and courage under fire
which is peculiar to (at least, popularly) American soldiers. You
might ask whether other nation's soldiers would have behaved the same
way - but then you also need to ask how many would have got themselves
in the mess in the first place.
>
> Yes, two very large mistakes of American foreign policy.
> Bin Laden and his band of fanatics were duly emboldened by
> these displays of political cowardice.
It wasn't cowardice it was ignorance. Vietnam probably went wrong out
of ignorance too.
>
> > What did you think
> >would happen in a war zone? Ah yes but there was Desert Storm and if
> >not for American forces blah blah.
> Blah, blah, blah? This is a true statement is it not: "If
> not for the American forces"? You don't think Desert Storm
> would have been done without American forces do you?
No - or not so easily. But one wonders whether it would have happened
if *only* the Americans had been involved. The same goes for
Afghanistan: before the actual bombing started Bush seemed to
vacillate between Rumsfeld's (apparant) policy of all-out bombing and
Powell's more careful advice, which we eventually saw in action. Maybe
it's vanity, but in Britain it's reckoned that Bush was swayed in the
knowledge that the UK would not have supported Rumsfeld's policy - and
therefore neither would Europe (or Australia etc.), and therefore
neither would Iran or any Muslim country (at least, openly), possibly
not even Turkey or Russia or Uzbekistan/Tajikistan (where the air
fields are). And an American-led 'alliance' comprising only the USA
and Israel wouldn't have been much use, either in Iraq or Bosnia or
Afghanistan or anywhere else, now, would it??
>
>
> > Lets not forget the US airforce
> >killed more British soldiers than the Iraquis did.
>
>
> You Brits have turned into a bunch of crybabies.
Oh yeah, right. Let me explain the situation right now: in Afghanistan
the only western army keeping the peace is the British one - that is,
they are risking their lives helping to rebuild a country bombed
(rightly but often cack-handedly) by America. The people who want to
kill them will have seen the photos of apparantly mistreated Muslims
in Cuba (some of whom, rightly or wrongly, are British citizens, BTW)
and will be enraged - and may want to take it out on the Brits (since
the Americans didn't want to stick around in Afghanistan) by torture
and mass-murder. This is the risk the Brits are taking for the Afghan
people because the Americans won't or can't.
On top of this, BTW, the ground campaigns in Afghanistan were carried
out (according to all the film I've seen) as much by British and
Australian as by American troops - certainly the retaking of the
prison in which an unarned CIA agent stupidly allowed himself to be
taken hostage and killed, was fought out by Brits (we saw the respect
in which British soldiers were held by the NA militia as they fought;
and we saw the distinctly overweight US marines, in their spotless
white uniforms and preppy haircuts, standing around watching. Not so
much respect there). Eventually hundreds were killed, following which
the USAF bombed the place flat. More risks taken by British troops
following an attack on its friend, America.
In addition, British troops are in several other war zones around the
world - not least Sierra Leone - killing people and being killed.
Now. All this happens in the knowledge of the British people - and
almost no comment. A dozen British soldiers get killed? OK. It's sad -
but that's their job.
Now contrast that with what happens in the USA. A dozen US soldiers
get killed? Absolute mindfucking pandemonium. Uproar all over the US
media. Hysterical mothers on TV. Rentaquote politicians berrating the
president for allowing 'our soldiers' to be killed by those
'ragheads/gooks/commie bastards/nazi scum/whatever' out there and
coming back in (that ultimate US fear word) body bags... and so on and
so forth.
Why else do you think bin Laden thought he'd get away with it? Because
he believed American troops would have the stomach for a ground fight,
and he thought that's what it would take (and let's be honest - he was
right. But he underestimated the hatred of the ordinary Afghans,
especially the Uzbeks and Tajiks, for the Taliban; and of America's
friends to rally around; as well as of America's willingness to get
the job done).
The British - and Europeans generally - have several hundred years of
history of warfare, of death and killing, behind them. There was a
time when the Americans - maybe when our cultures were closer than
they are now - also looked at war as a necessary evil, in which all of
us have a duty to behave honourably (and calmly), but somehow, for
some reason I don't understand (Vietnam?), that time seems to have
gone. Now it has become virtually impossible for any US politician to
order US ground troops (I exclude some US special forces) into any war
zone until it has been made safe by some other country's army
(preferably the British, Turkish or some other ally) or after carpet
bombing its citizenry by high-tech USAF weaponry. There is something
wrong in this attitude.
And, BTW, I have no doubt that were the true story of the
behind-the-lines activities of the SAS and the US army in Iraq were
told it would be the same (ie in real life the soldiers in the movie
Three Kings would just as likely to have been Brits as Americans,
maybe more so) - and furthermore I'm sure that plenty of American
soldiers are heartily sick of the situation. Nobody doubts *their*
bravery (most of them), only that of their political leaders.
So don't call British soldiers 'cry babies'. The USAF fucked up; they
killed, not only their own allies, but soldiers attempting to make the
situation safe for other - US - soldiers, just like they fucked up
during the Iranian hostage crisis, in downing an Iranian passenger
plane, in Vietnam, in blowing up a hospital in Granada, in Beirut, in
Somalia, in killing more British soldiers in Korea, in their mass
drownings during the Normandy landings in WW2 ... Jesus, where should
I stop?
They were, in Iraq, momentarily, unprofessional - and to add insult to
injury the US media did not pay sufficient attention to what they had
done. Yet the British did not hesitate in coming to the US's aid
again, and would do so in the future.
Can Americans say the same?
> Accidents happen in war, from your statements earlier, I was
> given to believe you had a little experience of war, but
> perhaps not.
Accidents seem to happen far too often when the American military are
involved.
Back to Somalia: here's a quote for you. Following the recenty US army
incursion into Somalia, looking for the current warlord of Mogaduishu,
he was interviewed - in full sight of US helicopters searching for him
over the city - and said they (the US soldiers) were all 'morons' for
not recognising him (he was wearing sunglasses, as if that explains
anything). He went on to say that the current situation (in which all
of Somalia are ready for a US invasion, and ready to fight) would
never happen if 'the Brits were still in charge' [his words] because
'they would have us all fighting each other'.
Straight out of the horse's mouth; a reminder of how last time Somalia
was invaded the US media got to the beachhead before the marines. This
time around the US media has primed the Somalis to expect to be bombed
flat - almost overnight the US has become enemy no1 for yet another
Muslim nation, despite the fact that we all know that what it intends
to do (ie capture al-Qaeda operatives destabilising the country) is
basically for the good of the Somali people.
As I said, British troops are currently defending Afghans against
themselves; British Muslim terrorists have been caught in Afghanistan
(when they could have remained to 'fight' at home); and Britain, more
than any other country, has been first to come to the aid of the USA -
yet the target of all this Islamist and third world hatred, at least
so far, isn't Britain, it's America. Don't you ever wonder why?
Obviously America's vast wealth and perceived cultural influence is
the main reason. But the answer also lies not in how the US does what
it does; the apparant contempt and ignorance of other countries and
cultures it often displays, and the sheer lack of foresight in its
international policies.
But I'm probably boring you...
>
> > The so called camel
> >jockeys had the shit bombed out of them by planes couple of miles high
> >but in any conflict where there was the possibilty of a high US body
> >count US ground forcs were nowhere to be found.
>
> The Vietnam war had the reality of a high body count: 250;
> 450; sometimes several times that many *per week* Americans
> killed. Yet Americans stayed the course for over ten years.
> Your contention that Americans don't have the stomach for
> high American body counts is incorrect. You have projected
> the cowardice of some American politicians onto the American
> public, but the American public is much more brave than an
> American politician.
I think that's partly true. I don't think anyone doubts the bravery of
the ordinary American soldiers (like I said, anyone who has seen the
account of the mission to Somalia - or any WW2 documentary, especially
of the Pacific theatre - would agree with that). That most US
polliticians are cowards is undeniable. Where the mass of American
people stand is unknown - it is, after all, blatently obvious that
your contention that they have the stomach for a fight hasn't been
tested since 1973, when US soldiers began to pull out of Vietnam.
Immediately after 11/9 I was shocked by the reaction on these
newsgroups - wave after wave of Americans screaming hatred at
'ragheads' 'Muslim scum' 'camel fuckers' and the like - it looked like
a mass nervous breakdown, a huge mutual reassurance of 'superiority'
by insult. And let's face it, anyone who has to kid themselves of
their superiority by denigrating their enemy is not someone you can
trust. In fact, it wasn't until the NA began to succeed on the ground,
and the bombing policy became vindicated, that we started to see more
measured responses.
A pretty anecdotal observation, for sure, but we are on usenet ...
therefore I'm not at all sure the US public has the stomach for war at
all. They are certainly yet to prove it to the rest of the world.
Of course that could be a *good* thing. It could be evidence that
Americans are intrinsically more peaceful than Europeans (I'm being
serious).
>
> >Americans are ridicled by some and hated by others because they are so
> >arrogant and naive at the same time.
>
> As Mohammed Ali said: "It ain't bragging if you can do
> it." And we are so naive we lead the world. *You* should
> be so naive.
We were. Now we know better.
When you can tell me what the Americans lead the world *in* (all of
it), then we'll talk.
>
> > They are richer and more powerful
> >than Europe combined but it does not come with any sense of
> >humbleness.
>
> Humbleness? What's that? :)
He means humility. And he's right.
I expect half of any responses to this to be insulting - which will
prove my (our) point.
>
> > The US is barely a generation away from the civil rights
> >movement yet it will preach about American values to the rest of the
> >world.
>
> The British established America's slavery system, along
> with other European countries. It took the United States a
> while to throw off that mindset.
Nice try. The British abolished slavery way before America, and never
practiced it on their own soil. They are nevertheless partly
responisble (along with every other western nation and half of Asia)
for maintaining slavery for several generations.
But, from 1775 onwards, slavery (and the hypocrisy of American
'democrats' who kept slaves while preaching freedom - Washington,
Jefferson et al - is purely an American affair). Taking responsibility
for your own mistakes is part of growing up.
>
> > America is like the College Quarter
> >Back. He has the looks, the babes and the talent and one day he will
> >have the money. He has no time for the little people around him. How
> >would you like to spend time around him?
>
>
> Lots of "little people" in Afghanistan are learning a new
> appreciation for the United States, and I'll bet they would
> disagree with you about our not having time for the little
> people.
Ha ha. I think you ougt to find out what the 'little people' of
Afghanistan *really* think of America. Where are the Americans now,
now the bombing's (almost) over?
America has a great many qualities - of freedom and democracy - which
genuinely provide an example to the rest of the world. It also has a
great many faults, faults it could rectify if Americans could learn
humility and take more of an interest in other nations and other
cultures, and learn to see itself as on of many nations in an
intergrated world, instead of the world's only superpower.
America's superpower status will end. It may seem unlikely now (as it
did to the Romans, the the Moghuls, British, and several others), but
it will happen. At the same time, America's greatest allies, the
Europeans, will inevitably form an ever closer union, which will one
day rival N America in economic, cultural and conventional military
clout. A similar process may well happen in the far East, with even
greater result.
In these circumstances isn't it incumbant on us that we learn to *get
along*? It's up to others to say what Europeans need to change in
Europe; it's up to Americans to, at the very least, take an interest
in the rest of the human population, if only to learn something about
themselves they wouldn't otherwise discover - before, perhaps, it
becomes too late.
c.gray
wrote:
>Britain, more
>than any other country, has been first to come to the aid of the USA -
>yet the target of all this Islamist and third world hatred, at least
>so far, isn't Britain, it's America. Don't you ever wonder why?
>
>Obviously America's vast wealth and perceived cultural influence is
>the main reason. But the answer also lies not in how the US does what
>it does; the apparant contempt and ignorance of other countries and
>cultures it often displays, and the sheer lack of foresight in its
>international policies.
Conmplaints about the 'lack of foresight' in the USA's foreign policy
have a certain irony when coming from the citizen of the nation that
colonized Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Nigeria, South Asia, South Africa
and Zimbabwe, and left them in such a fine state.
----------------------------------------------------
Contact me at midasear atthingy aol dot com.
I munge my reply address because I am a raving paranoid.
Boss Sharon
Americans.
"c.gray" <Dont.se...@me.look.at.sig> wrote in message
news:3c52b568...@news.bellatlantic.net...
Kel
America. I actually love America. I have visited many times and always loved
the people and the culture there. I also think, at it's best, that America
is the greatest hope we have for civilisation.
I do hate American foreign policy however, and find Republicans to be a
stupid, boorish, we-rule-by-devine-right bunch of tossers.
America and most Americans are great as far as I am concerned. But your
right wing - especially that dwarf, mentally challenged man in the white
house - I simply find scary.
"jackkincaid" <theov...@another.com> wrote in message
news:eb35fbed.02012...@posting.google.com...
Dennis McGee
<oste...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>America and most Americans are great as far as I am concerned. But
>your right wing - especially that dwarf, mentally challenged man in
>the white house - I simply find scary.
Hear hear. Those of us who voted for the other major party candidate (the
majority of Americans) regret that the US foisted this privileged dullard
upon the rest of the world. If it's any consolation, at least he won't be
able to plunder Britain and the rest of the world nearly as much as his own
country.
efkent
Do you know that Bush is a mutant? His lead ass mutated to his brain and now
he is a pure lead head. No brains but plenty of insulating lead.
zionism=$=racism.
Boss Sharon <sha...@sem.co.il> wrote in message
news:3c4db...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
SLICE
bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
--
slice
"Dennis McGee" <den...@InfoAveNoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:dennmac-ya0240800...@NNTP.InfoAve.Net...
Heretic
"jackkincaid" <theov...@another.com> wrote in message
news:eb35fbed.02012...@posting.google.com...
J&K Copeland
"Heretic" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:1011793657.20954....@news.demon.co.uk...
> Another Excellent post Jack, keep em coming.
>
> > On top of this, BTW, the ground campaigns in Afghanistan were carried
> > out (according to all the film I've seen) as much by British and
> > Australian as by American troops - certainly the retaking of the
> > prison in which an unarned CIA agent stupidly allowed himself to be
> > taken hostage and killed, was fought out by Brits (we saw the respect
> > in which British soldiers were held by the NA militia as they fought;
> > and we saw the distinctly overweight US marines, in their spotless
> > white uniforms and preppy haircuts, standing around watching. Not so
> > much respect there). Eventually hundreds were killed, following which
> > the USAF bombed the place flat. More risks taken by British troops
> > following an attack on its friend, America.
The United States Marines do not wear white uniforms of any type.
US Navy SEALS might wear dress whites on occasion, but, I'd wager
that...there isn't any dress whites in their packs and that even the vaunted
SAS members would cringe at describing SEALS as overweight preppies.
I don't know what you were watching, but it had to be some kind of US Navy
pictures. And yes, the US Navy is famous for it's rations. Since the
sailors are at sea, sometimes for months at a time, it is the belief that
superior rations are a morale factor. US Submariners, with their limited
exercise options and months of superior rations can easily get downright
pudgy. However, there aren't very many submarines in Afghanistan.
> > In addition, British troops are in several other war zones around the
> > world - not least Sierra Leone - killing people and being killed.
> >
> > Now. All this happens in the knowledge of the British people - and
> > almost no comment. A dozen British soldiers get killed? OK. It's sad -
> > but that's their job.
> >
> > Now contrast that with what happens in the USA. A dozen US soldiers
> > get killed? Absolute mindfucking pandemonium. Uproar all over the US
> > media. Hysterical mothers on TV. Rentaquote politicians berrating the
> > president for allowing 'our soldiers' to be killed by those
> > 'ragheads/gooks/commie bastards/nazi scum/whatever' out there and
> > coming back in (that ultimate US fear word) body bags... and so on and
> > so forth.
You're entirely correct here. Most Americans, me included, detest the idea
of wasting US Military personnel in no-name places. If direct US security
threats cannot be demonstrated, mind our own business and let 'em kill each
other off as they see fit. If you can sell armaments to both sides, hey
good job.
> >
> > Why else do you think bin Laden thought he'd get away with it? Because
> > he believed American troops would have the stomach for a ground fight,
> > and he thought that's what it would take (and let's be honest - he was
> > right. But he underestimated the hatred of the ordinary Afghans,
> > especially the Uzbeks and Tajiks, for the Taliban; and of America's
> > friends to rally around; as well as of America's willingness to get
> > the job done).
> >
> > The British - and Europeans generally - have several hundred years of
> > history of warfare, of death and killing, behind them. There was a
> > time when the Americans - maybe when our cultures were closer than
> > they are now - also looked at war as a necessary evil, in which all of
> > us have a duty to behave honourably (and calmly), but somehow, for
> > some reason I don't understand (Vietnam?), that time seems to have
> > gone. Now it has become virtually impossible for any US politician to
> > order US ground troops (I exclude some US special forces) into any war
> > zone until it has been made safe by some other country's army
> > (preferably the British, Turkish or some other ally) or after carpet
> > bombing its citizenry by high-tech USAF weaponry. There is something
> > wrong in this attitude.
I find you attitude towards wasting British soldiers in such a cavalier
fashion, somewhat startling. Do British forces really consider themselves
so expendable.?
> >
> > And, BTW, I have no doubt that were the true story of the
> > behind-the-lines activities of the SAS and the US army in Iraq were
> > told it would be the same (ie in real life the soldiers in the movie
> > Three Kings would just as likely to have been Brits as Americans,
> > maybe more so) - and furthermore I'm sure that plenty of American
> > soldiers are heartily sick of the situation. Nobody doubts *their*
> > bravery (most of them), only that of their political leaders.
You have wildly misjudged the impact of 9-11 on America. Even the American
Left Wing, except for a few wailers, has almost uniformly
1. Publically complimented the President on his performance..
2. Publically called for the eradication of el Qaeda, no matter what the
cost.
New York City (and the Northeast) is the "Mecca" of Leftist thought.
Watching those building crash to the ground scared the bejesus of them as
much as anyone. You might want to view a particular map of the US that was
published by USA Today. It has become famous as the Red Blue Map. The
counties that George Bush won are shown in Red and the counties that Al Gore
won are shown in Blue. At first glance, the map appears to be a George Bush
landslide red. Upon closer inspection, it becomes obvious that Al Gore won
almost every hight density, major metropolitian area, and George Bush won
everything else. This managed to produce a popular vote that was
essentially a tie, with a increditably slight lead to Al Gore.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm
> >
> > So don't call British soldiers 'cry babies'. The USAF fucked up; they
> > killed, not only their own allies, but soldiers attempting to make the
> > situation safe for other - US - soldiers, just like they fucked up
> > during the Iranian hostage crisis, in downing an Iranian passenger
> > plane, in Vietnam, in blowing up a hospital in Granada, in Beirut, in
> > Somalia, in killing more British soldiers in Korea, in their mass
> > drownings during the Normandy landings in WW2 ... Jesus, where should
> > I stop?
What are you on about. Shit happens. It happens a lot in warfare.
> >
> > They were, in Iraq, momentarily, unprofessional - and to add insult to
> > injury the US media did not pay sufficient attention to what they had
> > done. Yet the British did not hesitate in coming to the US's aid
> > again, and would do so in the future.
> >
> > Can Americans say the same?
Nope. And it's a good question.
But consider...
In fact, there are rather unusual questions surfacing in America. Was it a
good idea for George Bush to build the collation in the first place?
Will the British cooperation force the US into cooperating on attacks
against the IRA?
Will Russian cooperation force the US into attacks against Chetyan (sp)
rebels.
Should the US intervene in Zimbobwa? Sir Lanka? Indonesia? And any of the
other 30 hot wars going on around the globe.
> >
> > > Accidents happen in war, from your statements earlier, I was
> > > given to believe you had a little experience of war, but
> > > perhaps not.
> >
> > Accidents seem to happen far too often when the American military are
> > involved.
American "accidents" are certainly publizied way too often.
> >
> > Back to Somalia: here's a quote for you. Following the recenty US army
> > incursion into Somalia, looking for the current warlord of Mogaduishu,
> > he was interviewed - in full sight of US helicopters searching for him
> > over the city - and said they (the US soldiers) were all 'morons' for
> > not recognising him (he was wearing sunglasses, as if that explains
> > anything). He went on to say that the current situation (in which all
> > of Somalia are ready for a US invasion, and ready to fight) would
> > never happen if 'the Brits were still in charge' [his words] because
> > 'they would have us all fighting each other'.
> >
> > Straight out of the horse's mouth; a reminder of how last time Somalia
> > was invaded the US media got to the beachhead before the marines. This
> > time around the US media has primed the Somalis to expect to be bombed
> > flat - almost overnight the US has become enemy no1 for yet another
> > Muslim nation, despite the fact that we all know that what it intends
> > to do (ie capture al-Qaeda operatives destabilising the country) is
> > basically for the good of the Somali people.
Misdirection. I'm still betting on Saddam and Company.
> >
> > As I said, British troops are currently defending Afghans against
> > themselves; British Muslim terrorists have been caught in Afghanistan
> > (when they could have remained to 'fight' at home); and Britain, more
> > than any other country, has been first to come to the aid of the USA -
> > yet the target of all this Islamist and third world hatred, at least
> > so far, isn't Britain, it's America. Don't you ever wonder why?
When you're number 1, you automatically become the number 1 target. Always
has been and not likely to change.
> >
> > Obviously America's vast wealth and perceived cultural influence is
> > the main reason. But the answer also lies not in how the US does what
> > it does; the apparant contempt and ignorance of other countries and
> > cultures it often displays, and the sheer lack of foresight in its
> > international policies.
> >
> > But I'm probably boring you...
Some, but rest assured, I will certainly include you lecture in my growing
collection of European lectures on what's wrong with America.
> > >
> > > > The so called camel
> > > >jockeys had the shit bombed out of them by planes couple of miles
high
> > > >but in any conflict where there was the possibilty of a high US body
> > > >count US ground forcs were nowhere to be found.
> > >
> > > The Vietnam war had the reality of a high body count: 250;
> > > 450; sometimes several times that many *per week* Americans
> > > killed. Yet Americans stayed the course for over ten years.
> > > Your contention that Americans don't have the stomach for
> > > high American body counts is incorrect. You have projected
> > > the cowardice of some American politicians onto the American
> > > public, but the American public is much more brave than an
> > > American politician.
> >
> > I think that's partly true. I don't think anyone doubts the bravery of
> > the ordinary American soldiers (like I said, anyone who has seen the
> > account of the mission to Somalia - or any WW2 documentary, especially
> > of the Pacific theatre - would agree with that). That most US
> > polliticians are cowards is undeniable. Where the mass of American
> > people stand is unknown - it is, after all, blatently obvious that
> > your contention that they have the stomach for a fight hasn't been
> > tested since 1973, when US soldiers began to pull out of Vietnam.
It's very simple. The general concensus is that America wasted 52,000
military people in Vietnam. Reasons vary between a failure of political
will in Washington to a Leftist agenda by the American media.
US Military leaders continually counsel the President to avoid a "Five
dollar response on a fifty cent provacation". You can see the effect even
today. Hence the emphasis on al Qaeda and not the Taliban.
But whatever the reasons, it is continually pound home that America is the
Free World leader. Fully 40 percent of the Americans would gladly hand the
mantle back to England, France, Spain, Genoa, whatever, if the rest of the
world would simply stay in their only little patch of turf.
> >
> > Immediately after 11/9 I was shocked by the reaction on these
> > newsgroups - wave after wave of Americans screaming hatred at
> > 'ragheads' 'Muslim scum' 'camel fuckers' and the like - it looked like
> > a mass nervous breakdown, a huge mutual reassurance of 'superiority'
> > by insult. And let's face it, anyone who has to kid themselves of
> > their superiority by denigrating their enemy is not someone you can
> > trust. In fact, it wasn't until the NA began to succeed on the ground,
> > and the bombing policy became vindicated, that we started to see more
> > measured responses.
Afghanistan is populated by a bunch of illerate, barbaric, 9th Century
Islamic retro-nutcases....with automatic weapons. Warlords, vendettas,
Byzantian politics, the stuff of really bad romantic historial novels.
Except they people are real and actually exisit. You disagree with the
assessment?
> >
> > A pretty anecdotal observation, for sure, but we are on usenet ...
> > therefore I'm not at all sure the US public has the stomach for war at
> > all. They are certainly yet to prove it to the rest of the world.
> >
> > Of course that could be a *good* thing. It could be evidence that
> > Americans are intrinsically more peaceful than Europeans (I'm being
> > serious).
> > >
> >
-------snip, babble, babble, babble..
> > In these circumstances isn't it incumbant on us that we learn to *get
> > along*? It's up to others to say what Europeans need to change in
> > Europe; it's up to Americans to, at the very least, take an interest
> > in the rest of the human population, if only to learn something about
> > themselves they wouldn't otherwise discover - before, perhaps, it
> > becomes too late.
>
Ahhhhhhhh. Kansas retired office worker, veteran, seeks broader
understanding of the world. Subscribes to uk.politics.misc. Watches
BBC-America and even Question Time (although he doesn't understand half the
accents).
Now, Mr. Lecturer, just what has he learned from this broadening
experience.....
Go on, tell me. I'll wait.
James....
Vexen
My God, jackkincaid, you rant on with passion and fury!
Having said that, I agree with most of your points, and would like to
summarize... UK, once the greatest nation, committed many atrocities,
and admits it, and repents, and we learn from our mistakes. The USA
commits many atrocities, and duly ignores them, commiting the same
ones over and over. Gradually, thought, the USA will grow up, lose
more of it's power (the world hates it enough already, and the
Afghanistan war did *not* help), and may eventually become as mature
as Europe.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/hateamerica.html
--
Vexen Crabtree; Minister of the London Satanists
http://www.dpjs.co.uk
Yankee Rose lives!
ordinary bloke
and
fun to be around. But they were the ones who'd stuck their heads over the
perimeter
fence and had a look at the world outside.
I'm certain 90 per cent of Americans are just as generous and open minded as
the
ones I've met in India, Nepal, Thailand and Sri Lanka.
But the American ruling class suck big time, (like the UK one does).
It seems the Republican loons are really running the show, and I genuinely
believe
that most Americans dont have a clue what their government does in their
name and
what they allow massive multi national companies to get up to around the
world.
This is why America keeps asking "Why do they hate us?"
Their government knows why!!! But it darent tell them!
The US Military/Economic machine is the 'bad guy', your average US citizen
like
your average UK 'Joe' is generous, fun lovin, and wouldnt 'hurt a fly'.
regards
'ordinary bloke'
jackkincaid wrote in message ...
Tom Abbott
<Ve...@vexen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>My God, jackkincaid, you rant on with passion and fury!
>
>Having said that, I agree with most of your points, and would like to
>summarize... UK, once the greatest nation, committed many atrocities,
>and admits it, and repents, and we learn from our mistakes. The USA
>commits many atrocities, and duly ignores them, commiting the same
>ones over and over. Gradually, thought, the USA will grow up, lose
>more of it's power (the world hates it enough already, and the
>Afghanistan war did *not* help), and may eventually become as mature
>as Europe.
>
>http://www.vexen.co.uk/hateamerica.html
Care to list the atrocities committed by the USA?
TA
lvaughn
wrote:
When America is defeated Europe will be a colony of the Arabs
and the French and English will be praying in Mosques
5 times a day
>TA
Kel
"ordinary bloke" <ob...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:u4u5nmh...@corp.supernews.com...
jackkincaid
> "Heretic" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:1011793657.20954....@news.demon.co.uk...
> > Another Excellent post Jack, keep em coming.
> >
> ------snip-----
> > > On top of this, BTW, the ground campaigns in Afghanistan were carried
> > > out (according to all the film I've seen) as much by British and
> > > Australian as by American troops - certainly the retaking of the
> > > prison in which an unarned CIA agent stupidly allowed himself to be
> > > taken hostage and killed, was fought out by Brits (we saw the respect
> > > in which British soldiers were held by the NA militia as they fought;
> > > and we saw the distinctly overweight US marines, in their spotless
> > > white uniforms and preppy haircuts, standing around watching. Not so
> > > much respect there). Eventually hundreds were killed, following which
> > > the USAF bombed the place flat. More risks taken by British troops
> > > following an attack on its friend, America.
>
> The United States Marines do not wear white uniforms of any type.
Fair enough. This guy was wearing a white uniform with 'faded'
camouflage, which is an American uniform (maybe not of the Marines, as
you say, but he was called a marine in the film), he had (relatively)
long hair for a regular soldier - and he spoke with an American
accent. And he looked overweight to me, for a soldier.
I should add: the film I'm referring to was shot by, I think, a
Turkish (Pakistani?) journalist, on video, who was following the NA
around, and happened to be in the right place when the prison
firefight in [and I've forgotten the name of the place but it was all
over the news at the time] went off. What we saw - and I think British
viewers will back me up on this - was SAS soldiers (jeans, boots,
leather jackets etc.) and NA mujahadin (turbans, beards, Afghan
dress) doing the fighting side by side - firing machine guns behind
walls, ducking and diving, all that sort of thing - with NA militiamen
reloading etc. I could have sworn one of the westerners had an
Australian accent, and since we know the Aussie SAS were fighting
alongside the Brits, I assume they were there too - all of them were
out of uniform so you couldn't tell but you could hear what they were
saying. You could also see, very obviously, that they were having the
absolute fucking shit-kicking time of their lives and that there was a
great deal of (probably mutual) respect going on between the SAS guys
and the NA mujahadin.
In fact, this piece of film would make the perfect British army
recruiting movie - never mind spotty white teenage boys shagging
beautiful black chicks in their daddcy's house, or driving a landrover
through the woods at night (again, British TV viewers know what I'm
talking about) - this was the real shit.
It then cut back to the army position some way behind the lines, but
apparantly near the prison - and here was the big shock. Suddenly we
see heavily armed US soldiers (as I said, spotless white camouflaged
uniforms, preppy haircuts, American accents) doing - nothing. And this
was after, don't forget, the prison riot went off because a couple of
dumb CIA agents walked into it unarmed.
Now don't get me wrong: I've been totally behind the US action in
Afghanistan from the start. I'm not trying to pretend that the British
have had anything but a small role to play in it, militarily (and even
smaller politically), when you look at the total effort. And I don't
deny that US troops haven't made excursions themselves - there was one
early on in which US special forces took over an al-Qaeda mountaintop
base near, I think, Kandahar (when one of them had his foot blown
off?) in a search (we were told) for information (probably not true,
as it happens, but that doesn't matter). Most of the frontline western
soldiers at Tora Bora appeared to have been US troops, with the usual
mix of US and UK special forces behind the lines.
But we have had to take all of that on trust - and as I said, the only
detailed film of soldiers in action (excepting the NA, obviously)
we've seen is the one I described above - and the fact that you
obviously haven't seen it in the USA makes matters even worse.
I guess my point (other than replying to the guy who started the
thread) isn't that the US gvt should somehow 'share' leadership in the
'war' on the al-Qaeda, it is that it has to realise - and fast - that
it has allies who are committed to it too (because they are on the
side of, not the US gvt, but the US people) and everything the US gvt
and media do has an effect on those allies.
To take the most obvious point, releasing pictures of apparantly
mistreateed al-Qaeda operatives in Cuba while British troops are in
extreme danger in Afghanistan from their fellow terrorists is stupid
to the point of imbecility - and furthermore, the fact that Donald
Rumsfeld, after constant questioning by the UK media, has taken two
weeks to understand this isn't going to fill the world with confidence
about America's leadership.
>
> US Navy SEALS might wear dress whites on occasion, but, I'd wager
> that...there isn't any dress whites in their packs and that even the vaunted
> SAS members would cringe at describing SEALS as overweight preppies.
I should add: said overweight SEAL (I don't think he was a SEAL,
actually, but I bow to your superior knowledge of US army uniforms -
I'm pretty certain he was a regular army officer) was in an obviously
friendly conversation with one of the out-of-uniform (therefore SAS,
vaunted or otherwise), British soldiers. I don't think there was any
dislike for each other - in fact, the US soldiers may have been under
orders not to get involved. My point was simply that this is the only
film we've seen in any detail, and it depicts something most Americans
probably don't realise happened - most Americans probably don't
realise the British (and Australians) were involved at all (you just
wait til the movies come out).
Oh, and he *did* have a preppy haircut. Sorry, but he did. Look on the
bright side: at least he didn't have a mullet.
>
> I don't know what you were watching, but it had to be some kind of US Navy
> pictures.
See above. I reiterate: why wasn't it shown on US TV?
> And yes, the US Navy is famous for it's rations. Since the
> sailors are at sea, sometimes for months at a time, it is the belief that
> superior rations are a morale factor. US Submariners, with their limited
> exercise options and months of superior rations can easily get downright
> pudgy. However, there aren't very many submarines in Afghanistan.
Ah shit. This is what you get for not reading posts before you reply.
You're kidding, right?
>
[snip]
> > > A dozen US soldiers
> > > get killed? Absolute mindfucking pandemonium. Uproar all over the US
> > > media. Hysterical mothers on TV. Rentaquote politicians berrating the
> > > president for allowing 'our soldiers' to be killed by those
> > > 'ragheads/gooks/commie bastards/nazi scum/whatever' out there and
> > > coming back in (that ultimate US fear word) body bags... and so on and
> > > so forth.
>
> You're entirely correct here. Most Americans, me included, detest the idea
> of wasting US Military personnel in no-name places. If direct US security
> threats cannot be demonstrated, mind our own business and let 'em kill each
> other off as they see fit. If you can sell armaments to both sides, hey
> good job.
That's sort of my point. I mean, that's a totally morally
reprehensible p.o.v., obviously, but since I've been arguing from a
British conservative / historical p.o.v. myself I can hardly condemn
it - you've just described an aspect of British imperialism, after
all.
Except for this: what exactly is 'US interest'? Arguably it is
American failure to identify this properly which indicates their lack
of foresight (their governments, I mean). The reason several thousand
Americans are mourning their dead in NYC right now is that successive
US gvts took exactly your attitude over Afghanistan - until it was too
late.
>
> > >
[snip]
> > > Now it has become virtually impossible for any US politician to
> > > order US ground troops (I exclude some US special forces) into any war
> > > zone until it has been made safe by some other country's army
> > > (preferably the British, Turkish or some other ally) or after carpet
> > > bombing its citizenry by high-tech USAF weaponry. There is something
> > > wrong in this attitude.
>
> I find you attitude towards wasting British soldiers in such a cavalier
> fashion, somewhat startling. Do British forces really consider themselves
> so expendable.?
In my opinion British soldiers are no different in this regard to
American soldiers - they want to do their job. They know the risks;
but they choose to take them. It's possible that, through force of
circumstance (ie N Ireland, Falklands etc.) British troops of the
previous and this generation have had slightly more experience than US
ones (the reverse would have been true for the Vietnam generation,
perhaps) in local wars, and maybe know better what to expect, I don't
know, but my guess is all soldiers in the west have pretty much the
same attitude. Certainly most special forces soldiers, anyway (and
there are at least 5 times as many of them in the US than the UK).
So it isn't a question of whether the soldiers think they're
expendable. My criticism is not at all of US soldiers, it is of US
politicians and above all, the US media, who create a climate of
hysteria every time those soldiers are ordered overseas to do the damn
job they are being paid for. I do believe that the British *people* -
and European people generally (nothing special about the British,
after all) - are more innured to the loss of military lives in a
worthwhile cause than are the Americans - far more, at least judging
by the US media. Maybe this is because - as you suggest - Americans
find it harder to identify a worthwhile cause. But frankly that's no
excuse.
>
[snip]
>
> You have wildly misjudged the impact of 9-11 on America. Even the American
> Left Wing, except for a few wailers, has almost uniformly
> 1. Publically complimented the President on his performance..
> 2. Publically called for the eradication of el Qaeda, no matter what the
> cost.
I'm aware of that, and BTW I support what the US has been doing,
almost entirely, as do most of the British people (more than indicated
in the polls, I suspect, which was around 72%), and I'm glad the
Americans are around, and as powerful as they are, so that al-Qaeda
*can* be eliminated. Don't mistake what I'm saying here.
I'm just not sure they know how to do it; what the implications are of
success, let alone failure; and whether the American people are
actually hearing the truth - or are even interested in the truth,
about what's going on. We're getting away from the subject of the
thread here, I think.
About the president, BTW: what he has done, basically, is choose
between some good advice from Colin Powell and some seriously stupid
advice from Donald Rumsfeld et al. Possibly with the help of his
father, he chose the former. He deserves some credit, then, but not as
much as you imply. And I'm not so sure the American people can't see
that for themselves.
>
> New York City (and the Northeast) is the "Mecca" of Leftist thought.
> Watching those building crash to the ground scared the bejesus of them as
> much as anyone. You might want to view a particular map of the US that was
> published by USA Today. It has become famous as the Red Blue Map. The
> counties that George Bush won are shown in Red and the counties that Al Gore
> won are shown in Blue. At first glance, the map appears to be a George Bush
> landslide red. Upon closer inspection, it becomes obvious that Al Gore won
> almost every hight density, major metropolitian area, and George Bush won
> everything else. This managed to produce a popular vote that was
> essentially a tie, with a increditably slight lead to Al Gore.
>
er ... OK. Is this relevent? I don't see this as a party political
issue. Like I said, I support the US almost totally in what they have
been doing (reservations only in the way they have been doing it, and
all of them down to the politicians, and of the media treatment) and
I'm pretty sure that on your scale I'm so far to the left I'm off the
map (in British terms I think I'd be a centrist; in European terms a
conservative). All cities tend to support either the more socialist or
the more liberal candidate in elections; all rural areas tend to
support the more conservative candidate [using European definitions of
these words] - it's the same the world over (except possibly France,
but what do you expect).
[snip]
> > >
> > > They were, in Iraq, momentarily, unprofessional - and to add insult to
> > > injury the US media did not pay sufficient attention to what they had
> > > done [killing 10 British soldiers with a badly aimed bomb] . Yet the British did not hesitate in coming to the US's aid
> > > again, and would do so in the future.
> > >
> > > Can Americans say the same?
>
> Nope. And it's a good question.
> But consider...
> In fact, there are rather unusual questions surfacing in America. Was it a
> good idea for George Bush to build the collation in the first place?
That's 'coalition'.
And boy, does that figure.
> Will the British cooperation force the US into cooperating on attacks against the IRA?
Is that a serious question? If questions like that are being seriously
raised in the USA it shows how out of touch its gvt or media is with
the rest of the world.
> Will Russian cooperation force the US into attacks against Chetyan (sp) rebels.
Chechyan.
> Should the US intervene in Zimbobwa?
Zimbabwe.
> Sir Lanka?
Well done.
> Indonesia?
Yes. You score 2 out of 5. :-)
> And any of the other 30 hot wars going on around the globe.
The answers to your questions are: no (none of your business), no
(likewise), no (likewise - but you should be on Britain's side in
whatever it chooses to do up to and including sanctions), no
(likewise) and no (likewise - but you should be on Australia's side in
whatever it chooses to do up to and including sanctions). Hope that
helps.
Nobody is asking America to get involved in hot wars - the only reason
it got involved in Afghanistan was because it was attacked - but they
are asking America to be farsighted, rational and moral in its
actions, which means WORK OUT who your friends and enemies are and
stick by the decision; DON'T treat democratic governments and
dictatorships alike and don't sell arms to dictators; DON'T pretend
there are moral differences between terrorist organisations just to
suit your own electorate; DON'T expect third world countries to act
properly if America does not (nobody will accept a universal
understanding of human rights if the US exempts itself); DON'T opt out
of the Geneva Convention when it suits you - in fact, don't opt out of
any international agreement which the overwhelming number of your
friends have agreed to for selfish economic interests... and so on.
Don't be unliateralist and insular; don't insist on trading agreements
to suit your markets and then refuse environmental agreements that
superficially don't; don't demand a standard of behaviour from others
you aren't prepared to meet yourself etc. etc. etc. I suppose it all
boils down to: 'Grow up'.
Every one of these things could have been asked of Britain 100 years
ago, BTW, and Britain would probably have failed half of them - but
that's no excuse for America (which by and large, I think - if we
assume Bush is an aberration - is doing pretty well as the new
Imperial Power).
>
> > >
> > > > Accidents happen in war, from your statements earlier, I was
> > > > given to believe you had a little experience of war, but
> > > > perhaps not.
> > >
> > > Accidents seem to happen far too often when the American military are
> > > involved.
>
> American "accidents" are certainly publizied way too often.
Now you're being silly.
When I run over your mother in my car, and then tell you you can't
have any inormation about what happened because there's been far too
much publicity about that sort of thing lately, then you can come back
and repeat that statement. These are human beings we're talking about.
Refusal to recognise the suffering of others, because they are
'foreign', is, some might say, another bad American habit.
>
> > >
[snip]
>
> Misdirection. I'm still betting on Saddam and Company.
Me too, as it happens. But Somalia will be next.
>
[snip]
>
> When you're number 1, you automatically become the number 1 target. Always
> has been and not likely to change.
True, but to a great extent it depends on how you behave when you're
no.1.
>
> > >
> > > Obviously America's vast wealth and perceived cultural influence is
> > > the main reason. But the answer also lies not in how the US does what
> > > it does; the apparant contempt and ignorance of other countries and
> > > cultures it often displays, and the sheer lack of foresight in its
> > > international policies.
> > >
> > > But I'm probably boring you...
>
> Some, but rest assured, I will certainly include you lecture in my growing
> collection of European lectures on what's wrong with America.
Ah, hell. I'm a *fan* of America. I mean, I love the place - I really
do. I like Americans - I even have an alleged American son from my
misspent youth i've never met. And I'm not unique - I guess about a
fifth of UK TV over whatever it is, 200 channels, is American
programming (because it's popular), added to American clothes, shit
food, music (60s jazz, garagebands, early hip-hop? - unbeatable
stuff), whatever else... Britain is awash with American culture, and
it is *liked*; *you're* liked (not necessarily you personally, I
wouldn't know, but you generally). So - as I said at the beginning -
don't run away with the idea that the US is being criticised because
it is hated, disliked, looked down upon, misjudged, or whatever else.
It's being criticised because it should be, because Europeans know
that every now and then the US fucks things up, and it does so for the
same reason pretty much every time. Call it friendly advice, if you
like. :-)
...and I expect you'll be hearing it over and over again forever
(unless you change), and you'll inevitably be judged by how you deal
with it, and don't tell me you couldn't care because most Americans
do, or they wouldn't be human (and the same is true in reverse,
obviously).
>
[snip]
> > > Where the mass of American
> > > people stand is unknown - it is, after all, blatently obvious that
> > > your contention that they have the stomach for a fight hasn't been
> > > tested since 1973, when US soldiers began to pull out of Vietnam.
>
> It's very simple. The general concensus is that America wasted 52,000
> military people in Vietnam.
I don't believe that's true - that is, I don't believe that's the full
story. If it is - if that's the extent to which Americans are capable
of reflecting on the Vietrnam war - then they would all be mentally
subnormal. I think you're deliberately putting the American people
down.
> Reasons vary between a failure of political
> will in Washington to a Leftist agenda by the American media.
...or little green fairy-folk blowing in the soldiers' ears when they
fired their guns, I suppose.
The reason the Vietnam war failed for the US gvt is that they didn't
know what they fighting for. They should have expected, but didn't,
the Vietnamese people to reject a gvt which, in effect, would have
been imposed upon them by the US, however friendly they felt toward
them - just as the Afghans woulkdn't accept a gvt imposed on them by a
foreign power now (they never did - and neither did any of the other
countries in the region). LBJ could see the threat posed by the USSR -
and was right - but couldn't understand the need of the Vietnames for
national self-determinism (however illusory it may have been in
practice).
In other words, LBJ and Goldwater and the rest couldn't see further
than the immediate American interest, and the immediate threat to
America, a few years into the future and the possible cultivation of
three useful regional allies. The same goes for Cuba, over the
Republican attitude to Haiti a few years ago, Panama, Nicaragua - it
hasn't always been wrong, exactly, but it's always shortsighted, and
always tied in with economic interests. It's a mystery, really, why
this is - you'll hate the implied comparison, but it was certainly
obvious to Clinton.
>
> US Military leaders continually counsel the President to avoid a "Five
> dollar response on a fifty cent provacation". You can see the effect even
> today. Hence the emphasis on al Qaeda and not the Taliban.
The 'emphasis' on al-Qaeda and not the Taliban is because al-Qaeda are
the threat and the Taliban are not.
I think you've only been listening to a very narrow range of political
opinion about all this.
>
> But whatever the reasons, it is continually pound home that America is the
> Free World leader. Fully 40 percent of the Americans would gladly hand the
> mantle back to England, France, Spain, Genoa, whatever, if the rest of the
> world would simply stay in their only little patch of turf.
No, no, you keep it! :-)
I'm not sure what you mean, actually. The problem isn't *too much* US
involvement in the world, it's *not enough*. If the US wants to get
more involved in keeping the peace, spreading democracy, and the rest
- then go for it. That's what we want - as long as it applies the same
rules to itself as to everyone else.
Believe me, I'm a supporter of the USA's position in the world - just
not under the modern Republican Party.
>
[snip]
>
> Afghanistan is populated by a bunch of illerate, barbaric, 9th Century
> Islamic retro-nutcases....with automatic weapons. Warlords, vendettas,
> Byzantian politics, the stuff of really bad romantic historial novels.
> Except they people are real and actually exisit. You disagree with the
> assessment?
Yeah. Swap the word 'Islamic' for the word 'Christian' and you could
be describing a trailer park outside downtown Houston, Texas. Would
you then disagree with that assessment?
It's not that it's wrong, exactly, it's that it's such a lamebrained
over-simplification as to be worthless. It describes an aspect of
Afghanistan but there's far, far more to the place - and if you
constantly simplify everything, and make it sound inexplicable and
'romantic' and evil and all that crap - how can you possibly
understand it? And if you don't understand it you'll soon find your
security services will be unable to gather intelligence on upcoming
terrorist attacks and your soldiers, if called upon, will be shooting
their own side, arming next year's enemy, walking unarnmed into
prisons, downing passenger airoplanesm - and all the rest of it.
>
[snip]
> >
>
> Ahhhhhhhh. Kansas retired office worker, veteran, seeks broader
> understanding of the world. Subscribes to uk.politics.misc. Watches
> BBC-America and even Question Time (although he doesn't understand half the
> accents).
Kansas retired officer worker, I've got just the thing for you. My
cousin Belloogah is a striking, 'Rubenesque' 33-stone beauty who's
just dying to meet an American gentleman for friendship and possible
romance - and bondage. Sadly bald after an accident with an oven,
Beloogah is interested in karate, Japanese submission techniques and
cooking etc. etc.
>
> Now, Mr. Lecturer,
Awwwwww. Someone called me 'passionate' a while back.
Which was nice...
> just what has he learned from this broadening experience.....
> Go on, tell me. I'll wait.
From watching Question Time? All you'll have learned from that is just
how pompous, superficial and nauseating the British can be when
they're on TV. Otherwise, I've no idea. I'm just giving you one side
of the story here - there are plenty of British people who would tell
you I'm wrong, let alone American (in fact I could do it myself). But
the sniping at US foreign policy will continue - so, from your point
of view, there must be *something* in it, right?
jackkincaid
> My God, jackkincaid, you rant on with passion and fury!
Really? Most people who say anything say I'm incredibly boring.
>
> Having said that, I agree with most of your points,
I've got a feeling people I disagree with are agreeing with me...
> and would like to
> summarize... UK, once the greatest nation,
Once the biggest imperial nation. Not the same thing.
> committed many atrocities,
> and admits it, and repents, and we learn from our mistakes.
Whoa! Are you sure about that?
First, we didn't commit *that* many atrocities - relative to what
everybody else did at the time, anyway. Second, yeah, we admit it, but
it took a while - and it took a great deal of pressure from the USA
too, ironoically. Third: repents? I really don't know about that.
Let's face it, one understanding of what we're saying - and it's the
one the Americans usually have - is that we think 'we could do things
a lot better than the yanks'. Which isn't the point, right?
> The USA commits many atrocities,
Ummm. Again, I don't think the US commits *that* many atrocities -
less than Britain 100 years ago, easily.
> and duly ignores them,
Yeah, that seems to be the case.
> commiting the same
> ones over and over.
Seems that way, yeah - though I wouldn't say they're atrocities.
See, take these prisoners in Cuba. I'm prepared to believe that the US
is doing the right thing in keeping them there, making things hard for
them, interrogating them etc. etc. etc.
But what I don't understand is first, why did Rumsfeld (cos I'm sure
he was responsible) allow photos of them arriving to be released to
the media. The immediate answer appears to be that he wanted to appeal
to that section of teh US population which desires revenge on these
people - despite the fact that none of them are responsible, and none
of them have even had a trial!!
Whatever happened to due process? And second, why can't the US change
its laws (like we did) and keep them on its own soil, instead of
exploiting a legal loophole, which makes them look like cheap
shysters.
I have little or no symapthy for the prisoners themselves - I don't
really care if they all die of typhoid out there - but I do care about
the US doing the right thing, and being seen to do the right thing,
because - and this is the crucial part - if they don't they will make
things worse. They will make a large part of the world's two billion
Muslims believe that the US does not think they should receive justice
- and they will attack and kill more Americans. And they will attack
and kill British soldiers, more to the point, who have remained behind
in Afghanistan to protect the Afghan people, doing a job in which the
US didn't want to be involved.
Intead, this motherfucking shit-head Rumsfeld flashes his pathetic
little snapshots around the world's Islamic media, and tells us all
that he doesn't care about these - INNOCENT BEFORE FOUND GUILTY -
prisoners, apparantly oblivious to the fact that he is putting
soldiers of the US's chief ally, and every goddamn American in the
world, at risk - and why? So he can act macho in front of the US moron
community - the death penalty merchants and gun nuts and flag wavers
and shithead racists. I mean, is this man a pissant little turd, or
what?
And what makes it worse, none of them seem to realise what the fuss is
about - they don't know why this has been top story for days all over
the world, not just Europe. Finally, now, two weeks later, they wake
up and make a statement, but obviously it's now far too late. Rumsfeld
has made the next attack on westerners move from a likliehood to a
near-certainty, because he loves the applause of the Great American
know-nothing beer-swilling dick-fondling lardarsed immoral minority.
That's what I think, anyway.
> Gradually, thought, the USA will grow up, lose
> more of it's power (the world hates it enough already, and the
> Afghanistan war did *not* help), and may eventually become as mature
> as Europe.
I guess you're kidding there - like, I can just see the next political
platform for the Democrats: 'We too can be as mature as Austria'.
Nah, it's not that. America is the no1 power - I've no problem with
that. But it has to earn everyone else's respect, all the time, and it
has to do so for the right reasons - because it wants the things it
and we aspire to (democracy, freedom, rule of law, all that cool
stuff) to be taken up worldwide, and because this is the right thing
to do, not because there's the possibility of boosting the GOP CREEP
fund.
Basically, the US president has to be a bit more like Captain Kirk and
a bit less like the leader of the Klingon Empire (Mr
Guurghoixqqhlrrxe, ). Expecting him to be like Jean-Luc Picard is
probably asking too much... :-)
jackkincaid
> Care to list the atrocities committed by the USA?
>
The Vagina Monologues AND Britney Spears are in town, and he has to ask? Jeez... :-)
jackkincaid
> >cultures [and] it often displays [a] lack of foresight in its international policies.
>
> Complaints about the 'lack of foresight' in the USA's foreign policy
> have a certain irony when coming from the citizen of the nation that
> colonized Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Nigeria, South Asia, South Africa
> and Zimbabwe, and left them in such a fine state.
That sort of comment proves my point (assuming you're an American). It
seems to have become an article of faith in America that imperialism
is entirely a bad thing, as if the American people can deny their
nation's own past as a colony; as if it all began in 1775. The irony
is that the US is nowadays seen as the most imperialist in history -
which is something easily admitted to, I'd've thought, but never seems
to be - yet I get the impression that Americans are constantly told
that it has somehow 'risen above' the bad old, British imperialist
days. As if. What that's all really about is Anglophobia and an
inability to face facts.
First: be honest, the USA owes its identity primarily to
British/French empire building. The US legal system is British; its
political system is partly British, mostly French. Its language is
English (sort of :-); its devotion to free trade is British; its
notions of seperation of church and state, constitutionalism and
republicanism comes from the French pre-revolutionary political
tradition. The lousy relationship between white and black Americans is
new-ish, but it is partly rooted in the slave trade, which was
exploited by the British, French and Spanish. The Old South mannerisms
are essentially Anglo-French aristocratic, decayed in the heat;
northern yankee culture is yer basic Anglo-Scottish, German and
Scandinavian middle-class busybody mercantilism with added
over-wheening puritanism - which is only non-English in the sense we
kicked the bastards out before they could cause us the problems they
caused you (except in N Ireland).
The great 'rebirth' of the nation in the late 18th century in which
Americans seem to be compelled to believe in as a second coming of
Christ ('founding fathers' and all) is not really truthful - the
Constitution is an undoubtably great document but it didn't invent a
people, only a nation, mostly like any other (in a way, this is of
course the opinion of the losing side in the war of independence -
although half of Britain supported Washington at the time, and half of
America supported the King - and has possibly been revised over the
years :-))
Anyway, the countries you mentioned - Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Nigeria,
South Asia, South Africa and Zimbabwe - are therefore like America:
ex-colonies of Britain (with one obvious difference between them and
the USA in that they won their independence much later and so the
people the British left behind didn't have a chance to massacre the
natives). Any criticism you have of those countries vis-a-vis
Britain's role in their history therefore also to some extent applies
to America.
Egypt, Palestine and Jordan (not Iraq: that was a French colony. Egypt
was never a 'full' colony either) are three of the four middle-eastern
(near-) countries (the other being Israel) which have had English as a
second language for generations - a distinct advantage today. They are
the most free and the most democratic in the region, in large part
because - as it did in the USA - Britain exported to them its
democratic and legal sytstems and ideas. If you were an Arab and had
the choice you would rather live in Egypt or Jordan than anywhere else
in the region, and the reason you wouldn't choose Palestine/Israel too
as an ideal location is largely because of the mess caused in the
region by, IMO, the neglect of first Britain and France, then the USA.
The British Commonwealth sub-Saharan African nations - Nigeria, Sierra
Leone, Uganda, S Africa, Zimbabawe, Ghana, Zambia, Botswana etc. -
haven't been any better or worse off, I think, than most of the French
Communite states (except Rwanda, which the French completely fucked
up) - but all have been better off than the others. Nigeria's problems
are mostly due to religious differences, usually caused by the
Islamists, plus rapacious oil companies (mostly, not entirely,
American, and completely out of the control of the current US
president). Apartheid in S Africa was not a British invention. It was
begun by the Afrikaaners (Dutch Africans) after they took over, and
was modelled on the practices of the US South. Since a form of
voluntary cultural apartheid still goes on in the US (when have you
ever seen a black American man kiss a white American woman on TV or in
a movie?) you're hardly in a position to criticise anyway, although to
be fair it was due to American pressure that apartheid ended.
Britain's official role at that time was a shameful, unmitigated
disgrace - but that's Margeret Thatcher for you. S Africa is doing
OK-ish now, as are Ghana, Uganda etc. Zimbabwe's a mess - and there,
and in next door Zambia, you may have a point: Britain did fuck up the
independence process (Thatcher again). But all of these nations have
English as a second language too, which ought to be an advantage - and
I don't see the non-BC/FC nations (Zaire, Somalia, Ethiopia etc.)
being noticably better off.
The same goes for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Hong Kong
(richest city in China), Singapore (richest city in SE Asia),
Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, Bahamas, Belize, Canada...
and the other two dozen or so.
Every single one of these countries was humiliated, in the sense that
a foreign power took them over (albeit usually without violence), and
terrible things were done by Britain in many of them - most of all to
Africa in the form of the slave trade - but nevertheless all of these
countries, objectively speaking, have gained something from the
process.
But overall, if you compare the experience of Belize and Britain, say,
with next-door El Salvador and the USA; or of Singapore and Vietnam,
I'd say the BC nations got the non-shitty end of the stick. And
compare (US-aligned) E Samoa and (BC-aligned) W Samoa, or (US-aligned)
Virgin Is and (BC-aligned) Virgin Islands you'll find that actually
there's bugger all difference...
...except, I suppose, Britain knows it was an imperial power once and
America won't admit it is one now. Which is crazy, because - it is.
J&K Copeland
> "J&K Copeland" <jc...@kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<Y_A38.291240$8w3.68...@typhoon.kc.rr.com>...
> > "Heretic" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:1011793657.20954....@news.demon.co.uk...
> > The United States Marines do not wear white uniforms of any type.
>
> Fair enough. This guy was wearing a white uniform with 'faded'
> camouflage, which is an American uniform (maybe not of the Marines, as
> you say, but he was called a marine in the film), he had (relatively)
> long hair for a regular soldier - and he spoke with an American
> accent. And he looked overweight to me, for a soldier.
>
Ahhhh. American marine desert uniforms are a light sandy color with light
brown (dun) random shapes.
You do know that all Marine grunts wear an integrated body armor about one
inch thick. It completely surrounds the torso. It'll make a skinny man
look stocky and a stocky man look positively rotund. Gone are the Kevlar
flak vests of the Vietnam era. YEAH!!!!!!! The new Ballistic Body Armor
are lighter, more flexible and guaranteed to stop an AK47 round.
http://bodyarmour.safeshopper.com/1/cat1.htm?604
As for the "long" hair....how long?
James...
tkdowning
> is the greatest hope we have for civilisation.
>
> I do hate American foreign policy however, and find Republicans to be a
> stupid, boorish, we-rule-by-devine-right bunch of tossers.
>
Bill ("I feel your pain") Clinton: Destroyer of aspirin factories,
bomber of tents, appeasor of terrorists, stainer of dresses, projector
of a weak, soft America who wont fight back, purveyor of nasty cigar
tricks....
Bill Clinton is "The worlds greatest hope we have for
civilization"????
{Recovers from hysterical laughter}
Then again, Bill Clinton does have considerable skill in an area that
might come in handy for you Europeans....
Since you folks seem to be having a bit of trouble reproducing, maybe
we should send old Bubba back over there (hopefully permanently) to
give your European men a few pointers about what to do with the
ladies.
tkdowning
Hell, it wont take America's defeat to bring arab/muslim control over
Europe...
You see, the Euros cannot reproduce enough to sustain their
populations, yet they import millions of Muslims (who outbreed the
cheese-eaters 10-1) to do their "busy work".
In 50 years, when the great multicultural experiment goes sour and
Europe is under Shariah, that faint sound you will hear from across
the Atlantic will be tk_downing70 laughing his fucking ass off. Sorry,
but we Americans will have no desire to bail out the arrogent,
cheese-eating frogs this time.
tkdowning
> what they allow massive multi national companies to get up to around the
> world.
Hey "bloke",
You know, I get a little irritated when high-minded liberal hypocrites
such as yourself criticize the USA for opening a few McDonalds
resturants in Zaire, yet you exhalt the "multi-culturalism" when
peoples from all every corner of the world cram their "cusoms and
cultures" down the thoats of Americans when they emmigrate here.
You convienently ignore the fact that these "evil American multi
national companies" creat jobs and contribute tremendously to the
economies of the countries that they are ******* INVITED INTO
********, and that the only people who have a problem with this are a
tiny, loud mouth minority of miscreants such as yourself, who are
usually spoiled, white, suburban European or American brats trying to
find a "cause" to participate in.
Lets make a deal OK? McDonalds will shut down every foriegn resturant
__IF__ we also shut down every Chinese, Indian, Thai, Korean, German,
Greek, and Vietnamese resturant in the USA Ok? Nah, fuckit, I love
ethnic food too much :) How about you just shut the fuck up with your
protesting and go get a job :)
Yours,
tk_downing70
Kel
knowledge at my fingertips.
Awesome, brother - awesome!
"jackkincaid" <theov...@another.com> wrote in message
news:eb35fbed.02012...@posting.google.com...
jackkincaid
> "jackkincaid" <theov...@another.com> wrote in message
> news:eb35fbed.0201...@posting.google.com...
> > "J&K Copeland" <jc...@kc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<Y_A38.291240$8w3.68...@typhoon.kc.rr.com>...
> > > "Heretic" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1011793657.20954....@news.demon.co.uk...
> ----snip-----
> > > The United States Marines do not wear white uniforms of any type.
> >
> > Fair enough. This guy was wearing a white uniform with 'faded'
> > camouflage, which is an American uniform (maybe not of the Marines, as
> > you say, but he was called a marine in the film), he had (relatively)
> > long hair for a regular soldier - and he spoke with an American
> > accent. And he looked overweight to me, for a soldier.
> >
>
> Ahhhh. American marine desert uniforms are a light sandy color with light
> brown (dun) random shapes.
That'll be it then.
>
> You do know that all Marine grunts wear an integrated body armor about one
> inch thick. It completely surrounds the torso. It'll make a skinny man
> look stocky and a stocky man look positively rotund. Gone are the Kevlar
> flak vests of the Vietnam era. YEAH!!!!!!! The new Ballistic Body Armor
> are lighter, more flexible and guaranteed to stop an AK47 round.
er ... YEAH. I've heard this. Don't they also have a real-time neural
pulse transmitter / uploader to infra-red satelites orbitting the
moon? And don't they all drink a special serum before going into
battle, made from LSD and radioactive spider saliva?
All the same, the guy I saw was a porker - something like John Candy
(ie when he was alive).
.........
...OK, I'm kidding. But he looked a bit ... podgy. Christ, who knows?
Maybe he was wearing one of those cool Mission Impossible masks with a
fleecy inner lining, and had a dead goat strapped rpund his waist,
under his shirt.
>
> As for the "long" hair....how long?
>
Jeez. Who are you, Vidal Sasoon? How long - not that long, but with a
floppy fringe - sort of Hugh Grant-ish. Now you're going to tell me
that isn't a preppy haircut...
ordinary bloke
Problem is as a Brit I love America and the States, sometimes it's your
BEST FRIEND who tells you that you have bad breath.
But you, as is the problem with Bush et al, is that any criticism is seen
as a total condemnation which it isnt. Ever heard of Paranoia?
The American rulers are in such a new circumstance, that they cannot
see friend good advice for what it is.
You displayed a similar paranoid bullying reaction.
I am certain you will again.
For the record -
I despised the Taliban, al-Qeuda, and the horror of September 11th and they
deserved the kicking they got!
BUT -
1 - you dont know my politics at all.
2 - when in another country you should respect their customs you are a guest
3 - the problem with your arguement about creating jobs is that so called
'trickle-down' economics dont work.
African kids on average are born 3,000 dollars in debt. A debt owed to
the World Bank.
When MacDonlads opens up an outlet in Africa its employs labour that
has
generally been impoverished - ie they have already lost their
livelihoods due
to their nations debt. KFC or MacDonalds can then employ people at
repressed
wage levels.
4 - I agree that often Western business's do genuinely believe they are
helping the
local economy - and that may be true up to a point, but its only after
local economies
have been ravaged. (see 5)
5 - Shell employed and financed mercenaries to destroy an African village
where it
wanted to dig for oil. The local villagers were getting along just
fine - farming etc.
They were kicked off their land by the oil companies bully boys and then
re-employed
as labourer's at reduced wages and living conditions.
6 - The UK/Europe went through the industrial revolution and experienced the
poverty of
rampant industrial capitalism on its own soil.
The US multi nationals has its dispossesed wokers in other lands not in
its own.
7 - Swearing at me and calling me names does not alter what the multi
nationals
get up to. It only shows your ears are closed. Do you *honestly*
believe
America can do no wrong? ( I certainly don't believe that about my own
country,
and thats the sign of a mature democracy, rather than a jingoistic one)
8 - My criticisms are of multi nationals and the Western military financial
complex,
NOT of America's founding intentions or of its people - many of whom I
have
travelled with. Most American people in my experience a fantastic open
mided people.
I'm sure you scream at them too!
9 - You have absolutely no idea of my income, social position, wealth or
lack of it.
You presume I am some white spoilt middle class liberal because then
you *think*
you can dismiss what I'm saying. It makes no difference what colour,
religion, income
group, or ethnicity I belong to.
Typically you are trying to de-value me as a person to de-value what I say.
If you are going to disagree with me
please do so on
the grounds of my arguement, not on who you fantasise I might be.
10 - MacDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken have both been thrown out of
India.
Its doing OK without them. Do you really believe a 5-thousand year
old culture
with the vibrancy of India cannot survive without burgers and fried
chicken???
India was frying chicken with herbs and spices 4 thousand 8-hundred
years
before the Boston Tea Party!
11 - Do you really want to shut down all those wonderful food outlets in the
States?
12 - next time please argue your case rather than just isolate one line you
happen to
disagree with - and then go ballistic on it.
13 - I have a job - I am writing this email from my workplace - you tit!
14 - Travel the world and open your mind.
ordinary bloke
tkdowning wrote in message
<77353968.02012...@posting.google.com>...
tkdowning
Exactly, then why can immigrants to the USA stick their home customs
and cultures in our faces, change our language, ect, then scream
bloody murder at us for exporting our culture abroad? Why dont you
just stop beating around the bush and admit that there is a double
standard?
> 3 - the problem with your arguement about creating jobs is that so called
> 'trickle-down' economics dont work.
> African kids on average are born 3,000 dollars in debt. A debt owed to
> the World Bank.
You know why Africa is so poor? Because you Euros invaded it,
butchered it's people and forced your customs upon them, then split
the continent up to suit your needs, it NOT BECAUSE OF GOD-DAMN
MCDONALDS. These "poor opressed" workers at foriegn McDonalds make
more money than their peers who work at simmilar jobs for domestic
companies. It's people like you would like to take their jobs away and
force them into backward poverty while you go about living your
western lifestyle you hypocrite.
Trickle-down economics ultimately means that you get paid by someone
who has more money than you. This has been shown to work better than
socialism, where nobody gets paid anything.
> When MacDonlads opens up an outlet in Africa its employs labour that
> has
> generally been impoverished - ie they have already lost their
> livelihoods due
> to their nations debt. KFC or MacDonalds can then employ people at
> repressed
> wage levels.
> 4 - I agree that often Western business's do genuinely believe they are
> helping the
> local economy - and that may be true up to a point, but its only after
> local economies
> have been ravaged. (see 5)
> 5 - Shell employed and financed mercenaries to destroy an African village
> where it
Show me credible evidence for these two claims.
> 9 - You have absolutely no idea of my income, social position, wealth or
> lack of it.
> You presume I am some white spoilt middle class liberal because then
> you *think*
> you can dismiss what I'm saying. It makes no difference what colour,
> religion, income
> group, or ethnicity I belong to.
> Typically you are trying to de-value me as a person to de-value what I say.
> If you are going to disagree with me
> please do so on
> the grounds of my arguement, not on who you fantasise I might be.
In my experience, most people that go around proclaiming the supposed
"evils" of the USA while ignoring or condoning evils 1000s of times
greater that go on everywhere else in the world are white, liberal,
bored, suburban Americans and Europeans. These "useful idiots" really
have no idea that the aim of their leaders is anti-capitalism and
ultimately world socialism.
> 10 - MacDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken have both been thrown out of
> India.
> Its doing OK without them. Do you really believe a 5-thousand year
> old culture
> with the vibrancy of India cannot survive without burgers and fried
> chicken???
> India was frying chicken with herbs and spices 4 thousand 8-hundred
> years
> before the Boston Tea Party!
Ahh, its the double standard again. We would be labeled as racist,
zenophobic bastards if we closed down Indian resturants in the USA,
yet when they close down our restruants, you cheer and make excuses
for them you hypocrite.
> 11 - Do you really want to shut down all those wonderful food outlets in the
> States?
Hell no :) I told you I love ethnic foods. Im just trying to point out
the double standard
> 14 - Travel the world and open your mind.
I've traveled all over Europe and Asia. Im an "oppressed" worker of an
evil German multi-national company. A victim of German greed and
imperialism :)
Tom Abbott
(jackkincaid) wrote:
Oh, I didn't realize the other poster was talking about
cultural atrocities. I cannot defend the United States
against that since cultural atrocities are everywhere you
look in the United States. Our "entertainment" and
commercial mediums have gone off the deep end, and feel that
they must only broadcast or print something more outrageous
than they last guy. And they do a pretty good job of it.
TA
ordinary bloke
Some fair points there!
I think you've confused 'visitors' with 'immigrants'.
If someone is an immigrant rather than a visitor, then they have acheived
the status of citizen.
Anyway the US is built upon immigration isnt it?
did those immigrants in the 18th century adopt the customs of the indiginous
populations of North America? Na!
(Please read on before you respond to this point!)
And there is a difference between MacDonalds and a local family opening
a Balti House!
OK
I'd like to go back to square one.
My initial post was meant as a positive reply to your original question,
"Why do Europeans hate Americans?"
My post was to support American people and show that Europeans
DONT hate Americans, it was a message designed to say -
Look!
We love Americans - but we are deeply suspiciuous of their government,
and a few reasons why.
It was a post designed to support your original message.
I was amazed that you jumped upon me and decided to attack me
personally, attributing all sorts of charactristics to me that you have no
idea about.
It does seem extremely odd to me that you would just pick up a few
points that you didnt wholly agree with and then go ballistic on them,
and then attack me!
You seem to have made an assumption that because I have critisiced
the US government and military - then I have no criticism of my own
government or nations history - far from it.
EG - You have made major criticisms of European imperialism - I totally
agree - European colonisation of Africa was appalling in so many ways.
But I thought America was about individualism and personal liberty.
How can you equate imperialism that existed before I was born with
me no in the 21st century. Believe me if I could change Europes past
I would but lacking a time machine there is nothing I can do.
Your response *seems* defensive and paranoid
In the same spirit you seem to identify yourself with your gevernment
more than is healthy.
We are NOT our governments, which was initial point all along.
I can totally seperate the individual from the state, you seem to be
having a problem with this - thats a bit communist isnt it?
Surely you can see that people in Europe might know a bit more
about what your government gets up to world wide than you do!
Its not that America 'exports' its culture abroad.
America imposes its culture abroad.
Yes Europe has an imperialist past, the US has an imperialist present.
Just because Europe did it and did it appallingly doesnt justify what
the States gets up to now .
Two wrongs dont make a right as they say.
America grew out of the imperialism of the Western European countries,
it grew on slavery, it grew from people escaping exploitation and repression
in Europe, it grew from repressing the indiginous population.
But this is 2002 and I would no more blame you for slavery and the
destruction of the native population of North America than you should
blame me for the British Empire.
But I would blame the current US regime (not the people) for the
exploitation
and abuse of people in the 3rd world TODAY! NOW! HERE!
Check out Enron in Mozambique, oh no you cant the documents have been
given the Ollie North treatment! Shredder sales are up!
I cannot understand why you take criticism of a multi national company based
in the borders of your country so personally.
I am critisicising America's financial imperialism , not the dreams of the
founding fathers, or the constitution. It seems to me that multi national
companies have ridden roughshod over the inspired founding principles
of America.
Wealth has bought American democracy, AND there is a danger
of it happening here.
As I said I find American people on the whole great people, any group
of people who can come up with The Banana Splits, Converse Originals,
Nirvana, and Sonic Youth are OK by me.
But thats part of the problem, America is defined largely by its fine
products
rather than its fine actions.
The finacial imposition of the American Dream on other poorer
nations is for them an American Nightmare.
Its daft for you to attck allies rather than listen to their criticism, if
you
wont listen to your best mate telling you that theres a bit of spinach
between your teeth, then you aint gonna get the girl.
Europeans are better placed, naturally, to tell you guys how the world
perceives you. We are on your side, we are telling you because we support
and love you.
We are telling you because you dont know. We are telling you because we
dont want America to become isolated, introspective and lost.
We want and need the States to be IN THE WORLD.
Personally theres no question of where I'd rather live, in an Islamic regime
or the States? - I'm on my way across the pond!
But I would rather live in Europe than a US that has lost sight of its
original
dream, Europe has had some serious nightmares, my parents lived through
one of them.
Europe has problems and Europe inflicts suffering upon itself.
I know what its like to take a train into London and wonder whether the
station
will blow up the minute I get off the train.
America is scared, and rightly so - being a target for lunatic terrorists
isnt
funny. WE know that here! Being under terrorist attack is not a new
thing for most Europeans, we have experience we can help.
That's when you need your pals.
Yes the threat came from outside America, but that doesn't mean everyone
outside the US is out to get you. It doesnt mean that advice from imperfect
friends should be treated as another threat.
Stop being paranoid! Not everyone is out to get you, its just the loons.
But I do ask you this one question -
Is it possible, at all, that America is making appalling mistakes worldwide
in the way it allows multi national corporations *ACTING IN ITS NAME*
to ride roughshod over local population?
Is it POSSIBLE?
cheers
long live the American people.
ordinary bloke
ps Is it true that in parts of the US the literacy rate is lower than
Bangladesh?
I only ask this because it would seem to show that the multi nationals dont
give much of a toss about Ameircans either.
tkdowning wrote in message
<77353968.02012...@posting.google.com>...
tkdowning
>
> Some fair points there!
>
Thanks, same to you.
>
> EG - You have made major criticisms of European imperialism - I totally
> agree - European colonisation of Africa was appalling in so many ways.
> But I thought America was about individualism and personal liberty.
> How can you equate imperialism that existed before I was born with
> me no in the 21st century. Believe me if I could change Europes past
> I would but lacking a time machine there is nothing I can do.
> Your response *seems* defensive and paranoid
Of course I dont blame you or any other Euros personally. My point was
that Africa's current problems can be traced to the Imperialsm, not
McDonanlds. And please dont tell me that old Ronald McDonald is an
imperialist. Any country can choose to throw out McDonald as you have
already pointed out.
> In the same spirit you seem to identify yourself with your gevernment
> more than is healthy.
I believe that Government is to be feared and distrusted. That being
said, I happen to agree with the stance that my govt has taken
regarding 9/11/01.
> Its not that America 'exports' its culture abroad.
> America imposes its culture abroad.
> Yes Europe has an imperialist past, the US has an imperialist present.
This is a ridiculous statement.
America's overwhelming millitary foriegn policy goal is maintainig the
status quoe, not conquering any foriegn lands. We have no interest in
conquering the world, OUR INTEREST IS MAKING SURE THAT NO ONE ELSE
CONQUERS THE WORLD.
If what your trying to say that we are guilty of "economic
imerialism", then your dilluting the term "imperialsim" and shame on
you for even comparing the opening of a McDonalds to the hell that
real imperialism caused so many people. I repeat: Any country can kick
out American corporations if they choose.
You seem to keep coming back to this "multi-national" thing. Most
"multi-national" corporations are not American and I maintain that
world-socialists are behind this "movement". please follow this link
to see who sponsers this "anti-mutlinational" or "anti-capitalist"
movement. Are you anti-capitalist? if you are, why not just be honest
and say so? it would better explain your reasoning and motivations and
I'd be better prepared to help you :)
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/krnewyork/20020127/lo/city_on_alert_for_days_of_rage_1.html
A few choice sponsors of "Anti mutlinational corporatism movement":
1) Anti-Capitalist Convergence
2) Anti-Imperialist League American Socialist Foundation Animal
Defense League
3) American Muslims for Peace & Justice
4) California Prison Focus Campaign for Labor Rights Center
5) World (N.Y.C.) International Socialist Organization
J&K Copeland
"tkdowning" <tk_dow...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:77353968.0201...@posting.google.com...
> Hello again, "bloke"
>
-----snip------
> Of course I dont blame you or any other Euros personally. My point was
> that Africa's current problems can be traced to the Imperialsm, not
> McDonanlds. And please dont tell me that old Ronald McDonald is an
> imperialist. Any country can choose to throw out McDonald as you have
> already pointed out.
Oh, for crying out loud.
Most McDonald's are franchise operations. Generally they are owned and
operated by LOCAL people. The McDonald's Corporation makes it money by
selling stuff to the owners. And the McDonald's are NOT the same worldwide.
For instance, I defy anyone to find a single McDonald's in America that
sells wine like (some) French McDonalds do.
From their WEB site....
"McDonald's continues to be recognized as a premier franchising company
around the world. Perhaps the fact that McDonald's management listens so
carefully to its franchisees has something to do with McDonald's being
perennially named as Entrepreneur Magazine's number one franchise.
Our selection of prospective candidates is based on an assessment of overall
business experience and personal qualifications. We look for individuals
with good "common business sense", a demonstrated ability to effectively
lead and develop people, and a history of previous success in business and
life endeavors. A restaurant background is not necessary. We franchise only
to individuals, not to corporations, partnerships, or passive investors."
James....
jackkincaid
> Hi again!
>
[snip]
>
> [...] I find American people on the whole great people, any group
> of people who can come up with The Banana Splits,
Definitely. 'Uh-oh, It's Danger Island next!' Mind you, that little
girl used to get on my tits, even then. Bet you couldn't name them
all...
And Batman was just as good.
> Converse Originals,
Nah. Dunlop Green Flashes, mate.
> Nirvana,
Way overrated. I mean, not bad, but overrated. If you want American
garage bands you need to look to the 60s - the Electric Prunes and the
Strangeloves and all that cool shit.
> and Sonic Youth are OK by me.
Yeah, they're good. And the Cramps. And the NY Dolls. And Suicide...
But then again, when you look at the pisspoor music coming out of the
US since Nirvana and Public Enemy's time you have to wonder. I mean,
Nu-Metal? Ryan Adams? Snoop Doggy Dog? Even Eminem is shite, IMO.
>
[snip]
jackkincaid
> Hello again, "bloke"
>
> Of course I dont blame you or any other Euros personally.
You might blame me...
> My point was
> that Africa's current problems can be traced to the Imperialsm, not
> McDonanlds.
I don't think so. Africa;s problems are due to the fact that Africa is
an incredibly inhospitable, *hard* place in which to live. If it isn't
desert it's mountains, or disease-ridden rainforest or scrubland full
of wild animals and westerners shooting them.
Imperialism is always blamed for the problems of Africa, yet nobody
explains exactly why. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an apologist for
imperialism - it is an objectively bad thing anyway, irrespective of
its actual affect on those who are colonised - but I think the
knee-jerk blaming of all the third world's problems on it is a
cop-out.
> And please dont tell me that old Ronald McDonald is an
> imperialist.
Sorry. Ronald McDonald IS an imperialist.
> Any country can choose to throw out McDonald as you have
> already pointed out.
Oh no they can't. All American aid and trade agreements with poorer
countries come hemmed in with deals about US co. penetration, which
means in effect we all have to put up with this disgusting food on
every street corner (thus freezing out proper restaurants and cafes),
with their horrible, tasteless wrappers and adverts polluting the
place...
And isn't that just the point? Europeans think that Americans are too
quick to blame *them* for the third world's problems - 'yeah, you
blame us for imperialism because it's so easy for you, even though
imperialism gave the third world its international languages,
international political and legal systems, communication and rail
networks, etc. etc. - and despite the fact that the USA was itself
BORN from imperialism - and you do so because it shifts the blame from
where it *really* lies - with you' is roughly the European position
(with or without a proper condemnation of imperialism) - and you can
change it around for the American one.
The point is all the world's trade agreements are - so it is said -
skewed in favour of the US, and out of this we have American
imperialism - cultural, economic and military imperialism, that is,
rather than political.
Of course, I *like* American culture (the best bits) and I doin't
think it is half as harmful as many do, and would be a positively good
thing to Islamic society.
>
>
> > In the same spirit you seem to identify yourself with your gevernment
> > more than is healthy.
>
> I believe that Government is to be feared and distrusted. That being
> said, I happen to agree with the stance that my govt has taken
> regarding 9/11/01.
So do I - until the publicsising of the apparant mistreatment of the
prisoners happened. I do not trust Rumsfeld one iota.
>
> > Its not that America 'exports' its culture abroad.
> > America imposes its culture abroad.
> > Yes Europe has an imperialist past, the US has an imperialist present.
>
> This is a ridiculous statement.
No it isn't.
There isn't a single nation outside the USA who doesn't think America
is imperialist. Onl;y Americans themselves deny it - just as all
people deny what they cannot see, because they are too close to it.
>
> America's overwhelming millitary foriegn policy goal is maintainig the
> status quoe, not conquering any foriegn lands. We have no interest in
> conquering the world, OUR INTEREST IS MAKING SURE THAT NO ONE ELSE
> CONQUERS THE WORLD.
This is what you have been told, yes - and it is what we have been
told too. But we know it ain't so. The USA is primarily interested in
maintaining economic, military (I seriously doubt you know how many
American military bases there are around the world and where they are)
and cultural control around the world; political control (it has
recognised) is far less important . This isn't necessarily an entirely
bad thing - at the moment. But Americans should know that in world
terms the Republican Party is off the right-wing side of the scale. As
long as Republicans are in charge we get nervous.
>
> If what your trying to say that we are guilty of "economic
> imerialism", then your dilluting the term "imperialsim" and shame on
> you for even comparing the opening of a McDonalds to the hell that
> real imperialism caused so many people. I repeat: Any country can kick
> out American corporations if they choose.
No they can't, and what do you mean by the 'hell' of real imperialism?
Are we supposed to accept your scale of things without question? Are
we supposed to nod and agree that, yes, it is far better to be
blackmailed into selling off all your nationalised industries to
American speculatiors (who then put everyone out of work, sell up, and
clear up for the shareholders, causing untold misery) than having a
foreign government helping run your police force and some of your
farms and scools and hospitals, in return for you flying their flag?
The USA puts to the world - to the G8 groups and World Bank and all
the rest - a set of values, in which their (perceived) economic
exploitation of the third world, and their massive military build-up
(with accompanying stories of rape of civilians etc., always hushed
up) around the world, and the exportation of their culture, which is
presented as entirely benign and 'natural' - it is natural for
American businessmen to buy up every industry in a dirt poor African
nation and then sack everyone, of course it is - while the way of
doinbg things of a previous age, of helping run a country in exchange
for colonial status, is presented as irredeemably evil.
We are under no obligation to accept this.
A case in point is the infamous 'Banana war' of the Caribbean a few
years back. The Americans had their way of doing things; the Europeans
had their way of doing things. The European way was old-fashioned,
patronising, neo-colonial , conservative - and absolutely morally
right. The American way was liberal, 'forward looking',
internationalist - and absolutely morally wrong. The Americans got
their way, with concessions, because the Europreans were found to be
breaking international trade laws - therefore the laws are wrong. Who
drew up the laws?
>
>
> You seem to keep coming back to this "multi-national" thing. Most
> "multi-national" corporations are not American and I maintain that
> world-socialists are behind this "movement".
And I contend you don't know what you're talking about, and that the
word 'socialist' has little or no meaning in the USA any more anyway.
> please follow this link
> to see who sponsers this "anti-mutlinational" or "anti-capitalist"
> movement. Are you anti-capitalist? if you are, why not just be honest
> and say so?
I am a capitalist - but not an American-style capitalist. I believe in
free trade modified by government. In American terms I believe in big
government (in European terms I am... normal). American social
democracy has been all but wiped out now, because of the weakness of
the Democrats and the right-wing bias of the US media (no, really) but
that is the European model, and probably the only model acceptable to
tkdowning
> > that Africa's current problems can be traced to the Imperialsm, not
> > McDonanlds.
>
> I don't think so. Africa;s problems are due to the fact that Africa is
> an incredibly inhospitable, *hard* place in which to live. If it isn't
> desert it's mountains, or disease-ridden rainforest or scrubland full
> of wild animals and westerners shooting them.
>
> Imperialism is always blamed for the problems of Africa, yet nobody
> explains exactly why.
Ok, let me explain exactly why: The Euros split Africa up into little
countries that they knew would always be at each other's throats. Its
much easier to "govern" people who are disunified.
>
> > Any country can choose to throw out McDonald as you have
> > already pointed out.
>
> Oh no they can't. All American aid and trade agreements with poorer
> countries come hemmed in with deals about US co. penetration, which
> means in effect we all have to put up with this disgusting food on
> every street corner (thus freezing out proper restaurants and cafes),
> with their horrible, tasteless wrappers and adverts polluting the
> place...
For gods sake! If you dont like Uncle Satan putting up McDonalds in
your fucking country then dont take the fucking aid!!!!
> Of course, I *like* American culture (the best bits) and I doin't
> think it is half as harmful as many do, and would be a positively good
> thing to Islamic society.
Ahh, nothing like the old "Your an imperialst, evil, oppressive,
culture, but I like you anyways" routine to soften up your enemies. Im
not buying it though.
> > > Its not that America 'exports' its culture abroad.
> > > America imposes its culture abroad.
> > > Yes Europe has an imperialist past, the US has an imperialist present.
> >
> > This is a ridiculous statement.
>
> No it isn't.
>
> There isn't a single nation outside the USA who doesn't think America
> is imperialist. Onl;y Americans themselves deny it - just as all
> people deny what they cannot see, because they are too close to it.
Your living in a fantasy world. If you really think that, then you
dont have a clue what "imperialism" means.
> >
> > America's overwhelming millitary foriegn policy goal is maintainig the
> > status quoe, not conquering any foriegn lands. We have no interest in
> > conquering the world, OUR INTEREST IS MAKING SURE THAT NO ONE ELSE
> > CONQUERS THE WORLD.
>
> This is what you have been told, yes - and it is what we have been
> told too. But we know it ain't so. The USA is primarily interested in
> maintaining economic, military (I seriously doubt you know how many
> American military bases there are around the world and where they are)
> and cultural control around the world; political control (it has
We are in countries that we have conquered or have been invited into.
Did you know that there are many thousands of foriegn troops on US
soil also? Shhhhh, we wont mention that because it doesnt fit into
your Anti-American conspiracy theories ok?
> I am a capitalist - but not an American-style capitalist. I believe in
> free trade modified by government.
You are a Communist style capitalist.
> In American terms I believe in big government
I hate and distrust "big government". Big, powerful government is the
most foul, corrupt entity imaginable. It crushes individuals, and gave
us movements like Communism, Nazism, and Talibanism.
> democracy has been all but wiped out now, because of the weakness of
> the Democrats and the right-wing bias of the US media (no, really) but
Im speechless.
Your rhetoric, your demeanor, and your arguments are IDENTICAL to the
these anti-multinational movements. Why did you clip the list of
sponsors I posted? Here is a list of your soul-mates and fellow
travelers again:
tkdowning
>> imperialist.
> Sorry. Ronald McDonald IS an imperialist.
How can the local people who purchase the McDonalds franchises be
imperialsts when they own the resturants, and take all the profits?
Sorry, but you cannot employ your tired old
anti-USA-mutli-national-corporate-whatever bullshit here. I know what
you really want to say anyhow, so I'll say it for you: "Ronald
McDonald is a bourgios capitalist pig who is exploiting the poor
masses.", Does that echo your thoughts, comrade?
ordinary bloke
Ok I wasnt quite accurate enough in my statement about imperiliasm
and can see that my statement is confused.
What I meant was that, multi national companies are imperialist.
WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! read on!..............
I think that one of the major characteristics of imperialism
is economic.
The British had perfected this by the time the East India Company
had its rise.
The British had a lot of experience by the time they annexed India.
They interfered with local customs and cultures as little as they deemed
neccessary
to extract the economic benefits from the indigineous economy.
Imperialism develops, it doesnt remain static.
My mistake was to call America imperialist - this is a fine line - but what
I
meant was that Multi national companies, YES - including MacDonalds are
economically imperialist, they do it on behalf of the US in the same way
local Maharaja's did it for the Brits.
Or rather, America give lisense and legitimises it in the name of 'freedom'.
Or further, America is owned by multi nationals.
America is not trying to conquer the world - I agree. Not in the same way
Islam would.
But America is trying assimilate global economics (Borg Like! ha ha
JOKE!!!!!!) including
local economies.
Most multi nationals arent American? Hmmmmm ain't sure about that.
But regardless as to their origin they find the greatest freedom and the
least control in the US.
Thats my point - Multi nationals have usurped the original fine noble
intentions of the original America!
Too be honest - I dont know whether Im anti capitalist or not, I am
certainly
pro local and pro democracy.
I am not sure that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand as Thatcher
and her gang of hooligans always told us!
The only freedom they were talking about was the freedom to make money
even at someones elses expense.
You see, I am not SURE! Thats an OK place to be!
Too many people reckon they KNOW, the only thing I know is that
I have much to learn.
Opinions shouldnt be ornamnents stuck on a mantlepiece.
I am pretty sure that an individual can't have their freedom at someone
else's expense.
regards
ordinary bloke
tkdowning wrote in message
<77353968.0201...@posting.google.com>...
>Hello again, "bloke"
>
>>
>> Some fair points there!
>>
>
>Thanks, same to you.
>> Its not that America 'exports' its culture abroad.
ordinary bloke
OK ready -
Fleagle, Bingo, Drooper, and Snork.
The little girl was a pain yeah - she wwas supposed to be,
she belonged to a rival gang - the Sour Grapes!
The Wall Guy ape was great though eh?
And what about The Arabiasn Knights cartoon???
"Size of an elephant" (sheeesh, if only!)
Batman - rocks!
Have to agree to differ - Converse Originals no competition.
Nirvana best when loud.
New York Dolls - yeah yeah and thrice yeah!
MC5 too (or where they Brit?)
Cramps - hmmmmmm???
Eminem is a pussy! And an ad-mans pussy at that.
Twat! M & M's more like.
cheers
ordinary bloke
jackkincaid wrote in message ...
Marc Living
wrote:
>> Imperialism is always blamed for the problems of Africa, yet nobody
>> explains exactly why.
>Ok, let me explain exactly why: The Euros split Africa up into little
>countries that they knew would always be at each other's throats. Its
>much easier to "govern" people who are disunified.
And who has prevented them from getting together and redrawing (or
abolishing) those boundaries over the past 40-50 years?
--
Marc Living (remove "bounceback" to reply)
"The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make
Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overturn or
diminish trial by jury ..." Lord Devlin (http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk)
ordinary bloke
c.gray wrote in message <3c52b568...@news.bellatlantic.net>...
>>than any other country, has been first to come to the aid of the USA -
>>yet the target of all this Islamist and third world hatred, at least
>>so far, isn't Britain, it's America. Don't you ever wonder why?
>>
>>the main reason. But the answer also lies not in how the US does what
>>it does; the apparant contempt and ignorance of other countries and
>>international policies.
>
>Conmplaints about the 'lack of foresight' in the USA's foreign policy
>have a certain irony when coming from the citizen of the nation that
>colonized Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Nigeria, South Asia, South Africa
>and Zimbabwe, and left them in such a fine state.
THAT WAS THEN THIS IS NOW!
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO AVOID THE SCREW UP THE UK MADE?
The UK made mistakes which were stupid, its even more stupid of America
to make the same ones again.
THATS ironic!
cheers
ordinary bloke
>----------------------------------------------------
>Contact me at midasear atthingy aol dot com.
>I munge my reply address because I am a raving paranoid.
Mike Coburn
>
> c.gray wrote in message <3c52b568...@news.bellatlantic.net>...
> >On 22 Jan 2002 08:40:22 -0800, theov...@another.com (jackkincaid)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Britain, more
> >>than any other country, has been first to come to the aid of the USA -
> >>yet the target of all this Islamist and third world hatred, at least
> >>so far, isn't Britain, it's America. Don't you ever wonder why?
> >>
> >>Obviously America's vast wealth and perceived cultural influence is
> >>the main reason. But the answer also lies not in how the US does what
> >>it does; the apparant contempt and ignorance of other countries and
> >>cultures it often displays, and the sheer lack of foresight in its
> >>international policies.
> >
> >Conmplaints about the 'lack of foresight' in the USA's foreign policy
> >have a certain irony when coming from the citizen of the nation that
> >colonized Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Nigeria, South Asia, South Africa
> >and Zimbabwe, and left them in such a fine state.
>
> THAT WAS THEN THIS IS NOW!
> WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO AVOID THE SCREW UP THE UK MADE?
>
> The UK made mistakes which were stupid, its even more stupid of America
> to make the same ones again.
> THATS ironic!
>
No. Not ironic. Maybe you've simply misspelled "idiotic", or
"moronic". I had been led to believe that the US played a major role
in the creation of the UN. Seems to me that the UN should have
done the Iraq thing both past and possible future. And if invasion
did/does not happen then it probably should not happen.
--
Mike Coburn
"It's the tax system, stupid. No, it's the ludicrous
banking system. Well, actually, its both." -- Mike Coburn
"Rentier: A person who has a fixed income from land,
bonds, etc." -- Webster's dictionary.
Crackpot Returns
> No. Not ironic. Maybe you've simply misspelled "idiotic", or
> "moronic". I had been led to believe that the US played a major role
> in the creation of the UN. Seems to me that the UN should have
> done the Iraq thing both past and possible future. And if invasion
> did/does not happen then it probably should not happen.
>
US business practice).
What an economy
Mike Coburn
I am amazed at the rest of the world tolerating such crap. I wonder
what it is that W and the Republicans have promised Blair and his
guys for going along with such abomination. I just can't imagine
why the rest of the world does not _insist_ that the US must act
through international bodies to make war on other sovereignties.
The Afghanistan thing was an exception, the current plan isn't.
It may be that the rest of the world is simply intimidated. But I
have a news flash for the rest of the world: We, the American
citizens, need your help. Your nations are representative
democracies and, unlike us, you have some control over your governments.
Please use your influence to help us out. Tell your governments to slap
ours across the face a few times. The mass media in the USA, you see, is
owned by the very same people who own all the politicians, and
who control the elections to an extent that the people have no
voice in the government. The people of other nations must be our
voice. Protest your government's support for W the dictator.
And we, in the USA, must focus on the only issue that really
matters: The reclaiming of government of, by, and for the
people of the nation:
http://representation.bravepages.com/extend.html
jackkincaid
> Crackpot Returns wrote:
> >
> I am amazed at the rest of the world tolerating such crap.
If by 'crap' you mean Bush & co's often dumbass behaviour what would
you have the rest of the world do?
The USA spends 40% of t5he world's total spending on defence - not
only is it capable of frying the world several times over with nuclear
weapons it will shortly be able to bombard the rest of the world out
of civilisation with conventional weapons too. The rest of the
democratic world chooses to spend its tax revenues on other things
(health, social security, education - not that it always makes much
noticable difference); they are just not equipped for ultimatums to
America! The only real weapon the world has - should it need one - is
trade and protectionism.
> I wonder
> what it is that W and the Republicans have promised Blair and his
> guys for going along with such abomination.
If you mean the conflict in Afghanistan, it wasn't an abomination.
> I just can't imagine
> why the rest of the world does not _insist_ that the US must act
> through international bodies to make war on other sovereignties.
In this case it didn't need to. The USA was attacked by an
organisation residing in Afghanistan and protected by an unrecognised
and illegal government in that country. There was no iinternational
body the USA could have turned to and it was perfectly within its
rights to do what it did.
If any blame should be attched to anyone it should be to those
countries which explicitly aided the USA, in particular the UK , but
also Russia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, India and Australia (and Pakistan)
outside of any formal international arrangement (NATO, for example,
was not involved). They were not attacked, after all, and had no such
right to strike back (although their nationals were killed). This
should have struck the American people more forcefully - their allies
are willing to take risks for them which (let's face it) the Americans
would be a great deal more reluctant to make in return (right now
British troops - not American, but British - are keeping the peace in
Afghanistan aftyer the bombings. They are the no1 targets for any
anti-American reprisals by the Talibannies - yet in the NY Times
recently they were described as 'America's busboys'.)
It has only been after the Taliban were toppled that America has
exhibited its recent habitual arrogance: first in breaking
international law over the Guantanamo Bay prisoners (it may be that
the US had no choice - though I doubt it - but they handled it all
incredibly badly); second in all this loose talk of an 'axis of evil',
as if there is any connection at all between N Korea, Iraq and Iran
(Iraq and Iran are virtually at war with each other, for God's sake).
Bush and co's ignorance and lack of interest in the world outside
America is astonishing.
> The Afghanistan thing was an exception, the current plan isn't.
Is there a plan or is it all windy verbiage?
> It may be that the rest of the world is simply intimidated.
Woulkdn't you be? The problem is, just how much can we trust Bush,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Cheney and the lunatic Ashcroft? They
don't *seem* like trustworthy people. We know we can trust Colin
Powell implicitly; we always knew we could trust Clinton, and even
Bush's father, but this new lot - no, they are something else
entirely. They give every impression of disliking the rest of the
world and everything in it.
> But I
> have a news flash for the rest of the world: We, the American
> citizens, need your help. Your nations are representative
> democracies and, unlike us, you have some control over your governments.
> Please use your influence to help us out. Tell your governments to slap
> ours across the face a few times. The mass media in the USA, you see, is
> owned by the very same people who own all the politicians, and
> who control the elections to an extent that the people have no
> voice in the government. The people of other nations must be our
> voice. Protest your government's support for W the dictator.
I think you're exaggerating, both your impotence (Bush, after all,
wasn't elected) and our influence. The foreign affairs spokesman of
the EU, Chris Patten - a British Conservative politician of
long-standing with strong ties with the USA - recently condemned
Bush's 'Axis' speech and implicitly criticised the US administartion's
apparant policy of wholesale retreat from the world and into a state
of heavily armed and deeply paranoid insularity. Did it get reported
in the US media? Of course not.
Does any non-American news get reported in teh US media if America (or
the British royal family) aren't involved? Not really, no.
This is a job for the Democrats. If they weren't so supine and
intellectually cowardly they would have done something years ago.
Everywhere else in the world the 80s conservative boom ran its course
as the late 80s/early 90s recession they caused bit hard. Only in
America were they allowed back in, even stronger, even more extreme,
led by Newt Gingrich, the CCC and the whole edifice of corrupt,
environment destroying, morally decrepit sleazy business and legal
interests behind them. They have taken over the media, they have
driven America's political centre of balance so far Right it's off the
international scale - while always claiming the opposite (an old, old
trick) - and ushered in a new form of McCartthysim, in which 'liberal'
and 'foreign' have replaced 'communist' and 'unAmerican' (the USA is
built on liberal principles and once-foreign labour).
The Democrats *must* construct some kind of alternative programme
instead of blindly following the hard Right. The fact that they could
allow a personally sleazy individual like Clinton to become their only
credible candidate since their intellectual defeat 34 years ago (while
allowing the person who should have become a Democrat president in
thge early 90s, Colin Powell, to align himself with then likes of
Jesse Helms) shows what an almighty mess they have got themselves in
(and yes it's possible we may one day be saying something similar
about Tony Blair).
jackkincaid
> Crackpot Returns wrote:
> >
> I am amazed at the rest of the world tolerating such crap.
If by 'crap' you mean Bush & co's often dumbass behaviour what would
you have the rest of the world do?
The USA spends 40% of t5he world's total spending on defence - not
only is it capable of frying the world several times over with nuclear
weapons it will shortly be able to bombard the rest of the world out
of civilisation with conventional weapons too. The rest of the
democratic world chooses to spend its tax revenues on other things
(health, social security, education - not that it always makes much
noticable difference); they are just not equipped for ultimatums to
America! The only real weapon the world has - should it need one - is
trade and protectionism.
> I wonder
> what it is that W and the Republicans have promised Blair and his
> guys for going along with such abomination.
If you mean the conflict in Afghanistan, it wasn't an abomination.
> I just can't imagine
> why the rest of the world does not _insist_ that the US must act
> through international bodies to make war on other sovereignties.
In this case it didn't need to. The USA was attacked by an
> The Afghanistan thing was an exception, the current plan isn't.
Is there a plan or is it all windy verbiage?
> It may be that the rest of the world is simply intimidated.
Woulkdn't you be? The problem is, just how much can we trust Bush,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Cheney and the lunatic Ashcroft? They
don't *seem* like trustworthy people. We know we can trust Colin
Powell implicitly; we always knew we could trust Clinton, and even
Bush's father, but this new lot - no, they are something else
entirely. They give every impression of disliking the rest of the
world and everything in it.
> But I
> have a news flash for the rest of the world: We, the American
> citizens, need your help. Your nations are representative
> democracies and, unlike us, you have some control over your governments.
> Please use your influence to help us out. Tell your governments to slap
> ours across the face a few times. The mass media in the USA, you see, is
> owned by the very same people who own all the politicians, and
> who control the elections to an extent that the people have no
> voice in the government. The people of other nations must be our
> voice. Protest your government's support for W the dictator.
I think you're exaggerating, both your impotence (Bush, after all,
Mike Coburn
>
> Mike Coburn <mik...@gte.net> wrote in message news:<3C6787F0...@gte.net>...
> > Crackpot Returns wrote:
> > >
>
> > I am amazed at the rest of the world tolerating such crap.
>
> If by 'crap' you mean Bush & co's often dumbass behaviour what would
> you have the rest of the world do?
>
> The USA spends 40% of t5he world's total spending on defence - not
> only is it capable of frying the world several times over with nuclear
> weapons it will shortly be able to bombard the rest of the world out
> of civilisation with conventional weapons too. The rest of the
> democratic world chooses to spend its tax revenues on other things
> (health, social security, education - not that it always makes much
> noticable difference); they are just not equipped for ultimatums to
> America! The only real weapon the world has - should it need one - is
> trade and protectionism.
>
> > I wonder
> > what it is that W and the Republicans have promised Blair and his
> > guys for going along with such abomination.
>
> If you mean the conflict in Afghanistan, it wasn't an abomination.
NO. I'm not referring to Afghanistan. I'm referring to the
middle east in general and now, N. Korea.
> > I just can't imagine
> > why the rest of the world does not _insist_ that the US must act
> > through international bodies to make war on other sovereignties.
>
> In this case it didn't need to. The USA was attacked by an
> organisation residing in Afghanistan and protected by an unrecognised
> and illegal government in that country. There was no iinternational
> body the USA could have turned to and it was perfectly within its
> rights to do what it did.
No argument.
> If any blame should be attched to anyone it should be to those
> countries which explicitly aided the USA, in particular the UK , but
> also Russia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, India and Australia (and Pakistan)
> outside of any formal international arrangement (NATO, for example,
> was not involved). They were not attacked, after all, and had no such
> right to strike back (although their nationals were killed). This
> should have struck the American people more forcefully - their allies
> are willing to take risks for them which (let's face it) the Americans
> would be a great deal more reluctant to make in return (right now
> British troops - not American, but British - are keeping the peace in
> Afghanistan aftyer the bombings. They are the no1 targets for any
> anti-American reprisals by the Talibannies - yet in the NY Times
> recently they were described as 'America's busboys'.)
>
> It has only been after the Taliban were toppled that America has
> exhibited its recent habitual arrogance: first in breaking
> international law over the Guantanamo Bay prisoners (it may be that
> the US had no choice - though I doubt it - but they handled it all
> incredibly badly); second in all this loose talk of an 'axis of evil',
> as if there is any connection at all between N Korea, Iraq and Iran
> (Iraq and Iran are virtually at war with each other, for God's sake).
> Bush and co's ignorance and lack of interest in the world outside
> America is astonishing.
We are now focusing on the point instead of playing the spin game.
> > The Afghanistan thing was an exception, the current plan isn't.
>
> Is there a plan or is it all windy verbiage?
W will do whatever is necessary to distract from his continuing
efforts to turn the USA into one big cotton plantation owned
by him and his Republican pals. And this fascism stuff might
get him and his rich friends even more cotton fields.
> > It may be that the rest of the world is simply intimidated.
>
> Woulkdn't you be? The problem is, just how much can we trust Bush,
> Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Cheney and the lunatic Ashcroft? They
> don't *seem* like trustworthy people. We know we can trust Colin
> Powell implicitly; we always knew we could trust Clinton, and even
> Bush's father, but this new lot - no, they are something else
> entirely. They give every impression of disliking the rest of the
> world and everything in it.
They only like the people that kiss their ass, or the people that
can be forced to kiss their ass. They will do whatever it takes
to ensconce themselves as the nobility in the USA and in whatever
other nations that can be controlled by the USA.
The Democrats believe that they can "share power" with the Republicans
and retain their lofty positions. And it seems to be working. The
TwoParty had to arrange for one individual to change parties in the
Senate so as to preserve the illusion of any choice. The TwoParty
is somewhat like the Communist party but with window dressing. We
Americans need to hear the BBC and other news services loud and
clear. And the real people of the world need to help. It's sorta
like Radio Free Europe was.
> >
> > And we, in the USA, must focus on the only issue that really
> > matters: The reclaiming of government of, by, and for the
> > people of the nation:
> >
> > http://representation.bravepages.com/extend.html
--
Mike
> >have a certain irony when coming from the citizen of the nation that
> >colonized Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Nigeria, South Asia, South Africa
> >and Zimbabwe, and left them in such a fine state.
Ok, methinks time for me to step in here.
Egypt - remember the Suez Crisis? You know, the one in which Egypt
rose up behind it's corrupt leader and seized the legally-British and
French canal? Who went in there to stop them? Britain. Who cut the rug
out from Britain's feet and demanded they withdraw? America. If it's
in a mess now, it's not because of us. We tried to take the country
back, re-install a proper government - you stopped us. Until the good
'ole US of A got involved British forces were cutting through them
like a hot knife through butter.
Palestine - Again, the creation of the Jewish state was a United
Nations idea. Now where is the UN building again? Oh yeah....
Iraq - Hey, we didn't put Saddam Hussian in there to rival the Shah of
Iran. Who was that again?
South Asia - By which you mean, what - Hong Kong and Australia? Or do
you mean India, which by all accounts is a large, prosperous nation.
If you want to bring up the whole Pakistan-Hindu-Sikh thing, then
remember that under the Empire none of this crap existed. It's only
after we left - after pressure from a certain country, can't remember
the name at the minute.... - that it all went to pot.
South Africa - Oh, you mean the nation which had democracy for all by
the mid-19th century, under British rule? The one which was taken over
by the Boers after the British left, and consequently led to
Apartheid?
Zimbabwe - Not our mess, mate. We didn't put Mugabe in...
You can't have it both ways - under the British empire, all these
countries worked. It was republicans and self-determinationists from
across the Atlantic that forced us to abandon our empire, with the
results that you can see now. In fact, several of the more notable
cock-ups were the fault of America in these instances. So what exactly
did we do? If we'd kept the empire like we wanted to, none of this
mess would have happened. Americans talk about how because they are
the most powerful nation and people are jealous of them - why do we
draw the flak just because a vast number of people on earth owe their
roots to us? As I said, ain't our fault.
Serge V. Zykov
> The Democrats believe that they can "share power" with the Republicans
> and retain their lofty positions. And it seems to be working. The
> TwoParty had to arrange for one individual to change parties in the
> Senate so as to preserve the illusion of any choice. The TwoParty
> is somewhat like the Communist party but with window dressing. We
> Americans need to hear the BBC and other news services loud and
> clear. And the real people of the world need to help. It's sorta
> like Radio Free Europe was.
>
Mike, this is realy good point. It seems, US people live in information
vacoom last time.
"There is one correct point of view and it is Bush's".
"Americans, we could attack every bad guy in the world. Now I am, Mr. Bush,
deciding
who will next bad guy this morning... Just a moment.... Heh, let he be
Saddam Hussein. He is
looser becouse... he is terrorist #2 (3, 4, etc)... and his oil is
really-really cheap. If Great America
pays for rockets and bombs, my lovely Texas oil company, you know (Bush in a
whisper: sorry
people, its my family business... heh, I love my family, do you love your
family as much as me?)
will give oil from Iraq free of charge"
I remember was the time without Internet and others alternarnative and
independent
medias. It was difficult to find real reflection of things in the media. But
now Internet helps us to give
information from different sources and make own decision.
Just do it. (c) Reebok :-)
Sincerely yours,
Serge
hi
> > countries which explicitly aided the USA, in particular the UK , but
> > also Russia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, India and Australia (and Pakistan)
> > outside of any formal international arrangement (NATO, for example,
> > was not involved). They were not attacked, after all, and had no such
> > right to strike back (although their nationals were killed). This
> > should have struck the American people more forcefully - their allies
> > are willing to take risks for them which (let's face it) the Americans
> > would be a great deal more reluctant to make in return (right now
Actually, that's wrong. Australia enacted a formal agreement. The ANZUS
Treaty, comprised of Australia, NewZealand and the US, which has the same
basis as NATO. The treaty is basically "If one ANZUS member is attacked or
has war declared on it, then all three ANZUS members will consider
themselves as having been attacked or having had war declared on them."
Australia simply activated this treaty (for the first time in the Treaty's
history) Well, actually, the Al Quaeda were the ones responsible for
activating the agreement.
So we had every right to "attack", but, yes, also because our small number
of nationals (and huge apologies that we didn't lose as many as the US)
should know that in this act of war, our Government didn't stand by and
simply, "Oh well, not our problem".
Also, because of the ANZUS Treaty, the US would also be obliged to step in
to return, if Australia were ever attacked. Yeah, yeah, it's never going to
happen, but it's still comforting to know at someone is there if we ever
need them.
jackkincaid
> > >Conmplaints about the 'lack of foresight' in the USA's foreign policy
> > >have a certain irony when coming from the citizen of the nation that
> > >colonized Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Nigeria, South Asia, South Africa
> > >and Zimbabwe, and left them in such a fine state.
>
> Ok, methinks time for me to step in here.
>
> Egypt - remember the Suez Crisis? You know, the one in which Egypt
> rose up behind it's corrupt leader and seized the legally-British and
> French canal? Who went in there to stop them? Britain. Who cut the rug
> out from Britain's feet and demanded they withdraw? America.
But there was also widespread anger in Britain at the actions of the
British/French/Israeli governments attacking Egypt in the first place
(it's debatable whether it was that or the US actions that brought
down Eden). Is it really the business of the British government to
protect the interests of British companies holding on to foreign
property left over from imperial times?
> If it's
> in a mess now, it's not because of us. We tried to take the country
> back, re-install a proper government - you stopped us.
er... 'we' did not try to 'take the country back'. We tried to keep
the Suez Canal in the hands of the British and French, and trhe
Israelis tried to take the Sinai peninsuela (because Jewish emigres
lived there - they succeeded and then gave it back in return for
Egyptian recognition of Israel, whichg has been to the benefit of
Egypt ever since. Egypt was the big winner in all of this).
'We' had no business telling the Egyptians what to do with their
property. On the other hand Nasser should have negotiated.
> Until the good
> 'ole US of A got involved British forces were cutting through them
> like a hot knife through butter.
That illustrates the problem in all, this neo-imperialism. Somehow,
some people have ended up thinking that might is right, that just
because the US today, or the UK until WW2, have the raw power to get a
thing done, it should be done. The world is much more complex than
that allows.
Bush's problem now, IMO, is not so much what he wants to see happen -
we all want Korea united and democratic; we all want to see the back
of Saddam and a democratic Iraq; we all want the politicians to defeat
the mullahs in Iran - it is that he is going about it in such a
boneheaded way. His 'Axis of evil' speech has now shifted the balance
of power massively toward the mullahs in Iran, who were on the losing
end previously, for example. The same kind of thing will doubtless
happen in N Korea and Iraq. It's as if Bush can't differentiate
between a domestic and foreign audience; as if he thinks that everyone
in the world is secretly an American citizen, just pretending to be
'foreign'. He needs to get out a lot more, or hire some new advisers.
>
> Palestine - Again, the creation of the Jewish state was a United
> Nations idea. Now where is the UN building again? Oh yeah....
The creation of a Jewish state was a British idea first, ratified
later by the UN (which didn't exist when the Balfour declaration was
made). palestine was a key part of the British Empire for, I forget -
a couple of hundred years at least.
>
> Iraq - Hey, we didn't put Saddam Hussian in there to rival the Shah of
> Iran. Who was that again?
It was Saddam himself. 'We' (the British) and the French (Iraq was
originally in the French 'sphere of influence', along with Syria and
the Lebanon) installed the Hashemite dynasty (the present King
Hussein's grandfather or great-grandfather, I forget). I forget who
deposed them, but when they did they became the royal family of Jordan
(which is a non-country invented by the British as Transjordan). Later
still Saddam's band of regional despots (the rulers of Iraw all come
from a particular region of Iraq) took over with help from the Soviets
(like Assad in Syria and Nasser, Sadat and Murbarak in Egypt, Saddam
is - nominally - a Ba'athist. That is, he is an Arab National
ist/Socialist - in western terms, an Arab fascist, something like
Mussolini but with more socialist rhetoric, at least early on). Years
later, after the Iranian revolution (Iran was always in the US 'sphere
of influence'), the USA backed Saddam in his war against Iran (Iran
has claims on the Shia Muslims living in the east of Iraq, even though
they are Arabs not Persians. Saddam has always mistreated them. These
are the 'Marsh Arabs' that Bush Sr left to their fate after the
post-Desert Storm uprising) and has had cause to regret it ever since.
America's policy toward Iran - one of the few countries in the region
which it has always believed to be within its purview (Saudi and
Israel being others) - has always been idiotic.
>
> South Asia - By which you mean, what - Hong Kong and Australia? Or do
> you mean India, which by all accounts is a large, prosperous nation.
> If you want to bring up the whole Pakistan-Hindu-Sikh thing, then
> remember that under the Empire none of this crap existed.
Yes it did. The strand of Islam to which the Taliban belong(ed) began
in imperial India, as a direct challenge to that rule. In fact, all
known strands of fundamentalist Islamism began under imperial rule.
That doesn't definitively mean they are connected but it points that
way.
Imperialism brought good things and bad things to all the countries it
affected, including the dominant one(s).
> It's only
> after we left - after pressure from a certain country, can't remember
> the name at the minute.... - that it all went to pot.
Not true either, but too long to bother going into.
America's fault is not being wrong - not, that is, to insist on an end
to gunboat imperialism (that is perfectly justifiable) - but of being
hypocritical. Guantanamo Bay is an imperial property, equivalent to
all the British imperial or once-imperial properties scattered around
the world currently being let to America for use by their military (30
in all), and political, economic and cultural imperialism of the kind
the US employs is just as arrogant - or potentially as arrogant (Bush
isn't making clear exactly what he wants).
>
> South Africa - Oh, you mean the nation which had democracy for all by
> the mid-19th century, under British rule?
Hardly.
> The one which was taken over
> by the Boers after the British left, and consequently led to
> Apartheid?
That's true.
> Zimbabwe - Not our mess, mate. We didn't put Mugabe in...
er... yes 'we' did. Lancaster House, 1981 remember?
>
> You can't have it both ways - under the British empire, all these
> countries worked.
... but weren't free or democratic and with ever-rising expectations
and anger. And every one of them had to be controlled with violence
(massacre in Srinigar anyone? Indian mutiny? Jamaican revolt?).
> It was republicans and self-determinationists from
> across the Atlantic that forced us to abandon our empire,
No, it was the indigenous people - the Ghandis, Kenyattas, Nassers,
Nehrus, Jinnahs ... Mandelas, Mugabes who wanted 'us' out. The USA
backed them, is all.
> with the
> results that you can see now.
Yeah, freedom - including the freedom to make their own mistakes (like
we did).
> In fact, several of the more notable
> cock-ups were the fault of America in these instances.
Iran. What else? America has faults but idealism isn't one of them.
> So what exactly
> did we do? If we'd kept the empire like we wanted to,
Only a decreasing band of Churchillian Tories wanted to keep the
empire. The Labour Party was elected in a landslide in 1945 with the
express policy of getting rid of it all. All those soldiers in Burma,
Malaysia, India, Africa - even Ireland - and elsewhere, voting for the
first time, looking forward to getting home at war's end, did *not*
want to be re-posted straight back out again just to maintain
Churchill's fantasy empire.
The erea was over. It was gone. The French were about to give up
(Algeria was the hot topic); the Dutch and Spanish and Portugese had
already given up. Only the Russians still had an empire - and they
were a communist dictatorship. And we had just seen an example of the
two would-be biggest imperial powers in history, Japan and Germany
(the 1000-year Reich, rememebr?), bring the world to war, and collapse
into hubris and Mozart playing outside concentration camps. It was
over, and never again. America was right - it was hypocritical, and it
might possibly have handled Suez better (and of course hadn't learned
its own lesson in time for Vietnam) - but essentially, it was right.
> none of this
> mess would have happened.
Yes it would. In fact, it would have been worse - and Britain would
have looked ridiculous bankrupting itself holding onto nations with no
need or love for it (without US help we would have gone bust anyway)
who would have descended into perpetual civil war to get rid of us. As
it turned out we maintained a pretty good relationship with all of
them except the Afrikaans and the N Irish (and fuck 'em both - just
look how happy the Sierra Leonese were to have our army back), and we
established both the English language and political/legal principles
around two-thirds of the world. Just because ridiculous little creeps
like Mugabe try and dismantle it all doesn't mean those principles are
wrong or finished - but if we'd stayed they might not have survived at
all.
> Americans talk about how because they are
> the most powerful nation and people are jealous of them
Speak for yourself.
> - why do we
> draw the flak just because a vast number of people on earth owe their
> roots to us? As I said, ain't our fault.
No, it's not our fault - but something worse could have been.
Mike
you raised, but assumed I was dealing with an idiot American who
wouldn't pull me up on them.
> Yes it did. The strand of Islam to which the Taliban belong(ed) began
> in imperial India, as a direct challenge to that rule. In fact, all
> known strands of fundamentalist Islamism began under imperial rule.
> That doesn't definitively mean they are connected but it points that
> way.
Wheras the sects of Thugee and the ritual burning of widows continued?
Put a stop to them.... and then brought in a bunch of missionaries who
ruined it.
> Imperialism brought good things and bad things to all the countries it
> affected, including the dominant one(s).
Damn straight. Valid point.
> > It's only
> > after we left - after pressure from a certain country, can't remember
> > the name at the minute.... - that it all went to pot.
>
> Not true either, but too long to bother going into.
I know. I know the background, it's simplistic to blame America for
the pull-out from the empire, but it still makes me annoyed when they
talk about how small and insignificent we are when it was (at least
their influence) that got us there, nothing we did wrong.
> America's fault is not being wrong - not, that is, to insist on an end
> to gunboat imperialism (that is perfectly justifiable) - but of being
> hypocritical. Guantanamo Bay is an imperial property, equivalent to
> all the British imperial or once-imperial properties scattered around
> the world currently being let to America for use by their military (30
> in all), and political, economic and cultural imperialism of the kind
> the US employs is just as arrogant - or potentially as arrogant (Bush
> isn't making clear exactly what he wants).
We rarely used gunboat diplomacy, only to enforce fairly ratified
treaties. In fact, on several occasions we enforced the rights of
merchants who were outnumbered by the host nation and therefore made
deals and were ripped off. Example - the Opium Wars in China. The deal
was made, fair and square, the emporor overrulled it and so we sent a
small army into fight tooth and nail, losing a lot of people (many to
torture) to enforce a trade agreement. It's not like we sent a
flotilla to a small island to bully five old men... that's gunboat
diplomacy. We didn't do that.
> > South Africa - Oh, you mean the nation which had democracy for all by
> > the mid-19th century, under British rule?
>
> Hardly.
Look it up. Governer , 18 granted votes for everyone (of whatever
colour) who was born on the Cape and set the required wealth standards
to the level that a great many indigenous people could register. Long
before our own universal suffrage, but a useful indicator that we
weren't all bad, and one frequently ignored. Mandela get's the credit
for that one, even though we did it first.
> > You can't have it both ways - under the British empire, all these
> > countries worked.
>
> ... but weren't free or democratic and with ever-rising expectations
> and anger. And every one of them had to be controlled with violence
> (massacre in Srinigar anyone? Indian mutiny? Jamaican revolt?).
That's not true at all. The Indian Mutiny spread because of anger
against Christianity, not British rule. The Sepoys who first rebelled
at Meerut were loyal to a man - they didn't take the cartridges
because they thought they were greased and the British were trying to
make them break their castes. The mutiny eventually spread and the
call of a liberated India (calls instigated by the Russians) and many
sepoys also stayed loyal. India at the time was a content part of the
empire, but religious idiots and a breed of officer which treated them
like shit angered the sepoys. The mutiny was precisely that - a
mutiny. Not about independence at all.
> > It was republicans and self-determinationists from
> > across the Atlantic that forced us to abandon our empire,
>
> No, it was the indigenous people - the Ghandis, Kenyattas, Nassers,
> Nehrus, Jinnahs ... Mandelas, Mugabes who wanted 'us' out. The USA
> backed them, is all.
That, I grant you.
> > with the
> > results that you can see now.
>
> Yeah, freedom - including the freedom to make their own mistakes (like
> we did).
They really did have a significent freedom under British rule. If you
are referring to the vote, most of the British public didn't have that
either. They were free to go about their daily business, do whatever
they wanted, just under a British flag.
> > In fact, several of the more notable
> > cock-ups were the fault of America in these instances.
>
> Iran. What else? America has faults but idealism isn't one of them.
Idealism certainly is.
> Only a decreasing band of Churchillian Tories wanted to keep the
> empire. The Labour Party was elected in a landslide in 1945 with the
> express policy of getting rid of it all. All those soldiers in Burma,
> Malaysia, India, Africa - even Ireland - and elsewhere, voting for the
> first time, looking forward to getting home at war's end, did *not*
> want to be re-posted straight back out again just to maintain
> Churchill's fantasy empire.
Ok, it was nice while it lasted. If the Commonwealth was worth
anything, I wouldn't worry.
> The erea was over. It was gone. The French were about to give up
> (Algeria was the hot topic); the Dutch and Spanish and Portugese had
> already given up. Only the Russians still had an empire - and they
> were a communist dictatorship. And we had just seen an example of the
> two would-be biggest imperial powers in history, Japan and Germany
> (the 1000-year Reich, rememebr?), bring the world to war, and collapse
> into hubris and Mozart playing outside concentration camps. It was
> over, and never again. America was right - it was hypocritical, and it
> might possibly have handled Suez better (and of course hadn't learned
> its own lesson in time for Vietnam) - but essentially, it was right.
Oh yeah, and on Suez I have to disagree with you on that. We build the
Canal and still owned it, fair and square. Just because we gave the
country back didn't mean that everything we owned was just over to
them - that's Mugabe's philosophy now, and we know how wrong that is.
> > none of this
> > mess would have happened.
>
> Yes it would. In fact, it would have been worse - and Britain would
> have looked ridiculous bankrupting itself holding onto nations with no
> need or love for it (without US help we would have gone bust anyway)
> who would have descended into perpetual civil war to get rid of us. As
> it turned out we maintained a pretty good relationship with all of
> them except the Afrikaans and the N Irish (and fuck 'em both - just
> look how happy the Sierra Leonese were to have our army back),
Which is pretty much what I've been saying. However impractical and
empire is these days and however morally reprihensible we are meant to
regard it as, these countries were at least stable. I would be just as
happy with the Commonwealth, if it meant more than just an empty
shell.
> and we
> established both the English language and political/legal principles
> around two-thirds of the world. Just because ridiculous little creeps
> like Mugabe try and dismantle it all doesn't mean those principles are
> wrong or finished - but if we'd stayed they might not have survived at
> all.
Very true.
> > Americans talk about how because they are
> > the most powerful nation and people are jealous of them
>
> Speak for yourself.
I was. They do talk like that.
Mike
it:
Look it up. In the 1850's vote was granted for everyone (of whatever
colour) who was born on the Cape and set the required wealth standards
to the level that a great many black people could register.
Marc Living
<snip good points>
>Zimbabwe - Not our mess, mate. We didn't put Mugabe in...
Actually we did. We refused to acknowledge the internal settlement
between Smith and Muzerewa and we deliberately closed our eyes and
ears to the massive intimidation and fraud which allowed Mugabe to
"win" the post Lancaster House election.
So he is our mess, and our responsibility - a responsibility it is
about time we fulfilled.
--
Marc Living
Marc Living
wrote:
>> Egypt - remember the Suez Crisis? You know, the one in which Egypt
>> rose up behind it's corrupt leader and seized the legally-British and
>> French canal? Who went in there to stop them? Britain. Who cut the rug
>> out from Britain's feet and demanded they withdraw? America.
>But there was also widespread anger in Britain at the actions of the
>British/French/Israeli governments attacking Egypt in the first place
This is true - mainly after the fact though.
>(it's debatable whether it was that or the US actions that brought
>down Eden).
Not really.
>Is it really the business of the British government to
>protect the interests of British companies holding on to foreign
>property left over from imperial times?
The Suez Canal company wasn't holding onto "foreign property left over
from imperial times". It was holding onto a canal which belonged to it
- and which wouldn't even have been there had that company not built
it - and which the Egyptian government was attempting to steal.
And when did it stop being the business of the British government to
represent the interests of British citizens?
>> If it's
>> in a mess now, it's not because of us. We tried to take the country
>> back, re-install a proper government - you stopped us.
>er... 'we' did not try to 'take the country back'. We tried to keep
>the Suez Canal in the hands of the British and French
... people who owned it ...
>, and trhe
>Israelis tried to take the Sinai peninsuela (because Jewish emigres
>lived there - they succeeded and then gave it back in return for
>Egyptian recognition of Israel, whichg has been to the benefit of
>Egypt ever since. Egypt was the big winner in all of this).
I thought that Sinai was taken after the 1967 war?
>'We' had no business telling the Egyptians what to do with their
>property. On the other hand Nasser should have negotiated.
It was not "their property": on what possible basis do you say that it
was? It belonged to the shareholders of the company which built it.
The Egyptian government sought to steal it from its rightful owners -
and succeeded in so doing, thanks to our "friends and allies" across
the Atlantic
jackkincaid
> A very well-thought out post. I did in fact know most of the points
> you raised, but assumed I was dealing with an idiot American who
> wouldn't pull me up on them.
Hmmm. Do I detect a hint of prejudice against our cousins? :-)
>
> > Yes it did. The strand of Islam to which the Taliban belong(ed) began
> > in imperial India, as a direct challenge to that rule. In fact, all
> > known strands of fundamentalist Islamism began under imperial rule.
> > That doesn't definitively mean they are connected but it points that
> > way.
>
> Wheras the sects of Thugee and the ritual burning of widows continued?
Well, the first is a Shia Muslim sect, I think (the Aga Khan?), which
originated in either Iran or Afghanistan and so isn't directly
connected to British imperialism, and the sedcond is a Hindu
institution which I think may have been made illegal for the first
time *after* the British left, but I could be wrong.
> Put a stop to them.... and then brought in a bunch of missionaries who
> ruined it.
I don't think the British put a stop to the ritual burning of women -
and they certainly didn't put an end to the Thugee - they probably
shot them whenever they came across them but that isn't the same thing
at all. If anything the British romanticised them - as in Conan Doyle
etc.
>
[snip]
>
> I know the background, it's simplistic to blame America for
> the pull-out from the empire, but it still makes me annoyed when they
> talk about how small and insignificent we are when it was (at least
> their influence) that got us there, nothing we did wrong.
True. It annoys the hell out of me too - out of all Europeans. That
could be construed as a fault on *our* part of course.
>
> > America's fault is not being wrong - not, that is, to insist on an end
> > to gunboat imperialism (that is perfectly justifiable) - but of being
> > hypocritical. Guantanamo Bay is an imperial property, equivalent to
> > all the British imperial or once-imperial properties scattered around
> > the world currently being let to America for use by their military (30
> > in all), and political, economic and cultural imperialism of the kind
> > the US employs is just as arrogant - or potentially as arrogant (Bush
> > isn't making clear exactly what he wants).
>
> We rarely used gunboat diplomacy, only to enforce fairly ratified
> treaties. In fact, on several occasions we enforced the rights of
> merchants who were outnumbered by the host nation and therefore made
> deals and were ripped off. Example - the Opium Wars in China.
That's one way of putting it - who exactly did Britain cut deals with
in China in the first place? Would you say that if a British firm cut
a deal with the Sicilian mafia the Italian government has no right to
intervene? That sounds like something Alan Clarke might have advocated
but I don't think it holds up morally.
And Britain was guilty of its share of massacres - less than anyone
other imperial power, and neither America nor any other country on
earth has a right to criticise us without hypocrisy, it's true, but we
as a nation are guilty.
> The deal
> was made, fair and square, the emporor overrulled it and so we sent a
> small army into fight tooth and nail, losing a lot of people (many to
> torture) to enforce a trade agreement. It's not like we sent a
> flotilla to a small island to bully five old men... that's gunboat
> diplomacy. We didn't do that.
But who did we do the deal *with*?
Besides, unless you take an ultra-Thatcherite position on free trade
(which, since you are criticising the last ultra-Thatcherite country,
America, I assume you do not) you must accept there is a moral aspect
to it. It *matters* what you sell people. We cannot moan at the US for
enforcing through its trade deals favourable conditions for its cheap
'n' nasty products, like McDonalds, Microsoft, BurgerKing, (these
days) Levis, Coca Cola and the rest, if we are also going to defend
selling opium to Chinese people.
>
> > > South Africa - Oh, you mean the nation which had democracy for all by
> > > the mid-19th century, under British rule?
> >
> > Hardly.
>
> Look it up. Governer , 18 granted votes for everyone (of whatever
> colour) who was born on the Cape and set the required wealth standards
> to the level that a great many indigenous people could register.
LOL. This is the sort of thing that makes the French call us
'perfidious Albion'. This is why they accuse us of hypocrisy.
In the light of the concept of universal human rights (which the
French established and both they and the Americans failed to deliver
in their revolutions) we English prefer not to dirty our hands, so to
speak, with anything so horribly vulgar and plebian as a racist
constitution in one of our imperial territories, so we disguise it
with one establishing a division of class instead. Oh sure we'll let
in a few 'darkies', but only when they are as middle class and decent
and - dash it all, sir! - *British* as we are (and we still won't let
them into the club - women disaprove, don'tcha know).
And then when those ghastly thick-headed, unimaginative country bumkin
Afrikaaners take over and mess it all up by taking the whole thing
literally and introducing a constitution based on *race* - well then
we can stand back, point our finber at them and laugh (but not do
anything about it, naturally).
Or am I being cynical? :-)
> Long
> before our own universal suffrage, but a useful indicator that we
> weren't all bad, and one frequently ignored. Mandela get's the credit
> for that one, even though we did it first.
> I meant to add this bit...[done it for you] ... In the 1850's vote was granted for everyone (of whatever
> colour) who was born on the Cape and set the required wealth standards
> to the level that a great many black people could register.
How many exactly is 'a great many'? As a proportion?
I accept that this was better than nothing - better than what obtained
later, and the equivalent morally to what was going on in the southern
USA (even less hypocritical too) but don't be fooled. There's nothing
idealistic about it, or nothing much.
>
> > > You can't have it both ways - under the British empire, all these
> > > countries worked.
> >
> > ... but weren't free or democratic and with ever-rising expectations
> > and anger. And every one of them had to be controlled with violence
> > (massacre in Srinigar anyone? Indian mutiny? Jamaican revolt?).
>
> That's not true at all. The Indian Mutiny spread because of anger
> against Christianity, not British rule.
If you're sense of identity was religiously based (as it is, or was,
throughout S Asia) instead of nationally based (as it is in Europe)
I'm not sure you would see that distinction as relevant. In the
crusades Christians fought Muslims - the actual nations the people on
both sides belonged to, if any, wasn't the point. Europe changed since
then, but any change in Asia (outside the far east) arguably only took
place because it was forced on it (after all, India as we know it
today didn't exist until Britain invented it).
> The Sepoys who first rebelled
> at Meerut were loyal to a man - they didn't take the cartridges
> because they thought they were greased and the British were trying to
> make them break their castes. The mutiny eventually spread and the
> call of a liberated India (calls instigated by the Russians) and many
> sepoys also stayed loyal.
I wasn't trying to suggest that all of India resented British rule.
But the idea that all of them were perfectly happy being ruled by
foreigners half a world away must be nonsense too.
> India at the time was a content part of the
> empire, but religious idiots and a breed of officer which treated them
> like shit angered the sepoys.
But religious idiots and officer-class shits are a condition of
empire. You don't seriously think you can run one with nothing but
Guardian readers in countries full of nothing but atheist Labour
voters, do you? We're not proposing Islington establish imperial power
over Hampstead here.
You *have* to have the shitty corrupt racist officers, the working
class boot-boys who hate everyone, the ridiculous other-worldly
monarch nobody knows anything about, the silly pompous tub thumping
politicians ... you have to have the lot or it doesn't work. Read your
Orwell. What are we complaining about America for? Exactly the same
thing - because even though they are essentially and most of the time
doing the right thing, their politicians are idiots or cowards, their
media is run by hypocrites and liars, their businessmen are greedy
exploitative scumbags and the populace is either too lazy and
incurious to care or too easily whipped up into a childish fit of
hysteria or nationalistic jingoism. Does that sound at all familiar to
you?
Which is just the point. Britain was never half as powerful then as
the US is now, in terms of weaponry, but it still did rule more than
half a world and therefore we do know, or we think we do, when America
is making mistakes.
That's all we can do: patronise an old friend. :-)
> The mutiny was precisely that - a
> mutiny. Not about independence at all.
I didn't mean to say it was entirely about independence. But Britain
could not have kept on putting down uprsings and mutinies and
committing the occasional massacre forever. Sooner or later our owen
sense of morality would have forced us to leave even without pressure
fromn the US - in fact, the US played only a small part in the
decision because labour were already elected by the end of WW2.
>
> > > It was republicans and self-determinationists from
> > > across the Atlantic that forced us to abandon our empire,
> >
> > No, it was the indigenous people - the Ghandis, Kenyattas, Nassers,
> > Nehrus, Jinnahs ... Mandelas, Mugabes who wanted 'us' out. The USA
> > backed them, is all.
>
> That, I grant you.
... when it suited them (and, arguably, us). Sometimes the Soviets
backed them instead.
>
> > > with the results that you can see now.
> >
> > Yeah, freedom - including the freedom to make their own mistakes (like we did).
>
> They really did have a significent freedom under British rule. If you
> are referring to the vote, most of the British public didn't have that
> either. They were free to go about their daily business, do whatever
> they wanted, just under a British flag.
Would you be happy to 'go about your business as you like' under an
American flag?
>
> > > In fact, several of the more notable
> > > cock-ups were the fault of America in these instances.
> >
> > Iran. What else? America has faults but idealism isn't one of them.
>
> Idealism certainly is.
What? A fault? I don't think so. But I think America's idealism is
usually a pretence.
>
> > Only a decreasing band of Churchillian Tories wanted to keep the
> > empire. The Labour Party was elected in a landslide in 1945 with the
> > express policy of getting rid of it all. All those soldiers in Burma,
> > Malaysia, India, Africa - even Ireland - and elsewhere, voting for the
> > first time, looking forward to getting home at war's end, did *not*
> > want to be re-posted straight back out again just to maintain
> > Churchill's fantasy empire.
>
> Ok, it was nice while it lasted. If the Commonwealth was worth
> anything, I wouldn't worry.
I would prefer the BC was worth more than it is now, for sure. I'm not
sure whose fault it is that it has so few teeth - not the Africans, I
think.
>
> > The erea was over. It was gone. The French were about to give up
> Oh yeah, and on Suez I have to disagree with you on that. We build the
> Canal and still owned it, fair and square. Just because we gave the
> country back didn't mean that everything we owned was just over to
> them - that's Mugabe's philosophy now, and we know how wrong that is.
I'm not so sure about Zimbabwe either. Oh sure Mugabe is a disgusting
little crook and should be driven into the veldt and left to eat
termites but there is a genuine issue at stake in that country - those
'veterans', however bogus they may seem (and don't forget they were
fighting a lot of depreved S African neo-nazis and other scum), were
promised good land, and that land is owned almost entirely by the
descendents of the old rulers and other settlers.
Should Mugabe have made the promise? Would he have ended the war
otherwise?
Should Thatcher have ensured provision for some kind of handover in
the agreement? Would Smith have accepted it if she had?
I was only a kid at the time, but my guess is that both sides were at
fault. Thatcher was far too sympathetic to Smith and the S African
whites, and too clearly disliked Mugabe and black Africans generally,
and Mugabe was so obviously untrustworthy and dictatorial from the
start. Funnily enough a further spell ofn imperialsim might actually
have sorted that one out - but we'd probably have had to wait for
Blair to become PM, and I don't think the Zimbabwean majority would
have agreed to that.
As for Suez, you're probably right that Nasser acted illegally and
stupidly, and America should have backed us further - but not to the
extent of declaring war. They and we should have negotiated - maybe
operated sanctions on Egypt until they came to the table, I don't
know. As I said, don't forget the Labour party at the time was almost
100% against the Suez war - and were ahead in the poles - as was
Grimond's Liberals, who probably would have had the balance of power
after an election, had Eden stayed. It was not a popular p[olicy in
the country and when Eden backed down he was made to look a fool - a
sure sign that his policy had little support in the country (and he
was reckoned to be mad by then anyway).
The US was a tad hypocritical over Israel, although I don't think
their relationship was then as close as now. But overall it can't be
right to kill a lot of innocent people over the ownership of a fucking
canal which we would have had to negotiate away eventually anyway. So
we lost a little face; so what? That's how countries learn humility -
and it is precisely that quality, humility, that we are all saying
that America clearly lacks today. In a way they did us a big favour
over Suez; now they need to learn the lesson themselves (I'm starting
to sound like a Guardian reader myself now). :-)
>
> Which is pretty much what I've been saying. However impractical and
> empire is these days and however morally reprihensible we are meant to
> regard it as, these countries were at least stable. I would be just as
> happy with the Commonwealth, if it meant more than just an empty shell.
I don't find Britain's imperial past in the least bit moeally
reprehensible - individual events that happened in that empire
certainly were but the sheer fact of empire is not. I don't feel under
any pressure to think it was, either, and neither do I believe most
Britons feel they should. Most of us are proud of our past and most
Britons who were themselves, or who are descended from people who
were, recent immigrants from one-time imperial countries are proud to
be part of a country that is proud of its past. There are exceptions,
obviously, but - well, fuck 'em.
I'd like to see the BC work a lot better. i'd like to see the EU,
NATO, the UN and FIFA work better too. Especially FIFA. That world cup
seeding was a total fucking disgrace.
>
[snip agreements]
>
> > > Americans talk about how because they are
> > > the most powerful nation and people are jealous of them
> >
> > Speak for yourself.
>
> I was. They do talk like that.
Not all Americans speak like anything at all. America is an enormously
varied country.
But I agree part of the current US political elite, a section of the
US business elite and a number of lippy media whores and radio schlock
jocks do talk like morons, self-abusers, religious maniacs, moral
pygmies and fascists, it's true.
The trick is to differentiate between the normal Americans and the
Rush Limbaughs, I think, and give the normal ones the encouragement to
do what needs to be done - to line up the Limbaughs, Gingriches,
Bauers and all the rest of them, and one by one drown them all in a
bucket of cold piss. I see no other way.
nunia
if you do not like us that's YOUR problem!
WE DO NOT GIVE A RATS ASS!
"Marc Living" <equ...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:ntfi6ukf7936cm2s0...@4ax.com...
J&K Copeland
Extracted from Andrew Sullivan's article.....
Full article can be read at www.andrewsullivan.com
"So the resentment of American power - even among close allies like
Britain - is not only likely. It's inevitable. And because there isn't even
a close rival emerging to challenge this hegemon, the resentment will only
increase. We've seen what this amounts to in the form of the failed
satrapies of the Islamic Middle East: a mixture of begging bowls for U.S.
aid and murderous terrorism in resentment of it. In China, it is greeted
with deep suspicion and a ferocious new nationalism in its own right - but
there is still no sign of an actual, substantive Chinese military able to
compete for global dominance with the U.S. In Europe, there is the cult of
the E.U. among the elites, and the euro for the masses. But every European
country understands that world power is something in the history books, not
feasible, if even desirable, today.
The more interesting question is: what should the United States do about
resentment of its dominance? Sure, it can and should consult its allies more
widely. But when those allies (with the exception of Britain) have very
little substantive to contribute in, say, waging the war in Afghanistan,
those consultations can end up being exercises in condescension or
phoniness. Sure, the U.S. can and should take a more active role in many
international institutions. But it cannot be expected to provide the bulk of
the funding for bodies (like the U.N.) whose main task seems, at times, to
be attacking the United States and its allies. Nor should a great power be
expected consistently to subordinate its own interests to those of other
states, especially when its actions actually protect those other states from
harm. If Europeans resent America's power, they need to ask themselves:
would they like to confront global terrorism without it? Imagine al Qaeda
intact today, entering into close contact with Iraq or Iran to get nuclear,
biological or chemical weapons to detonate in the middle of London. Feel
better about American hegemony now?
Then of course when it appears that the United States might actually take
its allies' advice and retreat into ambivalence, there is a chorus of
disapproval and widespread fears of a new 'isolationism.' America, when you
look at it, is damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't. Which is why
Americans, at some point, just get on with it and ignore the chorus of
whining from around the world."
James...
Stan Pierce
and Liberators out of East Anglia during the war. God bless them. And to all
the dogfaces who hit the beaches to get England and the unfrateful arssholes of
Europe out of a mess.
Stan Pierce.
J&K Copeland wrote in message ...
Marc Living
wrote:
>Only a decreasing band of Churchillian Tories wanted to keep the
>empire. The Labour Party was elected in a landslide in 1945 with the
>express policy of getting rid of it all.
Not quite. Atlee had no plans to grant independence to the African
colonies. (Except South Africa.)
--
Marc Living (remove "bounceback" to reply)
jackkincaid
>
> "So the resentment of American power - even among close allies like
> Britain - is not only likely. It's inevitable.
It isn't resentment of power, it's resentment of possible misuse of
power.
Having said that, the gap in military technology is now so huge (the
USA spends as much on its military as the rest of the world put
together, and for no entirely discernible reason) that in itself it
is becoming worrying. The US has stated that the only country in
Europe it trusts is Britain, which means it probbaly only trusts three
countries anywhere in the world - Britain, Canada and Australia, and
even them not entirely. This is a ridiculous state of affairs - if you
feel that way about us, how do we know we can always trust you?
I'm sure Americans can understand that, those who do give a 'rat's
ass' (assuming there are any left on these NGs).
> And because there isn't even
> a close rival emerging to challenge this hegemon, the resentment will only
> increase.
Probably. NATO has about five years left the way things are going. The
USA will probably quit the UN before too long, if it continues down
its present path.
> We've seen what this amounts to in the form of the failed
> satrapies of the Islamic Middle East: a mixture of begging bowls for U.S.
> aid and murderous terrorism in resentment of it. In China, it is greeted
> with deep suspicion and a ferocious new nationalism in its own right - but
> there is still no sign of an actual, substantive Chinese military able to
> compete for global dominance with the U.S. In Europe, there is the cult of
> the E.U. among the elites, and the euro for the masses.
That analysis is so piss-poor and ignorant it would genuinely make the
rest of the world fearful. If Americans really do understand the world
so little how do we know they are evn capable of acting properly?
> But every European
> country understands that world power is something in the history books, not
> feasible, if even desirable, today.
This is not new. Europeans have had several generations to wind down
their empires.
>
> The more interesting question is: what should the United States do about
> resentment of its dominance?
That's the question, yeah.
The first part of the answer is to understand the nature of the
resentment. First, it has nothing to do with friendship - certainly
Britain considers Americans friends. Second, it isn't anything to do
with American politics or culture - neither are considered superior,
or even desirable, in Europe; resentment is only caused when that
assumption is made (ie Europpeans or Asians are 'envious' of US
capitalism, or US-style democracy, or whatever, like we all want our
own Enrons and S&L busts and gridlocked executives and unelected
presidents).
The real resentment, I think, is partly rooted in unease, even fear,
about American military ambitions. Why is it you spend so much on
military hardware? Do you know what capability you have? The US could
bombard the entire world to dust with *conventional*, never mind
nuclear, weapons - or shortly will be able to - yet we've just seen in
Afghanistan that it is highly constrained (morally) from using a
fraction of them, for fear of killing civilians.
Either the US intends to be less constrained in the future (in which
case, where does it end? Will America bomb London? Ontario? San
Francisco even?) or there is some other threat we don't know about
(does Bush believe in aliens? Is a US civil war coming?) - or this is
all a by-product of some corrupt deal with defence contractors, and
the whole collection of hi-tech weaponry is a useless white elephant
which will rust away in hangars and warehouses, sucking up American
taxes forever.
And then there are the numerous international agreements Bush reneged
on. The defence agreement with the Soviets (as was) is one thing - of
Bush wants his silly defence shield, well OK - but stopping the
spread of landmines, biological and chemical weapons, small arms and
the enormous pollution the US is responsible for is something else
again. Reneging on all that was disgusting. We know Gore wouldn't have
done it, and therefore this is a party issue (and the Republicans got
less than the Democrats and greens combined last time), and so may be
reversed in the future, but it still causes resentment - not with
everyone (British right-wingers love it all, but then they are all
waiting for an excuse to emigrate to Amewrica anyway) but with most of
us.
> Sure, it can and should consult its allies more
> widely. But when those allies (with the exception of Britain) have very
> little substantive to contribute in, say, waging the war in Afghanistan,
> those consultations can end up being exercises in condescension or
> phoniness.
That may be true, yeah. But so what? Just the act of talking to
people, hearing what they have to say and explaining yourself in
*their* terms, not yours, is often enough. It shows respect - and the
current US administration too often appears to have little respect for
anyone else outside America. And let's face it, the administration
isn't exactly over-burdened with knowledgable people, is it?
> for Sure, the U.S. can and should take a more active role in many
> international institutions. But it cannot be expected to provide the bulk of
> the funding for bodies (like the U.N.) whose main task seems, at times, to
> be attacking the United States and its allies.
er ... it should fund the UN according to its ability to fund it. Has
it ever been asked for more? It could start by paying up the millions
of dollars in back-payments it keep refusing to make. You shouldn't
get into debt you know...
And the UN only attacks the US when, in the terms of whoever does the
attacking, the US is wrong. Presumably the US is big enough tyo take
the criticism (or perhaps not - certainly US media commentators on
this issue seem incredibly, almost pathologically, thin-skinned).
> Nor should a great power be
> expected consistently to subordinate its own interests to those of other
> states, especially when its actions actually protect those other states from
> harm.
That's right. When its actions protect those other states from harm
the US should not subordinate its principles (not interests, since
they are not fixed) to any international body which does not have
equivalent principles. But when the US is causing 20% of the world's
pollution and is alone in refusing to do anything to clear it up, then
America is morally in the wrong, and no amount of defensive bullshit
or hysterical ranting or bought-and-paid-for pseudo science will alter
that.
America really just needs to listen more, talk more, tell these
international bodies what it really wants. Not much to ask, is it?
> If Europeans resent America's power, they need to ask themselves:
> would they like to confront global terrorism without it?
Absolutely. And by the same token America needs to ask itself, would
there be global terrorism if not for the USA?
As far as I can tell the attack on 11/9 was on New York, in America,
not Paris, France, or Madrid, Spain. All of Europe expressed its
sympathy for America, some countries offered to send soldiers, one
country (Britain - the only one the USA trusts, remember) actually did
so. Then the US blows the support and sympathy it received by
appearing to boast about taking its revenge on a lot of mixed-up
idiots in Guantanamo Bay and the US media went into 'let's insult
Europe' overdrive.
> Imagine al Qaeda
> intact today, entering into close contact with Iraq or Iran to get nuclear,
> biological or chemical weapons to detonate in the middle of London. Feel
> better about American hegemony now?
Personally I have no problem at all with America's greatest power
status (hegemony is putting it too strongly), but I do have a problem
with what America *does* with this power. I would rather the US was
the most powerful nation than any other (including Britain) but that
doesn't mean I would trust its current administration. This will sound
like a typical British prejudice but there is a horrible Germanic
streak of boastfulness and messianism in American society, especially
in the Republican party; sometimes it's not enough to beat an enemy in
a fair fight, they have to *humiliate* them as well (hence the
problems with Guantanamo Bay) which is *always* counterproductive. You
can imagine that for some Americans (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Limbaugh,
North, Helms, Liddy - the German names are a coincidence, I'm sure)
bringing back the old Prussian goosestep (symbolically stamping on
your enemy's faces) would be a good idea - and of course it's always
tied into a dreary sexual puritanism. This is what Kubrick realised, I
think, when he quit the US for Britain - remember the end of Dr
Strangelove, when the old Nazi suddenly finds he can walk, when the
atomic bombs are falling around him? Remember all that talk of rapture
in teh Reagan years? And you wonder taht the world doesn't entirely
*trust* these people?
Like most people - including most Americans -I don't think the US
political elite is entirely trustworthy all of the time, and there are
far too many idiots like the others on this thread who appear never to
have left their own hometowns, let alone state, let alone country -
and too many of their kind seem to be able to exercise political
power.
>
> Then of course when it appears that the United States might actually take
> its allies' advice and retreat into ambivalence, there is a chorus of
> disapproval and widespread fears of a new 'isolationism.'
No, we don't want that either. We want the USA to be *more* involved
in the world but to be more responsible. Great power status carries
responsibility - you can't keep putting your narrow economic interests
first; you have to do things for the entire community. Hence the need
to stop your pollution. Yes, the US acted properly and well over
Afghanistan - but why did they have to ruin it in Guantanamo Bay? Yes,
the US is right to pile the pressue on Iraq - but why the silly 'axis
of evil' speech, as if there is any connection beyween Iran, Iraq and
N Korea, other than their dislike of the USA?
The American leadership and some of its people must understand that it
is the no1 nation *because* of its wealth and power, not the innate
superiority of its people, political system, economic system or
culture - that is, the rest of us don't *want* to live in a society
that wants to be top dog. We don't *want* to be that competitive. We
value other things - all the world values other things. The world does
*not* want to be American. Frankly, I'm not sure most of the American
people want to be that compettitive either, but they don't have a
choice unless they leave (which, of course, they are encouraged to do
by the US media). Sometimes you get the feeling from Bush & Co that
the rest of the world is refusing to wave American flags and all the
rest out of willfulness - they're just *pretending* not to be good US
patriots. A couple of years in the Peace Corps would have done Shrub a
world of good, IMO.
>America, when you
> look at it, is damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't.
No. By and large the US does OK but its leaders clearly don't always
understand the consequences of their own actions.
> Which is why
> Americans, at some point, just get on with it and ignore the chorus of
> whining from around the world."
That is obviously untrue or the article wouldn't have been written. In
fact, the US is very sensitive to criticism, which is a good thing.
Now the next step is to *understand*.
jackkincaid
> what makes you think that we as americans care if others do not like us?
> if you do not like us that's YOUR problem!
> WE DO NOT GIVE A RATS ASS!
Those Americans pleading sympathy - 'we're damned if we doo, damned if
we don't' - need only look at this asshole. He's the one giving you a
bad name.
jackkincaid
>
> >Is it really the business of the British government to
> >protect the interests of British companies holding on to foreign
> >property left over from imperial times?
>
> The Suez Canal company wasn't holding onto "foreign property left over
> from imperial times". It was holding onto a canal which belonged to it
> - and which wouldn't even have been there had that company not built
> it - and which the Egyptian government was attempting to steal.
True. You're right. Nasser took the canal illegally. Does that mean
you think we should have gone to war with Egypt? I suppose it does.
Bear in mind Nasser was assinated later for being insufficiently
pro-Arab, he needed to do something futile over the canal - and he
did.
I think we can condemn America for hypocrisy over Suez (presuambly
they were trying to curry favour with Nasser in some half-baked cold
war ploy; they didn't really have any objection about Egyptians being
killed) but I think they were right in not wanting a war. But I
suppose it might have been nice if they had made a contribution to the
shareholders. :-)
BTW, the Romans built the first London Bridge. After the English drove
them out, do you think we should have sent them their bridge back?
>
> And when did it stop being the business of the British government to
> represent the interests of British citizens?
When we lost the power so to do.
British PM Palmerston said (in 1838 or thereabouts) that everyone in
the world knew that if they lay their hands on an Englishman they
would feel the full wrath of the Empire visited on them - and the
British were treated like minor royalty the world over as a result.
That would be wonderfully advantageous for us today, but totally
unfair. Not even the Americans, with all their weaponry and the
boastfulness of *their* government, can say now what Palmerston said
then with his conviction. Presumably, if you would like the return of
imperial hegemony, you would wish they could. You must hope that any
American can do whatever he likes anywhere in the world knowing the
might of the US would bear down on anyone who tried to stop them. I
mean, can you imagine a situation like that? What a fucking nightmare
- Michael Jackson being able to do anything he likes under protection
of the US government. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
>
> I thought that Sinai was taken after the 1967 war?
The rest of it was, yeah, but Israel occupied it all in 1956 but
pulled back out of most of it - didn't they? You've got me doubting
myself now.
>
> >'We' had no business telling the Egyptians what to do with their
> >property. On the other hand Nasser should have negotiated.
>
> It was not "their property": on what possible basis do you say that it
> was? It belonged to the shareholders of the company which built it.
If you were an Egyptian, your country had been occupied by a foreign
power, a canal had been built without your permission, or the
permission of your political representitive, with your labour but with
the foreigners getting all the profits earned by its use (ie for the
use of their ships), would you consider the canal yours or theirs? I
was taking the Egyptian perspective, or one of them, or what I guess
it would have been.
Ideally, Nasser would have negotiated with the share owners, so that
they had a 50-50 stake in the canal and a proper pay-off. Or they
could have sold half the shares to the Egyptian people using a
government-financed vouchers (sort of like one of Thatcher's
privatisations). I don't know what negotiations took place - ideally,
Britain would have been more powerful 10 years after the war and would
have been able to ensure that a fair deal took place, although it may
not have satisfied the Egyptians and so caused more resentment.
But a war would have been stupid, and I don't blame the Americans for
not getting involved. Maybe we can accuse them of hypocrsiy, in
pretending they had higher motives for not doing so, but why should
they get involved in a war to protect our shareholders? On those
grounds they had a bigger claim to our support in Vietnam, which was
even more stupid.
> The Egyptian government sought to steal it from its rightful owners -
> and succeeded in so doing, thanks to our "friends and allies" across
> the Atlantic
If only life was that simple.
J&K Copeland
"jackkincaid" <theov...@another.com> wrote in message
news:eb35fbed.02021...@posting.google.com...
> "J&K Copeland" <jc...@xxx.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<zafa8.382151$8w3.97...@typhoon.kc.rr.com>...
>
> >
I don't mind the in-line replies, after all, that's the nature of USENET. I
do mind that the only sniping done was the acknowledgement of who wrote the
piece.
Again. It was Andrew Sullivan at www.andrewsullivan.com
BTW, Andrew Sullivan is currently in Great Britain, visiting his family.
Andrew Sullivan is an ex-pat Brit, that has emigrated to the US. Although a
successful writer/commentator with an acknowledged reputation, his web site,
referred to as "The Dish" is developing quite a following, bypassing the
traditional media outlets. Mr. Sullivan, an acknowledged HIV+ homosexual,
is widely regarded as up and coming conservative voice in America.
Factoid: There is something on the order of 18,000 newspapers, 14,000
magazines, 12,000 e-zines in the US. (No one is quite sure of the exact
number). Knight Ridder is the second largest media (newspaper) chain. It
owns 32 newspapers. (I don't know who is the largest). Even High School
newspapers have been known to send student reporters out to cover noteworthy
events, including political conventions. US politicians do NOT ignore even
very young reporters. A well-written condemnation in high school paper is a
good way to court serious trouble in a home district.
I posted the excerpt from Sullivan's piece because it very nicely summed up
a general American attitude. (I don't think that Sullivan subscribes to the
same mindset.)
BTW, having devoted a good deal of time to watching foreign political
leaders, (especially the Brits), I'm not terribly impressed with their
performance. (Blair can certainly talk the talk. But can he walk the
walk?) Labeling Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld as morons does not gain you any
points in America.
James...
hi
> points in America.
Glad to hear it. It almost seems like the done thing to do (this from an
outside observer looking in) is to blame Bush for everything. Like he gave
terrorists and policies that existed before his time, gold plated
invitations.....
jackkincaid
> On 11 Feb 2002 12:34:17 -0800, topca...@hotmail.com (Mike) wrote:
>
> <snip good points>
>
> >Zimbabwe - Not our mess, mate. We didn't put Mugabe in...
>
> Actually we did.
No we didn't.
> We refused to acknowledge the internal settlement
> between Smith and Muzerewa and we deliberately closed our eyes and
> ears to the massive intimidation and fraud which allowed Mugabe to
> "win" the post Lancaster House election.
Look, this was before I was aware of the world but this is my
uinderstanding: there was a fucking war on. Yes, Mugabe is an
out-and-out white-hating racist scumbag. *In extremis* maybe he would
have threatened to raise an army of criminal psychopaths to rape and
pillage the white farms. On the other hand, Ian Smith's ridiculous
fantasy of English tea and crumpets on the lawn in the middle of a
tribal war would have lasted five minutes without external help, and
we couldn't have sat back while Afrikaan soldiers crossed the bordewr
and massacred every 'kaffir' they came across. There had to be a deal
which most Zimbabweans (Rhodesians as was) would go along with.
It was a shit deal. Carrington was as wet as they come and Thatcher
was bonkers. But they only brokered it; that doesn't mean that what
happened afterwards is our responsibility. And Mugabe wasn't as bad
then as he is now, not even close. Are you seriously suggesting we
should send in an army to topple him, 20 years later? What possible
business is it of ours? Any Zimbabweans with a British passport - and
doubtless several thousand others - will get refuge in Britain if it
all goes pear shaped - what more can we do?
>
> So he is our mess, and our responsibility - a responsibility it is
> about time we fulfilled.
Ah, calm down. If Zimbabwe is our responsibility so is the even bigger
mess next door in Zambia - and so is Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone,
Somalia, Uganda, S Africa, Botswana, Tanzania, Namibia, Sudan and
Egypt. And so is Palestine, Israel, Jordan, Yemen, Kuwait, Pakistan,
India, Bangladesh, Burma, Afghanistan (or some of it), Hong Kong,
Malaysia and Singapore.
So is Australia, for God's sake. Are we supposed to sort THAT horrible
mess out too?!! :-) (just kidding)
We have sent in troops to quell a massacre in Sierra Leone - if Mugabe
was assasinated, or went completely insane, and there was a civil war,
then - OK. *Then* we, along with the SAfricans and maybe the Aussies,
might have a responsibility to help out. But it is none of our
business to help prop up the businesses of farmers, especially since
half of them who went to Zimbabwe in the years after WW2, when
independence was always on the cards, to make a quick buck. That was
their choice. We should save them from a massacre (I wish we could
have saved the guys killed so far) - as we should help save all BC
Africans from a massacre - but we can't pay or risk our soldiers to
save their businesses, any more than we, or the Americans, could pay
or risk our soldiers to save the shareholders of the Suez canal.
At the same time we should ensure that a massacre doesn't take place
by giving Mugabe any excuse for starting one, which means not making
empty threats. I don't think this gvt has handled him particularly
well, but I certainly don't think we should be sending the troops in
because he's about to fix an election (and if you think the Opposition
do, BTW, whatever they say now, you're mad).
Of course the people with something at stake in Zimbabwe and, 50 years
ago in Egypt, happen to be white, whereas the Zambians, Sierra Leonese
and others you didn't mention, are not. Funny that.
jackkincaid
> Absolutely right. I want to thank all those airmen who came over to Fly B17s
> and Liberators out of East Anglia during the war. God bless them. And to all
> the dogfaces who hit the beaches to get England and the unfrateful arssholes of
> Europe out of a mess.
Sometimes I think there is a concerted effort in America to rewrite
history to make themselves appear the heroes of every war. World War
2? You'd never imagine from what some Americans say that their country
dentered it three years too late (and then only because Japan and
Germany declared war on *them*), and didn't start fighting in Europe
for another year after that. And who do they think was doing the
fiighting until then? And what do they think would happen to them
under Nazi rule? (Interesting to speculate; given the posts on usenet
the US would be crawling with quislings within a month).
Yes, Europe is grateful for the American effort in the war, which was
very important in Europe and decisive in Asia, We're grateful for the
several thousand Americans who lost their lives - funnily enough we're
grateful for the 2 million Brits too, not to mention the 20 million
Russians and millions of other Europeans who had died while a majority
of Americans still thought the war was 'none of their business' and
were worried about 'alienating' their friends in Nazi Germany (busy
building holiday camps in Auschwitz and Buchenwald).
Imagine that Japan hadn't been foolish enough to attack Pearl Harbour.
Imagine that neither they nor Germany had declared war on the US,
Roosevelt had been overruled, and America had stayed out of the war.
We'd still have won of course - but only in western Europe. All
Germany and Italy would have been overrun by the Russians and become
communist; all Asia would have been overrun by the Japanese, and
possibly subsequently the Chinese. The communist bloc would have been
enormous - and all the Nazi scientists who helped build the atomic
weaponry the US relied upon in the cold war would have gone to Moscow.
The British empire probably wouldn't have ended, but diminsihed and
become a federation - and America's power in the world would have been
much less relative to today. It might have lacked the ability to
outspend the Soviets by the 1980s - it might have had to find
accomodation with communism before it collapsed (certainly no Joe
McCarthy or Richard Nixon). All traces of the Jewish faith and people
outside the English-speaking world would have been wiped off the face
of the earth. If Islamists think they have something to complain about
now, God knows what they'd think after a generation or so of
Nazi/ImperialJapanese dictatorship...
... but at least we would never have had to listen to anti-historical
lectures about American heroism from armchair soldiers. If not for
Pearl Harbour - which was out of their control - America could have
become a byword for deep moral shame.
Mike
> and Liberators out of East Anglia during the war. God bless them. And to all
> the dogfaces who hit the beaches to get England and the unfrateful arssholes of
> Europe out of a mess.
Yes, god bless them for saving Britain. Of course, you might want to
consider the airmen who flew in the Battle of Britain or - if we're
going down this path - the fact that of the five Normandy beaches
three were hit by Commonwealth and two by American troops. Seems to be
gap there, because I was assured that the British did nothing in the
war whatsoever, so maybe if I visit France I can ascertain this fact
for myself? I mean, how could a flag-waving American be wrong on world
history?
> >international institutions. But it cannot be expected to provide the bulk of
> >the funding for bodies (like the U.N.) whose main task seems, at times, to
> >be attacking the United States and its allies.
You mean, you are willing to set up a body to monitor international
law but not if it makes a ruling against America? That's basically it,
isn't it? Take Gauntanamo Bay, for god's sake. You will fly around the
world dropping bombs all you like to enforce democracy and moral
principles on the rest of the world and then you cheerfully flout
these very same principles when they apply to you. If they are so
useless what exactly made them worth bombing people for in the first
place?
Nor should a great power be
> >expected consistently to subordinate its own interests to those of other
> >states, especially when its actions actually protect those other states from
> >harm. If Europeans resent America's power, they need to ask themselves:
> >would they like to confront global terrorism without it? Imagine al Qaeda
> >intact today, entering into close contact with Iraq or Iran to get nuclear,
> >biological or chemical weapons to detonate in the middle of London. Feel
> >better about American hegemony now?
Not in the least. As Jackinnaid pointed out, the attack wasn't in the
middle of London. Despite all our precautions, it still hasn't taken
place in London. In fact, you talk about global terrorism - that
doesn't bother us. How many British citizens have died as a result of
IRISH terrorism - you know, the one that you fund? There is still
extremely alarming tendancy among Americans to consider global
terrorism (ie: Arab terrorism) as the ONLY terrorism. You want to know
who Europe is scared of? The Basque seperatists, the IRA, people like
that. They are the real terrorists - I would much rather than them
done away with than al-Quaida.
> >
> >Then of course when it appears that the United States might actually take
> >its allies' advice and retreat into ambivalence, there is a chorus of
> >disapproval and widespread fears of a new 'isolationism.' America, when you
> >look at it, is damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't. Which is why
> >Americans, at some point, just get on with it and ignore the chorus of
> >whining from around the world."
> >
> >James...
> >
It's more the whining you get when you find your home and your family
are now scattered around the landscape while an F/A-18 Hornet speeds
off into the distance with a big USNAVY symbol on it's side. Some
people just don't respond well to that...
jackkincaid
> "jackkincaid" <theov...@another.com> wrote in message
> I don't mind the in-line replies, after all, that's the nature of USENET. I
> do mind that the only sniping done was the acknowledgement of who wrote the
> piece.
>
> Again. It was Andrew Sullivan at www.andrewsullivan.com
I knew you didn't write it and I didn't mean to imply you did. I
thought I'd put something at the top to the effect 'This is what i'd
say if you'd written this ...' or whatever.
>
> BTW, Andrew Sullivan is currently in Great Britain, visiting his family.
>
> Andrew Sullivan is an ex-pat Brit, that has emigrated to the US.
Obviously that makes his politics even more suspect (cf the almighty
torrent of bullshit which engulfed Robert Altman when he mused about
quitting the US for Britain).
> Although a
> successful writer/commentator with an acknowledged reputation, his web site,
> referred to as "The Dish" is developing quite a following, bypassing the
> traditional media outlets. Mr. Sullivan, an acknowledged HIV+ homosexual,
> is widely regarded as up and coming conservative voice in America.
I'm sorry, but are those two things connected?
>
> Factoid: There is something on the order of 18,000 newspapers, 14,000
> magazines, 12,000 e-zines in the US. (No one is quite sure of the exact
> number). Knight Ridder is the second largest media (newspaper) chain. It
> owns 32 newspapers. (I don't know who is the largest). Even High School
> newspapers have been known to send student reporters out to cover noteworthy
> events, including political conventions. US politicians do NOT ignore even
> very young reporters. A well-written condemnation in high school paper is a
> good way to court serious trouble in a home district.
That is impressive; I was only approximately aware of the sheer size
of the US media. It dwarfs that of any other country.
Of course that doesn't mean it's any damn good.
>
> I posted the excerpt from Sullivan's piece because it very nicely summed up
> a general American attitude. (I don't think that Sullivan subscribes to the
> same mindset.)
I can't remember it exactly but I think it struck me as quite friendly
compared to some articles I've read.
>
> BTW, having devoted a good deal of time to watching foreign political
> leaders, (especially the Brits), I'm not terribly impressed with their
> performance.
Me neither.
> (Blair can certainly talk the talk.
Blair certainly cannot talk the talk. That is, he cannot talk in such
a way that it makes sense.
> But can he walk the walk?)
Depends what you mean by the question. My guess is - no. No political
leader anywhere outside the US is capable of doing a fraction of what
the US is capable of militarily. The gulf between the US and any other
single country is now so enormous it is unbridgeable. It will
literally take either the break-up of the USA into its constituent
states, or a political union in Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals
followed by a hike in spending on weapons which would lead to the
abolition of all of Europe's health, education and welfare systems to
catch up. Consequently, it won't happen.
All of which should explain the anxiety outside the USA. We support
America; we're glad America is there; but I think you can understand
why we're wondering where the hell it's all going to lead - and we
think you should be too (by 'we' I don't speak for all Europeans,
obviously).
> Labeling Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld as morons does not gain you any
> points in America.
er ... I've never actually been bothered by 'gaining points' in
America. The people who voted Republican aren't going to be interested
in anything I have to say; the people who voted Democrat already agree
with me. Everyone else isn't on this newsgroup.
Bush is a hopeless speaker - Blair isn't very good, but Bush is worse,
and has no apparant beliefs. As a matter of fact I don't mind that in
a politician; I don't dislike Bush on a personal level exactly
(obviously we see much less of US politicians here so my opinion of
them is based on much less information than yours would be) and I'm
sure had he been born into America's other political dynasty, the
Kennedys, his personality would be unchanged. And he would be just as
lusy at public speaking and just as apparantly vague and muddled in
his thinking - just like a million other politicians.
It's the people around him I don't like, the ones who *do* seem to
have an ideology - the Rumsfelds, Wolfowitzes, Ashcrofts, Boltons and
Cheneys. They clearly want total American military domination of the
world - in which case it really doesn't matter what the British PM has
to say about anything; it doesn't matter whether he is cautiously
pro-American (like Blair) or incautiously pro-American (like the
conservative opposition leader), whatever he says will be politely
listened to and, if it interferes with America's military or economic
interests, ignored.
Therefore America is playing a different game to the rest of us -
since Bush's ascension the USA has gradually been leaving the field of
play and starting another game on its own (kind of fittingly: nobody
else plays American football either; we prefer plain old football -
soccer to you). That must be gratifying to American conservatives and
unilateralists (the intellectual heirs of Joe Kennedy and all those
who tried to keep the USA out of WW2) but you must see why it would be
worrying to everyone else. After all, when America has surrounded
itself with its missile defence shield, and its gigantic flotilla of
aircraft carriers and nuclear subs fill its seas for 100 miles off the
coast, and the sky above it is thick with aircraft, and at the end of
every street out of every small town silos of missiles full of nerve
gas and smallpox viruses are ready and aimed at the rest of the world,
and the entire planet is encircled with US satelites bristling with
listening devices and hires cameras, and are pointing laser guns at
all of us - or whatever the hell else America's new Dr Strangeloves
may or may not have in store for us (because none of us really know,
including you guys) ...
What happens next?
J&K Copeland
Ahhhhh..... I made an assumption and it was wrong.
Explaination: Until a very few years ago, a conservative Republican
homosexual was very much considered an exotic anomoly.
> >
> > Factoid: There is something on the order of 18,000 newspapers, 14,000
> > magazines, 12,000 e-zines in the US. (No one is quite sure of the exact
> > number). Knight Ridder is the second largest media (newspaper) chain.
It
> > owns 32 newspapers. (I don't know who is the largest). Even High
School
> > newspapers have been known to send student reporters out to cover
noteworthy
> > events, including political conventions. US politicians do NOT ignore
even
> > very young reporters. A well-written condemnation in high school paper
is a
> > good way to court serious trouble in a home district.
>
> That is impressive; I was only approximately aware of the sheer size
> of the US media. It dwarfs that of any other country.
>
> Of course that doesn't mean it's any damn good.
The point is there is no "it". There is only "they". With myrid choices
from the far Left "Nation" to the far right "National Review", the
availability of multiple news sources is immense. It's something of an
inside joke, but in America, you're probably not taken seriously as fringe
lunitic until you at least start publishing a newsletter.
> >
> > I posted the excerpt from Sullivan's piece because it very nicely summed
up
> > a general American attitude. (I don't think that Sullivan subscribes to
the
> > same mindset.)
>
> I can't remember it exactly but I think it struck me as quite friendly
> compared to some articles I've read.
> >
> > BTW, having devoted a good deal of time to watching foreign political
> > leaders, (especially the Brits), I'm not terribly impressed with their
> > performance.
>
> Me neither.
>
> > (Blair can certainly talk the talk.
>
> Blair certainly cannot talk the talk. That is, he cannot talk in such
> a way that it makes sense.
>
> > But can he walk the walk?)
>
> Depends what you mean by the question. My guess is - no. No political
> leader anywhere outside the US is capable of doing a fraction of what
> the US is capable of militarily. The gulf between the US and any other
> single country is now so enormous it is unbridgeable. It will
> literally take either the break-up of the USA into its constituent
> states, or a political union in Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals
> followed by a hike in spending on weapons which would lead to the
> abolition of all of Europe's health, education and welfare systems to
> catch up. Consequently, it won't happen.
Never-the-less, some of our Arab brethern have managed to inflict more
casualities on the continenial US that either the mighty German or Japanese
war machines manged in five years of warfare. While various Europeans are
some what blase about casualities, Americans, from across the political
spectrum, from all classes, from all ethnic backgrounds, are pissed. Al
Qaeda wanted our attention, well, they have it.
>
> All of which should explain the anxiety outside the USA. We support
> America; we're glad America is there; but I think you can understand
> why we're wondering where the hell it's all going to lead - and we
> think you should be too (by 'we' I don't speak for all Europeans,
> obviously).
>
> > Labeling Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld as morons does not gain you any
> > points in America.
>
> er ... I've never actually been bothered by 'gaining points' in
> America. The people who voted Republican aren't going to be interested
> in anything I have to say; the people who voted Democrat already agree
> with me. Everyone else isn't on this newsgroup.
LOL.....100,000,000 Democrats agree with you??? Take my word for it. You
couldn't get 100,000,000 Americans to agree on what time of day it is. (See
the continuing rumbles over daylight saving time.).
>
> Bush is a hopeless speaker - Blair isn't very good, but Bush is worse,
> and has no apparant beliefs. As a matter of fact I don't mind that in
> a politician; I don't dislike Bush on a personal level exactly
> (obviously we see much less of US politicians here so my opinion of
> them is based on much less information than yours would be) and I'm
> sure had he been born into America's other political dynasty, the
> Kennedys, his personality would be unchanged. And he would be just as
> lusy at public speaking and just as apparantly vague and muddled in
> his thinking - just like a million other politicians.
He is barely comptent in making a public address. However, in some
situations, for instance his visit to the bomb site, were outstanding.
>
> It's the people around him I don't like, the ones who *do* seem to
> have an ideology - the Rumsfelds, Wolfowitzes, Ashcrofts, Boltons and
> Cheneys. They clearly want total American military domination of the
> world - in which case it really doesn't matter what the British PM has
> to say about anything; it doesn't matter whether he is cautiously
> pro-American (like Blair) or incautiously pro-American (like the
> conservative opposition leader), whatever he says will be politely
> listened to and, if it interferes with America's military or economic
> interests, ignored.
That's a pretty fair summation.
>
> Therefore America is playing a different game to the rest of us -
> since Bush's ascension the USA has gradually been leaving the field of
> play and starting another game on its own (kind of fittingly: nobody
> else plays American football either; we prefer plain old football -
> soccer to you). That must be gratifying to American conservatives and
> unilateralists (the intellectual heirs of Joe Kennedy and all those
> who tried to keep the USA out of WW2) but you must see why it would be
> worrying to everyone else. After all, when America has surrounded
> itself with its missile defence shield, and its gigantic flotilla of
> aircraft carriers and nuclear subs fill its seas for 100 miles off the
> coast, and the sky above it is thick with aircraft, and at the end of
> every street out of every small town silos of missiles full of nerve
> gas and smallpox viruses are ready and aimed at the rest of the world,
> and the entire planet is encircled with US satelites bristling with
> listening devices and hires cameras, and are pointing laser guns at
> all of us - or whatever the hell else America's new Dr Strangeloves
> may or may not have in store for us (because none of us really know,
> including you guys) ...
>
> What happens next?
I don't know. What has happened in the past, considering that the
conditions you mentioned have been around for decades? That's usually a
pretty fair predictor....
James...
jackkincaid
>
> Until a very few years ago, a conservative Republican
> homosexual was very much considered an exotic anomoly.
Anomaly.
Sure, I got the connection, I was sort of joking - like, are all
Republicans suffering from AIDs these days? Not very funny.
In the recent elections for leader of the Conservative Party here in
Britain by far the best candidate happened to be bisexual, and largely
as a result he failed. An out gay conservative is pretty exotic here
too.
>
[snip]
>
> The point is there is no "it". There is only "they".
Well, actually it's both. Media is a plural noun. But ... whatever.
> With myrid choices
> from the far Left "Nation" to the far right "National Review", the
> availability of multiple news sources is immense. It's something of an
> inside joke, but in America, you're probably not taken seriously as fringe
> lunitic until you at least start publishing a newsletter.
Fair enough. It's a very easy trap to fall into in Europe, to assume
the US media - or US anything - is more monolithic than it really is.
There is sometimes an assumption, for instance, that socialist
labourism doesn't exist there - that the unions were totally
emasculated by Reagan and a couple of generations of demonisation of
'commies' has done for its 'intellectual' (so called) base. But that's
not true.
The difference is, arguably, that all these conflicting points of view
have less influence on the political and economic system than they
would in Europe - communism or fascism in France or Italy means an
actual communist or frascist party taking power in several industrial
regions and changing policy, not an esotoric theory for small
discussion groups to argue over.
Also we tend to see the mainstream media only - CNN and news reports
from ABC, NBC and CBS, excerpts from popular MW radio shows like
Limbaugh's, North's, Liddy's and Howard Stern's, and papers like the
NY Times and Washington Post. My impression is that the same goes for
the American people - generally, they take little interest in
alternatives to the mainstream media or sometimes, like us, they have
little chance to access them. And the mainstream media is, in European
terms, overwhelmingly right-wing and hostile to the rest of the world
(which may not have been my original point but I've gone and snipped
it now).
This may surprise you but America often seems a very tightly
controlled society from the outside - despite having the best record
on free speech and access to information in the world.
>
[snip]
> >
> > Depends what you mean by the question. My guess is - no. No political
> > leader anywhere outside the US is capable of doing a fraction of what
> > the US is capable of militarily. The gulf between the US and any other
> > single country is now so enormous it is unbridgeable. It will
> > literally take either the break-up of the USA into its constituent
> > states, or a political union in Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals
> > followed by a hike in spending on weapons which would lead to the
> > abolition of all of Europe's health, education and welfare systems to
> > catch up. Consequently, it won't happen.
>
> Never-the-less, some of our Arab brethern have managed to inflict more
> casualities on the continenial US that either the mighty German or Japanese
> war machines manged in five years of warfare.
Note: that is true of America (that is, the American homeland - many
more Americans were killed by German and Japanese soldiers outside
America in WW2 than the 2500 or so on 11/9) but not, of course, of
Europe.
> While various Europeans are
> some what blase about casualities, Americans, from across the political
> spectrum, from all classes, from all ethnic backgrounds, are pissed.
Are Europeans blase about American losses? I'm not sure ... That
certainly isn't true of Britain, who also lost a few hundred people,
and whose soldiers fought in Afghanistan and are there now keeping the
peace (at great risk and cost).
But yeah, there is a sense in Europe - everywhere, in fact, and
stronger outside Europe - that, horrific and unjustifiable though the
attack on the WTC was, in some sense, somehow, America had it coming.
This isn't my opinion but I recognise it exists (for example a friend
of mine actually said as much - and she is a expat New Yorker with
family living a couple of miles away from ground zero, and who burst
into tears when she heard the news). It isn't due to a dislike of
Americans, it's due to ... well, it's due to what we're talking about,
a resentment at the perceived misuse of Americain power to push an
economic and political agenda which is intended to benefit Americans
at the expense of the rest of us (the failure to sign the recent
international agreement on global warming is a case in point - America
is by a long, long way the world's biggest polluter).
From a British (Canadian and Australian too, I think) perspective it's
a difficult one. I can understand what the French, say, are
compalining about - they are frightened their entire culture will be
eventually desytoyed - and I understand the third world complaints
about closed US markets, rigged trade systems and environmental
damage. On the other hand I think basically the US is right in making
security such an important issue, right in identifying the threat (up
to a point), and clearly the US is the only country capable of dealing
with the main threat to us all (including French culture) - which is
Islamism - reasonably quickly and decisively. Also, any system of
protection the US devises for itself will probably include us in
Britain - so I guess we're sitting pretty.
Nevertheless there is substance to the complaints, and they will only
get worse.
One other thing about Europeans being blase about American losses. I
suggest you look around these newsgroups at what some Americans say
about US history, or watch Hollywood movies about any war in which the
US has been involved in the last 100 years or so. Then you'll find
*real* contempt for other peoples' suffering. The current Hollywood
rewrite of history states that US sacrifice won the war in Europe - in
fact, American losses were in the thousands, compared to 2 million
Brits, 4 million French - and 20 million Russians, and all the other
millions of other Europeans, after twice as many years of involvement,
and occupation and the Blitz. When does Hollywood, in its myriad films
about Vietnam, ackowledge what the ordinary Vietnamese went through?
Do Americans know that millions of them died, and millions of
Cambodians and Laotians in Kissinger's pointless bombing and its
aftermath? Do you know how many Nicaraguans and El Salvadoreans and
Chileans died or were tortured in conflicts (and after CIA operations)
in those countries? Or Angolans, or Afghans, or ... etc. etc.
And one other thing: barely any country in Europe has known total
peace and/or freedom for more than a few years for ... ever, really.
Europe has been in a state of semi-permanent conflict for, I don't
know, 4000 years maybe (Switzerland possibly excepted). You talk about
American losses on one day from terrorism - Britain has known
terrorism for 30 years, and on and off 100 years before that, from the
IRA (largely sponsored by certain dimwitted Americans, BTW). We have
had thousands die too - yet the US has only now stopped the
fundraising. I've never been aware of any particular sympathy from
America beyond the normal, of-the-moment reaction you'd expect - and
that's fine. That's OK. The rewriting of history is disgusting but
otherwise I don't think we've ever expected any special sympathy, and
neither did the Italians when the Red Brigades were blowing them up,
and neither did the east Europeans under communist rule, or the
Spanish attacked by ETA terrorists, or the Corsicans, or the Sicilians
under the mafia etc. etc. etc. Now the US has found out what it's
like, and has done so in the worst terrorist event in modern hisrtory.
We were all shocked and sympathetic at the time, and we all wanted to
help (European offers of troops for Afghanistan were turned down,
except the British) - and we all lost our own nationals in the
collpase of the towers. But you surely don't expect Americans to get
*more* sympathy than victims from European countries would get, or
anywhere else for that matter, do you?
[snip]
>
> LOL.....100,000,000 Democrats agree with you??? Take my word for it. You
> couldn't get 100,000,000 Americans to agree on what time of day it is. (See
> the continuing rumbles over daylight saving time.).
Quite. That was a dumb thing to say. I meant really that these
complaints about US foreign policy really started after Bush was
(s)elected - they barely existed under Clinton, and possibly wouldn't
have done so under Gore (I'm not typing as a Democrat supporter
particularly, BTW) - they're not really connected with Afghanistan,
after all. in a couple of recent speeches Clinton has said almost
verbatim what the Europeans are saying, and so there is little
difference between the mainstream Democrat position and the mainstream
European position. But there's nothing new in that - other than a few
right-wing headbangers in Britain the Republicans have always been
looked on suspiciously because they are the American nationalist party
(historically, it has been the Democrats who have come to the aid of
Britain, for instance).
But you're right, discerning that 'mainstream position' is nigh
impossible - and if you think it's hard in America you should try
following how European-wide decisions are reached. The NY Times, I
think, recently published a transcript of French/Spanish/Italian
horsetrading in the European parliament. Ridiculously complicated is
an understatement.
And of course I wouldn't expect *all* Democrats to agree with me in my
firmly held conviction that every American male should have a picture
of HM the Queen branded on his arse. But hey, that's politics. :-)
> >
> > Bush is a hopeless speaker - [snip]
>
> He is barely comptent in making a public address. However, in some
> situations, for instance his visit to the bomb site, were outstanding.
I didn't think so, but I may not have seen it all. I thought he was
very good at conveying the confusion and hurt Americans must have felt
- mainly because he seemed confused and hurt. But his, and the Right's
generally, tendency to over-loud patriotic tub thumping irritates most
Europeans - but there's nothing new there.
>
> >
> > It's the people around him I don't like, the ones who *do* seem to
> > have an ideology - the Rumsfelds, Wolfowitzes, Ashcrofts, Boltons and
> > Cheneys. They clearly want total American military domination of the
> > world - in which case it really doesn't matter what the British PM has
> > to say about anything; it doesn't matter whether he is cautiously
> > pro-American (like Blair) or incautiously pro-American (like the
> > conservative opposition leader), whatever he says will be politely
> > listened to and, if it interferes with America's military or economic
> > interests, ignored.
>
> That's a pretty fair summation.
The point being that, even if we assume Bush et al is capable of
recognising them, America's military or economic interests are not
necessarily the world's, and as the only world superpower America now
has a duty to submerge its own interests - wherever possible - in the
interest of the world's. It's time to grow up.
>
[snip]
> >
> > What happens next?
>
> I don't know. What has happened in the past, considering that the
> conditions you mentioned have been around for decades? That's usually a
> pretty fair predictor....
James, that is entirely the point. Britain was, 100 years ago, roughly
in the position the USA is in now - without the sheer military power
but with political control over half the world or more. What happened?
We bankrupted ourselves in two wars with Germany and went home. Before
that the French empire collpased after war - with us, funnily enough.
The Spanish empire imploded, so did the Russian one. The Mongol empre
was eventually defeated, as was the Roman empire (those Germans
again).
At its height, 150 years ago or whatever, the British empire was
producing most of the world's goods; now, Britain produces a small,
small percentage. Likewise, ifty years ago the USA produced most of
the world's goods; today it's on 30% and, in the long term, declining
(the collapse of the USSR and slow-down in Japan was a boost, but not
much and they will pick up).
Like all great nations or empires throughout history America's real
economic power is actually declining, not growing - and sometime soon
the greatest world empire ever - the Chinese one (did you know that
the biggest ethnic minority everywhere is the Chinese?) - is waiting
to be born. American economic power is shrinking while it spends a
vast proportion of its tax take on military power which, if it was
ever used to its fullest capacity, would destroy the human race.
Like I said, everyone who did that before went bankrupt and had to
start again. Maybe that's what irritates Europeans most - watching
America possibly making the same mistakes it made all over again.
Serge V. Zykov
> > since Bush's ascension the USA has gradually been leaving the field of
> > play and starting another game on its own (kind of fittingly: nobody
> > else plays American football either; we prefer plain old football -
> > soccer to you). That must be gratifying to American conservatives and
> > unilateralists (the intellectual heirs of Joe Kennedy and all those
> > who tried to keep the USA out of WW2) but you must see why it would be
> > worrying to everyone else. After all, when America has surrounded
> > itself with its missile defence shield, and its gigantic flotilla of
> > aircraft carriers and nuclear subs fill its seas for 100 miles off the
> > coast, and the sky above it is thick with aircraft, and at the end of
> > every street out of every small town silos of missiles full of nerve
> > gas and smallpox viruses are ready and aimed at the rest of the world,
> > and the entire planet is encircled with US satelites bristling with
> > listening devices and hires cameras, and are pointing laser guns at
> > all of us - or whatever the hell else America's new Dr Strangeloves
> > may or may not have in store for us (because none of us really know,
> > including you guys) ...
> >
> > What happens next?
>
> I don't know. What has happened in the past, considering that the
> conditions you mentioned have been around for decades? That's usually a
> pretty fair predictor....
>
It seems, I've found answer.
If somebody is going to start war he is collecting the weapon and try to
control more
resources, control people's moods.
> James...
Serge,
reading history book of the XXI century...
Serge V. Zykov
> controlled society from the outside - despite having the best record
> on free speech and access to information in the world.
Agree. It would be revelation for some americans, but it is. America now
looks
like USSR in 20 years ago. USSR named itself "the land of equal opportunity
for
each one and freedom" and was being land where different from official
opinion
wasn't popular in masses and media.
Serge.
Serge V. Zykov
Serge from Russia.
anonymouse
do us all a favor and MOVE the WHOLE FUCKIN' UN ELSEWHERE.
Communist China would love you
Mike Coburn wrote:
> Crackpot Returns wrote:
>
>>>No. Not ironic. Maybe you've simply misspelled "idiotic", or
>>>"moronic". I had been led to believe that the US played a major role
>>>in the creation of the UN. Seems to me that the UN should have
>>>done the Iraq thing both past and possible future. And if invasion
>>>did/does not happen then it probably should not happen.
>>>
>>>
>>They probably did create it seeing as they owe it the most money (standard
>>US business practice).
>>
>>What an economy
>>
>
> I am amazed at the rest of the world tolerating such crap. I wonder
> what it is that W and the Republicans have promised Blair and his
> guys for going along with such abomination. I just can't imagine
> why the rest of the world does not _insist_ that the US must act
> through international bodies to make war on other sovereignties.
> The Afghanistan thing was an exception, the current plan isn't.
> It may be that the rest of the world is simply intimidated. But I
> have a news flash for the rest of the world: We, the American
> citizens, need your help. Your nations are representative
> democracies and, unlike us, you have some control over your governments.
> Please use your influence to help us out. Tell your governments to slap
> ours across the face a few times. The mass media in the USA, you see, is
> owned by the very same people who own all the politicians, and
> who control the elections to an extent that the people have no
> voice in the government. The people of other nations must be our
> voice. Protest your government's support for W the dictator.
>
> And we, in the USA, must focus on the only issue that really
> matters: The reclaiming of government of, by, and for the
> people of the nation:
>
> http://representation.bravepages.com/extend.html
>
>
Marc Living
wrote:
>> We refused to acknowledge the internal settlement
>> between Smith and Muzerewa and we deliberately closed our eyes and
>> ears to the massive intimidation and fraud which allowed Mugabe to
>> "win" the post Lancaster House election.
>Look, this was before I was aware of the world but this is my
>uinderstanding: there was a fucking war on. Yes, Mugabe is an
>out-and-out white-hating racist scumbag. *In extremis* maybe he would
>have threatened to raise an army of criminal psychopaths to rape and
>pillage the white farms. On the other hand, Ian Smith's ridiculous
>fantasy of English tea and crumpets on the lawn in the middle of a
>tribal war would have lasted five minutes without external help,
It actually lasted for almost 20 years, not only without outside help,
but in the face of universal sanctions. And yet, in spite of sanctions
and the Bush War, Ian Smith's Rhodesian economy, even at its worst,
was far healthier than the economy of Mugabe's Zimbabwe*.
Mugabe, on the other hand, would have ended up as a barely remembered
ex-con never-was nobody had he not benefited from substantial external
help.
(*It is ironic that, even towards the end of Rhodesia, (black) migrant
workers were flocking *into* Rhodesia from the surrounding countries,
a situation which Mugabe has (literally) revolutionised.)
>and
>we couldn't have sat back while Afrikaan soldiers crossed the bordewr
>and massacred every 'kaffir' they came across. There had to be a deal
>which most Zimbabweans (Rhodesians as was) would go along with.
Afrikaaners disliked Rhodesians, and the feeling was mutual. They
didn't lift a finger to help them.
>It was a shit deal. Carrington was as wet as they come and Thatcher
>was bonkers. But they only brokered it; that doesn't mean that what
>happened afterwards is our responsibility.
We deliberately rigged the whole proceed so that Mugabe would win the
election. This was denied vociferously at the time, but has since been
admitted by more than one of the parties concerned.
> And Mugabe wasn't as bad
>then as he is now, not even close. Are you seriously suggesting we
>should send in an army to topple him, 20 years later? What possible
>business is it of ours?
He is interfering with the property and persons of British citizens.
Civus Britannicus est an' all.
> Any Zimbabweans with a British passport - and
>doubtless several thousand others - will get refuge in Britain if it
>all goes pear shaped - what more can we do?
Take him out.
<snip>
>We have sent in troops to quell a massacre in Sierra Leone - if Mugabe
>was assasinated, or went completely insane, and there was a civil war,
>then - OK. *Then* we, along with the SAfricans and maybe the Aussies,
>might have a responsibility to help out. But it is none of our
>business to help prop up the businesses of farmers, especially since
>half of them who went to Zimbabwe in the years after WW2, when
>independence was always on the cards, to make a quick buck.
Many of them went after independence - having been specifically
invited by Mugabe to buy farms which were accompanied by (worthless)
certificates claiming that those farms were exempt from expropriation.
>That was
>their choice. We should save them from a massacre (I wish we could
>have saved the guys killed so far) - as we should help save all BC
>Africans from a massacre - but we can't pay or risk our soldiers to
>save their businesses, any more than we, or the Americans, could pay
>or risk our soldiers to save the shareholders of the Suez canal.
We could and we did do exactly that. Nobody asked for or needed
American help. What we didn't need, however, was American hinderance:
not least by its cynical and dishonest manipulation of a Bretton Woods
system which depended on US good faith to work.
>At the same time we should ensure that a massacre doesn't take place
>by giving Mugabe any excuse for starting one, which means not making
>empty threats. I don't think this gvt has handled him particularly
>well, but I certainly don't think we should be sending the troops in
>because he's about to fix an election (and if you think the Opposition
>do, BTW, whatever they say now, you're mad).
>Of course the people with something at stake in Zimbabwe and, 50 years
>ago in Egypt, happen to be white, whereas the Zambians, Sierra Leonese
>and others you didn't mention, are not. Funny that.
Nothing to do with them being white. Few people here gave a monkeys
when it was French and Belgian nationals getting attacked in another
anarchic African country (the Congo) - which prompted the French and
Belgian governments to send paratroopers and foreign legionnaires in.
It is because they are British citizens. More even than that, they are
kith and kin.
--
Marc Living (remove "bounceback" to reply)
J&K Copeland
"Serge V. Zykov" <s...@directnet.ru> wrote in message
news:10137938...@relay.directnet.ru...
Naom Chumsky is considered an ultra-left wing radical in the US. Yet, he is
alive and doing very well. He makes a handsome living (Professor of
Linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and his some of his
political lectures have been nationally broadcast live on CSPAN. While his
views are only given credence in some Leftist circles and are not terribly
popular in the mainstream America, I wouldn't be surprised if his telephone
number and address were listed in the local phone book. I doubt very
seriously that he has the slightest concern about being arrested and
sentenced to decades in an American Gulag.
Several years ago, one chapter of the Ku Klux Klan decided to broadcast a TV
show on a small local cable network. It took a court case, but it was
finally decided that the cable network, charged with operating in the public
interest, HAD to provide the time. The weekly show was still being shown,
the last time I heard.
Many years ago, the American Nazi Party wanted to stage a march in
predominetly Jewish, Skokie, Illinois. Needless to say the Jewish
population was outraged, but the American courts said that the Nazi's had
exactly the same rights as anyone else. The Nazi's marched and were greeted
with a view of the backsides of almost every individual living in Skokie.
(George Lincoln Rockwell, the Nazi leader was assassinated in 1967, but no
one, not even the Nazi's think the government had anything to do with it.)
William F. Buckley is considered an ultra-right wing commentator. Of
course, he is a multi-millionaire and occasionally enjoys telling stories
about his respected friend, and left wing commentator and economist, John
Kenneth Galbraith. I venture to say that neither of them has ever given a
moment's though to government suppression of their views.
Even at the height of McCarthyism, in the early 50's, no one was arrested
and jailed, although many were ruined professionally. Recently, with the
release of some defunct Soviet achieves, it was revealed that the US
Government WAS deeply penetrated by Soviet agents, around 300 of them. It
was also revealed that of the hundreds of people smeared by McCarthy, only
one or two of them were actual Soviet agents, and Tail Gunner Joe didn't
know which ones. The McCarthy hearings are considered a dark time in
American history.
And last, in the past election, America was about as evenly divided and
polarized politically as any country in modern times. Yet, there was never
any question that there would never be main battle tanks on the streets of
Miami. No US soldiers were called out to defend voting booths and despite
volumes of rhetoric, there was no question that President Clinton would be
there to watch President Bush sworn in as president. Any soldiers were
there for window dressing and not protection. The Secret Service handled
security.
Any similarity between America and Soviet Russia are entirely superficial.
James.....
J&K Copeland
> "J&K Copeland" <jc...@xxx.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<kwUa8.388997$8w3.10...@typhoon.kc.rr.com>...
> > "jackkincaid" <theov...@another.com> wrote in message
> [snip]
> >
> > Until a very few years ago, a conservative Republican
> > homosexual was very much considered an exotic anomoly.
>
> Anomaly.
>
Every few months a plague descends on Usenet called the spelling flame. It
starts out when someone posts an article correcting the spelling or grammar
in some article. The immediate result seems to be for everyone on the net to
turn into a 6th grade English teacher and pick apart each other's postings
for a few weeks. This is not productive and tends to cause people who used
to be friends to get angry with each other.
*See below.
> Sure, I got the connection, I was sort of joking - like, are all
> Republicans suffering from AIDs these days? Not very funny.
>
> In the recent elections for leader of the Conservative Party here in
> Britain by far the best candidate happened to be bisexual, and largely
> as a result he failed. An out gay conservative is pretty exotic here
> too.
*For instance, did you mean "outed gay" or "out right gay" ? Nevermind. I
know what you meant.
It occures to me the "outed" may not mean the same in GB as America. In
America, if gay media source, publishes that a particular individual is gay,
the individual is said "to be outed."
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > The point is there is no "it". There is only "they".
>
> Well, actually it's both. Media is a plural noun. But ... whatever.
So it would be "gay medium source" and not "gay media source"?
>
> > With myrid choices
> > from the far Left "Nation" to the far right "National Review", the
> > availability of multiple news sources is immense. It's something of an
> > inside joke, but in America, you're probably not taken seriously as
fringe
> > lunitic until you at least start publishing a newsletter.
>
> Fair enough. It's a very easy trap to fall into in Europe, to assume
> the US media - or US anything - is more monolithic than it really is.
> There is sometimes an assumption, for instance, that socialist
> labourism doesn't exist there - that the unions were totally
> emasculated by Reagan and a couple of generations of demonisation of
> 'commies' has done for its 'intellectual' (so called) base. But that's
> not true.
*demonization
The American trade union movement was, if not shattered, severly damaged as
a by-product of the Japanese assualt on the American automobile market.
Initially, the unions came about as a direct result of the excesses of
unrestrained management, especially of the railroads and mine owners. By
the 1980's it was widely perceived that the pendelum had swung to far in the
opposite direction and that some nationwide unions, for instance the UAW
(united auto workers) and the teamsters were too powerful and dictorial.
Other than supporting "Right to Work" legislation, which was invariable
passed at the state level, Reagan's main contribution was breaking the air
traffic controllers strike. Air traffic controllers are Federal employees
and no Federal employee has ever had the right to strike. Observing the
effects of some general strikes in European countries, and the fact that ATC
employees have always been well-paid in comparison to their working
brethern, didn't not garner them much support in the general population.
Aside: I was hired as an air traffic controller in 1973. After one morning
of watching what they really did do, on the job, I decided that it wasn't
for me. I wouldn't have lasted a year as an air traffic controller.
Federal employees and federal managers operate under binding arbitration
rules. Impartial "arbitrators" sit down with both parties and negotate
binding contracts. However, Federal pay scales are set by law and not
subject to contract negotation. However, many important job conditions are
subject to negotation. For instance, in 1974, if someone was one minute
late on the job, they were charged one hour of annual leave (vacation
time). After a union negotation, the annual leave was broken down into 15
minute increments rather than 1 hour increments.
>
> The difference is, arguably, that all these conflicting points of view
> have less influence on the political and economic system than they
> would in Europe - communism or fascism in France or Italy means an
> actual communist or frascist party taking power in several industrial
> regions and changing policy, not an esotoric theory for small
> discussion groups to argue over.
>
> Also we tend to see the mainstream media only - CNN and news reports
> from ABC, NBC and CBS, excerpts from popular MW radio shows like
> Limbaugh's, North's, Liddy's and Howard Stern's, and papers like the
> NY Times and Washington Post. My impression is that the same goes for
> the American people - generally, they take little interest in
> alternatives to the mainstream media or sometimes, like us, they have
> little chance to access them. And the mainstream media is, in European
> terms, overwhelmingly right-wing and hostile to the rest of the world
> (which may not have been my original point but I've gone and snipped
> it now).
The NY Times, once considered the epitome of what a good newspaper should
be, has come under sharp critism lately for a perceived left-wing bias. I
don't read it. I wouldn't know. However, anyone (with internet access) can
read it at www.nytimes.com. Registration required.
However, for every conservative commentator, I can name a liberal
commentator. (BTW Howard Stern is not a conservative or liberal. He is a
nut.)
For every P.J. O'Rorke there is a Molly Ivins.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/columnists/molly_ivins/ (I used
those two because they use to appear on a TV segment called
Point/Counterpoint)
For every Andrew Sullivan there is a Christopher Hitchens.
>
> This may surprise you but America often seems a very tightly
> controlled society from the outside - despite having the best record
> on free speech and access to information in the world.
> >
It isn't.
I'm sorely tempted here to post some snide comment about how ignorant and
ill-informed most Europeans are, but let's leave it at "the arrogance of the
ignorant is most certainly not a sole condition of America."
I was driving at the apparent difference between the American attitude
towards American losses and what the British attitude would be in similiar
situation.
> [snip]
> > > What happens next?
> >
> > I don't know. What has happened in the past, considering that the
> > conditions you mentioned have been around for decades? That's usually a
> > pretty fair predictor....
>
> James, that is entirely the point. Britain was, 100 years ago, roughly
> in the position the USA is in now - without the sheer military power
> but with political control over half the world or more. What happened?
> We bankrupted ourselves in two wars with Germany and went home. Before
> that the French empire collpased after war - with us, funnily enough.
> The Spanish empire imploded, so did the Russian one. The Mongol empre
> was eventually defeated, as was the Roman empire (those Germans
> again).
The point I was trying to make is that US has possessed superior capability,
both military and economic, for decades. The US may dominate world affairs,
but we don't dictate world affairs. Tony Blair may perceive it to be in
Great Britain's best interest to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with the US,
but if he told he decided to stand at arms length, he still wouldn't have to
worry that 2.2 megaton thermonuclear device was aimed at Whitehall.
>
> At its height, 150 years ago or whatever, the British empire was
> producing most of the world's goods; now, Britain produces a small,
> small percentage. Likewise, ifty years ago the USA produced most of
> the world's goods; today it's on 30% and, in the long term, declining
> (the collapse of the USSR and slow-down in Japan was a boost, but not
> much and they will pick up).
The smokestack industries have been relocating out of the US for decades.
However, new, information based industries are growing inside the country.
But the base industry, food exportation, is still the bedrock industry, with
no end in sight.
>
> Like all great nations or empires throughout history America's real
> economic power is actually declining, not growing - and sometime soon
> the greatest world empire ever - the Chinese one (did you know that
> the biggest ethnic minority everywhere is the Chinese?) - is waiting
> to be born. American economic power is shrinking while it spends a
> vast proportion of its tax take on military power which, if it was
> ever used to its fullest capacity, would destroy the human race.
There is a one major difference. America does not have an empire, at least
in the classical sense. As long as there is a United States, there is a
basis for world power. It may ebb and flow, but the necessary components
are still there. (BTW, I would argue that Russia still has the components.
The Soviet Empire has collasped, but Russia can still make it back, on her
own. It'll take a while.)
>
> Like I said, everyone who did that before went bankrupt and had to
> start again. Maybe that's what irritates Europeans most - watching
> America possibly making the same mistakes it made all over again.
I think you have summed it up quite nicely. Europe is worldly "father" and
America is the unruly "teenager". All I can is that Bush, Cheney, Powell,
Rumsfeld are not teenagers. "Thank God, the adults are back in the White
House", a conservative jab at the Clinton years, has been reported more than
once.
James....
George Bush is always on time for meetings. Bill Clinton was never on time.
This very minor point, inconsequential it seems, has been bandied about over
and over again.
maria
two extremist socialists on the radio spouting leftist diatribes..news:Z_gb8.395315$8w3.10...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
Marc Living
wrote:
>Marc Living <equ...@lineone.net> wrote in message news:<h5gi6u0anb6rtiim8...@4ax.com>...
>> On 12 Feb 2002 03:07:34 -0800, theov...@another.com (jackkincaid)
>> wrote:
>[snip]
>> >Is it really the business of the British government to
>> >protect the interests of British companies holding on to foreign
>> >property left over from imperial times?
>> The Suez Canal company wasn't holding onto "foreign property left over
>> from imperial times". It was holding onto a canal which belonged to it
>> - and which wouldn't even have been there had that company not built
>> it - and which the Egyptian government was attempting to steal.
>True. You're right. Nasser took the canal illegally. Does that mean
>you think we should have gone to war with Egypt? I suppose it does.
>Bear in mind Nasser was assinated later for being insufficiently
>pro-Arab, he needed to do something futile over the canal - and he
>did.
Had we been allowed to topple him, he would no doubt have (today) been
alive and well and living in Droitwich. We would have saved his life,
if it hadn't been for the Americans. His blood, therefore, is on their
hands:-)
>I think we can condemn America for hypocrisy over Suez (presuambly
>they were trying to curry favour with Nasser in some half-baked cold
>war ploy; they didn't really have any objection about Egyptians being
>killed) but I think they were right in not wanting a war. But I
>suppose it might have been nice if they had made a contribution to the
>shareholders. :-)
What do you think their reaction would have been had there been
substantial numbers of American shareholders?
>BTW, the Romans built the first London Bridge. After the English drove
>them out, do you think we should have sent them their bridge back?
Did they ask for it?
>> And when did it stop being the business of the British government to
>> represent the interests of British citizens?
>When we lost the power so to do.
That doesn't change the duty - it merely makes it more difficult to
carry out.
>British PM Palmerston said (in 1838 or thereabouts) that everyone in
>the world knew that if they lay their hands on an Englishman they
>would feel the full wrath of the Empire visited on them - and the
>British were treated like minor royalty the world over as a result.
Indeed. Civus Britannicus sum.
Quite ironic, given recent events, that the first recorded beneficiary
of this doctrine was a Gibraltarian (by the name of Don Pacifico).
>That would be wonderfully advantageous for us today, but totally
>unfair.
This being a problem ... how exactly?
>Not even the Americans, with all their weaponry and the
>boastfulness of *their* government, can say now what Palmerston said
>then with his conviction.
They would certainly have the power so to say. They have not hithertoo
shown the will to say it though.
>Presumably, if you would like the return of
>imperial hegemony, you would wish they could. You must hope that any
>American can do whatever he likes anywhere in the world knowing the
>might of the US would bear down on anyone who tried to stop them. I
>mean, can you imagine a situation like that? What a fucking nightmare
>- Michael Jackson being able to do anything he likes under protection
>of the US government. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
I'm more concerned with the actions of British governments.
>> I thought that Sinai was taken after the 1967 war?
>The rest of it was, yeah, but Israel occupied it all in 1956 but
>pulled back out of most of it - didn't they? You've got me doubting
>myself now.
Not sure. All I would say is that if Egypt wanted to keep Sinai, not
attacking Israel would have been a good start to that endeavour.
>> >'We' had no business telling the Egyptians what to do with their
>> >property. On the other hand Nasser should have negotiated.
>> It was not "their property": on what possible basis do you say that it
>> was? It belonged to the shareholders of the company which built it.
>If you were an Egyptian, your country had been occupied by a foreign
>power, a canal had been built without your permission, or the
>permission of your political representitive,
It was certainly built with the permission of their political
representatives of the time.
>with your labour
Bought and paid for.
>but with
>the foreigners getting all the profits earned by its use (ie for the
>use of their ships), would you consider the canal yours or theirs? I
>was taking the Egyptian perspective, or one of them, or what I guess
>it would have been.
It belonged to the owners of the company which conceived of, and
built, it.
>Ideally, Nasser would have negotiated with the share owners, so that
>they had a 50-50 stake in the canal and a proper pay-off. Or they
>could have sold half the shares to the Egyptian people using a
>government-financed vouchers (sort of like one of Thatcher's
>privatisations). I don't know what negotiations took place - ideally,
>Britain would have been more powerful 10 years after the war and would
>have been able to ensure that a fair deal took place, although it may
>not have satisfied the Egyptians and so caused more resentment.
Had Nasser nationalised the canal with proper compensation, there
could have been no legitimate complaint from British and French
governments which were themselves presiding over large recently
(compulsorily) nationalised enterprises.
>But a war would have been stupid, and I don't blame the Americans for
>not getting involved.
But they *did* get involved. It was their involvement which forced the
British and French retreat - not anything the Egyptians were capable
of doing.
> Maybe we can accuse them of hypocrsiy, in
>pretending they had higher motives for not doing so, but why should
>they get involved in a war to protect our shareholders?
I totally agree. Why *did* they get involved? It was none of their
business.
>On those
>grounds they had a bigger claim to our support in Vietnam, which was
>even more stupid.
I don't follow. What were the British interests in Vietnam?
>> The Egyptian government sought to steal it from its rightful owners -
>> and succeeded in so doing, thanks to our "friends and allies" across
>> the Atlantic
>If only life was that simple.
Sometimes it is.
--
Marc Living (remove "bounceback" to reply)
Bill Willis
Marc Living wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2002 03:38:43 -0800, theov...@another.com (jackkincaid)
> wrote:
>
> >Marc Living <equ...@lineone.net> wrote in message news:<h5gi6u0anb6rtiim8...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 12 Feb 2002 03:07:34 -0800, theov...@another.com (jackkincaid)
> >> wrote:
>
> >[snip]
> Had we been allowed to topple him, he would no doubt have (today) been
> alive and well and living in Droitwich. We would have saved his life,
> if it hadn't been for the Americans. His blood, therefore, is on their
> hands:-)
LOL ,Very interesting conjecture. Being toppled from power would have saved Nassar.Nassar wasn't
assassinated he died at a very young age from a heart condition. He was extremely popular among the
Arabs. You guys need to do a little reading about the event you are discussing. There is plenty of
unbiased information on the internet regarding Suez.
>
>
> >I think we can condemn America for hypocrisy over Suez (presuambly
> >they were trying to curry favour with Nasser in some half-baked cold
> >war ploy; they didn't really have any objection about Egyptians being
> >killed) but I think they were right in not wanting a war. But I
> >suppose it might have been nice if they had made a contribution to the
> >shareholders. :-)
The reason that America objected was (1) it was not about to be forced into a Cold War confrontation with
the Soviets simply because of bilateral action of Britain and France without even consulting them of their
intentions regarding Suez. (2) The US government and President Eisenhower was appalled that Britain &
France (especially Britain) could be such bare faced liars.
> >Not even the Americans, with all their weaponry and the
> >boastfulness of *their* government, can say now what Palmerston said
> >then with his conviction.
>
> They would certainly have the power so to say. They have not hithertoo
> shown the will to say it though.
>
> >Presumably, if you would like the return of
> >imperial hegemony, you would wish they could. You must hope that any
> >American can do whatever he likes anywhere in the world knowing the
> >might of the US would bear down on anyone who tried to stop them. I
> >mean, can you imagine a situation like that? What a fucking nightmare
> >- Michael Jackson being able to do anything he likes under protection
> >of the US government. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
>
> I'm more concerned with the actions of British governments.
It is really amusing to read the simplicity and the naivety of this exchange. And so often it is Europe
that accuses America of simplistic approaches and lack of sophistication. Consider that the world is a
tiny bit different today than it was in Palmerston's time. Consider that though America has the power to
theoretically destroy the world, other nations also possess weapons of mass destruction. Yes America could
unleash holy hell if it wanted to everytime an American was threatened abroad but aren't you glad that they
are a bit more restrained.
>
>
> >> I thought that Sinai was taken after the 1967 war?
>
> >The rest of it was, yeah, but Israel occupied it all in 1956 but
> >pulled back out of most of it - didn't they? You've got me doubting
> >myself now.
>
> Not sure. All I would say is that if Egypt wanted to keep Sinai, not
> attacking Israel would have been a good start to that endeavour.
>
> >> >'We' had no business telling the Egyptians what to do with their
> >> >property. On the other hand Nasser should have negotiated.
>
> >> It was not "their property": on what possible basis do you say that it
> >> was? It belonged to the shareholders of the company which built it.
>
> >If you were an Egyptian, your country had been occupied by a foreign
> >power, a canal had been built without your permission, or the
> >permission of your political representitive,
>
> It was certainly built with the permission of their political
> representatives of the time.
>
> >with your labour
>
> Bought and paid for.
Let this be a lesson to Britain (and to everyone) that when you enter into business arrangements outside
your borders these are inherently more risky. Further you simply cannot make deals that span decades or
even centuries thus bypassing the rights of future unborn generations.
FYI - I believe in a posting some time ago to you on this subject I referred to compensation that Egypt did
pay Britain for the canal. If so ( and I think it is so) Britain was lucky. Especially considering their
behavior in raping the cultural treasures of Egypt. :-)
> Had Nasser nationalised the canal with proper compensation, there
> could have been no legitimate complaint from British and French
> governments which were themselves presiding over large recently
> (compulsorily) nationalised enterprises.
I'm not sure whether compensation was offered before or after the nationalization but there was a
compensation package I am quite sure.
>
>
> >But a war would have been stupid, and I don't blame the Americans for
> >not getting involved.
>
> But they *did* get involved. It was their involvement which forced the
> British and French retreat - not anything the Egyptians were capable
> of doing.
How did they get involved. What did they actually do?
>
> >On those
> >grounds they had a bigger claim to our support in Vietnam, which was
> >even more stupid.
>
> I don't follow. What were the British interests in Vietnam?
Well I think America misjudged the events in Vietnam and should never have become so deeply involved. But
the interest that America had was to stop the expansion of Communism and Soviet influence in the world. I
would think that British interests would have been much the same. Although perhaps Britain had a clearer
insight into the folly of the US activities in Viet Nam.
Bill
Serge Zykov
But why America's citizens so easy trusts whatever mainstream media
broadcasts?
Do you watch any alternative point of view regulary, let me say... from
EuroNews or some non-American TV news translated to English?
Do you speak and read any other language but English?
Do you see other movies but Hollywood made?
How often and how long you work or travel outside US?
Do you know your how President Bush feels the todays world? Like firing
range for US aircrafts and weapons. And NATO looks like US troops for money.
Do you heard that opinion from Europeans?
Sorry. If I've offended somebody. But it is how it looks from other side of
Atlantic puddle.
Comments....
James?
peterr
The US is such a vast continent that the americans think is the world and
that nothing else exists.
Let's face it, how many americans had heard of Afghanistan? Maybe 10% of the
nation. And out of that 10% maybe only 1% knew where it was situated.
The majority of american people rely upon the US media and politicians to
tell them what to believe, and that is fatal. And that also maintains
ignorance within the society as a whole.
If the american people really knew the truth about the worlds events, then
they would form a different opinion and would then be accepted by the rest
of the (non-corrupted) world.
But unfortunately they are led only to believe what they see on TV, and that
is a very biased version of what is happening in the world today.
There are other TV news channels where they can find a different view. then
they can judge for themselves what to believe.
"Serge Zykov" <s...@i-connect.com> wrote in message
news:10138927...@relay.directnet.ru...
J&K Copeland
> But why America's citizens so easy trusts whatever mainstream media
> broadcasts?
Who said that "mainstream' media was trusted? It certainly wasn't me.
Charges of bias newsreporting are commonplace, in fact, it's a national
pass time. The number one bestseller in America right now is book on the
Liberal Bias of the media. Most people channel surf like crazy.
I have two different newspapers delivered. I occasionaly read news
magazines (when waiting in a doctor's or dentist's office). Of course, in
the barber shops, it's Playboy or Penthouse.
I have broadband access to the Internet, and have been known to sample
foreign newspapers.
Look. Americans have virtually unlimited access to news and opinion
sources. Literally thousands and thousands. The US Goverment does not
control the news media much as they would like to, sometimes.
Aside: Heck, I just noticed a few months ago that the local library has an
English-languge version of Pravda.
Whether American choose to read/view any of those sources is entirely an
individual's choice. But they're available.
>
> Do you watch any alternative point of view regulary, let me say... from
> EuroNews or some non-American TV news translated to English?
So a news program translated from French or Russian is somehow better? What
would I find out in the Russian Pravda that's not in the English Pravda?
Note: I am addicted to BBC America, but, to be brutally frank, many of it's
reports are on issues that simply have no interest or impact on the average
American. It is not one of the top networks. I never, well, very rarely,
watch CNN or any network news, but I will tune in CSPAN frequently.
> Do you speak and read any other language but English?
Some Spanish. The spanish language channel from Mexico has more beautiful
women per minute than any other TV. They are totally unafflicted with the
French style of super skinny, flat chested semi-females imitations. Latins
like women to look like women, not men in drag. (Rumor has it that
Iceland's TV is loaded, too). I'l love to run a comparison some time
between the two.
> Do you see other movies but Hollywood made?
Yes. (You guys really have a thing about movies, don't you?) But, if a
movie is "the tour de force" from France, winner of "the best confused piece
of trash" at the Cannes Film Festival last year, you can bet I'm not
interested.
> How often and how long you work or travel outside US?
Never. Not voluntarily, anyway.
If I were to travel outside the US, the Aztec ruins in Mexico would be first
on the list. The Peruvian ruins would be second.
Fishing in some of the wild Canadian streams would be third.
My wife has a thing about seeing Ireland. I don't. (My wife's family is
heavy on the Irish. An entire country filled with Irish is scary). One of
these days I may stick her on a plane to Ireland but I'll be headed due
north.
>
> Do you know your how President Bush feels the todays world?
Oh, I think I've got a pretty good idea.
> Like firing
> range for US aircrafts and weapons. And NATO looks like US troops for
money.
> Do you heard that opinion from Europeans?
Oh, I've heard LOTS of opinions from Europeans. That seems to be one thing
that there's no shortage of, across the Atlantic. (All right. Fair's fair.
There's plenty on this side, too.)
>
> Sorry. If I've offended somebody. But it is how it looks from other side
of
> Atlantic puddle.
What it looks like is that a goodly number of Europeans have realized that
the US has militarily and economically, accelerated to such a superior
position that any given European opinion, pro, con or otherwise has been
rendered inconsequental. It looks like the US doesn't HAVE to pay any
attention to European opinions about anything. So while a particular
European position on a given issue might be entirely valid and desirable, no
European nation (with the possible exception of Great Britain to some
extent), is any position other than to express the opinion and then go away.
The fact is, you'd be hard pressed to find any American inside or outside
the government that cares what the Belgium Prime Minister thinks about
anything. His (her?) opinion carries no more weight that the average French
taxi driver's.
And the US has reached the point where it would pay more attention to what a
Canadian Prime Minister or Mexican President has to say, than any European
minister with the exception of Great Britain's Blair and Russia's Putain.
No one pays any attention to the French, while it's hard to believe that
comunism has managed to marginalize an entire country full of Germans, it
has.
>
> Comments....
> James?
>
>
>
Serge Zykov
>> But why America's citizens so easy trusts whatever mainstream media
>> broadcasts?
>
>Who said that "mainstream' media was trusted? It certainly wasn't me.
Hope it's true. Go ahead....
>Charges of bias newsreporting are commonplace, in fact, it's a national
>pass time. The number one bestseller in America right now is book on the
>Liberal Bias of the media. Most people channel surf like crazy.
But see one Bush at all news channels?
>I have two different newspapers delivered. I occasionaly read news
Which newspapers?
>magazines (when waiting in a doctor's or dentist's office). Of course, in
>the barber shops, it's Playboy or Penthouse.
>
>I have broadband access to the Internet, and have been known to sample
>foreign newspapers.
>
>Look. Americans have virtually unlimited access to news and opinion
>sources. Literally thousands and thousands. The US Goverment does not
>control the news media much as they would like to, sometimes.
>
>Aside: Heck, I just noticed a few months ago that the local library has an
>English-languge version of Pravda.
LOL. You really think Pravda mirroring whole Russia point of view today?
It's little newspaper for old people, who are "nostagie" about communizm.
>Whether American choose to read/view any of those sources is entirely an
>individual's choice. But they're available.
>
Everyone who connected to the Internet do choice as well. You'll be
surprised, outside US too. But difference is I can read and read more than
you.
>> Do you watch any alternative point of view regulary, let me say... from
>> EuroNews or some non-American TV news translated to English?
>
>So a news program translated from French or Russian is somehow better?
What
>would I find out in the Russian Pravda that's not in the English Pravda?
You operated stereotypes
Russian newspaper is Pravda
Russian name is Ivan
Russian toy is matryoshka
Russians all wearing fur hats with ears walks along the streets with wild
brown bears.
May I start to laugh now or in a second?
>Note: I am addicted to BBC America, but, to be brutally frank, many of
it's
>reports are on issues that simply have no interest or impact on the average
>American. It is not one of the top networks. I never, well, very rarely,
>watch CNN or any network news, but I will tune in CSPAN frequently.
>
>> Do you speak and read any other language but English?
>
>Some Spanish. The spanish language channel from Mexico has more beautiful
>women per minute than any other TV. They are totally unafflicted with the
>French style of super skinny, flat chested semi-females imitations. Latins
>like women to look like women, not men in drag. (Rumor has it that
>Iceland's TV is loaded, too). I'l love to run a comparison some time
>between the two.
Is your Spanish like my English? Do you use Spanish for any goal but
wacthing entertainment tv programs?
>> Do you see other movies but Hollywood made?
>
>Yes. (You guys really have a thing about movies, don't you?) But, if a
>movie is "the tour de force" from France, winner of "the best confused
piece
>of trash" at the Cannes Film Festival last year, you can bet I'm not
>interested.
>
What is your favourite movie, Jackie? Or movies?
>> How often and how long you work or travel outside US?
>
>Never. Not voluntarily, anyway.
>If I were to travel outside the US, the Aztec ruins in Mexico would be
first
>on the list. The Peruvian ruins would be second.
>Fishing in some of the wild Canadian streams would be third.
>
>My wife has a thing about seeing Ireland. I don't. (My wife's family is
>heavy on the Irish. An entire country filled with Irish is scary). One
of
>these days I may stick her on a plane to Ireland but I'll be headed due
>north.
James, no words, just visit my friend's site. He is American, from Boston.
http://www.new-millennium-ride.org/
He is man, whom interesting to communicate with. I even meet him in Moscow
when he stay here a couple of days and had penpal him about a year before
meet him live.
OK. But sometimes Belgium Prime Minister does speach at the United European
Government. And he affects the European politic and economic.
>His (her?) opinion carries no more weight that the average French
>taxi driver's.
>
>And the US has reached the point where it would pay more attention to what
a
>Canadian Prime Minister or Mexican President has to say, than any European
>minister with the exception of Great Britain's Blair and Russia's Putain.
>No one pays any attention to the French, while it's hard to believe that
>comunism has managed to marginalize an entire country full of Germans, it
>has.
>
You forget Chinese leader. Chainese and Russian leaders these guys could
have independent of us point of view to the events. Only.
Serge.
Unknown
>You are so right in what you say.
> The US is such a vast continent that the americans think is the world and
>that nothing else exists.
>Let's face it, how many americans had heard of Afghanistan? Maybe 10% of the
>nation. And out of that 10% maybe only 1% knew where it was situated.
>The majority of american people rely upon the US media and politicians to
>tell them what to believe, and that is fatal. And that also maintains
>ignorance within the society as a whole.
>If the american people really knew the truth about the worlds events, then
>they would form a different opinion and would then be accepted by the rest
>of the (non-corrupted) world.
>But unfortunately they are led only to believe what they see on TV, and that
>is a very biased version of what is happening in the world today.
>There are other TV news channels where they can find a different view. then
>they can judge for themselves what to believe.
>
>
Its funny but I think the exact same thing about the British.
I remember one incident in particular. Several years ago, then
President Clinton announced that he had signed a bill that would
reform the Welfare laws and make it more difficult for people to
receive and keep welfare payments. When this news was announced in
Britain, the media gave a huge up cry saying that it would throw
single mothers and children out of their homes and into the streets,
etc.
Two years later, when Clinton announced that the reform was a
complete success and that something like $4 billion a year was being
saved due to the reduction of corruption and fraud I could not find
one word about it in the British media. It was completely ignored and
the only reason I can think of is because the British seem so
immensely proud of their welfare state that they can't bear the
thought that it is being abused. Even today, the idea of eliminating
welfare payments to criminals is almost criminal itself.
Its almost comical in some ways to see a nation so incredibly
brainwashed into thinking that socialized medicine works or that
responsible gun ownership is completely beyond the ability of any one
not a member of the government, police or military.
The scary thing though is that these idiotic teachings are taking hold
here. The State of California is a virtual Britain all by itself. Huge
income, sales and property taxes going to pay a massive welfare
system, gun ownership only allowed by an elite few, criminals have
completely overrun large sections of Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Illegal and illiterate immigrants flooding in.
It looks like the United States is becoming more like Britain everyday
and nobody seems to care.
SteveL
>
>Its funny but I think the exact same thing about the British.
>
>I remember one incident in particular. Several years ago, then
>President Clinton announced that he had signed a bill that would
>reform the Welfare laws and make it more difficult for people to
>receive and keep welfare payments. When this news was announced in
>Britain, the media gave a huge up cry saying that it would throw
>single mothers and children out of their homes and into the streets,
>etc.
I don't think there was a "huge cry" at all. There might have been a
few articles about it in the weightier broadsheets but it hardly
impacted on the public consciouslness at all.
>
> Two years later, when Clinton announced that the reform was a
>complete success and that something like $4 billion a year was being
>saved due to the reduction of corruption and fraud I could not find
>one word about it in the British media. It was completely ignored and
>the only reason I can think of is because the British seem so
>immensely proud of their welfare state that they can't bear the
>thought that it is being abused. Even today, the idea of eliminating
>welfare payments to criminals is almost criminal itself.
The British Media is fairly right wing. Of all the papers only the
Guardian, the Independent, and the Mirror have any time for the
Welfare State. The rest are "hang 'em high" staunch right-wing. I'm
surprised though they didn't pick on a successful private initiative
in America, but then again, why would that even be deemed newsworthy
in Britain?
>
>Its almost comical in some ways to see a nation so incredibly
>brainwashed into thinking that socialized medicine works or that
>responsible gun ownership is completely beyond the ability of any one
>not a member of the government, police or military.
In my experience (as an American working in Britain) the British are
far less brainwashed than Americans. I really mean that. They have an
admirable cynicism about what they're exposed to on the news - and
this is despite the fact that the British media tends to go into far
more detail on stories than the US media does.
Socialized medicine *does* work when it's not being sabotaged by the
Conservatives (and now New Labour). It was a model for the world for
40 years until Thatcher's Tory party began to starve it of resources
in the 80s. My ex-girlfriend is an ICU consultant and a lot of my
friends are doctors and nurses and the horror stories of what they've
had to cope with after all the cuts would curl your toes. Most of
Europe has "socialized" medicine - and they tend to treat it more
seriously than the British goverment has been doing. The American idea
that this is a curiosity of Britain is wrong. It's actually the norm.
As for guns, you can scratch at least one of those things off your
list. The British police are (still) almost entirely unarmed. And so
is the government (not sure what you're getting at there). More people
are killed by lightning than are killed by firearms in Britain each
year. Something like 30-35000 firearms deaths per year in the US is
not something to crow about. If you want to talk about brain-washing
perhaps seeing that situation as superior to Britain counts as just
that. Yeah, there's a lot of crime in Britain, but it tends not to be
fatal. Domestic arguments and spur of the moment fits of depression
tend not to end in fatalities either as they often do in the US when
the impulse control challenged are involved, and have a the ability to
point and click a violent resolution to their current situation.
There's always an upside and a downside to everything. The upside of
socialized medicine is free quality health care. The downside is high
taxes (and deteriorating standards when governments don't want to fund
it anymore). The upside of private gun ownership is the ability to
defend yourself and your home effectively, and deter attacks from
criminals. The downside is *lots* of gun-deaths.
You're willing to put up with the gun-deaths because you think a
higher ideal is at stake. You're willing to pay the price. The same
applies to socialized medicine. Please don't dismiss those who believe
in it as being "brain-washed". It's a democratic choice of the British
people. They're willing to pay their price too.
>
>The scary thing though is that these idiotic teachings are taking hold
>here. The State of California is a virtual Britain all by itself. Huge
>income, sales and property taxes going to pay a massive welfare
>system, gun ownership only allowed by an elite few, criminals have
>completely overrun large sections of Los Angeles and San Francisco.
>Illegal and illiterate immigrants flooding in.
Pays your money and takes your choice. I get to California a lot and
it is *nothing* like Britain's welfare state. It's a half assed stupid
alternative.
>
>It looks like the United States is becoming more like Britain everyday
>and nobody seems to care.
That's funny. I hear a lot of complaints from Brits that Britain is
becoming more like the US :-)
J&K Copeland
> >> OK.
> >> But why America's citizens so easy trusts whatever mainstream media
> >> broadcasts?
> >
> >Who said that "mainstream' media was trusted? It certainly wasn't me.
> Hope it's true. Go ahead....
>
> >Charges of bias newsreporting are commonplace, in fact, it's a national
> >pass time. The number one bestseller in America right now is book on the
> >Liberal Bias of the media. Most people channel surf like crazy.
> But see one Bush at all news channels?
And Blair
And Putin
And Musharraf
And.....
> >I have two different newspapers delivered. I occasionaly read news
> Which newspapers?
Kansas City Star www.kcstar.com and the Wall Street Journal www.wsj.com
>
> >magazines (when waiting in a doctor's or dentist's office). Of course,
in
> >the barber shops, it's Playboy or Penthouse.
> >
> >I have broadband access to the Internet, and have been known to sample
> >foreign newspapers.
I use www.ceoexpress.com as a start page. Note the links available to me
from there.
> >
> >Look. Americans have virtually unlimited access to news and opinion
> >sources. Literally thousands and thousands. The US Goverment does not
> >control the news media much as they would like to, sometimes.
> >
> >Aside: Heck, I just noticed a few months ago that the local library has
an
> >English-languge version of Pravda.
>
>
> LOL. You really think Pravda mirroring whole Russia point of view today?
> It's little newspaper for old people, who are "nostagie" about communizm.
Not to be too terribly patronizing, who cares? I don't read Pravda. I just
said it was available.
>
> >Whether American choose to read/view any of those sources is entirely an
> >individual's choice. But they're available.
> >
> Everyone who connected to the Internet do choice as well. You'll be
> surprised, outside US too. But difference is I can read and read more than
> you.
>
> >> Do you watch any alternative point of view regulary, let me say... from
> >> EuroNews or some non-American TV news translated to English?
> >
> >So a news program translated from French or Russian is somehow better?
> What
> >would I find out in the Russian Pravda that's not in the English Pravda?
>
>
> You operated stereotypes
> Russian newspaper is Pravda
> Russian name is Ivan
> Russian toy is matryoshka
> Russians all wearing fur hats with ears walks along the streets with wild
> brown bears.
>
> May I start to laugh now or in a second?
You may laugh anytime you want. You can cry, too if that's what floats your
boat.
Do you really think the Slovak Speculator is going to print something,
anything that would interest me in the slightest?
>
> >Note: I am addicted to BBC America, but, to be brutally frank, many of
> it's
> >reports are on issues that simply have no interest or impact on the
average
> >American. It is not one of the top networks. I never, well, very rarely,
> >watch CNN or any network news, but I will tune in CSPAN frequently.
> >
> >> Do you speak and read any other language but English?
> >
> >Some Spanish. The spanish language channel from Mexico has more
beautiful
> >women per minute than any other TV. They are totally unafflicted with
the
> >French style of super skinny, flat chested semi-females imitations.
Latins
> >like women to look like women, not men in drag. (Rumor has it that
> >Iceland's TV is loaded, too). I'l love to run a comparison some time
> >between the two.
>
>
> Is your Spanish like my English? Do you use Spanish for any goal but
> wacthing entertainment tv programs?
Well, it comes in handy ordering meals at my favorite Mexican resturant.
(Fact is, their English if much better than my Spanish.) But if I ever do
make it to Mexico, it might come in handy.
>
> >> Do you see other movies but Hollywood made?
> >
> >Yes. (You guys really have a thing about movies, don't you?) But, if a
> >movie is "the tour de force" from France, winner of "the best confused
> piece
> >of trash" at the Cannes Film Festival last year, you can bet I'm not
> >interested.
> >
> What is your favourite movie, Jackie? Or movies?
Jackie Chan?????
I enjoy Chan's outtakes as much as any of the movies.
With four young grandkids running around, the only movies I've seen more
than once lately are Shrek, The Mummy and The Mummy Returns. They're much
better than The Lion King, which was a long running favorite of my
granddaughter. I have both the Star Wars Trilogy and the Jurrassic Park
Trilogy, but I'm saving them until the kids are a bit older.
I enjoyed A Knight's Tale.
I watched Das Boat last Sunday, (dubbed in English).
Oh, and Preditor. I really liked Preditor. And the Terminator series, too.
Alien II was one of the few sequals that was better than the original.
Hmmmm. The Shawshank Redemption was an outstanding movie.
Of the classics just about any movie with Cary Grant in the lead.
So what?
>
>
> >> How often and how long you work or travel outside US?
> >
> >Never. Not voluntarily, anyway.
> >If I were to travel outside the US, the Aztec ruins in Mexico would be
> first
> >on the list. The Peruvian ruins would be second.
> >Fishing in some of the wild Canadian streams would be third.
> >
> >My wife has a thing about seeing Ireland. I don't. (My wife's family is
> >heavy on the Irish. An entire country filled with Irish is scary). One
> of
> >these days I may stick her on a plane to Ireland but I'll be headed due
> >north.
>
>
> James, no words, just visit my friend's site. He is American, from Boston.
> http://www.new-millennium-ride.org/
> He is man, whom interesting to communicate with. I even meet him in Moscow
> when he stay here a couple of days and had penpal him about a year before
> meet him live.
<Shrug>
http://www.womanriver.com/ BTW, you'd be much more likely to find me on a
horse than a bicycle, and I don't like them very much.
And?
>
>
> >His (her?) opinion carries no more weight that the average French
> >taxi driver's.
> >
> >And the US has reached the point where it would pay more attention to
what
> a
> >Canadian Prime Minister or Mexican President has to say, than any
European
> >minister with the exception of Great Britain's Blair and Russia's Putain.
> >No one pays any attention to the French, while it's hard to believe that
> >comunism has managed to marginalize an entire country full of Germans, it
> >has.
> >
>
>
> You forget Chinese leader. Chainese and Russian leaders these guys could
> have independent of us point of view to the events. Only.
>
> Serge.
I pay attention to Putin in a lackadaisical sort of way. After all, they
still have a lot of nukes laying around. China is a wash. The Old Guard
is dying off. Capitalism is making inroads into Communist China slowly, but
the Chinese leaders are smart enough to know that if China is going to
participate on he world stage, things are going to have to change inside
China. I don't think they're trying to stop the changes as much as trying
to control and direct the changes. A Chinese democracy is a wondrous thing
to contemplate, but I believe, in twenty years, we're more likely to see a
recognizable (barely) form of democracy in mainland China than we're likely
to see in any of the Islamic middle-eastern countries.
your Turn...
James...
peterr
My faith in the US citizen is being restored.
"J&K Copeland" <jc...@xxx.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GaBb8.404240$8w3.10...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
peterr
due to many "do-gooders" who get maximum publicity and therefore government
support.
The British are proud of the FREE health system where you can go to YOUR
family doctor who will prescribe any medication for any medical problem that
you may have. Not here in the US. If you have five different complaints you
have to go to five different doctors, and they are not that efficient from
my experience.
AS far as California well it is immigrant based state run by a moron of a
governor so what can you expect.
<An...@home.com> wrote in message
news:453u6u4ifcv8liai6...@4ax.com...
Unknown
wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 01:48:08 GMT, "An...@home.com" <> wrote:
>
>>
>>Its funny but I think the exact same thing about the British.
>>
>>I remember one incident in particular. Several years ago, then
>>President Clinton announced that he had signed a bill that would
>>reform the Welfare laws and make it more difficult for people to
>>receive and keep welfare payments. When this news was announced in
>>Britain, the media gave a huge up cry saying that it would throw
>>single mothers and children out of their homes and into the streets,
>>etc.
>
>I don't think there was a "huge cry" at all. There might have been a
>few articles about it in the weightier broadsheets but it hardly
>impacted on the public consciouslness at all.
>
No, I didn't see a lot of press on it but what little there was was
entirely negative.
>>
>> Two years later, when Clinton announced that the reform was a
>>complete success and that something like $4 billion a year was being
>>saved due to the reduction of corruption and fraud I could not find
>>one word about it in the British media. It was completely ignored and
>>the only reason I can think of is because the British seem so
>>immensely proud of their welfare state that they can't bear the
>>thought that it is being abused. Even today, the idea of eliminating
>>welfare payments to criminals is almost criminal itself.
>
>The British Media is fairly right wing. Of all the papers only the
>Guardian, the Independent, and the Mirror have any time for the
>Welfare State. The rest are "hang 'em high" staunch right-wing. I'm
>surprised though they didn't pick on a successful private initiative
>in America, but then again, why would that even be deemed newsworthy
>in Britain?
>
Well, the only paper I get time to read regularly is The Telegraph. It
seems pretty middle of the road, although still just a bit more
liberal than most American newspapers.
As far as what is deemed newsworthy in Britain, British press reports
plenty of America related news events. Its just usually the news that
helps support the governments stance on certain issues. For example,
everytime a shooting makes the headlines in America, you can bet it
will be in the British papers as well.
>>
>>Its almost comical in some ways to see a nation so incredibly
>>brainwashed into thinking that socialized medicine works or that
>>responsible gun ownership is completely beyond the ability of any one
>>not a member of the government, police or military.
>
>In my experience (as an American working in Britain) the British are
>far less brainwashed than Americans. I really mean that. They have an
>admirable cynicism about what they're exposed to on the news - and
>this is despite the fact that the British media tends to go into far
>more detail on stories than the US media does.
Brainwashing is pretty much equivlant for the most part.
Multiculturalism and The Holocaust are good examples of what the
majority takes completely by faith. Most of the people in both
countries do not ask questions about what they were trained to think
about these subjects. They simply take everything said as gosipel and
ignore it.
>
>Socialized medicine *does* work when it's not being sabotaged by the
>Conservatives (and now New Labour). It was a model for the world for
>40 years until Thatcher's Tory party began to starve it of resources
>in the 80s. My ex-girlfriend is an ICU consultant and a lot of my
>friends are doctors and nurses and the horror stories of what they've
>had to cope with after all the cuts would curl your toes. Most of
>Europe has "socialized" medicine - and they tend to treat it more
>seriously than the British goverment has been doing. The American idea
>that this is a curiosity of Britain is wrong. It's actually the norm.
>
Socialized medicine *can* work but I have never seen an example of
where it does all the time. If it is in a wealthy country it might
stand a chance but right now they are failing the world over. Japan,
Australia and Britain all have major health care crises due to the
fact people are living so long. There is even something of a crisis in
America because of the forcing of socialized medicine. Health care is
fantastically expensive in America because of all the free work the
hospitals are forced to do.
>As for guns, you can scratch at least one of those things off your
>list. The British police are (still) almost entirely unarmed. And so
>is the government (not sure what you're getting at there). More people
>are killed by lightning than are killed by firearms in Britain each
>year. Something like 30-35000 firearms deaths per year in the US is
>not something to crow about. If you want to talk about brain-washing
>perhaps seeing that situation as superior to Britain counts as just
>that. Yeah, there's a lot of crime in Britain, but it tends not to be
>fatal. Domestic arguments and spur of the moment fits of depression
>tend not to end in fatalities either as they often do in the US when
>the impulse control challenged are involved, and have a the ability to
>point and click a violent resolution to their current situation.
>
Guns not only allow you to protect yourself but also force the police
into protecting you. Crime has skyrocketed in Britain since the
abolition of guns. The two major reasons for this are that criminals
are not afraid of getting shot for committing crimes and the police
and government are not afraid of the population taking the law into
their own hands.
As far as the number killed by firearms, this is a very misleading
statement. First, who were killed by guns? Most of them were shot by
police or by lawful gun owners protecting themselves and property. The
other large group is drug sellers and users. The number of people
killed by guns who were not criminals and not involved in drugs is
actually quite small. I myself have *never* seen a gun held by a
person except by police and military. Heck, most people in America
don't even know what a discharged gun sounds like because they have
never heard one outside of a movie theater and that does not sound the
same as a real gun.
It is my opinion that if Britain ever wants to get its crime levels
under control, it will either need to allow private gun ownership, or
build more prisons and actually keep criminals locked up. Statistics
show that 80% of all crimes are committed by repeat offenders. You get
one criminal off the street, either by shooting or prison, you could
stop a dozen crimes or more in the future.
>There's always an upside and a downside to everything. The upside of
>socialized medicine is free quality health care. The downside is high
>taxes (and deteriorating standards when governments don't want to fund
>it anymore). The upside of private gun ownership is the ability to
>defend yourself and your home effectively, and deter attacks from
>criminals. The downside is *lots* of gun-deaths.
>
One more downside to socialized healthcare is that the cost grows
exponentially with the success of the program. The longer people live,
the more it costs. Cuba has socialized healthcare but it doesn't cost
much because it is so poor to begin with.
Gun deaths aren't neccesarily a bad thing. Most people that are killed
by guns are killed by choice. Either getting involved with drugs or
getting killed by someone defending themselves against an attack. If
you don't do these things, you have a very small chance of getting
shot.
>You're willing to put up with the gun-deaths because you think a
>higher ideal is at stake. You're willing to pay the price. The same
>applies to socialized medicine. Please don't dismiss those who believe
>in it as being "brain-washed". It's a democratic choice of the British
>people. They're willing to pay their price too.
>
Is it there choice? Or is it the governments choice? Its seems the
people of Britain have far less control of their laws and policies
than the people of America do.
>>
>>The scary thing though is that these idiotic teachings are taking hold
>>here. The State of California is a virtual Britain all by itself. Huge
>>income, sales and property taxes going to pay a massive welfare
>>system, gun ownership only allowed by an elite few, criminals have
>>completely overrun large sections of Los Angeles and San Francisco.
>>Illegal and illiterate immigrants flooding in.
>
>Pays your money and takes your choice. I get to California a lot and
>it is *nothing* like Britain's welfare state. It's a half assed stupid
>alternative.
>
Most of it is hidden and unknown by the general population. For
example, almost all of the state income tax goes to various welfare
prgrams. Most people do not know this, but San Francisco pays you $70
a week just to be homeless. People come from all over the country to
live off the sweet California welfare state. Sounds remarkably like
Britain, don't you think?
>>
>>It looks like the United States is becoming more like Britain everyday
>>and nobody seems to care.
>
>That's funny. I hear a lot of complaints from Brits that Britain is
>becoming more like the US :-)
It does look like it works both ways.
Serge Zykov
I really wanna know and I'm respecting your opinion, your seeing how the
things are going around you. I see your personality after your posts.
You are good honest citizen of USA. You worked, payed taxes, now you've got
four grandkids. You did't fight with vietnam population in the past. And
words "the war" or "fight them" from TV and newspapers to you sounds
usually, like "a cup of tea or coffee".
Today I've heard that US will bombs Iraq. Try to understand (!) "USA declare
war to Iraq". For you there is nothing changes. But for Iraq it is means
hundreds and thousands victims. Within people who live, worked, was in love,
having kids, grandkids and ... fucking bomb fall down near him. He (she)
dead now. Why?
Millions citizens of USA, like you, doesn't interesting, is the life outside
US or no.
Let us take our eyes up to the subject of our posts.
It is: "Re: Why do Europeans hate Americans? by C Gray"
My answer is. Millions of Europeans hate Americans becouse millions of
Americans thinks that America stay above others. At this time 5-6
motherfuckers from US Government fucked country by country around the world
with no little doubt.
What do you know about how WWII began? Do you remember what was before WWII
starts? Common people of Germany thinks that "Deutsche uber alles"
(translate need?) and militarised Germany troops fucked the Europe, country
by country. Do you follow up by me what I mean?
But I DO NOT HATE Americans. I have many friends and collegues Americans. I
just try understand what is in your mind, James. Before I'll killed by US
missile or bomb becouse Russia rich of oil twice as Iraq (it's joke).
I try to share my doubts with each one whom could I talk with in the Usenet.
I'm not a predictor, but I try to analyse and often I use to be right.
OK, it's too late here, James. Good day to you.
Hope to see you tomorrow.
Serge.
peterr
It is good to receive postings from another country about this subject.
"Serge Zykov" <s...@i-connect.com> wrote in message
news:10139829...@relay.directnet.ru...
J&K Copeland
> James,
>
> I really wanna know and I'm respecting your opinion, your seeing how the
> things are going around you. I see your personality after your posts.
> You are good honest citizen of USA. You worked, payed taxes, now you've
got
> four grandkids. You did't fight with vietnam population in the past. And
> words "the war" or "fight them" from TV and newspapers to you sounds
> usually, like "a cup of tea or coffee".
Vietnam. December 1969 to November 1979. Short takes....
You remember the line, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." Well,
most soldiers will remember the smell of a manure and muck filled rice paddy
in the afternoon in a tropical country. Wading across them was the worse.
You knew that if you took fire, you were exposed and you'd have to dive into
the muck.
The Aussies showed on base and promply bellied up to the bar in the late
afternoon. I've seen some drinkers, but there wasn't one US soldier that
could keep up with them. They were cheered at the end of the evening and
their bar tab was forgiven.
Men who have been shot don't lay there and tough it out. They scream, cry,
and moan, or they're dead. I never heard anyone ask for their mother. The
want a medic and morphine and water, not necessarily in that order.
All legal, moral, philosphical and ethical considerations disappear like so
much hot air, when some little brown fellor with an AK is doing his best to
kill you.
Discipline counts more than bravery. It's the difference between being a
soldier or being a warrior. Soldiers have be slaughtering warriors for
centuries. Deep down, human males aren't lone preditors, they're pack
preditors.
Fighters don't kill other fighters because of idealogy, great speeches or
rousing marches. The killing impule is not usually a conscious decision.
It's not learned, it's instinctive. It's a shocking surprise when some
contemplative guy finds out that he kill as fast as someone who is barely
self-aware.
No one knows what the hell is happening after the first shot is fired.
Everyone's entire universe contracts to that narrow space directly in front
of the gunsight.
The problem with becoming familiar with someone else's culture, is that
after all that enlightment, you find out you like the culture even less
than when you knew nothing about it.
The stone cold killers, the snipers, and such, tended to be a bit on the
smallish side. I never saw a big, burly sniper. They were invariably the
most focused, controlled, disciplined men I've ever met.
Winston Churchill was right. After surviving a firefight, you can see air.
It is crystalline with a lovely blue-ish tinge.
Survival is the number one instinct. Even sex is subordinated to survival.
I never met a soldier, American, Aussie, Korean, ARVN, NVA or VC that would
willingly kill a small child. Yes, children were killed, but they were
never targets.
That's why I cringe at how the word "genocide" is debased by overuse. True
genocide requires that children have to be the primary targets. The word
should be saved to describe that particular level of savagery.
James...
I have about 150 channels on my cable TV. And there wasn't one damn thing
worth watching this afternoon. Sorry, Serge, that you were on the receiving
end of my boredom.
"Against boredom, even the gods themselves rail in vain." Nietzsche, I
think.
maria
UK regard the US as their main friend and ally in the world.news:10139829...@relay.directnet.ru...
Serge V. Zykov
> Rubbish, only a tiny minority of Europeans hate Americans.Most people in
the
> UK regard the US as their main friend and ally in the world.
Maria,
Europe bigger than GB, you know? There are many powerful countries but GB in
Europe.
For example, Germany, Italy, France, Scandinavian countries, Eastern
European countries, Russia finally.
And more, Europe often thinks different than GB.
And more, question in the subject is not my.
Mr(s) C Gray maybe really felt hate from Europeans side somehow.
Serge.
Serge V. Zykov
I opened for discussion as much as I can.
Serge
peterr <pet...@texas.net> пишет в
сообщении:AOVb8.46629$Re7.2...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
jackkincaid
I think everyone thinks it about everyone else, and there is probably
good reasons for it. No country can properly understand another
country; everyone's understanding is filtered through their own
prejudices, value systems etc.
I think, though, that the USA *is* worse, but not because of any
greater fault in the people, just because it is so much bigger and
powerful and self-sufficient than any single European nation; it
doesn't *need* to take notice of others so much (by that argument the
country with the best understanding of the world is probably
Luxembourg).
>
> I remember one incident in particular. Several years ago, then
> President Clinton announced that he had signed a bill that would
> reform the Welfare laws and make it more difficult for people to
> receive and keep welfare payments. When this news was announced in
> Britain, the media gave a huge up cry saying that it would throw
> single mothers and children out of their homes and into the streets,
> etc.
Changes to social welfare payment systems in the UK were a hot issue
for quite a long time
>
> Two years later, when Clinton announced that the reform was a
> complete success and that something like $4 billion a year was being
> saved due to the reduction of corruption and fraud I could not find
> one word about it in the British media. It was completely ignored and
> the only reason I can think of is because the British seem so
> immensely proud of their welfare state that they can't bear the
> thought that it is being abused. Even today, the idea of eliminating
> welfare payments to criminals is almost criminal itself.
Then think again. Re-read what you've just written: *Clinto said* that
it was a success. Do you believe Clinton was telling the truth? Why?
The criterion for success you mentioned was that a saving of $4
billion was made. This is not the proper criterion - the proper ones
are, did it get people back to work, did it improve their lives, did
it make the wealth gap smaller?
The difference here is that you have a determinist, economic, liberal
(in the original sense), laissez faire and puritanical concept of
political success, which is typical of the American mainstream (and
nothing necessarily wrong in that) and Europeans have a more
utilitarian, conservative (in the old sense), socialist and Roman
Catholic sense of political success (and nothing necessarily wrong in
that either). Thjis makes the USA richer, more dynamic, more free,
more unjust, more stressful, more narcissistic than Europe; and Europe
is more egalitarian, more concerned with social cohersion and justice,
slower, more conservative and ... older, basically (America will be
like Europe is now in 100 years, probably). The difference is small
compared to that between the USA and, say, Pakistan, but it is there.
You've just added more evidence to it.
The question is, though, how many understand and respect the
difference?
>
> Its almost comical in some ways to see a nation so incredibly
> brainwashed into thinking that socialized medicine works or that
> responsible gun ownership is completely beyond the ability of any one
> not a member of the government, police or military.
I think I've explained why Europeans believe in 'socialised' medicine.
In Britain you have a choice: private health care (paid for by private
insurance, as in the US, which presumably you'd prefer) and the NHS,
which is a less luxurious service but covers every need - and, since
you are only concerned with the price of things, costs the same amount
per person as the US medicare system does (which services only a small
proportion of the population).
In value for money terms Britain's NHS is the best there is. In moral
terms it's the best there is. Only in terms of actual service does it
fall down - but then what other health service can it be fairly
compared to?
If the US adopted it it would get a service for all the people, free
at the point of demand, for the same tax-take Americans pay now.
Clinton knew this, and tried to introduce it - but his wife and the
Republicans between them blew it. I suspect the Republicans' objection
- and you have reinforced this - is ideological. they don't like teh
essentially socialist idea of everyone getting the same level of
service; they *want* inequality.
As for guns, the murder rate in America is massively higher than in
Europe. I don't particularly advocate an end to the right to bear arms
in the USA (as long as they stop exporting them) because the
alternative would be even worse - but it would be ludicrous to
introduce such an obviously failed and unpopular policy elsewhere.
>
> The scary thing though is that these idiotic teachings are taking hold
> here. The State of California is a virtual Britain all by itself. Huge
> income, sales and property taxes going to pay a massive welfare
> system, gun ownership only allowed by an elite few, criminals have
> completely overrun large sections of Los Angeles and San Francisco.
> Illegal and illiterate immigrants flooding in.
Obviosuly not enough is being spent on policing, then. How anyone
connects criminality with a lousy health service - except in the
opposite way to taht which you intended - is beyond me. In New York
the homeless population has soared recently; expect the crime rate to
soar too, any time soon. I expect something similar is happening in LA
and SF - although I would probably find common cause with you over a
need for some kind of public insistence on moral behaviour.
>
> It looks like the United States is becoming more like Britain everyday
> and nobody seems to care.
Maybe I'll move back.
jackkincaid
> I never said that the British system is the best. It has failed miserably
> due to many "do-gooders" who get maximum publicity and therefore government
> support.
> The British are proud of the FREE health system where you can go to YOUR
> family doctor who will prescribe any medication for any medical problem that
> you may have. Not here in the US. If you have five different complaints you
> have to go to five different doctors, and they are not that efficient from
> my experience.
> AS far as California well it is immigrant based state run by a moron of a
> governor so what can you expect.
It's not Pete Wilson is it?
jackkincaid
> > >
> > > Until a very few years ago, a conservative Republican
> > > homosexual was very much considered an exotic anomoly.
> >
> > Anomaly.
> >
> http://www.use-net.ch/netiquette_engl.html#spelling
>
> Every few months a plague descends on Usenet called the spelling flame. It
> starts out when someone posts an article correcting the spelling or grammar
> in some article. The immediate result seems to be for everyone on the net to
> turn into a 6th grade English teacher and pick apart each other's postings
> for a few weeks. This is not productive and tends to cause people who used
> to be friends to get angry with each other.
I'm sorry, weren't usenetiquette reminders oulawed a couple of months
ago? :-)
>
[snip]
> >
> > In the recent elections for leader of the Conservative Party here in
> > Britain by far the best candidate happened to be bisexual, and largely
> > as a result he failed. An out gay conservative is pretty exotic here
> > too.
>
> *For instance, did you mean "outed gay" or "out right gay" ? Nevermind. I
> know what you meant.
I meant 'outed'.
>
> It occures to me the "outed" may not mean the same in GB as America. In
> America, if gay media source, publishes that a particular individual is gay,
> the individual is said "to be outed."
It means the same and was, in fact, adopted from the US. Michael
Portillo (the bisexual conservative candidate) knew that a lot of
stories about his homosexual past were bubbling around in the media
but, British libel laws being what they are (much stricter than in the
US), nobody wanted to publish, until an old boyfriend - sorry, you
can't possibly be interested in this.
> > >
> [snip]
> > >
> > > The point is there is no "it". There is only "they".
> >
> > Well, actually it's both. Media is a plural noun. But ... whatever.
>
> So it would be "gay medium source" and not "gay media source"?
Now whose correcting who? I mean whom? The proper way of describing
the media can be 'it' (because it is a collective noun) or 'they'
(because it is a plural) is what I meant. I think.
>
> >
> > > With myrid choices
> > > from the far Left "Nation" to the far right "National Review", the
> > > availability of multiple news sources is immense. It's something of an
> > > inside joke, but in America, you're probably not taken seriously as
> fringe
> > > lunitic until you at least start publishing a newsletter.
> >
> > Fair enough. It's a very easy trap to fall into in Europe, to assume
> > the US media - or US anything - is more monolithic than it really is.
> > There is sometimes an assumption, for instance, that socialist
> > labourism doesn't exist there - that the unions were totally
> > emasculated by Reagan and a couple of generations of demonisation of
> > 'commies' has done for its 'intellectual' (so called) base. But that's
> > not true.
>
> *demonization
Oh no. Demonisation. And I have right of invention, so to speak. :-)
>
> The American trade union movement was, if not shattered, severly damaged as
> a by-product of the Japanese assualt on the American automobile market.
> Initially, the unions came about as a direct result of the excesses of
> unrestrained management, especially of the railroads and mine owners. By
> the 1980's it was widely perceived that the pendelum had swung to far in the
> opposite direction and that some nationwide unions, for instance the UAW
> (united auto workers) and the teamsters were too powerful and dictorial.
I always thought the problem with the teamsters was that they were
irredeemably corrupt and mafia-ridden - some say with the connivance
of government.
>
> Other than supporting "Right to Work" legislation, which was invariable
> passed at the state level, Reagan's main contribution was breaking the air
> traffic controllers strike.
Which was a bit of a *cause celebre* for the European Left.
> Air traffic controllers are Federal employees
> and no Federal employee has ever had the right to strike.
Some would say that that is a fundamental right denied. In fact, *I*
would say it - why should a worker lose the right to withold his
labour so that a bunch of lardarses can go on holiday? (is one way of
putting it).
> Observing the
> effects of some general strikes in European countries, and the fact that ATC
> employees have always been well-paid in comparison to their working
> brethern, didn't not garner them much support in the general population.
No. It should have.
>
> Aside: I was hired as an air traffic controller in 1973. After one morning
> of watching what they really did do, on the job, I decided that it wasn't
> for me. I wouldn't have lasted a year as an air traffic controller.
Especially if your rigt not to work without getting fired was denied
you, I'm sure.
>
> Federal employees and federal managers operate under binding arbitration
> rules. Impartial "arbitrators" sit down with both parties and negotate
> binding contracts. However, Federal pay scales are set by law and not
> subject to contract negotation.
Is that a proper thing? Depends what Federal covers - police, OK.
Nurses, OK. Firemen, I guess. Not sure after that.
> However, many important job conditions are
> subject to negotation. For instance, in 1974, if someone was one minute
> late on the job, they were charged one hour of annual leave (vacation
> time). After a union negotation, the annual leave was broken down into 15
> minute increments rather than 1 hour increments.
Blimey. There's my holiday entitlement gone for the next 30 years
then.
I can honestly predict that if someone forced that on us in my job
(not the equivalent of a Federal job, needless to say) we'd be all out
on strike before you can sneeze.
>
>
> >
> > The difference is, arguably, that all these conflicting points of view
> > have less influence on the political and economic system than they
> > would in Europe - communism or fascism in France or Italy means an
> > actual communist or frascist party taking power in several industrial
> > regions and changing policy, not an esotoric theory for small
> > discussion groups to argue over.
> >
> > Also we tend to see the mainstream media only - CNN and news reports
> > from ABC, NBC and CBS, excerpts from popular MW radio shows like
> > Limbaugh's, North's, Liddy's and Howard Stern's, and papers like the
> > NY Times and Washington Post. My impression is that the same goes for
> > the American people - generally, they take little interest in
> > alternatives to the mainstream media or sometimes, like us, they have
> > little chance to access them. And the mainstream media is, in European
> > terms, overwhelmingly right-wing and hostile to the rest of the world
> > (which may not have been my original point but I've gone and snipped
> > it now).
>
> The NY Times, once considered the epitome of what a good newspaper should
> be, has come under sharp critism lately for a perceived left-wing bias. I
> don't read it. I wouldn't know. However, anyone (with internet access) can
> read it at www.nytimes.com. Registration required.
>
> However, for every conservative commentator, I can name a liberal
> commentator. (BTW Howard Stern is not a conservative or liberal. He is a
> nut.)
I'm not sure - in fact I very much doubt - that your idea of a liberal
commentator would qualify as an alternative to the mainstream to me.
Gore Vidal always said [rougly speaking] that American politics
consists of a very conservative party and a fairly conservative party.
That goes for the commentators too, I think. For a real alternative
you need on the one hand a typical Republican and on the other a
typica socialist - someone who wants to nationalise all American
industries. *That's* choice.
>
> For every P.J. O'Rorke there is a Molly Ivins.
> http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/columnists/molly_ivins/ (I used
> those two because they use to appear on a TV segment called
> Point/Counterpoint)
I'll check her out. P J O'Rourke, funnily enough, isn't my idea of a
real Republican. More like an actor.
>
> For every Andrew Sullivan there is a Christopher Hitchens.
...who is, of course, British.
> >
> > This may surprise you but America often seems a very tightly
> > controlled society from the outside - despite having the best record
> > on free speech and access to information in the world.
> > >
>
> It isn't.
>
> I'm sorely tempted here to post some snide comment about how ignorant and
> ill-informed most Europeans are,
Hey, don't be shy.
> but let's leave it at "the arrogance of the
> ignorant is most certainly not a sole condition of America."
I wasn't being arrogant. America often appears - to me - to be, in
some ways, a tightly controlled society. My perceptions are what they
are; I wasn't making a moral criticism, just a statement of fact (of
my perception, and that of others who agree with me - including
Americans).
European societies often appear tightly controlled too, but in
slightly different ways.
>
> > [snip]
> > > >
[snip]
> >
> > > While various Europeans are
> > > some what blase about casualities, Americans, from across the political
> > > spectrum, from all classes, from all ethnic backgrounds, are pissed.
> >
> > Are Europeans blase about American losses? I'm not sure ... That
> > certainly isn't true of Britain, who also lost a few hundred people,
> > and whose soldiers fought in Afghanistan and are there now keeping the
> > peace (at great risk and cost).
>
> I was driving at the apparent difference between the American attitude
> towards American losses and what the British attitude would be in similiar
> situation.
Oh, OK. That is a popular European perception (that we worry less
about loss of life than you), it's true, but now that you've confirmed
it I feel perversely drawn to deny it.
>
[snip]
>
> The point I was trying to make is that US has possessed superior capability,
> both military and economic, for decades. The US may dominate world affairs,
> but we don't dictate world affairs. Tony Blair may perceive it to be in
> Great Britain's best interest to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with the US,
> but if he told he decided to stand at arms length, he still wouldn't have to
> worry that 2.2 megaton thermonuclear device was aimed at Whitehall.
Why not? Most of the planning of the attack on the WTC probably took
place in London; a great many of the al-Qaeda operatives are British,
and the supposed leader of al-Qaeda in Europe lives about half an
hour's drive from my flat in N London (or used to).
Maybe not now, or the next 50 years even, but who's to say in the
future the US won't attack Britain?
>
[snip]
>
> The smokestack industries have been relocating out of the US for decades.
> However, new, information based industries are growing inside the country.
> But the base industry, food exportation, is still the bedrock industry, with
> no end in sight.
You're probably right.
Incidentally, global warming will probably be of benefit to the US
food industry - at the expense of everyone else. The US is the only
major country not to sign the global warming treaty. Connection? You
decide...
>
[snip]
>
> There is a one major difference. America does not have an empire, at least
> in the classical sense.
No, but it still has an empire. The US food production industry - or
any US inmdustry - depends on the willingness of other countries to
buy the goods. The US empire (some might say - not me particularly)
consists of all those countries willing to allow it to assume its
current status by maintaining the free trade agreements which serve
its interests.
> As long as there is a United States, there is a
> basis for world power. It may ebb and flow, but the necessary components
> are still there. (BTW, I would argue that Russia still has the components.
> The Soviet Empire has collasped, but Russia can still make it back, on her
> own. It'll take a while.)
I doubt it. Russia is actually quite a small country, in terms of
population (a bit bigger than Germany used to be). A lot of the people
who live in what is now Russia are not Russian.
If the French and Germans get their way there will be a European Union
comprising all of Europe and western Russia, comprising about 600
million people (USA x 2) with all the raw materials of Siberia at its
disposal.
But by that time we'll probably be looking at World Government anyway.
> > Like I said, everyone who did that before went bankrupt and had to
> > start again. Maybe that's what irritates Europeans most - watching
> > America possibly making the same mistakes it made all over again.
>
> I think you have summed it up quite nicely. Europe is worldly "father" and
> America is the unruly "teenager".
I suppose so, although I hate pat answers and obvious conclusions -
and big, wealthy teenagers running around with guns in their hands can
be a pain in the arse.
> All I can is that Bush, Cheney, Powell,
> Rumsfeld are not teenagers.
Not Powell, but the others - I don't know. I just don't trust them.
Ther's something about them, something that reminds me of Bella
Lugosi...
> "Thank God, the adults are back in the White
> House", a conservative jab at the Clinton years, has been reported more than
> once.
Hmmm. Yes, Clinton was a baby, it's true.
>
> George Bush is always on time for meetings. Bill Clinton was never on time.
> This very minor point, inconsequential it seems, has been bandied about over
> and over again.
Being on time for meetings might be the sign of an unimaginative,
simple-minded child who is too eager to please. I wouldn't put much
store in that sort of thing. Bush's problems started, in terms of his
'foreign' audience, when he couldn't name half a dozen world leaderrs.
That's when the alarm went off.
In the end this sort of thing doesn't matter much. The differences
between Europe and the US are tiny compared to the differences between
both of us and Islamist fundamentalism etc.
jackkincaid
> Jackkincaid, I am in your side. You write exactly that is my mind.
>
I'm flattered, but you shouldn't pick sides, Serge, most of the time
I'm being a devil's advocate.
Truth is I can't make up my mind. On the one hand: the US is our
friend and ally; I've lived in the US and love the place; I've never
met an American in Europe I didn't like or wasn't able to tolerate;
without the US we would have to change our societies - yours
especially, Serge - so that we are able to defend ourselves from our
enemies; American culture can be a truly unique and wonderful and
beautiful thing; American political culture contains every sort of
opinion imaginable; and America is somehow part of us, it is linked to
European society in a profound way. On the other hand: the US is full
of assholes (although so is Europe); Americans don't take enough
notice of the world outside (to some extent understandable, but only
some); American culture can be truly fucking horrible, narcissistic,
sentimental and ignorant; American political discourse is too often
dominated by an ideology that tends to selfishishness, violence,
sentimentality, a sort of laissez faire aristocratic disdain for the
poor, racism and nationalism and which in its extreme for might
threaten the entire world.
I sort of sympathise with the cartoonist Robert Crumb, in a way. He is
an American who deeply loves America but can't stand to live there (he
lives in France) and doesn't quite trust the place, or its leaders
anyway. He wrote a comic satire once called - satire, remember - 'When
the niggers take over Ameica'. Everyone should read it. Its very last
panel pretty much defines the fears we all have about the free
world's new, conservative and grown-up American leaders...
But I think for the time being, with al-Qaeda still out there, all
that can wait.
peterr
> It's not Pete Wilson is it?
No
Serge V. Zykov
could you justify any abstract fighter, if his missile with the wings killed
your grandkids? I don't sure...
Were you a soldier in the in the belligerent Army? Or you're putting
"Independence Day"
into your own words?
> Vietnam. December 1969 to November 1979. Short takes....
>
> You remember the line, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." Well,
> most soldiers will remember the smell of a manure and muck filled rice
paddy
> in the afternoon in a tropical country. Wading across them was the worse.
> You knew that if you took fire, you were exposed and you'd have to dive
into
> the muck.
------------ some details skipped -------------
> Fighters don't kill other fighters because of idealogy, great speeches or
> rousing marches. The killing impule is not usually a conscious decision.
> It's not learned, it's instinctive. It's a shocking surprise when some
> contemplative guy finds out that he kill as fast as someone who is barely
> self-aware.
Say me, please, who is the fighter which gave order to attack Afganistan and
why _ideology_, _speeches_ and _rousing marches_ doesn't matter in this
case?
I've observed opposite. As far as I heard, one of the last _speach_ Mr. Bush
selected next countries-victims in Asia. Does it correct?
Serge.