posted 11-29-98 03:10 AM ET        

American supported Suharto's scoup in the 60's, wich resulted in the killing of 150 000 people.

All the right-wing governements in Latin and Central america are supported by the united states.

The Contras were supported by the united states in the fighting of democraticly elected sandinists in Nicaragua.

The Taliban, the most integrist people in the world, ruling in Afghanistan, were fully supported by the United States (without the states helping them to attack russians years ago, they wouldnt have the control of the country). By example, in Afghanistan, when you are gay you are killed in mud, and it's in the law.

United States are supporting all right wings assholes in the world.

posted 11-29-98 03:17 AM ET            

Now can we get on with life? Good.

posted 11-29-98 03:38 AM ET            

Ix: You hate Americans. Great, we don't care, you don't have to post it here. Please keep your damn racist propoganda to yourself. I don't need to hear what the hell's wrong with my country, which I happen to love. Why don't you go out & fix what's wrong with your country, before coming onto here & posting your damn finger pointing! I hate people like you. They do nothing but point fingers, & raise minor little points about other countries, yet do nothing but that. They do nothing to fix their country, which has problems too, like any good country. But instead they feel they have the need to post this. If you have a view point, great, but if it's offensive, please keep it to yourself & your circle of anti-American budies.

Have fun little buddy, but I'm not just gonna stand here & watch people diss my country, because they're bitter over a cheap, minimum wage job they have.

Go nitpick about your own country, before doing another. Free speach, I'm all for that, but please don't post it if it can be offensive. These forums have been a nice place, I'd hate to see it turn into a fiasco.

I ask everyone to ignore this, & get on with the forum.

posted 11-29-98 10:55 AM ET            

Unfortunately for your case, they also have some really cool people who have done some really cool things !!!

I'm Canadian, and by definision, I should hate the US, but the fact remains, that they have done more good than bad ... (They must have done alot of good to qualify for that .. lol) .. and the fact is, no nation is perfect !!! In fact, most are fairly pathetic when it comes to moral issues, I guess that's why I like being Canadian most of the time !!! We may not always be right, but we almost always try to be !!!

posted 11-29-98 01:46 PM ET            

YYYH: How can you be so arrogant, selfish and ignorant bastard? Of course one can and should point out what he thinks about other countries. And when the purpose is to change the politics and views of the country with pure facts, it is vital to our community. It would be different is I'd say that I hated Americans because they are Americans. But if I say I don't like the politics American leaders practice it is completely correct.

And furthermore, what goes on in America is relevant to anyone on this planet. If you would support a dictator in our neighbouring country and it invaded us, wouldn't it be correct for me to tell you to stop it? The US is the leader of today's world and with that power comes also a bourdon of leading it the right, moral way. Many times you've failed in it while wanting instant benefits. I think Afghanistan and Iraq show that quite clearly. If you do something wrong, it doesn't just affect your people, it affects also lots of others.

I don't say everything is in order in Finland. We have high unemployment rate and we were ten years ago totally under Soviet pressure. I wouldn't start to rave if someone told me those things. Instead I would know what is wrong and would try to change them if I could.

Shame on you YYYH!!

posted 11-29-98 02:17 PM ET            

Seriously, that flame was unnecessary. Goto www.battle.net, the Pilot's Lounge in the Starcraft forums. Anti-American propoganda is pretty much all they talk about, along with the idiot 10 year old Americans defending us by calling all foreigners 'gay' & saying 'we have the nukes, & we'll nuke you ass'. That forum is a disgrace, & I was simply trying to prevent this forum from turning into that forum. A post like this, easily turned into flames, counter flames, racist crap, & I don't want it here. I don't care if he's stating his views, this can easily get very hostile, as you so eloquently pointed out, Grosshaus, by calling me an 'ignorant, selfish, arrogant bastard.' Like I said, threads like this, & posts like that can easily get hostile, & send this forum in flames down to hell.

If you wanna continue doing it, fine, just don't come running to me when these forums head to hell.

posted 11-29-98 03:32 PM ET            

"Please keep your damn racist propoganda to yourself" (where was it racist?)

"Have fun little buddy, but I'm not just gonna stand here & watch people diss my country, because they're bitter over a cheap, minimum wage job they have" (maybe you've got more info than I've got, but it seems to me that Ix is upset over political actions the US has taken, not over the nature of his current employment)

Saying stuff like this doesn't raise the level of debate in these forums.

"please don't post it if it can be offensive"

posted 11-29-98 03:45 PM ET            

Yes, the US has problems (like every other country), but they don't need us to point them out. Worry about your own country's problems first. Unless their actions are affecting you or your country directly, or your country is somehow void of problems, you don't have the right to point them out.

posted 11-29-98 07:12 PM ET            

Dark Nexus proved a point. Thank you. What Ix did was not just stating facts, that was nit-picking minor points, & making them seem major, or in other words, propoganda.

I hope it ends here, & we have no more of this anti-whatever non-sense, lets try & keep the boards nice.

posted 11-29-98 07:16 PM ET            

As for the discussion: saying "the USA has its problems like every other country" is running away from the facts being discussed. Ix wasn't discussing the USA's internal problems, he was discussing the problems the USA is causing to other parts of the world. Calling those "American problems" demonstrates a startling ignorance. When the USA installs, supports and protects a mass-murderer, we don't really care whether Americans find that a personal problem or not. We care about the people being killed.

posted 11-29-98 07:54 PM ET            

"why do you want to pick on the US?"

should be pretty clear, Ix wants us to change our policies, and the best way to do that is to change our opinions. If Ix convinces people that the US is improperly supporing brutal dictators, and people start to complain about it, then maybe the US will change its policies.

YYYH: "Why don't you go out & fix what's wrong with your country, before coming onto here & posting your damn finger pointing!"
YYYH: "I also never said 'shut up, don't talk about my country.'"

Tomto, tomahto, potato, potahto.

"we're not the only country in the world you know!"

posted 11-29-98 08:01 PM ET            

I see your point on being the most powerful Octopus. Power has its downsides...

posted 11-29-98 08:04 PM ET            

I, as an AMERICAN for all of you cynical non-Americans, have complained repeatedly when world politics was discussed of the hypocrisy in U.S. policy over the past 50 years. I have repeatedly said that I think the United States should support the values that it says it supports (liberal democracy, human rights, etc.). We've been supporting developing world dictatorship for decades now. This is responsible, more than any other factor, to the drop in the respect for the U.S. in the world (and our policy makers deserve it too).

Now, I would like to point out that the United States is not alone in this category. I would like to point out that the UK, France, Belgium, Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain, and other states have participated in similar acts over the past 50 years. One eggregious example was the continued support the French and Belgians were giving Zairian dictator Mobutu Seso Seko even after the United States FINALLY recognized they'd been supporting a dictator for several decades and decided to call for his ouster.

The situation is getting better (with the outreach with President Khatami or Iran, better relationship with the Arab world in the past decade, and the call for the movement to democracy and the self-determination of East Timor), but the U.S. and most our countries still have a way to go, yes.

posted 11-29-98 11:08 PM ET            

In the end, you are right, no nation is perfect. I doubt that there is a nation out there that has done nothing wrong in the political sense. Heck, Australia still tacitly supports the reigeme in Indonesia now. I even remember our Prime Minister telling Al Gore that he should butt out of Indonesia's affairs, when the vp recently told Indonesia to halt it's dictatorial ways. Or words to that effect anyway.

Look at all the countries in Europe that through self-serving, stayed Neutral through WWI and II. Heck, even America wouldn't have joined either war unless it was attacked. And that's not to mention the countries such as Italy that allied with Germany.

However, all of this (well, most of it) is in the past.

Now, frankly, Ix has the right to state his opinions here. After all, some of the people telling him to shut up were the ones to argue strongly in favour of keeping the abortion thread going. So, you find that the sword cuts both ways.

You can of course disagree with him, and argue your case with facts. If you think he's wrong, please tell us why in a logical, calm manor.

I do NOT BELIEVE that ANYONE has the right to flame him. Mind you, I also do not believe that he has the right to flame America in quite the way he did (the second last line anyway).

Don't get so stuck up in defending your country that you flame someone for stating a few facts. Face it, America has had an awful foreign policy record in the last 50 years. It has also done some good stuff, and I'd like you to tell us what. What balances the bad stuff?

Please explain to me why America waited until Germany repeatedly sank it's maritime fleet in WWI before it entered the war. Please explain why it took the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbour to bring it into WWII. Why did it not support Britain, France and the allies straight away?

To me, America does what it wants for one reason only. NOT for the good of the world, but for the good of America. I believe that it is a very self serving country. Did they protect the world from Russia in the cold war for humanitary reasons, or because they wanted to protect their own arse?

Did they defend Australia and the Phillipines in WWII because we were strong allies, or because they realised that if those countries fell, Japan would be able to concentrate on America, as it would have removed a thorn in it's side in Australia.

Why do America attack Australia's policy on Greenhouse gas emmisions, when we contribute less than 1% (from memory) of the gasses that the US does? And when America has the wealth to do so, but doing so in Australia would cripple our indistry.

However of course, these are only opinions. Maybe they are the altruistic good guys of the world, doing everything they do for the good of the world at large. Please, tell me, I am waiting to hear the answers.

Just a note too. YYYH, when you tell Ix to look at his own country, and change his country for the better, what exactly are you doing to do just that in America?

Also, do you really wonder why some people harp on America so much? Let me explain it to you.

They do it because _some_ of you have an attitude that America is all wonderful, can do no wrong, and you can't take any criticism of it without telling the other person to shut up, go away and leave you alone.

It is human nature. It is called the tall poppy syndrome.

I am not saying that I agree with it, but even I feel the need to point out a few truths to those that say their country is perfect. Frankly, if the Poms or the Canadians had the same "holier-than-thou" atitude, we'd pick on them too.

Is it fair? Probably not. But it is also not really fair to say "we are wonderful, and can do no wrong, and if you think otherwise, you don't have the right to tell us what we do wrong."

In the end, if you didn't respond in the manner that you do, you wouldn't cop so much.

But really, what my argument here is about is that he has the right to express his opinion. Unfortunately (in terms of attention) America has the most influence in world politics right now, and thus it attracts the most scrutiny. There will always be people that disagree with those in power, and there will always be those that criticise them.

Heck, if not for Martin Luther, Henry VIII, the Puritans and others who challenged the all powerful Catholic Church, America may have remained a British/French/Dutch/Whatever Colony.

What gives us the right to critise America? The same right to free speech that you claim as one of the great things about your country. So, let him express his rights. Let him put down America. And please make your response a thoughtful one on why America is not as bad as it is portrayed to be. Point out the good. Educate him on the good. And maybe at the same time, take a critical look at America, and see what might be changed for the better.

Maybe nothing, but maybe something.

P.S. I also realise that America has done quite a lot of good in the world. But they have also done some very bad things, and frankly you should ba able to handle some criticism. I also think that this topic has rahter been flogged to death recently.

posted 11-29-98 11:45 PM ET            

As for free speech, I believe that you have the right to state any opinion. I don't believe that you EVER have the right to flame someone. Argue, yes. Flame, no.

I think you missed almost the whole point of my little ramble.

posted 11-30-98 12:09 AM ET            

And never let the fact that you are not an adult deter you. Sure, you may not be able to vote, or enter into office, but that doesn't mean that you can't do anything...

posted 11-30-98 12:40 AM ET            

Now, I've said this before, and unfortunately, I'll probably end up saying it again too. This is what was so wrong with Ix's post.

1. It's one thing to point out the problems in a country, it's an entirely different thing to point out the problems in SOMEONE ELSE'S COUNTRY.

2. It's not just WHAT he said, but HOW as well.

Ix has to get his priorities straight. Point out the problems that will affect him first. This means problems in HIS country and any from other countries that have an effect on him. Plus, he has to realize, if he points out the faults in HIS country, people might listen. By pointing out the faults in another country, unless asked to, all he's gonna do is get the residents of that country annoyed at him.

As for the average american taking that sort of attack (which is what Ix's post was, pure and simple) personally, that's called PATRIOTISM. Any person who is proud of their country would take that sort of attack on their country personally (at least to some measure).

As for the fact that some americans believe that "America is all wonderful, can do no wrong", and they "can't take any criticism of it without telling the other person to shut up, go away and leave you alone", that, unfortunately, exists in EVERY country. They tend to be the kind of people who START these threads (RE:Ix)

And once again, Ix DID NOT have the right to start pointing the finger at American (which he did. He wasn't pointing out faults, he was laying blame. "American are responsible for the chili's 1973 scoup," key word there, RESPONSABLE), unless, by some miracle, his country has fixed all it's problems. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." (YAY! I finally remembered it!).

Sure, we have the right to point out faults in other countries, but we DO NOT have the right to lay blame on other countries. And just because we have the RIGHT to do something doesn't mean we should.

posted 11-30-98 01:17 AM ET            

If we ARE to blame for something, I think everyone should have the right, maybe even the obligation, to point it out to us. Do you ever refrain from criticising human rights abuses (or whatever else you would criticise) in other countries because you know the US isn't perfect?

I, personally, am quite proud of the US. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I personally feel that this is the best country in the world. I did not take Ix's statements personally in ANY WAY. I took them for what they are, Ix's personal disagreement with US foreign policy.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

And let he who knows about a problem tell the rest of us about it, so we can deal with it. If you disagree with Ix, back it up with FACTS. Don't tell him he doesn't have a right to post here. Don't tell him he's not allowed to disagree unless his own country is perfect. That is not what America stands for. America is strong enough to stand up to criticism.

posted 11-30-98 01:34 AM ET            

Dark Nexus 11-30-98 12:40 AM ET: "...Ix DID NOT have the right..."

posted 11-30-98 01:59 AM ET            

Paul Johnson: I am an optimist about America. I must say that during the 70s, I was a bit pessimistic. That was a bad decade for the US, Watergate.. Vietnam and two weak presidents. But that changed under Reagan and things have begun to go well for the US since then. The economy has never been stronger, you have full employment, no or minus inflation, the budget has come back into balance, you have high productivity and the dollar is strong. All these things augur well for the 21st century. And I think the reason why I'm optimistic in a material sense is that America is the best country in the world in which entrepreneurs and businessmen can operate. It is a fuller society from a market point of view and it has an intellectual climate which encourages wealth creation. However, on the ethical, moral side, there are some doubts. Particularly, about the strength of the family, which is the basic building block of U.S. society. There are a lot of broken families, etc. That's one thing people are worried about. I'm not sure enough Americans are getting a moral education and these problems have to be addressed. But I think America is basically a moral nation with a strong sense of purpose, great reserves of self-discipline and a collective sense of responsibility, which is unique in the world. Americans create problems for themselves but they're also the great problem-solvers of history. And all their current problems, are already being tackled. A good example of this is New York City, which not so long ago was a dangerous city to live in. It has now become a very safe city. That is one of the ways in which American society is improving.

posted 11-30-98 02:22 AM ET            

Also just remember that that is nothing more than one person's opinion. I'm sure that I could find people to counter those arguments. Now, who's right, and who's wrong? Maybe one, maybe the other, maybe neither.

I hope most of what that bloke says is true. But he does say that he is an optomist - one that hopes for the best. It still doesn't mean that America can't improve, nor that there is nothing to criticise it about. just the same as any other danged country out there, Australia included.

As Octopus says, America should be strong enough to stand by it's own convictions, and to back them with facts. AndImran is on the right track by quoting something from a document to us, even if that article is just from a magazine. If you want to beat those that disparage the US, quote some facts at them.

Brother Greg.

P.S. Believe it or not, shock, gasp, horror, I really do like the US. If I were to live anywhere other than Australia, it would be the US. I would say the UK, but their island is just too small. Good football though. But I'd feel cramped. At least the US is the same size as Australia.

posted 11-30-98 04:09 PM ET            

Suppose someone accuses you of murder, are you gonna tell the judge how this certain British person really likes you to defend yourself? I think not. Hell, I could defend American politics better than that.
But I think some of you are too indoctrinated to even understand the actual topic being discussed here: mass-murder.

posted 11-30-98 04:24 PM ET            

People like you are the main reasons why USA stinks. You will always protect what your country have done, without even looking to the facts. You are totally following the mass media line of thinking and you eat all infromations TV is putting in your mouth.

posted 11-30-98 04:34 PM ET            

All you seem to do is bash America.
Which is fine, its your right to bash the country that is protecting your rights. Its your right to bash the country that has to to all the bad horrable dirty jobs to protect your right to speak badly of it.

So injoy, its Americans gift to you, the right to speak. Even if what you are saying has no point what so ever.

One more thing, you seem to think that we Americans do not know the dirty actions that we have done, we do. But we also understand that sometimes people have to do things that they would not normaly do to protect themselves and there own people. Its not nice its not pretty but sometimes it has to be done.

Also, on the Mass Death in Indoneasia. What exactly would you have us do there? That country is going threw massive internail problems its much better for American and the World to try to send humanitarian ad and try to get them on the path to democracy and freedom then to send in US Troops.

Sending in troops should almost NEVER be done in any situation. And for you to sit there and tell American to let OUR people die so that you can feel good about yourself is a little... selfish.

posted 11-30-98 04:54 PM ET            

At the last mid-turn election, The campaigns cost the candidates a total of 1 billion dollars.

In 95% of the case, the candidate that put the more money in his campain was victorious.

posted 11-30-98 05:01 PM ET            

Yea Ford did have some ethnic problems. GM on the other hand did not do anything other then helping Germany retool its factories after WW1. I do not consider that to be a part of a plot to destroy the USSR or the Poles. I have always thought of that as a normal business desestion made in a time of peace with a country that at that time was not Nazi.

I mean GM and many other American companies helped to retool the French factories as well after WW1. Some of those same factories and some of those same Frenchman fought the allies on the side of Germany during WW2. So to say GM had not only a plan to destroy the USSR by helping the Germans retool, but also had a plan to destroy the USA by helping the French(a funny fact is that the French forces in N. Africa and in Asia fought us harder and with more ability then the European French Forces against the Germans, I guess the Viche were tough, to bad they were for the wrong side) does not seem to logical to me.

posted 11-30-98 05:06 PM ET            

"...Ix DID NOT have the right to start pointing the finger at America..."

as compared to:

"...Ix DID NOT have the right..."

I DID NOT say that he didn't have the right to post here, I said that he didn't have the right to point fingers like he was.

And ONCE AGAIN (See? I told you I'd have to say this again), speaking out against something is alright, arbitrarily laying blame, without showing ANY proof to back your points up, IS NOT.

You're not on the receiving end of racism, therefore you are not affected by it (note, I NEVER said directly). WRONG. Racism has caused a backlash, and in turn problems in societies the world over. I'd call that an effect.

Debate the points you say. Well, isn't that what I'm doing right now? Ix's post was PROPAGANDA. I don't care what country it was for or against, it was propaganda, pure and simple. Hothram Upravda has it right when he asked Ix what his point was exactly. I'm not saying I agree with some of the rest of the stuff he says, but I'm not gonna get into that. I'm not disagreeing with WHAT he said persay, but HOW he said it, and WHY he said it. The message isn't everything, look at the delivery and the motives as well.

Oh, and if you ever call me an American again, I will not be responsable for my actions.
Not that I have any problems with Americans, one of my best friends is American. Just I'm an EXTREMELY proud Canadian.

And to Ix, you say Imran is an example of why the US stinks. I hope you realize that you're giving Canadians a bad name by posting that propaganda ****.

posted 11-30-98 05:26 PM ET            

WE could have "won" that war, but in trueth what would have been the point? We would have lost a large amount of people, or parts of Asia would have been glass... not worth the lives or the political problems.

Dark Nexus: good posting by the way. I mean if i wanted to i could spend all day speaking about the horrors and the problems of so many of all the Euro countrys. Or maybe touch on the internal problems of Canadia(Quabec), but i really do not see the point in it. its up to that country or that people to deal with there own problems. And to just sit around all day and bash another country just does not seem to me to have much use.

So keep up the good postings. By they way i like the Canadians, even if your all Redcoats . Good people, not to much ifference between Americans and Canadians. Far more between the peoples of N.America and Euro....

posted 11-30-98 05:27 PM ET            

The Vietnamese might of out fought us some of the time, but that's a fact in all wars. Overall, we were the better soldiers. There was an incident I heard of(might not be true) of some Intruders dropping napalm on a brigade of NVA, that brigade has never been seen since. So that shows the technology we had was an edge, but it was politics, & those pot head hippies, who lost us 'Nam.

posted 11-30-98 05:39 PM ET            

Yo: Nothing interesting ever happens for just one reason. The VC were largely elite, high-morality soldiers / fanatics who fought for their cause like demons; the US soldiers were quite average grunts with low morals fighting for a cause they pretty much didn't care about.

And the American WWII army, while superiorly equipped, was nothing compared to the Japanese army - by far the most elite army of WWII major powers. The US won primarily because of high technology and massive production....

posted 11-30-98 05:53 PM ET            

The Japanese at that time had a tendincy to kill themselves if they ever did anything wrong as well as using weapons that would be consitered modern in WW1...

Also do not count out the fact that American troops fighting to protect there way of life and there familes and extremly skilled. American armies have never been defeated in war. Nam' was not lost by the military it was lost by the polititions.

The only time we ever even got close to a military loss was in Korea. And even there we could have won, but decided that it would not bee a good thing to glass all of China .

posted 11-30-98 06:04 PM ET            

X is investing 100 millions in publicity
Y is investing 95 millions in publicity

X won the election in his departement 95 percent of the time.

posted 11-30-98 06:10 PM ET            

The Californian Governers Election.
The poorest canadite in the end won. And he also spent the least. This was the guy who won against people who where worth from 200 Millian to 800 Millian.....

This was also the guy who even though the Republicans out spend him almost 2 to 1 he still won.

Also we are geting some nice campain laws to control the amount of money spent as well as where the money came from...

posted 11-30-98 06:11 PM ET            

Vietnamese people didn't want the americans there, this is why the american lost. The media were only intelligent to denounce this war (or this atrocity).

Vietnamese had kicked France out of Vietnam years ago and only the same think could happen with american.

--- I personnaly think that a nation has to be mentally retarded to attack people that they don't even know at the other side of the planet.

posted 11-30-98 06:11 PM ET            

The only regular army (ignoring SS and other elite forces) that could compete with the Japanese might have been the Russians on their most desperate (Stalingrad). When the command infrastructure collapsed, they would fight on, each man for himself. Though the Western soldiers saw some pretty heavy action too, the Russians were hardened by going through living hell.

Anyway, why is always Manstein forgotten when the great generals of WWII are discussed? Manstein was the greatest, he would've beaten Patton (on equal terms) any day.

Disclaimer: I don't believe in fascism, nazism, communism or similar crap. However, I also don't believe in rewriting history to make the past conform to our present ideals.

posted 11-30-98 06:26 PM ET            

Patten was a increadible mover of men and could get the job done, BUT only if he had someone like Gen. Ik or better yet Gen. Bradily(bad spelling) controling his supply lines and telling him where to go.

True we could not have won WW2 without the Russians, but remember by the end of WW2 the Russians just could not continue to fight. They had sustained loses that where increadible. 30+ Millian....

The US could have taken the Russians, simpley because altough the Russians did have a few very good generals, they simply did not have the man power or the supplies to continue to fight.

Also although russian troops are known for there tenacity even the most stupporn and fearce foe can be destroyed by tech, numbers, and most inportantly the vastly greater training of the US forces...

posted 11-30-98 06:30 PM ET            

Politicians make wars, that's why you need soldiers to fight them.

posted 11-30-98 06:40 PM ET            

hehe, new i was typing something wrong.

Personaly i have always liked, R.E. Lee. But maybe thats just me . Or maybe Stonewall Jackson.

posted 11-30-98 06:42 PM ET            

As for a US vs. Russia post WWII war, I honestly believe the Russians would have obliterated the Americans in no time.

First of all, there was no European support for a war against the Russians at this time - they were for the most part heroic liberators, not evil oppressors. Anyway, Europeans were pretty tired of war.

So, the Americans, who, along with the British fought 20% of the German army, would have to fight the Russians (who took care of the remaining 80% of the German army) alone. Total annhilation, yes indeedy! Of course, the Russians didn't have any nukes, but then the US could never nuke Russia and survive politically anyway (heroic liberators, remember?).

posted 11-30-98 07:13 PM ET            

Hothram: woowee of all indoctrinated Americans I've talked to you must be the one that got brain raped most often. You really believe the US had to fight democratic governments and support mass-murderers and torturers all around the world to help us? Well, I have a message for you: please don't help us anymore, we sort of prefer a world without the wars and mass-murders the US has been spreading. Thanx but no thanx.

posted 11-30-98 07:30 PM ET            

"Well, I have a message for you: please don't help us anymore, we sort of prefer a world without the wars and mass-murders the US has been spreading. Thanx but no thanx."

Where do i begin. First. The past 50 years under the American Hergemony has been the most peacefull the human races has EVER had. There has not been a major real war in 50 years. You have US to thank for that. For its been with American blood and American leadership that has stoped the massive wars that humanity had a tendincy to get into.

"And noone is asking you to send soldiers anyway. Au contraire, we're asking you to keep them at home, theytend to get hated by the people they massacre (e.g. Vietnam, Somalia, ..."

What DO you mean no one is constantly asking us to send solgers? The Euros/UN are begging us to send our troops all over the place. And what massacre are you talking about in Somalia? Only thing that happened there was the UN begged us to stop the killing in that country and then the people of that country showed there gratitude for geting American food by mutilating American troops.

On Nam'. Well... wars are not nice, never are. Bad things happen. Get over it.

Indoctrunated am I? Well. I can live with that. I have read the history of this nation, as well as the history of this world. I have weighted the sins that My People have done against the many great a good things they have done. I understand (as you do not) that we cannot always pick and choose who are allies are. Unforchenily most of the time the only allies we can get are only slitly less bad then our enimies. But that my friend is life, if you would read the history of your own country instead of simple sighted propoganda about American you might just understand that.

"Indonesia from being condemned."

What could that have possible done? Nothing, you might not understand this, but being condemned does not do that much. I have no idea what the politics where at that time, but i can guess it was something along the lines of "Condemn and piss them off" or do not "Condemn and try to work things out." We always pick Diplomacy over force.

And although i do not like to "flame" people i feel that its people like you who do not understand that sometimes for the good of the many people have to make hard desitions. Luckly for the world, your countrys goverment and the UN understand this. And because it would hurt there image they let the Americans do it. And so we do, for the good of not just us, but for all.

What would you rather happen? The world being controled by curropt Commie goverments? Would you rather the world being controled by European Imperialists? Would you rather the world being controled by Petty nuke armed Empires?

I assume the awnser is no.. So you had better thank the Americans. WE do the work so you can have peace. And with peace, freedom.

posted 11-30-98 07:33 PM ET            

True the Russians are tough. Only problem is that they could only fight because American industry fulled there Armies. Also by the end of the war they just did not have enough reasorces or manpower.

We had the training, industry, and leadership.

Also we probibly would have droped the big one. Remember at that time (1945-6). The nukes had not yet gotten the terror that they latter had in the 50's and 60's. People just did not know that much about them. Just thought of it as a bigger bomb. It took a few decades to create the instututional fear of the bomb.

posted 11-30-98 08:08 PM ET            

And the American WWII army, while superiorly equipped, was nothing compared to the Japanese army - by far the most elite army of WWII major powers. The US won primarily because of high technology and massive production....

The Us army was never superiorly equipped in WW2. The were probably the worst equipped. Their tanks, Shermans, were eaten by German Panzars. The US forces had to rely on ingenuity and numbers to win. They couldn't compete anyway else. In the USSR and US got into a war, like in 1949 or something, the US probably couldn't push the USSR back. We'd have to rely on nukes!! However, the US realized it wasn't that powerful and went to work. Now it has the greatest military on the face of the earth!! Tecnologiacally and it is very close numerically. Btw, Hothram you rule!!! A position in the Brotherhood of Sid is open if you wish it.

posted 11-30-98 08:09 PM ET            

Hothram: the past 50 years have not been particularly peaceful. The US does not "always pick Diplomacy over force". The US accepted Indonesia's occupation of East Timor primarily for one reason: Indonesia has oil; the US likes oil. There were plenty of things the US could have done to deter the occupation; they chose not to. Such is the world of realpolitik. The US is not the only country with a questionable foreign policy history; it is however the most powerful and therefore the most dangerous (and therefore the country most deserving criticism). It's not that other states would be better in the US's position: "small states are virtuous because of their feebleness".

Defending the US policy at all cost seems stupid - realpolitik might be necessary in a complex world such as ours, but it certainly isn't noble.

WWII: Though you might have a point regarding the A-bomb, you are certainly mistaken if you believe Russian production was dependent on US resources. Sure, some help was sent during the early years of the war through Murmansk and Archangel, but this was no more than a minor (though vital) boost.

posted 11-30-98 08:09 PM ET            

1. The Australians were the only ones to kick the asses of the Japanese infantry, and that happened in PNG, Indonesia and the like. In fact, from every text book I have read, we were widely regarded as the best infantry in WWI and WWII. In one battle, can't remember if it was El Alamein (sp?) or Tobruk, about 10,000 Australian troops held off something like 150,000 of Rommel's elite Africa corps for weeks before reinforcements couild arrive.

They had little supplies, there was dysentry in the camp, and nobody could believe that they had survived, let alone held off the weight of numbers that they did.

B.T.W. my figures could be wrong, it has been a long time.

2. As fot the Americans who say "You should thank us for saving your asses in WWI and WWII, otherwise, you'd be speaking German". Let me ask you one question:

Where was America in the beginning of the war? Sitting on it's hands, ignoring it's old allies England, France and the like, and playing neutral.

They only got involved in both wars because somebody stupidly attacked them. In WWI it was the Germans U boats repeatedly sinking their merchant fleet. In WWII it was the Japs bombing Pearl Harbour. If that hadn't happened, the mighty US of A probably would have sat on it's butt for the entirity of the war.

Gee, now that's really a great way to argue your case. NOT.

Despite all that, in the end, when they had to, they did join the war effort, and yes, they did have a major part in winning the war.

But frankly, if it wasn't for the British, the Russians, and a few loyal allies like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, who stuck to their allies, the whole of Europe would have been belonged to Germany, who would have sat back, ramped up their industry, and then probably invaded the USA, and won, without having to worry about the Ruskies or the Poms.

Sure, the USA helped win WWII. Most of Europe was still recovering from WWI, and the fact that everyone bar the English underestimated Germany. Of course they had the greater industry. They hadn't had most of it bombed or destroyed during the war. They had a land that was relatively new, and hadn't been raped and plundered for hundreds of years like Europe.

They didn't have a hostile neighbour of the callibre of Germany to contend with.

So, yes, they out-industried Europe, and eventually pulled Europe's butt out of the water. Through superior numbers, not through superior troops. Of course, ignoring the fact that with Hitler's debacle in Russia, the Red Army was set to smash through Hitler's forces anyway, and Europe would have ended up being Red.

3. As for Vietnam, the only way the USA would have won was to carpet bomb the country with Napalm or nukes. The VC were better jungle fighters, and there's no arguing the fact. Sure, the Yanks would kick their butt one-on-one in a fair fight in a non-jungle, no doubt.

But you can't fight an enemy you can't see. And the American's couldn't fight the VC, because even their supposed allies wouldn't help them.

In jungle warfare and ambushes, the VC kicked the American's butts.

Don't blame politics. Blame the fact that even the people they were trying to save didn't want saving, and in fact helped the enemy. Blame the fact that the Americans involved themselves in a war where no-one wanted them.

So yes, we have a lot to thank the Americans for, in WWI and WWII. Otherwise all of Europe would be speaking Russian, not German. My question though is why did it take you so long to get involved? Why did it take damage to American interests to bring you into the war? Why did you ignore your allies of WWI, until your own interests were at risk?

Frankly, you're only defending your own country out of blind loyalty. Look closely, and you'll discover the truth. Don't be blinded by your patriotism.

As for Imran's suggestion that without the USA, technology would still be at 1900 levels, that is nothing more than ludicrous. It is not as if the US has discovered everything in the last 98 years. And there is no way it could be backed up with facts.

posted 11-30-98 08:18 PM ET            

Anyway, the point is: Americans won beacuse of superior technology and production, NOT because of being the most elite force.

Greg: Interesting. However, 'best' is a word that covers many aspects - I'm sure Australians could be the best force while the Japanese could still be the most elite force...

posted 11-30-98 08:58 PM ET            

O yea, Rommel NEVER had 150,000 troops, he took on the British with less the 3 Divisions of Germans and rolled them back and forth across N. Africa.

Peronaly i would not place to much in the ablitlies of the British Army. Remeber these are the guys who escaped total destruction at Dunkurk buy the grace of god and a whole messload of fishing boats.

O yea, interesting fact. All the Armies of the world (including the German infantry) where armed with weapons dating back to WW1 with the exception of the US.
We had upgraded our troops with the first mass produced semi-auto rifle (the M1), were the Germans where still using old slow bolt action weapons. Although the Germans did have better machine guns...

Anyway, i would not pick on the equipment the Americans used. We had the best Air Force, Sea Force, and Infantry in the world. True our tanks where not that good, but hey at least we had the fuel to run them .

As to the Best units on the war... Well i would put the Germans with there elite Panzers, the Americans with the 101 and 82 Airborn, as well as the Rangers+Marines. The Japanese with the Imperial Marines, and the British with the Gurkas.

I have heard the Auzzie light horse was purdy good, but i do not remember much about it after WW1. Although most of the Aussie troops got killed because of horrable English Leadership at Galipoli.

On the Subject of Generals.

You have to admight the British and French Generals had some problems. Sheesh those guys would have trouble changing a light bulb.

I do not know much about the Russians. The Japanese had one of the greatest sea comanders of all time, Yamamoto. And the Germans had a hole messload of very good Generals.

O yea, on entering WW1 and WW2. Why should we have entered either war earler then we already had? No point entering a huge bloody war unless your threatened. Also the Germans could NEVER have actualy won a envastion on the Countinental US. They had no navy worth a damn, certainly not enough to get across the Atlantic. And we Americans have not lost a battle on our land sence the Civil War. (And no i am not counting the Japanese attack on those tiny Alaskan Islands, no one was there).

Remember even though we fought on two fronts we had never used a very large % of our population for war. We could have put out a heck of a lot more then we did, we simple did not need to.

Hothram Upravda
TB

posted 11-30-98 09:50 PM ET            

Deutsches Afrikakorps (Stumme)
15th Panzer Division (von Vaerst)
21st Panzer Division (von Randow)
90th Light "Afrika" Division (Graf Sponeck)
164th Light "Afrika" Division (Lungershausen)
"Ramcke" Parachute Brigade (Ramcke)
Giovani Fascisti Infantry Division

Plus 8 Italian divisions organised in 3 corps.

In your list of elite forces, you left out the SAS.

posted 11-30-98 09:58 PM ET            

Best sea force in WWII? I think not. I don't know about air or ground forces, but the British had what was considered the strongest allied navy in WWII, if memory serves.
And the Germans DID have quite the navy, those U-Boats caused quite a mess.

And about never loosing a battle on American soil since your civil war? Kinda hard to have lost, when there haven't exactly been a multitude of battles on American soil since then

posted 11-30-98 11:01 PM ET            

A good example of this was the famous Bizmark sinking of the biggest and suppositly most powerfull ship in the British navy. The Germans where able to do this because they simply had better technology then the English. Only they just never really made enough of a navy to count.

The U-Boats where extremly effective till we started to create long range sea planes and fly them from Iceland as well as create escort carriers to protect the merchants. U-boats at that time where siting ducks for air power. It just took a while to get that air power in the right amount. By the end of the war u-boats where simply not much of a threat.
I say the US had the greatist navy simply because we had the most and largest Carriers. Had the most ships. Had the most men, and had the greatest level of modernisation.

For although the Japanese did have the greatist Battleship ever create (the Yamamoto) it was not a modern ship in that it was created for ship to ship battles and did not have enough defenses against air attacks. which latter we would use to destroy it.

Also to this day the US has always had the biggest and most powerfull Carriers. And its the Carriers that have become the most important weapons in a sea war. Even though we also had the 2nd best class in firpower and the 1st best class in terms of ablitliy in our New Jearsey Class Battleship, by WW2 that type of ship was out of date.

So when i say the US had the greatist navy. I back up that statment with the facts that we had the biggest navy. We had the most and biggest Carriers. We had a whole messload of very good big gun ships. And we had a extremly good submarine fleet. With the exception of the big gun ships the British had none of that. There carriers where for the most part out of date and still used biplanes for attacks.

posted 11-30-98 11:14 PM ET            

And it was not for equipment, training, etc, but for the fact that man-for-man, they were considered the best fighters. They held out where others would cave in, etc. Some of their feats were legendary, such as Gallipoli - damn those British generals sitting on the beach 10kms south, drinking tea.

Now I believe that the best are the Swiss soldiers that guard the vatican. Can't remember what they're called, but they're supposed to be awesome.

As to why you would jump into the war early? That is exactly my point. They did it because suddenly they were threatened. Not to help out their allies from WWI (the Brits and Frogs), but for self-interest. Australia, NZ, Canada and others jumped in because we knew it was the right thing to do. The Americans had to be "persuaded" by the Germans and Japs, which is exactly my point.

People say "you should thank us for saving your butt in WWI and WWII, otherwise you'd be speaking German".

My reply is "well, why didn't you get involved earlier?"

Answer: Because America were very good back then at looking out for #1. Ah, who cares if Europe gets run over by the Germans, we'll be right. Just a little selfish if you ask me. How can you pretend to be the saviours of the world if you only get involved when there's money involved?

Granted, not every American thinks that way, but all this is in response to those that say that America does soooo much good for the world. Sure it does. When there's something in it for America...

posted 11-30-98 11:15 PM ET            

The Japanese battleship was the Yamato, Yamamoto was an admiral(who was dead when this monster was complete). At Iwo Jima, or Okinawa, the Japanese planned to use this ship as a kamikaze ship. The plan was to ram it on shore, & then use it's broadsides as artillery against our marines. Before it could get there though, are planes killed it.

About the British aircraft carriers & their bi-planes. They were somewhat effective. At the Battle of Taranto, the British Swordfish(carrier launched bi-planes), attacked the Italian fleet, & caused it signifigant damage. That was probably the main use of the British carriers & their bi-planes, to prove they weren't completely in-effective...

posted 11-30-98 11:24 PM ET            

About the Swiss. There soldiers are definately some of the best in the world! They have good terrain to defend from(mountains, 400% bonus in CivII!), & their soldiers are well trained, & have high morale. Mostly because of their neutrality, & if any attack came, they'd be defending home, & doing a helluva job at it! Why do you think the axis powers didn't invade Switzerland in WWII, even though they surrounded them completely. They would of gotten mauled! The war would be over a lot sooner!

The Swiss deserve some credit in this discussion, even though they haven't fought a war in a pretty damn long time!

posted 11-30-98 11:28 PM ET            

What pisses everyone off is more american hippocracy and plain outright ignorance than their history - which, lets face it, makes excellent reading when compared to the British empire. American just doesn't get it. For nearly every buzzword that the yanks like to associate with their country - freedom, democracy, human rights, etc (I don't know, I'm not an actual american - these ones seem to crop up most often), there is a huge blindspot that is totally ignored by patriotic america. For instance:
Freedom - 2% of your population is virtual slave labour in prison.
Democracy - less than 40% of people actually vote.
Human rights - you give China (world leaders in HR violations) most favoured nation status.

I can go on: Free Trade - is still almost non-existant with america - you have some huge tarriffs on agricultural products entering your country, just for example.
Equality (the Eurogit favourite) - you have the highest gap between rich and poor in the third world (not strictly a bad thing, IMHO. But bad for social harmony, certainly.)
Racism - not nearly a solved problem, compared to other nations.
Education - your secondary students, on average, suck.

Okay, so it's not perfect. No nation is, and American drive and innovation (and ability to just get things done!) is certainly admirable, compared to European inertia and inefficency. Yet you go on as if America was the perfect country, with not a care in the world.

America is globally seen as out of touch and totally driven by self interest. What you say is often diametrically opposed to what you do (note to Europe - at least America actually does things...) - human rights, free trade, equality, etc.

posted 11-30-98 11:42 PM ET            

"Octopus, I must thank you for taking what I said, cutting off part of it (the more important part), and THEN twisting it."

Let's analyze this logically.

Here's a truism: What Ix did was to post the message at the beginning of this thread.

"And once again, Ix DID NOT have the right to start pointing the finger at American ...which he did."

[pointing the finger at America] [which he did]
this implies:
[what Ix did] = [pointing fingers at America]

[Ix DID NOT have the right] to [start pointing the finger at America]

by substitution, [Ix DID NOT have the right] to [do what Ix did]

Now, by substitution again,

[Ix DID NOT have the right] to [post what he did at the beginning of this thread]

posted 11-30-98 11:48 PM ET            

Forgot to mention above too that most of my posts about Aussie soldiers should have actually been ANZAC soldiers. Gotta give the Kiwis their credit, otherwise, they'll send Lomu to get me.

Octopus, lol...

Personally, my Dad couldn't beat up a Pommie cricketer, and that's gotta be one of the easier things in the world to do. =)

posted 12-01-98 12:05 AM ET            

Greg: Three days! That's gotta have the poms rocked. And they had such hopes...

Mark Taylor: "Every western australian said it was a good wicket..."

posted 12-01-98 12:16 AM ET            

And yes, I do realise you were poking fun at them.

And yeah, you do occasionally hear from people like Spoe. There's a couple of them here. But as he says, the rednecks usually drown them out. And damn, I thought Australia invented the Banana Republic. Dang!

Shining1: Pity that first test got washed out just when the MacGilla had them on the ropes. And then the poor bloke gets dropped from the squad for Perth. Oh well...

And hey, if they can call a series where only American teams are involved the "World Series" then I think we have the right to talk about cricket in a thread for bashing seppos. Hmm, maybe we could expand it to bashing Poms as well... ;D

posted 12-01-98 01:04 AM ET            

You must also listen to us when we say that there are countries out there with much better records of international relations, much more free economies, less history of racial abuses, and even a couple with a higher standard of living.

About all that America can really claim moral high ground on is, well, nothing really that I can think of. MAYBE their political system, but then again, any system that condones what you have done to the Indians deserves some severe criticism. Throw in very low voter turn out, homelessness, yada yada yada...

They got the largest economy in the world, but not necessarily the best (for anyone other than themselves). Trade subsidies and tarrifs guarantee this will continue for the forseeable future. For example, US subsidies on US grown wheat are forcing Australian farmers broke.

They make great advances in science, sure. But hey, they don't invent everything.

And as I keep on saying, America has done good for the world. But it could do so damned much better.

And who says I am NOT trying to fix my own country at the same time as trying to help you fix yours?

And we are not saying "America sucks" per se. We are just pointing out some flaws to people who constantly argue that America is the best. Which obviously we don't think it is.

You can criticise Australia's record on treatment of the Aborigines and I will agree. You can point out that we tacitly support Suharto, and I'll agree. You can point out that we are the most racist country in the world, and while I will question that (frankly, how such a multicultural country could be that racist, I don't know, esp going from what I hear about other countries - ex KKK), I won't fly off the handle.

I will listen, and I won't tell people to shut up just because they want to point out some shortcomings in my country.

And besides all that, it is too much fun poking fun at you. You really should learn not to bite back.

posted 12-01-98 02:26 AM ET            

Its hard to say that the Hood could have taken the Bismarck. Maybe, maybe not. Never the less the engineering of the Hood allowed for a one shot one kill. But that was not really my point. My point was that the English Navy was out of date by WW2. So that even though there bi-plane bombers could be effective they simply are not as good as American or even Japanese single wing dive bombers. And I think I have heard of a sea bases Hurricane fighter, which was no where near as good as a Corsair or some of the latter American Carrier planes.

The Swiss do have a very well put together force. And they are in one of the easist to defend areas of the world. But the true reason that they were not attacked in WW`1 or WW2 was simple that there was no reason to. Why attack a easy to defend country when there is nothing to gain? Not to much in Alps. Not worth the loss of main power.

On the subject of most formidable units. I had only listed main combat unit. People like the Vatican Guard, SAS, Marine Recon, and Navy Swimmers are just not numerous enough for me to talk about in terms of major battles. At most these units could only consite of a few hundred men. I was talking about Division or Regiment sized units.

Auzzies. I truly have never heard of the military actions of the Auzzies during WW2. I think I heard of them fighting on D-Day. And of course during the Retaking of France on of the most famous actions in WW2 happened because of the non-English forces.

Gen. Ik looking at causality radios noticed that the English General Montgomary was continuing and old British Tradition. That was to send the colonial troops to do the hardest fighting and leave the English troops in the back or to only use them to take easy targets. Ik told Montgomary that he would kick him out of the war if the English troops did not start to do there share of the fighting. After that little meeting the English did start to fight on the front lines in far greater numbersJ.

On a few more subjects.

"I can go on: Free Trade - is still almost non-existant with america - you have some huge tarriffs on agricultural products entering your country, just for example."

This is not true. NAFTA. And the upcoming FTAA are going to create the biggest free trade area in the world.

" Equality (the Eurogit favorite) - you have the highest gap between rich and poor in the third world (not strictly a bad thing, IMHO. But bad for social harmony, certainly.) "

Also not true. Although the gap between the richest and the poorest is increasing. America still has the largest % of middle class in the world. We are a country that for the most part is controlled by the middle class. Honestly it's the rest of the world that has some major problems with class, old money, and the inability to get to another tax bracket.

"Racism - not nearly a solved problem, compared to other nations."

No one can say that Racism is not a problem. Its always going to be here, its simply a part of being human. But compared to other nations we are EXTREMLY tolerant. Race relations have improved to a incredible extent in the past 30 years and are continuing to. The reason what many countries can say that they do not have race problems is simply because they have almost no diversity. In general there are no where near numbers or amounts of Minorities that the US has. We are the most Diverse nation on the planet. With that diversity comes great power. But also problems that we are dealing with. Try not to think the modern America is like in the movies about the South in the 60's. We have changed. I would easily be able to say that we are more adapting of raticly different groups then the vast majority of the planet. Simply because we have so many, its not that hard any more. At the vary least we are better then EuroJ (kidding, although it also happens to be true.)

"Education - your secondary students, on average, suck."

Depends on the Area. California for example has extremely good secondary education. But you must understand that unlike the education's in many other nations our high school is simply not as important as it is in say Germany. Americans get there most important education in Collage. And our Collages are the best in the world. We also put more people into Collage then any other country in the world.

Also our Grad Schools are the best. In any field you can think of. Be it he humanities with the UCLA. Or tech with MIT or Caltech. We have some of the top most professors and equipment in the world. As a form of proof. Its to America that the vast majority of foreign students come to for Grad School.

Also it's the freedom to express new ideas and to create new ideas that lets us stay at the top in the areas of tech. This ability to create new ideas is something that we Americans are prudy good at.

And no I did not just say that all modern tech was created in America�. But a huge amount of it wasJ. Including the tech that we are using to have these interesting posts.

Hothram Upravda
TB

posted 12-01-98 03:08 AM ET            

Spoe: your correct. I would think Africa is very high on the list of places that have massive problems with race. Of course much of that is the by product of Imperialism, but we are not geting into that .

Hothram Upravda
TB

posted 12-01-98 04:41 AM ET            

Amen.

And did it come as any great surprise to hear on the radio this morning that the americans are bleating that Pionochet should not be extradited to Spain, but should be allowed home to Chile?

No, it did not.

Whassamatter yanks? Afraid that a court appearance by the good general might lead to embarrassing revelations regarding the role of the usa in his reign of terror?

Let's send him to Spain, and let's watch him hang.

posted 12-01-98 05:07 AM ET            

I wondered, what could have POSSIBLY done that?

Then I got into the forums, went into this thread and all answers were solved. . .

posted 12-01-98 05:13 AM ET            

Spoe, there are alot more of us than you think, but the statement still holds true, we get totally drowned out.

posted 12-01-98 08:44 AM ET            

Hey, ask DJ and me, and we will tell you that europeans and canadians have a lot in common!

On german's africa corps: about 250.000 german soldiers most of the time. Whatever that means...

Yo: "Why do you think the axis powers didn't invade Switzerland in WWII, even though they surrounded them completely."

They were more valuable as a neutral. Swiss banks, swiss industry supported the nazi war machine.

shining1: "(note to Europe - at least America actually does things...)"

Hey, we are not just sitting around in the beautiful countryside!

Imran: "I believe the US is the most wonderful land on Earth. Now you don't have to believe me, just don't say that my country sucks."

Well, for the recors, I don't believe you and yes, in some areas, america does suck - emphasis on "in same areas".

Hothram: "America still has the largest % of middle class in the world. We are a country that for the most part is controlled by the middle class. Honestly it's the rest of the world that has some major problems with class, old money, and the inability to get to another tax bracket."

WHAT !!!???

Hothram: "Americans get there most important education in Collage. And our Collages are the best in the world. We also put more people into Collage then any other country in the world."

For that last sentence: there are at least equal forms of ecucation in many countries, they just don't call it college or academic education or whatever. Your collages are the best ? OK, we don't have collages in that sense in europe, so I agree...

Arnelos, I'd never say Helms is a moron. I really hate it when people insult those poor little morons...

posted 12-01-98 12:45 PM ET            

In your small little head, war is a cool thing. Didn't your mama told you that it was bad to take a hammer and to go beat a kid 21 streets after your house?

So like, maybe the public and the media understood that USA were attacking a country at the other side of the planet for no reasons, and were trowing napalm at childrens. And by the same time wasting USA kids life.

posted 12-01-98 03:43 PM ET            

Anyway, yes ToFfGI, Americans are conservative (probably the most conservative nation in the western world-a fact that I'm proud of). Of course it depends on your definition of conservative. I assume you mean 20th Centuary Conservative (19th Century Liberal). This is because of our history. Taxation without Representation was the cry in the Revolution, and ever since Americans have hated taxes, for anything. We like smaller government. Thomas Jefferson (the great American, writer of the Declaration of Indepedence, and 3rd President of the US) stated that the "government the governs best, governs least", and this statement has been an important belief in American society. Also the frontier promoted the ideal of a "rugged individualism", which is conservative as well (20th Cent. Conservative, of course). So to sum up, yes we are conservative, and I like it that way.

posted 12-01-98 04:49 PM ET            

The general rule is this: the USA has been actively supporting torture and mass-murder around the world if it supported its economic interests. Contrary to what you've been indoctrinated to believe, the USA has never sought to protect human rights or democracy, unless it happened to suit its economic/political interests. When Saddam Hussein killed 30000 Kurds with poison gas, the USA went on supporting him (behind the scenes, of-course). When he got his hands on Kuwait and his oil otoh, the USA moved in immediately. That example alone should give you a clue.

Now, if you maintain that the US did its crimes to protect democracy, then pray tell us the reason why it toppled/fought against the democratically elected or generally supported regimes in Chile, Nicaragua, Vietnam and Congo?

posted 12-01-98 06:14 PM ET            

OK, GOdSMurf, from BELGIUM, is attacking the United States over Mobuto. . .

Let's see. Did ANYONE read my last posts concerning Mobuto Seso Seko.

I acknowledged that my country, the United States, had supported the regime of Mobuto throughout the Cold War. I also pointed out that while the United States finally woke up and realized how dumb that had been THE FRENCH AND PARTICULARLY THE **BELGIANS** MAINTAINED ACTIVE SUPPORT FOR MOBUTO SESO SEKO'S REGIME UP UNTIL HE WAS FINALLY AND COMPLETELY OUSTED FROM POWER. The Belgians, *in particular*, were responsible for supporting Mobuto actively in both financial and political areas LONG AFTER the United States renounced its support for him.

Now I acknowledge that the United States has been incredibly narrow-minded and often dumb about its foreign policy throughout the past 50 years (I've spent a good amount of time on these forums complaining about it as an American citizen), but I really don't think the Belgians or the French have any right to complain, since THEY ARE STILL PRACTICIING WHAT THE U.S. FINALLY DECIDED MIGHT BE A BAD IDEA! I could use countless examples, particularly in the case of the French, who are still actively involved with the support of military and dictatorial regimes throughout Western Africa.

posted 12-01-98 06:28 PM ET            

Octopus: I love you! You actually said most of what I was supposed to say.

Imram Siddiqui, Yo..., Hothram Upravda: I really can't understand you at all. Like someone said earlier, a murderer said he had walked an old lady across the street. So he should be innocent? No way!!

I agree, that America has mostly been good for us rest, if you just count the western world, but yet it has not been all good. And when something is not all good it should be made better. Nothing can be perfect but everything can be made better. Does any of you know what is a mark of a declining regime? When the people in it just keep telling others all the good things they've done. That's what your doing, try to grow up from it!

I agree that the way Ix states his opinions is a bit annoying. But yet it's good to state those opinions, it made us all respond to it and debate. Over hundred posts, I'm impressed! We just had the means of influence in school and yours is a good one! Way to go, but hope you can also say something less irritating, when it's time to do that?

Almost all of the Americans who wrote here about Vietnam, well mostly they were the same three wackos, gave complete support to the war. I can't believe it! Why should a nation fight for people who don't want to be fought for. If US had won the war it would have had two choices: Control the country totally with it's military, or retreat and let it become communistic. That was what they wanted and that would have happened.

And something further away from the topic: Russia would have never won US in the 40s. In Winter war against Finland six Russians were killed when one Finn was killed. And we had no tanks, no fighters, even just a few automatic rifles. Now how could they have won the US?

Now I read some of the last replies and have to apoligize Imram: Your not all crazy, but yet your views of healthy patriotism suck. Sorry if I insulted you, or another fellow American by saying that. Yeah, I bet I would go crazy if my pal would say war is cool and someone more mature told him to shut up!

Yo didn't want this to be a thread where everyone picked on Americans. Well this turned out to be a thread, where Americans pick on everybody else for no GOOD reason at all. I sincerely adored your nation before, but all this doesn't shine the image a lot.

posted 12-01-98 06:42 PM ET            

Its just we said that it could have been "won." It just would not have been worth it. Also that we never lost in Nam militarily we lost because we did not want to be there, and because the media made it look like we where losing Militarily.

What the people back home did not understand was that War is never pretty. Its a bloody horrable biz that creates broken shadows of humanity out of stronge young men.

Frankly I hate going into any country for any reason. Bosinia, Sumolia, for that matter the world is just not worth the trouble.

And we are not in "Delcine" its just that the international system is changing. No longer can one nation completly dominate the world. Now its going to be Alliances.

FTAA, EU, NATO and the like...

posted 12-01-98 07:53 PM ET            

If this was the army Finland had faced in 1940, the outcome would have been quite different... On the other hand, the Finnish soldiers of WWII are quite famous for their excellence as well - perhaps attributable to the notion of defending their home from overwhelming, brutal attackers (like the Russians would later).

posted 12-01-98 08:11 PM ET            

I don't like to fight wars per se. I like to learn about wars, so I don't repeat any mistakes of the past. Small heads usually don't tend to learn anything on history, most of the kids I know hate history & think it's useless. I'm also smart enough not to go beat the kid 21 streets, or whatever you said, over. That would land me in jail smartass.

Vietnam was lost because we had no support at home, in Vietnam, & well, pretty much everywhere.

On the Swiss in WWII: The Lutwaffe would have very few kills in the Alps there. Flying planes in mountainous areas can get dangerous, quadruple that danger with having to attack an army!

posted 12-01-98 11:57 PM ET            

Also Churchill did not want to go to war with the Russians not because he thought the Americans would lose, but because he wanted to work things our with Diplomicy.

America would have won. Why do you ask? Because the center of the USSR had been almost completly destoryed. The center of there Agriculter had been burned to the ground. most of there inportant cities where burned. And they have millians of people who if they where not starving they where extremly close to it.

Also the Russians where never well supplied. There infanty weapons where horrable, they had almost no Air force. Or at the very least nothing like the Americans.

They simply could not fight us with a hope of wining. Its a simple equation.

Air Power, better equiped troops, booming industry, booming farm lands, very good generals, veteran troops, and nukes.
VRS.
Poorly trained troops, although they where veterains, the t-34 (does not do to well against air power), pracitly no good air, no nukes, no good farm langs, starving population, also not very good control over the lands that they had taken in Central Europe.

We had allies, they did not. We would have won. It would have been bloody. But we would have won.

And i know what your going to say, NO we do not actualy have to invade Russia to defeat it. Once there armies where destoryed and there cities are geting bombed 24-7 they would sign a peace treaty.