for the USA peoples

[mole]

i have no idea where your pulling your facts from Lanair.

So in no particular order:

You did at first, then left, deserting us

there are hundreds of British troops still in Iraq, trying to 'keep the peace' along side your soldiers (whatever that means).

the funding the US gives to the UN

the US has not paid its full payment to the UN in quite some time. and considering the size of your country it should be able to find a lot of contribution and ive seen figures for the amount we pay to the UN and the EU and its not pretty

look at the horrible economic state East Germany is in, with the sole cause being Communism

no the cause of East Germanys state. Is that they followed a facist government that was performing genicide and as a result, their Eastern front collapsed before their western front allowing vengeful  Russian troops to decimate Berlin and force rule apon them. it was method and actions than government.

Consider who gives the most international aid (which does not consist of arms) to less fortunate nations. THE US!!!

consider the relative size's again

Hypothetical example- in the interests of every country in the world, the US puts together a coalition of armies designed to topple a dictatorial, anti-Western government that violently seizes control of Saudi Arabia. Read closely, those of you who are idiots.... the key words are: every country, coalition, dictatorial, violent revolution.

i believe you forgot an ending or more acurately an intelligable conclusion.

-I believe the Bush administration has problems; all administrations do.
-I make a point of calling them French fries, and continue to study French in school.
-Anti-US feelings came before anti-French ones.

Agreed
We call them chips or just fries.
We've been anti-french for more than 1000 years, its not a very recent thing.

i love this, you'll have to excuse me i cant remember the qoute exactly
[QOUTE= French Representative to the olympics]If france is to host the Olympic games 2012, we must remove our image of arrogance and isolation[/qoute]

[smi256]

Communism is fine in theory, but the likelyhood of it ever working in practice is remote.

[communism]
I agree.  In order for communism to work, there needs to be a certain truth:  mankind is inherently good.  It isn’t; everyone has to play fair in communist community, and it is too tempting to take a little bit for yourself, but even more tempting when working with good natured people that presume that all there coworkers are as equally trustworthy as they are.  
[/communism]

[war]
Talk about beating a dead horse.  Ok fine, no it isn’t.  We aren’t sure if it’s a horse or not, but it sure as hell isn’t dead.  AKA, the issue is fully legitimate, but we’re playing with a deck of cards that has some: missing, fabricated (some on torn off lined paper and written in crayon), but most of all, this big mess of things is like looking at the clouds and making them look like things; it’s very subjective.  
I’m just some kid, but here are a few of the things that run through me head on this subject:
First off, I like America… there are very few places I’d like to go if I couldn’t be here… but I do know that if you’re going to say something as if it were truth, then you’d better have a damn good idea that it’s true.  If you’ve made a mistake, for god’s sake own up to it (at lest partially).  (despite the fact that I don’t think “god” has a say in the matter…) Bush has changed the reason for going into Iraq more then once due to the fact that each time it was more or less shown to be incorrect.

I also don’t think that the war is on ‘terrorism’.  Lets for a second believe what bush has said (sorry Rug, I’m not trying to hurt you with this) bush has said something like the only way to stop terrorism is to catch the people that were responsible for the attack on the world trade center.  I think it was safe to say, even though Usama and his first general still might be plotting and organizing (albeit, hindered by the current circumstances).  Regardless of these particular peoples liveliness…there have been a large number of attacks and growing number of anti-American and/or anti-meddlesome people throughout the world that have absolutely nothing to de with Usama, and probably don’t just a rat’s ass about him either.
And what’s up with the non-bid contract Halliburton thing.  Even the man that was organizing the search for any and all illegitimate things (stated by the UN) had resigned saying somewhere along the lines that there simply wasn’t anything there of any importance/threat
I’m not going to go into the whole bit about all the crap about bush from before he was president, let alone how he became the president…
[/war]

[America]
What the fuck about us?  Sure the world is important, but what about our own citizens?
I’d like to suggest the subject about the things that bush has done… domestically. (I was going to say “for his people”, but it’s more like “to his people”; it depends on with income tax bracket you fit in)(bush quote: “to the haves, … and the have mores”)
Things like:
The “trickle down theory” (tax cuts)
SS, or the lack there of (not you SS)
The cliché that of which is ‘terror’ (the national security level…color…thing…)
The jobs issue
[/America]
Come on, you can add to this list



Dude, I’m in California, I also have the Terminator to worry about.  I’m just glad his wife isn’t a ‘girly-man’ and that she’s a moderate (I think she’s a moderate…)
How the hell did I end up typing so much…

[Lord Lanair]

Mole- I dunno if the English are still supporting us..... I believe I'm wrong though, and the Spanish deserted us.  I honestly forgot.  :miffed:

The US does, in fact, contribute quite a lot of money to the UN, and I don't believe you can deny that.  

In East Germany- after the War, and after any Russian retribution, the entiretyof Eastern Europe was stripped of it's factories and resources to fuel the USSR, leaving those buffer states behind the Iron Curtain with piss poor economies.  Visit any former Bloc countries today and see how developed they are.

France has always been uppity and just plain assholes.  LOL

Domestic:  I like trickle-down economics and tax breaks for the wealthy.... I think we need them.  SS is also a crap system and should be eliminated.  However, the color thing is a national joke and I can't intellectually comment on the job situation (except saying that I learned in US History that the economy always goes through cycles, and the most the government can do about it is try to soften the inevitable minor depressions and recessions).   And the Governator is cool!  LOL

[smi256]

I like trickle-down economics and tax breaks for the wealthy

I would like this explained
but I still think it's
'trickle-down theory', not 'trickle-down economics'

SS is also a crap system and should be eliminated

perhaps, but most people have jack shit if they don't have SS, and I hardly think that anything better will come from the current rulers...  

[Hyvry1]

The reason that America is not liked by many of the countries in Europe is simply because the extreme capalist policy some people seem to have.  I am not sure why these people do this but i have spoken to some Americans that seem to boast this but i know this is not the view of most Americans, which is why i like America.  I don't like the people that cause this problem with other countries.  I will describe the problem:

"We are the most dominant country in the world" - What on Earth would happen to America if every country ganged up on them?
"We are far more technologically advanced than anyone in the world" - Countries excel in different areas, you will actually find Japan as being far more advanced than any other countries in general.
"We have the best aircraft in the world" - so you definetly know what the enemy has when they never boast about it, you will find that Russia are very well advanced with aircraft and have been more advanced for last 30 years, they just don't boast about it.
"We have the best army in the world" - so you win every war you fight then?
"We are an empire comparible to the Roman empire" - an empire, so what other major countries do you have full control over, and you need to pretty much own most of the world to be an empire.
"We saved WW" - not sure how you thought that one up, you were about 30 years too late.  Although your help was welcomed and we are grateful, but you definetly did not save WW.
"We have stealth aircraft that means no-one can see us" - maybe in Iraq, but ever flown over the majority of Europe, Russia or China without permission with one of those?  You will be shot down, because for every new technology developed an anti-version of it will be developed, in this case anti-stealth radar.  This was developed by the Czechs a little while ago.  This will always happen when one country tries to over-take another with technology, an anti-version will always be developed somewhere.

There are many more, it is an example of capitalism gone mad, i know this is not the view of most Americans but it seems the people that believe this shout very loud about it, some of it seems to be amplified by the American government aswell.  This is just a small amount of reasons some people don't like America.  It is only when you see through this you see a good America.

American and English links are still strong, and will stay strong as long as stupid things don't keep happening like wars without stating the right reason in the first place.

Also communism actually works very well until someone in power becomes corrupt, then it all goes wrong.

[smi256]

"capitalism [...] amplified by the American government"
We’re bloody broadcasting it!!
“US businesses calling all countries, US businesses calling all countries; we want your money”
dude, that almost got me on a rant...
oh what the hell, but just a little one
I see a bush and all his friends as two faced [blanks] and when they aren't two faced, they use prism tactic, which lets either side (R or D) see/hear exactly what they want to see.   EX: “I believe that the individual has the right to succeed”  that’s a great statement, why the hell wouldn’t everyone like that?  Well, I don’t, why? Because look at who it’s coming from.  It might very well be true, but those individuals are the people that already have ‘power’/money, I won’t even go into how they got there.  I’ll only say that it makes it very difficult if not damn near impossible to ‘succeed’.  

I'm having a little too much fun typing some of this...  

[Lord Lanair]

I'm having a little too much fun typing some of this...

You should have gotten in on the action days ago!  LOL

Hyvry- what on earth does capitalism have to do with anything here?  :huh:

And your statements I generally agree with, except we did win WW I and II (without our support, both economic and military, both of those would have been lost), and the fact that America is the most dominant nation in the world is evident- foreigners emulate us, other countries try to govern like us, when our economy falls iusually the rest of the world suffers, and if the world ganged up on America, I dunno if we'd win, but after we were gone, all the other nations would start squabbling again, and there would be no mediator.  

[evilknight]

even though going into ww1 AND ww2 were what made us the world superpowers we are today. also, our economy was in the shitter before ww2, im pretty sure ww2 was what brought us out of a small economic depression.
and who's to say the war in europe would have been lost? the british are pretty kickass, hitler was fucked up and would have had a hell of a time taking their little island away from them.
we'd have nuked japan either way though. heh.
but yeah, i dont have a crystal ball, and neither do you.
it's completely possible that russia could have closed the eastern front and that britain could have held out long enough to win a war of attrition or something along those lines...
idk, i need sleep. ive got work tomorrow.

[Lord Lanair]

In this scenario, we must assume that the US provided no support, like a true neutral country.  In that case, it's widely accepted that Britain would have fallen years before, since they would have been unable to break the German u-boat blockade without more resources, and would have run out of supplies much earlier.  Of course, it's possible Hitler might have made another tactical blunder, and let the Russians become too strong before finally conquering Britain and redirecting his troops, but I have a strong feeling the outcome of the war would have been different without any US involvement.    

[Rug]

In this scenario, we must assume that the US provided no support, like a true neutral country.  In that case, it's widely accepted that Britain would have fallen years before, since they would have been unable to break the German u-boat blockade without more resources, and would have run out of supplies much earlier.  Of course, it's possible Hitler might have made another tactical blunder, and let the Russians become too strong before finally conquering Britain and redirecting his troops, but I have a strong feeling the outcome of the war would have been different without any US involvement.  

*raises hand*

Different Government. Different Political Climate. 60 years ago. This is IRRELEVANT TO MY POINT.

I am saying you need to stop interfering NOW, not 60 years ago.



I am going to assume that you have conceded every point you have not answered.

The correct term is Supply-Side Economics. The basic principle is that if major organisations save lots of oney on taxes, they can afford to pay their employees more. What actually happens is they just term those tax breaks into higher profits, and bigger bonuses for the executives. It does NOT work as it is supposed to. The Republicans very own Communism - fine in theory, bullshit in practice.

I reference Al Franken's short comic Supply-Side Jesus for further explanation.

I think we need them

Does this mean you're a wealthy person who receives massive tax breaks? That'd explain a lot. If you aren't, you are being deluded about the amount of tax you are not paying. You have saved a small fraction of what Bush tells you you have.

Again, source is Al Franken, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them..

Consider who gives the most international aid (which does not consist of arms) to less fortunate nations. THE US!!!

I'm very sorry to shatter your misconceptions, but...

THIS IS WRONG.[/size]

Japan gives more in foreign aid, every year. Thats not more per person, thats MORE[/b]. And numerous European countries give more per person in their country. Belgium and Sweden are two, I believe.

1) My personal opinion is that war over resources is justified. Hypothetical example- in the interests of every country in the world, the US puts together a coalition of armies designed to topple a dictatorial, anti-Western government that violently seizes control of Saudi Arabia. Read closely, those of you who are idiots.... the key words are: every country, coalition, dictatorial, violent revolution.

This example is fine, as you actually WOULD be acting in the interests of other countries... ostensibly, anyway. Its a bad example, form the point of view that Iraq was purely selfish and unilateral action. Which it was.

My last point: AMERICA DID NOT ACT ILLEGALLY IN IRAQ If all other reasons to support the war are removed (to end human rights abuses, to end Saddam's obvious defiance of the UN and it's resolutions- a legitimate reason to invade by itself, the fact that Saddam was supporting terrorists, the obvious realization that war would invariably have come in the future), consider this:

"The NBCs Saddam Hussein used on the Kurds were sold to him by America and Britian for use in the Iran-Iraq war. Never forget who created Saddam Hussein. We did."

We went in to clean up our joint mess.

There are two issues here, which you have confused. Morality. Legality.

Morally, yes, the war removed a despotic, evil man from a position of power and, with enough time, and careful handling of the situation, Iraq may eventually be better for it. It is not at the moment.

Legally, no, you acted illegally, lied to your citizenry (so did Britian, but thats another discussion; arguments against the Labour government) ignored the U.N, bullied the weapons inspectors and performed an illegal, unsanctioned invasion on a country under false pretenses. This is very illegal, with good reason.

-Anti-US feelings came before anti-French ones.

Proof, man, proof! Prove this!

I can say, for example, 'Iran has greater military power than America'. This is bullshit, but it was easy to type, no?

The French fought for your independence from nasty Britian, and frickin GAVE you your countries most famous landmark. According to YOUR arguments (the crap about WW2, etc, that I told you to shut up about), YOU owe FRANCE BIGTIME.

WHEN did this so-called anti-American sentiment begin? WHAT caused it? WHO caused it?

As far as I can see, it started after you flipped the French off for opposing your invasion of Afganistan, it was caused by the fact you're arrogant bullies, and it was caused by Dubya.

Communism: is an evil idea, which can never be put into practice, is the destroyer of nations (look at the horrible economic state East Germany is in, with the sole cause being Communism), and has caused many problems through it's belief in world revolution.

No, no, no! It is not an 'evil' idea. It is a brilliant idea, but has always been, and always will be, poorly implemented. Karl Marx based his ideas on there being a Communist uprising in a recently industrialised country, like Britian in the 1800's. This has never happened. The major Communist revolution in history (1917 October Revolution, in Russia. Or Petrograd, to be precise) was in a pre-industrial country, where 80%+ of the citizens were peasants. This is not according to Marxist models, so it is not surprising the Bolshevik party created a despotic. A despotic dictator the west supported through WW2, I add...

Mole- I dunno if the English are still supporting us..... I believe I'm wrong though, and the Spanish deserted us. I honestly forgot.

English forces still hold Basra, and much of the south.

The reason that America is not liked by many of the countries in Europe is simply because the extreme capalist policy some people seem to have

See my point about Supply-Side Economics above... this is why it does not work.

Hyvry- what on earth does capitalism have to do with anything here? 

A lot. Its why the Bush administrations economic policy is based on plundering companies and lining pockets.

 

[mole]

have to knock this one on the head really.

it's completely possible that russia could have closed the eastern front and that britain could have held out long enough to win a war

this is the best comment on the situation so far i think. the Axis had terrible winter orientated clothing and machinery and the Russian millitary made everything like a brick outhouse.

the outcome of the war would have been different without any US involvement.

cant agree more. the US would be behind in the arms race. the nuclear age would have been postponed and communism would stretched into eastern france. But america did not win the war. i was going to think of a conclusive sentance to this but i dont think it would support me very well, take that how you want.

[Lord Lanair]

Rug- in response to your issue of legality- it doesn't really matter if what we did was illegal.    Granted, I can't say for sure it was a "legal" invasion, but the point is moot, since we now control the country.  You could say we should beware of this type of action in the future, and I'd agree, but... Why not just move on and try to fix this situation?  Oh, and yes, it was valid to invade Iraq on the grounds that they were obviously not complying with the UN sanctions (we were looking after the inspectors).

We owe France nothing.  Any debt we may have had to them in the past has long since been repaid, while they have yet to repay their more recent debts to the US.  And I think that the French started griping about our actions and fighting us in the UN over Iraq.  Once that happened, we started getting pissed off at them.

I say to communism- poor people should work for their money; it should not be given to them.  Invariably in a communist state, people become lazy, since there is no motivation to work hard (since no one gets more wages).  I also say it's the government's responsibility not to interfere with the workings of business/try to control it, or to provide any more than basic welfare support for the lower classes.

Prove capitalism has anything to do with the situation.  <_<

Name one time in world history when the US was neutral, and the world was better off for it. :hmmm:

P.S. My personal opinion is that you Europeans should shut up and accept what the US is doing as good.  Criticism of us is fine, so long as you participate (at least a little) in the matters at hand.

[Hyvry1]

P.S. My personal opinion is that you Europeans should shut up and accept what the US is doing as good.  Criticism of us is fine, so long as you participate (at least a little) in the matters at hand.

Blunt but true within reason.

Also the American involvement in the WW only speeded up the end it did not win it.  The Russians won the war.  The Russians left the largest most strongest part of their army in the East in Siberia to fight the Japanese when they invaded, but the Japs pissed off the Americans so it was obvious the Japs were interested in America not Russia.  Russia saw an opportunity to save itself from loosing Moscow and moved it's army to the West and crushed the Germans very quickly.  They then continued through Europe straight to Berlin, where they won the war.  The Russians got to Berlin first and prevented the Germans capturing the oil in the South of Russia.  The Germans lost the war because they were running out of fuel and got desperate.

[mole]

the germans also deeply entrenched themselves to the near east of berlin making a maze of traps trenches and tank ditches that the russians over came. The Allied forces dealt with the smaller german faction.

it doesn't really matter if what we did was illegal.

what?... yes it does that the whole point, without laws the civilised world is nothing. you can just make them and break them at your convenience it causes chaos and disrepute

You could say we should beware of this type of action in the future

you could say this shouldnt have happened in the first place and I'D agree. you need to step back and think not charge and learn form your mistakes.

[Rug]

what?... yes it does that the whole point, without laws the civilised world is nothing. you can just make them and break them at your convenience it causes chaos and disrepute

Ding ding ding... we have a winner.

If you say laws can be broken because you want to break them, well... I can take a gun and shoot you in the face, right? It might make me feel better. Don't know until I try. And, who cares if its against the law? I was doing it to protect the world from your right-wing ideals!

And the point is moot, because you're a corpse.

Right?

This is called sarcasm.

We owe France nothing. Any debt we may have had to them in the past has long since been repaid, while they have yet to repay their more recent debts to the US. And I think that the French started griping about our actions and fighting us in the UN over Iraq. Once that happened, we started getting pissed off at them.

Note my use of the word 'Afghanistan' and try again. If you say the US started getting pissy with France after Iraq, then you just conceded my point.

I say to communism- poor people should work for their money; it should not be given to them. Invariably in a communist state, people become lazy, since there is no motivation to work hard (since no one gets more wages). I also say it's the government's responsibility not to interfere with the workings of business/try to control it, or to provide any more than basic welfare support for the lower classes.

That has never happened. Communism has always failed because the person in charge is a dictator, rather than the moderator and guiding force that Marxist ideals call for.

If you say its not the governments responsibility to control business, why are you defending a party who's top leaders are all business tycoons?

Name one time in world history when the US was neutral, and the world was better off for it. hmmm.gif

Name one time that the USA actually chose to be neutral.

Prove capitalism has anything to do with the situation. dry.gif

Supply-side economics does not work because:

Code:

The correct term is Supply-Side Economics. The basic principle is that if major organisations save lots of oney on taxes, they can afford to pay their employees more. What actually happens is they just term those tax breaks into higher profits, and bigger bonuses for the executives. It does NOT[b] work as it is supposed to. The Republicans very own Communism - fine in theory, bullshit in practice.

The above is the very definition of Capitalism gone wrong - Capitalism at the expense of others. I want more money, so I'm going to take your money.