Is this kind of thing surprising anymore?

[Guest]

"That is one part of the problem, that you don’t care about the rest of the world… well at least not what they think. "

coming from a guy like you who praises individuality and self expression that statement seems hypocritical

[Guest]

To my examples and the point i wanted to make with them:
(1) 9/11 and pearl harbor showed the US that they are not “untouchable”, that they can’t sit and do whatever they want to the world, and expect that nothing comes back. It was a sign of “vulnerability”, which kind of contradicts being the greatest and mightiest nation on earth. (It is this “how could they”, “how dare they” reaction of the US public that can be used as evidence.)
They happened, because some nations/people could not stand the way they were treated by the US, and didn’t see that talking/diplomacy could help.
(2) Vietnam is another kind of example. It is the only “police action with used B 52 heavy bombers and chemical agents” that was lost by the US.
Notice the term “police action”, something i learnt here. Why does it seem so hard for the US to admit that they have lost a war?

So, the over-reaction to Vietnam is clear IMHO: the psychological effect of twisting the truth until you like it again, turning the facts until you haven’t lost a war, but just a “police action”.
The over-reaction to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is more complex and probably there will be more discussion. My statement: The US frequently humiliates other nations (by blackmailing them by using military force or economical threats). Sometimes this doesn’t work…. (or which are these -promised by GWB and Rumsfeld- bitter bitter consequences that Germany, France and Russia have to deal and live with now? Nothing!) … and sometimes it does. When it does, this humiliation of course makes people in that country angry, and provokes resistance. This to me seems like a logical conclusion. Now, then how can the US be surprised if it back-lashes? (Ok, maybe Pearl harbor is not such a good example for that, as many historians follow the thesis that US gov’t needed an excuse to join into WWII).
And what is the reaction to this surprise? It is revenge. The “enemy must pay more than he did to us”, which will then lead to further humiliation.
The only thing that can stop this circle is the total defeat of one of the sides. …
And i personally don’t want the victor be the one who didn’t decide to step back out of a position of power, but who (out of the same position) put more oil into the fire.

(From my german point of view:
Germany lost WWI and some parts of society twisted and turned the facts until it seemed that it wasn’t really lost but just a premature surrender. Then the bitter pill of Versaille (humiliation) came to add, and we cried for “correction” (or better: revenge).
To contemplate about our failings (e.g. why WWI started at all, wether we could have had a peace in between, wether we as winner would have been more fair to the defeated) was extremely ill-seen… unpatriotic, treachery etc.
This lead to WWII, and only the total defeat allowed us and gave us the time to see what we did wrong.)

That’s what i call over-reacting: a misinterpretation of the world, facts, opinions and feelings around. You can say i am wrong and the one who misinterpretes… but this objection usually comes from USies, while the vast majority outside the US sees the USies having a strnage way to see things.

…

Now to the Guest, i assume it’s Janus, am i right?
(1) self-expression and individuality does not mean that i have to spit into everyones face. It doesn’t mean at all that i should not think about others. It rather means that i see differences between the people, that i take their positions into account.
It looks like for you “seeing differences” leads without error to a situation where one has to give in to the other to make these differences go…
I can accept specialities of every culture as long as they don’t interfere with mine. Should they interfere, then we (both sides) have to find a way to make the situation acceptable for both.
(2) arrogant and in love with myself…
yes, you can call me arrogant concerning some things. There are things i strongly despise, where i have made up my mind and don’t think that i am open to discussion there. That is pretty human i guess, and everyone who says he is open to anything should start a thread about the good sides of molesting little children for example. There are some things i just can’t tolerate, some things were i can be brought to discussion (though i will be extremely biased) and some things that i discuss freely and enjoy to discuss.

In love with myself…
Sure, sometimes i am very happy with myself. Sometimes i am not. Most of the time i try to take actions that are not hurting anyone else, this actually is one of the principles i try to follow. I know i am not perfect, but: i hate people who are convinced they are perfect. (this may be an explanation of why i despise the US as a whole: not its citizens, but the concept of the “best country in the world”)

[Guest]

Some more non-surprising news:

See
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/30/icc.military.aid/index.html
and explain to me why this is not bullying and/or blackmailing.

[dezrtfish]

First, I can’t compare possible increases in anti-semitism between europe and most other continents.
Second, i didn’t blame “Americans” but “USies”. And yes, i blame all of them a priori, and in special cases (when the one i talk to shows he voted against GWB for example, or shows he/she does not agree), then i change and exclude that person.
And sure, you can hold the Euros accountable, but it is funny that you forget the most striking point: that we “fathered” the US, and our child is now running wild without paying any respect to the “elders”. WE have failed as parents. That is something you can blame Europe for…
(i guess that is another nice “grenade”)…

First off, I voted For President Bush. If that makes me what you call a USie, well what can I say? I have the freedom to use my brain to decide for myself who I want to be running my country. I am DAMN proud of what my President has accomplished and I am 100% confident that he will continue to make me proud.

Sometimes parents get old and can’t understand what is going on around them anymore, then their caring children must make the decision to lock them up in a home for confused elderly people who are trying to live in another century. For their own protection. (We need an Emoticon to represent a grenade 8) )

To my examples and the point i wanted to make with them:
(1) 9/11 and pearl harbor showed the US that they are not “untouchable”, that they can’t sit and do whatever they want to the world, and expect that nothing comes back. It was a sign of “vulnerability”, which kind of contradicts being the greatest and mightiest nation on earth. (It is this “how could they”, “how dare they” reaction of the US public that can be used as evidence.)
They happened, because some nations/people could not stand the way they were treated by the US, and didn’t see that talking/diplomacy could help.

This makes no since at all. You are saying that our actions prior to 1941 were deserving of being declared war on and being attacked with out warning by another nation?

Well then I guess the French deserved to be attacked as well for being too dumb to pay attention to their border with Holland. Not to mention their arrogance at the treaty of Versailles. Witch I might add was warned against by whom? Oh yeah the American President, who refused to sign the rag.

2. Vietnam is another kind of example. It is the only “police action with used B 52 heavy bombers and chemical agents” that was lost by the US.
   Notice the term “police action”, something i learnt here. Why does it seem so hard for the US to admit that they have lost a war?

The reason it was a police action was because we did not and could not declare war on a soviet protectorate. Our troops were not officially allowed to enter North Vietnam. We were trying to prevent NV from forcefully incorporating another independent nation. The problem is we realized too late that with out risking a world war by attacking NV we were trying to cup our hands around an anthill to prevent the ant from spreading. It is a doomed task. If we had been able to actually go to war with NV there would be no Republic of Vietnam now. I am not saying that we didn’t loose, because we did technically. We failed in our goals just like France did. But it was not because we couldn’t handle it, it was because it was a stupid untenable concept and when we learned this the hard way we abandon the idea.

The over-reaction to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is more complex and probably there will be more discussion.

What! :o You must be joking!

I guess it was an over reaction for The British to declare war on Germany over such a trifling thing as the conquest of Poland as well.

(From my german point of view:
Germany lost WWI and some parts of society twisted and turned the facts until it seemed that it wasn’t really lost but just a premature surrender. Then the bitter pill of Versaille (humiliation) came to add, and we cried for “correction” (or better: revenge).
To contemplate about our failings (e.g. why WWI started at all, wether we could have had a peace in between, wether we as winner would have been more fair to the defeated) was extremely ill-seen…… unpatriotic, treachery etc.
This lead to WWII, and only the total defeat allowed us and gave us the time to see what we did wrong.)

That’s what i call over-reacting: a misinterpretation of the world, facts, opinions and feelings around. You can say i am wrong and the one who misinterpretes… but this objection usually comes from USies, while the vast majority outside the US sees the USies having a strnage way to see things.

I agree completely with your examination of the reasons for WWII, However I think the Germans were justified in being pissed. They just reacted too strongly too soon. I don’t see the connection to the US though. By the way I sure wish you could come up with a term that didn’t sound so gay. It wouldn’t bother me so much to be labeled if it was a label that was a bit manlier. :P How about Redneck, I like that much more. :D

[cystic crypt]

@dezrtfish:

First, I can’t compare possible increases in anti-semitism between europe and most other continents.
Second, i didn’t blame “Americans” but “USies”. And yes, i blame all of them a priori, and in special cases (when the one i talk to shows he voted against GWB for example, or shows he/she does not agree), then i change and exclude that person.
And sure, you can hold the Euros accountable, but it is funny that you forget the most striking point: that we “fathered” the US, and our child is now running wild without paying any respect to the “elders”. WE have failed as parents. That is something you can blame Europe for…
(i guess that is another nice “grenade”)…

First off, I voted For President Bush. If that makes me what you call a USie, well what can I say? I have the freedom to use my brain to decide for myself who I want to be running my country. I am DAMN proud of what my President has accomplished and I am 100% confident that he will continue to make me proud.

sorry, i missed this . . . what did he do that a 12 year old wouldn’t have done? (Besides running a massive deficit - when i was 12 i knew that usually was a bad idea in the long term).

Sometimes parents get old and can’t understand what is going on around them anymore, then their caring children must make the decision to lock them up in a home for confused elderly people who are trying to live in another century. For their own protection. (We need an Emoticon to represent a grenade 8) )

big grenade. and not just a normal grenade either. Especially when working in an institution where “the children know what’s best for dear old mom” and she ends up being institutionalized prematurely, and against her wishes (and a decent mental competency exam). Or the ones who ask us to end their mother’s life prematurely despite the fact that she is not suffering pain - they just want to continue their flight to Disneyland and don’t want mom to hang around until after their flight leaves. Is this the kind of relationship you are talking about? It sounds like it anyway . . . .

To my examples and the point i wanted to make with them:
(1) 9/11 and pearl harbor showed the US that they are not “untouchable”, that they can’t sit and do whatever they want to the world, and expect that nothing comes back. It was a sign of “vulnerability”, which kind of contradicts being the greatest and mightiest nation on earth. (It is this “how could they”, “how dare they” reaction of the US public that can be used as evidence.)
They happened, because some nations/people could not stand the way they were treated by the US, and didn’t see that talking/diplomacy could help.

This makes no since at all. You are saying that our actions prior to 1941 were deserving of being declared war on and being attacked with out warning by another nation?

The Japanese had reason to attack the US if not considered by pre-60’s US to be a good reason. Who was the president who threatened the world if oil was not allowed to flow to the US unimpeded? Loved that quote - wish i knew where it was.

Well then I guess the French deserved to be attacked as well for being too dumb to pay attention to their border with Holland. Not to mention their arrogance at the treaty of Versailles. Witch I might add was warned against by whom? Oh yeah the American President, who refused to sign the rag.

no. The French deserved to be attacked because they are French. It was only a matter of time until they were attacked by SOMEONE. ;)

The over-reaction to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is more complex and probably there will be more discussion.

What! :o You must be joking!

I guess it was an over reaction for The British to declare war on Germany over such a trifling thing as the conquest of Poland as well.

Obviously the US did not “overreact” to Pearl Harbour. As for 9/11, although i fully support the retributative, punitive and appropriate measure taken in Afghanistan (and i’m glad that Canada participated - this was more of a police act anyway), the attacking of Iraq in retribution of 9/11 (cough cough) was over-reacting . . . .
Also, i think the British were upset because the Germans attacked France when the British clearly had dibs. A famous Winston goes something like “Those BASTARDS!!! They got to attack France the last time too!!!”

I agree completely with your examination of the reasons for WWII, However I think the Germans were justified in being pissed. They just reacted too strongly too soon. I don’t see the connection to the US though.

few people would argue that the US does not have every right to be upset and rectify 9/11. At the same time, they do go to far. Extraditing other nation’s citizens to a prison in a country like Syria? I mean if they extradited him here (his own country) he would at least be tried in a civilized court, placed in a “civilized” detention center etc. The Canadian gov’t has even cleared him of any wrong-doing/connection to Al Queda. This kind of action by the US is what could be considered over-reacting

By the way I sure wish you could come up with a term that didn’t sound so gay. It wouldn’t bother me so much to be labeled if it was a label that was a bit manlier. :P How about Redneck, I like that much more. :D
but it takes less time to write than “Americans”. It’s not like we say “wUSsies” ;)
Also stop dissing rednecks. That’s every good hard-working farmer - a heritage i take pride in as a prairie boy and a Mennonite.

[Guest]

@dezrtfish:

This makes no since at all. You are saying that our actions prior to 1941 were deserving of being declared war on and being attacked with out warning by another nation?

have a look at what many historians say, and by how much time the diplomats missed the declaration of war (and why)….

Notice the term “police action”, something i learnt here. Why does it seem so hard for the US to admit that they have lost a war?

The reason it was a police action was because we did not and could not declare war on a soviet protectorate.

Ah, now i see. You declared “war on terror”, but the people caught then are no prisoners of war… oh no, you didn’t declare war to the gov’t of Afghanistan, so they can’t be POWs… and it was the Allies that started WWII with declaaring war on Germany after we …well… police-actioned Poland??? And then the famous police-action of Nazi-germany against Russia…

The problem is we realized too late that with out risking a world war by attacking NV we were trying to cup our hands around an anthill to prevent the ant from spreading. It is a doomed task. If we had been able to actually go to war with NV there would be no Republic of Vietnam now. I am not saying that we didn’t loose, because we did technically.
We failed in our goals just like France did. But it was not because we couldn’t handle it, it was because it was a stupid untenable concept and when we learned this the hard way we abandon the idea.

It was because no one of you ever read “Il Principe” of Machiavelli. (summing: A Lord may be feared, but never be hated). The people of Vietnam didn’t want you there. That’s it. You can’t win a war (or even police action) against the people. It’s that easy.

It wouldn’t bother me so much to be labeled if it was a label that was a bit manlier. :P How about Redneck, I like that much more. :D

Rednecks are around in more countries than the US…. you could be a USie Redneck if you like :)

[dezrtfish]

Also stop dissing rednecks. That’s every good hard-working farmer - a heritage i take pride in as a prairie boy and a Mennonite.

Where I come from “Redneck” is something to be proud of that’s why I suggested it. I am sure my interperetation of it is a bit differesnt that yours, but it boils down to the same thing.

By the way, some time I will have to take a digital pic of my truck. I have a 78 blazer with 6 inch high red letters across the back window that say REDNECK. That was my nickname in Highschool. :wink:

As for the Care home thing, I realy don’t feel that way about older people. I have always been more comfortable around older people. I find them to be more honest and strait forward. I also belive it is my responsability to take care of my parents if the time comes, god forbid, thast they can’t do it for themselves.

The funny thing is that annalogy fits what I was trying to say better that what I said earlier. I should have thought about it for a few more minutes.

I guess I consider Europeans to be kind of like my grand father. I enjoy his company and conversation, and he is after all the basis of my origin, but we live in different worlds and there are some things that we just can’t relate to each other on.

[dezrtfish]

@F_alk:

have a look at what many historians say, and by how much time the diplomats missed the declaration of war (and why)….

The key phrase is “missed the declaration of war” and yes I saw Tora Tora Tora also.

@F_alk:

Ah, now i see. You declared “war on terror”, but the people caught then are no prisoners of war… oh no, you didn’t declare war to the gov’t of Afghanistan, so they can’t be POWs… and it was the Allies that started WWII with declaaring war on Germany after we …well… police-actioned Poland??? And then the famous police-action of Nazi-germany against Russia…

Come on… you know that as well as I that the “war on terror” is a figure of speech.

And, my reference to Poland was to show how ridiculous it sounds to say that we over reacted to Pearl harbor. How were we, I should say they as I wasn’t there, supposed to react? It’s not like it was an accident.

It was because no one of you ever read “Il Principe” of Machiavelli. (summing: A Lord may be feared, but never be hated). The people of Vietnam didn’t want you there. That’s it. You can’t win a war (or even police action) against the people. It’s that easy.

I have read Machiavelli, unfortunately historians are generally not the ones running our or most other countries for that matter. Like I said every one here knows that Vietnam was a mistake we don’t need to nave our noses rubbed in it.

All other world power countries have mad the same or similar mistakes that the US makes and will continue to make. And when we have moved out of the position of dominance that we enjoy now, I am sure we will criticize the next world power just like the Euro’s do to us now. :wink:

[Janus]

no falk, that guest was not me. the beatles thing was both a misunderstanding and a mistake on my part. I actually forgot briefly that the Beatles came from England! i know i know, you can all mock and ridicule me, i deserve it, but my point remains valid (at least if you see it from my view) while the beatles are in fact british, they became such a major part of american culture, and were so involved in america, that it is like adopted american culture.

9-11: I actually agree with you on this point Falk. I think the US has made a much bigger deal over this than it actually was. Yes, it was a terrorist attack, yes, it was done on innocent civilians, and yes it was very horrible. but i think it became much bigger a deal in the eyes of the people than it was. America does have this whole idea of itself as being untouchable, and above things because it is powerful. in this way, this nation is unable to handle any loss of life, which is ridiculous. any casualties in combat, and the Country takes a figurative shit in its pants. any loss of life not in combat, and it infuriates people to the point of insanity (im talking terrorism, or guerilla attacks on soldiers not in combat, not murder). and you may tend to throw me in with the
“USies” because i support the war in Iraq. but not for the same reasons. i dont think the US automatically has a right to invade another country and involve itself just because we are powerful, in most cases, i would keep us out. but Saddam was a dictator that used terror, murder, slaughter, and torture to control his population, and he and his sons were sick twisted SOBs. Thats why i supported war in Iraq. in a similar vein, i dont like bush, i borderline despise the man. i think he is the best presidential candidate that i have yet seen, and i think hes doing a decent job, and no he is not a moron, but i dont like the man, and im not a gungho bush supporter like some others <cough>texas.

Vietnam: of course the US cant admit it lost a war, would you want to? and the police action was so unpopular, its trying to save face in every little way it can. but it was not a war, its not twisting facts or anything. war was never declared on Vietnam. congress never declared war, so we were never at war with Vietnam. Naturally, the action was essentially a war, but since it was never declared, it was not technically a war.

Pearl Harbor: well i think you took care of yourself on this one, but again, it was a military attack during a time of peace, and the government wanted to go to war anyway, and the “unprovoked” attack (there was not any particular action that provoked japanese attack, more a need of oil) so people wanted to teach them a lesson.</cough>

[Janus]

CC wrote:

no. The French deserved to be attacked because they are French. It was only a matter of time until they were attacked by SOMEONE.

DAMN STRAIGHT!!!

[Guest]

actully Falk that was me who said that 2 u, not Janus, i dislike you much more then he does trust me, and im sure u hate me aswell ^_^

[Guest]

@dezrtfish:

The key phrase is “missed the declaration of war” and yes I saw Tora Tora Tora also.

grins but …

Come on… you know that as well as I that the “war on terror” is a figure of speech.

Isn’t a declaration of war not much more than a figure of speech which draws its meaning only from actions ?

And, my reference to Poland was to show how ridiculous it sounds to say that we over reacted to Pearl harbor. How were we, I should say they as I wasn’t there, supposed to react? It’s not like it was an accident.

You are right, and i already admitted that Pearl Harbor was a bad example. And you are right that is was no accident (but planned).

Like I said every one here knows that Vietnam was a mistake we don’t need to nave our noses rubbed in it.

Yes, everyone knows …. but it’s such a good grenade, nearly never failing. ;)

All other world power countries have mad the same or similar mistakes that the US makes and will continue to make. And when we have moved out of the position of dominance that we enjoy now, I am sure we will criticize the next world power just like the Euro’s do to us now. :wink:

grins then we can sit by the fire together, sip on our beers and nag the whole time about that new superpower…. i really look forward to that :)

[Guest]

@Janus:

no falk, that guest was not me…. but my point remains valid (at least if you see it from my view) while the beatles are in fact british, they became such a major part of american culture, and were so involved in america, that it is like adopted american culture.

sorry for thinking you were the guest then.
Ahm, for the beatles…. i guess you overestimate the US impact again. It may be true that they became a part of american culture, but that does not mean that the Beatles adopted and embraced US culture, but that the US embraced them, the brits.
You may be right on the impact of the Beatles onto the US, but i don’t see that the US had a major impact on the Beatles.

… America does have this whole idea of itself as being untouchable, … any loss of life not in combat, and it infuriates people to the point of insanity (im talking terrorism, or guerilla attacks on soldiers not in combat, not murder). and you may tend to throw me in with the
“USies” because i support the war in Iraq. … i dont think the US automatically has a right to invade another country … but Saddam was a dictator that used terror, murder, slaughter, and torture to control his population, and he and his sons were sick twisted SOBs. Thats why i supported war in Iraq. in a similar vein, i dont like bush…

Ok, even though i do/did not support the war, i see and understand your reasoning why you think it was justified. We could discuss on ere on the “why do we think it was justified or not”, but i guess that would blow up this thread way too much.

Vietnam: of course the US cant admit it lost a war, would you want to? … its trying to save face in every little way it can. but it was not a war, its not twisting facts or anything. war was never declared on Vietnam. congress never declared war, so we were never at war with Vietnam. Naturally, the action was essentially a war, but since it was never declared, it was not technically a war.

Then it is twisting words :). Just like the “war on terror/drugs” is a figure of speech, the war in Vietnam was a war.
Does anybody of you remember that the US diplomats sent an official declaration of war to Sadddam Hussein? Was it a war in Iraq or not?
And the Taliban?

How can the “new wars” be wars, but Vietnam can’t? Just because none of these wars was declared? …. Hmmmm… i guess i am missing something here :).

Pearl Harbor: …it was a military attack during a time of peace, and the government wanted to go to war anyway, and the “unprovoked” attack (there was not any particular action that provoked japanese attack, more a need of oil) so people wanted to teach them a lesson.

“unprovoked”: i strongly argue against that. The oil embargo was only one thing to bring the Japanese so far that they felt like they had to attack.

@DeWokMan:

actully Falk that was me who said that 2 u, not Janus, i dislike you much more then he does trust me, and im sure u hate me aswell ^_^

I don’t think i hate you. I more feel pity for you.

[Guest]

“pity”

thats fair, if i was you i would pitty myself too, how ever i am not and i dont pitty myself for the same reasons you pitty me, but rather see it as a +

im just glad to hear you dont hate me :)

and i dont hate you, although i dislike you alot ;)

[Guest]

@F_alk:

Vietnam: of course the US cant admit it lost a war, would you want to? … its trying to save face in every little way it can. but it was not a war, its not twisting facts or anything. war was never declared on Vietnam. congress never declared war, so we were never at war with Vietnam. Naturally, the action was essentially a war, but since it was never declared, it was not technically a war.

Then it is twisting words :). Just like the “war on terror/drugs” is a figure of speech, the war in Vietnam was a war.
Does anybody of you remember that the US diplomats sent an official declaration of war to Sadddam Hussein? Was it a war in Iraq or not?
And the Taliban?

How can the “new wars” be wars, but Vietnam can’t? Just because none of these wars was declared? …. Hmmmm… i guess i am missing something here :).

Pearl Harbor: …it was a military attack during a time of peace, and the government wanted to go to war anyway, and the “unprovoked” attack (there was not any particular action that provoked japanese attack, more a need of oil) so people wanted to teach them a lesson.

“unprovoked”: i strongly argue against that. The oil embargo was only one thing to bring the Japanese so far that they felt like they had to attack.

agreed

[NatFedMike]

that was me, forgot to login. and NatFedMike=DasEwokSS, DeWokMan

[dezrtfish]

@F_alk:

grins then we can sit by the fire together, sip on our beers and nag the whole time about that new superpower…. i really look forward to that :)

Hell F_alk if you want and excuse to sit at a fire and drink beer I can come up with one. If you ever get stateside let me know and will make it happen. We’ll just have to leave the grenades at home. :wink:

[Guest]

Dezrt, i will let you know :) … although i think Arizona might be one of those places that i never see in my life… but who knows ;)
but should you ever come to northern europe (or southern australia in the next year) … just drop a note :)

[dezrtfish]

I would like to visit both of those areas, I don’t know when though.