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”)