DescentBB

WoA, it's sadly true. Until the world cherishes a universal core set of values, there can't be worldwide peace. Nobody is saying that the entire world must like the same food, drive the same car, dress the same way, etc., but until the world believes in freedom or lack of freedom, equality or inequality, justice or injustice, shared power or tyranny. Such basic ideals are too conflicting to coexist.

It's not surprising that a european might equate my statement that world peace requires a common set of values with a nazi dictator because no one has ever tried a common set of values in europe without it being put in place with force by a king/dictator/fascist.

In america however we have a common foundation that was put in place by the will of the people, not a dictator, and there is room for nazi's, communists, jews, muslims, agnostics and even lesbians for free tea and books!

It's not 'Heil [anyone]' over here.
It's 'All men are created equal' and a 'Government of the people, for the people'. You ought to try it sometime.

Ummm....

Europe = 1. A Large Group of Nations
2. A Continent

USA = A Country

...of course we wouldn't have a common set of values - we're a mix of different countries! We aren't a country called 'Europe'. This is what the EU etc is for, to create some basic common values. But we aren't a single nation.

Will, I could take everything you said about the USA and apply it to the UK Don't get too big headed, please. Argh. The UK is one of the worlds most ethnically mixed nations. It's a democracy, we can vote, we aren't communist, we have the right to choose. How different are we now?

I think this sort of European behaviour in this topic came from the fact that when somebody said "Until the world has a common set of values", 99% of the Europeans in the room said (drum roll please):

"An American set of common values?"

So the question is, who's values? Yours? Bin Ladens? Mine?

I'll be forever baffled why foreigners are so obsessed with McDonalds.

Robo,
The UK is like the US....so are a number of other countries. However europe does not enjoy the peaceful conditions the UK or the US does.

Many countries are internally divided like europe herself is, full of different races or factions and when left to there own devices they want to exterminate each other.
The soviet union held some of them in check for decades as soon as they were free they went right back to internal culture wars. See Bosnia for example.

I'm not suggesting the U.S. is the only one who has a peacful system. Just that until the whole planet operates under a peaceful system their will be no peace. The system I'm talking about will ultimately be a compromise formed by nations like the UK, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc. etc.

Some people think that peaceful conditions are the default condition for people and when war breaks out they want to blame some outside source, like if America exports MTV and Coca Cola then Islamikazi's will start bombing people and America needs to change her behavior until the Islamikazi's evolve!

I'm suggesting war is the default human condition and until we all have common values war will happen and those are the conditions that exist today.
That is why I believe it is correct to kill Islamikazi's until they evolve rather than surrender to them until they evolve!
If they would leave us alone I wouldn't take such a harsh position but they won't leave us alone. They consider our very existance to be an attack on them.
So now we have a war on terror... they reap what they sow. Good riddance!

bash wrote:I'll be forever baffled why foreigners are so obsessed with McDonalds.

word

Krom wrote:

bash wrote:I'll be forever baffled why foreigners are so obsessed with McDonalds.

word

I was in a London Pub a few years ago enjoying a very fine pint of ale with some American friends when I saw a group of locals drinking Budweiser. I asked them how could drink that swill. They replied that it was an import and very tasty.

I didn't have the heart to tell them it was only an import because we refuse to drink it in the US. They were also paying more for it than I was paying for mine. Go figure.

London pubs are for posing tossers Ded, who dont know their arse from their elbow. Next time go up north. If you get caught with a Bud up there you get yer gonads ripped off.

The next time I am in England I will bear that in mind Flabby. We flew to London for the weekend to do the tourist thing. Specifically to see London Tower. Thanks.

Will Robinson wrote:Robo,
The UK is like the US....so are a number of other countries. However europe does not enjoy the peaceful conditions the UK or the US does.

Many countries are internally divided like europe herself is, full of different races or factions and when left to there own devices they want to exterminate each other.

To most of a degree I agree with you. Europe is full of squabbling nations, true. Not going to deny that. You win I guess.

And Flabby is right, London Pubs are just for ninnies. I agree too, go up North where I am. Lancashire and Cubria have some kick-arse pubs. I'm 15, I know.

i like this one

Man who drowns cat has one wet pus*y

Lothar wrote:well, when you say stuff like

This quote still suits the US very well.

what do you expect me to say? "Yeah, you're right, we're a nation full of idiots, and I wish we could do things right the first time like France always does"? HEH.

The more I hear Europeans insulting the US, the less seriously I take their opinions. 3 or 4 years ago, if you said "France and Germany are both against this policy" I'd have sat down and talked it over -- but the more I hear the opinions (read: flames) coming from that part of the world, the less seriously I can take them.

You are exchanging cause and effect. First came the new U.S. American doctrine of foreign politics to chose your allies where it fits your interests and pursue your interests regardless of other nations, and then old and pretty faithful allies (which at least the Germans were after WW2) got upset.

And now you wonder? Pff.

Btw, a lot of criticism is just that, and not "flames". The thing is just that the U.S. foreign politics has gotten much worse, so the criticism is much fiercer as well.

It's a sad thing that if a non-American says something about the U.S., even if not all of it applies, you are not looking for the grain of truth and see what to do about it, but despisefully turn away.

If I meet people acting that way I label their behaviour "papal infallability syndrome" - which is a pretty unhealthy attitude towards life.

The U.S. may be strong, very strong, but even they cannot treat 2/3 of the world every way they want.

It's also a pity that so many Americans seem to overlook that Terrorism is reaching exactly what it really wants to, and this is not striking fear in the hearts of their enemies by themselves, but causing them to start acting against themselves, and this has exactly been happening with the Bush government: Just look at how they work around your constitution, intimidate the American people, and use a fear of Terrorism they deliberately exaggerate and provoke to pull the chains tighter and tighter.

I know this sounds somehow dramatical, and I know that many Americans are aware that the Bush government is all but patriotic, but there still seem to be a lot who fail to see this.

There is a lot more to say about the Bush government, like how they financially and socially ruin your country. It's a typically means of dealing with domestic problems to distract one's peoples' attention by foreign political actions -> see your "fight against Terrorism".

Btw, I do not deny that it has to be fought, but maybe not exactly the way the U.S. does it right now. They could not have harmed the western, democratic nations more than with their ignoring their own standards of humanity.

Frankly, I believe that such actions and becoming deaf for any sound criticism of befriended nations is a sign of arrogance. And pride comes before the fall, inevitably, which is something I don't wish the U.S. I hope your nation manages to return to their foundations and act more morally than you do now.

Diedel, while your opinion is welcome, and while I do agree that our country may act too hastily or arrogantly on occasion, I completely disagree with your critiques of the Bush administration. Bush is not subverting the Constitution, intentionally or otherwise, nor is he misleading the American people and encouraging their fears of terrorism, no matter what slanted picture the media may paint. We're not blind to the truth; rather, you're being mislead by negativity and outright exaggeration. Take a look at the Patriot Act, for example. As has been said before, the best way to shut up one of its critics is to ask exactly how it infringes upon American civil liberties. They can't answer, because there is no answer. The Patriot Act primarily deals with allowing different government agencies to share intelligence more efficiently, thus alleviating the quagmire of information that existed pre-9/11. Also, exactly how are we "harming" the democratic nations of the world? I see it in a completely opposite light: we're helping the spread of democracy by attempting to combat religious extremism and radical despotism. We went into Iraq to enforce a long-standing UN resolution, one that many of our "allies" were unwilling to lend support to. As Lothar previously posted, Saddam Hussein was deliberately defying the UN, and action had to be taken. As has happened in the past, it was up to the US to take this action. I'm sorry if I have offended you or shown some good ol' American arrogance, but that's what's what, and I can assure you that I am neither deluded nor misled.

Diedel wrote:First came the new U.S. American doctrine of foreign politics to chose your allies where it fits your interests and pursue your interests regardless of other nations, and then old and pretty faithful allies (which at least the Germans were after WW2) got upset.

I would say they came at the same time -- as the allies (such as France and Germany) wimped out of their RESPONSIBILITY to uphold various UN resolutions, the US decided to choose only those allies who were willing to go along. It wasn't as though the US chose to go without allies first, and it wasn't as though France/Germany wimped out first -- rather, the choices were made at the same time.

It's not a "cause and effect" thing -- it's a "feedback" thing. France and Germany wimped out, and the US decided to go without them, which made France and Germany oppose the US even more, which made the US quit listening to them even more, and so on. There's a feedback effect -- we were on different sides to begin with, and that caused us to diverge quite rapidly.

Btw, a lot of criticism is just that, and not "flames".

It's possible for something to be both a criticism and a flame. A criticism is simply a pointing out of something that could be done better. A flame is an unnecessarily harsh or insulting message. Quite often, something is both a criticism AND a flame.

For example, "the Bush administration has alienated allies" is a criticism. "The Bush administration is full of morons" is a flame. And "the Bush administration is a bunch of morons who alienate their allies" is both.

It's a sad thing that if a non-American says something about the U.S., even if not all of it applies, you are not looking for the grain of truth and see what to do about it, but despisefully turn away.

If a non-American says something about the US, I listen for what truth is there -- and I *also* criticize for what truth is lacking. Just because you only see my criticisms doesn't mean I'm not also recognizing the truth.

You seem to think I have this "infallibility" complex, as if I think the US or the Bush administration can do no wrong. All I can say is, read this forum more often and more thoroughly.

so many Americans seem to overlook that Terrorism is reaching exactly what it really wants to, and this is not striking fear in the hearts of their enemies by themselves, but causing them to start acting against themselves

Incorrect.

I'd like to reiterate that there is no absolute right and wrong on world level. A terrorist who kills inoccent people is absolutely wrong, but toppling a government and besieging a nation in the circumstances we know in Iraq is not absolutely right.

Right and wrong is defined by the reference frame in which the question is asked. If I say killing is wrong, you will agree because your reference frame (western christianity, etc.) told you so. However, if I say that killing a convicted murderer is wrong, you might disagree with me because your reference frame differs from mine (you say an eye for an eye, I say nobody can merit death no matter what they do).

In this light, it is clear that a small difference in that so-called reference frame (which each individual has built for himself, based on the socity he lives and grew up in), can yield pretty opposite opinions. Islamic countries have clearly a very different reference frame, and while there might be universally bad things in it (terrorists and the like), you nor anybody is in position to judge their socitiy as a whole.

So, I agree criminals should be punished, but going as far as "eradicating all weeds in my garden" is overkill (literally).
I'd like to point out that the US has also brought some of the most bloody criminals that have walked the face of the earth. Most of them didn't kill for religious motives though, but many can be put on par with islamic terrorist in terms of cruelty and madness. Crime it seems, is a byproduct of all socities. The american one just as much as the islamic ones. Only motives differ.

The mistake of the US is that they take their personal views for absolute truth, their personal customs and ways for the only ones that work, and will impose them with force on others. And that is their biggest mistake, and it can be found at the base of pretty much everything that went wrong in US foreign policy since Bush got in office.

To begin with I'll have to make it known that I read most of page 1, some of page 2 and all of page 3. Some I skimmed, some I didn't.

While working something came to me while thinking about this thread and listening to something on the radio this morning and that was the realization that in a sense Tri's quote is true on SOME levels. This realization also included the fact that a lot of the mistakes the US makes and has made is due to hastily trying finish the job it started so it can please the rest of the world.

Iraq is a HUGE example of this and it would be no surprise that if Iraq should fail miserably it would be solely America's fault. Yet, look at what we're doing. We're slapping things up and trying to piece together something that should be given much more thought and a whole lot more time (like years) in a matter of months. Why? All you have to do is look around at the rest of the world echoing the sentiment of our own media to understand why.

The US constantly gets put into the situation where we are forced to choose whether or not to do the job right or save face and please our allies or countries friendly to the US. Most of the time we try the juggling act and do both and IMO we've had moderate success in doing that but whenever we fail....it always seems like we are the only ones to blame, which is simply NOT true. Not when we aren't the only countries involved in the undertaking of certain tasks. However, since we have the money and the manpower and the muscle to 'lead' the way it then becomes OUR failure because of a perceive leadership rather then a factual partnerships of nations participating in world tasks.

The beautiful part about the US that other countries just seem to ALWAYS forget and even Americans forget about a lot is the fact that BUSH DOES NOT MATTER. He does currently, but as is the reality of things history will be far kinder to him then present day has. In US history we've endured a whole hell of a lot of stuff brought on us or brought by ourselves and through it all the one thing that has steered us clear is a President resolved to addressing whatever issues presented itself during his term(s) of that era.

We do have a choice in our leaders and Bush was elected and he is doing the job to the best of his abilities in a period of time of which NO President has ever faced what we as a WORLD are facing now. Even if he is re-elected, guess what? We get to vote again in another four years and we as citizens do a better job of electing leaders then most people give us credit for because out of it all somehow we elect a great President every once and a while that represents our nation the way we'd like to be represented. Unfortunately we've been given a steady diet of crap since Reagan and we only get the choice of picking the one who is less crappy then the other.

In the last elections case, that was Bush. In this years election it's Bush. In another four years who knows, maybe we'll get somebody REALLY worth voting for. Just remember that this type of stuff doesn't resolve itself over night. So take some heart and stop whining about this and that and the other because there is no magic wand that wipes the slate clean.

As for US influences in the media and whatnot in other countries. Unless you live in a country that forces you to read certain media/propoganda/information whatever it may be you aren't obligated to watch/read/listen to anything given to you. Whether it be local or foreign. Turn off the TV, put down the newspaper and LIVE LIFE. Unless someone is standing next to you with a gun to your head (I think Will said something to this effect) you have no excuse and no room to complain.

WE complain about all the stuff being force fed to us by our own country Tri. The reality once again is that we choose to feed off that information and choose to watch/read/listen. You wonder why our country gets so mad at all the foreigners bashing America? It's because for most of us thats the only information we hear coming from your countries and guess what? Most of us are educated enough to know that not all of you feel that way even though you may not approve of what our "CURRENT" government is doing. In the long run we know that our government changes and that new things will come our way. Information on the other hand will become more prevalent then it is even now in years to come.

It is the way of things and since our country seems to be at the front or somehow in a majority involvement role in most everything these days in an effort to push forward into the future, you will continue to hear everything and anything that has to do with America.

Diedel wrote:First came the new U.S. American doctrine of foreign politics to chose your allies where it fits your interests and pursue your interests regardless of other nations, and then old and pretty faithful allies (which at least the Germans were after WW2) got upset.

Lothar addressed this quite well but I'd like to point out one aspect he didn't:

Diedel, where in the equation do we fit the fact that France, Germany and Russia were officially in support of the U.N resolutions calling for action...BUT...un-officially they were taking bribes from Saddam under the table!?!?

How should america gauge her allies with that nasty little nugget of information thrown in?

Who is choosing their own interests over their allies there?!?
What obligation do we have to them if their 'loyalty' includes such backstabbing??

Does Russia selling Iraq the night vision goggles it was lacking, just weeks before the U.S. forces attacked, somehow qualify as 'loyalty' to her ally america?

Does France selling military equipment to Saddam against the very U.N. resolution she voted for somehow qualify her as an ally worthy of our consideration?!?

Did Germanys refusal to support America come from the fact that she was taking millions of dollars in oil future contracts under the table from Saddam?

I'm about fed up with the holier-than-thou French, Germans and Russians trying to lecture us on the whole Saddam/Iraq issue when their hands are filthy dirty from all the underhanded, two faced dealings they did!!!

With friends like that who needs enemies?

Diedel wrote:The U.S. may be strong, very strong, but even they cannot treat 2/3 of the world every way they want.

Sure we can. We just have to realize that there are consequences in doing so.

Will Robinson wrote:where in the equation do we fit the fact that France, Germany and Russia were officially in support of the U.N resolutions calling for action...BUT...un-officially they were taking bribes from Saddam under the table!?!?

could you supply a source on this? I'm german and i haven't heard anything about it.

You'll have to search for the actual list of people and countries but here's the basic story.

It's funny, when the story first broke the names were published, both the countries involved and the names of individuals, now they seem to be hard to find....hmmm...and now the three countries I mentioned are on board with the U.S. plan...hmmm....
you have to wonder why.

Actually, I don't think there were any German names on the bribe list. It's the Russians, French and U.N. personnel that primarily have some explaining to do. Not that they will.

Russia's response? Big Surprise

Well then I may owe Germany an apology...of sorts anyway.
I still think they suck for wimping out on the Iraq deal but if they're being upfront about it I have to respect that.

I guess I need to check my stereotype of all europeans who oppose the war...

Thanks, Will

edit:
Wow... i missed it the first time, but very nice post, Tyranny.

Lothar wrote:I would say they came at the same time -- as the allies (such as France and Germany) wimped out of their RESPONSIBILITY to uphold various UN resolutions, the US decided to choose only those allies who were willing to go along. It wasn't as though the US chose to go without allies first, and it wasn't as though France/Germany wimped out first -- rather, the choices were made at the same time.

It's not a "cause and effect" thing -- it's a "feedback" thing. France and Germany wimped out, and the US decided to go without them, which made France and Germany oppose the US even more, which made the US quit listening to them even more, and so on. There's a feedback effect -- we were on different sides to begin with, and that caused us to diverge quite rapidly.

This is simply a lie. Or is this flaming you? How about "it's simply not true" (if that makes a difference). What you claim to be "whimping out of their responsibility" is simply not being willing to follow the course of the U.S. in this, i.e. supporting an armed conflict with Iraq. This plan was already set, and no choice was left France and Germany by the U.S. than to agree to or decline it. This becomes very clear even from what you wrote. The only choice the U.S. had left to France and Germany was "to go as their allies" (which is using misleading terminology here, because what you really mean is "support the U.S. in their war against Iraq). Actually you are supporting what I said: That the American foreign policy was already set in stone here and the "Allies" had all but to follow it.

Btw, a lot of criticism is just that, and not "flames".

It's possible for something to be both a criticism and a flame. A criticism is simply a pointing out of something that could be done better. A flame is an unnecessarily harsh or insulting message. Quite often, something is both a criticism AND a flame.

For example, "the Bush administration has alienated allies" is a criticism. "The Bush administration is full of morons" is a flame. And "the Bush administration is a bunch of morons who alienate their allies" is both.

This is a theoretical and academic argumentation with little foundation in this thread.

Lothar wrote:If a non-American says something about the US, I listen for what truth is there -- and I *also* criticize for what truth is lacking. Just because you only see my criticisms doesn't mean I'm not also recognizing the truth.

Is it that what you are trying to make yourself believe?

Lothar wrote:You seem to think I have this "infallibility" complex, as if I think the US or the Bush administration can do no wrong. All I can say is, read this forum more often and more thoroughly.

You fail to see that a lot of my first post here was adressing the U.S. in general and not you in personal.

From all our communication I have found that you tend to take things very personal and have a problem with being wronged.

Lothar wrote:

Diedel wrote:so many Americans seem to overlook that Terrorism is reaching exactly what it really wants to, and this is not striking fear in the hearts of their enemies by themselves, but causing them to start acting against themselves

Incorrect.

I tried to prove my point. You didn't. Insufficient.

Will Robinson wrote:

Diedel wrote:First came the new U.S. American doctrine of foreign politics to chose your allies where it fits your interests and pursue your interests regardless of other nations, and then old and pretty faithful allies (which at least the Germans were after WW2) got upset.

Lothar addressed this quite well but I'd like to point out one aspect he didn't:

Diedel, where in the equation do we fit the fact that France, Germany and Russia were officially in support of the U.N resolutions calling for action...BUT...un-officially they were taking bribes from Saddam under the table!?!?

How should america gauge her allies with that nasty little nugget of information thrown in?

Who is choosing their own interests over their allies there?!?
What obligation do we have to them if their 'loyalty' includes such backstabbing??

Does Russia selling Iraq the night vision goggles it was lacking, just weeks before the U.S. forces attacked, somehow qualify as 'loyalty' to her ally america?

Does France selling military equipment to Saddam against the very U.N. resolution she voted for somehow qualify her as an ally worthy of our consideration?!?

Did Germanys refusal to support America come from the fact that she was taking millions of dollars in oil future contracts under the table from Saddam?

I'm about fed up with the holier-than-thou French, Germans and Russians trying to lecture us on the whole Saddam/Iraq issue when their hands are filthy dirty from all the underhanded, two faced dealings they did!!!

With friends like that who needs enemies?

I don't know of any bribes taken by Germany (or the other nations).

I rather believe that you think the U.S. has a better moral standard than the other nations.

Attacking the Iraq was a matter of global politics and economics for the U.S. It was about oil and power.

But: You tried to put on the mantle of the great and gracious liberator and upholder of the democratic standards. France, Russia, and Germany didn't. All they said is that such a war wasn't justified by international law and by S.Husseins and the Iraq's dealings after the first Gulf War. I believe this is right.

It appears that many of you have a real problem with measuring yourself with the same measure you measure others. You're a typical case of "Right or wrong - my country.". You don't want to bend to the rules you demand others to bend to. And you don't see it. All you try is talk yourselves out of it by pointing at their mistakes, instead of dealing with your own.

LOL.. a slumbering beast is about to unleash his wrath methinks!! (refering to draks beau that is)

Tyranny wrote:While working something came to me while thinking about this thread and listening to something on the radio this morning and that was the realization that in a sense Tri's quote is true on SOME levels. This realization also included the fact that a lot of the mistakes the US makes and has made is due to hastily trying finish the job it started so it can please the rest of the world.

Iraq is a HUGE example of this and it would be no surprise that if Iraq should fail miserably it would be solely America's fault. Yet, look at what we're doing. We're slapping things up and trying to piece together something that should be given much more thought and a whole lot more time (like years) in a matter of months. Why? All you have to do is look around at the rest of the world echoing the sentiment of our own media to understand why.

The US constantly gets put into the situation where we are forced to choose whether or not to do the job right or save face and please our allies or countries friendly to the US. Most of the time we try the juggling act and do both and IMO we've had moderate success in doing that but whenever we fail....it always seems like we are the only ones to blame, which is simply NOT true. Not when we aren't the only countries involved in the undertaking of certain tasks. However, since we have the money and the manpower and the muscle to 'lead' the way it then becomes OUR failure because of a perceive leadership rather then a factual partnerships of nations participating in world tasks.

Tyranny,

you're almost hilarious in the way in which you are trying to paint everything black and white here, and the U.S. in shining white.

All I can see is a missionary attitude of the U.S. bringing only the best to all the other nations in the world. I had named this attitude before: It's simply a form of colonialism.

Unfortunately, the U.S. aren't as pure hearted as you 'd like them to be at all.

The U.S. also did not want to finish a good job as quickly as possibly and unfortunately screwed up in your selfless efforts to do so.

The American actions in the world are as selfish as never before imo, and they are based on a new geo-political doctrine that was introduced by the Bush crew. If you have followed all the discussion in the media about this in the past years you should know darn well.

Top Gun wrote:Diedel, while your opinion is welcome, and while I do agree that our country may act too hastily or arrogantly on occasion, I completely disagree with your critiques of the Bush administration. Bush is not subverting the Constitution, intentionally or otherwise, nor is he misleading the American people and encouraging their fears of terrorism, no matter what slanted picture the media may paint. We're not blind to the truth; rather, you're being mislead by negativity and outright exaggeration. Take a look at the Patriot Act, for example. As has been said before, the best way to shut up one of its critics is to ask exactly how it infringes upon American civil liberties. They can't answer, because there is no answer. The Patriot Act primarily deals with allowing different government agencies to share intelligence more efficiently, thus alleviating the quagmire of information that existed pre-9/11. Also, exactly how are we "harming" the democratic nations of the world? I see it in a completely opposite light: we're helping the spread of democracy by attempting to combat religious extremism and radical despotism. We went into Iraq to enforce a long-standing UN resolution, one that many of our "allies" were unwilling to lend support to. As Lothar previously posted, Saddam Hussein was deliberately defying the UN, and action had to be taken. As has happened in the past, it was up to the US to take this action. I'm sorry if I have offended you or shown some good ol' American arrogance, but that's what's what, and I can assure you that I am neither deluded nor misled.

I have to admit that I only get to know about effects of the Patriot Act in the media (some American).

From what I've come to know it is being used to circumvent your constitutional rights. It is being used to silence people opposing the Bush administration. There have obviously been lots of cases of authorities acting against normal American citizens who expressed their opposition against the Bush administration.

I remember one case of an elderly Vietnam veteran being arrested because he had been protesting against the Bush administration - in a very moderate way, saying something about them taking away their living. That man certainly was not unpatriotic. This was not a single case.

There are cases where people get arrested w/o a judge having ordered this, w/o the right to see a lawyer, w/o knowing why they got arrested. This is very close to people disappearing in the dictatorial states of this earth.

I remember an article from a big American news paper (afaik New York Times) about the population being intimated and controlled at every occasion, having to identify themselves when entering public buildings, etc.

Measures like that are going a step too far.

Just recently, there was a big anti-terror warning in the U.S. Strange coincidence with domestic political events, and nothing has happened so far.

You fail to see how convenient an instrument Terrorism is in the hands of the Bush administration to drag you wherever they want it.

And it's so blatant because the U.S. claims to be the salvation of this world.

Will Robinson wrote:It's not surprising that a european might equate my statement that world peace requires a common set of values with a nazi dictator because no one has ever tried a common set of values in europe without it being put in place with force by a king/dictator/fascist.

In america however we have a common foundation that was put in place by the will of the people, not a dictator, and there is room for nazi's, communists, jews, muslims, agnostics and even lesbians for free tea and books!

It's not 'Heil [anyone]' over here.
It's 'All men are created equal' and a 'Government of the people, for the people'. You ought to try it sometime.

This Nazi crap is the most stupid non-argument Americans (and Brits) resort to when they lack the the knowledge to put up any intelligent and civilized argumentation.

If the Nazis hadn't existed, you would have invented them.

Yawn.

Why don't you shove this decade old crap up yer ...?

Will Robinson wrote:I'm quite sure if the U.S. Marines actually invaded your little part of the world and forced you to consume our 'americanism' you would swallow it without any whining or backtalk because.... well ...because they are F%*&ing hard-dick ***-stomping U.S. Marines and you are whining little biotches and you'd have no choice!!
You'd be screaming "Thank You Sir, may I have another!!"

This is insanely stupid. I have to correct myself: Somebody who seriously has and expresses opinions like that must be insanely stupid.

/me starts to look for this forum's ignore feature

Sheesh, there is none?

Lothar wrote: 1) Saddam *did* support terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda and Palestinian suicide bombers
2) Saddam *did* oppress the civilian population
3) Saddam *did not* account for missing Gulf War personnel
4) Saddam *did not* stop selling oil outside of the Oil-for-food program (not to mention the amount of corruption that actually went on within Oil-for-food.)
5) Saddam *did not* prove (as he was REQUIRED TO PROVE) that he dismantled his WMD and the programs to develop them
6) Saddam *did* continue to attempt to get his hands on WMD
7) Saddam *did* have or attempt to develop long-range missiles such as the Al Samoud Warhead, chemical weapons, and some items for his nuclear program

1) S.Hussein did not support Al Qaida
3) Was that ever an issue?
4) Huh?
6) Not true
7) Not true

Most of the "proof" for Iraq's transgressions of UNO restrictions have proven to be fabricated, as time has shown already.

I can't think of too many things more thoughtless than trying to defend a position that's already lost.

Diedel wrote:This Nazi crap is the most stupid non-argument Americans (and Brits) resort to when they lack the the knowledge to put up any intelligent and civilized argumentation.

If the Nazis hadn't existed, you would have invented them.

Yawn.

Why don't you shove this decade old crap up yer ...

The only mention I made of Nazi's was to point out that here in America we have a relatively peaceful coexistance with people of all races, religions and political leanings. We have arabs and jews who aren't killing each other and we have communists and nazi's who are free to practice their politics.

That is in contrast to the nonpeaceful conditions those same people live in outside america.

Why you want to ignore what I really said and instead characterize it as something else so you can complain about something I didn't say is unknown to me...but I'll bet it's because you just skimmed my post looking for an argument instead of entertaining the substance of my point with an open mind.
One has to really try to be that wrong. Why the effort to aspire to such belligerent ignorance?

Diedel wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I'm quite sure if the U.S. Marines actually invaded your little part of the world and forced you to consume our 'americanism' you would swallow it without any whining or backtalk because.... well ...because they are F%*&ing hard-dick ***-stomping U.S. Marines and you are whining little biotches and you'd have no choice!!
You'd be screaming "Thank You Sir, may I have another!!"

This is insanely stupid. I have to correct myself: Somebody who seriously has and expresses opinions like that must be insanely stupid.

/me starts to look for this forum's ignore feature

Sheesh, there is none?

Two questions:
1) Have you ever heard of hyperbole?
2) Do you really need an ignore feature when it's painfully obvious you already ignore the content of most of what you respond to?

Will Robinson wrote:I'm quite sure if the U.S. Marines actually invaded your little part of the world and forced you to consume our 'americanism' you would swallow it without any whining or backtalk because.... well ...because they are F%*&ing hard-dick ***-stomping U.S. Marines and you are whining little biotches and you'd have no choice!!
You'd be screaming "Thank You Sir, may I have another!!"

hmm... Will, don't you undermine your own argument with this? IMHO it's totally irrelevant whether the hard-dick marines are actually breathing down your neck and force you to do something --- the knowledge that they could be there in a heartbeat might be enough for some countries to accept US influence and lets them say 'Thank You Sir, may I have another!!'. Similarly to M.A.D. where it also wasn't necessary that the nukes were truly set loose.

Diedel wrote:I have to admit that I only get to know about effects of the Patriot Act in the media (some American).

From what I've come to know it is being used to circumvent your constitutional rights. It is being used to silence people opposing the Bush administration. There have obviously been lots of cases of authorities acting against normal American citizens who expressed their opposition against the Bush administration.

I remember one case of an elderly Vietnam veteran being arrested because he had been protesting against the Bush administration - in a very moderate way, saying something about them taking away their living. That man certainly was not unpatriotic. This was not a single case.

There are cases where people get arrested w/o a judge having ordered this, w/o the right to see a lawyer, w/o knowing why they got arrested. This is very close to people disappearing in the dictatorial states of this earth.

I remember an article from a big American news paper (afaik New York Times) about the population being intimated and controlled at every occasion, having to identify themselves when entering public buildings, etc.

Measures like that are going a step too far.

Just recently, there was a big anti-terror warning in the U.S. Strange coincidence with domestic political events, and nothing has happened so far.

You fail to see how convenient an instrument Terrorism is in the hands of the Bush administration to drag you wherever they want it.

And it's so blatant because the U.S. claims to be the salvation of this world.

All right then, I'll go first .

Diedel, where are you getting your information? Some ultra-left-wing European news source? Nobody's arresting people who speak out against the Bush administration. In fact, those people sometimes make up the majority in this country. I don't know where you picked up that clip about the Vietnam vet, but you were either misled or mistaken. Neither the Patriot Act or any other anti-terrorism legislation has created a police state in America, as you seem to suggest. The detainees you're referring to were Taliban combatants picked up in Afghanistan and being held in Guantanamo Bay. By the way, a case regarding their legal rights is before the Supreme Court, whom I suspect will require that they be formally charged, a position I happen to agree with.

Of course there are more stringent security measures at large buildings, airports, etc. Would we want it the other way around, where airliners are hijacked and buildings are attacked? I should say not. This isn't about "intimidation" or "control;" it's about protecting large public places from terrorist strikes. It's also well within constitutional limits to do so.

You wonder why nothing has happened yet with regard to that terror warning? Maybe that's because our law enforcement agencies are doing their jobs. Just recently, they broke up a plot to set off a bomb in a shopping mall in Ohio. As many times as you or others claim that Bush is a lying, conniving overlord, most of us who live in America know a bit better . Hmm, you mean he's actually doing his job and protecting this country? Who would have thought? How about this: terrorism is not a lie. We know that there are people in our country that would do anything to harm us in any way they could. We also know that there have been very real terrorist plots over the past few years that have been broken up. Bush is NOT using terrorism to control the American people. I don't know if you'll believe me, but it's the truth either way.

In closing, you've been fed a bunch of lies. America is by no means a police state, and protesters in this country are not, and have not, been disagreeing with the government's actions. That's called democracy. Try reading our Bill of Rights; it still holds as true today as it always did, no matter what the leftist media may spew. And the US has never claimed to be the world's "salvation," but it usually works out that way, because no one else ccan get the job done. See the above posts about certain "allies" dealing under the table with Saddam.

I won't even touch your other posts; I expect you'll be getting an earful any time now . Let's just say that you're playing the part of the stereotypical whining European, and I don't think that's a role you want.

Edit: Wow, not only was I not first, but this thread went nuts all of a sudden .

Diedel wrote:I don't know of any bribes taken by Germany (or the other nations).

You lack of knowledge does little for your argument. Germany may not have been involved in the oil for food scandal as I recently was corrected and tenatively apologized for including them. I'd like to see the list again before I completely eat crow on that one because my memory tells me they were...
However, even if they weren't, their motives are still suspect when you consider the billions of dollars in contracts and past due payments they are owed by Saddam and won't collect now that he's in jail!
The other countries and perhaps germany as well certainly are involved in a bribery and kickback scheme where Saddam was recieving materials other than food in exchange for oil.
Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't make it not so.

Diedel wrote:I rather believe that you think the U.S. has a better moral standard than the other nations.

On responding to the U.N. resolutions that all these nations voted on..yes, it's obvious. Do we always...no but that's a topic for another debate, not relavant to the point you're trying to dodge here!

Diedel wrote:Attacking the Iraq was a matter of global politics and economics for the U.S. It was about oil and power.

True, it was about removing Saddam from power and keeping him from controlling a large portion of the total oil supply. So what?!?

Diedel wrote:But: You tried to put on the mantle of the great and gracious liberator and upholder of the democratic standards.

No I didn't.

Diedel wrote:France, Russia, and Germany didn't. All they said is that such a war wasn't justified by international law and by S.Husseins and the Iraq's dealings after the first Gulf War. I believe this is right.

Not true, they voted in favor of taking action if Saddam didn't comply but then like true hypocrits with a hidden agenda they publically opposed the very action they had officially voted for in their capacity as members of the security council!!

Diedel wrote:It appears that many of you have a real problem with measuring yourself with the same measure you measure others. You're a typical case of "Right or wrong - my country.". You don't want to bend to the rules you demand others to bend to. And you don't see it. All you try is talk yourselves out of it by pointing at their mistakes, instead of dealing with your own.

Repeat that while looking in the mirror and it will be the first thing you did right in this debate.

Pandora wrote:hmm... Will, don't you undermine your own argument with this? IMHO it's totally irrelevant whether the hard-dick marines are actually breathing down your neck and force you to do something --- the knowledge that they could be there in a heartbeat might be enough for some countries to accept US influence and lets them say 'Thank You Sir, may I have another!!'. Similarly to M.A.D. where it also wasn't necessary that the nukes were truly set loose.

You have to remember the context in which I used that. I was not talking about foriegn policy or trade between nations but rather a single belgian complaining that we americans forced him to see american movies and eat McDonalds! A silly rebuttal to a silly argument is all it was.

I don't believe for a minute that Germany is afraid we would invade them if they don't go along with our every whim. Hell, if France can stick it in our eye at every other turn certainly Germany isn't afraid!

Top Gun wrote:terrorism is not a lie. We know that there are people in our country that would do anything to harm us in any way they could. We also know that there have been very real terrorist plots over the past few years that have been broken up. Bush is NOT using terrorism to control the American people.

I don't think it's an either/or. Terrorism may not be lie (it certainly is not) but may still be used to control the people, not just Americans.

Will Robinson wrote:I don't believe for a minute that Germany is afraid we would invade them if they don't go along with our every whim. Hell, if France can stick it in our eye at every other turn certainly Germany isn't afraid!

I agree - in a way. Power or war must not take place in the military domain. I think Europe fears economic war with the US much more than an outright armed conflict (the latter being siimply impossible). To deny American cultural influence on Europe might be economic suicide, simply because nowadays cultural influence pretty much equates to economic influence.

I don't mean to say that American influence a bad thing. It's just that I don't see that we have much choice in allowing it. And lack of choice creates resentments...
IMHO this was one of the main reason why the US trying to force us into the war with Iraq created such an outcry here in Germany.

Top Gun wrote:All right then, I'll go first .

Diedel, where are you getting your information? Some ultra-left-wing European news source?

This is too stupid to reply to. A provocative non-argument.

Personally, I am rather conservative.

American citizens were held in prison w/o trial etc. as I wrote. I remember that Intel engineer (was it Intel)?

The U.S. authorities abused a law for this that was meant to deal with important crime witnesses.

Some of your security measures remind of a police state. Personally, I will not visit the U.S. any more if I get treated like a criminal at the airport (the finger print story, you know?) "Welcome" to America, hah hah.

About the "detainees": You are breaking your own standards and laws as well as international ones you have agreed to with the treatment of e.g. the prisoners in Guantamo Bay. Period. I couldn't care less about what they have done. The western democracies used to distinguish themselves from the dictatorial states of this planet by their democratic, legislative and humanistic standards. You don't. You violate exactly what you pretend to defend, and you don't see or admit it. In my eyes you are lying to yourselves and the world.

I did not say guarding public buildings is violating the U.S. constitution. I said that it is intimidating your population, and that is felt by Americans too. I read this in a New York Times article. Pretty American source, if you ask me.

I also did not say that America is a police state.

You seem to have read things into my posts I did not say or think. Deliberately or not I don't know: You are twisting my statements in an illegitimate way.

As far as the (should I say "usual") arrogant insults at the beginning and end of your post go: Shove them up yer booty. (I'd be willing to do that personally if I was close enough.)