United States of America forever!

True, heartc, why all the animosity towards America?

A business defines its business strategy by its customer. The customer is the most important party when a transaction occurs, so the business uses its customers as a definition of its business strategy.

Then there is foreign policy. Dictionary.com defines foreign policy as, "The diplomatic policy of a nation in its interactions with other nations."
Just as a business shapes its view of commerce by its customers, a country implements current events to form its foreign policy. A tariff or embargo is not a spontaneous act. Rather, it is a reactive solution to a problem in the world. The only influence a country has on its own foreign policy is its interpretation of these problems. That is how America's foreign policy works. Our foreign policy is unchanged until a foreign country changes it. Thus, an ?oppressive? American foreign policy is the work of a foolhardy and/or aggressive act of another country. If the world hates America because of America's foreign policy, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

The Statue of Liberty, a symbol of American Liberty has inscribed upon its surface:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Indeed, those who have come to America have done so to avoid persecution, enslavement, poverty etc. Europe viewed these settlers of the new world as scum, the bottom of their societies. It is therefore not hard to comprehend why this ?scum? would seek US citizenship. Theoretically, if the founders of the USA were in actuality less developed than the Europeans, then the Americans would not have been capable of creating the culturally diverse, powerful, reasoning and self-governing country that the USA is today.

So the question I raise to the residents of Europe who hate America is this:
If you once viewed the Americans as ?scum? and still do, then what have you, as Europeans, learned from the past three centuries?

About the War in Iraq (not a war anymore), the very statistics which you quote to attempt to prove that the war is not worthwhile are interesting. When you talk about ?casualties in Iraq? you only mention US soldiers. The reason is simple: if you quoted Iraqi insurgent/terrorist casualties your case would become garbage. The kill/death ratio in Iraq is largely in favor of the American (USA) forces. The American forces are better trained and have better equipment and leadership than do the insurgents.
This same concept applies to Vietnam. If asked how many casualties were incurred in the Vietnam ?conflict,? the average European would most definitely reply, ?about 50,000 Americans killed in action or missing.? They would not make note of the 1-2 million North Vietnamese casualties. In fact it is so hard to get accurate North Vietnamese casualty statistics because they were hidden for propaganda purposes. Either way it would appear that the North Vietnamese did terribly in Vietnam; if they disclose the numbers, the world would know just how ?well? the North Vietnamese performed, and if they do not, the world learns even more. Either way, the USA?s kill/death ratio in Vietnam ranged from 20:1 to 40:1.

It is not difficult to comprehend. If your favorite soccer team got shut out with a score of 1 to 20, they got annihilated. Therefore, the American soccer team displayed its overwhelming combat skill in Vietnam. The only way America ?lost? the war was when America deserted the South Vietnamese because of political pressure. I know where most of that political pressure came from: Europeans and their like-minded counterparts in the USA. Your actions and angry opinions directed at the United States cause races to vanish and noble struggles to be lost. Do you want that kind of world?

America is much like a human being. As stated in an environmental advertisement I viewed once, ?The human species is the only one with the power to protect the rest.? America benefits from an awesome combination: liberty and the power to protect liberty around the world. Scientists agree that preserving a species from extinction is worth almost any price. Likewise, America is willing to pay a high price with the aim of preventing the extinction of freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Isn?t that one of the most noble acts a country can perform?

Coming up on November the eleventh is Veterans? Day in the United States. I am confident that today?s American has respect for the United States? veterans. There is not any one given way to observe Veterans? Day in the United States ? we all know to some extent what it is like to fight for something you believe in. An American veteran will tell you that the real heroes are the ones who died in combat, and that is most definitely true. However, veterans are priceless individuals who know both the American domestic life and the stories of those who are sworn to protect it. Their emotional burden is great, and for them Americans are grateful. Veterans? Day is the USA?s way of saying ?thank you? to its armed services.

Sadly, United States citizens are largely alone in their gratitude for the American veterans.

 

squirl wrote;
"Indeed, those who have come to America have done so to avoid persecution, enslavement, poverty etc. Europe viewed these settlers of the new world as scum, the bottom of their societies"

hmm, hounestly I have NEVER heard this kinda arguement before. Most people who left our part of the world (Scandinavia) to settle in the US were hounest people, but with no money, no property no future. So, they left for the promissed land and some of them made a good life finally. But, to say they were looked at as scum, the bottum of the earth is totally wrong. Absolutely!

And as for today, the emigrants goin into the US and Canada can hardly be looked at as scum either. You know, the refugees or emigrants with the best qualifications, skills are allowed to settle in. The rest....oh yeah they can go look for some stupid socialdemocratic country in Europe who will pay for their life expenditures as from day one. It is so simple, we have the best socialwelfare on earth and dont demand a shit in return. You just come and sit on your fat arse and get paid, regardless who you are and where you come from.

 

i!m having good laugh at this;seriously_ best thing in this thread

________________________

 

Personnaly from what I've now seen and heard of how life was in Russia before the fall of communism (not so much life in the cities but in the outlying regions).

Family values, morales & the emphasis on community and community spirit were very important.

I can't help but wonder if we in the West are the ones that got it wrong.


Malin

 

Next time try a history book instead of the Communist Party Book.

 

Finally, someone has just started wondering. It is all it takes.....

Let'm live their lives and us live ours.

 

Americans are doing what Europeans did not so many years ago. Oh yeah... Europe was the centre of the world, the civilization and their mission was to civilize the "uncivilized" regions by stablishing colonies and military prescence all over the world. Europeans were highly racist and they believed in their supremacy, their technology and their industrial development could never be reproduced in any other part, their level of education was the highest, their religion was the best, and so on.
My point is that history repeats itself, what american policy is doing around the world is what the "smart", "intelligent", "with most common sense" european did.
If we are about to throw shit at USA we must see what we (as humans) did in the past.

Oh btw, English your Empire not longer exists... give our Malvinas ("Falklands") back since you are so civilized and against colonialism like the one in Iraq, it is the right thing to do since is our territory. And I'm against war.

Peace

 

Few of the people living on the Falklands these days are Argentinians. Most of them think of themselves as Brits. Therefore your suggestion is a no-brainer.

 

@Laline:

Only because there are people who don't take their opportunity and gift to vote whom to be governed by doesn't make the country a dictatorship. You can not be serious with this assertion, are you? The funny thing is, when actually the regime is elected by the voting-outcome of say only some 38% (as in your example), all the rest have NO reason and right to bitch about their country's policy then in the first place! Because they didn't take on the responsibility they should recognize as citizens of a democracy. There are too many people that are happy with bitching about everything instead of doing something, in Germany participation in elections are not that great either. Those who do not vote are usually dreamers who say "well, each one of the parties suck!" to whom I'd say, well, if you think you can make better, establish paradise on earth, not getting your hands dirty while being involved in policy, GO FOR IT! I want to see THAT. Or just come to grip with reality and VOTE NEXT TIME.

This comes up again and again. Neither Bush nor any other of the administration said they were going to Iraq because it was ruled by a ruthless dictator. That this one got thrown on the ashes of history is a nice side-effect, you got to put into the face of especially those who engage themselves in "body-counting" of Iraqi casualties. Saddam brought a far higher body-count on his own citizens the time he was in command.

How about they were going to Iraq because two Jumbo-Jets hit the WTC, killing nearly 3000 folks,

-and Iraq was standing there in the background as a self-declared enemy of the US,

- supporting families of Islamist suicide bombers financially after their fathers went to heaven to meet some 70 virgins instead of caring about their family,

- shooting at coalition planes patrolling the no-fly zones, thereby

- ignoring the peace-agreement of 1991 (which was no peace treaty actually, but just a "Waffenstillstand", don't know the english word - arms-cold treaty or something by the meaning - which would mean the US would have had every right to re-engage Iraq even back then, if they really were just "after the oil", because Iraq broke the treaty fundamentally),

- pursuing a WMD program (the biggest recovery and desctruction of Iraqi WMD efforts was only achieved when a relative of Saddam flipped over in 1996 and told the UN about its existence and specific places which were then blown up in accordance, the relative of Saddam and his family being killed upon his return to Iraq),

- completely playing "Now you see me, now you don't" with the UN weapon inspectors during all of the 1990's, while

- having used WMD's before even on its own citizens.

- And then even throwing out the UN inspectors completely in 1998, triggering the Clinton-led operation "Desert Fox" which consisted of some cruise-missile strikes against suspected administrative and WMD sites, which neither brought the inspectors back in nor achieved anything in changing the mind of the Iraqi regime though. Keep in mind that it was CLINTON who then said back in 1998 "In the long run, a regime-change in Iraq is unavoidable for the security of the United States."

Well, if I'm president of a country that got attacked and almost 3000 people died at once, all after several other attacks against military personal in Riad for example, and the two US embassies in Africa - I sure as hell would take a closer look towards more potential threats that might arise on the horizon, which would sure enough include a WMD-armed Iraq. I wouldn't take chances to exclude proliferation of WMD's between Iraq and terrorist groups just because some geek thinks "Saddam and Islamist fundamentalists don't have common values." They might not have common values, but they had a common interest: The US. Just as the Soviet Union and the US had a common interest that was called Nazi-Germany, albeit not sharing common values on other politic matters at all.

You see, what I'm saying is that the pretty good and realistic chance (as was proofed by former conducting of the Iraqi regime) of a WMD attack against the country I'm responsible for is too much to cope with. Especially when the ruler of the other country is openly admitting serious opposition against my country and once already was at war with me. Of course, including, him sitting on plenty of vital oil reserves threatening to gamble with my and allied countries economy. And when I then see how the dictator of that country is AGAIN trying to PLAY with the UN and their weapon inspectors (who had seen nothing from inside Iraq since 1998, this makes FIVE YEARS!) instead of pro-active cooperation (as even Paul Blix himself said, two or three days before the US started their air-strikes, Iraq keeps FAILING in that, i.e. timely and consequent co-operation, i.e. it was not at the level it SHOULD and COULD have been by the Iraqi government), I would not accept the chance that the inspections again run into meaningless visits timed by Saddam, with the inspectors leaving the country again in the end, and then some 5 or so years later a WMD (with some deadly virus you got no medicine against) landing or being triggered in the middle of Manhattan, this time the death toll not being 3000, but 300.000+ and counting, the closest thing next to a nuclear attack. Being the only remaining super-power, thereby not risking a nuclear exchange with other global-players, I would run over Iraq just like Bush did. To put an enemy of my country to rest once and for all. And then, which is equally important (otherwise my success would be nullified) trying to establish a progressive and as-far liberal as possible regime there, which by its nature would be much more friendly towards the US than the former one. Realize that those who are battling the US over there right now are for the great majority Islamist extremists, not the normal Iraqi citizen who tries to get on with his job, life, and family. It is for the extremist Islamist, the main enemy, who makes the job of the US that hard over there. Support for Sadr fainted pretty quickly after the extremist actors were neutralized by the US forces. It is not the every-day Iraqi citizen who blows even his own people apart by car-bombings on some well-visited markets.

Regards
heartc


P.S. I thank all of you for the friendly-remaining discussion in light of those extensively differing views.

 

I bet you don't know how "easy" it is now to get an American visa now, for example, for an Eastern-European male, age 30, no kids.

Boasting a kill/death ratio in an agressive war?!

Let me tell ya: my Uncle was a volunteer in Vietnam, a SAM targeting officer, scored 4 victories, working mostly on manual tracking... Was severely wounded by one of the first SHRIKEs and evacuated back to the Union... Damn I saw his scars...

I am proud about him. I just try to imagine - how many innocent lives he saved. Without his work your kill/death ratio could be much higher...

There are many things that really surprise me. It's like nazis boasting that they killed 20 million Soviet civilians.

Combat skills were really overwhelming. Those B-52s burnt over Hanoi and Haifon were a nice illumination.

Did you ever hear what was Song Mi? Noone of the American "freedom fighters" who showed "overwhelming skills" there was punished, only the commander (lt. Kollie? i don't remember how to spell the name of that bastard correctly) spent something like one year in jail...

I don't want your kind of "freedom and liberty". I doubt that the people you bomb "to stone age" want this freedom. I don't want any stinking "democracy", "liberal values" and "civilization" brought with cruise missiles and cluster bombs.

All this "protecting liberty" stuff is nothing but a cheap propaganda brainwashing trick. I still remember how iENemy was shocked when they realised that they can't shut us down because Russia is an independant country and don't follow American laws.

The most noble act your government can perform is to leave the world alone. I don't need Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Hollywood horror films and chewing gum. I don't need any bloody "war on terror" when your regime supports Chechen terrorists and gives them political shelter and highly-payed "jobs" at Department of State. I don't need Afghani drug-production secured by American armed forces. I don't want any foreign government making political statements to protect convinced criminals here in Russia. I don't want any looney Cold War relic from Pentagon to make statements that America will support Georgian government in hosting and training terrorists who want to kill me. Mind your own business please. The world is sick from the attempts to "save" it.

Sorry for being too pathetic. I like Americans, they are nice people deserving all possible respect. But you are blinded by propaganda and your political system doesn't give you any choice to stop your establishment from plundering the rest of the world.

 

My guess is you only do wonder about that because you never experienced living under a communist dictatorship (note: communism automaticly leads to dictatorship, try to figure out why, I'm sure you will - hint: ultimate state-control vs. rights and freedom of the individual) or any kind of totaliarism at all. Try to discuss with some North Koreans via the Internet, they might be able to answer. Oh, wait, quite next to ZERO North Koreans in public forums. Pitty. I wonder how that comes about. Anyway. You might want to interview those who ended up in Siberia. Oh, no, wait, they're dead. But hey, you might want to ask the Kurds in Iraq. Oh, no wait, plenty of them are burried in mass-graves, and those you'll find and now can talk freely to since Saddam is gone, you still risk yourself being captured by Islamist extremists who have intruded Iraq in the after-mach of the war. What a pitty. So you prolly better stay in the UK and keep wondering whether or not you guys got it right .


@antred: Yeah, said shortly but down to the point. And mankind wonders why history keeps repeating itself. It is because too many guys start "reconsidering" and seeing themselves as "open-minded" and "liberal" after their ancestors spent their blood for their freedom TO DO SO.

Regards
heartc

 

No, don't get me wrong pal - I just asked "isnt this close to dictatorship?"
By that I mean, it is the minority that rules and THAT cannot be real democracy in my point of view. But again, that will ONLY happen if 100% of the people gave their vote. (Like in Albania, lmfao)

And I absolutely agree with you in the terms; "if you dont vote - keep your mouth shut!"

 

Well, maybe I'm not paranoid after all. I always thought that there was more involved in your agenda against iEN than just "flight models". But tell you what, Boroda - you are still a cold warrior. While you were and still are an enemy to my country in your heart (cause you still believe in communism and would take arms up to re-establish it, wouldn't you?) I credit the kind of yours with far more respect than I do towards those Islamist fuckers. Communism or Capitalism, you guys still have common sense, this is why the Cold War did not grew hot. You loved your families just as we did, unlike Islamist thughs who send their own children out to commit suicidal attacks. I really think we should be united against them. They are a threat towards you, too. But I guess you know already. Unlike most of my German country-men, I'm somewhat in support of the Russian war in Chechnia. The Russian-Chechnian problems might have deeper roots unconnected to Islamism, but the situation as it is now is that Islamist terrorists keep gaining more and more influence over there, because of a general Muslim background. I believe the extremist Islam really is on an offensive, trying to re-establish itself to a stronger position as it was back then when they were just short of capturing Vienna. We have to stop them in their roots, we must not allow them to gain nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. People here in this forum think about themselves as liberals, and truly they are liberal, you can discuss in here with people all over the world. But I advise those guys to read up some on the S'haria. How liberal does THAT sound for you? You think Bush is fundamentalistic? You think Putin is an extremist? Or Sharon? Read some in the S'haria, and then understand that this is actual policitic agenda for Islamist extremists.

Regards
heartc

 

Well, I lived under "communist dictatorship" for some time. Siberia is a nice place, really. And I sincerelly miss some "evil communist" inventions: free medical care and education, total (I mean - total) literacy, the right to have job, guaranteed pensions and a place to live.

Please never speak about things you don't have any vaguest idea of.

My ancestors spilled their blood for the right to exist. And then worked their asses off for the right to be different from mass-produced "freedom". And again - not to be burnt by "democratic" atomic bombs.

 

Well, I agree that the idea of democracy, i.e. "the people making the policy", is somewhat torn up when only a minority of the population actually cast their votes. This is why it makes me sad. But you could also see it this way: Those guys who didn't cast their ballots, decided to give no fuck about it at all. This is THEIR vote . Unlike a dicatorship, where ALL OF THEM ARE FORCED to give no fuck about it at all... This makes a difference...

I want to keep it with Churchill here, who said something along the lines, which plenty of you will be familiar with: "Democracy is bad. But it's still the best form of policy."

Or: "Democracy makes sure that the people are governed by the regime they deserve.", also by Churchill .

Regards
heartc

 

Amazing how a small statement such as mine can generate such venom in both Heartc and Red Ant and yet in other raise the question that it's a possibility.

Looking at it subjectively one can appreciate how some are much more open minded than most and willing to think for themselves and form there own opinions and yet others allow opinions to be fed to them like cattle.

RedAnt, there are many examples of History, lets take for example the Nicaragua revolution, theres the American version and theres the Nicaraguan version. Do you know both? Are you willing to open a topic discussing it.

Or we could do the same with the Israel/Palestine situation.

Or anywhere else you'd like to mention. But remember one important fact, theres always two or more sides to every story and you blind yourself if you believe in only one.

I never said Communism was the right way, I said that as a comparison the way of life of the average person outside of the direct influence of goverment from all accounts morally appeared to work better than our own in the West.

Mal

 

Holy crap. I keep hearing about the FH being all messed up [ the GAME, that is].
I will say this:
This forum is as cool as it EVER was.
Kudos!
Bunch of smart cookies here.

 

Well, wasn't it your dream about "free medical care and education, total literacy, the "right to have a job", "guaranteed pensions" and "a place to live" which turned out to be nothing than dreams in the end? I DO have an idea about that. It was happening in my country for several decades after WWII until today, and now we have much trouble coping with the costs of it. Actually, we CAN'T cope with the costs. I think the failure of communism and the lighter form, socialism, is that it takes away the responsibility from the individual and putting it towards the state authority, thereby also restricting and limiting the individual, who hopes to get back from the authority what it did put into it over the years. It is at THIS point where liberty comes into play: It is an experience of mankind that massive state-authority (which is essential to the idea of communism, because it is the state-authority who "manages" each person's live, instead of putting and trusting the responsibilty on each individual itself) turns out to surpress and limit the individual, whose only hope is that the state-authority remains capable, truthfull and honest with the money you basicly gave to it.

See, just a very basic example here from out of my own personal life:

I give away CLOSE TO 50%, of what my company is paying me, towards the state. This means, I almost cost my company double as much as I actually gain from my work. I'm expensive for my company, but I get only 50% from their costs. The rest goes into the state. And I NEVER get back from the state what I invested over the years. It would be FAR BETTER, if I would only cost my company around 70% from what I do right now, gaining STILL the 50% I do now, and keeping the 20% back for MYSELF, cause I would know I would HAVE THEM once I NEED THEM, instead of seeing them thrown out of the window by a near-socialist government trying to keep up a welfare state that is no longer compatible with the current world. Communism/socialism is not compatible with reality, because it is not flexible. Aside from the very bad idea of an authoritarian state body, it is not compatible because the world changes, and the money I put into the state I can never trust to get back. I would rather keep the money to myself, on my own responsibility, to take care of my own once I need it. This would also strenghten economy, and thereby job numbers, because I would invest this money in more effective ways than presenting it to the government which blows it out of the window in an effort to win the next election...

Regards
heartc

 

I do believe in communism. But I will never take up arms to "re-establish" it, because it's nothing to re-establish. What you call "communism" is called "Soviet socialism" or "bolshevism", and I don't want it to return. I'd better do something like what we do here, and it will be my little brick in building a better world.

As for being an "enemy of your country" - well, it's a real offence. True enemies of your country live overseas. It's not our fault that they turned Germany and the whole Europe into a hostage country. Their dirty tricks could set the whole Europe on fire, just like they did in Korea. The only difference between Korea and Germany was that Korea didn't have any Soviet troops when "blue side" decided to divide the country by setting up "democratic" elections supported by American bayonets...

Islam, as any other religion, is a stick with two ends. We have a proverb in Russian: "Make a fool pray and he'll breake his forehead". In Chechnya we fight stupids that understand Shariat as the right to plunder and kill. When the first Caucasian war started in early XIX century - Chechens were nothing more then prehistoric pagan tribes of caravan robbers, and some of them still remain.

Civilized Islam is a wise and humanistic religion. In fact those terrorists violate the rules of Koran and can't be called real Moslims.

 

Is it "freedom" when someone has to be forced to be free?? Nope!
Maybe we should just dont give a flying fuck.