Western Europe becoming more and more anti-American?

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

Or about anyone else for that matter. If it was just a case of you lot keeping to yourselves over there, no problem. Only you have a nasty habit of inflicting yourselves on the rest of the world.

Did America force any nation to join us? They all came out of their own free will. If people in those nations don't like that, tell them to take responsibility and elect a government that won't do it again.

You may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Let me clarify I wasn't referring to the magnificent coalition of the willing, but to the intrusiveness of American foreign policy. About which you tripped yourself up pretty badly later on in your post.

1-France......actively pushed to get sanctions lifted from Iraq.

There may have been a humanitarian angle perhaps, but perhaps if Saddam's dossier, delivered just before the war, hadn't been dripping with ink from all the passages detailing American business deals through the 90's that had been blacked out, we might be having a different conversation right now.

2-France has attempted (and thankfully failed for the time being) to lift the weapons embargo on China.

Agreed. Like we needed another beiligerent nation tramping around the world imposing it's will on others.

3-France opposed America's attempts to act against Sudan; a nation they happen to buy oil and sell weapons to.

What makes you think they weren't just protecting their turf against America's attempts to get a cut of the action. LOL. Like their attempts to act were in any way alutristic.

4-They've supported genocide in Rwanda. They armed and trained the militia that carried it out. Their troops sat back and watched as it happened. They allowed, and maybe even aided in their escape, and may even be protecting some still.

I suppose the Dutch peacekeepers in Bosnia, overwhelmed by superior numbers, unable to protect the enclaves were also implicit in genocide? We won't get into country's arming and training the militia of other countrys. The US has a lot of blood on it's hands as well.

5-Chirac has openly critiscised America's AIDs policy, while at the same time they give less aid than us, and have now proposed an international tax on the matter.

Well firstly they are not as rich as America, so they obviously can't give as much. As for Bush's *cough*...PR....*cough* AIDs policy, do you know exactly how much of the money promised has actually made it to where it was suppossed to be going, never mind the profits American pharmacutical companies are going to reap off the back of American Tax payers?

6-While on a visit to China, Chirac openly stated that it is up to China and Europe to oppose not only American policy in the world, but also the spread of American culture.

And this offends you or scares you? The fact that you might not be the most popular kid on the block any more hurts your ego? No wonder you are lashing out at Europe!!!

It seems to be inspired by nothing but jealousy.

Can't......type......laughing.....too....much....!!!!!!!!

Bush is met with such hatred in Western Europe (I refuse to say that's how the world feels) because we are the easy target. Europe has numerous problems of their own that only continue to grow, and politicians like Chirac have only added to them. It becomes easier for people in Western Europe to look for someone else to blame

So by extension of this logic, by focusing the American public's attention on the foreign threat of the terrorist boogeyman, Bush also is deflecting attention from his own domestic problems? See any similarities past the end of your own nose?

First off I wouldn't say any great anto-european propaganda is in effect. More like a mis-direction of the public's focus. The fact that American media doesn't touch international news as you say, is a cause of great worry for the rest of us.

Yet you stated that America's government/media were using hatred of Europe to distract the people of America...

errr....yes. I did state that. Your point being what?

How can Europe expect to have a fair and balanced view when their media outlets spend most of their time talking about America, and pretty much always the bad things with America?

Well, that is something I think you will agree is commen with news in general. They aren't inclined to report good news!! It doesn't get the ratings apparently.

Very little is talked about international views in America at all, except for how much division there is between it, and it's mostly passed off purely because of Bush's policy. Most of it does not have the spin that these people are opposing us, by that Bush and America are wrong.

I'll ask you a simple question, so far you have made good points, but want I want to ask is, shouldn't there be more reporting on protests and why other countries are taking offence to your foreign policies?

And Europe is often times held up on some sort of pedestal to Americans by our media........They would like nothing better then for us to become more like Europe and Canada.

Jeez, Europe on pedastal? Seriously what do we do in Europe that warrents such admiration? Examples please!! I didn't know this!! What do they say the US should be doing that Europe is already doing??

Really? On the BBC right now, some of the top stories are:

Okay, touche, as the french would say!! However it is a wide world view being reported, isn't it? And the US have a large role in the world?

America is a nation that cares little about what goes on in the rest of the world. The people of this nation still largely would prefer to not intervene or bother with world politics.

Quite frankly, that's a good thing.

The quote that made my morning. You just went and tripped yourself up here. If you don't care about the rest of the world, why are your fingers in so many pies around the world? Why are you in Iraq?

Yes, Fox News, the epitomy of professional broadcast news.

More rhetoric with nothing to back it up...Have any examples of Fox News bias?

Not rhetoric, it's called sarcasm!!! Don't worry it's a European thing! For our American friends, I will from now on denote sarcasm with ***

The "countless" studies of course carried out by Fox no doubt. Or some other totally unbiased source.

Hardly. Studies done by the likes of Yale and Stanford. Numerous poles done over the past thirty years show about a 4:1 difference between the number of liberal journalists to conservative.

Yes the poles and their contribution to the coalition of the willing. Yes, Yale and Stanford. Bush was a Yale man, so we can therefore accurately gauge the calibre of these studies.***

Then how about you people start giving the same treatment to European politicians who commit wrongs?

Oh but we do. In the press, every day. We don't need to resort to Internet Discussion sites to lambaste them, that is for our press to do. Look at the roasting Blair gets from the British media. Or how Bush was thrown on an Irish current affairs TV show when he was being asked real questions, instead of softballs and reading from the script. If your media treated politicians the way our media does, we wouldn't be having these fun debates, now would we?

It's amazing that the poorer nations seem to prefer America over Europe.

My second fav. quote from your post. You have this on reliable information I take it?? Just keep telling yourself that everybody loves you, it makes the pillaging easier to swallow at home.

You may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Let me clarify I wasn't referring to the magnificent coalition of the willing, but to the intrusiveness of American foreign policy. About which you tripped yourself up pretty badly later on in your post.

And where does Europe get off complaining about our foreign policy? First, they're just as intrusive as we are, as I've shown with Rwanda and the Sudan. Second, how does America intervene with European politics?

There may have been a humanitarian angle perhaps, but perhaps if Saddam's dossier, delivered just before the war, hadn't been dripping with ink from all the passages detailing American business deals through the 90's that had been blacked out, we might be having a different conversation right now.

See, you need proof to make these kinds of statements. Why would America, who was pretty much alone in wanting to keep the sanctions on (only the UK really was on our side) undermine them? What kind of logic is that?

And anyone who believes the French had a humanitarian viewpoint when trying to lift sanctions on Iraq is simply naive. I mean, why would you think that, and not be able to buy America went into Iraq solely to help people? You're judging people by different standards.

France is pretty cutthroat, and possibly more so than America for the simple fact that they are far weaker, and need all the advantages they can get.

What makes you think they weren't just protecting their turf against America's attempts to get a cut of the action. LOL. Like their attempts to act were in any way alutristic.

America stands to get no oil from the Sudan, especially by pissing off their government by pushing for sanctions. If you're going to argue alterior motive, then you could have at least said something along the lines that were trying to screw France over. Although, it's entirely possible America simply put the pressure on for good publicity.

I suppose the Dutch peacekeepers in Bosnia, overwhelmed by superior numbers, unable to protect the enclaves were also implicit in genocide? We won't get into country's arming and training the militia of other countrys. The US has a lot of blood on it's hands as well.

The problem is, the French peacekeepers didn't do a damn thing, and have been accused of helping those who acted escape. There's a huge difference between that and being overwhelmed.

And when has America supported a group that has committed genocide on the scale of Rwanda? And even if America did, we sure as hell wouldn't get the free pass on it that France has. The world would never stop bitching.

Well firstly they are not as rich as America, so they obviously can't give as much. As for Bush's *cough*...PR....*cough* AIDs policy, do you know exactly how much of the money promised has actually made it to where it was suppossed to be going, never mind the profits American pharmacutical companies are going to reap off the back of American Tax payers?

France doesn't give much of anything. For all their big talk, they give very little actual charity.

And Bush has in fact been very strict as to who gets aid from America. Each nation has to approved first, and so far, only 8 have.

And this offends you or scares you? The fact that you might not be the most popular kid on the block any more hurts your ego? No wonder you are lashing out at Europe!!!

I consider someone talking about opposing American interests across the world to be an enemy. What would you consider someone who did that?

So by extension of this logic, by focusing the American public's attention on the foreign threat of the terrorist boogeyman, Bush also is deflecting attention from his own domestic problems? See any similarities past the end of your own nose?

Well, if Bush's goal with the Iraq war was to deflect attention from a poor domestic situation, he did a very bad job. He could have easily skated into a second term off 9/11 and Afghanistan. Iraq did not help Bush's career any. And America's not doing so bad at home, anyway. We have a dropping unemployment, and our economy is back up to a 4% growth rate.

Besides, weren't all the liberals whining how Bush won because of some extreme Christian votes? Wouldn't they have in fact been voting on domestic policy? It's also been shown that Bush did better in states where gay marriage was on the ballot, especially among minorities.

I don't think Bush really has to be scared of his domestic policy. Liberals have in fact tried to claim that's the reason he's won.

errr....yes. I did state that. Your point being what?

How could the American government and media be trying to deflect America's attention with hatred of Europe without using any anti-European propaganda...?

Well, that is something I think you will agree is commen with news in general. They aren't inclined to report good news!! It doesn't get the ratings apparently.

Sorry, but it goes far beyond that. How does various European news outletts keep their credibility when they call the Iraqi election a disaster, or when they have headlines stating, "How could 50 million people be so dumb?" To make it simple for you, they don't just ignore any positive story about America, but they put a negative spin on anything they can.

You honestly think they are willing to give Bush a fair chance?

I'll ask you a simple question, so far you have made good points, but want I want to ask is, shouldn't there be more reporting on protests and why other countries are taking offence to your foreign policies?

This is covered, and extensively. Have you ever picked up a copy of the New York Times? Take a look through their editorial section. One of the top complaints from the left has been how Bush has cost America its image abroad. The Democratic party practically ran on it.

People understand why, they just don't agree, or even really care on the whole.

Jeez, Europe on pedastal? Seriously what do we do in Europe that warrents such admiration? Examples please!! I didn't know this!! What do they say the US should be doing that Europe is already doing??

Europe is far further to the left than America. Certain nations could easily be classified as socialistic. The left in America would like nothing better for America to adopt the social system of a nation like France.

Okay, touche, as the french would say!! However it is a wide world view being reported, isn't it? And the US have a large role in the world?

Some of those stories were simply domestic issues in America. I wouldn't really mind if they gave other nations the same treatment, but they don't. I saw barely any coverage when the French opened fire on people in the Ivory Coast who even they admit were protesting peacefully. I never saw the pictures of French soldiers standing over dead little African girls on their news. On the other hand, how many times have you seen pictures from Abu Ghraib?

The quote that made my morning. You just went and tripped yourself up here. If you don't care about the rest of the world, why are your fingers in so many pies around the world? Why are you in Iraq?

I said the majority of the American people don't care. The government is far different. Most people in America obviously aren't interested in politics. The Iraq war was pushed as an urgent security threat for this reason.

Yes the poles and their contribution to the coalition of the willing. Yes, Yale and Stanford. Bush was a Yale man, so we can therefore accurately gauge the calibre of these studies.***

Kerry was also a Yale man. And only a European could possibly argue that the big time colleges in America have any sort of rightwing slant.

Oh but we do. In the press, every day. We don't need to resort to Internet Discussion sites to lambaste them, that is for our press to do. Look at the roasting Blair gets from the British media. Or how Bush was thrown on an Irish current affairs TV show when he was being asked real questions, instead of softballs and reading from the script. If your media treated politicians the way our media does, we wouldn't be having these fun debates, now would we?

There's a difference between mocking your politicians and doing something about them. You complain about Blair, yet you re-elected him and his party. How can you complain about America being blind when it comes to Bush, yet continue to re-elect the same politicians who go with him?

And once again, only a European could believe the media is in favor of Bush. Influential papers like the LA Times, New York Times, and even the Washington Post all have a liberal slant, and all openly supported Kerry in the past election. The New York Times ran some 50 front page stories on Abu Ghraib, many of which openly accused Bush of encouraging the 'torture.' To show how they treat a story that they don't agree with, you only have to look at how they hid a story about a report that specifically stated policy was not to blame. Now, is that not a double standard, and selective reporting?

Beyond that, simply look at the remarks Dean has been making recently. How much coverage has that received? It seems everyday he says something more outrageous. Dick Cheney say the f word was front page news for a week over here.

I don't even want to get into how much Bush is simply made fun of on TV daily.

My second fav. quote from your post. You have this on reliable information I take it?? Just keep telling yourself that everybody loves you, it makes the pillaging easier to swallow at home.

Well, if you've seen all those nice polls that show how people view Bush and America, you'll see that nations are split or in favor of Bush in Eastern Europe, China, Israel, and African nations.

Did you happen to see those protests in the Ivory Coast recently? You'll notice there were a good number holding up signs with references to America and Bush, and they weren't negative. Areas like this are full of people who have for a long time been under Europe's influence, and are simply tired of it.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Well, if you've seen all those nice polls that show how people view Bush and America, you'll see that nations are split or in favor of Bush in Eastern Europe, China, Israel, and African nations.

So you think people in these countries are better educated, have more media freedom and more time to think about current events than say Canada, Japan, Australia, S. Korea, Britain and just about every other wealthy capitalist democracy? I think your list really speaks volumes. Anyway with all the hatred you hear from Americans against Europe it's no surprise that some people don't like what is going on over there. I have also noticed that many Americans say they hate, French for example and don't specify which political group or group of French people they don't like... most seem to attack all French people regardless of their beliefs which i find very disturbing. Where as most criticism against America is against the current policies of the Bush administration and not hatred for every single American regardless of his political stance.

[edit on 13-6-2005 by Trent]

So you think people in these countries are better educated, have more media freedom and more time to think about current events than say Canada, Japan, Australia, S. Korea, Britain and just about every other wealthy capitalist democracy?

First, why are Japan and South Korea on your little list?

Second, what makes you think people in Western democracies (I would hardly call most of the nations you're talking about as capitalist) are so better educated? More people take the time to vote in those Eastern European nations then they do in Europe or America.

Third, what makes you think that a bunch of spoiled brats in Europe who have never seen war or a tyranical dictator would know more than Eastern Europeans who have seen it?

And my last point, why is it that some 80% of the populations in places like France all feel the same way about America's policy? Tell me, doesn't that absurd figure alone show bias on part of their media?

Anyway with all the hatred you hear from Americans against Europe it's no surprise that some people don't like what is going on over there. I have also noticed that many Americans say they hate, French for example and don't specify which political group or group of French people they don't like... most seem to attack all French people regardless of their beliefs which i find very disturbing. Where as most criticism against America is against the current policies of the Bush administration and not hatred for every single American regardless of his political stance.

Most French people agree on America. Their conservatives think we're taking away their culture, and are threatened by our power. Their liberals view us as the great capitalist evil in the world.

And besides, I'd say it's more that Americans are honest, and see no reason to sugarcoat the truth. You can say you don't hate us all you want, but anyone who has read the majority of the posts in this topic would see countless references to Americans being ignorant. We've been accused of committing genocide and murder in Iraq, which is an insult to not just our government, but the troops in Iraq as well as every American.

Originally posted by Britguy
"You can find plenty of people around these forums comparing Bush to the likes of Hitler, or even saying his administration has been as bad as a guy like Kim Jong's."

Comparing Bush to Hitler is just not acceptable, there is no comparison.
Hitler actually served in the military and saw combat, was a good speaker and was intelligent.... whereas GWB....

Seriously though, as a Brit I hold my own government as responsible as the Bush administration. Also all those members of Parliament/congress who gave their support in the face of blatant lies and transparently bizarre and laughable "intelligence" reports.
Ok, they're politicians and we should expect them to lie to us, anybody who thinks they wouldn't needs to get their heads outta their butts. However, when those lies lead to many deaths and blatant profiteering by members of government and their backers, something has to be done.

I just find it hard to believe that Bush still has so much support from his own people whilst he continues to lie to them, and get them to pay for his illegal war whilst his corporate buddies (and family members) make $Billions.

The USA saved your butt from Hitler, maybe we shouldnt have helped you.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
First, why are Japan and South Korea on your little list?

Why wouldn't they be? I live in Asia so most of the news we get focuses on Asia and i can assure you that the populations of these countries are not fond of Bush's policies according to the many polls i have seen. I googled one incase you didn't want to just take my word for it.

www.pipa.org...

Originally posted by IBM

Originally posted by Britguy
"You can find plenty of people around these forums comparing Bush to the likes of Hitler, or even saying his administration has been as bad as a guy like Kim Jong's."

Comparing Bush to Hitler is just not acceptable, there is no comparison.
Hitler actually served in the military and saw combat, was a good speaker and was intelligent.... whereas GWB....

Seriously though, as a Brit I hold my own government as responsible as the Bush administration. Also all those members of Parliament/congress who gave their support in the face of blatant lies and transparently bizarre and laughable "intelligence" reports.
Ok, they're politicians and we should expect them to lie to us, anybody who thinks they wouldn't needs to get their heads outta their butts. However, when those lies lead to many deaths and blatant profiteering by members of government and their backers, something has to be done.

I just find it hard to believe that Bush still has so much support from his own people whilst he continues to lie to them, and get them to pay for his illegal war whilst his corporate buddies (and family members) make $Billions.

The USA saved your butt from Hitler, maybe we shouldnt have helped you.

Personally, I am most greatful to the Russians. They saved our butts, as you put it. But the USAs contribution was appreaciated I am sure.

Personally, I am most greatful to the Russians. They saved our butts, as you put it. But the USAs contribution was appreaciated I am sure.

Right. I'm sure you would have been far happier if Russian tanks had rolled through your country instead of American ones. Then your nation could have ended up like Eastern Europe...

Why wouldn't they be? I live in Asia so most of the news we get focuses on Asia and i can assure you that the populations of these countries are not fond of Bush's policies according to the many polls i have seen. I googled one incase you didn't want to just take my word for it.

You'll notice that by your own source, the majority of South Koreans view American influence as positive. Most Japanese are in fact nuetral on these issues.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

You'll notice that by your own source, the majority of South Koreans view American influence as positive. Most Japanese are in fact nuetral on these issues.

True about American influence but i guess you missed this quote or ignored it. I was talking about how countries viewed the Bush administration, most people like Americans in general. Also that was the only poll i could find with a google, there are other ones i have seen that give much the same results but didn't allow people to be "neutral or depends", yes or no answer ones.

Though France is often presumed to be overwhelmingly anti-American, only a modest 54 percent majority said they viewed US influence as negative.

[edit on 13-6-2005 by Trent]

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

You'll notice that by your own source, the majority of South Koreans view American influence as positive. Most Japanese are in fact nuetral on these issues.

I can tell you for a fact that most Japanese don't care for you very much. There is nothing they would like better than to see the back of you out of their country.

There wouldn't be many tears shed for you in South Korea either. The Korean's might be happy to take your money but any Korean I have ever met didn't have very many fond words for America.

Originally posted by IBM

The USA saved your butt from Hitler, maybe we shouldnt have helped you.

Maybe the USA shouldn't have funded Hitler in the first place.

Help us? More like help yourself......

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
That's right. Officially, we are supporters of the Iraq invasion. But over 90% of people are actually against.

We can not do otherwise, because are blackmailed by USA, through Turkey.

Greece is still our official ally. If the people are so anti-American, I'd suggest a possible change in governments.

We don't risk a war with Turkey. We are severely outnumbered. We have to play the good dog with USA.

You let it happen. You knew all along that Turks were going to invade, and you let it happen.

Why don't you do something now? Cyprus is 90% Greek. Why don't you fight Turks off Cyprus?

Why is it America's job to keep the Turks out of Cyprus (not that we haven't)? The Turks do have a legitimate claim to it. You say you're against American imperialism, but you seem to only be against it when it isn't in your nations best interests. That's just hypocracy.

The Turks have a legitimate claim, but they should have done something legitimate about it. Instead, they invaded Cyprus, they killed natives (not only Greeks, but Turks as well), they have grabbed people's real estates and selling them to English and other companies.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, you started a war. Why didn't you do the same when Turkey invaded Cyprus? It's a double standard.

1. Alexander the Great called himself 'the King of all Greeks' when he conquered Athens.

I don't recall Alexander the Great conqueroring Athens, but calling himself King of all Greeks hardly means he considered himself Greece.

But he did. Could you please search the internet for quotes of professors of big universities around the world? it's an established historic fact that the Macedonian heritage is Greek. Don't try and twist history around in order to justify your government's political actions.

Are you really going to argue the fact that the more civillized Greek city states considered Macedonians backwards barbarians?

Macedonians took part in the Olympics, where only Greeks were allowed.

If you consider Macedon purely Greek, then where exactly does it stop? The barbarians tribes farther North could be considered Greek.

It stops at where there are common traits in culture and language. In other words, it stops in Macedonia.

Italy could be considered Greek.

Nope. Latin is vastly different from Greek.

Sicily could be considered Greek.

Nope. Sicily has greek heritage, since founded by Greeks, but it has been latin from then all along. Slavians call themselves macedonians after WWII, that is about 50 years.

Even the Turks themselves are about as much Greek if you look at history. It basically extends throughout the entire Mediterranean world.

Nope. There are two kinds of Turks: a) the old ones that came from Arabs; b) the Neo-Turks that came from Turkmenistan and other turkish tribes in the 1800s.

You are misinformed. Right now the northen Macedonian area is inhabited by Slavians, who arrived at the area at around 1100 AD. Before WWII, there was no 'macedonian' nation. It was Tito that established the "Macedonian" state because he had in mind to expand his country to the Agean sea.

And what, the Greeks are still pure of blood? No slavic influence? No Turkish blood?

I don't claim that. There is influence from everywhere, including Slavians and Turks. But 'Macedonia' has been a Greek emblem for 2500 years, you can't just take it from a country and give it to another one. It hurts people. Do you know that Greeks fought the 'macedonian' wars in 1897-1912? that was a war faught by greeks to keep macedonia free of Turks. Isn't it an insult to them to take their culture and assign it by force to another one?

And how about the language? Ancient macedonians spoke Greek. All of Aristotelis' work (the founder of modern science and logic), the scholar of Alexander the Great, was Greek. If that does not tell you how Greek macedonians were, then what will?

I'm so tired of hearing how America wants to keep this or that people weak and divided. How about people stop looking at America as the cause of all their problems...

Not at all. I just wanted to give you good valid realistic reasons on why there is anti-americanism.

The problem is, you only like America when its convenient. You have no problem taking the good things we offer, but won't tolerate any of the bad. America is always expected to compromise, and out of all the nations in the world, America is the only one who does not actually have to compromise with anyone.

The problem is that we see America as a "judge" that is unfair and biased. If that is fixed, then we wouldn't have a problem.

I don't buy into the fact that America is the root of all evil. It is clearly not. And if we talked about other nations, and for my nation, I would tell you all the wrong things about them.

But you can't just say that anti-americanism is unjustified and we are all wrong.


[edit on 13-6-2005 by masterp]

[edit on 13-6-2005 by masterp]

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
What about the nations in the world that agree with us? Why are they ignored? Could it be simply because they tend to be poorer Eastern European countries, or those in Asia, or those in Africa?
It's amazing that the poorer nations seem to prefer America over Europe.

The great nations have always acted like gangsters, and the small nations like prostitutes.
Stanley Kubrick

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

Personally, I am most greatful to the Russians. They saved our butts, as you put it. But the USAs contribution was appreaciated I am sure.

Right. I'm sure you would have been far happier if Russian tanks had rolled through your country instead of American ones. Then your nation could have ended up like Eastern Europe...

Why should I care. A tank is a tank whether russian or yank.

As for your next sentence. Well, shouldve, couldve, wouldve means little.

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
You may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Let me clarify I wasn't referring to the magnificent coalition of the willing, but to the intrusiveness of American foreign policy. About which you tripped yourself up pretty badly later on in your post.

Here we go again, another champion of Europe trying to educate America about the virtues of nonintervention!! Well you Europeans should have educated yourselves before marching off and raving the globe.
Intrusive or insular? Which is it make up your mind, that’s just it, you Europeans cant make up you minds can you? This is what characterizes Europe, your diffident attitude.

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
but perhaps if Saddam's dossier, delivered just before the war, hadn't been dripping with ink from all the passages detailing American business deals through the 90's that had been blacked out, we might be having a different conversation right now.

And finally, the great conspiracy! This is pathetic, if you are really so well informed about the secret deals that America had through out the 90's maybe you could write a book or stage a media expose and 'educate' the world. No wait, you can't! All you can do is make allegations and probably link it to some equally dubious site.

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
Agreed. Like we needed another beiligerent nation tramping around the world imposing it's will on others.

Thats true, we had Europe show us how for the better part of the last millenium.

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
We won't get into country's arming and training the militia of other countrys. The US has a lot of blood on it's hands as well.

So its okay to sit back and watch as a nation/former colony sits backs and commits genocide, not even applying political pressure or utilizing available resources to seek a peaceful resolution even though France has actively exploited Rwanda and its resources in the past for its own monetary gain ?? Talk about decadent society!! Even though America may indulge in coercive diplomacy it is atleast done in the best interests of the region and not to promote genocide especially if we are obligated to it as would any colonial power to its former colony. SAD!!

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
Well firstly they are not as rich as America, so they obviously can't give as much. As for Bush's *cough*...PR....*cough* AIDs policy, do you know exactly how much of the money promised has actually made it to where it was suppossed to be going, never mind the profits American pharmacutical companies are going to reap off the back of American Tax payers?

Well that’s not America's fault that even after centuries of pillaging and manipulating the third world through colonialism has not made them prosperous then I don't know what can? Their limitations are a result of their own inadequacy!
Did you know that America is the world’s most liberal AID donor? Did you know that USAID, ICRISAT etc have the most diverse AID and rehabilitation projects? Did you know that Americans donate more towards charity than any other nation and maybe region combined?
And you have the temerity to accuse us of ulterior motives! How much does you decadent society donate as charity ?? Most Europeans don't even go to Church, what would they/you know about charity and giving?

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
And this offends you or scares you? The fact that you might not be the most popular kid on the block any more hurts your ego? No wonder you are lashing out at Europe!!!

Spare me the condescension! But what bothers us is that France actively is working against the interests of America and resorting to canvassing to garner support for their misguided cause, such antics are pathetic at best and reinforces our notion of European Euphonium!

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy

It seems to be inspired by nothing but jealousy.

Can't......type......laughing.....too....much....!!!!!!!!

You shouldn't be because all that Europe has been doing makes us believe that so is the case. It is common understanding here that Europeans criticism stems from the fact that Europe is basically jealous because of the fact that America -a nation formed from by Europe's ‘forsaken’, has superceded Europe in every sphere of life, even though Europe resorted to colonialism in a vain attempt to accumulate wealth at the expense of other regions it still was ' incapable' of true "puissance".

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
So by extension of this logic, by focusing the American public's attention on the foreign threat of the terrorist boogeyman, Bush also is deflecting attention from his own domestic problems? See any similarities past the end of your own nose?

Your meaningless ranting is just yet another exhibition of your own ignorance. Yet i'm unconcerned because it is expected. Excuse me, but if you have slept through the last several posts but it is clear that American domestic problems are always the highlight of our NEWS and always will be because we believe that your own house must be in order before you set others house in order. So your argument makes no sense! Bush can possibly deflect attention from international issues but never national issues!

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
The quote that made my morning. You just went and tripped yourself up here. If you don't care about the rest of the world, why are your fingers in so many pies around the world? Why are you in Iraq?

If America didn't step up and take on the challenge then who would? would you?
Do you know how many people were murdered by Saddam while your quasi-libertarian European AKA France was busy engaging in ego worship. America has always taken the case of the Iraqi people and even though we have Saddam captured he has been treated with full honor and the rights granted to him by the Geneva Convention. He is even begin tried in Iraq( which is more expensive might I add as security issues are more) so that he gets the justice he deserves.
Can your nation/europe possibly do that??

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
Not rhetoric, it's called sarcasm!!! Don't worry it's a European thing! For our American friends, I will from now on denote sarcasm with ***

More condescension ! pathetic!!

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
Yes the poles and their contribution to the coalition of the willing. Yes, Yale and Stanford. Bush was a Yale man, so we can therefore accurately gauge the calibre of these studies.***

So Stanford and Yale are " unintelligible " according to your European view point? Why because they actually carried out a statistically correct poll which reflects the mood of people correctly? So your intelligence prevents you from accepting that?
So the world's best universities are not good enough for our Europeans? Maybe they should stop applying to them and go their more ' adequate ' universities that tech them the European standpoint!!

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
I can tell you for a fact that most Japanese don't care for you very much. There is nothing they would like better than to see the back of you out of their country.

The opinion of some raving drunkard in an Ishikaya doesn't make it a "statistical" fact!!
If so many people hate us in Japan then how come they sent their troops to IRaq and how come they elected Koizumi, who is the most vociferous in support of Bush?? You statements are not supported by facts and are nothing more than the rants of a disturbed belligerant that cannot see past his narrow prejudices.

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
There wouldn't be many tears shed for you in South Korea either. The Korean's might be happy to take your money but any Korean I have ever met didn't have very many fond words for America.

It is actually the koreans who pay America and not the other way around, so if they are unhappy it would be best to discontinue its relations with the USA but all these nations know that it is not USA that needs them but the other way around!

Originally posted by IAF101
The opinion of some raving drunkard in an Ishikaya doesn't make it a "statistical" fact!!

Neither does the ranting of someone on an internet discussion site, especially about things he knows nothing about.

I base my opinion on the fact that when many people realise even though I am white, I am not american, they become quite open and friendly towards me.

I for one would not be so naive as to ignore a drunkard's opinion. If you knew anything about Japan and Japanese people, you would know how Japanese use alcohol and getting drunk as carte blanche to say whatever they want to get of their chest. Polite when sober, but not afraid to give you an honest opinion with a few beers.

Having said that, many Japanese are so enraged about what they have been dragged into, many have been stone cold sober when expressing their opinions.

If so many people hate us in Japan then how come they sent their troops to IRaq and how come they elected Koizumi, who is the most vociferous in support of Bush??

Koizumi was elected a long time before Bush came to power. He replaced what was arguably the worst, most idiotic Prime Minister, Mr. "Who are you-me too" Mori. So not exactly high calibre politicians here.

The reason any country felt compelled to join the coalition of the willing was either through bribes or bullying. The Japanese would much prefer to stay out of the whole mess, but this time around they were bullied into putting men on the ground as oppossed to their past tactic of just using money to secure their energy supply.

The troops were scarce and the coalition was threadbare and Bush needed another country on the list to make it look like an international effort rather than highway robbery on a global scale. Cash wasn't going to cut it this time around, they were going to have to put their necks on the line!!

You statements are not supported by facts and are nothing more than the rants of a disturbed belligerant that cannot see past his narrow prejudices.

My statements about Japan are factual. If you can tell me what the Japanese refer to themselves as since they went to Iraq, I'll know that you know at least as much about Japan as I do. I doubt you know.

I expect to be met by a stony silence however, as is common when dealing with belligerent trolls like yourself, who know nothing more than how to shoot their mouth off.

Originally posted by IAF101
Here we go again, another champion of Europe trying to educate America about the virtues of nonintervention!! Well you Europeans should have educated yourselves before marching off and raving the globe.

So what European countries did hundreds of years ago makes it alright for amerika to go off on it's colonial adventures....whoops....I meant spreading "freedom" and "democracy" throughout the world?? Talk about hypocrisy....

Intrusive or insular?

To think a country can't be both at the same time is very silly. It can be self-absorbed and insular, but still intrude into other countries to "aquire" what resources they want.

So its okay to sit back and watch as a nation/former colony sits backs and commits genocide, not even applying political pressure or utilizing available resources to seek a peaceful resolution.......

Oh dear, you are not talking about Saddam gassing the kurds with WMDs bought from amerika by any chance?? Of course! Only the evil europeans are capable of such appaling hypcocrisy.....

Even though America may indulge in coercive diplomacy it is atleast done in the best interests of the region

LOL!! OMG but you have the blinkers on my dear lad. Coercive diplomacy, better known as gunboat diplomacy, or simply put, bullying is in no way done for anybody's interest in any region but amerika.

Do you know how many people were murdered by Saddam while your quasi-libertarian European AKA France was busy engaging in ego worship.

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't you guys supporting him also, supplying him with arms, buying his oil? The wonders of selective memory, Ladies and Gentleman.....

America has always taken the case of the Iraqi people and even though we have Saddam captured he has been treated with full honor and the rights granted to him by the Geneva Convention.

Of all your rantings, this is by far the most offensive and hypocritical. Parading Saddam in his tighty whities on the front of the New York Post is a breach of the Geneva conventions. Using the images of his dead sons for propaganda while crying foul when Iraqi's did the same. Never mind the legal swerving involved to create Guantanmo, never mind Abu Ghraib.

You sir, should be ashamed. You make reference to the fact that most Europeans don't even go to church, thus implying some moral superiority, yet have the audacity to ignore one of the basic Christian tenets....

Before you go picking the splinter from your neighbour's eye, pick the telephone pole from your own.

I would have to agree with the original poster. America and Europe have been through two world wars and have leaned on each other often in history. Like many siblings, fights and differences of opininon are only natural. But in today's world if countries start turning away from each other and trying to stand too much alone we will all end up going down in a blaze and there will be no winners.

I don't think the politics of any country on this planet is always that great these days and politics are always changing with each and every election in every country that does elections. We can continue to complain about each other and just turn into enemies if we want but in the end, what have we really accomplished? You don't always have to like the people you work with but we all have a purpose and should not underestimate each other. Somehow I doubt things will get better though.

Originally posted by Memorialday1999

You don't always have to like the people you work with but we all have a purpose and should not underestimate each other. Somehow I doubt things will get better though.

You make an excellent point here. We all live in the same world and we all have to make an effort to get on. We can't be too greedy and have just one country use all the resources for their own wasteful purposes.

I would disagree that things will not get better. What we are seeing globally now is the situation balancing out. America has had it's 15 mins of fame as the sole superpower. Other countries and blocs are rising to the occassion and moving to balance out the situation. This, much to the chagrin of the US does involve a rolling back of US power and influence throughout the world. They might not like it, but that's life.