The GySgt/Bub topic

[bub]

I hope it won't be called the "GySgt/Bub Battlefield" :mrgreen:


I'd prefer the others not to post here, but if you have something really interesting to say, feel free to post.

Rules:
1) No propaganda allowed
2) No precise topic. Let's speak about everything.
3) Let's stay civilized.

First post: let's describe each other (that could be funny :mrgreen: )

Myself:
-18 years old European guy studying both Political-Sciences and Law in Brussels.
- Political convictions: liberal and ecologist. Strongly pro-European.
- Interests: history, sociology, geopolitics.
- What I love: American*, having fun with friends, reading books under a tree in the Royal Park.
- What I hate: getting up early, people who are boring or too self-confident.
- Favorite meal: Flemish-style carbonnades with belgian fries and Bellevue-Extra.

GySgt
- Ultraconservative veteran very proud of his country
- Political convictions: "realist" movement: military power is what makes a great nation. Strongly anti-European.
- Interests: War on terror, war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, war on islamism, war on liberals.
- What I love: my M-16, cleaning my M-16, shooting with my M-16
- What I hate: being shown I'm not always 100% right mrgreen: )
- Favorite meal: military ration with liberty fries and coke.


Now let's be more serious

Charlie Rose - An hour with Nicolas Sarkozy - Google Video

Sorry its one hour long. Don't watch the whole thing, it wont be interesting. Just watch this:

5' I told you he liked the USA
15' about France
17' about riots
24' about French social model
35'50" about immigration and riots (listen at 36'40")
41' about Turkey
45’ about the USA and France (47’45”, climate change and Kyoto)
50’ a multi polar world
51’ Iran
51’45 about the USA seen from Europe

You seem to believe that here in Europe, we hate the USA because we refused to go to war in Iraq.

-> but we are with you on several other fronts. We supported you a lot in Kosovo, and you were seen as heroes after the WWI and WWII, and for the typical Belgian we have always been friends.

However, you have a great influence here and even if we like your culture, we have a feeling to be "coca-colonized", with American culture taking the place of our own culture.

Furthermore we believe you made a big mistake with the war in Iraq. We were 100% with you after the 9/11 and with the invasion of Afghanistan, but your unilateral attack of Iraq (and the havoc that grows day and day which seems to prove we were right) broke the "American dream", the feeling that you were the country of freedom, "the goods".

That's sad but from "guardian angel" you became "intolerant cow-boy considering us as Eurotrash". However, we hope that Bush was just a mistake and that the next president will be more friendly with us and also smarter.

 

[MSgt]

Alright. Just to be clear. This is a discussion. Not restricted to a topic definition. We will travel wherever the natural discussion takes us (which is more to my liking). And without the typical propaganda of people that just show up to produce little details of no consequence meant to badger, bash, and inflame.

You seem to believe that here in Europe, we hate the USA because we refused to go to war in Iraq.

Umm..no. I have never said that. I have stated that Europeans hate us for a number of reasons and they have all been for events before 2003.


1) In Europe.....

-How many Germans would be living in their promised "utopia" were it not for those infernal meddling Americans?

-How many Italians would be living in their promised "utopia" were it not for those infernal meddling Americans?

-How many Russians would be a citizen of the most powerful country in history were it not for the infernal meddling of Americans?

-And how many anti-Semites in Europe wished Germany was at least given more time to "cleanse" Europe from the "infestation" before those infernal Americans meddled?

2) In Asia....

-How many Japanese would be a part of the most powerful empire in history were it not for the infernal meddling of Americans?

-How much easier would it be to control the Chinese populations if those upstart Americans on the other side of the world didn't serve as a reminder to the people of how much better they could have it?

3) The rest of the world....

-How many dictators or abusive regimes struggle to maintain order and ensure their secured positions as they try in vain to keep the American culture out of their land?

My point is that America has played the role of the "party pooper" for some time. We have created hundreds of millions of haters. Aside from this, we have embarrassed other forms of governments. The American model has shattered the prescriptions of communism, socialism, dictatorship, and religious oppression. We have taken what the French envisioned and pushed it forward with an American ingredient. Every time those damn Americans face down yet another social dynamic, the rest of the world has to hear about it, because it pretty much sets the pace. Consider these issues:

A) Slavery - This issue was tackled with a Civil War. It did not transition naturally. And how many wars in history have been fought to free slaves belonging to another culture?

B) Women - Women weren't emancipated in America until America faced this beast and handled it. It was not allowed to transition naturally. This movement flourished throughout Europe, but was especially energized by the work of women in the United States and Great Britain.

C) Minorities - Where the Civil War freed blacks, society failed them. The Civil Rights Movement forced America to face it and handle it. It was not allowed to transition naturally. Europeans have a history of killing off or expelling their minorities. And Asia has never had an immigrant issue at all.

D) Homosexuals - I believe this is the next step. But when we take it, America will be forced to face it and we will handle it. It will not transition naturally. Which means that the definitions of tolerance will be set. Europeans have done a good job with this. But they have not really addressed it for the world. Like the minority issue, things are left to take care of themselves.

E) Military - Our military isn't the greatest in history because of the money spent. It is so because of the culture. Our military doesn't exist solely for our protection. It exists for others as well. Our military has spent almost a hundred years shattering traditions of tactics, expedience, and basic roles. While we primarily focus on brutally killing the enemy (something many Americans don't realize), we have added the training needs to meet civil issues. The sanctity of civilian life has become the focus in every excursion. We deploy entire units simply to salvage whole populations from natural disaster. We are builders and inventors. We are evacuaters (the 20th century was quite a saga of evacuations by U.S. Marines from communist aggression). While some of our "allies" in Europe are certainly these things as well, they haven't the capability or will to stand a post around the world.

There's not any other country in history that has had the ability to do what we have done and continue to do. We have purposefully pointed at social disfunction and embraced the need for change. We have always pushed through the traditional barriers with a punch. And the rest of the world, especially the non-western world, hates it. It's a shame that our parent nation-Britian-view us more with shame than as an achieving offspring. I believe we are largely hated not for what we do to others, but for what we do for ourselves.

But our new path, with regrads to our activity in Iraq, we sure have ruined a lot of European visions for statecraft and foriegn policies. American too.

But we are with you on several other fronts. We supported you a lot in Kosovo, and you were seen as heroes after the WWI and WWII, and for the typical Belgian we have always been friends.

No one denies this or cares to. But do you see the common theme in your sentence? Kosovo, WWI, and WWII all involve European lands. Thanks for the support.

Furthermore we believe you made a big mistake with the war in Iraq. We were 100% with you after the 9/11 and with the invasion of Afghanistan, but your unilateral attack of Iraq (and the havoc that grows day and day which seems to prove we were right) broke the "American dream", the feeling that you were the country of freedom, "the goods".

This makes absolutely no sense to me. If the "America dream" is supposed to be freedom, then why is this supposed to stop at our doorstep with a special extension towards Eurpoeans? Why is the most powerful nation in history supposed to store its power in a warehouse as the world rips itself apart? Why is it supposed to reserve its blood and treasure for European needs?

And nothing has proven the voices that would protect Saddam Hussein's soveriegnty "right." Who has been proven right are the experts, of whom Rumsfeld denied access toward the planning.

That's sad but from "guardian angel" you became "intolerant cow-boy considering us as Eurotrash". However, we hope that Bush was just a mistake and that the next president will be more friendly with us and also smarter.

"Intolerant" is actually a good word for us these days. For decades, we have ignored the anti-American theme in your media. We ignored the muggings and beatings American soldiers received in France after WWII. American soldiers have ignored the uncomfortable stares given to them by Germans in local pubs. We have ignored the celebrations by Europeans whenever America proves itself less than perfect in our military excursions (but remain deafly silent about anything that occurred to save Europeans). And American soldiers and Marines have ignored the fact that no matter where we go and whatever European "ally" cares enough to be present, we are the one's in front getting dirty and dying amidst the European criticisms. And all Americans have ignored and even accepted that European televisions are tuned to American business at all times.

But, most of all, I believe I speak for most of my country when I state that we are tired of being looked upon as if we are supposed to define perfection as foreigners tell us what we are supposed to be. We are not in the business of catering to everyone else's visions. We are a nation like anyone else's. We have national interests and people to protect (as well as foreign populations which have prospered by our presence). People that are used to certain lifestyles that have been ensured by our activities abroad (whether some Americans like it or not). For the vast majority of our actions, to include WWII, our action has helped local populations as we ensured our people's freedom. We have ensured free trade, economic strength, and security. Sometimes, that security came with a price that hurt local populations, because like every country in the world, greed and corruption does exist in the "America dream." We have devalued our morality at times for immediate gain and sometimes we did it out of necessity. And this is where our critics swim with great celebration.

Whether people like it or not, we are in a new century now. Long gone are those 40 years where we raced to poor dictators that had their hands out to the Soviet Union. In the absence of Super Power influence and governments that would turn populations into an assembly line, we have the human factor that has been freed. We are going to have to kill the dreamers ("Apocalyptic" Islamic Radicals) and guide the desperately lost. We are going to have to face this in a globalization era of great technological wonder, disasterous weaponry, and furiously paced information pathways. The age of superstition that stirred up so much religous concrete prior to the twentieth century is back. Clinging to the old model of "stability" through the dictator is not the answer. It doesn't matter what man sits in the White House. One may be more extreme than the next and others may refuse it entirely leaving it for another. But Washington will deal with this natural phenomenon for the greater part of this century.

It would be nice if our "allies" stood beside us instead of between us and the Saddam's of the world. But our "allies" are too busy looking for every little imperfection that bears the American flag and every excuse not to help. We are constantly reminded that our efforts around the globe matter for nothing because we conduct oil business with the "House of Saud." We are constantly reminded that we don't do enough according to what they want done. We are constanly reminded that no matter what we do, we didn't do something somewhere else.

Well, it's simple. If it matters so much to Europeans, then why don't they do it?

 

[bub]

Hi!

My answer to your chapter about our supposed hatred:

Look at your link: The American Enterprise: Europe's Anti-American Obsession

Do you think it's true? Do you believe it corresponds to the real american society?

Of course not. Because this is just a compilation of stereotypes and prejudices. Some elements may be right, but that does not match with the society you live in.

Then, look at your post.

Don't you see the similarities?

Everything is negative. We are useless, arrogant, jealous...

Some elements are right, I don't deny it. But that does not match with the society I live in.

What I remark now is that through my posts, you could think we are obsessed by the USA. We don't stop speaking about the war in Iraq and Bush.

No. I do speak about that with you on this forum. But in the "real" life, I don't really care about Bush, the liberals or the conservatives. USA is thousands of miles away and excepted the movies and some songs we don't think so much about you. You should have a look at our newspapers: what do they speak about today? Belgian elections, football, expositions, tennis, they cleaned up the Atomium, the rising prices of houses...we are not really obsessed by the Blackwaters or the number of GIs in Iraq.

I have stated that Europeans hate us for a number of reasons and they have all been for events before 2003.

What are the reasons? What you wrote below does not correspond.

-How many Germans would be living in their promised "utopia" were it not for those infernal meddling Americans?

1) How many Americans would be living in their promised "utopia" were it not for those infernal meddling froggies?
(As you see, this is not really a convincing argument. You can always search for older events in history. With this kind of arguments you can prove everything and I'll ask you to stop with it please.)

2) If the Lusithania had not been sunk in 1917, do you think you would have finally helped us at the very end of the WWI against our German agressors?
And if the Japs had not destroyed half of your Pacific fleet in the very end of 1941, do you think you would have helped us against our agressors?
More generally, do you think your governement is really less self-interrested than the French government?

I don't try to show you are self interested or hegemonic or whatever you want, I try to show that you are not different from all the other democratic countries of this world.

You say "France and Germany haven't done anything useful last 60 years".
Have you ever read Bourdieu, Sartres, Barthes...all those thinkers whose works are studied at every US university? Einstein, Von Braun...without those Germans scientists you would never have been on the moon.

A) Slavery - This issue was tackled with a Civil War. It did not transition naturally. And how many wars in history have been fought to free slaves belonging to another culture?

A) Slavery: Arabic and European merchants capturing them in Africa and selling the to their Americna colonies. Forbidden inside Europe from the Xe century. Forbidden in the French colonies from 1794. In the UK colonies in 1833. In the USA in 1865.
As for you war (the Secession War I guess) it was not for another culture, it was for American slaves.

B) Women - Women weren't emancipated in America until America faced this beast and handled it. It was not allowed to transition naturally. This movement flourished throughout Europe, but was especially energized by the work of women in the United States and Great Britain.

B) Women - Same here. We also have women piloting planes and being ministers. I think I've already written a list with some Belgian women who were very high-placed, such as the president of Senate. In France, a woman is likely to be the next president. Before Hillary. So that's not an anti-European argument.

C) Minorities - Where the Civil War freed blacks, society failed them. The Civil Rights Movement forced America to face it and handle it. It was not allowed to transition naturally. Europeans have a history of killing off or expelling their minorities.

Blacks were still hanged in Alabama till the 60's. Such a thing has never happened here. Watch the video for further informations about the riots.

D) Homosexuals - I believe this is the next step. But when we take it, America will be forced to face it and we will handle it. It will not transition naturally. Which means that the definitions of tolerance will be set. Europeans have done a good job with this. But they have not really addressed it for the world. Like the minority issue, things are left to take care of themselves.

D) Homosexuals - where can gays get married legally? Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Canada and France, (where it is called a "PACS")

E - Military: just look how many trillions you spend in tanks and bombers, then compare with Belgium's Army budgect: €10billions, mainly to send humanitarian aid and deminors in Africa. That's why we couldn't send 50.000 Marines in Afghanistan.

If the "America dream" is supposed to be freedom, then why is this supposed to stop at our doorstep with a special extension towards Eurpoeans? Why is the most powerful nation in history supposed to store its power in a warehouse as the world rips itself apart? Why is it supposed to reserve its blood and treasure for European needs?

Good point.

My hypothesis is that France and the USA dislike each other because they are too proud of themselves. Both think they are particular, both share the feeling they have a mission to accomplish throughout the world, to spread their ideal of democracy, both are fundamentally linked (?) to some principles such as freedom of speech, both are Republics whose origines come back to the Lumières.

By being similar, they are in fact conccurents, rivals. That could be a source of dislike.

Talk to you soon,

your faithful Bub

 

[bub]

Oh and I just forgot this one (be careful I'm proud to have thought about it :doh :mrgreen: )

(I write it in red because it's a good one I think)

You say you want to spread democracy. Very good.
However we don't agree on the country.
I asked you "why Iraq", you replied something like "we had to begin somewhere". Bush's argument was "that was a threat", you add "that was a dictature"

But CUBA?

Isn't it a tyranny? Isn't it just a few miles far from Florida?

Now Castro died, and it may turn to a democracy on its own.
But Saddam was also very old and Iraq could have followed the same scenario.

So what is your answer: you, who claim to be a kind of Democratisator, why did you allow a dictature just in front of your nose, during decades, without helping the Cubans?

 

[Billo_Really]

Not touching Cuba was part of the deal to get the Soviet ships to turn around. I like to think we keep our word. But as Gy will attest to, I think a lot of things.

Anyway, didn't mean to interrupt...

 

[MSgt]

What are the reasons? What you wrote below does not correspond.

You missed my point completely by taking offense to what I stated and trying to turn it around to show American imperfection. The reason I stated the below was to show exactly why elements within the European population (and populations elsewhere) have ill feelings towards those upstarts across the ocean. This isn't some made up idea of mine. There are studies conducted by Europeans that show exactly what I'm talking about.

1) How many Americans would be living in their promised "utopia" were it not for those infernal meddling froggies?

The French involvement (exaggerated by the French) in the American Revolution (which was just an excursion to kill their long time enemy) has nothing to do with Germans who now feel that their empire in Europe was denied to them by Americans during WWII.

You say "France and Germany haven't done anything useful last 60 years". Have you ever read Bourdieu, Sartres, Barthes...all those thinkers whose works are studied at every US university? Einstein, Von Braun...without those Germans scientists you would never have been on the moon.

Exceptions do not make the rules. They are called exceptions for a reason. Naming a few scientists as some sort of exoneration from widesweeping gloabl neglect doesn't cut it. You may as well declare the Islamic Middle East as vibrant, peaceful, loving, and pacifist because a few shop keepers spend their days praying and loving their families. Or China as a model for humanity because some Chinese live in luxury.

A) Slavery: Arabic and European merchants capturing them in Africa and selling the to their Americna colonies. Forbidden inside Europe from the Xe century. Forbidden in the French colonies from 1794. In the UK colonies in 1833. In the USA in 1865.
As for you war (the Secession War I guess) it was not for another culture, it was for American slaves.

And what does this have to do with how America dealt with it? What does it have to do with how definitive an American Civil War over slavery had upon the globe?

B) Women - Same here. We also have women piloting planes and being ministers. I think I've already written a list with some Belgian women who were very high-placed, such as the president of Senate. In France, a woman is likely to be the next president. Before Hillary. So that's not an anti-European argument.

AND AGAIN.....what does this have to do with the global ramifications of the American Women's Rights movement? Merely mentioning the few women that have achieved beyond what European institutions want doesn't cut it. A female President does not explain away the lack of female officers, CEOs, Mayors, Governors, Senators, or institutional leaders. The list in America would be impossible to pull together, because of the countless representations. The fact thta you have put a list together shows you something doesn't it?

Either way, the emancipation of women is a Middle Eastern issue, not a European one. Why do you insist on defending what is not an issue?

Blacks were still hanged in Alabama till the 60's. Such a thing has never happened here. Watch the video for further informations about the riots.

AND AGAIN....what does a handful of hangings in the 60s have to do with the prescriptions set upon the world by the American Civil Rights Movement during that same period? And you are being less than truthful about the statement you made regarding "such a thing has never happened here"....

Jews and other religious minorities had been expelled from or slaughtered by other Europeans even before the Spanish Inquisition. Aside from the obvious holocaust example, the grand mulitcultural experiment in the Soviet Union ended in the devastation of Checnya, in terrorism and massacre. The casual Russian term for the people of the caucasus or Central Asia is chyorno zhophia : "black asses." Read about the Harlem jazz musicians in the 1920's that frequented Paris as exotic pets? The entire twentieth century alone was a sage of genocide and ethnic cleansings:

1) Greeks were driven from Turkey
2) Truks were driven from Greece
3) Chechens were driven from Siberia
4) Poles driven from Germany and Ukraine
5) Germans were driven from Poland and former Czechoslovakia
6) Hungarians scorched from Romania
7) European Jewry was annihilated

The 1990's alone:

1) Serbs butchered Croats
2) Croats drove our Serbs
3) Serbs and Croats evicted Bosnian Muslims
4) Serbs destroyed the homes of Ksovar Albanians

Integration took time in America because the problem was so massive. The numbers were already in the millions by the time of the American Civil War. Europeans long pride themselves on a lack of racial prejudice, but had so few racial minorities that no one felt threatened despite the fact that religious minoroties have been fair game for persecution for a millennium. But to be fair, racial minorities have always been dealt with by expulsion or systematic killings in Europe. The American response to this racial issue in the 60's set the globe on a prescription that denied the traditions that Europe had set the world on long ago. Mentioning some hangings in Alabama and stating that "such a thing never happened in Europe" doesn't quite get to the truth of the issue.

D) Homosexuals - where can gays get married legally? Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Canada and France, (where it is called a "PACS")

Like I said, Europe has done a fine job with this. But like other issues, they snuck in under radar and without notice. Like Women's emancipation and civil rights, gay rights is a global question that only Amerifa will wind up answering. And there will be plenty in this world that will be angry that their traditions are now threatened by those pesky Americans who keep changing the rules.

E - Military: just look how many trillions you spend in tanks and bombers, then compare with Belgium's Army budgect: €10billions, mainly to send humanitarian aid and deminors in Africa. That's why we couldn't send 50.000 Marines in Afghanistan.

Well, this is understandable. You don't need to break such military things down for me. But my example was one of military culture. Not of how much money is spent. My first two sentences were..."Our military isn't the greatest in history because of the money spent. It is so because of the culture." I have experience with the Belgian military in Somalia. I was impressed. Especially in their more free approach towards interrogation. However, there capabilities as a fighting force are greatly diminished by their abilities to interact with other militaries and warfare strategy. Because of America's involvment with NATO, our equipment is similar in the communications and vehicular arena. However, the corporations of equipment with know how was lacking and this meant that Americans had to be more involved than it should have been.

Military culture and defense spending feed off each other, but they are still very different things. Consider the Isalmic idiots causing us so much trouble in Iraq. America spends billions perfecting precision bombing, air technology, and training. Our enemies are spending a couple hundred dollars on Ak-47's and a few hundred dollars on IEDs. Using mass killkings and the media, they know how to come at us and have proven to be quite a thorn. This is their military culture versus our military culture. Where Americans have hope is our military's culture ability to adapt to our enemies tactics as he changes them. But in the end, they are fighting a very different war than us.

Good point.

My hypothesis is that France and the USA dislike each other because they are too proud of themselves. Both think they are particular, both share the feeling they have a mission to accomplish throughout the world, to spread their ideal of democracy, both are fundamentally linked (?) to some principles such as freedom of speech, both are Republics whose origines come back to the Lumières.

By being similar, they are in fact conccurents, rivals. That could be a source of dislike.

It all goes back to our foriegn policies. Our mistake was to give Frenchmen too much credit for their own liberation during WWII. Then there came the UN security council seat. Our foreign policies matched well enough during the Cold War. What America did to beat the Soviet Union to the poor man would have been exactly France's response had they had the ability after Berlin fell. However, de Gaulle's influences (in which Chirac mirrors) places France on top of the food chain under a singly organized Europe. This "EU" is supposed to dominate Europe and span the globe. This will not happen in a world dominated by American influence, so instead of working and playing well with others, France's foreign policy has always been to undermine America's foreign policy where it mattered. Even if it means continuing its mellinnium long love affair with dictators.

 

[MSgt]

Everything is negative. We are useless, arrogant, jealous...

Some elements are right, I don't deny it. But that does not match with the society I live in.

And it is these elements throughout Europe I speak of. Those elements that salivate over a Mai Lai as they dismiss centuries of tyranny and slaughter. Those elements that celebrate any rumor in a hopes that it is true enough that the holocaust is seen as just an "oops." Those elements that snub their noses at American tourists and behave smugly.

It is this European reaction that gives much credibility on why so many over their hate us. Parties have been ruined. We are to blame.

And I never stated Europeans were "useless." Now, I do have much to say about NATO, the EU, and some governments.

 

[MSgt]

Oh and I just forgot this one (be careful I'm proud to have thought about it :doh :mrgreen: )

(I write it in red because it's a good one I think)

You say you want to spread democracy. Very good.
However we don't agree on the country.
I asked you "why Iraq", you replied something like "we had to begin somewhere". Bush's argument was "that was a threat", you add "that was a dictature"

But CUBA?

Isn't it a tyranny? Isn't it just a few miles far from Florida?

Now Castro died, and it may turn to a democracy on its own.
But Saddam was also very old and Iraq could have followed the same scenario.

So what is your answer: you, who claim to be a kind of Democratisator, why did you allow a dictature just in front of your nose, during decades, without helping the Cubans?

Saddam's Iraq would have moved on to his more ruthless sons. The Regime would have carried on. This is why a simple assassination (our world needs to re-address the defintions of this taboo) would not have mattered. The Baathist Regime had to go, not just Saddam Hussein. You have to understand the relationship between the Sunni and the Shi'ite.


Regarding Cuba, Castro was hardly the dictator we would place a Hitler, Hussein, or Stalin in and he was more of that wheelin' and dealin' during the Cold War that America is criticized so unfairly about. However, ask former President's that question. The "War on Terror," which appears to be about democracy as a prescritopn to the venture, started in 2001 and future Presidents will be forced to carry it on one way or the other. The times demand it. And since this "terror" is largely a threat from the Islamic world, Africa, and southern Asia, Iraq seems logical enough.

But you keep trying to insist that because all isn't perfectly done in one swoop that the intent is without merit. We can agree that the Coca-Cola corporation is on a mission to place a Coke in every single human beings hand across the globe. If some societies haven't seen this beautiful American can yet does it mean that Coke is full of ****?

 

[bub]

You missed my point completely by taking offense to what I stated and trying to turn it around to show American imperfection.

Ah OK I re-read this part and it's understood.

But the answer is still the same: your article about anti-americanism is full of prejudice. You and me know that it's not like that in the USA. But your post also carries several prejudices and I am honestly trying to show you that they are wrong.

It's wrong that we are anti-american. We don't agree with Bush and shout it everywhere, but in general the Americans are liked over here.

The French involvement (exaggerated by the French) in the American Revolution (which was just an excursion to kill their long time enemy) has nothing to do with Germans who now feel that their empire in Europe was denied to them by Americans during WWII.

OK. So,
According to GySgt: "France helped us to be independant but not so much. In fact they came and fight just because they wanted to lesser the influence of the Brits."
According to a nationalist French: "USA helped us to get rid from the Germans but not so much. In fact they came and fight just because they wanted to lesser the influence of the Germans"

I told you you were like the Frenchs.

Exceptions do not make the rules. They are called exceptions for a reason. Naming a few scientists as some sort of exoneration from widesweeping gloabl neglect doesn't cut it. You may as well declare the Islamic Middle East as vibrant, peaceful, loving, and pacifist because a few shop keepers spend their days praying and loving their families. Or China as a model for humanity because some Chinese live in luxury.

Or the USA a model for democracy because they once helped to free Western Europe.

And what does this have to do with how America dealt with it? What does it have to do with how definitive an American Civil War over slavery had upon the globe?

You wanted to show that you were a model for anti-slavery. I just showed you that other countries forbad slavery long before you.

Merely mentioning the few women that have achieved beyond what European institutions want doesn't cut it. A female President does not explain away the lack of female officers, CEOs, Mayors, Governors, Senators, or institutional leaders. The list in America would be impossible to pull together, because of the countless representations. The fact thta you have put a list together shows you something doesn't it?

OK statistics are more partials and objective than you:


Belgium: Female parliamentarians: 24.9%
Germany: Female parliamentarians: 31%
France: Female parliamentarians: 10.9%
USA: Female parliamentarians: 13.8% (excepted from France there is the whole Europe in front of you)

Belgium: Female ministers: 55%
Germany: Female ministers: 36%
France: Female ministers: 5%
USA: Female ministers: 7%

Are these really what you call "exeptions"???

The fact that you relentlessly distrust me while I am righ shows you something doensn't it?

But to be fair, racial minorities have always been dealt with by expulsion or systematic killings in Europe. The American response to this racial issue in the 60's set the globe on a prescription that denied the traditions that Europe had set the world on long ago. Mentioning some hangings in Alabama and stating that "such a thing never happened in Europe" doesn't quite get to the truth of the issue.

To be precize, there have ben massive deportations in EASTERN Europe (=not western Europe) till the 20's. If you don't agree I scan you the text explaining it.

By the way, the same happened in the USA with the cleansing of Indian populations. How many have been killed or forced to abandon their culture?

As for the "some hangings" in Alabama, I was rather speaking about the structural racism in the southern states of the USA: Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My point is not to say "I'm good you're bad" (what you seem to do), its to say "We're both not perfect".

But my example was one of military culture.

Well...everybody (excepted Belgium I think) is very proud of its army, and everybody will say the same than you.

You say "we are the best ever". But the Spartans who stopped the Persians at Thermopylae, the Prussians, the Napoleonic Armies, the Huns, the Romans, the Spartans...everybody can say they are the bests. That does not make a lot of sense.

As for the insurgents in Iraq...in spite of the support they have from Iran probably, they are still with submachine guns, while you spent trillions and own heavy tanks, helicopters...the only way they can kill some US soldiers is by using guerilla tactics, such as IEDs and snipers. If you were Iraqi you'd do the same.

This "EU" is supposed to dominate Europe and span the globe. This will not happen in a world dominated by American influence, so instead of working and playing well with others, France's foreign policy has always been to undermine America's foreign policy where it mattered.

Some say EXACTLY the same about the USA. You say they're wrong.
I'm kind and believe you. But be honest, loyal, and do the same for me, please.

Those elements that salivate over a Mai Lai as they dismiss centuries of tyranny and slaughter.

I HEARD TWICE ABOUT MAI LAI AND IT WAS IN YOUR POSTS. STOP BEING PARANOIAC! AND ONCE MORE NOBODY "DISMISS" HIS HISTORY!
Thats not because I say "the Americans slaughtered almost every Indian in a few decades" that I say "we are perfect and never did it".

:2wave:

 

[MSgt]

It's wrong that we are anti-american. We don't agree with Bush and shout it everywhere, but in general the Americans are liked over here.

I don't make things up. I don't know why you persist to deny that this very real sentiment has been around even longer than before Berlin's scourge was denied.....

1) Anti-American sentiment in Europe originated with the discovery of America, the study of the Native Americans, and the examination of its flora, fauna, and climate. The first anti-American theory, the "degeneracy thesis," portrayed America as a regressive and culturally bankrupt continent.

2) The French Revolution created a new type of anti-American political thought, hostile to the political institutions of the United States and their impact upon Europe. Furthermore, the Romantic strain of European thought and literature, hostile to the Enlightenment view of reason and obsessed with history and national character, disdained the American project.

3) With the rise of American industry in the late nineteenth century, intellectual anti-American discourse entered a new form. Mass production, the Taylor system, and the speed of American life and work became a major threat to some intellectuals' view of European life and tradition. Nietzsche wrote, "The breathless haste with which they (the Americans) work - the distinctive vice of the new world - is already beginning ferociously to infect old Europe and is spreading a spiritual emptiness over the continent."

4) A popular, non-political form of anti-Americanism is an attitude that regards American culture as inherently inferior, and lacking in the fine manners, traditions and depth of older societies. It is often accompanied by an aversion to American products and ideas such as McDonalds, American spelling, or Hollywood movies simply because they are American, and a corresponding preference for non-American alternatives.

5) Jean-François Revel answers that blaming America has always been a reflex of European intellectuals. He says that American politicians are given to hyperbole that should not be taken too seriously, and that Europeans have only themselves to blame for today's American predominance, since Europe's own failures in the 20th century made a gift of global power to the United States. He also says that the French themselves would be obsessed with terrorism if suicide planes had simultaneously attacked the Opéra, the Arc de Triomphe, and other prominent Paris sites - although he himself mentions the series of attacks on crowded Paris stores and train and metro stations in 1995, which were met without panic.

6) The author shows how, as the process of post-cold war European unification has progressed, anti-Americanism has proven to be a useful ideology for the definition of a new European identity. He examines this emerging identity and shows how it has led Europeans to a position hostile to any "regime change" by the United States -- no matter how bad the regime may be -- whether in Serbia, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

7) Europe has long had a love-hate relationship with the U.S. But as an unpopular war looms, anger and resentment are peaking. A calm look at a stormy — but resilient — alliance


There are countless and dated analysis to be read on the Internet that clearly records this symptom of anti-Americanism for decades. Today, Europeans wish to pretend that it all has to do with current events and nothing more. But, this is false. Our toppling of Saddasm Hussein did not whip up anti-Americanism in Europe, especially Germany and France. It was there already.

We are hated throughout the world. And despite the fact that the wide margin and vast majority of things we have done for others and ourselves, we are constantly bombarded with accusations, snobbery and hatred. And much of it is jealousy and rage for denied power. Our "allies" in Europe are also a part of this phenomenon. People always look for the dirty nasty secrets in celebrities. They always find the exposure of sin more exciting than the rise of the individual. Nothing is more entertaining than to watch the guy in the spotlight fall down. And the media loves to feed it to us. Civilizations are no different.

According to GySgt: "France helped us to be independant but not so much. In fact they came and fight just because they wanted to lesser the influence of the Brits."
According to a nationalist French: "USA helped us to get rid from the Germans but not so much. In fact they came and fight just because they wanted to lesser the influence of the Germans"

I told you you were like the Frenchs.

Except I'm right and the French are wrong. There is no denying that France was reduced to sewer rebellion long before American troops hit the beach and only after American and British troops rolled through the eastern border they were freed. With the American Revolution France (which had global ramifications) played a key role in aiding the new nation Americans with money and munitions, organizing a coalition against Britain, and sending an army and a fleet that played a decisive role at Yorktown. However, the American Revolution was largely fought by the new Americans. The French give themselves too much credit for both events. One was merely an excuse to wage war on a long time rival and the other was almost a no show.

Or the USA a model for democracy because they once helped to free Western Europe.

This makes absolutely no sense at all, but I'll play your smart-*** game....

....or our actions in the Phillipines, our actions for liberty in Korea, or Haiti, or the Dominican Republic, or our attempts to save Vietnam from the communists, Nicaragua to secure a legitimate election, our involvement in Vladivostok in Siberia to forestall Japanese intrusion and to bolster anti-Bolshevik armies in 1917, or our involvement in China in the 1920s to protect international settlements when the Kuomintang marched on Shanghai, or evacuations of American and foriegn citizens from Cyprus in 1973, our liberation of Grenada, our operation to oust a corrupt drug lord dictator Manuel Noriega, Ousting the Tali Ban in Afghanistan and protecting the new democracy, ousting Saddam Hussein and protecting the fledgling Democracy,....and there will be more. Are you aware that the Marine Corps operates 15 major bases, 10 of which host operating forces from foreign countries?

And of course, we should go ahead and mention our involvement in WWI to help the Belgian, British, and French militaries to end what had gone on for three years already. And certainly we have to mention that overwhelming decisive result of America's involvement during WWII as we fought our own war in the Pacific, which freed many island governments from japanese Imperialism. Then there was that pesky presence we maintained in Europe just this side of the Berlin Wall post World War II.

But you seem to continue to produce the European sentiment towards America that you deny exists. Only when Europe is helped, they acknowledge the action. With such a rich history abroad (of which I produced a little above), funny you only produce where Europeans benefitted.

You wanted to show that you were a model for anti-slavery. I just showed you that other countries forbad slavery long before you.

Um..negative. I showed that we are a model for dealing with social dynamics with a boldness that sets the tone globally. I showed where America faced the issue down without following the prescriptions set forth by Europeans. Our Civil War was a global statement as was our Civil Rights movements in the 1960s. Forbidding slavery is not the same thing as taking a stand. And expelling immigrants so that you do not have to deal with them is not the same thing as marching for civil equality.

 

[MSgt]

OK statistics are more partials and objective than you:


Belgium: Female parliamentarians: 24.9%
Germany: Female parliamentarians: 31%
France: Female parliamentarians: 10.9%
USA: Female parliamentarians: 13.8% (excepted from France there is the whole Europe in front of you)

Belgium: Female ministers: 55%
Germany: Female ministers: 36%
France: Female ministers: 5%
USA: Female ministers: 7%

Are these really what you call "exeptions"???

The fact that you relentlessly distrust me while I am righ shows you something doensn't it?

The fact that you continue to wear blinders is starting to piss me off. I don't like doing this, because Europe is making great strides in this department. But, as these reports from Europe state, your statistics are mis-leading. You continue to defend this issue by straying completely away from European institutions.....

1) Partly in consequence, international commitments to secure equal opportunities for women in some of these countries are not respected de facto, despite the adoption of the acquis. Ten years down the road to transition and restructuring of the labour market, the most pressing issues for gender relations in the world of work appear to be:

-Inadequate participation of women in social dialogue and decision-making concerning the economic and political environment;

-Insufficient coverage and effectiveness of social protection and social services;

-Difficulties in securing employment and income in fluctuating labour markets.

What are the reasons for this failure? In part it is to do with history. In contrast to the pluralist democracies, where gender equality is premised on the acknowledgment and acceptance of conflict between women and men, in the totalitarian systems that prevailed in central and eastern Europe equality was assumed by the law, but treated as banal and unimportant in practice. Women faced and continue to face unequal treatment and marginalisation as a matter of course.

2) However, it is a fact that there still remain inequalities between men and women. Both at EU and at a national level, a wide range of tools and approaches have been developed with the aim of achieving the goal of equality.

3) Gender equality: slow progress in closing gender gap hampering EU competitiveness. The persistent lack of equality between men and women in the EU could impact on its Lisbon goals, according to a new report. Progress has been made in the EU on narrowing the gender gap, but remains slow.

4) Despite legislation on gender equality and progress made in the last 50 years, women still face major obstacles in all areas of life and don't enjoy equal rights globally. The following figures give examples of the discrimination faced by women in the European Union. The links section directs you to websites, where you can find further statistics.

5) In particular, the rate of employment is continuing to increase and now covers 55.1% of women. However, an average wage difference of 15% in favour of men continues to prevail in the enlarged European Union.

6) Within five years of leaving college women students can expect to be earning 15% less than men in the United Kingdom, reports the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC).

I have stated this repeatedly. The issue of women's equality is more of a Middle Eastern issue. But since you feel the need to continually defend it as if it is a significant European issue, I will produce you your own region's reports on it. An elected individual does not represent the old white man's club that exists in Europe's institutions which are not dying easy. America had this same problem to a certain degree. Except our issues with women persist amongst the biggotted indivuals not our institutions.

By the way, the same happened in the USA with the cleansing of Indian populations. How many have [had} been killed or forced to abandon their culture?

And this is the typical response regarding this. Always the Native American issue to exonerate thousands of years of ethnic cleansings and genocides tat persists today (Yugoslavia being the last outing). Europeans like to reflect on their long time history of this and dismiss it as they preach to us about our 19th century mistreatment of Native Americans, refusing to accept that the United States might have made the slightest progress since then as it went on to accept immigrants from all over the world and from almost every single country. For some reason, no matter how horrendous Europeans were to each other just recently in the 20th century alone, Americans will always be reminded of our brief sins against the Native American in the 19th century.

As for the "some hangings" in Alabama, I was rather speaking about the structural racism in the southern states of the USA: Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which shows to prove my point on America's will to face the social problem with other than European solutions. You keep showing me things we have already discussed. I am very well aware of American sins. I am also very aware of how we face forward and struggle because we remain determined to address problems rather than sweep them away. Like what I just stated above, you are attempting to erase the validity of the American Civil Rights movement, which wound up setting an example for the world, by declaring that some blacks were hung in the sixties. Human trafficking (slavery) is an issue in the world today and there are sure to be American individuals getting rich. Does this mean the American Civil War to free slaves meant nothing? The validity of the events remain fixed.

My point is not to say "I'm good you're bad" (what you seem to do), its to say "We're both not perfect".

Hardly. I simply produce the history. It is you that seems to always have this need to leap to anything that might excuse it. The Native American issue as a prime example. And the below issue regarding militaries is another. Instead of acknowledging truth, you look for ways to argue against it. This fuzzy-pat-each other on the back thing to level our civilizations off doesn't work with me. We can all hold hands and agree that we are not perfect, but this hardly addresses the issues. A man doesn't get to murder a human being and then turn around and point out his accusers will to steal to show how they both are imperfect.

You say "we are the best ever". But the Spartans who stopped the Persians at Thermopylae, the Prussians, the Napoleonic Armies, the Huns, the Romans, the Spartans...everybody can say they are the bests. That does not make a lot of sense.

This is because you don't understand militaries. There is no denying the decisive conflicts in history by other militaries. But this hardly equates them to what the American military is today. By the early 20th century, the Marine Corps had become the dominant theorist and practitioners of amphibious warfare, which eventually guided the U.S. Army and British troops to the beaches of Normandy long after MArines were hitting beaches in the Pacific. The Advanced Base doctrine from the early 20th century outlines our ability to interdict a situation with a speed never before seen in history. The U.S. Marine Corps' ability to permanently maintain integrated multi-element task forces (MAGTF) under a single command provides a smoother implementation of combined-arms warfare principles that has no rival. The use of Air power to support a ground force is a doctrine that came from the U.S. The use of helicopters as troop insertions was first implimented in Korea and the U.S. Army wrote the doctrine on it for Vietnam. There are plenty of battles where marines were severly outnumbered, yet raised the American flag at the end of the day. In Richard Holmes book "Battlefield: Decisive Conflicts in History," he covers battles from Meggido (1476b.c.) to present to Fallujah (2004). The vast majority of every battle fought by Americans, especially by Marines, is listed for it's use of fresh tactics or advancement in warfare doctrines.

There are many doctrines written by our military for our use and for the use of our allies. No other military in history has had the capabilities on such a global arena as our military. And given the plenty reasons not even mentioned here, it makes perfect sense to declare the U.S. military as the greatest in history. This isn't a pride issue. It isn't about numbers. It isn't about technology. It is about battle theory and practitioning. There is plenty of evidence.

Some say EXACTLY the same about the USA. You say they're wrong. I'm kind and believe you. But be honest, loyal, and do the same for me, please.

Of course they say it, but there is little proof that we exist to undermine our allies. However, the proof of the French policy is clearly explained by former bitter French agents who executed it enough times.

 

[MSgt]

I HEARD TWICE ABOUT MAI LAI AND IT WAS IN YOUR POSTS. STOP BEING PARANOIAC! AND ONCE MORE NOBODY "DISMISS" HIS HISTORY!

Wait..I don't get it. Could you perhaps state this bigger and a bit redder?


The Mai Lai massacres were a product of U.S. Army unporoffesionalism in Vietnam. I mentioned it as an example to represent every little mistep made by American forces. Every time such an event occurs, it becomes almost a celebration amongst some Europeans. A decade had gone by and U.S. service members stationed in Germany were still hearing about it. This need to cling on to anything that looks bad upon America is a part of that anti-Americanism you state didn't exist until 2002. It is especially bad in the German population who seek anything that may show an Israeli sin. Remeber the Jennin hoax? German newspapers printed the stories and it became quite the focus. When the UN and other agencies found it to be a hoax perpetuated by Palestinian Radicals to gain global sympathy to their cause, no retraction came form a German newspaper.

With the pictures of the Abu-Ghraib scandal, we were made to feel as if we were torturing our prisoners to Britney Spears tunes before beheading them. The pictures showed little more than frat party hijinx made by nasty unprofessional National Guardsmen, but the accusations and demands from Europe were clear.

When President Bush and Prime Minister Blair announced their plan regarding African debt and aid, the UN backed up by European voices in France and Germany looked for ways to shred the effort as some sort of deceitful plan.

This is all a part of that anti-Americanism. Sometimes, I get to feeling like we should just pull our militaries from the world, learn to support ourselves without free global trade and oil and let the world rot around us. Let the starving starve, the dictators rise, and non-free forms of government flourish wherever they want to go. Our only military interdiction should be when something crosses our border only. And given our power and our history to face the storm, we could easily weather the initial shock and come out in the end. We are relatively safe anyway behind two oceans.

But this would be a sin against humanity. If we are to try to do the right thing, we have to accept that we will trip along the way and that our critics abroad will be quick to point them out, despite their benefits.

 

[bub]

Hi!

Just a question...I don't want to look rude, but, please, be more brief :doh Are you aware that it takes me a lot of time to read everything :rofl

Thank you for your answer. You made researches. That's cool and I give it a lot of credit.

I read (too fast) your articles about anti-americanism. That's very interesting I had never seen a "scientifical" point of view about anti-americanism. However I'm still a bit sceptic:
http://www.eaca.be/_upload/documents\Anti-Americanism in Europe.pdf
First, on page 5, I agree with what is written in the right column: "US policy is perceived as unilateralist", "refusal to sign Kyoto", "excessive nationalism/religiosity", "critic of the ethical behavior of certain American firms" and "perceived ignorance of peoples and places outside the US".

-> Is it really anti-americanism? Do you perceive it as a form of hatred??? That's just a critic of several points, not a global dislike. You may love your wife but not her perfume.

-> On page 8 you can see that the Brits are not much more favorable to the USA than the French or the Germans. And if you read, you'll see that the negative shift of the US popularity is due to Bush's policy. It's not about the USA or the Americans, but about Bush. It's rather "anti-Bushism"
The American liberals don't like Bush either, but are they anti-American too?

TIME Magazine | Mad At America - Jan. 20, 2003

For Europeans, the relationship starts to break down when the U.S. goes into "You're either with us or against us" mode. "Despite disagreements about certain strategic and diplomatic details, the bottom line is, we still very much share the same interests and objectives,"
"What's difficult to accept is the utter lack of reciprocity. We often start off as being 'wrong' in American eyes by not being like Americans in the first place."

Americans, even those who oppose the war, are more likely to believe that Bush is trying to make the world a safer place. Europeans don't buy it. "Iraq hasn't invaded anyone, as it had Kuwait the last time," says Clemens Ronnefeldt, "It is cooperating with international inspectors. This war is about economic interests, oil interests."

Enfin...your articles were very interesting and I enjoyed reading them. They try to explain anti-americanism, that's good. But I think they overdo a bit.

HOWEVER:

I made an experience on MSN: without explaining anything, I asked a friend of mine to give me 5 words linked with "USA". What did he answered? "imperialism - war - capitalism - inferior - stupid"? NO!
His answer was "Far West - Dollar - NBA - Paranoiac - American Dream".

Then I asked another guy. His answer was
"Hollywood - obesity - Bush - basket-ball - "the law of the strongest"

Whatever your articles may say, I live in the middle of Europe, I meet dozens of people, it's true they all disagree with Bush but no one is gonna say "I don't like the USA".

we are constantly bombarded with accusations, snobbery and hatred.

That's what I call "Paranoia". That's what the MSN guy meant too I guess. You only see one face of the coin.

Except I'm right and the French are wrong. There is no denying that France was reduced to sewer rebellion long before American troops hit the beach and only after American and British troops rolled through the eastern border they were freed. With the American Revolution France (which had global ramifications) played a key role in aiding the new nation Americans with money and munitions, organizing a coalition against Britain, and sending an army and a fleet that played a decisive role at Yorktown. However, the American Revolution was largely fought by the new Americans. The French give themselves too much credit for both events. One was merely an excuse to wage war on a long time rival and the other was almost a no show.

You said it yourself. They helped you and played a key role. Exactly as you in the WWII.
But you do the very thing you condemn: to minimize the role of the one who helped you.

I told you you were like the Frenchs.

Only when Europe is helped, they acknowledge the action. With such a rich history abroad (of which I produced a little above), funny you only produce where Europeans benefitted.

What is funny, is your reaction. You believed I was serious and directly made a list of the wars you took part in (in which you took part?). You really think we don't like you and deny the good things you did. That's why I think you're a bit paranoiac.

I showed where America faced the issue down without following the prescriptions set forth by Europeans. Our Civil War was a global statement as was our Civil Rights movements in the 1960s. Forbidding slavery is not the same thing as taking a stand. And expelling immigrants so that you do not have to deal with them is not the same thing as marching for civil equality.

1) Which prescriptions? The forbidding of slavery?
2) Remember that in the civil war, half of the Americans were PRO-slavery, and these ones in the south kept on with segregation till the 60's.
3) Which immigrants? The ones you try to keep out with your fence?

1b) yes you have to accept that there has not been slavery in Europe since 1000 years. However we did it...outside Europe!
2b) however there are also many racists in Europe too. All the far-right parties for example.
3b) we also have a big problem with immigration.

Why do you always think you are particular? Can't you just accept that we are similar, did, do and will do the same good/bad things?

An elected individual does not represent the old white man's club that exists in Europe's institutions which are not dying easy

:rofl I show you than 55% percent of Belgian ministers were women and you persist to say "its a old white man's club" :rofl

Oh...I forgot to tell you that many of them (I don't have statistics but its like for the women, you can believe me) were foreigner? You want examples? Elio Di Rupo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (leader of the socialist party, one of the most powerful politician inBelgium, Italian)
Fadila Laanan - Wikipédia (minister of culture, woman, Morrocan)
Gisèle Mandaila Malamba - Wikipédia (secrétaire d'état, woman, Congolese)
Jihane Annane - Wikipédia (senator, woman, Morrocan)
Talbia Belhouari - Wikipédia (deputy, woman, Morrocan)
Mohammed Boukourna - Wikipédia (deputy, Morrocan)
...
I can give you many more names if you still don't accept that both women and foreigner are well integrated at every level of the society. The Senate and the Parliament are just examples.

There are still problems with integration. A woman will earn less and that an african will have to search more to find a job, but we're improving (there are laws forbidding those differences and the people are changing) and you have the very same problems.

So, once more, why can't you accept the fact that we face the very same problems and give similar responses? We are much more similar than you think.

And this is the typical response regarding this. Always the Native American issue to exonerate thousands of years of ethnic cleansings and genocides tat persists today (Yugoslavia being the last outing). Europeans like to reflect on their long time history of this and dismiss it as they preach to us about our 19th century mistreatment of Native Americans, refusing to accept that the United States might have made the slightest progress since then as it went on to accept immigrants from all over the world and from almost every single country. For some reason, no matter how horrendous Europeans were to each other just recently in the 20th century alone, Americans will always be reminded of our brief sins against the Native American in the 19th century.

1) You're not honnest. Why?
2) When I talk about a French scientist living in the XVIII century, you say "its old we shouldn't speak about it anymore". But you always come back with "the thousands of years of cleansings"...
3) Till 1776 you are European (you don't come from Mars). So "my" cleansings are "our" cleansings.
4) You always speak about "our" cleansings. Is it abnormal that I answer you with "your" own cleansing? Just count how many times you post "European mass killing" in your posts. Then count how many times you find the words "cleansing of indians" on this forum. The ratio must be something like 150:1. Paranoiac!

 

[bub]

I am very well aware of American sins.

Thats everything I wanted to hear. Bravo! You finally did it!

There would be nothing else to add, IF you did not keep on with

Instead of acknowledging truth, you look for ways to argue against it.

This topic is a huge misinterpretation.

I don't know why, in spite of my efforts to be clear, you still think I deny the bad things we did.
And I think that on your side you also try to deny the bad things the USA did.

Thats a circle.

You always come back with arguments showing the defaults of Europe, and I do the same with the USA.

What I want is to stop this. That's a waste of time.
I understood your point of view, needless to repeat it 50 times.
I just want you to understand that I don't consider Europe better than the USA and vice-versa.
I may be critical against Bush and the "slightly conservatives" in general, but you're not aware of how critical I am against Europe, especially the socialist party which is totally corrupted in the aera where I live, and the st*pid tensions we have here between Frenchspeakers and Dutchspeakers (but that's what makes Belgium unique...)

No other military in history has had the capabilities on such a global arena as our military. And given the plenty reasons not even mentioned here, it makes perfect sense to declare the U.S. military as the greatest in history. This isn't a pride issue. It isn't about numbers. It isn't about technology. It is about battle theory and practitioning. There is plenty of evidence.

You are the bests because you have access to new technologies, creat, improve...thats normal that in the future someone will be better than todays best army. By a few centuries, maybe that the Japanese (neutral example) will be the bests.

If we are to try to do the right thing, we have to accept that we will trip along the way and that our critics abroad will be quick to point them out, despite their benefits.

I think you care too much about the critics. Whatever you do, somebody will critic you. I understand it. But our "anti-americanism" is:
-> much softer than you think.
-> when its stronger, its rather "anti-Bushism"
-> when its real anti-americanism, its from the 2 or 3% of ***** that exist in every country.

 

[bub]

Argh my posts are longer and longer too!!!

Just a short post about the hundreds of wars that took place in Europe. I know it better than you there are battelfields everywhere. In a circle of 50 miles around my home there are Waterloo (1815) , Bastogne (1944), Ypres (1914-18) Fleurus, Dinant, Eben-Emael, the citadel in my hometown has been invaded 17 or 18 times, half of Europe has already controlled Belgium (the Romans, the Franks, the Frenchs, the Spanish, the Germans, the Dutch, the Austrians...)

HOWEVER

When I look around, everything is not destroyed.

WHY

What you may not know, is that in the past, the wars were not like today's wars. They were much less "destructive" (there were no tanks nor bombers) and with less victims than today.

FURTHERMORE

It also brought a lot of good things.

LET ME EXPLAIN WHY (comparing with China)

After the Roman Empire collapsed, Europe was split in hundreds of tiny kingdoms. On the one hand, of course they fought each other and, war after war, the most redoutables ones got bigger and bigger (=> France, England, Prussia...) thanks to wars, alliances, weddings, heritages...while the smallest ones disappeared. But for centuries, there were dozens of kings, princes...in rivality.

At the same time in China, there was ONE dinasty, ONE capital, ONE emperor. At that time it was much more powerful, rich and advanced than Europe.

AND YOU SAW THAT DESPITE OUR VISIBLE WEAKNESS WE "WON" WHILE CHINA LOST ALL ITS INFLUENCE. WHY?

All those small kingdoms were in concurence. To survive you had to be the best. => technological improvements

Vikings and Arab invasions => brought new technologies

Germanic invasions => Mix of the Latin and Germanic cultures

Judeo-Christian curiosity => contacts with the Chineses => gun powder, printing, paper. All are improved here.

100-years War => End of Feodality

No Emperor could control all the citizen. => Free market => Wealth & Individual initiatives => new technological improvements

80-years War => Peace of Westphalen => new concept: the nation-state

Those nation states want to show they are powerful and "export" their model: colonisations => explorations

Judeo-Christian civilization => linear time => hope in a better future => improvement

Protestant way of thinking => Work, work & work => Capitalism

NOW LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED IN CHINA

One almighty Emperor who could control everything
=> No war (of course he already owned everything) => No competiton => needless to improve

=> No free-market => No place for Individual initiative. Their technologic improvement were stopped

=> No curiosity => No new contact, no new technology

=> Eastern civilization => Cyclic time => needless to improve

 

[MSgt]

Just a question...I don't want to look rude, but, please, be more brief.

I'll try.

-> Is it really anti-americanism? Do you perceive it as a form of hatred??? That's just a critic of several points, not a global dislike.

-> And if you read, you'll see that the negative shift of the US popularity is due to Bush's policy.

You are taking events and seperating them from the whole. The Bush issues have just been the latest criticism that has propelled what was already there. I produced for you the European studies that include decades of surmountable criticisms about America. According to the European studies, it has more to do with the undercurrent sentiments towards our culture versus yours that defines this phenomenon.

It actually makes a lot of sense. If my country was constantly receiving support from a nation that is merely a few hundred years old as that country also involved themselves all over the world in different countries, I might feel a bit "inferior." Furthermore, if my country started to get flooded with things from that country (Coke, Pepsi, Disneyland, music, hollywood, etc.) I may begin to see this as an intrusion on my culture, especialy as I sit on a park bench and stare at that county's embassy on my land.

Now these emotions of inferiority are not deserved and certainly untrue, but the human psychy can easily tunr these emotions into more defensive emotions which nurture resentment. This is the anti-American phenomenon in Europe.

I live in the middle of Europe, I meet dozens of people, it's true they all disagree with Bush but no one is gonna say "I don't like the USA".

You have to accept that your little patch of Europe is not all of Europe. I can state that everyone around me agrees with our efforts in Iraq and I would be correct. However, I also am aware that I am in a military town and we hardly represent the whole nation.

What has America ever done to Belgium? After answering that question to yourself, now ask what America has done to Germany, Russia, Italy. We denied Italy's and Germany's rise to power and we rejected the idea that the Soviet Union was legitimately powerful and eventually undermined their existence. Now ask yourself about France. What have we ever done to France? It is true that we did engage against the Germans and with the help of Britian and local fighters liberate the French. But along with this came the burden of having to accept that they needed America's help again. Now, this is true for all Europeans, but France is an especially proud nation (Of what I don't know - maybe its the Napolean or Joan of Arc thing).

So what we have here is hundreds of millions of people within France, Italy, Germany, and Russia that have seen their worlds wrecked. And every time it was America standing at the door way. Germany is full of shame. France is full of resentment. And Russia is simply determined to be Russia. These people migrated across borders in large numbers post WWII. Along with them went all those emotions. Those Europeans that were truley thankful without any reservation have had children. Gernerations later we have populations that grew up amongst people that snub America and now have become of age. Far removed from their grandparent's experiences during WWII, all they know is the under current sentiment that looks down upon America and a European media (I can produce plenty of European studies on this too) that celebrates America's hiccups.

European studies make declare that the majority of these sentiments are for internal blunders and errors in their own history, but find it more comfortable blaming outward to a common entity. This is the anti-American phenomenon in Europe.

You only see one face of the coin.

*sigh* I see both sides of the coin. You represent countless hundreds of millions that view America your way. However, my attention is to the countless hundreds of millions that think otherwise. Those are the ones that give us so much grief.

You said it yourself. They helped you and played a key role. Exactly as you in the WWII.
But you do the very thing you condemn: to minimize the role of the one who helped you.

There is nothing minimized. This is historical fact. The French played a role at Yorktown. However, their primary contribution for two years was as supplier.

1) The Revolutionary War went from 1775 to 1783.

2) The alliance with France was in 1778. This alliance was mostly about military supplies and to show defiance towards a long time enemy.

3) They played a decisive military role in 1981 at Yorktown.

With other minor issues you certainly can read about, that's it. This is not what occurred a century and a half later when America had to come across the ocean and completely lift France out of hell. The French have always exaggerated their roles in our Revolution and their own liberation and down played ours in Europe.

You really think we don't like you and deny the good things you did.

It was simple. Out of all the things America has done around the globe for countless cultures, Europeans always only reflect upon our efforts during WWII. And even then, they only reflect on what occurred on their lands, not so much the Pacific. This was my point. It's not paranoia, it's truth. The sentiment that "we are thankful for American efforts during WWII, but America doesn't need to have a global presence now" completely dismisses other regions, cultures, and people.

1) Which prescriptions? The forbidding of slavery?

1b) yes you have to accept that there has not been slavery in Europe since 1000 years. However we did it...outside Europe!

The acceptance of slavery was a global phenomenon despite Europe's internal allowances. It was America that conducted a war over it and inserted the "period" after we were through. This doesn't mean that slavery effectively ended everywhere, but the bar was raised.

2) Remember that in the civil war, half of the Americans were PRO-slavery, and these ones in the south kept on with segregation till the 60's.

Of course half the population was for slavery. Hence the purpose of a "Civil War." And society failed blacks after the War and this is why a hundred years later we finally saw the Civil Rights movement. The issues inside America are extremely rare. No where on earth (history) will you find such a diverse population that lives their every day lives side by side while respecting the other. This is due to the Civil War and the Civil Rights movements. America could have easily followed in the footsteps of our European parents and expelled our minorities or simply murdered them off.

But we didn't We set the bar.

3) Which immigrants? The ones you try to keep out with your fence?
3b) we also have a big problem with immigration.

And this is another typical response. America is nothing like Europe. You have a history of expelling or slaughtering immigrants when they became "problems." America has always welcomed immigrants for we are made of immigrants. The problem we have now are "illegal" immigrants. Immigrants from Mexico should do the same thing immigrants have to do that cross the ocean to our shores.

Your "problem" with immigration is that you don't want them. But despite some sentiments from some Americans, our prosperity and thriving culture is due to our diverse population.

Why do you always think you are particular?

Because in many things we are. Our critics just don't want to admit this. I can state all day that Europe is particular in the wine department, despite America's contribution to this. I can state this because of what I have heard from people that know better than me. Should I get defensive and try to carry America as identical to Europe or acknowledge truth?

I show you than 55% percent of Belgian ministers were women and you persist to say "its a old white man's club."

*sigh* You did it again. You are attempting to use your little patch of dirt in a select arena to represent the whole. You did the same by producing elected officials. The people in Europe are not the problem. It is the institutions. I showed you European studies that back up plenty of what I have tried to convey to you. And still you insist upon an elected official as proof that all is well.

Once again...in America, our issues regarding women is a biggotted individual one, not the institution. In Europe, the individual cheers for gender equality, but the institution continues to block it. Why else do you think you have such obvious bold laws forcing these changes throughout Europe?

A woman will earn less and that an african will have to search more to find a job, but we're improving (there are laws forbidding those differences and the people are changing) and you have the very same problems.

No we don't. A black secretary, a white secretary, and a female secretary will all be payed the same thing. Before you were conveying that you don't have a problem. Now you are admitting that you do have aproblem. You are begining to see what I have been stating. The problem against women in Europe is institutional and this is why you have such boldly stated laws to correct it.

2) When I talk about a French scientist living in the XVIII century, you say "its old we shouldn't speak about it anymore". But you always come back with "the thousands of years of cleansings"...

Thousands of years of ethnic cleansings in Europe haven't stopped have they? We aren't talking about something that occurred in the distant past. We aren't talking about thousands of years ago. We are talking about thousands of years to include just 10 years ago. The entire 20th century was a saga of ethnic cleansings and genocides in Europe. It's hard to declare something is in the past when Europe did little more than wring their wrists while Croats, Serbs, Bosnian Muslims, and Kosovar Albanians wrecked each other.

 

[MSgt]

3) Till 1776 you are European (you don't come from Mars). So "my" cleansings are "our" cleansings.

Very true. But these "cleansings" hardly stopped after 1776 did they? And you bring up a point.

Americans did not reject the British. All the colonists wanted was to be equal to Englishmen. The British rejected us. And despite our necessary acceptance of support from the French, we were revolting against royalty and aristocracy and did not look to France as a model for our future.

So what we have here is a brand new nation full of men that were determined to leave the worse aspects of their birth nations behind. And of course we stumbled along the way with slavery and pioneering, but we found our way past all those European traditions that did not reflect well on humanity. A lot of our individual identitiy came from our many years of isolation away form Europe. However, this all changed as we discovered that after two World Wars, we would only be setting ourselves for greater blood shed if we continue isolating. This brought us to our activities during the Cold War, in which we reached across the ocean and borrowed those traditions of statescraft.

It's time to say good bye to that and get back to what we used to be before the world sucked us into their mess. The problem is that as a result of post World War necessities we are unable to do this with any sort of good conscience, because of the power vacumes humanity's enemy's would fill.

And eventually, we would be right back in to a World War.

Thats everything I wanted to hear. Bravo! You finally did it!

What are you talking about? I am constantly bringing up American errors and where we need to correct and move on.

I don't know why, in spite of my efforts to be clear, you still think I deny the bad things we did.
And I think that on your side you also try to deny the bad things the USA did.

It's not about you. You can acknowledge all day about the European past. But you do not represent the countless souls who stand back and criticize our every breath unfairly. However, you don't see the difference between acknowledging America's historical acceptance of minorities and opting to unfairly criticize the current "illegal" immigrant problem in our south? When criticizing the issue unfairly, you are attempting to strip away everything else and even the facts regarding your topic.

Where have I done this? Where have I denied American sin? Will you find someone else on this site that can accurately criticize America's deeds during the Cold War without the exxaggeration or cover up lies than me? Will you find someone else that can more accuratley detail out Rumsfeld's malicious mistakes during this effort in Iraq?

You are the bests because you have access to new technologies, creat, improve...thats normal that in the future someone will be better than todays best army. By a few centuries, maybe that the Japanese (neutral example) will be the bests.

This is common sense. If America ever crumbles after standing alone in this world then there will one day emerge a better military than ours. This does not strip away what we are today. And our military is much more than technology. Any fool can pull a trigger. It takes a culture to understand employment, tactics and the will to stay one step ahead of an ever changing enemy.

I think you care too much about the critics. Whatever you do, somebody will critic you.

I personally don't care. I get tired of Europeans throwing us their critical opinions and forming polls as if we are supposed to care. However, America as a country seesm to care too much about it.

I just find it very telling that, except for the very rare exception, American journalists and institutions aren't conducting polls about how much we agree or don't agree with France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Italy, or England. But these polls are ever present amongst Europeans regarding us.

I understand it. But our "anti-americanism" is:
-> much softer than you think.
-> when its stronger, its rather "anti-Bushism"
-> when its real anti-americanism, its from the 2 or 3% of ***** that exist in every country.

You may be right. My only experience with it is port towns, fellow military members that were stationed in Europe, and studies. But it is strange that the majority (you being an exception) of Europeans on this site are extremely anti-American.

 

[bub]

Mmmmh I really don't see how I could make you change your mind. But I'll persist, don't worry. The anthem of the Belgian Air Force is called "Tenacity"

I'll write historical events in 2 columns so that you can clearly understand my point of view.

You may be right. My only experience with it is port towns, fellow military members that were stationed in Europe, and studies. But it is strange that the majority (you being an exception) of Europeans on this site are extremely anti-American.

They may look very anti-american because no one agrees with Bush. Ask them what they think about California, they are likely to answer they love it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
What are you talking about? I am constantly bringing up American errors and where we need to correct and move on.

Bullshit!

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt.

I couldn't let this one go...

 

[bub]

Don't worry Billo. My schema will be as objective as possible and he'll have to admit it.

 

[bub]

Just a parenthesis: if we hate the USA so much, how do you explain that Buck Danny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Les Tuniques Bleues - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Lucky Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...

Why have we got songs such as "I love America" (Patrick Juvet, 1978), "Jazz Singer" (about NY => Michel Sardou, 1985), "Manhattan-Kabul" (Renaud, 2002)...

Could you give me a single title of pro-European American song? Or any famous US comic book whose characters are French, German or Belgian?

 

[MSgt]

They may look very anti-american because no one agrees with Bush. Ask them what they think about California, they are likely to answer they love it.

Why? California sucks.

 

[MSgt]

Just a parenthesis: if we hate the USA so much, how do you explain that Buck Danny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Les Tuniques Bleues - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Lucky Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...

Why have we got songs such as "I love America" (Patrick Juvet, 1978), "Jazz Singer" (about NY => Michel Sardou, 1985), "Manhattan-Kabul" (Renaud, 2002)...

Could you give me a single title of pro-European American song? Or any famous US comic book whose characters are French, German or Belgian?

Why would we need to entertain ourselves with foreign material?

And you are still ducking the issue. I have given you plenty of links (Post 10 for one) with studies conducted by EUROPEAN organizations and personnel that outline this phenomenon. PeteEU and Maximus_Zeebra are perfect representation of what I have been stating. You are still trying to pin the minority to define your region's sentiment.

It is pointless to go on with this "anti" issue, because I will just continue to produce different studies and you will continue to tell me that they aren't true based on songs and the minority.

It's a pretty safe bet to declare the Middle East as a hot bed of hatred for the West, the U.S. especially, and that it existed well before 2003. Does this mean that they don't want our music, film, soda, etc.?

 

[MSgt]

Bullshit!

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt.

I couldn't let this one go...

What you consider "bullshit" are my descriptions of what those mistakes were. For example:

Your argument: Our mistake was toppling Hussein.

My argument: Our mistake was the absence of a plan after we toppled Hussein.

Your argument respects his "soveriegnty." My argument does not.


Now, go back to the corner and try not to interrupt with insignificant blurbs.

 

[skydog1]

''Your argument: Our mistake was toppling Hussein.''

B0££0ck$! Our mistake was trying to win hearts and minds and force feed them 'democracy', a concept that is inimical to muslim/koranic/shari'a (call it WTF you like) culture... and not using a big enough stick to beat the bastards with. Same mistake recently made by the Israelis in Lebanon.

o|--) Semper Fi indeed Gunny!