<strong>I was only relating my experiences to show that anti-US sentiment in Europe isn't new. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I can say that over the past ten years I've been to about 40+ different countries and haven't run into the problems you're talking about more than a handful of times. Out of those, most of the problems came from border guards!
This idea is just crap. The only consistent stereotype I've run into is the idea that Americans work too much. And that's accurate when compared to Europeans.
1,000,000 Romans gathered because they hate the U.S.? Or because they were bored and wanted to party? 1,000,000 Londoners marched because they hate the U.S.? Anyone who believes this is assinine, ignorant or just blind.
They're unhappy with our policy, and they're unhappy that their own government is supporting this policy. Why were the protests smaller in France? Because their government has taken a better stance on the issue.
This is just stereotypes of people seing US via the Cow-boy moovies and never bring their ass there (or where blind by their stereotypes). And stereotypes are ridiculous and illogical : if US people are arrogants and have no culture, how can they be the first power of the world ?. A quick analysis destroy this kind of stereotype.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Being the first power of the world has nothing to do with culture, but with having more guns. Arrogance helps too in this matter.
[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>
Like everyone, i have stereotypes on every subject, stereotypes that disapear if i try to know more the subject : that's why it's so important to meet differents peoples from differents jobs and differents countries and listen to what they have to say.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's true. But I'm under the impression that papers and magazines in the US are far more biased than in Europe. Like in US politics, there's no real opposition. Those who critise are labelled 'anti patriotic', so everyone howls with the wolves.
It all starts there. Why is it important to be a patriot ? And they who don't really care are afraid to be called 'non-patriots' or even 'traitors'. This way the powers that be can control all dissident voices.
So Joe Sixpack gets no real information from the media. He thinks all Europeans are weak and talk too much. 100K protesters in NY: 'Offcourse, it's in NY again. Where else ? Liberals.' And few thousand protesters aren't much in such a big country.
So yes, travel to Europe and look around. Listen to what people say and think. There are very different opinions here, just because we have very different information. And because we had so many wars in the past (IN our country), we have learned to hate it. We have learned to negotiate, and that nothing is black or white. And that compromises are unavoidable in most cases.
There are exceptions. WOII was such an exception. Evil was very prominent, it was very clear who the bad guys were. Since then it only got more complicated and blurry.
Who are we really fighting now ? Saddam, sure. But who really ? And don't you think that the reason the US (and UK) wants to invade Iraq, can be the same reason used to invade like, thirty other countries ? Are they gonna be next ? Where does it end ?
Will it stop terrorism ? Off course not. It will only get worse. What the US doesn't seem to understand is that their gung-ho mentality is the ideal breeding ground for even more Bin Ladens. They will never stop. You can't fight these guys with missiles and tanks.
Whose ass would you rather kiss: Germany's or America's?
The French are going to join and leave Germany holding the bag.<hr></blockquote>
hehe, True!
Think of this: if Chirac does a U turn now what a punch in the face that will be for the anti-war camp....
I bet you Blair and Bush are discussing right now what it will take to buy off this clever Frenchman. after positioning himself as the main anti war leader and doing all these typically grand (and very French) moral speeches in the UN, NATO and the EU - if he turns around in a week or two and says that - yes its really bad and unfortunately the worst has been confirmed as inevitable ..blah..blah.... and that he now does (unwillingly) support the war - that will totally legitimize Bush and Blair and enable them to swiftly move for a sweeping SC resolution that will start the war. note how in any interview of a French official they always say: "ve ar'e no pasifist, ve are living ol du opsions open at this time, ve aru no against du war in principal, ve only vant to see more time fur le inspector", they are being so careful to leave the war door open.
By brilliantly positioning himself like this Chirac has made himself into a diplomatic and political asset the US/UK simply must buy in order to have their war. I think its all probably a calculated move and that we will see the current state of things morphing into something else in the near future - after all, this was really the only way the French could protect their interests in Iraq (and look good while they are doing so...). its not as if they have any other tools to pressure anyone into taking them seriously... besides this way Chirac gets plenty of free publicity and earns some good rep with the Arab world and the anti-US European masses.
You gotta respect the French for this one they haven't been this focused in years.....
BTW, Hassan you have totally ignored my posts to you - I thought it would be nice to hear your reply.... or are you practicing the old Arab boycott on even communicating with an evil Israeli?
I disagree with your assertions. Particularly, that the media in Europe is not biased, whereas the U.S media is. You seem to imply that our media is biased towards the right, which on the whole is simply not true (though there are conservative stations).
You also question why Patriotism is important. Actually, you write "Why is it important to be a patriot ? And they who don't really care are afraid to be called 'non-patriots' or even 'traitors'. This way the powers that be can control all dissident voices."
---I think it is important, but not required. One should appreciate the freedoms his nation offers. I suppose that being an American is a bit different...we were really the first modern nation to experiment with individual liberty. I guess some of us have a different appreciation and sense of loyalty. It doesn't mean we don't question. It doesn't mean we don't criticize. It means we love our country and are willing to do what it takes to protect those freedoms.
[quote]o Joe Sixpack gets no real information from the media. He thinks all Europeans are weak and talk too much. 100K protesters in NY: 'Offcourse, it's in NY again. Where else ? Liberals.' And few thousand protesters aren't much in such a big country. <hr></blockquote>
False assumption. And, stereotypes always have an element of truth. France is a pacifist nation. They have been so during the last 100 years. Europe, on the whole, is far more liberal than the US. It can be seen in the political stances of world leaders, social agendas, even the tax rates. New York and the major cities ARE liberal in general. Go look at the precinct breakdowns for the last Presidential election. That will paint a clear picture. New York is incredibly liberal (the city ad state). San Francisco? Los Angeles? Liberal!
[quote] And because we had so many wars in the past (IN our country), we have learned to hate it. We have learned to negotiate, and that nothing is black or white. And that compromises are unavoidable in most cases. <hr></blockquote>
Ahhh....this is the one that really gets me. You've been through wars, have you? And we haven't? Two words: Pearl Harbor. Two more: September Eleventh. Do I need to remind you that the United States literally saved Europe in WWII? Do I need to remind you that it was the United States who liberated france in both WWI and WWII? It was also the United States that lost 60,000 men in S. Korea, defending foreign nation. If you mean we haven't had troops on our soil, then I'll give you that. That doesn;t mean people don't know what war is. Give us some credit.
Now, your last point. What would you fight terror with? Would you withdraw the troops from around the world? Would you retreat and say "I'm sorry"? Would you "seek a common dialogue"?
You cannot negotiate with these people. What you fail to understand is that this is about nothing less than the survival of Western civilization. I'd like to see how France responds when the Eifle Tower is taken down by a loaded 747. I'd like to see how people in the UK respond when Big Ben gets blown up by a suicide bomber. I'd like to see how Germany responds when their beautiful, rolling hills are spoiled by an anthrax attack. I wonder if that will change anything?
You in it with us, my friend. You just don't know it yet.
[quote]New York and the major cities ARE liberal in general. <hr></blockquote>
That's why we elected a right wing fascist as mayor twice and replaced him with a billionaire Republican. Sheesh old assumptions die hard.
[quote] Ahhh....this is the one that really gets me. You've been through wars, have you? And we haven't? Two words: Pearl Harbor. Two more: September Eleventh. <hr></blockquote>
Attacked twice as compared to having your country occupied for years and millions killed? Real comparable.
Attacked twice as compared to having your country occupied for years and millions killed? Real comparable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Major cities lean more to the left than do rural areas. That is a fact. Go look up the precinct by precinct breakdowns for the last Presidential election.
2. And who is it that STOPPED the masacres, again? Hmmm.
I disagree with your assertions. Particularly, that the media in Europe is not biased, whereas the U.S media is.
You seem to imply that our media is biased towards the right, which on the whole is simply not true (though there are conservative stations).
<hr></blockquote>
Offcourse there are biased media in Europe, but we have more a 'patchwork' off different opinions. We have an easier access to different kinds
of opinions. If you hear/read or watch the media here, you have opinions that vary from (ultra)conservative and even extreem right wing, to
leftish liberal or socialism. That's a strenght, but also a weakness in hard times (like wartime) because it's harder to unite people and act as one group.
Add to that 20+ different countries who have often very different point of view and interests ... That's the reason why the EC has so little
political power.
What bothers (and concerns) me with the US is that politics are dominated by a religious-conservative minority who always come to power
because of a long overdue election system. I mean, I don't think Bush' values are shared by the majority of Americans. Or am I wrong ?
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
You also question why Patriotism is important. Actually, you write "Why is it important to be a patriot ?
And they who don't really care are afraid to be called 'non-patriots' or even 'traitors'.
This way the powers that be can control all dissident voices."
---I think it is important, but not required. One should appreciate the freedoms his nation offers.
I suppose that being an American is a bit different...we were really the first modern nation to experiment with individual liberty.
I guess some of us have a different appreciation and sense of loyalty. It doesn't mean we don't question.
It doesn't mean we don't criticize. It means we love our country and are willing to do what it takes to protect those freedoms.
<hr></blockquote>
Freedom is not opposed by patriotism. It's not because a country has a lack of patriotism that it's inhabitants are more unfree.
In Europe 'patriotism' is a somewhat negative expression. Because in the past the biggest wars were fought under the banner of it.
It was misused, but there it was. In WW2 and certainly WW1 patriotism was hot.
Yes, we too love our country, but regard patriotism as a more extreem form. In our experience, the next step was expansionism.
So, in time, patriotism became an old fashioned and almost silly emotion to most people. Here in W-Europe, no one calls himself a
patriot. And those who do are regared as a bit retarded. I'm not kidding, it's absolutely not cool to be a patriot over here. I think
most Americans find this hard to believe, but it's true. Sure we are loyal to our country, but to a certain limit. Maybe we all see
it in a more wider perspective ?
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
Ahhh....this is the one that really gets me. You've been through wars, have you? And we haven't? Two words: Pearl Harbor.
Two more: September Eleventh. Do I need to remind you that the United States literally saved Europe in WWII? Do I need to remind
you that it was the United States who liberated france in both WWI and WWII? It was also the United States that lost 60,000 men in S. Korea,
defending foreign nation. If you mean we haven't had troops on our soil, then I'll give you that. That doesn;t mean people don't know what war is.
Give us some credit.
<hr></blockquote>
Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were terrible attacks by crazy madmen. But there are a few differences: time and place. There IS a difference between
bombing two large buildings in a city and half of *all* your cities being bombed and burned (and I'm not even German), and this *several* times.
There is a difference between a harbor being bombed, and *all* your harbors being burned. Again several times.
There is a horrible difference between 3000+ people killed in a terrorist attack and 20.000.000 killed in WW1, 40.000.000 something killed
in WW2, women (our mothers and grandmothers) raped in these and several 'smaller' wars and conflicts. Cities who don't even excist anymore (worse
than Hiroshima. Yes, I live near Flanders' Fields).
The US didn't win WW1. It was a coalition of several countries who did, together with the US (who joined the last year). WW2 is another story.
The wars in S. Korea and Vietnam were mistakes. They were not to defend the lokal citicens, but to defend the US and the Western world
against communism.
And it's not because the US helped us in WW1 and 2 and against communism (wich we are gratefull off, but be honest: it was also in the US' own interest)
that they have a free pass to do everything they want in the future. It's not because the big bully at school once saved your ass that
he can demand you to do everything he wants for the rest of your life ?
Offcourse, most people are too young to have experienced this horror. But it's remembered, it's common knowledge, it became part of us all.
In all these centuries (yes, we had wars here for thousend years), it influenced us who we are and the way we think. And I think this what
made us pacifists, more than ever.
Don't get me wrong, the US has the right to track down en punish those who are responsible for all that happenned recently. We just think
there are better ways than plain war.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
Now, your last point. What would you fight terror with? Would you withdraw the troops from around the world? Would you retreat and say "I'm sorry"?
Would you "seek a common dialogue"?
You cannot negotiate with these people. What you fail to understand is that this is about nothing less than the survival of Western civilization.
I'd like to see how France responds when the Eifle Tower is taken down by a loaded 747. I'd like to see how people in the UK respond when
Big Ben gets blown up by a suicide bomber. I'd like to see how Germany responds when their beautiful, rolling hills are spoiled by an anthrax attack.
I wonder if that will change anything?
<hr></blockquote>
This is where you're mistaken. You cannot fight terror with a conventional war. Warfare has evolved. The US can beat any country in the world hand down
with its tanks and planes. But the US isn't attacked by a regular army. You have to adapt on that. Remember Vietnam ? The US ARMY could handle the NVA
quite easily, but not the stealthy 'terrorist' underground army. They could never get a grip on them. This is the same. An elephant can't catch a fly.
It's too small and fast.
You're right when you state that you cannot seek a common dialogue with them. You can't argue with these people. What you can do is not just one thing,
but a cocktail of several things. First, why do they hate you ? Politics. US support for Israel, frustration for the US 'using' countries like Saudi Arabia
and keeping the hated government in place (this is a major issue for Bin Laden). That's were it all starts. Then they see you're rich and powerfull,
and you can do (almost) everything you want and get away with it. Frustration ! Then they seek the common determinators. Makes it easy to unite and
mobilise people. It also makes everything simple and without nuance. 'We' are Muslims and 'they' are Christians ! Two camps. No more explanations.
On your statement of what we would do if we were attacked by them ? We would be as mad as you do. But we would not start a war against a country who's
the scapegoat of the month. I, too, think that Saddam is an arrogant dictator. But it's not our job too invade and throw him off his trone. Were would
it end ? Half the world has regimes who are at least questionable. Can you fight half the world ? Not even the US can do that.
Lets assume there's a Al Quada cell in Iraq. They're gone before the first attack hits the country. To the next. Are you gonna invade that too ?
And the next one ? Impossible. Iraq has possible NBC weapons. Many countries have those. And they're not always US-friendly. Think N-Korea, but
most of all Pakistan. They have nukes. And they're muslims. The Pakistan government is officially a US-ally, but the Pakistany people are not.
How long will it take before 'they' have the Bom ? This is a potential treath, like Iraq. Are you gonna invade Pakistan now ?
Of the muslim states of the former Soviet empire, there are several with nuclear plants/weapons. You can buy a Bom there for two Lexusses. The reason
this hasn't happened yet is that security still hasn't failed. But it will happen once. Al-Quada infiltrants are already signalled. What about them ?
The list doesn't stop here. Unfortunately.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
You in it with us, my friend. You just don't know it yet.
<hr></blockquote>
You're right on that one. But I'm not as ignorant as you think I am. We're all sitting on the same globe. Why can't we just live together ?
Ahhh....this is the one that really gets me. You've been through wars, have you? And we haven't? Two words: Pearl Harbor.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pearl Harbour wasn't a war. Neither was 9/11. What was the point of bringing these up if you then go on to agree with the original posters point, that the US has been spared from having a war waged within its territory?
Also Germany and Italy are part of Europe. The US did not save them from anything in WWII. Ironically, this seems to mean they don't have to bow to the will of a foreign leader, but the French do.
Attacked twice as compared to having your country occupied for years and millions killed? Real comparable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um...was he comparing them, or was he simply stating that the US has also know war and gave those as examples? You omitted, on purpose I guess, that he also mentioned WW1, WW2, Korea etc...wars the US joined to help and lost many, many soldiers....or do those not count cuz they didn't die on their knees in their own country? Ignorance like that is amazing.
Its not about giving Saddam a second chance but the thousands that will die in a war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Another perspective would be to compare how many would die in a war, and how many would die in Iraq without a war. Then how many could die outside of Iraq if Husseins' weapons aren't destroyed. I still think the sale of those weapons is a more pertinent issue than Hussein using them himself.
Pearl Harbour wasn't a war. Neither was 9/11. What was the point of bringing these up if you then go on to agree with the original posters point, that the US has been spared from having a war waged within its territory?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, it seems the original posts point was that they had been in lots of wars, with the wars being in their own countries being a secondary concern (notice the brackets). So the reply concerning Pearl and WTC make perfect sense when you also read the part about the US putting troops on the ground in WW1, WW2, Korea. Pearl and WTC were mentioned, I think, to show that, yes, America has been attacked on her own soil, so yes, they know what it's like to lose people at home. And then his further response about the actual wars, especially the ones fought for the Europeans, shows that in the last century, America had experience, not just the Europeans.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
Also Germany and Italy are part of Europe. The US did not save them from anything in WWII. Ironically, this seems to mean they don't have to bow to the will of a foreign leader, but the French do. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Umm...just because they were the aggressors doesn't mean the people weren't liberated. Or were you unfamiliar with the nature of the regimes in charge of Germany and Italy at the time? I think many would argue that those countries were liberated.
Comments
<strong>I was only relating my experiences to show that anti-US sentiment in Europe isn't new. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I can say that over the past ten years I've been to about 40+ different countries and haven't run into the problems you're talking about more than a handful of times. Out of those, most of the problems came from border guards!
This idea is just crap. The only consistent stereotype I've run into is the idea that Americans work too much. And that's accurate when compared to Europeans.
1,000,000 Romans gathered because they hate the U.S.? Or because they were bored and wanted to party? 1,000,000 Londoners marched because they hate the U.S.? Anyone who believes this is assinine, ignorant or just blind.
They're unhappy with our policy, and they're unhappy that their own government is supporting this policy. Why were the protests smaller in France? Because their government has taken a better stance on the issue.
They're not out eating funnel cakes.
Not that one person is evidence, but the only person really interviewed said she didn't even watch the news.
" Second Person:"To oppose the war.....war is never the answer and it is never necessary under any circumstances"
I just don't get this kind of thinking. It's irresponsible. Oppose the war, fine. But do so because you think there is another valid option. "
Yup, you just don't get it.
<strong>
This is just stereotypes of people seing US via the Cow-boy moovies and never bring their ass there (or where blind by their stereotypes). And stereotypes are ridiculous and illogical : if US people are arrogants and have no culture, how can they be the first power of the world ?. A quick analysis destroy this kind of stereotype.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Being the first power of the world has nothing to do with culture, but with having more guns. Arrogance helps too in this matter.
[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>
Like everyone, i have stereotypes on every subject, stereotypes that disapear if i try to know more the subject : that's why it's so important to meet differents peoples from differents jobs and differents countries and listen to what they have to say.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's true. But I'm under the impression that papers and magazines in the US are far more biased than in Europe. Like in US politics, there's no real opposition. Those who critise are labelled 'anti patriotic', so everyone howls with the wolves.
It all starts there. Why is it important to be a patriot ? And they who don't really care are afraid to be called 'non-patriots' or even 'traitors'. This way the powers that be can control all dissident voices.
So Joe Sixpack gets no real information from the media. He thinks all Europeans are weak and talk too much. 100K protesters in NY: 'Offcourse, it's in NY again. Where else ? Liberals.' And few thousand protesters aren't much in such a big country.
So yes, travel to Europe and look around. Listen to what people say and think. There are very different opinions here, just because we have very different information. And because we had so many wars in the past (IN our country), we have learned to hate it. We have learned to negotiate, and that nothing is black or white. And that compromises are unavoidable in most cases.
There are exceptions. WOII was such an exception. Evil was very prominent, it was very clear who the bad guys were. Since then it only got more complicated and blurry.
Who are we really fighting now ? Saddam, sure. But who really ? And don't you think that the reason the US (and UK) wants to invade Iraq, can be the same reason used to invade like, thirty other countries ? Are they gonna be next ? Where does it end ?
Will it stop terrorism ? Off course not. It will only get worse. What the US doesn't seem to understand is that their gung-ho mentality is the ideal breeding ground for even more Bin Ladens. They will never stop. You can't fight these guys with missiles and tanks.
Whose ass would you rather kiss: Germany's or America's?
The French are going to join and leave Germany holding the bag.<hr></blockquote>
hehe, True!
Think of this: if Chirac does a U turn now what a punch in the face that will be for the anti-war camp....
I bet you Blair and Bush are discussing right now what it will take to buy off this clever Frenchman. after positioning himself as the main anti war leader and doing all these typically grand (and very French) moral speeches in the UN, NATO and the EU - if he turns around in a week or two and says that - yes its really bad and unfortunately the worst has been confirmed as inevitable ..blah..blah.... and that he now does (unwillingly) support the war - that will totally legitimize Bush and Blair and enable them to swiftly move for a sweeping SC resolution that will start the war. note how in any interview of a French official they always say: "ve ar'e no pasifist, ve are living ol du opsions open at this time, ve aru no against du war in principal, ve only vant to see more time fur le inspector", they are being so careful to leave the war door open.
By brilliantly positioning himself like this Chirac has made himself into a diplomatic and political asset the US/UK simply must buy in order to have their war. I think its all probably a calculated move and that we will see the current state of things morphing into something else in the near future - after all, this was really the only way the French could protect their interests in Iraq (and look good while they are doing so...). its not as if they have any other tools to pressure anyone into taking them seriously... besides this way Chirac gets plenty of free publicity and earns some good rep with the Arab world and the anti-US European masses.
You gotta respect the French for this one they haven't been this focused in years.....
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
I can only assume your baiting me, but I'll play along. Are you really telling me that war is NEVER required? Never?
I disagree with your assertions. Particularly, that the media in Europe is not biased, whereas the U.S media is. You seem to imply that our media is biased towards the right, which on the whole is simply not true (though there are conservative stations).
You also question why Patriotism is important. Actually, you write "Why is it important to be a patriot ? And they who don't really care are afraid to be called 'non-patriots' or even 'traitors'. This way the powers that be can control all dissident voices."
---I think it is important, but not required. One should appreciate the freedoms his nation offers. I suppose that being an American is a bit different...we were really the first modern nation to experiment with individual liberty. I guess some of us have a different appreciation and sense of loyalty. It doesn't mean we don't question. It doesn't mean we don't criticize. It means we love our country and are willing to do what it takes to protect those freedoms.
[quote]o Joe Sixpack gets no real information from the media. He thinks all Europeans are weak and talk too much. 100K protesters in NY: 'Offcourse, it's in NY again. Where else ? Liberals.' And few thousand protesters aren't much in such a big country. <hr></blockquote>
False assumption. And, stereotypes always have an element of truth. France is a pacifist nation. They have been so during the last 100 years. Europe, on the whole, is far more liberal than the US. It can be seen in the political stances of world leaders, social agendas, even the tax rates. New York and the major cities ARE liberal in general. Go look at the precinct breakdowns for the last Presidential election. That will paint a clear picture. New York is incredibly liberal (the city ad state). San Francisco? Los Angeles? Liberal!
[quote] And because we had so many wars in the past (IN our country), we have learned to hate it. We have learned to negotiate, and that nothing is black or white. And that compromises are unavoidable in most cases. <hr></blockquote>
Ahhh....this is the one that really gets me. You've been through wars, have you? And we haven't? Two words: Pearl Harbor. Two more: September Eleventh. Do I need to remind you that the United States literally saved Europe in WWII? Do I need to remind you that it was the United States who liberated france in both WWI and WWII? It was also the United States that lost 60,000 men in S. Korea, defending foreign nation. If you mean we haven't had troops on our soil, then I'll give you that. That doesn;t mean people don't know what war is. Give us some credit.
Now, your last point. What would you fight terror with? Would you withdraw the troops from around the world? Would you retreat and say "I'm sorry"? Would you "seek a common dialogue"?
You cannot negotiate with these people. What you fail to understand is that this is about nothing less than the survival of Western civilization. I'd like to see how France responds when the Eifle Tower is taken down by a loaded 747. I'd like to see how people in the UK respond when Big Ben gets blown up by a suicide bomber. I'd like to see how Germany responds when their beautiful, rolling hills are spoiled by an anthrax attack. I wonder if that will change anything?
You in it with us, my friend. You just don't know it yet.
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
That's why we elected a right wing fascist as mayor twice and replaced him with a billionaire Republican. Sheesh old assumptions die hard.
[quote] Ahhh....this is the one that really gets me. You've been through wars, have you? And we haven't? Two words: Pearl Harbor. Two more: September Eleventh. <hr></blockquote>
Attacked twice as compared to having your country occupied for years and millions killed? Real comparable.
<strong>
Attacked twice as compared to having your country occupied for years and millions killed? Real comparable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Major cities lean more to the left than do rural areas. That is a fact. Go look up the precinct by precinct breakdowns for the last Presidential election.
2. And who is it that STOPPED the masacres, again? Hmmm.
Running/fleeing brain
I disagree with your assertions. Particularly, that the media in Europe is not biased, whereas the U.S media is.
You seem to imply that our media is biased towards the right, which on the whole is simply not true (though there are conservative stations).
<hr></blockquote>
Offcourse there are biased media in Europe, but we have more a 'patchwork' off different opinions. We have an easier access to different kinds
of opinions. If you hear/read or watch the media here, you have opinions that vary from (ultra)conservative and even extreem right wing, to
leftish liberal or socialism. That's a strenght, but also a weakness in hard times (like wartime) because it's harder to unite people and act as one group.
Add to that 20+ different countries who have often very different point of view and interests ... That's the reason why the EC has so little
political power.
What bothers (and concerns) me with the US is that politics are dominated by a religious-conservative minority who always come to power
because of a long overdue election system. I mean, I don't think Bush' values are shared by the majority of Americans. Or am I wrong ?
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
You also question why Patriotism is important. Actually, you write "Why is it important to be a patriot ?
And they who don't really care are afraid to be called 'non-patriots' or even 'traitors'.
This way the powers that be can control all dissident voices."
---I think it is important, but not required. One should appreciate the freedoms his nation offers.
I suppose that being an American is a bit different...we were really the first modern nation to experiment with individual liberty.
I guess some of us have a different appreciation and sense of loyalty. It doesn't mean we don't question.
It doesn't mean we don't criticize. It means we love our country and are willing to do what it takes to protect those freedoms.
<hr></blockquote>
Freedom is not opposed by patriotism. It's not because a country has a lack of patriotism that it's inhabitants are more unfree.
In Europe 'patriotism' is a somewhat negative expression. Because in the past the biggest wars were fought under the banner of it.
It was misused, but there it was. In WW2 and certainly WW1 patriotism was hot.
Yes, we too love our country, but regard patriotism as a more extreem form. In our experience, the next step was expansionism.
So, in time, patriotism became an old fashioned and almost silly emotion to most people. Here in W-Europe, no one calls himself a
patriot. And those who do are regared as a bit retarded. I'm not kidding, it's absolutely not cool to be a patriot over here. I think
most Americans find this hard to believe, but it's true. Sure we are loyal to our country, but to a certain limit. Maybe we all see
it in a more wider perspective ?
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
Ahhh....this is the one that really gets me. You've been through wars, have you? And we haven't? Two words: Pearl Harbor.
Two more: September Eleventh. Do I need to remind you that the United States literally saved Europe in WWII? Do I need to remind
you that it was the United States who liberated france in both WWI and WWII? It was also the United States that lost 60,000 men in S. Korea,
defending foreign nation. If you mean we haven't had troops on our soil, then I'll give you that. That doesn;t mean people don't know what war is.
Give us some credit.
<hr></blockquote>
Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were terrible attacks by crazy madmen. But there are a few differences: time and place. There IS a difference between
bombing two large buildings in a city and half of *all* your cities being bombed and burned (and I'm not even German), and this *several* times.
There is a difference between a harbor being bombed, and *all* your harbors being burned. Again several times.
There is a horrible difference between 3000+ people killed in a terrorist attack and 20.000.000 killed in WW1, 40.000.000 something killed
in WW2, women (our mothers and grandmothers) raped in these and several 'smaller' wars and conflicts. Cities who don't even excist anymore (worse
than Hiroshima. Yes, I live near Flanders' Fields).
The US didn't win WW1. It was a coalition of several countries who did, together with the US (who joined the last year). WW2 is another story.
The wars in S. Korea and Vietnam were mistakes. They were not to defend the lokal citicens, but to defend the US and the Western world
against communism.
And it's not because the US helped us in WW1 and 2 and against communism (wich we are gratefull off, but be honest: it was also in the US' own interest)
that they have a free pass to do everything they want in the future. It's not because the big bully at school once saved your ass that
he can demand you to do everything he wants for the rest of your life ?
Offcourse, most people are too young to have experienced this horror. But it's remembered, it's common knowledge, it became part of us all.
In all these centuries (yes, we had wars here for thousend years), it influenced us who we are and the way we think. And I think this what
made us pacifists, more than ever.
Don't get me wrong, the US has the right to track down en punish those who are responsible for all that happenned recently. We just think
there are better ways than plain war.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
Now, your last point. What would you fight terror with? Would you withdraw the troops from around the world? Would you retreat and say "I'm sorry"?
Would you "seek a common dialogue"?
You cannot negotiate with these people. What you fail to understand is that this is about nothing less than the survival of Western civilization.
I'd like to see how France responds when the Eifle Tower is taken down by a loaded 747. I'd like to see how people in the UK respond when
Big Ben gets blown up by a suicide bomber. I'd like to see how Germany responds when their beautiful, rolling hills are spoiled by an anthrax attack.
I wonder if that will change anything?
<hr></blockquote>
This is where you're mistaken. You cannot fight terror with a conventional war. Warfare has evolved. The US can beat any country in the world hand down
with its tanks and planes. But the US isn't attacked by a regular army. You have to adapt on that. Remember Vietnam ? The US ARMY could handle the NVA
quite easily, but not the stealthy 'terrorist' underground army. They could never get a grip on them. This is the same. An elephant can't catch a fly.
It's too small and fast.
You're right when you state that you cannot seek a common dialogue with them. You can't argue with these people. What you can do is not just one thing,
but a cocktail of several things. First, why do they hate you ? Politics. US support for Israel, frustration for the US 'using' countries like Saudi Arabia
and keeping the hated government in place (this is a major issue for Bin Laden). That's were it all starts. Then they see you're rich and powerfull,
and you can do (almost) everything you want and get away with it. Frustration ! Then they seek the common determinators. Makes it easy to unite and
mobilise people. It also makes everything simple and without nuance. 'We' are Muslims and 'they' are Christians ! Two camps. No more explanations.
On your statement of what we would do if we were attacked by them ? We would be as mad as you do. But we would not start a war against a country who's
the scapegoat of the month. I, too, think that Saddam is an arrogant dictator. But it's not our job too invade and throw him off his trone. Were would
it end ? Half the world has regimes who are at least questionable. Can you fight half the world ? Not even the US can do that.
Lets assume there's a Al Quada cell in Iraq. They're gone before the first attack hits the country. To the next. Are you gonna invade that too ?
And the next one ? Impossible. Iraq has possible NBC weapons. Many countries have those. And they're not always US-friendly. Think N-Korea, but
most of all Pakistan. They have nukes. And they're muslims. The Pakistan government is officially a US-ally, but the Pakistany people are not.
How long will it take before 'they' have the Bom ? This is a potential treath, like Iraq. Are you gonna invade Pakistan now ?
Of the muslim states of the former Soviet empire, there are several with nuclear plants/weapons. You can buy a Bom there for two Lexusses. The reason
this hasn't happened yet is that security still hasn't failed. But it will happen once. Al-Quada infiltrants are already signalled. What about them ?
The list doesn't stop here. Unfortunately.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
You in it with us, my friend. You just don't know it yet.
<hr></blockquote>
You're right on that one. But I'm not as ignorant as you think I am. We're all sitting on the same globe. Why can't we just live together ?
<strong>
Ahhh....this is the one that really gets me. You've been through wars, have you? And we haven't? Two words: Pearl Harbor.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pearl Harbour wasn't a war. Neither was 9/11. What was the point of bringing these up if you then go on to agree with the original posters point, that the US has been spared from having a war waged within its territory?
Also Germany and Italy are part of Europe. The US did not save them from anything in WWII. Ironically, this seems to mean they don't have to bow to the will of a foreign leader, but the French do.
I am sure he appreciates your support.
<strong><sarcasm> I think if we just give Saddam another chance, he will show us how much of a humanitarian he is. </sarcasm>
I am sure he appreciates your support.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Its not about giving Saddam a second chance but the thousands that will die in a war.
<strong>
Attacked twice as compared to having your country occupied for years and millions killed? Real comparable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um...was he comparing them, or was he simply stating that the US has also know war and gave those as examples? You omitted, on purpose I guess, that he also mentioned WW1, WW2, Korea etc...wars the US joined to help and lost many, many soldiers....or do those not count cuz they didn't die on their knees in their own country? Ignorance like that is amazing.
<strong>
Its not about giving Saddam a second chance but the thousands that will die in a war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Another perspective would be to compare how many would die in a war, and how many would die in Iraq without a war. Then how many could die outside of Iraq if Husseins' weapons aren't destroyed. I still think the sale of those weapons is a more pertinent issue than Hussein using them himself.
<strong>
Its not about giving Saddam a second chance but the thousands that will die in a war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
See, it's not about the thousands that will die in a war, they don't matter.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
<strong>
Pearl Harbour wasn't a war. Neither was 9/11. What was the point of bringing these up if you then go on to agree with the original posters point, that the US has been spared from having a war waged within its territory?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, it seems the original posts point was that they had been in lots of wars, with the wars being in their own countries being a secondary concern (notice the brackets). So the reply concerning Pearl and WTC make perfect sense when you also read the part about the US putting troops on the ground in WW1, WW2, Korea. Pearl and WTC were mentioned, I think, to show that, yes, America has been attacked on her own soil, so yes, they know what it's like to lose people at home. And then his further response about the actual wars, especially the ones fought for the Europeans, shows that in the last century, America had experience, not just the Europeans.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
Also Germany and Italy are part of Europe. The US did not save them from anything in WWII. Ironically, this seems to mean they don't have to bow to the will of a foreign leader, but the French do. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Umm...just because they were the aggressors doesn't mean the people weren't liberated. Or were you unfamiliar with the nature of the regimes in charge of Germany and Italy at the time? I think many would argue that those countries were liberated.
Please do not act like your real cause is to protect Iraqis. They die by the thousands already without war.
Keep ignoring that, I guess, because that's the result of playing the diplomatic game with Saddam.