# Hate America, Regardless...



## muskrat89 (28 Dec 2004)

The anti-American sentiment seems to be going up on the site, often by younger members. Once in awhile, I think it's good to take a step back from the furor, and re-evaluate.. I heard a quote the other day on the radio which stated that "..no country in history had accumulated as much power and wealth as the US - and abused it less"

The US is far from perfect, but countries often seem to have their hand out, while at the same time, slagging the US. I've said it before - open up all of the borders in the world, and see where everyone ends up.....

From FrontPageMag.com  http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16473



> America, the Great Santa
> By Ben Johnson
> FrontPageMagazine.com | December 28, 2004
> 
> ...


----------



## JBP (28 Dec 2004)

Very nice article indeed. I agree with the sentiments in the article that the "Left" are always bashing the USA. I've done it plenty myself, but this time around I gave my support of the USA in two separate threads because of thier immediate help with the Tsunami. I also stuck up for them in the "Russia+China training together" thread. 

But reading this article is almost as bad as watching any Michael Moore film, ONE sided... Sure they give you examples of how the Left treats them even when they do something nice, but it's just as easy to point out that they have to do such nice things at times to retain world popularity because they always f*ck thier image up by going to war and blowing countries apart they were never wanted in...

Not saying either view is right or wrong, either your going to like them, not like them or sit on the fence and rotate abit...  :-\

I'm about 60% don't like the USA because of it's foreign policy and the way they tread the poor in thier country+elderly and 40% like them because of all the other good things and credit they DO deserve.

And this statement:


> it is the nation that bailed Europe out of two world wars


 :
Please, really c'mon now. That is SOOOO one sided it's rediculous. In WW2 anyway, they did NOT really rescue Europe, they didn't even enter the war until later on and it was the Russians' who broke the back of the German war machine. Watch any documentary of history based on strategy and you'll understand it was actually the Russians who ended up taking the brunt of Hitlers' forces towards the end and then the USA came in and swooped up the rest... I'm not saying mind you that if they hadn't come Europe+Russia would have won, because they wouldn't have. They were crushed+Russia was crippled. But this tired Hitler's troops and stretched his forces out enough so that there was a chance to win when the American's came with fresh troops and new tanks...



> The US is far from perfect, but countries often seem to have their hand out, while at the same time, slagging the US. I've said it before - open up all of the borders in the world, and see where everyone ends up.....



Of course I know where they'd end up  ----->  


Also, I'm sorry but I can't agree with this statement no matter if it came from radio or not...


> I heard a quote the other day on the radio which stated that "..no country in history had accumulated as much power and wealth as the US - and abused it less"



Power corrupts, absolute power destroys. Ever nation in history that's become overtly powerful has eventually become corrupt and fallen from grace. It's human nature and a cycle.

 :skull:


----------



## Canuck_25 (28 Dec 2004)

I dont hate america, and im sure many young people dont either. If anything, during the cold war, i would choose america over the Soviet Union, even though both countries foreign policies involved installing dictators they approved of.

 The point is, you can write all the positive notes of American foreign policy, but it will never replace the negative image it has solidified .

   Our relationship with the americans alone (i mean Americans, not the bush administration) is at a low point. Soft wood lumber, beef, electricity and water are hot subjects of debate. It was democrat senators that indroduced the bill to tarriff Canadian lumber. 

   Both democrats and republicans i oppose. They dont want to engage in a relationship that is on equal terms with Canada.


----------



## muskrat89 (28 Dec 2004)

> Also, I'm sorry but I can't agree with this statement no matter if it came from radio or not...



I didn't agree with it because I heard it on the radio.... I heard it on the radio, and happened to agree with it.

About "bailing out Europe" of course it is exaggerated. A) Writers often write to provoke discussion/response B) I'm sure there are Brits who think they "they" won the war, and Russians, etc..  I don't take that point too literally.

People who don't think the poor and elderly are cared for - I'd like to know what practical knowledge they have of that.....


----------



## muskrat89 (28 Dec 2004)

> Our relationship with the americans alone (i mean Americans, not the bush administration) is at a low point. Soft wood lumber, beef, electricity and water are hot subjects of debate. It was democrat senators that indroduced the bill to tarriff Canadian lumber.
> 
> Both democrats and republicans i oppose. They dont want to engage in a relationship that is on equal terms with Canada.



And you don't think there are ANY trade practices of Canada that OTHER countries find unfair??

Sorry, but I grew up seeing subsidies to potato farmers, milk marketing boards stifling free-market, and lobster fishing making $60,000 in a season, only to draw pogey the rest of the year. 

How citizens are treated? I tried to apply for a job with DNR and was told to contact my MLA. To score a job at the border (Canada Customs) one had to talk to their MP. I love Canada, but the patronage is something akin to a banana republic....


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Dec 2004)

Pte (R) Joe said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Please, really c'mon now. That is SOOOO one sided it's rediculous. In WW2 anyway, they did NOT really rescue Europe, they didn't even enter the war until later on and it was the Russians' who broke the back of the German war machine. Watch any documentary of history based on strategy and you'll understand it was actually the Russians who ended up taking the brunt of Hitlers' forces towards the end and then the USA came in and swooped up the rest... I'm not saying mind you that if they hadn't come Europe+Russia would have won, because they wouldn't have. They were crushed+Russia was crippled. But this tired Hitler's troops and stretched his forces out enough so that there was a chance to win when the American's came with fresh troops and new tanks...



The Russians did play an awful price and, had it not been for the Americans, they would have paid a steeper one.

There were many in Churchill's team who were delighted at the prospect of a long, drawn out, bloody Russo-German War and who had no great interest in _liberating_ France ... they wanted to hold the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal â â€œ pretty much a done deal by the fall of 1941 - and let the Germans and Russians (aided by the output of British factories, paid for by US loans) duke it out for years and years and years.

There are many people who still think that was a good plan â â€œ a bit tough on some nice folks like the Dutch and Norwegians, to be sure, but 'good,' from a purely British point of view, all the same.   It is possible to consider 25,000,000 million dead Russians with some equanimity, if one takes the _long view_.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2004)

Pte (R) Joe said:
			
		

> Please, really c'mon now. That is SOOOO one sided it's rediculous. In WW2 anyway, they did NOT really rescue Europe, they didn't even enter the war until later on and it was the Russians' who broke the back of the German war machine. Watch any documentary of history based on strategy and you'll understand it was actually the Russians who ended up taking the brunt of Hitlers' forces towards the end and then the USA came in and swooped up the rest... I'm not saying mind you that if they hadn't come Europe+Russia would have won, because they wouldn't have. They were crushed+Russia was crippled. But this tired Hitler's troops and stretched his forces out enough so that there was a chance to win when the American's came with fresh troops and new tanks...



If you delve deeper into both WWI and WWII, you'll see that the America should probably get more credit then they are commonly afforded.   For example, in WWII:

1) They were actively involved (re: shooting Germans) in the War before the Soviets ever were - read Clay Blair's definitive history of the U-Boat War (with lots or recently declassified information) to get a better understanding of the details.

2) After the Fall of France, the British and Canadian war effort was basically bankrolled by the Americans.   The Canadian economy (the first "Arsenal of Democracy") was on the verge of collapse until the Hyde Park Declaration of 1941.   A similar bail-out was required in the First World War.   You could say that the Americans propped up the geopolitical 2-front dilemma that has constantly plagued Germany and led to its defeat.

3) Sure, the Soviets may have engaged a vast majority of the German war-machine with regards to Manpower and Material, but don't underestimate the contribution of the US sustained bomber offensive over Germany.   I can't remember where the article that I read this was, but consider the fact that over 50% of German War Production was dedicated to air-defence and fighter planes which were needed to protect the German Reich from the daily sorties of Allied bombers.   This is alot of War Production that could have been tooled to making Tiger tanks, 88's, and rolling stock for the Eastern Front.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2004)

I can see that this may turn into another mudslinging match, so all I am going to say is that the gist of the article is correct.

Goofballs with nothing better to do can foam at the mouth about imperialism all they want.   The US is like any other state, an actor that looks to self-interest first and foremost.   Attempting to hold it to some Utopian ideals of behaviour because of its position or geography is unfair and innaccurate.

Like it or not, the liberal democratic freedoms we enjoy today have existed under the aegis of American protection for the better part of 60 years.   Think about that next time you head to the protest....


----------



## JBP (28 Dec 2004)

> can see that this may turn into another mudslinging match, so all I am going to say is that the gist of the article is correct.



I'll agree with you on this part, it probably would turn into a mudsliger, but I agree with you also that the gist of the article is correct.. 
It's true most Anti-American sentiment is from a bunch of followers really, no real basis for discussion there. Also, in human nature (which I've often pointed out), we always want to take on the "big dawg". It's human nature to eventually try and tackle the big man. Like wolf packs, many times several members of the pack will challenge the Alpha until he's too weakened to win another fight and chased out of the pack or conceeds defeat to a younger alpha male. It's life. I also agreed in my other post+another thread that the USA was very generous this time around, immediatly without any premise offering assistance regardless of current world politics+threats.



> The US is like any other state, an actor that looks to self-interest first and foremost.


That's I think what upsets so many people sometimes and they view it selfishly. But if they were the richest and most powerful nation of the century I don't think they'd want to loose it either... We certainly don't want to let go of any of our liberties or freedoms in Canada either, even if it's a "Bannana Republic" according to Muskrat89...   Just kiddin'! 



> Like it or not, the liberal democratic freedoms we enjoy today have existed under the aegis of American protection for the better part of 60 years.  Think about that next time you head to the protest....



Quite simply, you nuked the spot! I don't think anyone can argue this point. It's true when it's all said and done.


----------



## winchable (28 Dec 2004)

The article itself makes sense, and any argument to the contrary can pretty much be put to rest by what Infanteer said:


> The US is like any other state, an actor that looks to self-interest first and foremost.



However:



> "..no country in history had accumulated as much power and wealth as the US - and abused it less"



I would point out that the reason it hasn't abused the power is probably because of the same sort of people that this article is basically designed to discredit and really just outright insult at time.

So, we do get quite a bit of "left" (GRRR) bashing on this site (a heck of alot more than America bashing if you'll read carefully) but the point is that that particular spectrum of the political sphere is a neccessary counterweight to those who might ruthlessly wage war and care little for humanitarian causes and rebuilding. Not to say that those war mongerers are from the "Right" and this is where the 2-dimensional politic fails.

Far from that, I would like to think that these humanitarian aid packages are coming from the "HUMAN" political party (That being you, I and every other poor sould on this rotating polluted squishy football we call earth) and that they are somewhat a-political, as was the aid package to the Russians in 1921.
My gripe with the article is that it's making the aid into a poltiical gesture, however where 50,000+ people have   now died, I believe they care little about who is voted into office..the author, does.


----------



## 48Highlander (28 Dec 2004)

The article isn't making the aid into a political gesture, it's simply pointing out that the US does plenty to help people around the world.  Pointing that out doesn't automaticaly make their motives into negative ones.  If someone accuses me of being a cheap selfish bastard, and I point out that I donated $2000 to charity last year, does that automaticaly make my donation a political gesture?


----------



## winchable (28 Dec 2004)

If the article hadn't been so liberal in it's use of the word "left" I might be inclined to agree with you, also if the article were about a person such as yourself and not a state such as the US, it might not be political.

As it is however, the author is directing his argument at the left, the left is a political side (Albeit an archaic term)
I would describe the article as using the tsunami to discredit the "left" which, as I will beat to death, is becoming a very subjective term in that anyone who opposes a certain thing can automatically be lumped in to it.

That being said, if someone called me a selfish ________ after donating 2000$ I'd laugh at them, but I wouldn't ask for a cookie.


----------



## muskrat89 (28 Dec 2004)

> I would point out that the reason it hasn't abused the power is probably because of the same sort of people that this article is basically designed to discredit and really just outright insult at time.



So you're saying all the people that cry "foul", that claim to be oppressed and powerless, that claim the big-business neo cons don't care - that those people *do*   influence the Government's actions, after all??

I admit that "left" gets used more and more casually, which may affect its accuracy - kinda like "war criminal"


Look, everyone - this was not meant to be "OH read this, it proves the US is a Saint" post. I'm just saying that we get a lot of anti-US rhetoric (relatively speaking) lately, and it is very easy to lose sight of the good that the US does in the world. It doesn't excuse their faults; it doesn't right their wrongs - it simply is meant to temper some of the negative ramblings here.


----------



## winchable (28 Dec 2004)

> So you're saying all the people that cry "foul", that claim to be oppressed and powerless, that claim the big-business neo cons don't care - that those people do  influence the Government's actions, after all??



Of course, look at the stink Chomsky, Moore and Parenti can raise.
And if they shut up like alot of people (here specifically) wish they would, then there would be unbalance in "force." haha



> Look, everyone - this was not meant to be "OH read this, it proves the US is a Saint" post. I'm just saying that we get a lot of anti-US rhetoric (relatively speaking) lately, and it is very easy to lose sight of the good that the US does in the world. It doesn't excuse their faults; it doesn't right their wrongs - it simply is meant to temper some of the negative ramblings here.



yeaaah but what did you expect?  ;D


----------



## Canuck_25 (28 Dec 2004)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> > Our relationship with the americans alone (i mean Americans, not the bush administration) is at a low point. Soft wood lumber, beef, electricity and water are hot subjects of debate. It was democrat senators that indroduced the bill to tarriff Canadian lumber.
> >
> > Both democrats and republicans i oppose. They dont want to engage in a relationship that is on equal terms with Canada.
> 
> ...



 Well, i currently live in a community thats main industry is forestry. I have watched communities become ghost towns and many move away. Dont lecture me on the impacts of tarriffs, i know them all too well.


----------



## muskrat89 (28 Dec 2004)

> Well, i currently live in a community thats main industry is forestry. I have watched communities become ghost towns and many move away. Dont lecture me on the impacts of tarriffs, i know them all too well.



I'm not lecturing you on anything. I grew up near Nackawick, New Brunswick. Their mill just closed putting 1000  people or so out of work. The majority of the town work there. I am saying that there are US towns in the same boat, due to their perceived injustices in NAFTA. Are you telling me that there are no sections of the Canadian economy that benefit? Are you telling me that there are no sections of the US economy that suffer due to trade with Canada? C'mon...   :


----------



## Canuck_25 (28 Dec 2004)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> > Well, i currently live in a community thats main industry is forestry. I have watched communities become ghost towns and many move away. Dont lecture me on the impacts of tarriffs, i know them all too well.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not lecturing you on anything. I grew up near Nackawick, New Brunswick. Their mill just closed putting 1000   people or so out of work. The majority of the town work there. I am saying that there are US towns in the same boat, due to their perceived injustices in NAFTA. Are you telling me that there are no sections of the Canadian economy that benefit? Are you telling me that there are no sections of the US economy that suffer due to trade with Canada? C'mon...     :




  Ill tell you this, retaliating to the softwood tarrifs with tarrifs on American products wont solve anything. Im sure, that you know that the Fordney-McCumber act introduced in 1922 tarriffed goods that competed with american goods. Now, this act was one of the main reasons the world slipped into the economic depression in the 1930's.

 Now, another act passed through congress (similar to the Fordney-McCumber act) Tarrifs imported steel products, foreign agricultural products, and other manufactured products. Japan and the EU have complained to the World trade orginization, but the U.S. wont budge. So, The japaneese, Europeans and maby even Canadian will be responding to American tarriffs with their own tarrifs. The 1920's world trade is repeating itself again.


----------



## Stefan Moxness (28 Dec 2004)

I think one of the problems with American bashing is caused by something similar to what we see in the media all the time.  You turn on the news and what do you see most of the time? Murders, people dying from disease, people suffering from famine and poverty.  so what do most people assume, they figure there's only bad things going on, the world is a bad place to be.  But we are rarely shown the good that is happening in the world. The aid people are offering to the sick and the poor, the medical developments that are saving millions, etc.  I think we are suffering from a similar occurence with the US. That being our wonderful media industry shows us the US going to war, and people dying because of it, we see news casters saying "the US make x$ a year and only donates x% to aid, that's not enough" blah blah blah (i'd like to know how much money these people commit to charity in relation to their own self-worth).  What we see is normally bad news whether it be about the US or jsut the world in general so it's easy for people to bash when they only know half the story.  Likewise when we hear good things we only hear the good side.  Since most news stories or articles are written by a person with a certain bias naturally he or her is not going to say "the nation i love is great because of {...}, but their also an evil capitalist nation (just using a common perspective not my own  ).  the thing is people have opinions and since everyone experiences certain aspects of the US policy (they either get the good end or the bad end) they will either have a good opionion of them or a bad one.  The individual opinion of a person or the article written by one man doens't make a nation good or bad.  If you met the nicest person in the world when his wife was just murdered you probably wouldn't think he's a very nice person since he's  definitely in a bad mood.  Likewise, when one thing a nation does hurts a certain group of people it doesn't make them bad, especially considering a lot of what they do helps millions of people.  You can't please everyone all the time. You can't let one side of the story be the only thing that develops your opinion.  The US is a super power, they are THE super power, and with that title comes certain obligations most of which they, in my opinion fulfill quite well, but there are many things they do that i dont' agree with.  Just because they do certian things i don't like doesn't mean I see them as a bad country, just because certain policies have affect my business doesn't mean i hate them, my friends do lots of things i really dont' agree with does that mean that they aren't my friends any longer, no! it also can't be forgotten that like any person you do have to look out for yourself before you can take care of others.  With the exception of a very very few people who have ever lived, show me the person who has given everythign they have to help others, jsut because we only give a bit doesn't make you bad at all, the US gives a ton of money to the world, and yes they keep a lot for themselves but that's too be expect. you're a fool if you think that because tehy are a super power they should give (inventing a number here to make a point) 30% of their total revenue to the world. you need to take care of your country, raise the quality of life of your people, and try to make your people happy then you can take care of others.  It's  a basic concept of psychology, your needs and well being must be fulfilled before you can attempt to fulfill those of others, if you don't feel yourself growing you will not be able to healthily help others grow as well.  All that ranting being said, this argument will always exist since like i said everyone has their own opinions and everyone gets one end or the other, but we should try and look at the good and the bad before taking off on a rant and insult the "left" or the "right". and let's try and keep it civil, everyone has the right to their opinions, you don't need to get mad at someone because they think differently then you, just because your on the "right" and he's on the "left" (whatever you hold that to mean) doesnt' mean that you're in anyway more righteous than he is, or that your opinion is of any more worth than his (viceversa with you being on the left and him on the right). the fun is that their are people of both opinion, they make you realize certain sides of the story you might not have seen without them.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2004)

Try using paragraphs....


----------



## Stefan Moxness (28 Dec 2004)

> I really have a hard time when people say the americans won the war or the russians won the war.   Neither of them won the war. The allies did.



Exactly, this is why I detest the continuation of the "small-man" inferiority complex when it runs into history.

"Well, the American's didn't really do as much to win the war - after all, they weren't in it until 1941"

The historical record shows this view to be wrong.


----------



## muskrat89 (28 Dec 2004)

> Japan and the EU have complained to the World trade orginization, but the U.S. wont budge.



Better check your facts - the steel tariffs were lifted over 3 weeks ago. I work in the steel industry. The tariffs helped out the mills in the US, but they were absolutely _killing_ all of the industries downstream (like mine).

*WHAT???*     A US trade practice was having negative impacts on US Companies???? I thought they only hurt Canadian industry....


----------



## 1feral1 (28 Dec 2004)

Ya the Yanks take alot of crap and abuse, but at the end of the day, when there is a big disaster (like on Boxing Day), guess who's crying for Uncle sam to foot the bill and pay for it. The Yanks have forked out 35 million for starters, plus supplying troops and eqpt to assist, and they still get critisised. 

Glad to see the French chipped in $140,000  :. Now thats just outragous, but I reckon every dollar helps.

If it wasn't for our American friends, who did a lot in WW2 on two fronts to save our skin (and they did), the war would have had a different outcome. Sure we maybe would have won in the long run, but the casualties would have been much much higher on our side, and look at Japan. How many innocent civilians would have been killed if the invasion had to take place (some say over 1 million). Thank goodness for the USA, fatman and Littleboy.

Ya, and the cold war too, who knows if it wasn't for the US presence in Europe, the Russians may have expanded their empire right into western Europe.

Frankly I have had just about enough from the misinformed 'snotty nosed snivel libertarian looser left' and their continious Yank bashing.


Regards,

Wes


----------



## a_majoor (29 Dec 2004)

Here is something to get the America bashers into a real frenzy:

America is entering a growth cycle due to the Bush Administration tax cuts, resulting in an annual growth of American GDP at a rate of @ 5% compounded annually. Bush will make these cuts permanent during the second term, and a putative President Condeleeza Rice will probably keep them in place in 2008 and 2012. All you need to do is look up a compound interest table to see that $100 invested now will be 179.59 at the end of President Rice's second term (simple compound interest), and the cumulative growth will be astronomical since this new wealth will also be invested and compounded.

America will therefor have the resources to remain the worlds military hegemon, most generous benefactor, most innovative cultural and entertainment centre, etc. etc. for my and my children's lifetimes (my son is 3) to all our great good fortunes.

Even China teaming up with Russia and France to escape a potential "containment" policy by future administrations fails to understand they are operating in a 20th century paradigm, American "containment" in the 21rst century will be even more all encompassing because it will be based on totally different principles. 

The changes in American culture and demographics make this state of affairs the most likely outcome, and the liberal elites and others who decry Americas wealth, power. moral sense and position of global dominance had better get used to that great old Army saying: "Suck it up".


----------



## oyaguy (29 Dec 2004)

About Anti-Americanism, being against George W. Bush, isn't anti-Americanism. It's anti-Bush. Hence, Micheal Moore{ A definite left-winger if their ever was one} isn't anti-American. A majority of Canadians at the moment are not Bush fans, but that doesn't make them anti-American. It makes them anti-Bush. 

Being against the Republican, or Democratic Party doesn't make a person anti-American. It makes them anti-Republican, or anti-Democrats. 

Being against the business practices of multinational corporations in third world countries doesn't make a person anti-American. It makes them, anti-globalization, anti-sweatshops, anti-Nike, anti-Nabob Coffee, take your pick, it isn't really important.

What I am trying to get at it that we have all of these points of view, all these disagreements, that get lumped into being anti-American because some other groups just want to throw in the trump card that is American nationalism. It is simplistic.

As for those countries who actually Hate {capital-h, hate} Americans, some of it is America's fault, but most of it is those countries' fault, and American happens to be the fall guy.

Another point I want to make about anti-Americanism, is when you're the only super power in the world, you have more and bigger opportunities to be a hypocrite, which people don't respond to well.

Just out of curiosity, how many people think Hate America, Regardless... should be the title for a comedy piece?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (29 Dec 2004)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> About Anti-Americanism, being against George W. Bush, isn't anti-Americanism. It's anti-Bush. Hence, Micheal Moore{ A definite left-winger if their ever was one} isn't anti-American. A majority of Canadians at the moment are not Bush fans, but that doesn't make them anti-American. It makes them anti-Bush.
> 
> Being against the Republican, or Democratic Party doesn't make a person anti-American. It makes them anti-Republican, or anti-Democrats.
> 
> ...



Although I agree with you, I don't think most anti-American sentiment comes from such well-reasoned thought.   I think it generally comes from the most ignorant in society who either don't read at all, or read propaganda-based media with an agenda to undermine the USA at every opportunity.   Where were all the peace activists when the Russians literally tried to steal Ukranian democracy?   How about mass demonstrations against France's invasion of the Ivory Coast?   I have read more than one article that associates the Moveon.org group (which organizes all these demonstrations) with communist parties from around the world and suggested links between it and major national powers who would like undermine the USA and its world influence.   In essence, a communist-funded Degaullist propaganda tool targeting idealistic but uninformed youth.  

Bottom Line:   A bunch of dumb people are having their agenda set by foreign powers and taking their eye off the bigger picture which is "What would the world look like if the USA didn't carry a big stick, and had demonstrated a willingness to use it?"




Matthew.


----------



## Canuck_25 (29 Dec 2004)

The French have U.N. support in the Ivory coast.

 The U.S. dosnt have U.N. support in Iraq.

 As the yanks say "whole different ball park"


----------



## 48Highlander (29 Dec 2004)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> About Anti-Americanism, being against George W. Bush, isn't anti-Americanism. It's anti-Bush. Hence, Micheal Moore{ A definite left-winger if their ever was one} isn't anti-American. A majority of Canadians at the moment are not Bush fans, but that doesn't make them anti-American. It makes them anti-Bush.
> 
> Being against the Republican, or Democratic Party doesn't make a person anti-American. It makes them anti-Republican, or anti-Democrats.
> 
> ...



    Being against any one or two American actions or policies isn't anti-american.  It becomes anti-americanism when you automaticaly disregaurd a policy or idea just because it's associated with the US, which a LOT of people do.  I have an uncle who still beleives that Serbia was bombed so the US could build a pipeline through Kosovo, and that the US faked the moon landing, and he has dozens of "facts" to back it up.  He's a very intelligent man, but as soon as the word "America" comes up, he goes into conspiracy-theory mode.  I also had a liberal friend watch the series "Band of Brothers" recently, and his reaction was "it would have been a good movie if it wasn't so pro-american".  Now if that type of behaviour can't be calssified as anti-americanism, what can?


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Dec 2004)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> he U.S. dosnt have U.N. support in Iraq.



Do you really hold the UN in such high respect?

I certainly don't.

Corrupt, bureaucratic, inbread, and toothless. Sorry thats what I think of the organisation. Its not what it ussed to be.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (29 Dec 2004)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> > I also had a liberal friend watch the series "Band of Brothers" recently, and his reaction was "it would have been a good movie if it wasn't so pro-american".
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the people of Belgium are pro-American?



That series was hardly pro-american... if by that he meant pro-american ideals or something. It was a true story, they were real people, you cant blame them for loving america if theyre american.


			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Do you really hold the UN in such high respect?
> 
> I certainly don't.
> 
> Corrupt, buracratic, inbread, and toothless. Sorry thats what I think of the organisation. Its not what it ussed to be.



The US didnt need UN support in Iraq, seeing as how the US is a large portion of the UN security counsels military power.A little help from some third party countries would have been nice but the overall result wouldnt have been much different I don't imagine.Most countries with the ability to help out militarily , did so.You can hardly say its an american endeavor, theres something like 100 different countries represented in afghanistan alone, I dont know how many are in Iraq.

It is true the UN isnt what it used to be.I dunno about inbred and toothless but theyre certainly corrupt and beauracratic.The UN doesnt seem to have a major voice in world affairs anymore, and Iraq is a prime example.Kofi Annan called the war illegal, and the UN was against it from the beginning.If they arent going to do anything about it, who cares what a bunch of old guys think about something, cause thats all that they are without acting upon anything.Empty threats.

Although, when the US inevitably pulls out, or begins its pullout process, I think its a likely scenario that the UN sends a peace corps to try and keep things under control and help train police etc.Im surprised they havnt sent anyone to oversee, or more specifically, help set up and secure election sites? Doesnt the UN stand for democracy and fairness 
I dont think they have anyway, correct me if im wrong.


----------



## Canuck_25 (29 Dec 2004)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> CANUCK 25.....what exactly does this mean?


 Well, let me see, when the Ivorians attacked french troops with aircraft, the French responded by destroying Ivory's airforce. The U.N. publically supported France's move.


----------



## Canuck_25 (29 Dec 2004)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3993265.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4017995.stm


----------



## Canuck_25 (30 Dec 2004)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I make no bones about it, the French have always been America's enemy, contrary to popular myth.   So when I see the French doing what they accuse other countries, my teeth make a little grinding sound and it makes me want to   :-X
> 
> Public support, I laugh at you sir
> 
> Anyway, read about John Paul Jones and his supposed French Allies......I would love to hear your take on things.



  Why hate France? They were fighting in indo-china with America's support.

  The French helped occupy Germany and Austria during the cold war.

  The French are in afganistan right now, assisting with american lead war on terror and they have more troops in the country than canada.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Dec 2004)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> The French are in afganistan right now, assisting with american lead war on terror and they have more troops in the country than canada.



Let's see your numbers and source please.


----------



## Goober (30 Dec 2004)

They have 1500 troops there last I heard, which includes special forces in the south helping the Americans.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Dec 2004)

"I heard" isn't good enough. I want to see a credible source with numbers.


----------



## 48Highlander (30 Dec 2004)

http://www.info-france-usa.org/news/statmnts/2004/defense_budget070804.asp



> Today, France is still largely involved in Afghanistan. Now, 540 French troops are deployed in Afghanistan as part of the International Security Assistance Force, whose duty is to maintain security at the Kabul airport and its surroundings. And France is also playing a significant role in training the new Afghan army, alongside the US and the United Kingdom, having organized three battalions of 500 men and being presently involved in the training of all Afghan officers.
> 
> With the Navy contribution to OEF, a total of 1,470 French troops are involved in the stabilization of Afghanistan. They will amount to 1,820 with the arrival of Eurocorps in Kabul during the summer.



    Since Canada only has 1,004 personnel in afghanistan, he's correct.  Surprised the heck outta me.  On the other hand they have 4,300 in the Ivory Coast.  Shows clearly where their priorities lie.  And there's also the fact that their total number of deployed personnel worldwide is roughly 34,000, whereas ours is sitting at a rather pathetic 1,352.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Dec 2004)

That's what I wanted. I'm also reading it as 540 "in Afghanistan". The 500 are local soldiers trained by them and the navy doesn't count, as the statement "in Afghanistan" was made. Summer is also not here yet.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Dec 2004)

*Into the Tar Pits*
Dinosaurs either evolve or die.

There was a time when the political lines about foreign policy were well drawn. Those on the Left felt that American democracy and global capitalism did not necessarily offer the rest of the world a much better alternative than either Soviet-sponsored Communism or third-world thuggery. Instead, in this view, American realism favored order, but not spreading liberty or social justice abroad â â€ and only managed to promote overseas more of the unfairness and racism that we supposedly suffered from at home.

Everything from Vietnam to Nicaragua was seen through this reductionist prism, assuming a haughty United States at odds with indigenous reformers the world over. But with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the rise of the capitalist juggernauts China and India, the globalization of the world economy, radical social and economic changes here at home, and the spread of Islamic fascism, none of those old views makes sense anymore.

President Bush was criticized by many Democrats on both practical and political grounds for ostracizing Yasser Arafat, the past beneficiary of a rigged vote. Yet most are silent now about the news that local elections are now taking place for the first time in nearly a decade. Why voting all of a sudden now? Was the president right in seeing the removal of this so-called national liberationist as a key to democratic change on the West Bank?

The old critique of American policy in the Middle East was driven by charges of petro-imperialism â â€ that we would do any and all things to secure fuel for our gas-guzzlers. But China now satisfies most of its skyrocketing oil appetite from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Oman. Unlike the United States, there is no internal Chinese opposition to question the new superpower's oil politics, which are heating up global energy markets. The so-called Peoples Republic cares only about price and availability. It worries not at all about its petro-trade's subsidizing Wahhabism, theocracy, or Islamic extremism.

We may still rant about the American rejection of Kyoto. But is anyone alarmed over the hundreds of coal plants sprouting up in India and China to ensure billions of people that there will be enough energy for a possible future lifestyle of the type we now take for granted in Santa Barbara and Nantucket? In short, we will soon enter an age in which China may well change the world's environment, affect the price of oil, and govern the world's trade as much as the United States â â€ and will care almost nothing about what Western liberals say, secure either that its fraying socialist veneer or sheer size and power will earn it a pass from the censure of Western intellectuals.

If we thought indigenous liberationist movements of the Islamic world â â€ who have beheaded and killed to be free of Western religious tolerance, equity for women and homosexuals, and voting and human rights â â€ put an enormous strain on the ossified Left, wait until Mao's old socialist utopia begins to send ultimatums to the democracies of the Philippines, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. What will Earth First do when this socialist behemoth sprouts its oil rigs in the Arctic tundra and pristine seas?

The international media is not up in arms about the murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gough or the video execution of democratic activists in the streets of Baghdad â â€ at least not as they once had been over the televised shooting of a Vietcong captain by South Vietnamese general Nguyen Ngoc Loan. Of course, the democracy activists in Iraq were working only for freedom, not, like Loan, for socialist tyranny. The only political consistency for the media's reaction or lack thereof seems to be the particular affinity of the shooters and victims for the United States: Pulitzer Prizes when a Communist is shot by an American surrogate; snores when the murdered Iraqi idealists shared an American vision of elections.

Consider further: The United States runs staggering trade deficits with most of the world. Its dollar is at an all-time low. Its postwar international protocols â â€ from the World Trade Organization to the United Nations â â€ either favor the non-West or look unkindly toward the United States. The American military, at great risk and cost, alone in the world saved Kosovars, Afghans, and Iraqis from tyranny. For all the Vietnam-era rhetoric about American meddling, the elected Karzai and the provisional Allawi are a far cry from the Shah, Pinochet, or Somoza. We are doing things in the Middle East that make no sense in terms of traditional economic or political advantage â â€ and yet still bring out 1960s-era stegosauruses alleging imperialism and hegemony.

What has happened? Sometime around the 1980s, the Right saw the demise of the Soviet Union as an opportunity to evolve beyond realpolitik to promote not just anti-Communism but grassroots democracy, coupled with free-market globalism from Eastern Europe to Latin America and Asia. In contrast, the hard Left stayed in its knee-jerk suspicion of the West and continued to give a pass to authoritarians from Cuba to Iran who professed socialism, thinking that the world was a static zero-sum game in which somebody's gain spelled another's loss â â€ oblivious that real wealth could be created by a change of mentality and technology and not mere exploitation.

As the old politics lie in ruin from hypocrisy and incoherence, the Left needs to get a new life. Here are a few more suggestions:

Remember that multilateral inaction â â€ whether in the Balkans, Rwanda, or Darfur â â€ is often calculated, selfish, and far more lethal to millions than risky interventions like removing the Taliban and Saddam.

Quit idolizing Europe. It was a far larger arms merchant to Saddam than was the United States; it supplied most of Dr. Khan's nuclear laboratory; it financed much of the Oil-for-Food scandal; and it helped to create and tolerate the Balkans genocide. It has never freed any country or intervened to remove fascism and leave behind democracy â â€ silly American notions that are to be caricatured except when it is a matter of saving Europeans.

Stop seeing an all-powerful United States behind every global problem. China is on the move and far more likely to disrupt environmental protocols, cheat on trade accords, and bully neighbors. The newly expanded Europe has a larger population and aggregate economy, stronger currency, and far less in trade and budget debts than does the United States â â€ and is already using that economic clout for its own interests, not global freedom from dictators and autocrats.

Don't believe much of what the U.N. says anymore. Its secretary general is guilty of either malfeasance or incompetence, its soldiers are often hired thugs who terrorize those they are supposed to protect, and its resolutions are likely to be anti-democratic and anti-Semitic. Its members include dozens of nations whose odious representatives we would not let walk inside the doors of the U.S. Congress. The old idea of a United Nations was inspiring, the current reality chilling.

Stop seeing socialists and anti-Americans as Democrats. When a Michael Moore compares beheaders to our own Minutemen and laments that too many Democrats were in the World Trade Center, he deserves no platform alongside Wesley Clark or a seat next to Jimmy Carter or praise for his pseudo-dramas from high Democrats. Firebrands like Al Sharpton and Michael Moore are the current leftist equivalents of 1950s right-wing extremists like the John Birchers. They should suffer the same fate of ostracism, not bemused and tacit approval.

Ignore most grim international reports that show the United States as stingy, greedy, or uncaring based on some esoteric formula that makes a Sweden or Denmark out as the world's savior. Such "studies" always ignore aggregate dollars and look at per capita public giving, and yet somehow ignore things like over $100 billion to Afghanistan and Iraq or $15 billion pledged to fight AIDS in Africa. These academic white papers likewise forget private donations, because most of the American billionaires who give to global causes of various sorts do so as either individuals or through foundations. No mention is made of the hundred of millions that are handled by American Christian charities. And the idea of a stingy America never mentions about $200 billion of the Pentagon's budget, which does things like keeping the Persian Gulf open to world commerce; protecting Europe; ensuring that the Aegean is free of shooting and that the waters between China, Korea, Taiwan, and Japan are relatively tranquil; and stopping nasty folk like the Taliban and Saddam from blowing up more Buddha monuments, desecrating Babylon, or ruining the ecology of the Tigris-Euphrates wetlands.

Action and results, not rhetoric and intentions, are what matter. Cease blaming others for declining popularity. There is neither a Karl Rove conspiracy nor an envisioned red-state theocracy. No, the problem with our Left is what killed the dinosaurs: a desire to plod on to oblivion in a rapidly evolving world.

â â€ Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His website is victorhanson.com.


----------



## Goober (30 Dec 2004)

That article is dated July 8th. There are 900 in Kabul right now. Some simple Google searches will get you what you want.

FYC here is a more recent news blurb http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=577312&C=asiapac


----------



## chrisf (30 Dec 2004)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I make no bones about it, the French have always been America's enemy, contrary to popular myth.   So



Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they a major supplier of troops, arms, and cash to the American revolution?


----------



## 48Highlander (30 Dec 2004)

Goober said:
			
		

> That article is dated July 8th. There are 900 in Kabul right now. Some simple Google searches will get you what you want.



    Whoops.  I'll admit I didn't look at the date, I just assumed that an official french government site would keep that sort of information up to date.  Thanks for the correction.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (30 Dec 2004)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they a major supplier of troops, arms, and cash to the American revolution?



I thought so.... where did that big statue in new york come from anyway? =p


----------



## chrisf (30 Dec 2004)

The American revolution was a sideways cause of the French revolution, as the French spent so much money bank-rolling the American revolution, it drove their country to bankruptcy. As peasents starved in the streets, troops were returning from America, where they had been fighting alongside American troops, with their heads now filled with ideas of democracy and representation for the lower classes, and prepared to fight against the monarch... (Among other causes)


----------



## ibucephalus (30 Dec 2004)

> theres something like 100 different countries represented in afghanistan alone



The NATO web-site lists 37 nations that contribute forces to ISAF, including 873 troops from France. The information is dated 21 Nov 2004.

There is an indeterminate (though likely small) number of nations contributing to Operation Enduring Freedom, the continuing US operation in Afghanistan.

Edited to add;



> the French have always been America's enemy



By the use of the word "enemy" do you mean "close ally"? That seems the only _logical_ conclusion based on an _objective_ look at the the US - French relationship, especially in the 20th century. The following are some instances where the US and Fance have been allies: The First World War, The Second World War, The Korean War, The French War in Indo-china, The Cold War, the War on Terror. 

When I first read your post I thought you were being ironic.


----------



## Canuck_25 (30 Dec 2004)

Well, got a little confused between German and French troop contributions. Still, France is not the U.S.'s enemy and im sure if france was, it wouldnt be contributing troops to afganistan.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Dec 2004)

Saying France is a natural and historic enemy of the United States is just silly - especially when it's over a little _Realpolitik_ fallout (which we have every now-and-then with America as well).  Who's up for Freedom Fries?


----------



## Infanteer (5 Jan 2005)

Google Yorktown.  There is a reason Cornwallis couldn't leave.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jan 2005)

While the French were instrumental in assisting the American Revolution, it was an exercise in Realpolitik for France, since the revolutionary war tied up a lot of British ships and troops which might otherwise have been  used against France. Since France has also been soundly drubbed in the Seven Year's War, revenge is also a strong motive.

Not long after "These United States" gained Independence, America was involved in a protracted "cold war" with France, and in the 1860s, France openly supported the Confederacy.

The French, like everyone else, are driven by their perceived self interest. Unfortunately for France, they seem to have much bigger "self interests" then their economy and population is able to support, still nursing dreams of their lost Colonial Empire and the glories of Napoleon.


----------



## ibucephalus (6 Jan 2005)

> It seems to me that this type of behavior is similar to having a "friend" in a barfight kick you in the balls after you get sucker punched.



Or perhaps having an "ally" drop a laser-guided "bomb" on you while on "operations" together in "Afghanistan"? The incident you quote sounds like a bad case of friendly fire. It happens. You carry on. Have you got any grievances more recent than 200 years ago? The way you complain about things from the distant past makes you sound sort of like a Bosnian.


----------



## squealiox (6 Jan 2005)

here's an interesting take on the frenchies,

http://www.exile.ru/2003-October-02/war_nerd.html


----------



## 48Highlander (6 Jan 2005)

You can't pick sides in the Serbia/Bosnia conflict.  It had nothing to do with payback.  The Serbs just didn't want to see their country disintegrate.  If Quebec decided to seperate, would we let them go?  During the last referendum we put the military on alert....so unless we were planning to send soldiers to wave goodbye to them, I think we'd be responding much like the Serbs did.  Minus ofcourse the mass killings, which both sides of that conflict were equaly responsible for.


----------



## Marauder (6 Jan 2005)

It never fails to amuse me when loonie lefties say that hating Dubya doesn't equate to hating America. HELLLLLOOOO, it was the MAJORITY of AMERICANS who set Dubya up in the nice office of Oval design. 
Just wanted to point of some of the more blatant hypocrisy the commies and loons keep shoving in our faces as The Truth (may Papa Joe rot in hell).

Oh yeah, and fuck France, just because.


----------



## chrisf (6 Jan 2005)

Marauder said:
			
		

> HELLLLLOOOO, it was the MAJORITY of AMERICANS who set Dubya up in the nice office of Oval design.



Um, actually, it wasn't...while he was elected through democractic process, the majority of American's didn't vote for him...


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jan 2005)

:boring:


----------



## 48Highlander (6 Jan 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> There was a lot of historical baggage in the conflict.....Historical hatred and ethnic cleansing had little to do with keeping a country together.



    You're right ofcourse.  Hatred never needs a solid reason or an attainable goal, just enough influential people fanning the flames.  That sort of hatred is what caused the other states to attempt to leave Yugoslavia in the first place.

    Serbia saw itself as the center of Yugoslavia, so when the country started falling apart they decided it was in their best interest to stop that from happening.  Regaurdless of the "historical hate" that might exist, their original plan had nothing to do with slaughtering Bosnians and Croats.  When the war started going badly for them, they resorted to "ethnic cleansing".  The Croats and Bosnians meanwhile were carrying on a similar campaign against the Serbs who lived in those states.  Even very little of that was fueled by "historical hatred".  Once random killings start taking place, people tend to be motivated much more by more recent hatred, fear, and a desire for revenge.  While the people in that part of the world may go on for days about some injustice done to them back in 1637, they tend to be motivated into action by much more recent occurances.  History is only a small part of it.

    I was born in Yugoslavia and lived there for 10 years or so.  The only sign of hatred I ever saw before moving to Canada was one time when our car was broken into and everything inside torn apart.  Turns out it happened because we were in Croatia and had Serbian licence-plates.  That's it though.  Half of my family was Croatian and the other half was Serbian.  We used to get together on a regular basis and have a great time together.  Lots of raki and kebabs for everyone regaurdless of where you live.  I remember my grandfathers getting drunk together and telling me stories about what it was like growing up during ww2.  3 years later, one of those grandfathers was directing Serbian airforce efforts over croatia, and the other was a Croatian war-criminal accused of slaughtering dozens of Serb civilians.  I very much doubt that either of them had "historical hatred" motivating their actions.


----------



## 1feral1 (6 Jan 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Half of my family was Croatian and the other half was Serbian.



Just changing the topic slightly, but on the humourous side, there is an Australian movie called "The Wog Boy", a truly good comedy, filmed in Melbourne, Victoria (late 1990s), and a great laugh. 

In the movie there is a Cro-Serbian 'standover man' bloke who plays such a good funny role. Anyways, with the tradional high tempered stereotype of the reagion of the FRY, he blurts out in the movie "I am half Serbian, half Croation, and when I get mad, I wanna kill myself".

If this movie is available in Canada, hire it, and you'll have good laugh.

Cold beers,

Wes


----------



## 48Highlander (6 Jan 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Well 48Highlander, you have a personal connection to Yugoslavia that I have nothing to compare to.   I can only recount the numerous reports and bits and pieces I gleaned from the local workers we had at Eagle Base and some of our small camps.   Do the Serbs celebrate their defeat as a victory?   I always thought they did.   Regardless I think the whole thing was stupid, blowing up each other, for what?



      The ones I know seem to avoid thinking about it instead of celebrating or mourning.   Most of them deffinitely don't consider it a defeat though.   And, as seems to be the trend these days, most of them blame the US for both the first war and the Kosovo campaign.   Although as far as Kosovo is concerned, they seem to hold Milosevic equaly responsible.

    Thanks for the laugh Wes, I'll keep an eye out for that movie


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jan 2005)

Apparently, Al Jezzera is blaming the United States for causing the Tsunami. Wonder why that took so long to figure out.....


----------



## Sailing Instructor (8 Jan 2005)

If one argues that people cannot argue with (I'll not say hate, as this only applies to few 'leftys,' or whatever they're called) a gov't without logically arguing with those who chose the gov't then does it not follow that the electors themselves may not agree with their own gov't?  Logically, this is true.  But rationally it is absurd.  Those who may be called leftys (I disagree with the left/right terms as they tear people like me apart) have a good reason to say that they are anti-Bush (or anti-war-in-Iraq) without being anti-American.  A vote, I think, does not completely spell out one's entire political philosophy--I dare say few voters even have a coherent one upon which to base their vote. 

I have to say, to get back to the original issue, it's nice that America is helping those tsunamied peoples no matter if it's just because that's the right thing to do or pragmatically because the terrorists won't have a (rather faulty) reason to attack America.  Either way, it does some good.


----------



## Slim (8 Jan 2005)

Apparently the Mullah's and the Imams in the M.E. are running around telling their flock (read blind followers) that the Tsunami is Allah's way of punishing us in the decadent, zionist west...

What a load. The only sad thing is that, of course, the masses over there believe it!

How we will win this one is beyond me!

Slim


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Jan 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Apparently, Al Jezzera is blaming the United States for causing the Tsunami. Wonder why that took so long to figure out.....



What next eh! What about all those 'oil rich middle east states' and their dotantions for disaster releif??? I understand that Saudi Arabia has given some, but its so low key. Where all all the muslim countries? I guess The Great Satan and the west will again be expected to pay the tab on this one too.

Meanwhile here in Australia, Sydney's muslim community is raising money for Aceh only, so it looks like they only want their money going to their own kind, not the disaster in whole. 

Here we are going forward with $1 billion AUD   (about 750 million USD) from a country with 19 million (9 million working), plus over $100 million AUD raised in private donations (and growning).

It is also reported that Wahibi extremists are flooding into Aceh to try to gain some kind of a foothold with all the termoil. Meanwhile rebel forces attacked Indonesian troops near a hospital in a 10 minute firefight last night, only a short distance from unarmed Australian troops.

Again right here in Sydney a muslim cleric has said the tsunami is allah punishing the west in Thailand for their lifestyle of whisky, prostitution, dress and music   :


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jan 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> What next eh! What about all those 'oil rich middle east states' and their dotantions for disaster releif??? I understand that Saudi Arabia has given some, but its so low key. Where all all the muslim countries? I guess The Great Satan and the west will again be expected to pay the tab on this one too.
> 
> Meanwhile here in Australia, ther muslim community is raising money for Aceh only, so it looks like they only want their money going to their own kind, not the disaster in whole.
> 
> ...



Glad to see that there are still peole around who will take advantage of human suffering !  :threat:


----------



## Slim (9 Jan 2005)

I think that people had better wake up to the fact that the HARDLINE muslin countries do not live by the "live and let live" motto. And are willing to do "whatever it takes" to get whatever it is that their after!

I find this rather alarming and, even more so, is that the western countries seemingly want to help them do it!

Scary times ahead! 

Slim


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jan 2005)

IMHO, in the not so long-term......we better get ready for war

Thast just my $0.02


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2005)

Linked from Insatpundit, well worth reading.

http://varifrank.com/archives/2005/01/today_i_was_unp_1.php

*Today, I was "Unprofessional"...*

Over the past 6 weeks, I've been deeply enmeshed in one of those "go live at the end of the year" projects that we in the IT industry have learned to love. The kind where managers assume that since no one is working, why that would be the perfect time to go live!

Of course, it means that your doing complex work at the point of maximum distraction with many many holidays and no staff.

This year we had a major distraction, and I'm bothered that I described it that way.

On Christmas Day, a disaster visited the human race. Hundreds of thousands of people, quietly living their lives on the edge of the sea were killed. They were killed, not by suicide bombers or suitcase nukes or crazed men hijacking planes into buildings. They were killed with simple seawater. Those that were killed werent just simple minded fools who wandered lemming like out into the unusually low tide, only to be mowed down by the sudden flood. They were people enjoying the sights from the second story of a hotel when the ocean rose up to engulf them. The horror of it all hasnt even begun to sink in to most of us.

There is a tendancy in the western world to overlook the disasters of the third world. Unless it involves us "white folks", the press of the western world does not seem to care or think that we do. In this disaster, one example of disgusting western depravity could be found in the many press outlets that made big news out of a "supermodel" who was (gasp!!!) harmed in the disaster. Imagine if someone on September 12th had published a report that Zsa Zsa gabor and her poodle were put out by the lack of cabs in Manhattan. It made me sick to my stomach to see this item on the news.

Today, The Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that 5,000 Americans could not be accounted for, Sweden also announced roughly the same figure for their citizens.

Now we care. And shame on us all.

Today, during an afternoon conference that wrapped up my project of the last 18 months, one of my Euro collegues tossed this little turd out to no one in particular:

" See, this is why George Bush is so dumb, theres a disaster in the world and he sends an Aircraft Carrier..."

After which he and many of my Euro collegues laughed out loud.

and then they looked at me. I wasn't laughing, and neither was my Hindi friend sitting next to me, who has lost family in the disaster.

I'm afraid I was "unprofessional", I let it loose -

"Hmmm, let's see, what would be the ideal ship to send to a disaster, now what kind of ship would we want?

Something with its own inexhuastible power supply?

Something that can produce 900,000 gallons of fresh water a day from sea water?

Something with its own airfield? So that after producing the fresh water, it could help distribute it?

Something with 4 hospitals and lots of open space for emergency supplies?

Something with a global communications facility to make the coordination of disaster relief in the region easier?

Well "Franz", us peasants in America call that kind of ship an "Aircraft Carrier". We have 12 of them. How many do you have? Oh that's right, NONE. Lucky for you and the rest of the world, we are the kind of people who share. Even with people we dont like. In fact, if memory serves,once upon a time we peasants spent a ton of money and lives rescuing people who we had once tried to kill and who tried to kill us.

Do you know who those people were? that's right Franz, Europeans.

Theres is a French Aircraft carrier? where is it? Right where it belongs! In France of course! Oh why should the French Navy dirty their uniforms helping people on the other side of the globe. How Simplesse...

The day an American has to move a European out of the way to help in some part of the world it will be a great day in the world, you sniggering little fucknob..."

The room fell silent. My hindi friend then said quietly to the Euros:

"Can you let your hatred of George Bush end for just one minute? There are people dying! And what are your countries doing? Amazon.com has helped more than France has. You all have a role to play in the world, why can't you see that? Thank God for the US Navy, they dont have to come and help, but they are. They helped you once and you should all thank God they did. They didnt have to, and no one but them would have done so. I'm ashamed of you all..."

He left the room, shaking and in tears. The frustration of being on the other side of the globe, unable to do anything to assist and faced with people who could not set aside their asininity long enough to reach out and help was too much for him to bear. I just shook my head and left. The Euros stood speechless.

Later in the breakroom, one of the laughing Euros caught me and extended his hand in an apology. I asked him where he was from, he said "a town outside of Berlin". He is a young man, in his early 20's.

I asked him if he knew of a man named Gail Halvorsen.

He said no.

I said "that's a shame" and walked away to find my Hindi friend.


----------



## Slim (9 Jan 2005)

That was a brave thing to do.

Good for you and your friend having the courage to do it!

Slim


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jan 2005)

Very well done Art. I hope your friend eventually finds comfort.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jan 2005)

*My deepest appologies to all; the post was from another blog website and I inadvertently did not include the "posted by" tag on the end when I copied it over.* Follow the link to find the origional source.

I only wish that I would have the wit and grace that this person showed in the same situation, rather than my normal inclination to leap over the table and throttle the offender.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jan 2005)

Oops error.

Consider yourself uncongratulated Art.  Still it is a good piece.  

Have to admit I was getting a bit confused about you claiming American bona fides.

Cheers.


----------



## Slim (10 Jan 2005)

Seen and understood...I went looking at your stuff, trying to figure out how it made sense?!

Thanks for clearing that up.

Still a good piece though!

Slim


----------



## muskrat89 (13 Jan 2005)

I received this via e-mail, so the source is questionable...




> Here is some Food For Thought !
> 
> This sort of puts a totally different slant on the victims of the recent
> tsunami.   You will understand why the letters, "U.N.," could be redefined as
> ...


----------



## camochick (13 Jan 2005)

That pic that this person is talking about with the guy who is wearing the osama bin laden t-shirt looks like it is photo shoped. I was in a debate about it on another forum 

Here is the pic if anyone wants to see it 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/sandman101/ ourenemy.jpg


----------



## camochick (13 Jan 2005)

ok well the link doesnt work anymore but I have the pic , i just dont know how to post it, so if you want it then pm me or tell me how to post it.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2005)

The other thing the article failed to mention is that America, Australia and the other nations cared enough to send their very best: *their people* to actually do the work of assisting the victims of the disaster. So far, I have seen little on the ground presence by these supposedly less "stingy" nations or the UN.


----------



## Goober (13 Jan 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> ok well the link doesnt work anymore but I have the pic , i just dont know how to post it, so if you want it then pm me or tell me how to post it.



The link works, but there was a typo in your posting of it, there was a space in there, that shouldn't have been.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/sandman101/ourenemy.jpg


----------

