• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Hate America, Regardless...

muskrat89

Moderator
Staff member
Inactive
Reaction score
18
Points
530
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

As famine swept through Russia in 1921, claiming five million innocent peasants' lives, President Herbert Hoover sent $24 million of food and medical aid to the recently formed Bolshevik government. When asked why he was helping the Russian Communists, Hoover replied, â Å“Twenty million people are starving. Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!â ?

Sunday's devastating tsunami has given the United States another opportunity to showcase its immense compassion and limitless humanitarian instincts. And, as with every such act of national charity, our altruistic efforts have been rewarded with a fit of ingratitude from the Hate America Left.



As of this writing the tsunami triggered by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake, the fourth largest this century, has killed more than 25,000 people in a circle of death spanning 10 countries from Malaysia to Somalia. Yet authorities say this total understates the casualties, and they forecast deaths in Indonesia alone could exceed 25,000. Children account for an estimated one-third of those swept away by the 500 mile-per-hour waves.



Upon hearing the news, America characteristically rushed to help. Yesterday, outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell promised a $15 million aid package and stated this is only a downpayment on America's goodwill. â Å“We also have to see this not just as a one-time thing,â ? he said. â Å“Some 20-plus thousand lives have been lost in a few moments, but the lingering effects will be there for years.â ? He then affirmed America is in the reconstruction effort â Å“for the long haul.â ?



In addition to this aid package, President Bush has dispatched military planes to the area, sent a 21-person USAID contingent of disaster relief specialists, and offered to send troops stations in Okinawa, Japan, to help Thai victims.



By way of contrast, the 25-member European Union, the world largest trader whose combined economy is larger than that of the United States, will deliver $4 billion.



Nonetheless, UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland labeled these efforts â Å“stingy.â ?



Aside from betraying abhorrent manners, the UN bureaucrat's comments sounded a common theme of the Left: No matter how much time, money, or resources America commits to a humanitarian effort â “ and no matter how demonstrably unselfish our motives â “ greedy capitalist America never lifts a finger to help the downtrodden. Indeed, by our disproportionate consumption of the world's resources and contributions to environmental degradation, we are the cause of the world's suffering.



The left-wing blog TalkLeft anticipated Egeland. After accusing America of not doing enough to warn the victims, a blog entry from last night accused President Bush of responding to the tragedy at his Crawford ranch by â Å“'clearing brush' and playing cowboy.â ? Upon hearing of the evidently unexpected financial aid heading to the disaster site, it added pathetically, â Å“Update: The U.S. has pledged $15 million to the relief effort.â ? Ho-hum.



DailyKos and other leftist blogs have noted America's efforts to help tsunami victims, without praising said undertakings. All miss the obvious point: America chooses to succor the world's afflicted with millions of dollars of its own treasure because America is a generous, philanthropic, and altrustic nation.



How could leftists express such a fundamental truth? According to them, this country has waged a needless pre-meditated war on innocent Iraqi freedom fighters and â “ according to at least one Democratic Congressman â “ is deliberately targeting civilians. Their view was best expressed by U.S. Senator Patty Murray, D-WA, when she told a high school class Osama bin Laden had done more for suffering Arabs than America had:



[Osama has] been out in these countries for decades building roads, building schools, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. It made their lives better. [Americans] have not done that...How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that, rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?



Naturally, Osama bin Laden has never built â Å“day care facilitiesâ ? (presumably for Afghanistan's liberated working women); he offers meager subsistence and a cavernous abode to those willing to become human fodder for his totalitarian designs.



The broader point is that America has always been more than the nation that liberates enslaved Arabs; it is the nation that bailed Europe out of two world wars, then reconstructed those nations with the Marshall Plan; that aided our sworn enemies to keep them from starving their populations to death in the Soviet Union, Ethiopia, and North Korea; that shows up with troops, supplies, and endless grants (often in the form of â Å“loans,â ? never repaid) every time there is a mud slide, earthquake, or hurricane anywhere in the world including Iran. When a leftist acquaintance claimed America â Å“bombs babies in Iraq and Afghanistan,â ? I corrected him: We regularly bomb Iraqi and Afghan children â “ with food and supplies donated by American children at the behest of President Bush. This America bears no resemblance to the diseased caricature painted by the Left.



After deriding Western philanthropy (an odd way to solicit donations), Egeland urged the West to exacerbate worldwide income redistribution. Western governments, he vouchsafed, mistakenly â Å“believe that they are really burdening the taxpayers too much, and the taxpayers want to give less. It's not true. They want to give more.â ? He added, â Å“Christmastime should remind many Western countries at least, [of] how rich we have become.â ? His words echoed comments Jesse Jackson made to MSNBC's Campbell Brown on domestic welfare spending last Thursday:



In the last [Bush] budget, we cut housing again, and that was Jesus' dilemma. In Bethlehem, his family ended up homeless...We're the richest nation on earth. Our percentage of income to the poor is rock bottom...The great fault of Rome was a wealthy country left Jesus and Mary Joseph, in a sense, homeless, and He was born an at-risk baby. You measure character by how you invest in the poor and today we are celebrating the wealthy and the war, not the poor and peace.



Jesse's Christmas message: Republicans â “ and the nation they govern â “ hate baby Jesus. Leave it to Jesse to turn the nativity of the Son of God into a crass political weapon.



For the record, Jesus' family became homeless when the Roman government herded together every soul ever born in the â Å“little town of Bethlehemâ ? in order to extract maximum taxation from its populace: precisely Jackson's and Egeland's prescription.



Egeland is right that the American people always â Å“want to give moreâ ? to the suffering and downtrodden. White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy responded to Egeland's rant by stating Americans are â Å“the largest contributor to international relief and aid efforts, not only through the government, but through charitable organizations. The American people are very giving.â ? The facts bear out Duffy's case. Americans make a minimum of $34 billion in private donations to assist the less fortunate overseas, the overwhelming majority from religious foundations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). America has dedicated more resources to fighting AIDS than any other nation, including those most severely impacted. George W. Bush pledged $15 billion more to fight this killer epidemic, which has ravished sub-Saharan Africa. The U.S. gives $10 billion in foreign aid annually. America is now spending millions of dollars to feed, clothe, and reconstruct Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation.



Times like this show the world America's true moral fiber. Helping the less fortunate is reward enough for us. However, such events should also provide a healthy guidepost to measure how delusional the leftists' view of their own country has become.
 
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  ----->  :cdn:
;)

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:

 
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.
 
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.....
 
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.... 
 
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 “ 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 “ 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.

 
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.
 
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....
 
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.. :P
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'! :P

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.

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....  

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.
 
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...  ::)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top