Will the U.S. tell the world to take this job and shove it?

Remove all ads!

This editorial talks about the rising anti-Americanism in the world and whether America will pull out of its role as the world's police officer.

http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110003170

All I can say is, please let it happen. No more supporting bankrupt and corrupt governments. No more Americans dieing to protect people in other nations. People who don't even appreciate us for it.

America for Americans first!

 

Touching, your patriotism and human kindness is touching...yet the US has killed those who are innocent ie. The Aghgan civilians, who had done nothing wrong, yet were caught by US bombs. Oh, then there is the "involuntary" manslaughter of two Korean school girls, they were ran over by an armored vehicle, when the girls were on the side of the road. Not to mention the immenent war on Iraq where almost every country is against it, but thats not all, first, the US will have to bomb something to oust Hussein, but now, we're not in the countryside of Aghganistan, but in Bahgdad.

 

More lives in Iraq would be saved by an invasion than will be lost if there is no invasion. I love how a dictator can kill, starve and torture tens of thousands of people, but the US are the bad guys because we kill a few trying to save the rest. I guess that the the math they teach you in public schools today.

It would be nice if the dictators would stop putting civilians in areas that they fully know are military targets. But then you crying heart liberals wouldn't have anything to complain about, so I guess that is not going to happen. Of course, you do have to take the blame. If your kind attacked the leaders who put these people into these situations, and stop attacking the people who are trying to minimize casualties as best they can, the dictators would stop putting people in harms way.

On a lighter note, I coulnd't resist linking this editorial cartoon. It will probably be gone soon, so if what you see isn't a building in ruins, sorry you missed it.

http://www.ucomics.com/tomtoles/index.phtml

[ March 07, 2003, 17:08: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

You have supported all those corrupt dictatorial goverments quite willingly and it is OK for them to kill and maim their citizens for as long as they are friendly towards the US and lets american companies ravage them without complaint. So morals and ideals have nothing to do with the US involvement abroad, the goverment dont give a **** about its soldiers just as it tends to not give a **** about most of its citizens. Just like most of the powerful countries in the world.
But please do not take the angelic holier than thou attitude Darkwolf as it is not very fitting.

And the deaths caused by a quick and easy war would be around 250.000 (UN calculation) even Saddam would be hardpressed to wack that many people in the nearest years.

 

Most of the people quoted as examples of "Anti-Americanism" in that article are Americans themselves. That makes it pretty silly to call their point of view "Anti-Americanism". They aren't killing themselves or emigrating to make themselves less American. What it is, is ideological opposition to one specific model of America - an America taking charge of international affairs. And frankly, if I was an American, I'd be behind them 100%. I read some figure like $30 billion spent on the Afghan war or something ridiculous like that. If those were my taxes being spent, or my sons being shot at in the Middle East, I'd explode. If America stopped intervening, the rest of the world would sort itself out. Eventually.

Here in Canada there is a growing attitude that we don't even need a military - that the American war machine is so vast that there is nothing left that Canada can even try to contribute. We're the proverbial "drop in a bucket", militarily, because our population and wealth are so much smaller than America's. I'm sure there are plenty of other countries that feel this way, and it's a direct result of the length of America's military reach. We're in a vicious circle: America is so powerful that other democratic countries stop trying to have any power, so America becomes more powerful...

If America scaled back, more of its allies would realise their contributions were necessary, and would expand their militaries and diplomatic efforts accordingly. Then we'd start to see a more equal involvement in world affairs, and probably more peace all around.

 

joac,

Your statements are not only BS (either in content or source) but you are

"I will try to be nicer if you will try to be smarter." Neil Boortz (love that quote!)

 

If you had any knowledge of history at all Darkie you would know of what I spoke of but sadly that does seem to be the case.

 

joac,

I love being underestimated, makes my work later easier. Just don't say I didn't warn you.

The only reason Sweden hasn't committed the same crimes the US has (and France, Germany, England, Spain and Portugal have) in recent history is because Sweden hasn't been a power economically or militarily since ships stopped having sails attached to them. Of course "back in the day" when Sweden was at its height of power (9th century?) they were known for their generosity and kindness.

If Sweden had the chance, she would have done the same thing as the more powerful western nations. Fact of the matter is, Sweden just doesn't have the resources to be able to compete with the big boys. They only decent thing that Sweden produces in any serious numbers are skiers. Even your cars sucked until General Motors bought up the company (not that they have gotten much better, you can only do so much with a car manufactured in a country where it is illegal to terminate incompetent employees).

Must suck to know that your country has been Portugal's ***** when it comes to world power for the last 5 centuries or so! Sorry I had to use Portugal, but I wouldn't even know how to start a comparison between France and Sweden in this area. The differences are just too wide. And just to make the comparison complete, America has had to bail France out of her last 3 wars!

Speaking of holier-than-thou attitudes, take yours back to your irrelevant little backwater nation. Your politicians wish they were in a situation where they had to face the criticism that the US is facing. Every politician out there would rather govern a super-power than a nothing power like Sweden.

But hey, I think it is legal to smoke pot there, so at least you can go get stoned to console yourself. But it might help you think a little clearer if you lay off the hippy lettuce for a while.

I wish I could say I am sorry to unload on you, but I am so sick and tired of your incessant whining and attitude that I just can't stand it any more. It is so easy for you to put down the US, lets see how you like a little of it back on your own country.

 

Man you are ignorant, and yet again you have shown that you cant even read a simple post on a message board properly. If you read my first post in this subject properly you have seen that I had already said that that is was powerful nations do, being asses. But just because others do it does not make it right and I have had hopes of humanity trying to improve atleast alittle bit throughout the centuries but it seems that I am mistaken.
For your information Swedens greatest era was in the 17th century and early 18th and drug is alot tighter controlled here than in the states. Cannabis is most certainly illegal and our youths arent nearly as fond of it as american youths are.

It was nice to hear your opinion about Swedish cars, it was very interesting and important for me to know.

 

joac,

My apologies for the crack on your countries drug policies. I was wrong. I was wrong to make a statement about a country that I know little about. Actually truth be told, I already know too much about Sweden from your posts, and I have better things to remember.

Sincerly

BTA- I tried to be nice, but joac makes it pretty difficult.

 

Whew.

This thread's getting a little touchy. If it gets locked, or this post deleted, I'll understand.



Sprite.

I agree with you.

But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not it's going to come over TO us. By us, I'm referring to The United States of America. But we also care a bit about our Canadian neighbors, as well. Anytime you all have a natural disaster, we don't just send cash; we send trucks of food and heating oil and blankets.

Anyways, take World War 2. It came over to us. To our side of the Lake. World War 1. It was on it's way over to us. I'd tell you it had come over to us already, but the Lusitania didn't make all that many newspapers outside of the East Coast. It made like, page 3 of the Daily Oklahoman. I looked it up one time.

There was the Alamo thing. And our Civil War was almost completely internal, other than some exports and imports. There was the 1812 thing, which more or less, landed on us. And then there's the 1776 thing. We still appreciate the French for hooking us up, what with the Statue and all.

The issue is we really hate it when it comes over to us.

*sigh*

[ March 09, 2003, 00:11: Message edited by: ejsmith ]

 

EJSmith,

For what it's worth, Canada does the same for the US when the US has a natural disaster, and sent firemen, food, sniffer dogs etc after 9/11. Whether the US noticed our "drop in the bucket" or not, we did, and we continue to do so for other countries after earthquakes, floods, you name it. I think that's a different issue - humanitarian efforts when one country, any country, has experienced any form of tragedy is not the same thing as intervening to change the government of another country, no matter how evil that country's government may be. I therefore believe it to be out of scope for this discussion.

As for whether the USA should change governments or get involved in civil wars to promote its own interests abroad, as you mention for example Vietnam, I'm not getting into that one because I'm not a US citizen so it's frankly none of my business unless you decide to change the Canadian, French or British governments. And then I'll oppose you because I'd rather die fighting for my own independence than surrender that responsibility - and my national autonomy - to the US or any other country.

Addenda:

I'm not trying to be rude, but I really don't understand what you are getting at here. On the other hand, it is probably out of scope for this discussion anyway, so if you'd like to elaborate perhaps you could open a "crime rate factors" or "the cultural impact of being too damn cold" thread or PM me because I would like very much to discuss it further.

And as far as I've heard, the word "bloody" is offensive because it's blasphemous, an abbreviation of "by the blood of Christ!". It's not because the British are culturally more opposed to bloodshed.

[ March 08, 2003, 19:19: Message edited by: Sprite ]

 

"And then I'll oppose you because I'd rather die fighting for my own independence "

What if it wasn't your independance you were fighting for.

What if it was the lives of you children? What would you be prepared to do, then?

[ March 09, 2003, 00:11: Message edited by: ejsmith ]

 

You didn't understand what I meant. Sorry I was unclear. I just meant that if the US tried to change the government of a country of which I was a citizen, I'd fight to the death AGAINST the US for trying to get rid of my democratically-elected leader or for trying to change the laws a democratically elected leader had implemented. I wasn't referring to American involvement in wars of independence because I don't see that happening in any of my countries. I will develop an opinion on that if and when it ever happens. My point overall in this thread is that if I were an American, I'd object to my tax money and my kids being used to wage war abroad. I'm not commenting on how I'd feel about the US if I were Iraqi or North Korean because I'm obviously not, and if I were, my opinion would be different because I'd have been raised in a totally different culture. I don't mind commenting on how I'd feel if I were American though because my husband is American and my worst nightmare is that he could be drafted and sent to Iraq or Korea. Your government can't bloody well have him. MINE!

 

Maybe you didn't understand my point.

What if it was your country that was invaded? What would you be prepared to do?

[ March 09, 2003, 00:10: Message edited by: ejsmith ]

 

But if my country was invaded, it would be my independence I was fighting for. I don't understand what you mean by, what if my country was invaded and it wasn't my independence I was fighting for. How can you define "invade" in such a way that the invaded nation remains independent?

[Edit: never mind. I *don't* understand your point very clearly, but I don't think we are much in disagreement so it doesn't matter.]

 

Sprite.

What we disagree over is "probability".

You think it's more probable that it will never reach you. That you will never have to fight for your independance. That is will get "worked out" before you have to learn to shoot a rifle and use a knife CQC.

I'm of the other reasoning. That's all I'm saying.

[ March 09, 2003, 00:10: Message edited by: ejsmith ]

 

Here's my 2 cents:

I think the US should cut off ALL fanatical support to all countries we are currently helping and concentrate on getting our economy back on it's feet. If those country's government crumbles...good, maybe the people of the country can actually start a government that works.

I think the US should cut off all support with Israel...Israel and Pakistan will eventually suicide bomb each other to death anyway.