Poll: Hating America
- Thread starter bioguy
- Start date
Congratulations. You're a walking stereotype.
News flash - if not for the French, you wouldn't be bragging about your country either, because we'd still be a British possession.
The world doesn't 'owe' us anything, especially not a rubber stamping of our desires.
(and before you go there, no, I don't hate the US. Just over-the-top nationalists who seem to believe the *government* of the US can do no wrong.)
Actually....The US would have won its independence whether the French helped or not. The French helped speed the process along by 4-5 years. It is well known that the British were tired of the war with the colonies. They and Parliament felt there were more important concerns in Europe. Thats not to say the French help wasn't appreciated.skwanch said:
well maybe you are doing something wrong then, the UK has had a leftist government on and off for several hundred years....no sign of becoming a third world country yet...infact we may be in the top 5 richest.Espada9 said:
MountainPro said:
You are correct - and the disparity between rich and poor in "leftist" countries
is far less than it is in the USA.
Thanks for the history lesson... but heres another. I think we paid France back already....twice. Like I said, I have nothing but respect for THE PEOPLE of France. But don't scoff and compare what happened in 1776 to what happened in WWI and WWII. Go walk the beaches of Normandy, and the scarred battlefield of Belleau Woods... then you'll see what I mean by sacrifice, and why people need to not forget. If thats your attitude, like "what have you done for me lately?", than you're the stereotype of most nations on this planet.skwanch said:
USMCUglyAngel said:
I'm an American. My mother was in the military for 20yrs, including a deployment during the first Gulf War. When the SCUDS started flying, my mother was in the target zone.
I went to DoDDS schools in Europe. I've walked those beaches, I've been in the fortifications above Omaha Beach. I've driven along the fenceline of the Fulda Gap before the walls came down, when there were East German guards watching our every move. I've seen the museum at Checkpoint Charlie, and saw over the wire into East Berlin, again before the wall came down.
Believe you me, I understand sacrifice.
I've also seen firsthand the arrogant attitude of Americans who come over and toss out the same **** you spout - 'Hey Mr Frenchie, if not for us you'd be speaking German'. Americans who walk into German and French stores, speak English to the proprietors, and then throw a hissy fit when they're not understood, because 'everbody speaks English!'
That's what I mean when I say a walking stereotype. Your comments are indicative of someone who is just spouting the easiest thing that comes to mind. It's not an attitude of 'what have you done for me lately?'. It's an attitude of 'if that's the only argument you can come up with then you're scraping the bottom of the barrel'.
D-Day was 60 yrs ago. How long are we going to keep banging that drum as if that gives us carte blanche to do whatever we want? Another 60 yrs? Another century?
I think we should pursue our national interests, and expect other countries to pursue their own interests. That's just realism.
I've been to France many times. I can only tell you that it is true that Americans can be obnoxious and display the arogance that you elude to here. However, I've had my money thrown at me and had to defend some of my young Sailors from local french youth. My experience is that the older population treated me with the same respect I treated them. The younger population seemed to display an attitude which may have been caused by drunken americans...skwanch said:
The bottom line is I'd rather have a german division in front of me than a french division behind me!
skwanch said:
I agree with your view.
It's a fair point that the USA did make a sacrifice in WW2.
However, I would also thing that the USSR played as much of a role in the fight against nazism.
In pure numerical terms, they sacrficed more than any other country.
The point you make about goverments acting in their own self interest needs to be prdicated on doing so in a way that is fair and just.
I agree completely. In fact, I'd define acting fairly and justly as 'in their own interests' by definition; people and nations tend to respond to fairness in kind. IOW, being unfair and rapacious is short-sighted and stupid - such behavior always costs more in the end than taking the high road.
Exactly - as we reap, so shall we sow. This is the point I was trying to make in reference to the tired old 'we saved your ass so shut up' routine.
Oh, and for those who like to continually whinge about how the French are 'surrender monkeys' - remember Napoleon? Kinda kicked a lot of ass in his day (and yes, *he* was Corsican, but his armies were French)
Napoleons armies were made up of a VERY large number of foreign mercenaries.skwanch said:
His army was successful due in large part to his charismatic leadership and military genius, not through any tenacious fighting spirit displayed by French troops.
Espada9 said:
Give me numbers. From what I can dig up:
From 1791 to 1799, more than 1.5 million men were conscripted into the military. Under Napoleon Bonaparte, a further 2.5 million took up arms.
In 1804, the French had more than 350,000 soldiers, organised into corps that were independent armies of varying sizes
http://www.napoleonguide.com/bonarmy.htm
sounds like an awful lot of 'surrender monkeys' for him to have to overcome with his mercenaries.
This is what I have....skwanch said:
Of the army that invaded Russia in 1812 (611,000 men) one-third were from france proper and another 100,000 from the annexed departments (Germans, Belgians, Swiss, Dutch and Italians). Another 130,000 were from the Confederation of the Rhine, 90,000 were Poles and Lithuanians, 27,000 were Italians and 9,000 were Swiss. an additional 50,000 were provided by Austria and Prussia. see: Forrest, Alan. Napoleon's Men. Hambledon & London: 2002. p.18.
It seems like there is a lot of hate for the us DUE TO THEIR FOREIGN POLICY. That is not to say it is justified, many nations, the UK included, sided with, and will always stand with the US, and a nation, while it ultimately elects its government, has limited power to prevent their actions once elected, like it or not, democracy isn't perfect. The coalition may have lied about Iraq, but thatnis immaterial to this argument anyway.
The question was why is the US hated, and the reason is that it is the biggest nation in a group who have systematically seeded the world with trouble and strife through mismanagement and the love of their own voice, that is uinavoidable, and not justification for hatred of a nation, but some will always be bigoted and hold such views.
The question was why is the US hated, and the reason is that it is the biggest nation in a group who have systematically seeded the world with trouble and strife through mismanagement and the love of their own voice, that is uinavoidable, and not justification for hatred of a nation, but some will always be bigoted and hold such views.
There might be one flaw in your reasoning, 2nd term president's, in the u.s., have nothing to lose because they can't run for the same office again. This gives them an incentive to ram the most extreme of thier views through the houses w/o concern for any backlash. Things they never would've even tried to do on thier 1st term.This is what really concerns me w/ bush & why i will never vote for him. If the amer. people(the one's who care to vote) put this guy into a 2nd term i would'nt be suprised if he tries to make america the christian version of the taliban.Saucy said:
One final thought, has the spread of amer. pop culture been brought up. If someone tried to broadcast britney spears and/or janet jackson into my country's airwaves, i'd be very angry. I'm not joking. It's pop culture trash. The same goes for Pepsi, McDonalds, ect...
Similar threads
