USA! USA!

Jump to Last Post 1-11 of 11 discussions (74 posts)

65
innersmiffposted 10 years ago
The US government hasn't won anything since the Second World War:

Every military operation so far has made situations no better, and in most cases worse than before.

The war on drugs is a failure

The war on poverty is a failure

The war on terrorism is a failure

And America is hardly the freest country in the world anymore, nor the most economically sound.
----

To those that believe in 'American exceptionalism', where is the evidence for your view? Olympic Gold medals?
reply report
1. 0
  PrettyPantherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I don't like the concept of "American exceptionalism." Americans are no more exceptional than any other nationality.
  reply report
2. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Drat! I thought this might be a patriotic thread.
  But I see it's not.
  And actually, your points aren't necessarily factual, just opinion.
  
  I will cheerlead for America! Not for the current leadership nor their blind followers, but for America in general and as a whole.
  
  U. S. A. !! U. S. A. !!
  Great foundation, great Constitution, good legal setup, a lot of good people who DO appreciate the freedom and integrity that can be found here. God Bless America by kicking out the rotten apples that now tyrannize us and twist our laws, and bring back honesty, accountability, and true liberty to this Nation!
  
  So, first of all, you should prove your points before asking anyone to prove their opposing view. There is no evidence that the war on drugs is a failure, nor the war on poverty, etc.
  
  I will give you just one "little" example of American exceptionalism. The other day while at the hospital getting some labwork done, I met a gentleman and his wife sitting across from me in the waiting room. The man had on a cap saying "Veteran......WW11". As I talked with them and thanked him for his service to our Country, it occurred to me that right there was an example of "American exceptionalism". Flesh and blood physical evidence, no less!
  In an apparent coincidence, the lady next to me had a husband who was a Vietnam veteran.
  So go ahead and try to top that one. You can't, honestly.
  
  By the way, if you want to try to claim that America has failed at things, then you should add this one to the list, 'cause it would actually be valid. Even I would agree that American has failed at----------
  
  protecting the lives of the many innocent unborn babies who are helpless at the selfish hands of the would-be Mothers all over this Nation who make an appointment at an abortion clinic to rid themselves of the product of their own sexual actions. Yep, America (specifically the Supreme Court as far as legalities) has allowed the continuation of that atrocity for over 40 years now. Failure with a capital F.
  
  But I will still cheerlead. Because there is still hope that America will someday correct that huge wrong, just as it corrected the horrid laws that allowed the enslavement of black people years ago. But time is of the essence, I fear, because liberal activists are ignoring the real issues and pushing their own agenda so hard that issues like murdering babies takes a back burner to nonsensical issues.
  reply report
  65
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  As to my lack of sources/data and what not: it was meant to be a provocative thread rather than an evidence battle but I believe there is plenty of evidence to support my views: measures put in place as part of these 'wars' have not produced anything close to the desired outcomes. Drug use is still up, 40 years later. Poverty has not been alleviated, 70 years later, etc.
  
  The big question is: what is 'America as a whole'? Is it the land mass? The people? The principles the populace holds? I don't think you've provided a coherent answer to the question at all.
  
  Yes, the US constitution is the best modern example of one, and yes, there is a historical precedent for liberty and property rights that is praise-worthy; but what we are talking about is the past, and not what makes America great now. In order to tell if something is "good" we have to look at what is observable in the present. You cannot argue that the modern US meets the intentions of the constitution, with the government the biggest the world has ever seen and liberties decimated on an unprecedented level.
  
  Good people is a decent answer. I have met and spoken with a lot of good Americans.
  
  But you contradict yourself by praising the US for its commitment to liberty and then go on to implicitly argue that the war on drugs is a good thing - one of many things that are in violation of liberty.
  
  I have no idea how the man in your anecdote proves American exceptionalism. An American serving in the Second World War does not in and of itself prove that America is great. Elaborate.
  
  I do agree that there is an unhealthy obsession with abortion, but I don't count it among one of the most important issues of our time. For the record I am both pro-life and pro-choice (in other words, anti-abortion laws are impossible to enforce properly and cause problems, but I think society should do its best to discourage abortion).
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  and the virtue of the vicious.
  reply report
  83
  psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Only by way of the Consequentialist Fallacy could that make Patriotism itself suspect whenever it occurs.
  reply report
  0
  Sooner28posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What fallacy are you referring to?
  reply report
3. 60
  Disappearingheadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Speaking as a Brit, I like your movies, jeans, some of your music, and your country is beautiful. But the things that are sh*t include:
  your food,
  your beer,
  your obesity,
  the TV news,
  the TV adds every five minutes that ruin the viewing experience,
  the ignorance of the World outside,
  your foreign policies,
  your invasion of a sovereign nation to steal their oil,
  your healthcare system,
  the fact that your corporations run your country running roughshod over the rights and health of the ordinary people,
  your English pronunciation and spelling.
  reply report
4. 71
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The US is a paradox of issues but is increasingly becoming a pain in the a@# on the world stage. Our quizzical foreign policy espouses morals and judgments on other countries and their societies with a hypocritical history of responses. We step into Croatia to stop ethnic cleansing while ignoring Ruanda's plight. We back dictators (Saddam Hussein) and even install them (The Shah of Iran) while they continue human rights atrocities, all for the sake of "our" interests.
  The plutocracy we currently have is what dictates our policies and actions. That is why we are left scratching our heads as our leaders perform as their handlers require. Foreign policy is based on the best business model to further the handlers.
  Don't look for a moral compass when it comes to the government policy and or decisions as it is best suited for profits and the power that employs.
  reply report
64
maxoxam41posted 10 years ago
You summarized it all! No illusions on my side!
reply report
86
Zelkiiroposted 10 years ago
We're the best at street crime and obesity, though!

We're #1! We're #1!
reply report
0
Sooner28posted 10 years ago
We have the best um...
reply report
1. 86
  Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Music? No, no, Finland alone has us beat, forget about Sweden, Germany, England, Japan, Spain, Italy...
  
  Movies? Well, maybe. Sometimes.
  
  Animation? Well, considering our only real competition is Japan, and even then both of us are hit-or-miss...
  
  TV shows? Not even close.
  
  Food? lol no
  
  Standard of living? lolololololol
  reply report
  0
  Sooner28posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Movies. I think our movies are probably the best. So we are the best at distracting!
  reply report
  65
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Your movies are the best. I am a Brit and a movie-nerd who loves movies from all around the world, so I think that is worth something
  reply report
  0
  Sooner28posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Lol at least we can say something is going for us.
  reply report
  61
  Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Just remember there my little snarky limey friend. If not for the US you would be learning in school just what a great guy one A. Hitler was....in German most likely.
  
  If you want to talk military let's talk about how you lot struggled to even take back the Falklands. And the only reason you did is because the Argentinians were even more inept than you. Took you a full-fledged tactical operation involving dozens of aircraft to get ONE bomb on target at the airport and even then you freaking barley made it.
  reply report
  0
  Sooner28posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I know MIff will respond to you, but I must ask: where is the evidence that Germany wanted to wage a full scale invasion of the United States?
  reply report
  61
  Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I don't see anyplace where I make any such assertion.
  reply report
  0
  Sooner28posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "Just remember there my little snarky limey friend. If not for the US you would be learning in school just what a great guy one A. Hitler was....in German most likely. "
  
  Why would we be learning that he was wonderful in German?
  reply report
  64
  PhoenixVposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So the British would be speaking German and the Rising Sun Flag would be flying on any British ship allowed to float. English monarchs would have to reign over the subways at best. Maybe Ireland would have compassion on the brits despite what they have done and allow them exile. Nevertheless dental care would probably improve under German Rule of england, so there's that. Whats your point?
  reply report
  86
  Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  One evil empire replacing another evil empire?
  
  Been there, done that.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  AHAHAHAH no...
  
  Go read about WW2 some more, the Germans would have lost without the US, 9 out of 10 Nazi's killed in WWII died in Russia.
  
  Not to mention the US entered the war to protect itself not England.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That US involvement in WWII shortened that war is beyond doubt but there is absolutely no evidence that it changed the outcome.
  
  Your impression that the only country at war with Germany was the UK demonstrates the wholly unexceptional nature of US education, apart from the US the allies included Britain, France, USSR, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa and Yugoslavia.
  
  Go and learn a little history and then come back and try to clam that you are exceptional.
  reply report
  57
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  John,
  
  I know a little history, and "there is no evidence" is a pathetic argument. It's like a criminal saying, "You have no proof!"
  
  America was certainly not the only ally; it was, without a doubt, the most powerful. To compare America with Brazil or Denmark is absurd. Do you remember Lend-Lease? Look, America has problems, and it certainly wasn't the only country fighting in World War II. Without America, you would have suffered far more fatalities, Europe would have been further ravaged, and you probably would have been invaded. In any book, I'd consider that a loss. A little credit is due to America.
  reply report
  86
  Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  A little credit, yes, but not 70 straight years of pompous prick-waving while declaring ourselves the mightiest nation in existence.
  
  There's having pride in your accomplishments, and then there's bloated, egomaniacal self-importance.
  reply report
  57
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I see the Left and some socialists are here to bash America. What's new?
  
  Yes, that's true. There's also some kind of pervasive, apologetic tone that the Left drones on and on about from time to time. We get it. The Left is ashamed of our country's treatment of different races throughout our history. It is ashamed of our country's use of atomic bombs to end World War II. It is ashamed of Guantanamo Bay. It is ashamed of so many different things our country has done. That's all we seem to hear about from the Left. We seldom seem to hear about any of our achievements. Instead, it so often seems like a constant belittling of our nation. Complain, complain, complain . . .
  
  Yes, I get where you are coming from on this. Our nation certainly has made some BIG mistakes. Our nation certainly has arrogantly portrayed itself as the best nation. Can't the Left celebrate achievements too though? Why does it always have to be some kind of pity fest where we look down upon ourselves? You know, we really do live in an amazing nation. In my opinion, it is the best nation in the world even with all of its serious faults and past. It's okay to say that. It's okay to celebrate some of the great things our nation has accomplished, and it's not egotistical to do so, especially near Independence Day.
  
  This trendy "hatred" of America is something we see from zealous college students and the Left. It gets just as old as those who brazenly scream about patriotism without reality. Balance would be nice.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You seem of the opinion that Germany was invincible, that their leader wasn't becoming more deranged by the day, that his own generals weren't attempting to kill Hitler.
  
  And yes, I remember lend lease, not too easy to forget as we have only recently made our last repayment to you.
  
  Now, where is your evidence that the US actually changed the outcome of the war?
  reply report
  57
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Where is your evidence that it did not do so? Your country was in serious trouble. Poland, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Greece might disagree with your view.
  
  Hitler was mad, and some of his generals were in fact interested in a coup. You seem to be in the business of supposition as to whether or not it would have happened. In reality, it did not, and we don't know whether it would have in 1946 or after that date. Britain, on the other hand, was in serious trouble. Britain would have had significant additional pressure had America not "leased" equipment to her and had America not entered the war. It is doubtful the outcome, whether captured or not, would have been acceptable or pleasant. A land invasion would have likely been imminent had there not been help from America. How do you think that would have gone?
  
  Look, Britain fought valiantly, and I have the utmost respect for her. Frankly, I think America should have helped Britain, France, and the rest of Europe before December of 1941. Still, to negate America's impact is beyond preposterous.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for that.
  My response was generated by the post suggesting that the British Army was not up to scratch and the US Army had to come to the rescue of us poor pathetic limeys.
  reply report
  57
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, I don't agree with their statement. Germany was a MIGHTY adversary, as was Japan. Our countries are and should be great allies. I have nothing but respect for Britain. I think both of our beliefs can simultaneously work. Both Britain and America were amazing. Can you imagine what our countries could do now if we had the 1945 version of our countries, at least in spirit, effort, and will?
  
  By the way, I was cheering for Andy Murray the other day!
  reply report
  65
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It makes me laugh that the best Americans can come up with in defence of their country is the fact that they have the biggest gun. I actually count that as a negative.
  reply report
0
Earl Noah Bernsbyposted 10 years ago
Josak: Where are you getting those statistics from?

John Holden: While I, of course, respect your right to your own opinion, I would argue that your conclusion that there exists "no evidence" that the U.S. changed the outcome of WWII is simply untrue:
1) Out of your list of allies, France, Poland, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, and Yugoslavia had already been occupied by the nazis- Before the U.S. entered the war. China had their hands full with Japan, and Great Britain was hard pressed, as well {i.e. Churchill didn't come to the White House just to tell FDR: "Whatevz... Help out. Don't. We got this!!"}.
2) Even if the USSR had been able to handle the Third Reich, without them having to worry about the U.S. led allies hammering them from the other side {Which is, admittedly, speculative}, what makes you think a world at the mercy of Stalin would have been any better than a world scourged by Hitler? Did you think that the U.S. and the USSR were racing each other to Berlin simply for bragging rights? Or, that the terror of soviet controlled east Germany, the stasi, and the Berlin Wall was simply a big misunderstanding??
3) I can sense some resentment in your comments, such as: ... "[N]o evidence..."; and "... [T]he wholly unexceptional nature of US education." And while I respect your right to dislike the U.S. for our MANY shortcomings, I would caution you against following up with "Go learn a little history..." when your comments are not backed up by any historical understanding or factual evidence. To do so, sir, is to make a complete and utter jackass of yourself. Also, I am not sure if this even matters to you, but your comments are disrespectful to every American who gave their life to rid the world of the Third Reich.

innersmiff: If you want to argue the detriments of U.S. foreign and domestic policy, fine. I would probably agree with you on the many mistakes that we, as a nation, have made. If you want to have a philosophical discussion about the direction the U.S. is headed, with the latest developments on Prism, Gitmo, the IRS scandal, etc.- Then you may be surprised to hear that I am in lockstep with you on many of those topics, as well. But I would caution you against making snarky generalizations about the U.S. as a whole. There are still plenty of Americans- Who are just as fed up as you are, you may be surprised to learn- that do their best to make the world a better place. The amount of blood and treasure that America has given may make some resentful. "What gives us the right to meddle?" many ask. But agree or disagree, our efforts deserve more than your sarcasm. You, and those who would jump to slam the U.S., would soon chafe in a world where Russia and China were the only unchecked superpowers.
reply report
1. 60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Do you not think that the constant strain from your fellow countrymen that without the US the poor bumbling limeys would now all be speaking German is more than a little disrespectful to all those allied soldiers who lost their lives whilst many in the US still supported Hitler?
  reply report
2. 59
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html
  http://www.worldwar-2.net/casualties/wo … -index.htm
  
  84.7% of all German military casualties were inflicted by the USSR. In contrast the US inflicted in the area of 4% to 5%, while the casualties inflicted by the USSR were of the most veteran and elite NAZI regiments most of the American inflicted casualties are of the reserves, wounded, young boys and old men who were guarding France. Germany wanted to lose to America not the USSR so most of the NAZI war machine towards the end was aimed at the Eastern Front.
  
  It's also very fallacious to represent the US as a heroic figure fighting for other nations in this war, the US only entered the war because it was attacked, frankly I would argue that the US's role in WWI was far more noble acting as a mediating and sane party attempting to find a compromise, it didn't work out well but the intentions were good.
  
  I say that with full respect for those who gave their lives or service from all nations in the fight against fascism, they were certainly not to blame for the often sinister machinations of their nations, they fought to do the right thing but that is a triumph of human courage and goodness not a nation state.
  
  P.S. I know that the comment was not aimed at me but I hope you wont mind me saying it's really aggressively wrong to attempt to justify US interference around the world as the lesser of two (or three) evils #1 Because being the lesser of the evils still makes you an evil and #2 Because neither China nor Russia have made the sort of wide foreign interference that the US has. Neither has a Vietnam a Philippines or an Iraq under it's belt.
  reply report
  72
  Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Hello, Josak. How have you been my friend?
  
  It would seem both China and Russia have their own versions of wide foreign interference much the same as Vietnam, the Philippines, and Iraq. Specifically, China has its invasion of Tibet and Russia has its occupation of Manchuria, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Russia was the USSR (very different country now) and China is reclaiming territory it did once hold. Does that make it ok? No but it's a lot more acceptable than actions on the other side of the planet the sort in which we have engaged multiple times.
  reply report
  0
  Earl Noah Bernsbyposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Russia has made some very important strides in since the fall of the USSR, but I think the members of Pussy Riot would have an interesting counter-point to your argument that the country is "very different" now. Also, China has a not-so-stellar track record when it comes to freedom of expression, as well as other human rights. If you consider the topics touched on by Quilligrapher, about soviet and chinese ventures into world affairs, side by side with American involvement in foreign affairs, you begin to see something of a difference in overall intent.
  This does not mean that I am seeking to justify my country's every action, as mentioned previously. Any intelligent discussion must include pros and cons, otherwise it just sounds childish and temperamental {see some of the other posts in this thread}. HOWEVER, that said, I stand by my conviction that the world is better off for having the U.S.A. in it, despite our {admittedly significant, especially of late} shortcomings. I still have faith that we will course correct before it's too late... If I'm wrong, then you will be able to test your assertion that the U.S. is not nearly as heroic as She fancies herself to be, when China and Russia {re: "Eastasia" and "Eurasia," respectively, if you please... And NO, I do not consider the U.S. to be "Oceania!"} start divvying up the spoils.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I'd agree with that, but that makes it more galling when the US claims credit where no, or less, credit is due.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What nations do within their own borders is totally irrelevant. This whole discussion has been yourself and others changing the topic.
  
  The topic was that Brittain would have been defeated by the Germans if not for the heroic US, that was false so instead we got nonsense about the USSR's methods, the Germans were defeated in the east and in Africa before the US did anything at all and it was only convinced to enter the war because it was attacked, before that it was quite happy to sit back and watch Europe fall, the holocaust occur etc. even idolize famous anti Semites like Ford and not raise a finger.
  
  USA! USA! USA!?
  
  Then I noted that neither Russia nor China have been anywhere near as interventionist and economically expansionist as the US. So I got replies about the USSR a country which has not existed for two decades. Russia did not support and aid genocidal dictatorships throughout South America, did not invade foreign countries to prevent them choosing their own governmental systems, did not topple democratic governments for being anti US and replace them with bloodthirsty military juntas and neither has China. China had a border dispute over land they did own at one point and Russia has really done nothing.
  
  So then I got replies about how Russia has dumb internal laws so obviously it's a threat to international freedom which is a massive non sequitur.
  
  The deaths caused by US interventionism seriously number in the millions, there has been no other threat to international freedom for decades since the collapse of the USSR, the best that can be said about the US as a force in the world in the last century is they checked other evil superpowers by doing things that were just as evil... whoopee?
  
  I would suggest you try convincing the families of any of those millions. On the other hand for Russia and China we have... None to hardly any. But of course because Americans swallow nationalistic propaganda like no country since the USSR it's just an accepted fact that China and Russia would be worse... The truth is those countries working in cooperation with their allies can already do what they want the US certainly would not be able to stop any military action by the combined might of the largest army in the world, the third largest army in the world and the fourth largest army in the world anywhere other than on the US itself. (China, North Korea and Russia).
  
  It's just prejudice and the remainder of decades of indoctrinatory propaganda "Russia is bad China is bad" repeat after me "Russia is bad China is bad they hate your freedom" neither of those countries is perfect or even good but they stick to themselves, the same can't be said for the US.
  reply report
  0
  Earl Noah Bernsbyposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That was quite a rant, Josak, but unfortunately not a word of it was true. Your understanding of history is remarkably skewed, despite your protestations to the contrary. After reading the fiction from some of your other posts in this thread, I now realize that I made a mistake in engaging in an intelligent conversation with you {i.e.: 1) The U.S. entered the war to save itself and not Britain-- In point of fact, Hitler had no intention of attacking the U.S. He tried to dissuade Japan from attacking Pearl Harbor. The American soldiers, sailors, and Marines in 1941 had MORE than enough on their plate with Japan, to risk sending troops to Africa and France to assist in the European theater. In fact, many of those " U.S. nazi-sympathizers" that you are so fond of mentioning lobbied to keep FDR from ENTERING the war in Europe... Didn't work out so well for them, now, did it?? You should think about that before trashing the national effort as some self-preservationist agenda. 2) The U.S. fought only young boys, old men, and otherwise inexperienced nazis, Europe didn't need our help, etc., etc., ad nauseum-- You took statistical information about the number of nazi units in Russia, and drew wholly fictitious conclusions based on the U.S. led war effort in Europe. You continue to downplay my nation's sacrifice there, spouting your own brand of leftist propaganda, while accusing OTHERS of being influenced by nationalist propaganda! You cannot argue history with someone who has no knowledge of ACTUAL HISTORY, nor can you have a Socratic dialogue with someone who quite obviously has an ax to grind, at the expense of honesty. Still, before I can strategically withdraw from this thread {re: Dunkirk}, I should point out the fallacies of your historical statements in your latest post, if only for laughs:
  1) False: The Germans were defeated in the east and in Africa before the U.S. got involved. In fact, the nazis didn't surrender in North Africa until May, 1943.
  2) Speculative: The allies would have defeated the Germans without the U.S. I am disinclined to agree, but you can't argue a hypothetical.
  3) Distorted, and woefully simplified interpretation of events: The U.S. overthrew South American governments and anti-U.S. democracies, while Russia and China sat back and painted their toenails???? You are referring, of course, to the private drug wars funded by the Iran contra scandal and CIA's machinations in indo-china, I suppose? As I have said, I do not purport to defend every single action made by the U.S., as we have made mistakes. But, once again, your remarkably simplistic distillation of those events sound like they came from a conspiracy theorist website. Also, that you could sit back and say {re: type}, with a straight face, that U.S. human rights abuses and war crimes far exceeds both Russia and China's, COMBINED? And that you honestly believe that those two countries have not reached out beyond their borders out of some sort of "live and let live" philosophy, rather than the U.S. preventing from them doing just that, is flabbergasting. Also, your comments that a discussion of the USSR has no bearing in a discussion about Russia are preposterous, when their PRESIDENT IS A FORMER KGB AGENT! As I have said, they have come a long way, but have farther to go. China's human rights violations alone are sickening. And you say: "What nations do within their own borders is totally irrelevant." I think that alone encapsulates our disagreement. I believe that for evil to triumph, good men must do nothing. I can concede a point on the WAY the U.S. has prosecuted some foreign affairs, but as I said previously, I believe it comes down to INTENT. You believe that the U.S.' intentions are NOT noble. I do, despite our failures {I have hope that we can be the beacon to lead the world, if we just get ourselves squared away. You take offense to that. "What gives us the right," and all that.}
  You also, quite offensively I might add, continue to slam my country, calling our actions "evil" on two separate occasions. The U.S. gave more blood and treasure in foreign aid in the past twenty years than any other nation. While I can admit to our mistakes, YOU cannot even curb your bias enough to MENTION the good that has been done by so many big-hearted, hard-working U.S. citizens worldwide! Somalia, Kosovo, and Haiti, to name a few... No doubt you would argue, as people like Noam Chomsky do, that the U.S. uses foreign aid in order to further its own agenda. But when one of your first posts said {Patriotism is} "[T]he virtue of the vicious," I realize that this conversation was over before it ever began. Your dogged determination to burn my country in effigy sickens me, sir, and I bid you a good day...
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "You continue to downplay my nation's sacrifice there"
  But it's OK for you and your ilk to downplay my countries sacrifice!
  
  Good bye.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Perfect example the nationalist propaganda in full flight. You purport to represent an objective view and yet there you are ranting about being offended about the insult to your country
  
  I am an American too just not he kind that buys the propaganda or falls for blind patriotism.
  
  BTW after claiming one cannot argue a hypothetical you base your whole argument on the hypothetical that the US prevented Russian and China from doing worse
  
  It's all pretty hilarious.
  
  Also as you no doubt know the Third Reich declared war on the US immediately after Pearl Harbor leaving the US with no other options.
  
  OH and I wasn't referring to the CIA drug wars (though I certainly could) I was referring to Operation Condor in South America which is an operation the details of which have been released under the freedom of information act, of course you haven't heard of it because you know your history it was the organized plan to overthrow the democratic governments of South America, replace them with dictatorships and aid them in repressing democratic moments through force and torture.
  
  You are comparing a hypothetical to the millions of innocent deaths I can objectively prove so you just have no argument.
  
  See how there are no non Americans defending the US in this thread? That's because from an objective perspective unclouded by "my country" patriotism the truth becomes obvious. Most of the foreigners are from one of our closest allies who we have fought with many times no less imagine if we got a perspective from a nation which has been a victim.
  reply report
  0
  Earl Noah Bernsbyposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  *Sigh*
  
  Re: 1) "Hypothetical": Ask a random bystander in Georgia what they think about hypothetical Russian expansionism. No doubt you would argue, as you did above, that it's irrelevant because the territory "used" to belong to the USSR? Oh wait... they are "two entirely different countries," according to you. {Sorry, I'm not in the mood for emoticons}.
  Also, for the same reason, I guess that China's continued attempts to occupy Taiwan aren't worth your attention either, nor the U.S' insistence that they do not {However, if the U.S. keeps owing China more and more as we have been, we may not be able to stop them. So I guess you will get to belabor whether or not you were "hypothetically" wrong in that case...}
  
  Re: 2) Hitler attempted to dissuade the Japanese from attacking the U.S. The declaration of war after the fact can be interpreted as a sign of solidarity. The joke was on him when the Japanese didn't return the favor and declare war on the USSR. That's not to say that the psychopath wouldn't have eventually turned his attention toward us, but there it is. You can say that, at the time, he didn't want to get involved in a war with the U.S., while he was otherwise "preoccupied." BTW... Germany declared war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941 {Yes, I DO know when it happened}.
  
  3) Your understanding of the events of Operation Condor are about what I have come to expect: Remarkably distorted. I have NEVER agreed with selling arms to foreign entities. I consider it to be a travesty, and an ultimate failure. But I have said many times throughout my posts on this thread that I do not justify everything the U.S. has done. Still, are you actually suggesting the breadth of U.S. involvement that I think you a-- Never mind. I think we both know the answer to that question, which brings me to my final point:
  
  You are right about one thing: This conversation is pretty hilarious. Though, I doubt that we both feel that is true for the same reasons... If you knew anything about me or my work, then you might feel pretty foolish for assuming that I am driven by nationalist propaganda. Another on this thread may also feel foolish for accusing me of insulting the British war effort {But then, you can't argue with radicals}. You can be patriotic and still have your eyes open. That's better, imo, than being unpatriotic and having your eyes shut. The propaganda you subscribe to is just as bad. For the love of-- Why am I still subjecting myself to this nonsense?? They say that the first rule of internet posting is: "Never feed the trolls." So, by all means- please continue your discussion. I've said my peace, and I say again: Good day.
  reply report
  64
  PhoenixVposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2 … cret_talks
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Your definition of hypothetical is decided on by the word of a random Georgian? Man that just sets the tone for everything that follows.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I take it that refers to me!
  
  If you weren't insulting the British war effort then why were you so quick to jump in and attack when I defended the British war effort against a slur by another American?
  If you had not been in agreement, either say so, or say nothing, the fact that you attacked me for defending the British war effort speaks volumes.
  
  To me it is perfectly clear that by taking the side of the person attacking the British war effort you were also attacking the British war effort.
  
  By the way, demanding that others acknowledge your "rightness" is not arguing.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Your grasp of world history is truly outstanding!
  
  I wonder, if the US is so insistent that China does not occupy Taiwan, why they actually ferried Chinese troops to Taiwan after WWII to replace deposed Japanese? And why the official name of Taiwan is the Republic of China?
  reply report
3. 60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What makes you think that without US involvement the world would have been at the mercy of Stalin?
  The USSR at the time was less than half a century old and struggling to keep itself intact without having to spread itself about the rest of the world.
  
  And what's this about the "US and USSR racing each other to Berlin"? The UK had been bombing Berlin extensively since 1939, but apart from bombing raids the US thought it a waste of resources to try to capture a city that would end up in Soviet hands.
  reply report
0
Earl Noah Bernsbyposted 10 years ago
Josak: Nowhere on the two links that you provided could I find a statistical field that declares 84.7% nazi deaths were dealt out on soviet soil, nor that there were 4-5% nazi deaths dolled out by the U.S. The eastern front was unquestionably MORE bloody for BOTH sides, but... Are you referring to the 13 million soviets that the nazis killed?? As for your statements that: 1) The U.S. fought only untrained nazis, while the soviet's fought only the elite; 2) The U.S. only got into the war because they were attacked; And, 3) Hitler wanted to "lose" to the U.S. and the allies as opposed to the USSR... These are vast oversimplifications. Did the German high command consider losing to the allies a lesser evil than surrendering to Stalin? Yes. The answer as to "why" that was speaks volumes about the soviet's methods. As for the caliber of troops faced by the soviets and the U.S., it is true that after being halted at Stalingrad, and by the winter snow, the initial successes of the nazis were overturned by the counterattacking red army, simply by attrition. The German's had never had the oversized force, and relied on superior equipment, tactics, and speed to win {re: "blitzkrieg"}. Still, they were forced to channel more and more of their people east as the situation grew more dire. This left them vulnerable on the western front, and the U.S. led allies seized upon that weakness. I remind you that the situation in Russia called for more enforcements WELL before the landing on D-day. In fact, even still the German high command requested more reinforcements to defend Normandy prior to the invasion, but by this time Hitler was so FAR GONE into his own psychosis that he simply refused {and that's saying something!}.
Furthermore, while I can't argue that politics played a role in determining U.S. involvement, it is extraordinarily unfair to chalk up the U.S. effort to such a simple, and cynical, motive.

I find it interesting that you referred to my defense of my country's interest in foreign affairs as "evil." I also think that you are sorely mistaken if you think that U.S. involvement in world affairs is in any way similar to what you could expect from China and Russia, were we to ever stop standing in their way. Also, your arguments that the U.S. waited too long to jump into WWII, combined with your insinuation that America should just stay out of world affairs are contradictory.

As for Vietnam, Iraq, and... Other... questionable enterprises made by my government of late... *Sigh* I have no choice but to concede on that point. Vietnam was a catastrophe {taking NOTHING, mind you, from the blood spilled by my countrymen there}, Iraq was initiated by the incompetence of the Bush administration, and our middle east foreign policy in general is just atrocious. THERE, I said it. I could have lied. I could have defended my country's every action. But that would have been dishonest. Much the way that a warped, distorted generalization of my country and Her motives as a whole, as well as an unflattering portrayal about "Americans" in general is dishonest.

John Holden: It seems that your arguments to this point have been fueled by the venom of resentment. Perhaps you have had unhappy experiences with Americans, as I have inferred by your comments about "my" countrymen incessantly harassing you and "your" countrymen. Or, perhaps, you have been watching too much of the British equivalent of Fox News {Murdoch's big over there, too, right?} Anyway- For that, I am sorry... However, your knowledge of the time period to which you are referring is limited, as betrayed by your comments, your generalizations are tiresome, and I see no further benefit in carrying on with you in this way. Perhaps after you have educated yourself on the subject matter with more reputable sources, we can continue this discussion. Or, if you wish, you may simply define my dismissal of you as cliché "American Arrogance."
reply report
1. 60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "Venom of resentment!" You mean because I disagree with you, it can only be down to resentment?
  That is rather small and petty isn't it.
  
  On the contrary, I have had many happy friendships with Americans, the fact that I can still see harassment doesn't alter that. Or do you deny that your fellow countrymen's attitude to the UK in general and to WWII in particular is condescending at best?
  
  Murdoch, was "big" over here before he took up US citizenship to enable him to twist your views on things but as for either watching or reading his drivel, no thanks.
  
  As for my knowledge of the period being deficient, do you mean that I haven't swallowed the US line? Try looking at some reputable none US sources if you really want to know the truth.
  
  And yes, you give me no option but to define your dismissal of reality as "American Arrogance". If you wish it otherwise then rather than insulting me by telling me I'm wrong because you have a different truth, prove it.
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  RFLMAO visualizing you getting your news from Murdoch pulp, John!!!
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, from what I've seen of his publications you would wait an awful long time to get any news off Murdoch!
  reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 10 years ago
I hate to think America has become a bloated, underemployed 40 year-old former quarterback who just can't get over his glory days.

We cannot afford to sqaunder the incredible natural, economic and people resources
we have in the US with arrogance.
That attitude is "exceptionally" short-sighted.
reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 10 years ago
The best argument for America's "exceptionalism" is World War II?
That is just sad.
reply report
1. 57
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Really? No, America's soldiers, along with millions of soldiers across the world, were truly the greatest generation. Have you ever had to put your life on the line to protect somebody? I see nothing sad in their accomplishment. Two percent of the world died in this war, and our allies did all they could to minimize this tragedy. I have nothing but the greatest respect for them. Yes, our country should celebrate its achievements during World War II.
  
  I can put you in touch with a few World War II vets. Would you like to continue your belittling of their accomplishments in person? The men I know have clear views on how great their nation is.
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I'm envious of you that you still have your WWII vets in your life. They are a rapidly dying breed.
  Every man in my husband's and my families served in the war in all branches in both theaters.
  All are gone now. RIP.
  Infantry -- my dad
  Paratrooper -- Uncle Bud
  Navy -- Uncle Kevin, Uncle Jim
  Airforce -- my father-in-law (bomber pilot)
  Marines -- Uncle Stan
  
  My intent here was not to denigate the last "honest" was fought by the United States.
  But rather to point out that it has been a long, long time since we could point with pride and honor to our military engagement (yet there are some here who would still disagree).
  Those who fought are/were heroes.
  We certainly have many heroes of our conflicts since. But we cannot look at any war subsequent to WWII in the same way. Did we actually "win" any of them?
  
  My larger point, which I know you understood, but deliberately ignored, is that the United States cannot walk around dancing to Big Band music. It's nostalgic, but not relevant in today's world.
  We did it/we had it. We should be proud. No one can or wants to take that time away from us.
  
  But again, who are we now and what are we doing today to claim exceptionalism in the present tense?
  And why in the heck must we define our greatness by killing other people?
  reply report
  57
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  These are good and fair points. Please accept my apology. I respect your view.
  
  America is the leader of the world, even now. However, I would agree that America certainly isn't what it was in 1945.
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for acknowledgment, EA.
  It feels good that we could get to an agreement!
  
  We can never recapture the America that was in 1945. The world has evolved too much. So has technology.
  Can Americans come together again as citizens of one country to support a unified goal?
  Seems we can only do that in times of disaster. And even then are we unified (Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon bombers).
  While our partisan divide grows wider and deeper over micro issues, America and Americans ARE losing ground economically and educationally. The two are inextricably tied.
  Your name says it all. Education is the ANSWER.
  We have got to stop dumbing down. The rest of the world is getting wiser...
  reply report
  85
  rebekahELLEposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I think most WW11 vets would say the same thing. Greatness is not defined by war's accomplishments but more from the values that would inspire a generation to live for what was most important to them.
  reply report
  82
  CMHypnoposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I also think that all WWII veterans regarded each other as comrades whatever allied country they were fighting for. These types of arguments are petty and besmirch the memories of all the brave soldiers who laid down their lives so we could have freedom.
  
  They fought to give us peace, so if all we can do is rip each other to pieces in a forum they must be wondering why they bothered. Last time I looked the US and Britain were supposed to be allies.
  reply report
  61
  Silverspeederposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Its funny how time heals.
  I went to a memorial where there were both British and German troops who served in WW2 and they acted more like comrades than enemies, discussing battles from each others point of view and remembering their comrades one and all.
  reply report
65
innersmiffposted 10 years ago
You guys have done a good job of responding, thanks for taking the weight of my shoulders.

To balance this out a bit:
I do get on with the majority of American people I talk to - I was in a relationship with an American for goodness sake, but what I take issue with is how Americans will take critiques of their government, and specifically foreign policy, personally. I've got some news for you: it doesn't make you less of a man to admit that the US military has gone further than it should.
reply report
1. 57
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  In your opinion, is this happening now?
  reply report
  65
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes and it's been happening for 60/70 years.
  reply report
  57
  Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, I kind of agree.
  reply report
55
Alberic Oposted 10 years ago
The US dominated the Gulf War. 147 dead US dead compared to 100,000+ Iraqi troops, destroyed the 4th biggest military in 100 hrs of ground operations. The US did most of the work. WW2 was a combination of US, British, and Russian efforts.
reply report
1. 65
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Mhmm and as a result of that, made the second Gulf war possible, de-stabilising that area almost beyond repair.
  reply report
  86
  Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Not to mention it was a minor victory over an enemy force that was far from being a threat, all for the sake of procuring oil.
  
  Are we really gonna gloat about beating up kids on the playground and scoring some lunch money?
  reply report
  71
  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You have to wonder who is the bully in that scenario. Anyway the Chinese got the oil and we got the reputation. Smart move huh?
  reply report
  93
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I think the citizens of Kuwait could give you a pretty clear answer as to who the bully was...
  reply report
55
Alberic Oposted 10 years ago
That's the definition of war. A country goes to war to defend it's interest.
reply report
1. 65
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Oh right. That makes all those innocent lives taken worth it, I guess.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

USA! USA!

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

USA! USA!

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies