if you read nothing else in this over lengthy post scroll down to :MOST
IMPORTANT STATMENT:
--- Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At Stardate 20030620.2036, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> > > First, the "coming to the world's rescue" part. True, the US did play a
> > > vital role in major conflicts in the last century. I'll take WW2 as an
> > > example. Really, people in Europe *were* grateful that the US helped
> > > liberate us from Nazi occupation. What we have a problem with is that
> the
> > > case is often presented as if the US liberated Europe singlehandedly,
> > > rather than as a member of an international coalition. Such an attitude
> > > comes across as very arrogant.
> >
> >I'm sorry, but that is the way it is. If you remove the US from the
> >equation in WW2 then the Nazis would still have been in power, probably
> >even today. You can not say that about any other country but Germany.
>
> There is of course no way to tell if the Nazis would still be in power
> today if the US had stayed out of the conflict -- but I'll give you the
> benefit of the doubt on this one. :-)
>
> Yes, the US was a key player in the liberation of Europe; that's why I said
>
> earlier that they played a *vital* role. However, that doesn't mean that
> the US went in alone; many soldiers of other countries (Great Britain,
> Canada, Australia, to name a few) were there with you. And just like their
> American counterparts, many of them died here. You wouldn't want to deny
> them their rightful share of the glory, would you?
Glory? well, I don't personaly find war glorious. But yes all nations (except
maybe france :) deserve credit for standing up to the Nazis.
> Us Europeans will readily acknowledge that the US was of vital importance
> in the liberation of Europe. What causes resentment is that, when
> discussing this with Americans, the role of other countries' forces tends
> to get ignored or at best considered inconsequential.
And what readily causes resentment by Americans is the re-writing of history
that makes the American role an equal contribution. It was not. Not even if
you scale the contribution by size. But that does not mean that any one
country didn't give it's all. And we do not forget this. Absolutly not!
But still, it seems that much of Europe want's to somehow rewrite history as
if all of the contributions were equal. We feel like you are saying "oh yea
they came over here hand helped out but, no big deal, we would have been fine
without them." But we both know that is just not true. It's not like we ever
asked anything for it, and we still arn't.
Besides the attitude is also based on the last 50 years. The US provides more
of the capital and more of the troops and more of the weapons for every major
peace keeping misson the UN or Nato does. And then it seems that we always
get the blame (not UN or Nato) when things go wrong. So we seem to have
dicided to stop dealing with all the UN crap and get the job done right.
>
> >Our boys gave their lives to liberate Europe. We didn't have to do that.
> >We could have taken Asia and left Euorpe to the Germans. The offer was
> >certianly there.
>
> IIRC, that was in fact the initial plan. The US wanted to stay out of the
> war completely, and only got involved when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. If
> that hadn't happened, maybe the US would have never gotten involved.
That is so wrong! Why do you think the solders that marched into Europe were
so good? Where do you think all the tanks and stratagies and planes and boats
came from? We started ramping up for the war well in advace. We were training
for VERY specific regions of europe at least 3 years before entering the war.
We were supplying Great Britain with fule munitiouns, food, and fighter
pilots. We were sinking german subs. We were ramping up to the point where we
could have an overwhelming force. Have you not read the comunications between
rosevelt and churchill which were taking place before Britain was even in the
war? This is just the sort of crap that ticks us off. And get's us sticking
out our chests and bosting about what we did do.
> > > Second, the "big dog" part. The US, being the only remaining
> superpower,
> > > can pretty much do as it pleases in the world and appears to be happily
> > > taking advantage of that situation.
> >
> >How do you mean? Give specifics. Cold War plots don't count that was after
>
> >all a war.
>
> Bailing out of international treaties.
Name one and I will tell you why. Besides not signing a treaty is not bailing
out of one. Bailing out is when you agree to something and then don't do it.
> Refusing to sign international
> treaties that most other countries did sign.
Once again name one and I will tell you why. Just becouse evryone else want's
a treaty doesn't mean that it is the best thing for the world. Sometimes all
the little guys can get together to make things dificult for the big guy. You
can't expect the big guy to go along with it can you?
> Refusing to recognise the
> International Criminal Court.
Here we go, specifics. Why we don't go along with it. Once again we supply
the majority of troops to any peacekeeping mission. So we have greater
exposure to possible suits. There are no previsions which keep rediculous
acusations from being used to tie american servicemen in ICC litigation for
years. Put quite simply, if we were to recognize this court our fighting
force would lose effectiveness. We would have to constantly be making
dicisions in war based on _expeediant_ proovability of no wrong doing rather
than saving lives and bringing peace. We do not agree with the rules of
process and precedings for the court. We will not allow an international body
to set the US fourin policy, and we do not agree with all of the governing
laws.
Basicaly it boils down to, we recognize the ICC and diingage any conflict, or
we continue to be teh peacekeepers and do the right thing, and not recognize
the ICC.
> Insisting on launching a war against Iraq
> even though the international community didn't think it was a good idea.
1) This inernational community being who? We had a coilition. It was not just
the US, it was 1/2 the world.
2) The UN gave sadam 1 last chance. The US moved troops to a seige position
to provide muscle. The UN told sadam you allow in the inspectors and give
100% coperation or the troops move in. Sadam cheeted and cheeted but then
when the troops started to move in France, and Russia (the countries who
still do buisness, often black market buisnes contrary to UN resolutions)
said no, no, no, lets keep the inspectors in place.
So why not? simple, the US was spening up to 3 billion a day keeping those
troops in the desert. Most of these people were resurvists who were being
taken away from their families and Jobs. We simply could not afford to keep
them their.
Does the word of the UN mean nothing? do we give an ultimatum and then back
out when it becomes to expensive? Or when a few nations will loose their
criminal income?
That is not just is it?
> Willingness to ignore Security Council Resolutions if the outcome doesn't
> suit US interests.
Oh please.
> > > Such behaviour is a recipe for resentment by the rest of the world.
> > > Basically, by doing whatever it wants and ignoring the wishes of the
> rest
> > > of the world,
Once agian France is not the rest of the world.
> >Once again you have to give specifics, otherwise it is just retoric.
>
> Iraq. The US wanted war, the rest of the world wanted more inspections. It
> took an enormous amount of effort before the US finally reluctantly agreed
> to let inspections continue.
You don't seem to understand the concept of "good cop bad cop" some people
only listen to threat of force. Guess who the bad cop allways gets to be?
> > > the US is seen as the bully of the playground. Phrased differently:
> with
> > > great power comes great responsibility, but the US is often seen as
> > > interested only in the power and not the responsibility.
> >
> >Where have we been lax in the area of responsibility. Really? give an
> example.
>
> The US has refused to sign a number of treaties which were aimed at
> protection of the environment.
True we have, but their are as many scientists who think that there is no
globabl warming comeing as their are who beleive there is. The studies are
inconclusive. However, What woudl happen to the middle east if we seriously
cut the use of Oil? What do you think would happen? What kind of povety would
that throw the middle east into? Who do you think, as the current "leader"
would get the blame? Responsability is not allways what you think it is.
> > > In that respect, the current US government has probably done more
> damage
> > > damage in the last three years than the combined previous US
> governments
> > > have done since WW2.
> >
> >What damage? It may seem like it is a given to you, but as an American, I
> >have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> America's behaviour in the international community has done great damage to
> its reputation and to the trust the rest of the world has in the US.
> Especially America's attitude of "we'll do whatever we want, with or
> without you" during the pre-war Iraq debates, and the "if you're not with
> us, you're against us" rhetoric hasn't exactly gone down very well with the
> rest of the world.
Attitude? come one, what about actions? what about results?
>
> We all live on the same planet, and we all need to work together to prevent
> it from going to hell. Unfortunately, we cannot trust the US to behave like
> a team player, not while it continues to put its own interests ahead of
> global interests.
BS! the world is not going to hell. that term "team player" mont get you very
far with americans. That is a term people who are tring to twist things to
their way use. I woudl avoide that term if I were you. It only give the
impression that you are passive agresive. And we don't put our own interests
ahead of the worlds, it is quite the other way around.
Don't tell me that France and Russia were not interested in their Sadam
contracts. Don't tell me that it hadn't occured to them that 2 months of US
troops in the desert and the machinery breaks down more troops die if the
conflict goes, and more importatnly, at 2 or 3 billion a day it would ruin
the US econoomy.
And who, BTW was keeping Sadam from commiting geniside on the kurds and
shiat? Oh yea, that was us wasn't it? And why are all the terrorists so
angry? Becouse we were in Saudi Arabia. And why are we there? to run sorties
in Iraq to keep them from killing the Kurds and the Shiat. Things are not as
simple as you make them out.
> >We are, once again, the leading the world, making a difference. We are
> >given a new fight, a new burdon of terorrism and we are willingly taking
> >it. We could after all close up and let others in the world deal with the
> >terrorism themselves.
>
> Er, that *is* what we've been doing. There has been no noteworthy US
> involvement in dealing with some *four decades* of terrorism in Europe.
I'm sorry, you wanted us to come over to your country and stop the terrorism
in your country?
Besides, we have been fighting terrorism and communism for the past 4
decades. Maybe you just took notice. After all, who did Sadam the last time?
And while we are at it, who asked us to stop short?
> > > Third, individual behaviour. It's not just the current US government
> that
> > > generates a lot of resentment in others, some very vocal individual
> > > Americans do it as well.
> >
> > >FREX
> >? "for example"???
>
> If you've been keeping up with That Other List in the last few years, you
> should be able to come up with some names. I've deliberately not given
> names, because those individuals are not subscribed to this list and
> therefore unable to present their own POV here.
>
>
> > > when you discuss WW2 with a number of Americans, there will always be
> > > some among them who will make it sound as if the US singlehandedly
> > > liberated Europe rather than as member of a coalition, which comes
> across
> > > as awfully arrogant.
> >
> >Sorry that is the way it happened. Yo umay not like it but them are the
> >facts. Prove me wrong. Which Norwegan devision was it that liberated
> >Italy? Who was the greate Spanish general? What paratrooping Sweeds faught
>
> >the Germans and French from behind enemy lines to allow the D-Day invasion
>
> >to take place? Name one. Every major battle, every major blood letting?
> >Who was there? What took place?
>
> Battle of Britain. Major air battle. Who where there: the British RAF vs.
> the German Luftwaffe.
And american fighter pilots who had been releived of duty with the AAF so
they could join the RAF. Churchill and Rosevelt decided that it was best if
they US stayed out "out" and continued to work twords the original plan. The
extra men were sent over to help.
Even though, this was before the US entered the war full force.
>
>
> > > Other behaviour includes endless praise of the US as "the greatest
> > > country in the world" (which can become quite annoying when you hear it
> > > often enough)
> >
> >I am sure it does, but is it not true?
>
> Nope. Not in my opinion, anyway.
Which is the greatest in your opinion? And why do we not here more of it?
Show a little pride man. Don't berade others for having it.
> [TOURISM ISSUE]
>
> >Remember, we don't get a lesson in other countries when we turn on our tvs
>
> >we don't know what to expect.
>
> The argument "we don't know what to expect" is just an easy way out. Before
>
> you travel abroad, buy (and read!) some travel guides about your
> destination (I wholeheartedly recommend the Lonely Planet travel books) and
>
> do some research on the Internet. Further, if you happen to know people in
> the country you're going to, ask them about what to expect.
>
> Travelling abroad boils down to two simple rules:
>
> 1. Before you leave: prepare yourself!
> 2. Once you get there: "when in Rome, act like the Romans".
2, what? That saying is when in -Rome- -> when you are in the house of the
leader follow the leaders lead. That saying isn't when in ~greace~ do as the
~greeks~ is it? It's talking about the leadership, and the powerfull city
state. It isn't telling the Romans to do as Egyptians when they are in Egypt.
Sheesh!
Besides even if it did mean the way you are using it, I have already gone
into that elsewhere.
> And it never hurts to learn a few words in the local language. You'd be
> surprised how much it is appreciated if you can say "good morning",
> "please" and "thank you" in the local language.
Americans for the most part hear one and only one language their whole lives
and that makes it dificult to learn others languages. After all, a majority
of people in the world do speak english. It is rude to butcher anothers
language and is better to use the defacto international language than to
speek another improperly. it's not the Americans fault that english is the
international language.
> >we are use to certain norms. In the us a 5 star hotel means you are taken
> >care of, in evey other coutry (excluding canada and Austrailia) 5 star
> >means they actualy changed the sheets on the bed. Then we get chaged 2 or
> >even 3 times as much for the same stuff. For an american that is someting
> >to get bent out of shape about.
>
> Have you ever actually been in 5-star hotels abroad, or is this only
> rhetoric?
Yes, when in the US I generaly stay at the lower end hotels to save money.
when abroad you have to stay at a 5 star just to get the kind of value you
would expect from a 3 star in the US. I have never stayed at a 5 star in your
part of Europe but when abroad I generaly feel that I am being ripped off.
> I've been in 3-star hotels in Thailand and couldn't find anything to
> complain about. And in the 4-star and 5-star hotels in Thailand where I
> have stayed, you are almost treated like royalty (not *as* royalty, because
>
> Thai royalty has demi-God status, but still).
hm, I dodn't know what your standards are, but my experiences their were
compleatly differnt.
> >Besides have you ever been here? Try comeing to New York some time and
> >watch peoples interactions. It is no different than how Americans interact
>
> >abroad.
>
> I've not been to the US (yet), but I've been to several other countries.
> Each and every time I've found that those two simple rules I mentioned
> above make a world of difference. Try to blend in, rather than stand out.
Turists will allways stand out. I can spot a chinesse turist in China town.
Besides you really are asking a people to behave as if somthing they think is
unethical were not. When in the far east, the Austrailians and Americans
blended in much more than the French and Brits and intalians, talk about loud
abonoctious and brash drunks.
But what did everyone in the bar remember, they rememberd the texan who tried
to keep the drunk brit and frenchman from starting a fistfight with the
bouncer, and how "rude" the texan was. Pre-concieved notions? The next day
the brit was invited back to the bar, the texan was thrown out at the door.
> >Ok, then there are the less educated or poorer people who, unlike those of
>
> >other countryies , actualy save their whole life to go to visit France or
> >some other place. They have looked forward to it for all of their lives,
> >watching all the comercials on TV of people welcoming them to come and
> >visit their cities. And telling them how welcome they will be. Then when
> >they actualy get to go they get treated like crap. Well, such a person is
> >likely to feel ripped off. Not only is their money and vacation being
> >ruined, but the years of anticipation seem wasted.
>
> Er, you're not telling me that the only preparation an American does for a
> foreign vacation is *watching commercials*, are you? It really takes a bit
> more effort than *that*! :-)
Have you seen these comercials? Obviously not. they are 1 hour long
documenteries on where to go what to see and how welcome you will be. And no,
when they spend years looking forward to such a vacation they do not just
watch the comercials.
> > > and that most Americans don't expect Europe to forever be America's
> yes-
> > > man as payment for the liberation.
> >
> >Absolutly. We don't expect anything,
>
> Maybe not as a people, but I know some individual Americans who disagree
> with you.
Maybe you are misunderstanding them, but you know, there are A**holes in
every culture.
> >but some acknowledgement that the way it was was actualy the way it was
> >would be nice.
>
> But why would we acknowledge that the US singlehandedly liberated Europe,
> when we know that you did *not* do it alone, but led an international
> coalition? By acknowledging that the US singlehandedly liberated Europe,
> we'd be insulting all those non-Americans who fought by your side.
It's that some many Europeans seem to think we just poped over for the very
tail end after everything was easy. And we all know that wasn't the case.
> >The fact is we are an arrogant bunch, but we are not inapropriatly
> >arrogant. We don't believe in lies about oursleves or some such malarky.
> >We are open to other cultures and in fact are made up of people from
> >everywher in the world.
> >
> >We are the world culture becouse of it. We are the culture you get when
> >you mix every other culture together.
>
> There must be other factors at play as well. Dutch culture for example is
> different from US culture, yet there are people of pretty much every
> nationality living in this country -- and they all brought their own
> cultures with them into the colourful mix that is Dutch society.
Not like in the US.
> >And we do recognize the difference between critisizm and
> "anti-americanism".
>
> Sadly, my experience with that is quite different. :-(
I am truly sorry to here that.
> > > I think that most people who are labeled "anti-American" are not
> > > anti-American at all; they merely provide healthy criticism.
> >
> >Maybe you are somehwat correct, but this is usualy based on actions not
> words.
>
> Such as? The accusations of me being anti-American have always been solely
> based on words, not on actions.
Well, I was insinuating not acusing, their is a difference. And I really did
not mean to offend. I hope you know that. But when one makes blanket
statments about anothers people it does make it ~seem~ anit-whatever. I know
you are not doing that now, but it did seem that way. Abundent critisizm has
a tendency to become retoric, and retoric doctrin, and doctrin hate. I am
myself openly critical of my own governemnt when I disagree. And I often wish
that we could find alternative solutions.
MOST IMPOERTANT STATMENT
The thing is, that to keep critisizm from turning into retoric one must not
just critisize, one must provide alternatives. And when presented with
failures of the alternative model one must provide solutions to those
failures. Otherwise the critisizm turns into a self perpetuating retoric,
then doctrin, then hate. In addion one must be carfull of lumping a whole
group together when descussing specific circomstances. Doing so makes the
assumption that the whole group is that way, this leads to raceism or
nationalism, or anti-nationalism. Not every american is experienced enough to
respond in this way, most (like anyone else) will simply take an extreme
oposite stance so that the median is reality.
> >Ok food for thought. Lets see where this leads. It is an interesting
> >conversation.
>
> Just be careful where you tread along this path. Earlier discussions on
> this topic have shown that it's easy to step on someone's toes, even
> unintentionally.
>
Yes that is very true. But Americans tend to expect you not to be offended
remember? Becouse they generaly are not once they understand that it was
unintentional. So ..If I have offended I appologize, but you know it is
difficult for me to see the offense sometimes. You will have to point it out
and give me an opertunity to clarify.
Jan
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
[Sponsored by:]
_____________________________________________________________________________
The newest lyrics on the Net!
http://lyrics.astraweb.com
Click NOW!
