"Anti-US"

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well... a Germany that dominates Europe was obviously bad for the US. They didn't need a massive Western competitor.

Well...Germany with Hitler at helm would be obviously bad for a lot more people than just the Americans, dont you think?

Whatever the conspiratory reasons you might think there were behind the decion to join the war, fighting nazi Germany was the right thing to do.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Well...Germany with Hitler at helm would be obviously bad for a lot more people than just the Americans, dont you think?

At the time people had no idea how bad Hitler really was. The details of the holocaust didn't emerge until after the war. Boatloads of Jews fleeing Europe were denied access to Canada and the US (because Jews were an undesireable population back then apparently) and were forced to go back to Germany to die.

Whatever the conspiratory reasons you might think there were behind the decion to join the war, fighting nazi Germany was the right thing to do.

Yep, you got me. I'm a big Nazi supporter. Could you go ahead and quote where I say that I believe fighting Nazi Germany was the wrong thing to do?

[RedMan12]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I call bull****. Often? You're going to have to prove that it is far from a remote occurrance.

I don't know its in the news all the time. Vietnam has countless stories of American's raping and murdering civilians.

Wasn't there just a story in the news about 4 or 5 American soilder's gangbanging a 14 year old Iraqi girl?

There is always stories in the newspaper of American soilders raping women around their bases on foreign soil. This is just one example.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9511/japan_rape/pm/

Originally Posted by Azure

So? All men are born equal, and all men should have religious freedom. Whats your point?

They were slave owners saying all men are created euqal. Understand irony, much?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by RedMan12

They were slave owners saying all men are created euqal. Understand irony, much?

Zing!

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

At the time people had no idea how bad Hitler really was. The details of the holocaust didn't emerge until after the war. Boatloads of Jews fleeing Europe were denied access to Canada and the US (because Jews were an undesireable population back then apparently) and were forced to go back to Germany to die.

I think you will have a hard time proving that people had no idea how bad Hitler really was. Sure, most of his atrocities emerged after the war, but it was enough to listen to his speeches even before he came to power to realize what kind of a monster he was.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Yep, you got me. I'm a big Nazi supporter. Could you go ahead and quote where I say that I believe fighting Nazi Germany was the wrong thing to do?

Where did I say that you are a nazi supporter? I did not. But you seem to think that the US entered the war for selfish reasons only, because they didnt want a world competitor. But the point is - whatever their reason was - when Americans entered the war, they helped more people, not just themselves (when they got rid of a strong Germany) as you seem to imply.

Same thing goes for the Korean war, did the Americans fight because they loved southern koreans, probably not, did they help souther koreans - you bet your ass they did. Any southern korean who looks at nothern korea has got to be grateful, no matter if the US fought for ideological reason only or not.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I think you will have a hard time proving that people had no idea how bad Hitler really was. Sure, most of his atrocities emerged after the war, but it was enough to listen to his speeches even before he came to power to realize what kind of a monster he was.

Nope. People had no idea how bad he was. Its not like his anti-Jew speeches garnered that much attention; as I said earlier, western states were denying Jews access to their countries, they weren't popular at the time. I think you're confusing your hindsight with the realities of the time. I'm pretty sure none of the Allied states knew, or acknowledged that they knew, that the Holocaust was happening until the very end-stages of the War.

Where did I say that you are a nazi supporter

By implying that I believed it was a bad idea for the US to fight Germany, while draping yourself in reightousness.

But you seem to think that the US entered the war for selfish reasons only, because they didnt want a world competitor. But the point is - whatever their reason was - when Americans entered the war, they helped more people, not just themselves (when they got rid of stron Germany) as you seem to imply.

Fair enough, but the debate is whether or not they entered the war to help these people, or to protect their own geo-political position. I happen to think that motives count, not just actions. I believe its a mistake to think that the US was a shining white knight, looking for the downtrodden to crusade in their favour.

Same thing goes for the Korean war, did the Americans fight because they loved southern koreans, proably not, did they help souther koreans - you bet your ass they did. Any southern korean who looks at nothern korea has got to be grateful, no matter if the US fought for ideological reason or not.

Fair enough. Again, I think motives actually count when evaluating a nation's actions, rather that simply outcome and consequence.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Some might argue that the US entered WWII to prevent German hegemony over Europe, where instead the US would prefer a balance of power between England, France, Germany... leaving the US as sole-hegemony. In Korea the US was fighting its ideological war with Communism, not because they love all South Korean peoples. Vietnam wasn't to 'support a corrupt regime', they installed the regime, it was to support an American satellite state. I don't think the US habitually engages in war to help the downtrodden and oppressed, but rather for their own geo-political goals and objectives that may, or may not, actually help people.

America up until thier entry into the war was more then willing to continue to trade with the Germans, and at that point in thier enforced neutrality, whether Germany evolved into a global power or not was irrelevant to them. At the point of entry by the American's into Europe you could almost argue that the German loss was pretty much written in the sand, so if the American's were looking for a balance between France, England and Germany, it would have been more of a benefit for the American's to impose a peaceful settlement that would have left Germany in a better economic position then it was.

Yes in Korea they were fighting against an idealogical war against communism, in a war that was started by a agressive communist state that invaded without reason or logic. So while it might have been idealogical, the American's were also fighting to protect the South Korean people from the ravages of the North Koreans when it became apparent that South Korea's army was incapable at the start of that war of defending thier own territory.

In your point on Vietnam, I'm not disagreeing, but since they installed the regime, they were obligated to defend that regime and that country, but I could be wrong, but didn't the French have a great deal to do with installing that regime? I think we over simplify things a bit when we discuss things here, and we go all or nothing. Sure the American's might fight wars for idealogical purposes, but if you look at the history, a lot of the American's decisions with the exception of the invasion of Iraq were based around doing the right thing based on the American mindset.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

How many times has the US been 'attacked first'? WWII? Are you arguing that the US 'accidentally' fell into its position of supreme power through a series of unrelated events and wars? That seems implausible.

You could argue that the American's were attacked in WW1 when the germans sank the Lusitania killing scores of Americans.

America fell into the various wars either because they were involved in the defense of one of the warring parties, or they were allies of governments under attack, and under American foreign policy, an attack on an ally in an attack on the U.S. itself.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well, it wasn't 'unfair taxation', it was taxation. US merchants were making money hand over fist and becoming extremely powerful. They identified a huge drain on their finances (taxes) and cleverly founded the seed of revolution for their own gain. The British 'raped' their colonies? From what I recall millions of them moved to these colonies, and were still British citizens. The British invested millions of pounds into assets, industry, transportation, etc. I don't recall the US paying any of that back... are we thinking of Mel Gibson's The Patriot version of the US Revolution?

Never seen that Gibson movie, but thats for calling me an idiot in the nicest possible way.

Its an unfair tax from the extent that the colony had no say in its usage, taxation without representation within the government using it is an unfair tax. It basically creates a slaw state. The fact that the government of Britian made investments into infrastructure is irrelevant, and the fact that there were British citizens living in the colonies was irrelevant as there was a legitimate gripe towards the system of government.

If you look at the British reaction including the Boston Massacre and the unfair closure of Boston ports of harbour until the losses from the tea party were all examples of the use of unfair government.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well... a Germany that dominates Europe was obviously bad for the US. They didn't need a massive Western competitor. But I'm sure the US administrations couldn't see that for beans, and things just magically fell into place for US hegemony.

Disagree, the American's didn't care about a germany that dominated Europe at the time when they were in a state of neutrality, they would have made money no matter what, especially in a European reconstruction. American outrage over the attacks in Peal Harbour combined with the alliance of Japan with Germany and Italy are what caused the American's to enter the European stage. At the time of thier entry the American intent was to fight the war then return to isolationism, those goals didn't change until the American's saw the direct threat of the Soviet Union vs Europe at the end of the war.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Sure motives count, be the trouble is - you can never be 100% certain what the motives of someone else are - because you cannot read their mind. You can guess, but you cannot be certain.

So your implications that the US was selfish to enter the war(s) are based on your mindreading abilities, arent they?

[RedMan12]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Really now, so fighting Hitler and losing nearly a generation of thier young men was about economics and power. How about Korea? WW1? Vietnam was a war to support a corrupt regime, however it came about because they had pledged support to this regime, they already had power and influence in the area, and it became a key tipping point in the American's losing more then men, equipment and money in the region.

During and after WWII American had one of it's biggest industrial growths. American factories couldn't pump out weapons fast enough and large companies like Boeing and others where becoming filthy rich from the war effort.

I see, so the desire to be free from rule from a foreign state and a system of unfair taxation that the British were using to pay for thier wars elsewhere was a bad thing. Wow. The British government was completely content to rape its colonies, and enforce thier rule of law by the gun. See the Boston Massacre.

American greed was the man reason. Colony merchants and business was booming. They felt were selling tobacco, food, clothing and other goods to England. Meanwhile England was taxing them and taking away from they profits. I am not saying the American revolution was bad it just wasn't for the glourious reasons American history makes it out to be.

Crap, the major cause of the war was the election of Lincoln which ended southern control of the U.S. Government and his intention to stop the expansion of slavery. Lincoln might not have ended slavery, but he was certainly putting the mechanics in place to stop it. the South hated losing control of the capital, and didn't want to see the end of slavery

The south wanted out of the Union. Much the same way America wanted out of England's control. During the mid 1800's textile was the North's largest industry. The south controlled almost all of the cotton, used in the textile facoties, in the world at the time and was making alot of money. The north did not want to let go of that indusrty. Slavery and State Rights came after the fact.

The American's saw WWII as a European adventure, and didn't want to send thier boys to die in Europe so soon after the end of WWII. they had withdrawn from the world and attempted to isolate thier economy so they wouldn't be at the mercy of Europe. In no way did the start of WWII threaten the continental United States, and they were under no treaty obligations to join. They supplied the British with planes and weapons through.

A European adventure eh? If that's what you call murdering 6 million jews and gypsies. The war did threaten the continental US.

n fact if the Japanese had not pulled the American's into WWII, the states would probably have been a far richer and more powerful nation now due to the fact that up until 1941 they continued to do business with all of the sides of the war. America didn't cut off trade of Oil and scrap metal and freeze Japanese assets until Japan invaded French Ido China in 41.

from the tone of your comment you make it sound like the bombing of pearl harbour was the fault of the American's. Of course it was ok for the American's to enter WWII after a undeclared start of a war against them.

Read up on the neutrality act of 1935.

If American cut off all trade and was essentially starving a country to death, attacking a military base is justified. If I remember correctly American dropped Atomic bombs on 2 cities filled with more civilian presence then military presence. It's better for innocents victims to die then soilders whose job is to die and fight right?

Of course, but I think you have to look at the overall world landscape at the time. The Soviet Union was the big bad, they outnumbered the American's by as little as 3-1 in conventional arms, had since WWII held countries in Europe in an iron grip. Communism had also seen aggressive moves by other communist states. So at that time, the domino effect was a reality that wouldn't be disproven until the early 90's. If America didn't come to the aid of S Vietnam as they had with S Korea, they would have lost tremendous faith in the region, and would have given the North Vietnam government and the Chinese and Russians tremendous power in the region. The other fear is that it would have lead to the loss of both Japan and Australia in the long run.

You make it sound like Russia ran all od Europe, hardly true. Communism sure looks all powerful now doesn't it. The cold war was a war of 2 super powers afraid to lose their power.

It was a stupid war, but the American's had no choice but to fight it. The problem was that Vietnam was a war of half assed measures and stupid decisions on a national level.

And getting beat by a smaller guerilla army.

[Calgaryborn]

The United States is the worlds big brother. It's stronger then the rest of us and it can be arrogant because it knows it. It sticks it's nose in other peoples business and makes decisions that we don't like and can do nothing about. America gets blamed for everything.

Also, like an older brother America is called upon whenever there is trouble. America is expected to solve everyones problems whether it be war or natural disaster. It then gets criticized for whatever actions it takes.

A good question you should all ask yourselves is: Who would you want to replace the US with as top dog?

China or Russia are next in line as far as world powers go. Could England once again step up to the plate? Who?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by RedMan12

I don't know its in the news all the time. Vietnam has countless stories of American's raping and murdering civilians.

Wasn't there just a story in the news about 4 or 5 American soilder's gangbanging a 14 year old Iraqi girl?

There is always stories in the newspaper of American soilders raping women around their bases on foreign soil. This is just one example.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9511/japan_rape/pm/



They were slave owners saying all men are created euqal. Understand irony, much?

here are also stories of Iraqi troops doing it, Russian Troops doing it in Chechnya, Canadian Troops doing it in WWII, in fact show me one war where it dosen't happen.

Stuff like this happens, but you have to look at what the nations whose troops do it react. The American's actually investigate and put these people on trial and punish them.

what your trying to paint is that the American's go out of thier way to perpetuate war crimes and terrorize civilians by sending out mobile rape and assassination squads. But the fact is that whats happening happens to every nation that goes to war and sends 18 and 19 year old kids that aren't equipt to deal with battlefield conditions.

On your all men created equal, you also have to remember that most slave owers didn't see blacks and slaves as human.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Sure motives count, be the trouble is - you can never be 100% certain what the motives of someone else are - because you cannot read their mind. You can guess, but you cannot be certain.

So your implications that the US was selfish to enter the war(s) are based on your mindreading abilities, arent they?

Based on my 5 years studying political science and history (what you might call 'mindreading'), yes, the US entered the War for reasons other than alleviating human suffering and supporting global goodness, but rather for reasons and purposes that suited the US economically and politically.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The United States is the worlds big brother. It's stronger then the rest of us and it can be arrogant because it knows it. It sticks it's nose in other peoples business and makes decisions that we don't like and can do nothing about. America gets blamed for everything.

Also, like an older brother America is called upon whenever there is trouble. America is expected to solve everyones problems whether it be war or natural disaster. It then gets criticized for whatever actions it takes.

A good question you should all ask yourselves is: Who would you want to replace the US with as top dog?

China or Russia are next in line as far as world powers go. Could England once again step up to the plate? Who?

Agreed. Sometimes I think people mistake that the US gets critisized as "anti" simply because they country is more of a lightning rod. Really Canada, for example, has very little impact on the rest of the world, so to continually comment on their foreign policy is rather redundant. There's lots to bite into with the US so some may seem "anti". Also it's possible to rail against the country for long periods, say a certain republican administration and still not be "anti" the country as a whole IMO. As long as you distinguish the two, country and policy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by RedMan12

During and after WWII American had one of it's biggest industrial growths. American factories couldn't pump out weapons fast enough and large companies like Boeing and others where becoming filthy rich from the war effort.

Which goes back to my point, that America could have been content to sit out of the war and supply weapons and not lose a good chunk of thier younger generation.

Originally Posted by RedMan12

American greed was the man reason. Colony merchants and business was booming. They felt were selling tobacco, food, clothing and other goods to England. Meanwhile England was taxing them and taking away from they profits. I am not saying the American revolution was bad it just wasn't for the glourious reasons American history makes it out to be.

England was taxing them and taking the profits and not giving them representation in the government. It foster in the growth of a country.

Originally Posted by RedMan12

The south wanted out of the Union. Much the same way America wanted out of England's control. During the mid 1800's textile was the North's largest industry. The south controlled almost all of the cotton, used in the textile facoties, in the world at the time and was making alot of money. The north did not want to let go of that indusrty. Slavery and State Rights came after the fact.

The stopping of the advance of slavery and the loss of control of the government were the primary reasons for the civil war. The actual fighting started due to the confederate states seizing federal territory which is the same as an armed attack.

Originally Posted by RedMan12

A European adventure eh? If that's what you call murdering 6 million jews and gypsies. The war did threaten the continental US.

don't take this to a personal level, that certainly not what I called it, but thats how the American's perceived entrance into the European conflict before thier entrance. There were inklings but no indications that the slaughter of the jews was happening. The war didn't threaten the continental U.S. until the Japanese stupidly decided that attack the U.S. and removing its pacific fleet as a threat was a smart move.

Originally Posted by RedMan12

If American cut off all trade and was essentially starving a country to death, attacking a military base is justified. If I remember correctly American dropped Atomic bombs on 2 cities filled with more civilian presence then military presence. It's better for innocents victims to die then soilders whose job is to die and fight right?

Remember that the Japanese bought the trade boycott upon themselves by invading thier neighbours, and they were prewarned by the American's that there would be consequences to that action. The American's did not want to go to war with anyone at the time, so why would they attack, but cutting off trade and freezing assets was deemed as a proper warning shot to cut off Japanese aggression.

Of course its not better for innocent victims to die, something that the Japanese were far better at creating by slaughtering thier enemy civilians in wholesale numbers.

Unfortunately WWII was a terrible war, the Japanese did it, the Germans did it, The American's did it and the Germans did it. The Atomic bombs were deemed neccessary back then to prevent the further loss of life on a far greater scale, and to hold off Stalin's plans to advance and seize as much of the Japanese territories as they could.

Originally Posted by RedMan12

You make it sound like Russia ran all od Europe, hardly true. Communism sure looks all powerful now doesn't it. The cold war was a war of 2 super powers afraid to lose their power.


And getting beat by a smaller guerilla army.

At the time of the cold war, the Russians influenced and held much of Europe in terror, how communism looks now is irrelevant as we've now had 20 years of armchair quarterbacking to fall back on. But at the height of the cold war the Soviet Union was a terrify spectre of military power, that seemed to get involved where ever they could since one of the big mantras of communism was global socialism in our time no matter what the means.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The United States is the worlds big brother. It's stronger then the rest of us and it can be arrogant because it knows it. It sticks it's nose in other peoples business and makes decisions that we don't like and can do nothing about. America gets blamed for everything.

Also, like an older brother America is called upon whenever there is trouble. America is expected to solve everyones problems whether it be war or natural disaster. It then gets criticized for whatever actions it takes.

A good question you should all ask yourselves is: Who would you want to replace the US with as top dog?

China or Russia are next in line as far as world powers go. Could England once again step up to the plate? Who?

That's right Calgaryborn, it's important to start asking the questions, who would we want to be our "big brother"?, and other questions like:

What would our world look like today if the US hadn't entered WWII, Korean War, etc?

Do we want a global village with capitalism being the economic engine?

Should we help nations achieve democracy?

What if Kennedy hadn't insisted the Russians remove their missles from Cuba?

In what way should the US help protect Israel?

Where do we go from here to curb terrorism?

I remember teaching a youth group at our church for about 6 years, and at one ceremony said to the congregation, "I don't know why you let me teach your children when I have so many questions about religion." And they answered me, "We're not worried about the people with the questions, we're worried about the people with all the answers".

[Azure]

At the time people had no idea how bad Hitler really was. The details of the holocaust didn't emerge until after the war. Boatloads of Jews fleeing Europe were denied access to Canada and the US (because Jews were an undesireable population back then apparently) and were forced to go back to Germany to die.

I'm pretty sure many Allied officials knew about the Holocaust during the war, and prior to the war, but chose not to do anything about it.

With our hindsight on WW2, I think everyone should agree that Nazi Germany was bad for the whole world, and not only the US.

Yep, you got me. I'm a big Nazi supporter. Could you go ahead and quote where I say that I believe fighting Nazi Germany was the wrong thing to do?

You sure as hell don't make it seem like it was the right thing to do for the allied nations. Rather, you paint the picture where the defeat of Nazi Germany would only benefit the US.

[nuckles]

I'm not Anti-American , I'm Anti-American Goverment there is a difference.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

You sure as hell don't make it seem like it was the right thing to do for the allied nations. Rather, you paint the picture where the defeat of Nazi Germany would only benefit the US.

No, you're taking what I'm saying and trying to fit it into your self-imposed black or white choices. Just because I don't believe the US attacked Germany to alleviate the suffering of others doesn't mean I think it was wrong to attack Germany.

As I've said numerous times (and typical of you to ignore it) it is the motives I'm inquiring about, not the consequences. You seem to be missing the point; I'm not declaring that Germany should not have been attacked. I'm questioning some people's beliefs that the US was a supreme force for good and justice like some sort of Superman, and attacked Germany in a pure good vs. evil sense. I think that ignores 'realism'.

[Red Mile Style]

I have a problem with the actual title of this thread.

This is exactly what the Bush administration does; clamis that if anyone speaks out against US policies, they automatically are against the US and therefor are terrorists. A lot of Americans have what you call, "anti-US" sentiments when all they are doing is pointing out the injustices of their own government. Why would anyone want to promote apathy, especially in regards to politics? When citizens are not critical of policies and do not question government, that's when it becomes dangerous.

The fact is, people need to be critical of their governments and although some of us aren't American civilians, the US does have an enormous amount of influence on Canadian policies. I believe it is our responsibility to bring attention to all the poor decisions and policies that are out there and make vocal our discontent with them so our own government does not make the same decisions.

In a way, saying that people who oppose US decisions are anti-US is just negating their arguments. Often when I point to indecencies in the US administration, my point gets disregaurded as "anti-US", which is ludacris.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

The biggest problem of the 20th century was that America was not sticking their nose in world problems deep enough or quickly enough.



What a silly statement. Its silly when you think that if America was not spending money on war, peace would thrive. Its laughable when the OSN, mainstream media, infantile internet philosphers call for Isreal to leave Lebanon in order to "establish peace". There will be no peace in the Middle East until terrorist groups with huge domestic and international support will have only one goal in mind - destruction of Israel.

As for feeding their "own poor" - in very few places in the world have the poor a better chance to feed themselves. Again it laughable to blame "America" if they cannot do so.

Excellent Post