Why are Americans so different from the rest of us Westerners

[Az]

I dunno. The armed Forces, the military, are all terms I am familiar with. The forces is something alien to me. sorry.

[notyoueither]

Don't ever expect Canadians of being absent of forces. Our governments have been ***** many times in the past. We have always rectified the situation to our satisfaction.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Azazel
I dunno. The armed Forces, the military, are all terms I am familiar with. The forces is something alien to me. sorry.

Canadian Armed Forces, what is alien?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
If, on the other hand, we had vessels which could enforce our sovereignty, then maybe the Americans would have to listen to us on matters of the Arctic, rather than just laughing.

But even if we had attack nuke subs, would we use them?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Eh! We were once part of the British empire, the greatest empire the world has ever seen, and we were full British citizens, unlike the coloured colonies. Our MP's sat in the British parliament and took seats in Britain long after federation. Our Prime Minister was part of the British war cabinet. So f8ck you. We've been part of this world domination game a lot longer than you.

Whose empire are you a part of now?

[TCO]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
GP:

Funny how you can get worked up about a little criticism of your share of stardust.

"1. Great one dude predicted it. Means alot?"

Just one example to add to what you've said.

"2. DeToqueville is not taught as a "simple glorification" of America. He does come up with some very apt analyses of the American spirit. And in general is impressed with it."

That was the 1830s when the US was the most progressive country. Today the US is the least progressive western country. I'd also say that today's political and social system is very different from 170 years ago, and I do not think attitudes are unchanged.

"Unlike you, who obsess about the US and our "glory" and good press and the like."

While I said differences are gradual, the US is to me the strangest western country. I find it quite interesting. If you feel jumped on the balls, that's your problem.

"BTW, you seem to be in the minority of business-minded young people in Europe. They were all vying for assignments in the US, when I worked in Germany and Swistzerland."

When was that ?

"Very little enthusiasm in reverse. I even heard lots of your countrymen who thought the US was far more dynamic and interesting in terms of business."

You obviously do not understand the Austrian mentality. (Well, nobody really does, not even us )

I really could care less if you think we are less "progressive". We are still a trend leader in entertainment and technology.

Fact remains that the people I met in business wanted to come to the US. Including after the bust. They still think things are a lot more dynamic here. Comment from one German..."You can breathe here." Of course you wouldn't know, since you've never visited. Unlike me who's been all over Europe. Have fun analyzing everything from afar.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Spiffor
This is a really unexpected threadjack. After several pages on wood tariffs, we have 2 pages on the Canadian (lack of) military

GP :
I don't think you were "doing fine" in 1990-2001 without an Evil to fight against. During this period, the US was looking for an enemy, but didn't find one as satisfying as the USSR. First, Saddam was the Evil, then there was some searching among usual "bad" countries (Somalia, Sudan, Lybia etc.). Then Milosevic was the villain of the world, and after his defeat, another search happened again (I remember the news Networks were more hostile to France than ever at this time). Saddam got hit once during the LEvinsky affair (and the US/UK are currently still bombing it).
Sept 11. gave a long lasting, big enemy. And sadly, the US reacted the old way : rather than trying to understand why, and change its diplomatic ways, it charged and charges again, using Sept 11. as a legitimation machine.

Please tell me of any period when you feeled the News Networks and the Politicians didn't talk bad of one particular country, or of one particular foreign leader.

Milosovic got very little press prior to the Kosovo War. And the public was rather blase about the whole Kosovo war. And we were pretty reluctant ringleaders in that little affair. Seems like the Europeans can't take care of business themselves. They have to have us to make themselves think they are serious about going through with something. Comparing the public reaction to Kosovo with WW2 is like comparing a freight train to a donkey.

You still ahven't responded to my point that the political reactions you cite are much more related to any superpower than to something fundamentally American. And they are rather recent. I don't think you are getting to the core of the American character. You are just getting to what has you riled up.

[HershOstropoler]

"We are still a trend leader in entertainment and technology."

I thought Toqueville was writing more about social and political structure, than waltzes and steam engines....

"Comment from one German..."You can breathe here." Of course you wouldn't know, since you've never visited. Unlike me who's been all over Europe."

Well I at least know germans. Usually you cannot take seriously what german (or austrian) businesspeople say about business environments.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Tingkai


But even if we had attack nuke subs, would we use them?

They are cool though. You all should have really boaught some of the decommed 637 submarines. They had underice capability and lots of them had 15 years of life left.

[TCO]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


Well I at least know germans. Usually you cannot take seriously what german (or austrian) businesspeople say about business environments.

I take seriously that she preferred being over here. There is more to life than Greenspan-kvetching...

[TCO]

Of course she had actually visited the US. Not just sat in Austria and gotten all out of joint every time some story came out praising US business environment. But actually gone and experienced it. Just like I've gone over to your neck of the woods.

[Spiffor]

Put simply, I think the American society is fundamentally divided, because it is made of many communities which don't share the same values. The black riots in Los Angeles are a symptom of that.
Call it a hunch, but many elements help me having this hunch (massive abstention, hate crimes, affirmative action etc.)

I do believe the US would explode between these communities if it wasn't tied together artificially by uniting against a common enemy : nazi Germany, USSR, some-random-country-because-we-didn't-find-any-worthy-replacement-yet, next the Arab World, China ?
That's why I think the US is original in regard to other empires when dealing with an enemy.

But I may be wrong : every time another Nation needs to blame another, the US is the easy scapegoat. In non-American countries, there is some kind of stability in blaming a foreign country (if in doubt, blame the US). Since the US can't do this, maybe it just picks regularily a country to be the scapegoat. I don't know if the US are especially more keen to blame other countries, I just feel so.

[HershOstropoler]

"I take seriously that she preferred being over here."

Well what exactly - did she tell you that here, or did she start a business in the US, or what ?

"There is more to life than Greenspan-kvetching..."

Sometimes you're taking this forum too seriously...

"Not just sat in Austria and gotten all out of joint every time some story came out praising US business environment."

I have no problem with that as long as it stays realistic. What annoys me are the permanent stupid jabs at Europe that then occasionally pop up in my work. Like on entry regulation rules, bancruptcy laws, etc etc...

And I'm talking about regulatory issues mostly. I'm not talking about how easy it is to get funding, cause I do not know that. Just as from visiting Austria, you do not know how our trade code works. Or what it means when businesspeople here say "it's all so awful".

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Spiffor

GP :
I don't think you were "doing fine" in 1990-2001 without an Evil to fight against. During this period, the US was looking for an enemy, but didn't find one as satisfying as the USSR. First, Saddam was the Evil, then there was some searching among usual "bad" countries (Somalia, Sudan, Lybia etc.). Then Milosevic was the villain of the world, and after his defeat, another search happened again (I remember the news Networks were more hostile to France than ever at this time). Saddam got hit once during the LEvinsky affair (and the US/UK are currently still bombing it).
Sept 11. gave a long lasting, big enemy. And sadly, the US reacted the old way : rather than trying to understand why, and change its diplomatic ways, it charged and charges again, using Sept 11. as a legitimation machine.

Please tell me of any period when you feeled the News Networks and the Politicians didn't talk bad of one particular country, or of one particular foreign leader.

I think you are wrong here. The competing foreign policies at that time were Clinton's vaguely Wilsonian policy, and the conservative foreign policy which strove to reduce the U.S. involvement (at least militarily) in most corners of the world, including opposition to Nato expansion and intervention in the Balkan wars. Take a good look at your own press and compare it to ours. I think you will find a lot more criticism of the U.S. in the European press than vice versa. I also think that you will find that most of the impetus for the intervention in the Balkan wars came from Europe, with the few Americans who were strong supporters seeming to mainly reside at the White House.

The intervention in Somalia was driven largely by Bill Clinton himself during his first campaign for office, and in reaction Bush put together the intervention to supply food. The later dithering and bloody battle stage was all Clinton, and the American people were mildly against it until it got really bad, at which point they were strongly against it. At no time however was there an effective propoganda campaign to support this conflict, or for that matter the intervention in Kosovo. These things played out on their own merits. Somalia was abandoned, while Kosovo was "liberated", though it could have gone the other way had there been any military setbacks of note.

Any mention of Sadam Hussein should only be noted in the context of the un-enforced conditions of the armistace after the Gulf War and the attempted assasination of former President Bush. In other words it was merely a continuation of the Gulf War, and not a seperate policy decision which required a new explanation / debate / decision. Another war cropped up during this period, which was the war between the U.S. and al Qaida. This was inconvenient for the Clinton administration, and allowed to fester until the American public began to get upset about the continual attacks. Too late the hero Clinton began to put some resources on the problem late in his administration, though GW Bush reaped most of the benefits after 9/11.

You are also wrong about the U.S. health care (in a previous post). We put together a system of hospitals many years ago that were an amalgom of Community, Religious and Private institutions. I work at a community hospital. We never turn away anyone from our door regardless of whether they can pay or not, even if they owe us money already we still treat them. Half of all the money we bill we do not ever collect. There is socialized medicine in the U.S., but it is cost inefficient. The up side of this situation is that you can get very good health care here, in a customer oriented fashion rather than a bureacratic one.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sikander
You are also wrong about the U.S. health care (in a previous post). We put together a system of hospitals many years ago that were an amalgom of Community, Religious and Private institutions. I work at a community hospital. We never turn away anyone from our door regardless of whether they can pay or not, even if they owe us money already we still treat them. Half of all the money we bill we do not ever collect. There is socialized medicine in the U.S., but it is cost inefficient. The up side of this situation is that you can get very good health care here, in a customer oriented fashion rather than a bureacratic one.

You have taught me something. Is this kind of practice generalized among the country ? Is it considered as generosity or norm ?