Why are Americans so different from the rest of us Westerners

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by zulu9812


Actually, I was asking whether or not he believed America to be able to claim responsibilty for ultimate victory. I believe that belongs to the Soviet Union.

I don't believe it belongs to any one nation. Remove any of the three main Allies and you lose the war or (more likely) see a stalemate.

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Ned
Why is the world more today free, democratic and respectful of human rights than anytime in its history?

Let's take an example of how America made the world more free, democratic and respectful of human rights:

In 1953, there was a populist revolution to overthrow the king and he was replaced with a democratically-elected leader, popular and loved by the people. The CIA then instigated a succesful military coup to overthrow the democratic government and put the king back into power. In 1979, another populist revolution forced the king to flee the country and a certain Ayatollah Khomeini took power, but he hasn't given Iran democracy either, sadly. So, thanks to America, Iran went from a democratic country to a fundamental islamic, anti-american dictatorship. Well done there.

1953? That was ages ago, I hear you cry. Well, let's take a more up to date example of US meddling:

In the early 1990s, Afghanistan was ruled by a pro-soviet state. To get rid of this state, and purely to protect US interests, Britain and the US set about arming and training a fundamental isalmic group known as the Taliban who had agreed to fight Russia and force them out of the middle east. The Taliban's grab for power was succesful, largely thanks to Britain and America. So you'd think Osama (affiliated with the Taliban) would be greatful. Not so, since Saudi Arabia and George Bushi Snr. had prevented Bin Laden from taking out Saddam Hussein, even after American troops had trained Osama for the task. That's right folks, there are no terrorist links between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. In fact, Bin Laden hates Saddam. Bin Laden wants Iraq to be an extremeist islamic state, much like Afghanistan. Incidentally, the members of the ruling party before the Taliban (I forget their name), whom America had helped to turf out of power then went on to form the Northern Alliance, whom America just helped back into power. Well done again.

[Ned]

Originally posted by zulu9812


Actually, I was asking whether or not he believed America to be able to claim responsibilty for ultimate victory. I believe that belongs to the Soviet Union.

As for how 'how was UN military intervention in Kosovo justified?', if you think a leader murdering his own people in the name of ethnic cleansing isn't justification enough, I guess that shows the difference between Americans and Europeans. And just in case you were thinking of using my argument to sa 'why then shouldn't we attack Sadam Hussein?', he paid the price 12 years ago and continues to pay it.

The UN did not intervene in Kosovo. NATO did. The US lead NATO, that is. The UN refused to intervene to prevent ethnic cleansing.

So much for the UN.

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Ned
The UN did not intervene in Kosovo. NATO did. The US lead NATO, that is. The UN refused to intervene to prevent ethnic cleansing.

So what? How does that alter the fact that intervention was justified? Or were you picking on a mild inaccuracy because you didn't want to admit that my point was valid and correct?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


I don't believe it belongs to any one nation. Remove any of the three main Allies and you lose the war or (more likely) see a stalemate.

It is debatable as to whether Russia would have taken all of European Continent if the Invasion of Normandy would not have taken place. No one can saw now. The Invasion was timed perfectly (well maybe a little late), as to grab a great deal of land before the Russians could (well at least save Western Europe).

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by zulu9812

That's right folks, there are no terrorist links between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. In fact, Bin Laden hates Saddam. Bin Laden wants Iraq to be an extremeist islamic state, much like Afghanistan. Incidentally, the members of the ruling party before the Taliban (I forget their name), whom America had helped to turf out of power then went on to form the Northern Alliance, whom America just helped back into power. Well done again.

When things get tough and you have a common enemy with someone you buddy up with them even if you hate their guts. Look at the Soviets and America in WWII.

[TCO]

Originally posted by zulu9812




In the early 1990s, Afghanistan was ruled by a pro-soviet state. To get rid of this state, and purely to protect US interests, Britain and the US set about arming and training a fundamental isalmic group known as the Taliban who had agreed to fight Russia and force them out of the middle east. The Taliban's grab for power was succesful, largely thanks to Britain and America. So you'd think Osama (affiliated with the Taliban) would be greatful. Not so, since Saudi Arabia and George Bushi Snr. had prevented Bin Laden from taking out Saddam Hussein, even after American troops had trained Osama for the task. That's right folks, there are no terrorist links between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. In fact, Bin Laden hates Saddam. Bin Laden wants Iraq to be an extremeist islamic state, much like Afghanistan. Incidentally, the members of the ruling party before the Taliban (I forget their name), whom America had helped to turf out of power then went on to form the Northern Alliance, whom America just helped back into power. Well done again.

REvisionist daydreams. We supported a different group during the 1980's. Not the Taliban. We did welcome the Taliban rise to power, because at least there was a centralized government. (Before there was just warlordism.) But we did not create it. You are just making stuff up dude.

[Dauphin]

When things get tough and you have a common enemy with someone you buddy up with them even if you hate their guts. Look at the Soviets and America in WWII

What about the intervention in Guatemala? That wasn't purely self-serving?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
No, its the evolution of language. Your is much harder to say than ur. Banana is much harder to say than nanner. Hood is much simpler than neighborhood. You will come off as more progressive if you speak simply. Only slow, dumb, old fashioned people bother to use proper language and punctuation.

and if I remember right, wasn't this accelerated in California with the big migration there?

[Spiffor]

I know the big difference between Americans and Non Americans ! (that is the topic right ? )
Non Americans bash the US and tire over time
Americans wave their flag and are tireless


(just to say I'm beginning to be bored by this thread, which raises an interesting topic, but gets completely wasted by anti/pro America speeches)

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I know the big difference between Americans and Non Americans ! (that is the topic right ? )
Non Americans bash the US and tire over time
Americans wave their flag and are tireless


(just to say I'm beginning to be bored by this thread, which raises an interesting topic, but gets completely wasted by anti/pro America speeches)

There have been many generalizations made here and this is another one. Yes, there are a lot of those speeches, but the thread is not just those speeches.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I know the big difference between Americans and Non Americans ! (that is the topic right ? )
Non Americans bash the US and tire over time
Americans wave their flag and are tireless


(just to say I'm beginning to be bored by this thread, which raises an interesting topic, but gets completely wasted by anti/pro America speeches)

USA!

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

When things get tough and you have a common enemy with someone you buddy up with them even if you hate their guts. Look at the Soviets and America in WWII

What about the intervention in Guatemala? That wasn't purely self-serving?

Which one? In the 30's?

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Ned
Why is the world more today free, democratic and respectful of human rights than anytime in its history?

Cause the British spread the tenets of their civilization
over 1/4 of the world, or is American responsable for
Democracy in India, Kenya etc? It would be true to say
America is responsible for the continuing Democracy in
some areas of the world, but the seed was planted by
the UK

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by GP


Which one? In the 30's?

The 1950s I think, involving United Fruit asking the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government.