It appears that we all better stick to the buddy system wherever we go. Strangers today can only be trusted to tweet your misfortune - not to come to your aid. Then again, a lot of our buddies would probably do the same. We're doomed, people. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMEEEEEEEEDDDD!!
I weep for the future...
Whats that? A bunch of people in a crowd failed to help a person put above the crowd? Oh gods! It must be the tweets! What is wrong with young people now adays? It's not like people have been doing this for years, erm, decade... forever. Tottally not! Damn young people and their evil tools!
People showing insensibility or lack of empathy is nothing new. The tweets however make it look worse, as it is evident they see what's going on and still don't do anything.
Same thing that's been wrong all along.
Exactly.
But still, blameing their actions on their generation and on the technology is seductive as well. It's not like its a people thing, they are not people likeyou: they are tweeting people! "It is worse because of X and they are diffrent from me and my forefathers because of X so now I dont feel so bad!"
Bystander effect. Pretty common, well researched, not new at all.
Exactly.
I wonder if we could get a subject on which we could all agree?
What fun would that be?
Yeah, but I am curious to know if a subject could rally everyone behind it, no matter the nationality, the gender or the right-left leanings in politics.
I am looking in the direction of bodily functions.
I think the Westboro Baptist Church could do it.
Oh, and I'd probably get in a jab about how no one cared about them protesting funerals until they started protesting the funerals of soldiers. Back when they only protested at the funerals of aids-victims it was A-OK, apparently.
One of these sentences is a lie.
(Flame, flame) (Bait, bait) (Snarky, snark)
And while I think their freedom of speech should be protected, I think we should protect the rights of mourners to not be harassed. There's nothing in there that even implies special rights or privileges for soldiers.
And soldiers do not get special rights and privileges, anyway. They get benefits, because people decided that soldiers deserve special compensation for what they do/have done. And I will tell you right now, those benefits aren't anywhere near as great as you might think. If I had done the job I did in Iraq as a civilian contractor I would have made four to fives times as much (or more) as I did as a soldier. Vet's benefits are nice, but they aren't as special as you might think.
If someone told me about the WBC protesting at the funerals of people that died of aids I would have disapproved of that. That they protest at the funerals of soldiers is akin to the old "Don't bite the hand that feeds you." adage.
And while I think their freedom of speech should be protected, I think we should protect the rights of mourners to not be harassed. There's nothing in there that even implies special rights or privileges for soldiers.
And soldiers do not get special rights and privileges, anyway. They get benefits, because people decided that soldiers deserve special compensation for what they do/have done. And I will tell you right now, those benefits aren't anywhere near as great as you might think. If I had done the job I did in Iraq as a civilian contractor I would have made four to fives times as much (or more) as I did as a soldier. Vet's benefits are nice, but they aren't as special as you might think.
Agreed.
I wasn't talking salary. I was talking about people who think that soldier deserve special respect.
Why don't they deserve "special" respect?
They volunteer to do a dangerous job in a far away land for ungrateful people safe at home.
*waits for the riff-raff to make ridiculous and ignorant replys*
I wasn't talking salary. I was talking about people who think that soldier deserve special respect.
Funny thing about that, a lot of them have earned it. I've been a soldier, and I can tell you that there are a lot of soldiers out there who don't deserve respect. Yet they are still the minority.
Heaven's forbid, Hoodlum is an ex-soldier. As much as I despise some of his views and ideas (and occasionally have let my disrespect for those color my opinion of the man), I at least grant him the respect due to someone who signed their name and swore the oath. I have never questioned or attempted to disparage his service (though he once did so to me, I doubt he'd do it again at this point).
Because one of things about soldiers, and a lot of them don't even realize this themselves, is that they have sworn to protect with their lives the rights and well-being of people they have never met. That's a mighty tall ideal, and some of them pay the ultimate price trying to live up to it. And everyone who has ever been a soldier knows that regardless of your job in the military there is a chance that you will pay that price.
So, yeah, most soldiers do deserve special respect, because they earned it.
I wasn't talking salary. I was talking about people who think that soldier deserve special respect.
Why don't they deserve "special" respect?
They volunteer to do a dangerous job in a far away land for ungrateful people safe at home.
*waits for the riff-raff to make ridiculous and ignorant replys*
everyone deserves respect at a funeral
and I don't think that they deserve special respect automatically. They're doing a job. I DO respect them but I don't think they deserve more than any other person that I respect.
Having a brother who wanted to join the military because "It's cool and you get to run around with guns and shoot people and get paid for it" might be coloring my opinion regarding "all soldiers deserve respect" a bit.
how old was he?
I mean yeah, it's pretty brave and idealistic of the ones that do it "to protect people they don't know" but I've never met one who joined for that reason, only the ones that go "chicks dig the uniform" or "I get to carry a gun and shoot people". Same goes for the police, by the way.
Oh, and I'd probably get in a jab about how no one cared about them protesting funerals (...)
no one cared about them protesting funerals
protesting funerals
WHAT.
16. It was pretty much his reason for signing up a few weeks later. Fortunately he wisened up later and dropped out of the military again, but the thought that people like this are in the military (like my nephew, who is just like my brother in many ways) are still in there makes it hard for me to have great respect for soldiers by virtue of what they do.
I mean yeah, it's pretty brave and idealistic of the ones that do it "to protect people they don't know" but I've never met one who joined for that reason, only the ones that go "chicks dig the uniform" or "I get to carry a gun and shoot people". Same goes for the police, by the way.
I'm pretty sure military seargants know how to beat that kind of stupid ideas out of people. That doesn't sound like good soldier material.
I don't know about police.
Oh, and I'd probably get in a jab about how no one cared about them protesting funerals (...)
no one cared about them protesting funerals
protesting funerals
WHAT.16. It was pretty much his reason for signing up a few weeks later. Fortunately he wisened up later and dropped out of the military again, but the thought that people like this are in the military (like my nephew, who is just like my brother in many ways) are still in there makes it hard for me to have great respect for soldiers by virtue of what they do.
I mean yeah, it's pretty brave and idealistic of the ones that do it "to protect people they don't know" but I've never met one who joined for that reason, only the ones that go "chicks dig the uniform" or "I get to carry a gun and shoot people". Same goes for the police, by the way.
I'm pretty sure military seargants know how to beat that kind of stupid ideas out of people. That doesn't sound like good soldier material.
I don't know about police.
love the quote thing lol been trying to learn how
I'm pretty sure military seargants know how to beat that kind of stupid ideas out of people. That doesn't sound like good soldier material.
I don't know about police.
I hope so. Might be the reason he gave up, I'm not sure. He said that "he considered himself too young" but you never know.
I did have an ex-colleague though who was a police officer until he had an accident and was unable to do his duties so he had to get an office job. He was a moron, an **** and severly lacking in the "morals" department.
Did not increase my faith in the police one bit.
If someone told me about the WBC protesting at the funerals of people that died of aids I would have disapproved of that. That they protest at the funerals of soldiers is akin to the old "Don't bite the hand that feeds you." adage.
Feed me how? As I've said earlier, the work of soldiers is only as noble and useful as the cause they're fighting for. It's just politics, and it's no more above reproach than that. If your country doesn't have a long history of military mistakes, it's only because your country is too young to have a long history in the first place.
The idea that the population must blindly accept every military endeavour and honour every soldier who participates is a mockery of the values many soldiers claim to be fighting for (freedom, fairness, tolerance, democracy). Sometimes war is necessary, sometimes it's useful, sometimes it's noble, and sometimes it's just wasting the tax-payers money, but whatever it is, if people aren't allowed to have an opinion about it, it's ultimately futile.
And while I think their freedom of speech should be protected, I think we should protect the rights of mourners to not be harassed. There's nothing in there that even implies special rights or privileges for soldiers.
There are some laws which protect everybody's right to grieve, but there are also some that only apply when it's a military funeral. This implies that people mourning a dead soldier have more of a right to left alone than people who mourn a victim of a hatecrime (who were among the WBC's initial targets). And as EE said, those laws only got implemented after they started going after soldiers.
Because one of things about soldiers, and a lot of them don't even realize this themselves, is that they have sworn to protect with their lives the rights and well-being of people they have never met. That's a mighty tall ideal, and some of them pay the ultimate price trying to live up to it. And everyone who has ever been a soldier knows that regardless of your job in the military there is a chance that you will pay that price.
So, yeah, most soldiers do deserve special respect, because they earned it.
Lots of people swear allegiance to higher ideals. Doctors have the Hippocratic oath, police officers and fire-fighters are supposed to protect the innocent too, judges and lawyers have heavy obligations (I believe politicians are also sworn in in many places), every person who occupies a job with a protected title has a higher responsibility than those who do not, as does every person whose job requires legal confidentiality, etc. Not to mention that respect has to go both ways. Someone who waltzes in and call other people enemies and riff-raff, only to then demand unconditional respect, will not get any from me. I show respect by judging people individually (or at least try the best I can), if people can't handle that it says a lot about the kind of respect they deserve.
One of my mother's colleagues (a social worker) got shot a couple of years ago by an angry client. Her job was, in its own way, just as thankless as that of many soldiers, perhaps even more so. She received a lot less money and respect for it, even though her actions could easily have saved lives (many of the assaults on social workers are committed by parents whose children have been removed, or husbands whose wives have sought protection with the social services, so it's pretty much a case of the social workers choosing to take the abuse in place of the initial victims), and if she'd been American, her family wouldn't have enjoyed the same rights as the families of soldiers to not have people cheer at her funeral.
Because one of things about soldiers, and a lot of them don't even realize this themselves, is that they have sworn to protect with their lives the rights and well-being of people they have never met. That's a mighty tall ideal, and some of them pay the ultimate price trying to live up to it. And everyone who has ever been a soldier knows that regardless of your job in the military there is a chance that you will pay that price.
So, yeah, most soldiers do deserve special respect, because they earned it.
They earn nothing more or less than other people doing their jobs. And a lot of jobs do a lot more good than kill, maime, oppress and terrorize.
Soldiers, like police officers, are a force of control and oppression. We usually hate police officers because we get to see how objectionnable they are. We just send soldiers offshoar to do objectionnable stuff to others.
To me this all respect due to soldiers in just propaganda. Because politicians need soldiers and to make sure citizens won't question the existance and the actions of soldiers and the military.
Some wars are necessary, WWII for example, but since then it ha been massacre at usual. Vietnam is a good example. 1,1 million Vietnamese are dead for 55,000 Americans. And for what? Interfering in another country's politics. Wow, they sure earned my respect.
I'm glad to see you haven't lost your ability to oversimplify and misrepresent.
I am profondly anti-military. They have been used many times to oppress my people when they wanted their independance and government themselves.
So, uhh, why not, you know, simply be aniti-military towards the military that you feel did you harm? Why lump all of them together?
Like saying soldiers automatically deserve respect isn't oversimplification?
I am profondly anti-military. They have been used many times to oppress my people when they wanted their independance and government themselves.
Nous vaincrons!
You can be as profoundly anti-military as you would like. I just find issue with you saying that WWII was necessary, but Vietnam wasn't. I'm interested in hearing how you differentiate between the two.
I am profondly anti-military. They have been used many times to oppress my people when they wanted their independance and government themselves.
So, uhh, why not, you know, simply be aniti-military towards the military that you feel did you harm? Why lump all of them together?
Globalization.
was that a serious answer?
everyone deserves respect at a funeral
**** that noise. My policy of "you must earn respect, you are not entitled to it" goes for the dead as well as the living. Just because you went and stopped living doesn't mean I'm going to ignore your life and lie about what a sweet caring person you were.
I am profondly anti-military. They have been used many times to oppress my people when they wanted their independance and government themselves.
So, uhh, why not, you know, simply be aniti-military towards the military that you feel did you harm? Why lump all of them together?
Globalization.
was that a serious answer?
Yes and no. It was a pretty funny joke. But at the ame time politics are more and more international now. The saying that all politics are local are only valid when it come to elections IMO. Tony Blair in his biography was saying the same thing. Look around. The US will print money soon and who reacted? Other world leaders. Talks of free trade agreements with Asia are happening. People are mad about jobs being exported. Protesters travel around the world during world leader summits. We have soldiers in many countries around the world. I say we because we are also part of the same Western block. So it becomes easy to critize our own block's military actions. Especially when we are the hegemonic power in place.
ok I just find that hard to identify with but if thats what you believe then power to you friend.
everyone deserves respect at a funeral
**** that noise. My policy of "you must earn respect, you are not entitled to it" goes for the dead as well as the living. Just because you went and stopped living doesn't mean I'm going to ignore your life and lie about what a sweet caring person you were.
so you would understand if there were anti-gay protesters screaming at your family and waving signs at your funeral? thats what im trying to say.
I can understand a great many things without agreeing with them. It's the sign of an intelligent mind.
ok but do you agree with that? you think it's ok? I think you'd be rolling in your grave escher
ok but do you agree with that? you think it's ok? I think you'd be rolling in your grave escher
Impossible. The dead cannot move.
ok but do you agree with that? you think it's ok? I think you'd be rolling in your grave escher
Impossible. The dead cannot move.
you......okay
WWII, at lest from our side, was made to oppose the expension of Nazi Germany and we got to stop the Holocost has a bonus!
Vietnam was made because the US wanted to make a point that South-East Asian was in it's zone of influence.
If you count "Soviets" among the "we", then yeah, sure.
The western world tends to forget the Reds did more than half of the job.
And I think you're oversimplifying Vietnam. It was the French who started, or something like that
I can understand a great many things without agreeing with them. It's the sign of an intelligent mind.
ok but do you agree with that? you think it's ok? I think you'd be rolling in your grave escher
Doesn't matter. People do not deserve respect just for being dead, and as deplorable as I find the practice, protesting funerals is, in all likelihood, constitutionally protected free speech.
Like saying soldiers automatically deserve respect isn't oversimplification?
I am profondly anti-military. They have been used many times to oppress my people when they wanted their independance and government themselves.
Nous vaincrons!
You can be as profoundly anti-military as you would like. I just find issue with you saying that WWII was necessary, but Vietnam wasn't. I'm interested in hearing how you differentiate between the two.
WWII, at lest from our side, was made to oppose the expension of Nazi Germany and we got to stop the Holocost has a bonus!
Vietnam was made because the US wanted to make a point that South-East Asian was in it's zone of influence.
Some would argue Vietnam was also fought to stop the spread of communism. You know, like stopping the spread of Nazis.
Yeah for well thought out positions and consistency!
Doesn't matter. People do not deserve respect just for being dead, and as deplorable as I find the practice, protesting funerals is, in all likelihood, constitutionally protected free speech.
No one deserves respect simply for dying, but the right of the dead person's loved ones to grieve in peace should be respected. Protected or not, politicizing the funeral of a stranger to further one's own agenda is a deplorably crass and selfish act.
BTW, this applies not only to those who protest at funerals but equally to those politicians and pundits who spout jingoistic rhetoric in order to ride the dead's patriotic coattails to popularity.
BTW, this applies not only to those who protest at funerals but equally to those politicians and pundits who spout jingoistic rhetoric in order to ride the dead's patriotic coattails to popularity.
I didn't know you took interest in Polish politics.
BTW, this applies not only to those who protest at funerals but equally to those politicians and pundits who spout jingoistic rhetoric in order to ride the dead's patriotic coattails to popularity.
I didn't know you took interest in Polish politics.
Craven political opportunism knows no nation and no borders.
BTW, this applies not only to those who protest at funerals but equally to those politicians and pundits who spout jingoistic rhetoric in order to ride the dead's patriotic coattails to popularity.
I didn't know you took interest in Polish politics.
Is this about that plane crash?
And the following presidential campaign.. and the ongoing, ridiculously politicized local elections...
Add a recent case of a guy snapping and going on a politician shooting spree. He managed to kill one of the opposition party members (run by the late's president twin) and hate spiraled up in the name of removing hate from public life. Hate between two basically right-wing parties to boot.
Feed me how?
With platefuls of freedom and liberty. Which many gobble down, and then villainize those who gave it to them.
I mean yeah, it's pretty brave and idealistic of the ones that do it "to protect people they don't know" but I've never met one who joined for that reason...
Hi, my name's Jeff.
Now you've met one.
So which is better? Democracy or Totalitarian regime?
Edit: By the way, you got some english links to bref me on the situation in Poland? I love politics.
All I can tell you right now is that it's awfully late in this timezone now and that I've been getting up early for the whole week (and tomorrow's only slightly later). All that comes to my mind right now is thenews.pl/ but you'd probably have to dig a bit for the juicy parts (the rampage was a month ago and the killers hit list was uncovered quickly, debunking opposition's claims of media instructing people to hate just them).
Nazi =/= Communism.
And bombing a country back to stone age and killing 1,1 million people isn't better then what Nazis did.
Child, would at least make an attempt at reading what is actually written? When did I say that Nazi = Communism? You mentioned that WWII was made to oppose the spread of Nazi Germany. I mentioned that some people would argue that Vietnam was fought to oppose the spread of Communism. Both wars can be seen to have been fought to stop the spread of some type of government.
Try to reply to what is actually written, not to the complete misrepresentations you usually do. Your cognitive abilities make me wonder whether or not you are related to Sarah Palin in some way.
Feed me how?
With platefuls of freedom and liberty. Which many gobble down, and then villainize those who gave it to them.
You act like the army is a single entity, and that all soldiers are collectively responsible for everything it's ever done (except of course the things you don't agree with). I don't want to get too politic, but frankly, even you can't actually believe that all military operations were a good idea. And it's not like people who're sceptical about certain military operations are never willing to fight for freedom.
In my country, the government tried to use the day we honour the WW2 resistance to also honour the soldiers stationed in Iraq. The WW2 vets plainly told the government that, while they were free to dedicate some day to support for the Iraqi war, it shouldn't be that day. Because there's difference between defending your country (or simply saving lives, such as by smuggling Jews out of the country before the Nazis can get to them) and waging a war in a far-off land that hasn't previously attacked your own, simple because the government thinks it'll make the Americans happy.
Perhaps the war was actually a good idea, but when even people who fought the Nazis, often with considerably higher risks and considerably less support, are sceptical about it, the least you can do is acknowledge that you don't have to be a traitor to be sceptical about it (unless you're planning to turn into RH and say that the resistance against the Nazis was a bunch of filthy communists ).
I responded because it wasn't the same. Nazi Germany was clearly an aggressor. For the Vietnam war, this was an internal conflict and a lot of Vietnamese saw the American intervention has aggression.
I'm sure Nazi Germany also saw the U.S. as the aggressor.
Some people saw McCarthyism as a way to stop communist inside the US, but it was a clear violation of the principales the US are supposed to stand for. Because some people saw the Vietnam war a way to stop the spread of communism, it doesn't justify the atrocities that were commited in the name of freedom.
I think we should change the straw-man fallacy to the Goldo fallacy.
In any case:
I'm sure Nazi Germany also saw the U.S. as the aggressor.
I agree with you on principle (that principle being that people often mutually see each other as aggressors), but I don't think that's the case here. Nazi Germany had already broken several treaties and invaded other countries, and besides, the US committed to the war after it was clear that it would eventually reach them too (i.e. Pearl Harbor). Say what you want, but the Nazis (generally) weren't stupid. There was likely propaganda to make it seem like Germany was just defending itself, but I doubt the military leaders actually thought so (unless we're talking about an alternative defence against less obvious threats).
I'm sure Nazi Germany also saw the U.S. as the aggressor.
I agree with you on principle (that principle being that people often mutually see each other as aggressors), but I don't think that's the case here. Nazi Germany had already broken several treaties and invaded other countries, and besides, the US committed to the war after it was clear that it would eventually reach them too (i.e. Pearl Harbor). Say what you want, but the Nazis (generally) weren't stupid. There was likely propaganda to make it seem like Germany was just defending itself, but I doubt the military leaders actually thought so (unless we're talking about an alternative defence against less obvious threats).
I was replying to Goldo's remark that a justification for WWII was that Nazi Germany was an aggressor and stopping them from spreading was right; however, The U.S.'s involvement was oversimplified to that of an aggressor.
It's all about perspective. Yes, the U.S. can be seen as an aggressor... by the communist government in Vietnam at the time. The South had a democratic government put in place by the French. I am willing to bet that they saw the U.S. as allies.
By the same token, you can say that Germany was the aggressor, but as you point out, German propaganda more than likely made it appear as if Germany was defending itself and the U.S. was the aggressor. It all depends on perspective.
That's all I was saying. If I gave the impression that I was saying that the U.S. was an aggressor in WWII, I apologize for that. I would be the first to say that U.S. involvement in WWII was more than justified and appropriate.
You act like the army is a single entity, and that all soldiers are collectively responsible for everything it's ever done (except of course the things you don't agree with).
On the contrary, I would say it is you trying to treat them as a single entity. Soldiers volunteer to do a dangerous job for the good of their country and countrymen. If the country makes bad decisions about how to use that commitment, that is on the government, not the soldiers. They do not get to choose when/where/who to fight. The only choice they get to make is to volunteer to risk their lives for their country or to not do so.
On the contrary, I would say it is you trying to treat them as a single entity. Soldiers volunteer to do a dangerous job for the good of their country and countrymen. If the country makes bad decisions about how to use that commitment, that is on the government, not the soldiers. They do not get to choose when/where/who to fight. The only choice they get to make is to volunteer to risk their lives for their country or to not do so.
Soldiers volunteer to do a dangerous job for a variety of reasons. Their job can have a variety of consequences. I treat them as individuals because of this. Many people choose jobs that are a great benefit to society, not just soldiers. Some of these jobs are dangerous, and some are merely thankless, offering low pay and low status. Some people prefer glory and battle to the boring, thankless, everyday jobs that are also necessary to make a nation work, so there is little reason to consider them to be especially self-sacrificing because of it.
Not to mention that I have a hard time feeling grateful when soldiers start placing themselves above 'the riff-raff', and tell people they're not allowed to be critical of any military decisions because it would be hard on the soldiers, and the welfare of soldiers is the most important thing in the world, more important than any ideology, freedom of speech, democracy, and the lives of civilians, and only the opinions of soldiers have any value, and only soldiers are fit to lead a country.
It's like the sort of guy who's always doing stuff for you you didn't ask him to, claims to know what you want, buys you stuff you didn't wish for, pays for your dinner while you're in the bathroom, and then starts demanding sex on the ground that it's the least you can offer after everything he's done for you. If I'm to believe a soldier wants to protect civilians, s/he will first have to act as if civilians are worth protecting.
On the contrary, I like to type a lot
I find it odd that you seem to think Soldiers have a sense of entitlement. You're allowed to your opinion, but what you provided us with is anecdotal at best. There's no substantial truth behind what you said.
Many people choose jobs that are a great benefit to society, not just soldiers.
They do, and should be respected.
Not to mention that I have a hard time feeling grateful when soldiers start placing themselves above 'the riff-raff', and tell people they're not allowed to be critical of any military decisions because it would be hard on the soldiers, and the welfare of soldiers is the most important thing in the world, more important than any ideology, freedom of speech, democracy, and the lives of civilians, and only the opinions of soldiers have any value, and only soldiers are fit to lead a country.
I have never experienced this, nor seen it here. Perhapes your perception is clouded by prejudice. At any rate, I did not claim any of these things. If someone else did, please, point them out for me.
It's like the sort of guy who's always doing stuff for you you didn't ask him to, claims to know what you want, buys you stuff you didn't wish for, pays for your dinner while you're in the bathroom, and then starts demanding sex on the ground that it's the least you can offer after everything he's done for you. If I'm to believe a soldier wants to protect civilians, s/he will first have to act as if civilians are worth protecting.
No... soldiers do what the government tells them to, when they are doing their job. The government does what the people tell it to, when it is doing it's job. They are less like stalkers doing things for you without your consent and more like subcontractors carrying out the will of the people as it is expressed to them. If the soldiers are doing things the people do not want them to, that is a failing of the government. And the most I have seen them request is respect not love, adoration, worship, or sex.
I find it odd that you seem to think Soldiers have a sense of entitlement. You're allowed to your opinion, but what you provided us with is anecdotal at best. There's no substantial truth behind what you said.
I don't think soldiers have a sense of entitlement, and I don't know where you get that idea. I said that when soldiers act like I just described, I find no reason to give them any respect, least of all any special respect. Also, the sentiment that soldiers deserve special respect and are above others, and that common people (known as riff-raff) have much more to be grateful to soldiers for than vice versa (and not just soldiers who've actually defended them, any soldier) has been expressed before, most recently on this thread.
most soldiers do deserve special respect, because they earned it.
That they protest at the funerals of soldiers is akin to the old "Don't bite the hand that feeds you." adage.
Feed me how?
With platefuls of freedom and liberty. Which many gobble down, and then villainize those who gave it to them.
I wasn't talking salary. I was talking about people who think that soldier deserve special respect.
Why don't they deserve "special" respect?
They volunteer to do a dangerous job in a far away land for ungrateful people safe at home.
*waits for the riff-raff to make ridiculous and ignorant replys*
They do, and should be respected.
But where does the line do between respect and special respect? And more to the point, since there are so many jobs that are crucial for our society, where does the line go between someone whose job is important enough to earn that extra respect, and someone who isn't? Can we actually set an objective line between the two (those entitled to special respect and those not)?
I have never experienced this, nor seen it here. Perhapes your perception is clouded by prejudice. At any rate, I did not claim any of these things. If someone else did, please, point them out for me.
The line of reasoning used as to why soldiers deserve special respect is pretty much saying it. If someone goes to Iraq, and I don't believe Iraq was ever a threat, I'm still supposed to pretend it is, and to give the soldiers this special respect for protecting me, because not doing so is apparently disrespectful. I also recall it being said here that only veterans should be allowed to run for president (which is just a lovely thought for those of us who can't get into the military if we tried).
No... soldiers do what the government tells them to, when they are doing their job. The government does what the people tell it to, when it is doing it's job. They are less like stalkers doing things for you without your consent and more like subcontractors carrying out the will of the people as it is expressed to them. If the soldiers are doing things the people do not want them to, that is a failing of the government.
And we're right back to soldiers being people with jobs. As I've already said before, the work of soldiers (which, in case anyone wondered, is different from the soldiers themselves) is only as good as the war they're fighting.
And the most I have seen them request is respect not love, adoration, worship, or sex.
I respect people's right to join the military. I respect people's (all people's) right to grieve in peace. I respect people's (such as the WW2 resistance) right to distinguish between fighting an invading force, and fighting a war in a far-off land for political reasons that people may or may not agree with. I normally respect both the opinion of those who find the use of military force necessary/beneficial and those who do not, though it varies according to the situation. I respect human beings as human beings, deserving on being judged individually according to their actions, not their position in society. But I do not respect people who think they're above individual judgement and entitled to special respect because of their career choice, even if they are.
I do not respect people who think they're above individual judgement and entitled to special respect because of their career choice, even if they are.
You don't respect people who think they are entitled to respect, even if they are (entitled to respect)?
Tehee.
(also, I feel you use 'rights' too freely.)
Not to mention that I have a hard time feeling grateful when soldiers start placing themselves above 'the riff-raff', and tell people they're not allowed to be critical of any military decisions because it would be hard on the soldiers, and the welfare of soldiers is the most important thing in the world, more important than any ideology, freedom of speech, democracy, and the lives of civilians, and only the opinions of soldiers have any value, and only soldiers are fit to lead a country.I have never experienced this, nor seen it here. Perhapes your perception is clouded by prejudice. At any rate, I did not claim any of these things. If someone else did, please, point them out for me.
... have you totally ignored half the rhetoric about why DADT shouldn't be repealled over the last seventeen years? A good chunk of it boils down to "we shouldn't question whether the armed forces are allowed to be bigots."
I'm not kidding. I wish I were.
... have you totally ignored half the rhetoric about why DADT shouldn't be repealled over the last seventeen years? A good chunk of it boils down to "we shouldn't question whether the armed forces are allowed to be bigots."
I'm not kidding. I wish I were.
Yes. Yes I have.
Only thing I ever really recall hearing in defense of DADT is that it is good for moral or something. Anything beyond that I can honestly say I have no recolection of.
You act like the army is a single entity, and that all soldiers are collectively responsible for everything it's ever done (except of course the things you don't agree with).
You assume too much.
In my country, the government tried to use the day we honour the WW2 resistance to also honour the soldiers stationed in Iraq. The WW2 vets plainly told the government that, while they were free to dedicate some day to support for the Iraqi war, it shouldn't be that day. Because there's difference between defending your country (or simply saving lives, such as by smuggling Jews out of the country before the Nazis can get to them) and waging a war in a far-off land that hasn't previously attacked your own, simple because the government thinks it'll make the Americans happy.
Those vets are perfectly within thier rights to feel the way they do. But then, how should Americans feel about WWII then, since Germany never attacked us. There is nothing dishonorable about coming to an ally's help when asked. (As for my own feelings about the Iraq war, that's another kettle of fish entirely.)
And, yes, militaries can and often are used for oppressive and tyrranical ends. But whenever a people free themselves from such, it is the people brave enough to take up arms and fight who get the job done. Soldiering is an honorable profession; and it is a shame when dishonorable people take it up, and shameful when nations use their soldiers to do dishonorable things.
I don't think soldiers have a sense of entitlement, and I don't know where you get that idea. I said that when soldiers act like I just described, I find no reason to give them any respect, least of all any special respect. Also, the sentiment that soldiers deserve special respect and are above others, and that common people (known as riff-raff) have much more to be grateful to soldiers for than vice versa (and not just soldiers who've actually defended them, any soldier) has been expressed before, most recently on this thread.
Most of the time you see soldiers and ex-soldiers talking this way it is not because they demand anything for themselves, it is because they want their comrades in arms to be treated better.
And I have no idea where you get off with the bolded section, you are again assuming far too much. Because, guess what? Soldiers? They are the common people.
I mean yeah, it's pretty brave and idealistic of the ones that do it "to protect people they don't know" but I've never met one who joined for that reason...
Hi, my name's Jeff.
Now you've met one.
Even though I don't really know you, I'll take your word for it. That makes one.
Must be nice to have that privilege.
It is.
You don't respect people who think they are entitled to respect, even if they are (entitled to respect)?
Tehee.
I think people can invalidate their own work. It's a bit like Janteloven. I can understand why the mentality can be petty and damaging, and why people would want to oppose it, and yet, every time I hear the term 'Jantelov' it's uttered by minor celebrities who complain that people don't worship them enough. The really big stars rarely seem to bother, almost as if they don't encounter that attitude, and the whole Jantelov is less about not recognising great achievements, and more about minor celebrities being told to come down to earth. You shouldn't cry 'Jantelov!' when you're an actual snob, because you're showing why people can have completely legitimate grievance with you that has nothing to do with jealousy.
Sorry, but that's the closest thing I can think of when I hear soldiers say things like "I should be placed above you because I serve you" and "I care less about you than I expect you to care about me, because I'm self-sacrificing". If you already think that low about the people you're supposed to protect, the whole idea starts to become moot, especially when the warfare is so removed from people's lives it's impossible to judge what's actually defending, and what's just politics and people who like guns. It's a matter of showing, not telling (as well as ceasing to use the alleged goodness of the troops to justify a war – it's more like to dirty the reputation of the soldiers than it is to clean up people's perception of the conflict).
Those vets are perfectly within thier rights to feel the way they do. But then, how should Americans feel about WWII then, since Germany never attacked us. There is nothing dishonorable about coming to an ally's help when asked. (As for my own feelings about the Iraq war, that's another kettle of fish entirely.)
I was using it to illustrate that it's perfectly possible to self-sacrificing and willing to risk your life for others, and still oppose glamorising the military. WW2 was an interesting example because the kind of people who opposed the Nazis were often the same kind of people who'd later be accused of being unpatriotic lefties, while the respectable conservative upper class was more interested in protecting themselves. I'm not trying to make a case for one side of the political spectrum being evil and the other side flawless, but I think people are too fast to label others ungrateful cowards for opposing war.
And no, there's nothing shameful about coming to ally's help (though in the case of WW2, I think it was as much as a case of going against your enemy's ally), but I think there's something wrong when common people are required to pay special respect to soldiers for protecting freedom, and yet are expected make sacrifices for freedom that soldiers are not. To go back to the original topic derail, when the freedom of the Westboro Baptist Church to picket funerals is limited because of the right of the families of soldiers to grieve in peace, but not that of common people, it seems to me like the price the army demands for defending democracy is to not have to deal with that pesky freedom themselves. And that's a dangerous slippery slope.
And, yes, militaries can and often are used for oppressive and tyrranical ends. But whenever a people free themselves from such, it is the people brave enough to take up arms and fight who get the job done. Soldiering is an honorable profession; and it is a shame when dishonorable people take it up, and shameful when nations use their soldiers to do dishonorable things.
Soldiering is neutral. Or actually, it's negative, but there are a cases where two negatives cancel each other out, which I guess makes one of the negatives effectively positive. I agree that sometimes, the only way of stopping someone from bombing peaceful cities is to throw bombs back at them (and I applaud it when necessary), but I don't think that makes bomb-throwing an inherently honorable profession.
Soldiering is neutral. Or actually, it's negative, but there are a cases where two negatives cancel each other out, which I guess makes one of the negatives effectively positive. I agree that sometimes, the only way of stopping someone from bombing peaceful cities is to throw bombs back at them (and I applaud it when necessary), but I don't think that makes bomb-throwing an inherently honorable profession.
So... Being willing to fight and die for your people isn't honorable? Because that is what being a soldier is about. Holy dog vomit, son.
So... Being willing to fight and die for your people isn't honorable? Because that is what being a soldier is about. Holy dog vomit, son.
Honourable perhaps (if you use that definition), not necessarily good. I don't think I have to remind you that plenty of people who have been willing to die for what they believe in have been labelled evil by your own army.
So perhaps in the USA it's very honourable, but it's probably not like that everywhere. That same kind of honour runs a lot thinner in Europe, for example, where most people are a lot less impressed by military personell.
So Iraq is bad even though we opposed a guy that invaded his neighbors (granted, not the second time but he did show he was willing), slaughtered his own people, practiced unspeakable tortures upon human beings and committed acts of genocide against people he felt were inferior. Oh, and he also showed a callous disregard for the environment - something all the world shares - by dumping oil into the Gulf, setting oil rigs on fire and damn near completely destroying an entire ecosystem just to get rid of some undesireables. Great, I get ... wait, no I don't.
Either a lot of you have no idea what Mr Hussein actually did and how damned similar it was to how a certain mustachioed dictator behaved back in the '30s and '40s or you've got some curious double standard thing going on. What? Don't these people matter? Or were they just not close enough to home? Maybe ya jus don't get credit for coming to the aid of people without fair skin, I dunno. And yes, we didn't go there with the intention of deposing a despot for the reasons given - we did it our of concern for weapons that weren't there. But I'll remind you that we didn't enter WWII to save Jews, either - cuz we didn't know that's what we would be doing. Meh, whatever. Bush Jr did it and did it poorly so it's all terrible. Nevermind the atrocities the man was guilty of, let's just heap scorn upon the US and any soldiers that were there cuz the reasons given aren't something we can support politically. Yeah, I'm done.
Erato: Out of curiousity, if soldering is negative to you, would policing also be considered negative? They also have to use force (or the threat of force) to achieve goals including the protection of a populace and a state's control. (I'm not saying they're the same, but similar enough for comparision in this case.)
So WWII was a good fight cuz we opposed a guy that invaded his neighbors, and - don't forget we didn't know about this at first - slaughtered his own people, practiced unspeakable tortures upon human beings and committed acts of genocide against people he felt were inferior. Great, I get that.So Iraq is bad even though we opposed a guy that invaded his neighbors (granted, not the second time but he did show he was willing), slaughtered his own people, practiced unspeakable tortures upon human beings and committed acts of genocide against people he felt were inferior. Oh, and he also showed a callous disregard for the environment - something all the world shares - by dumping oil into the Gulf, setting oil rigs on fire and damn near completely destroying an entire ecosystem just to get rid of some undesireables. Great, I get ... wait, no I don't.
It's a question of necessity. Saddam invaded his allies over a decade ago (and I still don't understand why it wasn't just finished there), and he didn't attack most of the countries who went to war (and while the idea that the US only entered WW2 to defend others is pretty, it doesn't change that they only entered after getting attacked themselves).
Not to mention that, cynical as it sounds, genocides and humanitarian disasters happen every day in multiple parts of the world. In such a climate, you can justify almost any military conflict with "But people are suffering" (and that goes for financial aid too, but I don't see (m)any countries willing to spend the same amount of money to prevent people from slowly, painfully starving to death), but that doesn't mean it's always the right fight at the right moment. Saddam had been there for decades, it's a bit hard to pretend the need for an invasion was immediate, and that there wasn't the same need for invasions of other suffering countries.
If the goal is humanitarian aid, then it's better to do something thoroughly the first time than to spread your resources thin. The whole "teach a man to fish" meme goes for war too. I'd like to think the current wars haven't been for nothing, but when I hear about the Taliban making a comeback, while the politicians are trying to find excuses to send the troops to Iraq instead, I can't help questioning exactly what the point is. The last 40 years should have taught us that temporary solutions will come back and bite us in the ass.
EDIT: It should also be noted that Hitler was permitted to do as he wished until he attacked the wrong people.
I actually agree with that. It should have just been handled the first time. If we did, there'd be a lot of Kurds alive today.
EDIT: It should also be noted that Hitler was permitted to do as he wished until he attacked the wrong people.
...the Soviets of course ;)
I don't know the specifics, but I remember hearing that the "blunder" wasn't so bad since he was having overwhelming victories and there were signs that the Soviets were getting ready to attack him. But I'm sure someone like Robin_Hoodlum could give better information.
I always heard that the classical mistake was attacking Russia because it's simply too big to be taken. Napeleon learned it the hard way, and he wasn't the first, nor apparently the last.
EDIT: Yep, it was the Japanese. Germany did it, too, but on a different level. They went after merchant and escort vessels cuz we were aiding their enemy. Though the US did not enter the war until 1941, the war wouldn't have lasted until 1941 without the US.
So Iraq is bad [...]
I'm of mixed feelings. The more I learn about that entire region, the more I'm in favor of a military solution for the whole bag of 'em and forcibly dismantling their countries and putting them back together in a way that's more humane and fair, but that doesn't change the underlying facts about the way that President George Bush the second started the war, which is my main beef.
He went into a war on false pretenses, lied to his country about it, and without victory conditions or a real plan. He then kept us in the war through his entire two terms, willfully wasting funds on his friends and buddies in the military industry, all the while making no appreciable progress.
So I think the summary of my current opinion is that I think we did (continue to do) exactly the right thing in exactly the wrong way for exactly the wrong reasons.
I always heard that the classical mistake was attacking Russia because it's simply too big to be taken.
Yep, and it has nearly infinite human resources, compared to any other army. When the Russians ran out, they've attacked with Belorussians, Ukrainians (either of those two was actually the nationality with most killed during the war, I don't remember which one), Lithuanians, all kinds of Caucasus peoples... oh, and there were some Polish corps as well, but Stalin hated Poland1, so there were few and not much used.
Nec Hercules contre plures ;)
1The main reasons being the 1920 war, active anti-Soviet resistance and many Polish troops among British forces (and Churchill wasn't particularly fond of Joe's shenanigans).
So I think the summary of my current opinion is that I think we did (continue to do) exactly the right thing in exactly the wrong way for exactly the wrong reasons.
That's pretty much exactly the best way to put it. I'd personally like to add that I'd like to see our people come home ASAP, too. Obviously we've got to do our best to fix the mess we made, but I'd like to see us out of there soon.
I'd personally like to add that I'd like to see our people come home ASAP, too. Obviously we've got to do our best to fix the mess we made, but I'd like to see us out of there soon.
I was stationed in Germany from Sept. 06 to Sept. 08. World War II ended when? Oh, yes, 1945.
How good, exactly do you think the odds of us pulling all our troops out of Iraq are? Within our lifetimes?
He went into a war on false pretenses, lied to his country about it, and without victory conditions or a real plan. He then kept us in the war through his entire two terms, willfully wasting funds on his friends and buddies in the military industry, all the while making no appreciable progress.
I do not disagree that it was not handled or planned well. But wasn't the reason given for going to war in Iraq that they did not agree to allow weapon inspectors as per the agreement ending the first Iraqi war? That seems to be a pretty true statement and a strong enough reason. Was there something else?
Erato: Out of curiousity, if soldering is negative to you, would policing also be considered negative? They also have to use force (or the threat of force) to achieve goals including the protection of a populace and a state's control. (I'm not saying they're the same, but similar enough for comparision in this case.)
It's more a question of acknowledging that the service of most violent people, be they soldiers, police officers, or freedom-fighters/terrorists/armed rebels, is only necessary because of the existence of other violent people in the first place. An army is good because it's preventing other armies from occupying your country, but that army wouldn't be necessary if it wasn't for all the other armies.
But you misunderstand me. Just because I think soldiering is a necessary evil doesn't mean I'm opposed to it. My mother have to take children away from their parents, and you could easily make a case for how that's not a good thing in itself but I accept that it can be necessary. However, historically, soldiering have been the province of the aristocracy here, and a huge amount of non-soldiers have fought very hard to rid of them. I'm not eager to see those times return. Also, I'm of the opinion that seperating yourself too much from the ones you claim to want to help is a dangerous practice.
I'm of mixed feelings. The more I learn about that entire region, the more I'm in favor of a military solution for the whole bag of 'em and forcibly dismantling their countries and putting them back together in a way that's more humane and fair
Except that there's a limit to how much you control you can get. Historically, it's rarely a feasible tactic for one country to impose itself on another like that, especially when the occupying country consider itself in all ways better (like the US does). Also, if you actually want to prevent genocides, oppression, and ethnic cleansing, I think Africa is a more obvious place to start.
It's more a question of acknowledging that the service of most violent people...
What? Excuse me? So, my grandfather was a violent person? A man who after he got out of the service (he served in WWII) could not bring himself to carry a gun, was a violent person?
You would seriously label soldiers as "violent people"? How? What the bloody blue blazes made you think that was even remotely correct?
I am flabbergasted.
What? Excuse me? So, my grandfather was a violent person? A man who after he got out of the service (he served in WWII) could not bring himself to carry a gun, was a violent person?
You would seriously label soldiers as "violent people"? How? What the bloody blue blazes made you think that was even remotely correct?
I am flabbergasted.
Violent occupations if you will, violent actions. It doesn't matter, I'm talking about the deeds not the people.
I was stationed in Germany from Sept. 06 to Sept. 08. World War II ended when? Oh, yes, 1945.
How good, exactly do you think the odds of us pulling all our troops out of Iraq are? Within our lifetimes?
I said I'd like to see them come home, not that I expect it's an easy thing or even possible. I'd also like to wake up to find that I inherited billions from some previously unknown benefactor but that ain't gonna happen either.
Also, if you actually want to prevent genocides, oppression, and ethnic cleansing, I think Africa is a more obvious place to start.
Huh? I hadn't realized that one place experiencing genocide was a better place than another to try and stop it.
I get what you're trying to say - that if this is the reason we were there then there's more work to be done - but it's not that simple. It's been proven that even if the result of our action is to depose a genocidal maniac, the world would still prefer we didn't. Cuz, you know, all of the good removing Hussein accomplished is constantly glossed over in order to ridicule the reasons we gave for heading there in the first place. Aside from that, Africa is a strange place governed by the rule of oil. I don't think anyone is gonna help those poor bastards any time soon. It's sickening what's allowed to happen there. The recent BP oil disaster highlights what a forgotten people Africans are. The world fretted over the Gulf and most people sweating it had no idea that Nigeria experiences a worse ecological disaster than that pretty much annually. Meh, I don't know what to say. The world is ****ed up, run by hypocritical scumbags and peopled by fools.
Violent occupations if you will, violent actions. It doesn't matter, I'm talking about the deeds not the people.
It does matter when you start describing people as violent. That matters a great deal. Next time talk about what you are talking about. Because you insulted me, several members of my family, and a lot of people I had the privilege of working alongside of.
Also, if you actually want to prevent genocides, oppression, and ethnic cleansing, I think Africa is a more obvious place to start.
Huh? I hadn't realized that one place experiencing genocide was a better place than another to try and stop it.
Not better, but in sheer numbers, the tragedy is larger. But that's the point, there are many places with tyrannical governments or militias, and most choices to interfere are politically motivated. It's easy to say that this or that tyrant was cruel, or this or that oppression should be stopped, and that these people are dying, but in the end, it all comes down to priorities. No one disputes that Saddam was a terrible leader, but whether the resources and lives sacrificed to get rid of him were worth it compared to what could have been done with them somewhere else.....
We'll probably never know for sure, but what I'm against is the way it's used politically. People forget (or just never mention) various genocides like it's no big deal, but then suddenly some despot gets the attentions of the politicians and media, and then we're all supposed to go around actively hating him and shying no means to get rid of him, everybody who questions the sudden hate that we didn't bother with a week before are treated as if they're in favour of tyranny, while various tyrants around the world are allowed to continue almost anonymously, and few people question it until the government need a new use for their army. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
I get what you're trying to say - that if this is the reason we were there then there's more work to be done - but it's not that simple. It's been proven that even if the result of our action is to depose a genocidal maniac, the world would still prefer we didn't. Cuz, you know, all of the good removing Hussein accomplished is constantly glossed over in order to ridicule the reasons we gave for heading there in the first place.
People don't like when a single country decides which wars are worth fighting and which aren't. Besides, it's all well and good to have high-minded ideals, but believe it or not, some people prefer a stable tyranny to a continuous war-zone. The whole idea that people should be willing to trade safety for freedom ignores how the two are connected. If people can't walk safely in the streets, calling them free is a tad ridiculous, and if people are starving, they'll be driven by their hunger as much as by a dictator. There's something to be said for the claim that winning the war is useless if you can't win the peace.
It does matter when you start describing people as violent. That matters a great deal. Next time talk about what you are talking about. Because you insulted me, several members of my family, and a lot of people I had the privilege of working alongside of.
If you want to claim to be part of the common people, start accepting that you have to deal with the same **** as the rest of us. I'm insulted almost on a daily basis when I visit this board, frequently, those insults include my family and country, and unlike in this case, the insults weren't unintended results of someone communicating in a foreign language.
If you want to claim to be part of the common people, start accepting that you have to deal with the same **** as the rest of us.
Wow, you just don't get it, do you?
It's more a question of acknowledging that the service of most violent people, be they soldiers, police officers, or freedom-fighters/terrorists/armed rebels, is only necessary because of the existence of other violent people in the first place. An army is good because it's preventing other armies from occupying your country, but that army wouldn't be necessary if it wasn't for all the other armies.
Armies have uses other than directly battling other armies. Keeping order and preventing uprising are examples. Also, police officers would exist even if there were no violent crime (there are plenty of non-violent crimes which I assume you would like to be prevented or punished). So I do not think its a correct statement to imply that "violent people" only are necessary because of "other violent people".
But you misunderstand me. Just because I think soldiering is a necessary evil doesn't mean I'm opposed to it. My mother have to take children away from their parents, and you could easily make a case for how that's not a good thing in itself but I accept that it can be necessary. However, historically, soldiering have been the province of the aristocracy here, and a huge amount of non-soldiers have fought very hard to rid of them. I'm not eager to see those times return. Also, I'm of the opinion that seperating yourself too much from the ones you claim to want to help is a dangerous practice.
I think I understood you, but mentioned police officers because they seem to fit very well into your compliants about military personel. Their job is predicated on violence (or the threat of it) and they often times put themselves "above" who they're supposedly protecting. But you seem to speak favorably towards police officers. Additionally, police officers have a historical record of abusing their power for personal gain or the gain of certain political factions (which you brought up recently).
For your last statement regarding separation, I think there are advantages and disadvantages. So without further explanation, its hard to agree or disagree. You don't want to be too "close" because biases can form, for example. I can also see how being too removed can make you lose perspective, so there are definately pluses and minuses.
Regarding Iraq v Africa: I imagine if African warlords were building or threatening to build nuclear arms, the international community would be much more concerned with them. Its not about just helping random people; its about the potential dangers of the situation.
Not better, but in sheer numbers, the tragedy is larger. But that's the point, there are many places with tyrannical governments or militias, and most choices to interfere are politically motivated. It's easy to say that this or that tyrant was cruel, or this or that oppression should be stopped, and that these people are dying, but in the end, it all comes down to priorities. No one disputes that Saddam was a terrible leader, but whether the resources and lives sacrificed to get rid of him were worth it compared to what could have been done with them somewhere else.....We'll probably never know for sure, but what I'm against is the way it's used politically. People forget (or just never mention) various genocides like it's no big deal, but then suddenly some despot gets the attentions of the politicians and media, and then we're all supposed to go around actively hating him and shying no means to get rid of him, everybody who questions the sudden hate that we didn't bother with a week before are treated as if they're in favour of tyranny, while various tyrants around the world are allowed to continue almost anonymously, and few people question it until the government need a new use for their army. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
Yeah, it's a pretty messed up world we live in. Only certain people in certain situations will get help. We'll speak out against certain behavior in anyone but our allies (human rights/Saudi Arabia). We'll call for greater responsibility when it endangers our interests but let it slide when there's something to be gained (The Gulf spill/Nigeria). I think all we can really take from this is that even though there's a lot of people that need help, some people were still helped by what happened in Iraq.
People don't like when a single country decides which wars are worth fighting and which aren't. Besides, it's all well and good to have high-minded ideals, but believe it or not, some people prefer a stable tyranny to a continuous war-zone. The whole idea that people should be willing to trade safety for freedom ignores how the two are connected. If people can't walk safely in the streets, calling them free is a tad ridiculous, and if people are starving, they'll be driven by their hunger as much as by a dictator. There's something to be said for the claim that winning the war is useless if you can't win the peace.
It's rare that a single country decides anything anymore. Say what you will but the US did not go to Iraq alone and is not alone there now.
The areas in question were/are also hardly 'stable tyrannies'. Iraq and the whole of the Middle East is in a constant state of conflict. People were being slaughtered in Iraq every day. The only 'stability' was in which groups were targeted. In Africa it's much the same. While I can certainly understand the point, it's not an accurate representation of the two areas discussed.
I do agree with the futility of winning a war without winning the peace.
Violent occupations if you will, violent actions. It doesn't matter, I'm talking about the deeds not the people.
So my wife's grandfather risking his life to deliver a stranger's baby in a French farmhouse in the middle of a bombardment was a "violent action" on his part? Good to know.
Violent occupations if you will, violent actions. It doesn't matter, I'm talking about the deeds not the people.
So my wife's grandfather risking his life to deliver a stranger's baby in a French farmhouse in the middle of a bombardment was a "violent action" on his part? Good to know.
Yeah, he very strongly implies that soldiers simply exist to kill. They aren't human beings with their own lives or desires. They're caricatures. I mean, seriously, if all soldiers became Terminators when they joined don't you think I would have re-enlisted? Because I'd love to have a steel endoskeleton and the ability to shrug off blows that would fell an elephant. ... Ok, that and peeling the flesh off your forearm is a great party trick.
If you want to claim to be part of the common people, start accepting that you have to deal with the same **** as the rest of us. I'm insulted almost on a daily basis when I visit this board, frequently, those insults include my family and country, and unlike in this case, the insults weren't unintended results of someone communicating in a foreign language.
Erato, you're borderline antagonizing and I'm pretty sure you're aware of it. I don't know why you keep acting stubborn, and devolve your arguments. You keep sidetracking with another debatable issue after another, just to keep arguing for no reason. You can type as eloquently as you like, but everyone else that replies to your posts smells the same thing as I do. Manure.
I'm insulted almost on a daily basis when I visit this board, frequently, those insults include my family and country, and unlike in this case, the insults weren't unintended results of someone communicating in a foreign language.
There may be good reasons for that...
And yeah, police officers are required because people are morons that can't play nice with each other. I don't like that force is required to make people act like civilised beings, but apparently it's the only way (and even then it's near impossible to get people to behave) so we'll just have to accept the lesser of two evils.
Wow, you just don't get it, do you?
Hard to do when most of our conversations consist of you pointing what's usually a single phrase in my post (which, btw, is a really low thing to do to a foreign speaker who've already said she's not always able perfectly phrase the exact nuance but is OK with you suggesting other words if it bothers you), make the equivalent of an eye-roll, and say you're offended.
Violent occupations if you will, violent actions. It doesn't matter, I'm talking about the deeds not the people.
So my wife's grandfather risking his life to deliver a stranger's baby in a French farmhouse in the middle of a bombardment was a "violent action" on his part? Good to know.
Violent occupations then. Or occupations dealing with violence, whatever. Believe it or not, when I write things like that it's not usually to be offensive or even confrontational, it's because I'm looking for a word or phrase an not finding it. When I suggest alternative words, you can be pretty sure it's because I'm trying to come up with an alternative that will communicate what I'm trying to say without being unclear or trigger some form of cultural association I'm not aware off.
There may be good reasons for that...
Perhaps if it had always been directly at me personally. But even then, you've said yourself on more than one occasion that you find some of the hostility aimed at me misplaced.
Not to everyone. I get her (her, right?) points just fine and most of them make sense. As for the insults, I even see where that is coming from. I've been insulted plenty of times for what I believe in, it's mostly that I just don't care, but it's kinda part of these discussions for some reason or other.
Her. I can't recall, but aren't you Dutch?
I am. Does it make a difference?
Not really, I just had a revelation about a year ago that I tend to have the most difficulties communicating with Americans (especially males for some reason, which is unusual for me), and I'm considering if this is partly a language issue. Also, I've already been wrong about goldy (thought he'd be Dutch too, or possibly Australian) so I wanted to make sure I wasn't quite as clueless as I was afraid of.
But even then, you've said yourself on more than one occasion that you find some of the hostility aimed at me misplaced.
I would not doubt that. Thinking it is misplaced is not the same as beliving it is all without cause.
Quack Shrink Mode Activated
You tend to be overtly hostile in threads where you post more than, say, three responses. You tend to write long posts that become increasingly ranty while generally demonstrating a good grasp of the langauge. And then when people get offended with what you say, you have a comically huge tendancy to point out how much everyone wrongs you and how whatever you said that offended is clearly because of some language barrier (and should they object to this, to start posting in your native tongue to prove a point, which just comes off as passive agressive).
Regardless of how genuine these arguments may be (something I have no way to gauge objectively) it comes off as 'playing the victim', something that, in my experience, only ever seems to work for highly attractive women or particularly cute children. And when it fails it provokes an urge to attack in an 'you wanna cry? I'll give you something to cry about!' sort of way. And when people give insult in an attempt to hurt feelings, the primary goal is to hurt feelings, not to sling insults that necessarily are accurate, so insulting your family or making sexist remarks that otherwise have nothing to do with the conversation make sense, in that they are (hypothetically) more likely to wound.
Basically, your demanor makes you a tempting and satisfying target for hate, because you focus on the hate so much.
In my completly unqualified and uniformed opinon, of course.
You tend to be overtly hostile in threads where you post more than, say, three responses. You tend to write long posts that become increasingly ranty while generally demonstrating a good grasp of the langauge. And then when people get offended with what you say, you have a comically huge tendancy to point out how much everyone wrongs you and how whatever you said that offended is clearly because of some language barrier (and should they object to this, to start posting in your native tongue to prove a point, which just comes off as passive agressive).
Regardless of how genuine these arguments may be (something I have no way to gauge objectively) it comes off as 'playing the victim', something that, in my experience, only ever seems to work for highly attractive women or particularly cute children. And when it fails it provokes an urge to attack in an 'you wanna cry? I'll give you something to cry about!' sort of way. And when people give insult in an attempt to hurt feelings, the primary goal is to hurt feelings, not to sling insults that necessarily are accurate, so insulting your family or making sexist remarks that otherwise have nothing to do with the conversation make sense, in that they are (hypothetically) more likely to wound.
Basically, your demanor makes you a tempting and satisfying target for hate, because you focus on the hate so much.
In my completly unqualified and uniformed opinon, of course.
Quack Shrink Mode Activated
You tend to be overtly hostile in threads where you post more than, say, three responses. You tend to write long posts that become increasingly ranty while generally demonstrating a good grasp of the langauge. And then when people get offended with what you say, you have a comically huge tendancy to point out how much everyone wrongs you and how whatever you said that offended is clearly because of some language barrier (and should they object to this, to start posting in your native tongue to prove a point, which just comes off as passive agressive).
Regardless of how genuine these arguments may be (something I have no way to gauge objectively) it comes off as 'playing the victim', something that, in my experience, only ever seems to work for highly attractive women or particularly cute children. And when it fails it provokes an urge to attack in an 'you wanna cry? I'll give you something to cry about!' sort of way. And when people give insult in an attempt to hurt feelings, the primary goal is to hurt feelings, not to sling insults that necessarily are accurate, so insulting your family or making sexist remarks that otherwise have nothing to do with the conversation make sense, in that they are (hypothetically) more likely to wound.
Basically, your demanor makes you a tempting and satisfying target for hate, because you focus on the hate so much.
In my completly unqualified and uniformed opinon, of course.
Show
Interestingly noone said that it did. You are no more above finding insult where none was intended than the rest of us. I am well aware that you do that, as I belive I have attempted to supply answers to said questions on more than one occasion.
Heh, don't rember that one. Sounds like fun though.
For one who presents to be so anti-agression you certaintly bring alot of agression into your discourse. Kind of the point I was trying to make.
Thoes go both ways. What you percieve as an insult is not the same as others perception. Unless you are trying to imply the Escef is unfairly attacking you, given that you understand that you sometimes give insult whitout meaning too, and that it can be a problem, I see no reason why you would respond to Escef's complaints (that you said he, his father, and friends are all people who enjoy hurting people) with hostility and exaperation instead of an apology for an unintended insult.
The existance of 'mean' people does not excuse your being one yourself towards people who have not proven themselves to be thoes people.
Though I'm curious about how many people have tried having extensive political/moral debates in a foreign language with people from another culture, without the use of body language, tone of voice, or physical illustrations, and never come across issues with those tiny little nuances which are absurdly hard master in a language you didn't grow up with, or some cultural association the dictionary doesn't explain.
As I said, I have no way of relating to this, as I have never been in said situation.
Also, I have asked people for the appropriate English expressions, and used (and explained) Danish words because there didn't seem to be any English equivalent, in several highly civil discussions, so I think it takes quite a bit of bad faith to assume it only shows up when I'm 'playing the victim'.
Interestingly noone said that it did. You are no more above finding insult where none was intended than the rest of us. I am well aware that you do that, as I belive I have attempted to supply answers to said questions on more than one occasion.
And I think I've written in my native language a grand total of two times (barring single words for which I'm looking for the English equivalent), except in one case where we had a discussion about using online translators. Though I admit that I'm unable to remember if that started out hostile, since trying to find a suitable answer for your last post (in which you told me, in Danish, that you like to carry fins on toast) distracted me a bit.
Heh, don't rember that one. Sounds like fun though.
I know that raising to someone's bait just makes them more likely to repeat, though funny enough, in the thread were my family was most directly attacked (the one where every cell in my father's body must be screaming in shame) I was remarkably calm. In fact, my experience with people trying to provoke is that a lot of them just like to be able to get away with saying whatever they want, so if no one responds aggressively, they'll just push further.
For one who presents to be so anti-agression you certaintly bring alot of agression into your discourse. Kind of the point I was trying to make.
And many of the insults are casual and not aimed at anyone in particular. In fact, I don't think they're always considered insults in the first place. Which might be part of the problem.
Thoes go both ways. What you percieve as an insult is not the same as others perception. Unless you are trying to imply the Escef is unfairly attacking you, given that you understand that you sometimes give insult whitout meaning too, and that it can be a problem, I see no reason why you would respond to Escef's complaints (that you said he, his father, and friends are all people who enjoy hurting people) with hostility and exaperation instead of an apology for an unintended insult.
The existance of 'mean' people does not excuse your being one yourself towards people who have not proven themselves to be thoes people.
Show
Sorry, I thought you were trying to justify, not explain.
I believe your exact words were: Internettet gør os alle flersprogede, og jeg gerne bære finner på toast (and all differences and dislikes between us aside, I have to congratulate you on this being one of the most bizarre uses of the Danish language I've ever seen).
I'm not anti-agression, I'm for no agression being above scrutiny. Big difference.
I didn't apologise and give a friendly answer because I felt like I had been running my head against a wall repeatedly, with Escef doing little more in the ways of communication than pointing at some single lines, either refusing to explain what was wrong with them or rephrasing them in a way very far from what I was trying to say, and declare himself offended.
As I said, I have no way of relating to this, as I have never been in said situation.
Interestingly noone said that it did. You are no more above finding insult where none was intended than the rest of us. I am well aware that you do that, as I belive I have attempted to supply answers to said questions on more than one occasion.
Sorry, I thought you were trying to justify, not explain.
Heh, don't rember that one. Sounds like fun though.
I believe your exact words were: Internettet gør os alle flersprogede, og jeg gerne bære finner på toast (and all differences and dislikes between us aside, I have to congratulate you on this being one of the most bizarre uses of the Danish language I've ever seen).
For one who presents to be so anti-agression you certaintly bring alot of agression into your discourse. Kind of the point I was trying to make.
I'm not anti-agression, I'm for no agression being above scrutiny. Big difference.
Thoes go both ways. What you percieve as an insult is not the same as others perception. Unless you are trying to imply the Escef is unfairly attacking you, given that you understand that you sometimes give insult whitout meaning too, and that it can be a problem, I see no reason why you would respond to Escef's complaints (that you said he, his father, and friends are all people who enjoy hurting people) with hostility and exaperation instead of an apology for an unintended insult.
The existance of 'mean' people does not excuse your being one yourself towards people who have not proven themselves to be thoes people.
I didn't apologise and give a friendly answer because I felt like I had been running my head against a wall repeatedly, with Escef doing little more in the ways of communication than pointing at some single lines, either refusing to explain what was wrong with them or rephrasing them in a way very far from what I was trying to say, and declare himself offended.
Not to mention that telling me I'd insulted him as if it was a big deal, after spending pages not caring the least about how insulting his own statements are, and making that patronising "Next time talk about what you are talking about" statement, after I'd wrecked my brain (or actually, racked my brain, which is just one of the many things I've had to look up writing posts here) trying to be accurate, and changed my wording several times because I wasn't sure if it came out right, you might say that to me, he was already proving to be one of those people.
I'm all for reaching for understanding across cultural barriers. I've learned several things about Americans which have helped put their behaviour in a different light and explained many of their most offensive and puzzling statements, which I wish I'd known before getting into so many fights with them. But for something like that to work, there need to be at least some understanding that there is a barrier to begin with.
Show
He did explain his offense. If you did give offense unintentionally then it was your poor understanding of the conotation that applying the adjective "violent" to people would convey. If, after his initial statment of offense, if the meaning of what you said was still not clear to you, you could have asked for further clarification. Instead you attempted to rephrase what you said, making it appear that the offense given was not a result of a failure on your part to understand what you said but rather the result of careless talk leading to overgeneralization. His statment, while not exactly polite (not unusual for someone offended) makes sense in that context.
Did you stop to say that any of his statments where personally insulting to you? If so, I did not see that.
Then make the existance of that barrier more explicit. I would imagine that if you spent less time worrying about getting things phrased 'just so', and more time inquiring about why what you said came across in a way other than you ment it, you might spend less time getting into scuffles over misunderstandings and not have to work quite so hard at posting.
You generally do exceptionally well with your written english, better than many native speakers. Thus when you mess up and say something you do not mean, noone is going to assume that is what happened unless you explicitly point it out. If, when you do point it out, you seem defensive instead of apologetic for the mistake, they generally will not believe.
Edit: Also, 'Ramming' or 'Banging' your head aginst a wall is a more typical phrasing than running. Running there rather implies that you where rubbing your head aginst the wall, like a cheese grater.
I didn't apologise and give a friendly answer because I felt like I had been running my head against a wall repeatedly, with Escef doing little more in the ways of communication than pointing at some single lines, either refusing to explain what was wrong with them or rephrasing them in a way very far from what I was trying to say, and declare himself offended.
He did explain his offense. If you did give offense unintentionally then it was your poor understanding of the conotation that applying the adjective "violent" to people would convey. If, after his initial statment of offense, if the meaning of what you said was still not clear to you, you could have asked for further clarification. Instead you attempted to rephrase what you said, making it appear that the offense given was not a result of a failure on your part to understand what you said but rather the result of careless talk leading to overgeneralization. His statment, while not exactly polite (not unusual for someone offended) makes sense in that context.
Not to mention that telling me I'd insulted him as if it was a big deal, after spending pages not caring the least about how insulting his own statements are
Did you stop to say that any of his statments where personally insulting to you? If so, I did not see that.
and making that patronising "Next time talk about what you are talking about" statement, after I'd wrecked my brain (or actually, racked my brain, which is just one of the many things I've had to look up writing posts here) trying to be accurate, and changed my wording several times because I wasn't sure if it came out right, you might say that to me, he was already proving to be one of those people.I'm all for reaching for understanding across cultural barriers. I've learned several things about Americans which have helped put their behaviour in a different light and explained many of their most offensive and puzzling statements, which I wish I'd known before getting into so many fights with them. But for something like that to work, there need to be at least some understanding that there is a barrier to begin with.
Then make the existance of that barrier more explicit. I would imagine that if you spent less time worrying about getting things phrased 'just so', and more time inquiring about why what you said came across in a way other than you ment it, you might spend less time getting into scuffles over misunderstandings and not have to work quite so hard at posting.
You generally do exceptionally well with your written english, better than many native speakers. Thus when you mess up and say something you do not mean, noone is going to assume that is what happened unless you explicitly point it out. If, when you do point it out, you seem defensive instead of apologetic for the mistake, they generally will not believe.
Edit: Also, 'Ramming' or 'Banging' your head aginst a wall is a more typical phrasing than running. Running there rather implies that you where rubbing your head aginst the wall, like a cheese grater.
- Disgust that people saw a problem and, instead of addressing it, choose to communicate it across the Internet
and went into:
- drift into serious social issues that, instead of actually dealing with them, people are only talking about.
Or am I wrong.
Can I point out the irony that this thread started with:
- Disgust that people saw a problem and, instead of addressing it, choose to communicate it across the Internet
and went into:
- drift into serious social issues that, instead of actually dealing with them, people are only talking about.
Or am I wrong.
We're all a bunch of hipsters here, deal with it
Show
Perhaps if I had a way to see when he was genuinely trying to say something of value and when he was just being intentionally obtuse.
I have a hard time seeing how he could possibly believe his statements weren't offensive.
I generally don't look things up because I need things to be 'just so' for someone else, I do it because I'm a perfectionist and like learning while I type, which doesn't change the result of me usually putting more thought into my posts than the native speakers who nitpick about the language. Though in this case, I did actually ponder over some words because the subject seemed sensitive, even though the sensitivity itself grates me, which is why I don't appreciate having accusations of carelessness slung at me like that.
See, that's what I'm talking about. In English, running and rubbing are much closer related in their meaning in English than in Danish (here, running you hand along something would be phrased as letting your hand glide over it), and I know that when it's pointed out to me, but it's not something that would come naturally to me by itself.
He did explain his offense. If you did give offense unintentionally then it was your poor understanding of the conotation that applying the adjective "violent" to people would convey. If, after his initial statment of offense, if the meaning of what you said was still not clear to you, you could have asked for further clarification. Instead you attempted to rephrase what you said, making it appear that the offense given was not a result of a failure on your part to understand what you said but rather the result of careless talk leading to overgeneralization. His statment, while not exactly polite (not unusual for someone offended) makes sense in that context.
Perhaps if I had a way to see when he was genuinely trying to say something of value and when he was just being intentionally obtuse.
But he spent the better part of our conversation waving his military status around like an argument in itself (which is acceptable when you're trying to convince people that you know more about military matters than they do, but incredibly tasteless if you're just using it to excuse your treatment of others and demand better treatment from them than you're willing to give back), telling me to honour a guy who've declared me (and my family and my country) the enemy for his decision to join the military, quoting tiny parts of my posts and answering them with the equivalent of "you're stupid" without even trying to explain it, and made arguments like "Soldiers are special and deserve special respect/soldiers are the common people" and "I want to be judged on what I am not who I am, and people treating me like an individual instead of judging my background is offensive/I'm offended because I believe you don't see soldiers as individuals with their own lives and desires", both of which are considered oxymorons (and dishonest debating tactics) where I'm from.
Again, it might be the cultural difference, but his arguments appeared for all intents and purposes to be the kind of self-contradictory and deliberately patronising arguments that people use when they're more interested in winning than in the actual conversation, when they know they've got a huge and unfair advantage and aren't afraid to use it, and when they simply have such low regard and strong dislike for their 'modspiller' (there probably isn't an English word for it, but you might remember the term from earlier) that they're just trying to be offensive.
And cultural differences aside, Pluisjen managed to get my point just fine, I'm perfectly capable of communicating civilly with Z_B and several other Americans, and when you're not just trolling and aiming to provoke (and sometimes when you are), I'm even able to talk to you without wanting to rip your head off, so there's not really a strong motivation for me to categorically assume any fault in communication is due solely to me.
Did you stop to say that any of his statments where personally insulting to you? If so, I did not see that.
I have a hard time seeing how he could possibly believe his statements weren't offensive.
Then make the existance of that barrier more explicit. I would imagine that if you spent less time worrying about getting things phrased 'just so', and more time inquiring about why what you said came across in a way other than you ment it, you might spend less time getting into scuffles over misunderstandings and not have to work quite so hard at posting.
You generally do exceptionally well with your written english, better than many native speakers. Thus when you mess up and say something you do not mean, noone is going to assume that is what happened unless you explicitly point it out. If, when you do point it out, you seem defensive instead of apologetic for the mistake, they generally will not believe.
I generally don't look things up because I need things to be 'just so' for someone else, I do it because I'm a perfectionist and like learning while I type, which doesn't change the result of me usually putting more thought into my posts than the native speakers who nitpick about the language. Though in this case, I did actually ponder over some words because the subject seemed sensitive, even though the sensitivity itself grates me, which is why I don't appreciate having accusations of carelessness slung at me like that.
Edit: Also, 'Ramming' or 'Banging' your head aginst a wall is a more typical phrasing than running. Running there rather implies that you where rubbing your head aginst the wall, like a cheese grater.
See, that's what I'm talking about. In English, running and rubbing are much closer related in their meaning in English than in Danish (here, running you hand along something would be phrased as letting your hand glide over it), and I know that when it's pointed out to me, but it's not something that would come naturally to me by itself.
To me, the running part implies that you're trying to go somewhere, only to suddenly knock your head against a wall, or in other words, trying to communicate and just being repeatedly blocked, while banging your head against something is what you do when you've realised you're not going anywhere and just want to illustrate that you think the other is being stupid (as per the banghead smilie). I can write like Shakespeare for all it's worth, but there's no way for me to be aware of nuances like that except through extensive practical use of the English language, which I don't have, and possibly not even that.
And it's all well and good that people might not realise that, but it goes back to what I said about politicians in the other thread, if you're trying to make a case for something, the least you can do is live up to it. In this case, we have people insisting that the ignorance of the common riff-raff is what's keeping them from properly respecting worshipping the military, and trying to lecture others about exactly why their chosen line of work is more noble than anything else, and yet, those people are not only behaving extremely ignorant themselves, they're also adamant about keeping it that way.
Show
tl;dr
If you want to claim to be part of the common people, start accepting that you have to deal with the same **** as the rest of us.
Wow, you just don't get it, do you?
No.
She doesn't.
And she never will.
You can type as eloquently as you like, but everyone else that replies to your posts smells the same thing as I do. Manure.
Can I point out the irony that this thread started with:
- Disgust that people saw a problem and, instead of addressing it, choose to communicate it across the Internet
and went into:
- drift into serious social issues that, instead of actually dealing with them, people are only talking about.
That's part of how you deal with social issues though. You talk about them. You raise awareness, try to create a conversation, a dialogue. It's harder to demonize (or idolize) the familiar, it's harder to make sweeping statements about a group once you know people in that group and know that, though you disagree, they're still basically good people.
The single best long-term solution for social issues is awareness, education, and dialogue. Sure, there's different things you can do for short-term solutions, but long-term? You gotta talk.
Oh, and I'd like to point out that what people do here doesn't say a whole lot about what people do on the non-virtual side of things.
I just need to look Vietnam up for myself though.
I encourage you to do so.
Just be mindful of the sources.
Wow, you just don't get it, do you?
No.
She doesn't.
And she never will.
It`s a screaming contest, plain and simple. I`m sad for your country, where decades of yelling matches between liberal idiots and conservative idiots has made this seem normal. IT IS NOT. It is Plato`s cave analogy, people looking at shadows on the wall and assuming it is reality.
Ask not for whom the Twitter tweets, it tweets for you.
Escher_Enigma: Really. You think that talking here accomplishes anything.
I do.
Rarely, but it happens.
I've changed my feelings on some things, or at least thought about it differently, because of talking with people on here.
*shrug*
Escher_Enigma: Really. You think that talking here accomplishes anything. Especially with lovely back and forth like this.
Talking can accomplish lots of things, but it's not guaranteed to. The conversation here, as you remarked, is more of a screaming contest (it used to be something else for me, but I fully admit I've mostly given up on achieving anything constructive with it), but that doesn't disprove the usefulness of talking any more than people bumping into each other disproves the usefulness of movement.
Show
Perhaps if I had a way to see when he was genuinely trying to say something of value and when he was just being intentionally obtuse.
But he spent the better part of our conversation waving his military status around like an argument in itself (which is acceptable when you're trying to convince people that you know more about military matters than they do, but incredibly tasteless if you're just using it to excuse your treatment of others and demand better treatment from them than you're willing to give back), telling me to honour a guy who've declared me (and my family and my country) the enemy for his decision to join the military, quoting tiny parts of my posts and answering them with the equivalent of "you're stupid" without even trying to explain it, and made arguments like "Soldiers are special and deserve special respect/soldiers are the common people" and "I want to be judged on what I am not who I am, and people treating me like an individual instead of judging my background is offensive/I'm offended because I believe you don't see soldiers as individuals with their own lives and desires", both of which are considered oxymorons (and dishonest debating tactics) where I'm from.
When was I being obtuse? When I took offense at a person who appeared to have a very strong control of the English language calling soldiers violent people? Or when I pointed out that you were reducing soldiers into caricatures? You have oversimplified a lot of things so that you could be angered and offended by them. And when people point out that you have offended them you just hand-wave it away (when the proper thing to do is apologize, and ask how you offended if you don't understand; hence your "not getting it").
So, are you trying to imply that the debating tactic of oversimplifying things is intellectually honest? That portraying soldiers as nothing but mindless killers is intellectually honest? And you are putting a lot of words into other people's mouths here. Do I need to point out that you are straw-manning here?
I'm not expecting any apologies from you. Even if any were forthcoming, I could not believe they were sincere at this point. I have not responded to anything from you for a while, and this is the last response I intend to give you. You are not worth my time.
Vietnam was made because the US wanted to make a point that South-East Asian was in it's zone of influence.
Yet once again you show your ignorance and lack of history education.
The US went to Vietnam to prevent it from being taken over by Communism.
At that time in history, Communists were on the rampage, seeking violent overthrow of govt's and threatening US interests. The US was countering this by promoting and trying to establish Democracies.
Had the Commies not attacked and subverted the South, the US would not have been there.
I am amazed by your ignorance goldo... not shocked, but amazed by it's depth...
While I'm pretty sure goldo's wrong, it's hard for me to swallow that one either. No offence, but that just looks like Cold War propaganda.
I just need to look Vietnam up for myself though.
Not really. Remember that the world was divided among the victors after WWII. The USSR had parts of Eastern Europe, some parts of the middle east and norhtern korea I beleive. The US got the American continent, part of the middle east, Japan and parts of the south east asia and southern Korea. Africa was for Western Europeans.
This is why their was a Korean war. Korea was divided after 1945 into two parts. The Northern part,communist, tried to invaded the southern part. The US (via the UN) was protecting it's part of Korea.
You know, now that I look at both your theories, they don't look mutually exclusive ;)
The US went to Vietnam to prevent it from being taken over by Communism.
At that time in history, Communists were on the rampage, seeking violent overthrow of govt's and threatening US interests. The US was countering this by promoting and trying to establish Democracies.
Had the Commies not attacked and subverted the South, the US would not have been there.
Am I the only one reading "Group A was trying to violently overthrow a regime, so group B intervened and violently overthrew the regime instead, but because I'm in group B this was a noble thing to do."?
Regardless of my stance on Vietnam (which I personally know very little about) this appears to be a very unconvincing argument... or perhaps it's just worded poorly.
Regardless of my stance on Vietnam (which I personally know very little about) this appears to be a very unconvincing argument... or perhaps it's just worded poorly.
Chances are very high that it is just worded poorly.
Read History, specifically from 1950 to 1970.
Germany was attacking America long before the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. German U-Boats were sinking American ships carrying cargo to the Brits. The Germans rationalized this and used it in their propoganda by stating that America was supporting their enemies, the Brits. So the Germans were openly hostile to America sinking ships by the dozens but we kept it quiet. More sailors died as a result of U-Boat attacks than during Pearl Harbor or ,I believe but I could be wrong, than soldiers on D-Day.
It wasn't until after the Japanese attacked us that we declared war on Japan and again I'm a little fuzzy on it but I think, the next day Germany declared war on the US.
I haven't read the entire thread so the correction I'm about to make may have already been stated but......
Germany was attacking America long before the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. German U-Boats were sinking American ships carrying cargo to the Brits. The Germans rationalized this and used it in their propoganda by stating that America was supporting their enemies, the Brits. So the Germans were openly hostile to America sinking ships by the dozens but we kept it quiet. More sailors died as a result of U-Boat attacks than during Pearl Harbor or ,I believe but I could be wrong, than soldiers on D-Day.
It wasn't until after the Japanese attacked us that we declared war on Japan and again I'm a little fuzzy on it but I think, the next day Germany declared war on the US.
Yes, the famous Wolf Packs. There were so many aspects of WWII it's hard to remember them all. There is a reason it was called a "world" war after all ;)
Thanks ADHadh, my Dad was a big history buff concerning American Wars especially the Civil War and World War II and also was a sailor during Vietnam and worked at a boatyard after leaving the military so in his memory I had to make the correction. He'd be able to give actual numbers though and so it would have been much more in detail than my explanation.
Nope. Saddam accept many times inspector in his country. Google Hans Blix. He was the chief inspector for the UN and made a very informative report on the lack of WMDs in Iraq.
Iraq kicked the inspectors out around 1998:
"There were no weapon inspections in Iraq for nearly four years after the UN departed from Iraq in 1998, and Iraq asserted that they would never be invited back. In addition, Saddam had issued a secret order that Iraq did not have to abide by any UN Resolution since in his view the United States had broken international law."
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_o...)
In 2002, Iraq accepted Hans Blix but the UN resolution stated that the burden of proof was on Iraq to prove that they were in good faith and had no weapons program. By 2003, no weapons were found, but the Iraqi cooperation was no good in the inspections:
"However, Hans Blix said in late January 2003 that Iraq had "not genuinely accepted UN resolutions demanding that it disarm." He claimed there were some materials which had not been accounted for.""
(same source as above)
So the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq (or left because they were convinced they could not do their mission) and after four years, the opinion was that Iraq was still not ready to cooperate as stated by the lead inspector in 2003 (someone you brought up). So again, that seems like good justification for the invasion of Iraq since part of the treaty which ended the first war included weapons inspections.
The invasion was motivated by US intelligence that stated that they had proof of WMDs in Iraq. Remember Collen Powell doing a big presentation at the UN?
I do remember, but its not relevent. The legal reason is based on the non-cooperation. If Iraq had weapons or not, its not important. Their refusal to cooperate was more than enough to invade. Remember, the treaty that ended the first war included clauses about weapon inspections. The UN made numerous Resolutions about this before the invasion.
Thing is Tony Blair (Prime Minister of the UK), in is biography released a few months ago, said that he knew that the intelligence was false. Saddam destroyed his WMDs a while back.
Again, immaterial since the non-compliance was reason enough to invade. If I sign a contract that says my employer can terminate me if I fail drug tests, but do not allow them to test me, it doesn't matter if I actually do drugs. Additionally, if they do not find certain drugs, but masking agents, that is also a reasonable excuse to fire me.
And why were the WMDs such a big risk? Because Saddam could give them to terrorists. The only problem is that Saddam and Bin Laden didn't like each other. Remember Saddam was an atheist and imposed a secular state on Iraqies. And Bin Laden wants to make Bagdad the capital of the new Arab world (without Saddam in it). The only terrorist Saddam supported were Palestinians, giving 80k to the families of suicide bombers. But do not think that Palestinian terrorist have anything to do with Bin Laden and Al Quada. Those are two different causes, even if Bin Laden uses the oppression of the Palestinians has a example of Judeo-American Imperialism.
Again, immaterial. Non-compliance was the primary cause. Additionally, uncontrolled weapons of mass destruction is a risk. Add in the fact that Iraq has had a history of violence against its neighbors and SPECIFICALLY SIGNED A TREATY STATING THEY WOULD ALLOW INSPECTORS and that's more than enough reason to invade them.
So please stop bringing up facts that are unrelated to the point. The following contains my points for reference:
-The Persia Gulf War was ended with a treaty that stated Iraq would be subject to weapons inspections.
-Iraq was uncooperative and either expelled the inspectors or the inspectors left because of the uncooperative nature.
-From 1998 to 2002, Iraq was not being inspected.
-In 2003, the chief inspector did not find weapons, but stated that Iraq was being uncooperative and did not act in good faith.
-Iraq did not follow the terms of the treaty.
-Non-compliance with the treaty which ended the Persia Gulf war was sufficient justification (legal or otherwise) for the invasion of Iraq.
I'm not 100% sure of all the dates, but which of those points do you disagree with?
We're all a bunch of hipsters here, deal with it
Please never imply that I'm a hipster!
While I'm pretty sure goldo's wrong, it's hard for me to swallow that one either. No offence, but that just looks like Cold War propaganda.
Vietnam was neither entirely about "stopping the commies" nor about the US "exerting influence" over the region. Neither Goldy nor RH is entirely right nor entirey wrong, but strip out the gung ho "stop the commies" and "establish democracy" propoganda rheotric and RH is much much closer to the truth. Vietnam was a proxy war between the USSR and USA that was all about political influence - spreading and stopping it, respectively - which is pretty much the same thing behind most wars.
I just need to look Vietnam up for myself though.
Always a good option.
What's a hipster exactly?
I guess there's probably better definitions, but I'd say someone who tries way too hard to be "Indie" and who hates anything that's mainstream or known. Hipster Kitty/Cat/Kitten does a good job making fun of them.
What's a hipster exactly?
A type of neo-nazi.
Show
That actually makes some sense. Hitler invaded USSR, because when Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was written, he was being ironic, man.
Like the threat that Iraq gave WMDs to Al Qaeda. Thus why I mentionned that and Collen Powell's presentation. They also mentionned that Iraq tried to buy weapon grade uranium. So we now know (like we didn't know back then
Oh, okay. Those would be "other reasons", but I think they should be second to the reason gave above. So yes, if you think that it was required to have weapons of mass destruction, it is possible that they never existed. But if you are basing it on the non-compliance, then the reasoning for invasion is pretty sound.
And I do agree that it was not expressed as well as it should have been. But the UN kind of sucks at being firm, so non-compliance would've just been tolerated since the UN is all about not doing stuff.
When you mention that a treaty wasn't respected. The problem is that the US worked outside the legal bonds of that treaty. The UN and NATO never gave their ok to the invasion of Iraq. This was done unilaterally by the US and the UK (with accesory alias).
I haven't seen what the language of the treaty was so I don't know how many contingencies there are for UN decisions. There were numerous resolutions against Iraq which were supposed to "use any means necessary" to comply with inspectors, but UN Resolutions probably have clauses to prevent action.
Also "unilaterally by the US and the UK" would not be unilateral action would it? =P
Yes. But it is what is usually used because it was done outside of the approbation of the international community. So it is the large definition of unilateral.
The term would probably be bilateral. It'd even be multilateral if you count all the 'other' nations as their own actor. If you are saying unilateral, you're minimizing the power of all of the other countries since you're basically saying they're all under US control.
I was in school when the debate for/agains the invasion was going on. The legality wasn't really questionned. But some of the debate was around if the UN doesn't sanction the invasion, is it a legal one since the US accuse Iraq of not respecting a UN treaty.
I think people who claim it was illegal or a violation of international law have no idea what they're talking about. But most people have no idea what they're talking about. I think the issue is that Iraq specifically broke the treaty. There's pretty much no way around that. The US didn't have a "won't invade unless UN votes" treaty in place. According to the UN, you are allowed to go to war for defense or if the Security Council agrees. Technically, the first and second case apply since breaking the treaty effectively means Iraq is not following the treaty that ended the first war. So its like the first war was allowed to continue.
The fact that the US tried to get international approval and tried to build a coalition kind of give credence to the fact that you need international approbation to invade. The US did get it for Afghanistan.
Getting international approval and a coalition can help in the actual effort. Just because it can get approval and a coalition doesn't mean it has to get approval and a coalition.
And all that is if you believe in the UN and what it thinks.
If you are saying unilateral, you're minimizing the power of all of the other countries since you're basically saying they're all under US control.
Well I don't know about the other countries that joined but the general population here in the Netherlands kinda felt like being the USA's bitch because our prime minister is a buttkisser.
Of course the people here are also idiots because they then re-elected that guy not once, but twice more. Even though all of his formations failed before it was time for a revote. I'm glad he's gone by now.
Keep in mind that Albania and Estonia are very small countries, with only 3 million and 1 million inhabitants respectively. Not that the Netherlands are very big with it's 16.5 million, but still.
Anyway, unilateral means a state taking action on their own. So if you are calling the invasion of Iraq a unilateral action, you are saying that the US acted alone and that other states like Britain are just US puppets. If you think the US and Britain acted together and the other states were puppets/for show, then it'd be bilateral.
Unilateral does not necessarily mean going against the international community; it just means doing something on your own, which often times goes against the international community.
I also have not read the specifics of the treaty which ended the Persia Gulf War, but I imagine the US would want its name in it since it had a major role in the operation. But again, I have not read the actual treaty so I cannot be sure if that's correct.
And international approval can be important, but it obviously is not necessary. Might makes right and there's really no better example of this than international relations. International laws are basically just suggestions that are only enforced if the strong choses to enforce them. Its like the Plato (?) line: the strong does what it will while the weak does what it must.
Yeah, "legal or illegal" war is a really dumb concept that the UN created. And if you go by their definition, basically every single war pretty much has to be illegal.
Anyway, unilateral means a state taking action on their own. So if you are calling the invasion of Iraq a unilateral action, you are saying that the US acted alone and that other states like Britain are just US puppets. If you think the US and Britain acted together and the other states were puppets/for show, then it'd be bilateral.
Unilateral does not necessarily mean going against the international community; it just means doing something on your own, which often times goes against the international community.
I also have not read the specifics of the treaty which ended the Persia Gulf War, but I imagine the US would want its name in it since it had a major role in the operation. But again, I have not read the actual treaty so I cannot be sure if that's correct.
And international approval can be important, but it obviously is not necessary. Might makes right and there's really no better example of this than international relations. International laws are basically just suggestions that are only enforced if the strong choses to enforce them. Its like the Plato (?) line: the strong does what it will while the weak does what it must.
thanks for teaching me that :]
When you look at the numbers, the coalition of the willing is basically the US and the UK. The other countries who got involved sent a few soldiers just to help the US get some legitimacy for their invasion and get some favors from Washington for doing so.
Yep. At least that's what most people think here. It didn't help that the Danish contribution included snowploughs and a submarine. And with Danish troops handing over prisoners to the Brits so they don't have to personally use torture and break international conventions, it doesn't even seem like the government itself believes there's anything more to it than sucking up to the US for as cheap a price as possible.
The other countries who got involved sent a few soldiers just to help the US get some legitimacy for their invasion and get some favors from Washington for doing so.
Do you have any proof of this most ridiculous and uneducated statement?
So...
the other countries provided troops solely so the US had "legitimacy" and for favors?
And you expect people to take you seriously?
Most people believe our prime minister joined the war effort because he had no spine and caved to the US.
Well I don't know about other countries, but that's the commonly accepted reason for joining down here. They certainly didn't do it because the people wanted to, because the large majority was in fact opposed to going to war.
Most people believe our prime minister joined the war effort because he had no spine and caved to the US.
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
The government didn't directly say that here. They switched explanation so it started out with weapons of mass destruction, and then turned into a charity war aimed at removing a dictator (with the government suddenly having never said anything about any WMD). The only constant was that we were the ally of the US, and needed to show our support for the US (except when it comes to dirtying our hands, which we would leave to the US). If the Dutch people feel similarly, and Blair didn't believe in those WMD either, I wonder who actually joined that war as anything as a show of support.
Hey, you are the one who used the legal argument. ;)
I only brought up legality in the idea that people who say the Iraq war was illegal (breaking international law) are often times grossly misinformed and do not know anything about international law.
I may think international law is a sham, but at least I can use the terms intelligently.
Personnaly I would see if the military intervension was needed and a strategic success. So now we are sure that no WDMs were in Iraq, so it wasn't needed, and strategically in the war against terror it is a fail. Saddam was murderous dictator, so his country was under control and wasn't a refuge for terrorist. Now Iraq is a country with a weak state, weak police and milatry, bombs explode in the streets regularly, it is a safe haven for terrorists and Al Qaeda recruters can use it as an example of American imperialism (true or not).
I would say intervention was not needed, but was favorable. But I agree that the handling of the war was very poor (as stated before). If we were to take out a regime, we should've occupied the country and establish control and infrastructure before starting to withdrawl our troops. But I do not know the specifics of the situation, so I'm not sure how effective that would have been either.
Unilateral doesn't it is against the international community, on that we agree. But you can be two people an act unilaterally. This is the wiktionnary definition: Adjectiveunilateral (comparative more unilateral, superlative most unilateral)
- done by one side only
- affecting only one side of the body
- binding or affecting one party only
If it is done by one side, that side can be composed of multiple players.
That is a different definition than I learned. But from that definition, wouldn't (almost) all war start by unilateral action? One side typically attacks the other side first.
Plato? His Republic had elements of proto fascism.
Its one of his dialogues, I think. I'm not even positive its Plato, but its about a city-state being crushed by a stronger city-state (I want to say Athens). I should look it up because I remember thinking it was pretty good.
But I'm not a big fan of the Republic; but his dialogues are pretty good. I thought the Republic was kind of excessive with its lies and deceit. I don't remember much, but I remember lots of deceit and descrete classes, so not really an ideal soceity in my mind. But I probably should reread it since its been a while.
The USA has fought a war once a generation, that's why we think so highly of the people who serve, because all of us have friends and even immediate family who have served. It isn't a joke when you're considered the best military in the world and its completely comprised of people who volunteered to serve.
"Support the Troops" isn't just a frickin' bumper sticker ya'll. It's the way we were raised. Maybe we do glorify war a bit and I'm not saying we don't but when people from other countries start blaming their crap government on my country, well let's just say, thats a load pure grade A horse manure!
Heck, in my own life time the US has been at war more then peace pretty much my whole life. And if I remember my demographics correctly, close to 1 in a hundred in the US is active duty, with roughly 7 in a hundred being vets.
Any bets about comparable numbers for other nations?
I'd say it's more then "once a generation". If I recall my history correctly, about the longest the US has not been at war since the end of WWII is 15 years or so, from the end of Vietnam to the beginning of Desert Storm, and even then we were still in the middle of the Cold War, so the mentality stayed the same.
You're forgetting the 1989 invasion of Panama and the 1983 invasion of Grenada.
Regardless of my bad memory for history though, only helps my point.
I'd say it's more then "once a generation". If I recall my history correctly, about the longest the US has not been at war since the end of WWII is 15 years or so, from the end of Vietnam to the beginning of Desert Storm, and even then we were still in the middle of the Cold War, so the mentality stayed the same.
Heck, in my own life time the US has been at war more then peace pretty much my whole life. And if I remember my demographics correctly, close to 1 in a hundred in the US is active duty, with roughly 7 in a hundred being vets.
That's probably why we're so good at it. For all the failures of the military response policy to elicit the desired result (I firmly believe a domestic police response would have done a better job of curbing terrorism); no one can honestly argue that our servicepeople are not excellent at what they do (just to be clear, I'm not saying you're making that argument), or that our military-industrial complex is not up to the task of keeping us equipped with the most state-of-the-art tools of war.
It's the way we were raised.
This explains a lot.
Also I'm not bashing the US on this one (while I don't agree with the war at all), the whole fault of "our" troops being involved lies on the shoulders of our prime minister.
...but I think I remember that the UK's army had less friendly fire incident then the US did in Iraq...
I'm wagering they also engaged in combat a lot less. Part of that may be due to US commanders, American servicemembers often don't have a lot of faith in other nations' miltaries. Sometimes for good reason, sometimes not.
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
You know, I wouldn't have a problem if the people in this thread stuck to bashing their own countries but I tend to get a little defensive when folks decide their government sucks but its not their country's fault, the USA is to blame.
The USA has fought a war once a generation, that's why we think so highly of the people who serve, because all of us have friends and even immediate family who have served. It isn't a joke when you're considered the best military in the world and its completely comprised of people who volunteered to serve.
"Support the Troops" isn't just a frickin' bumper sticker ya'll. It's the way we were raised. Maybe we do glorify war a bit and I'm not saying we don't but when people from other countries start blaming their crap government on my country, well let's just say, thats a load pure grade A horse manure!
I don't see how saying the government did something mainly to suck up to the US is blaming the US. And sorry to say it, but the US is not necessarily considered the best military in the world, just the biggest and most expensive. And finally, intentionally or not, US citizens are among the most intolerant, self-righteous, and disrespectful people in the world, so when they don't at least show the same acceptance when others similarly neglect to take their special American needs into consideration, they're bound to create hostility.
= the best.
No army in the world can make a global response to a crisis nearly as effectively or quickly as the US can, and no army in the world has toys as nice as the US's overall. And the training, is every bit as good or better than most others.
As for the citizenry, yeah we're a bunch of loud mouthed fat slobs. But then there's alot of unkind things we can say about various other firstworld countries to. To say that "americans are the worst!" is either blindly denying your own country's faults or are absolutely refusing to look just a little eastward from Europe or look a little Southward.
Both of which are messes caused directly by Europe. (Crusades, and 1800-1940s Imperialism)
(...)
Both of which are messes caused directly by Europe. (Crusades, and 1800-1940s Imperialism)
Which explains why Europeans are "peaceniks" - some would say we grew out of warring ;)
(suffice to say, I live next to a military cemetery, my tram stops at places with names such as "Warsaw Uprising Museum", "AK Formation 'Radoslav' Roundabout" or "Jewish Cemetery" and just walking around I encounter countless statues, memorial places and even street art saying "Gloria Victis" - it just makes you think)
I would call Plato's Republic full of lie of deceit. I think Plato was honest. I do not agree with him, but he was being honest, at least from his point of view.
I was probably unclear. I don't think Plato was being deceitful while writing the Republic. I just dislike how the "ideal" society is based upon lots of lies (lies to the members of the society) as he presented in the Republic.
Well I don't know about other countries, but that's the commonly accepted reason for joining down here. They certainly didn't do it because the people wanted to, because the large majority was in fact opposed to going to war.
Most people believe our prime minister joined the war effort because he had no spine and caved to the US.
Commonly accepted does not mean true.
So you guys are saying the US forced or otherwise blackmailed or coerced the other countries for support?
Really?
Sorry, I cannot even take that seriously...
And we might have the beginning of an answer as to why some people are so critical of US military actions.The depth of your ignorance is amazing.
Isn't it?
It's hard to believe he isn't just acting that way.
What the exact reason was is unclear, but we've had plenty of court cases and investigations done to prove that the ministers were not doing it for the reason stated and weren´t doing it for the people.
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
Best toys, best logistics, and top tier training.
= the best.
No army in the world can make a global response to a crisis nearly as effectively or quickly as the US can, and no army in the world has toys as nice as the US's overall. And the training, is every bit as good or better than most others.As for the citizenry, yeah we're a bunch of loud mouthed fat slobs. But then there's alot of unkind things we can say about various other firstworld countries to. To say that "americans are the worst!" is either blindly denying your own country's faults or are absolutely refusing to look just a little eastward from Europe or look a little Southward.
Both of which are messes caused directly by Europe. (Crusades, and 1800-1940s Imperialism)
I guess it's a difference in perspective. For a lot of people, it's not so much what you have as what you do with it. It's the same when measuring charity, you can judge after which country contributed most overall, which country contributed most per inhabitant, and which country contributed the largest % of their wealth. One can usually count on Americans to use the first definition only, and I guess that goes for the army too.
And while you're probably not going to like this, you're wrong about Americans being disliked for being loud mouthed fat slobs
It's not that you're loud-mouthed, it's that you're amazingly privileged in how familiar you can count on people being with you, and how much understanding they can show you, and you not only routinely forget that, you also often seem to view it as a special right instead of a privilege, and get all offended and act like martyrs whenever you don't receive enough of it.
One of the most striking examples is the way Americans frequently refer to their own culture as if they were oblivious to how foreign it is for others. Everybody does it to some degree, they include a local phenomenon/way of speaking because they're in a hurry, forget that foreigners might not be familiar with it, or neglect include an explanation for something because they consider it a minor, unimportant detail that people probably aren't interested in. But Americans tend to do it because they can't conceive, or don't care, that others aren't familiar with it, and frequently become aggressive when called out on.
Now, I understand that it's largely a matter of perspective. Americans learn that their culture has spread to the whole world, and they see foreigners who have a great (sometimes greater than the locals') knowledge of the US, so they assume a certain familiarity. I never realised this until a while ago on this board, when an otherwise fairly intelligent American assumed the rest of us would be familiar with some guy because he is famous in America (and got defensive when we weren't). I could easily make a list of the Danish stars most famous in Denmark and the Danish stars most famous internationally, and those lists would be very different, but I've begun to understand that this often wont be the case for Americans.
In the same way, I've seen Americans be absurdly defensive when others didn't recognise their national anthem. For me, and I dare say most Danes, Europeans, and probably people in general, that's absurd. So the Americans were offended that people didn't know their national anthem, and the non-Americans got offended that the Americans could offended over something like that. While I don't agree with the Americans (though I don't have a problem recognising their national anthem), I've come to realise that they're probably not doing it out of sheer arrogance.
If you go by the perspective that the world is just familiar with 'American culture' in general, and the national anthem is a huge part of that, it makes sense to believe that only deliberately ignorant or anti-American people would be unfamiliar with it. If you add that the national anthem is considered far more important to Americans than many others, the reaction is understandable. However, as much as I can see that Americans reacting this way are not necessarily arrogant and over-privileged people, the behaviour nonetheless is.
Another example was your comment about America doing good in (international) football without putting any effort in. Just to put it in perspective, the last time I heard, there were 5 times as many professional football players in the US as in Denmark. Football might be our national sport, but the US still has a bigger audience for it, more players to choose from, and more resources to train them. It goes back to what I said in the beginning of this post about perspective, Americans tend to go by overall result, because that's something they are almost guaranteed to do well in. While this is natural, it can also easily be offensive to people who've achieved results much more impressive considering their size and resources.
A lot of countries are proud of what they've achieved because they're underdogs, and they have to be flat out better to even come near the bigger countries. Plenty of Americans don't realise exactly how much weight (i.e. big population) they have behind them, so when they throw it around they tend to be really impressed with how big an effect it causes. And while that's fine in the context of being proud of one's country, it is highly offensive in an international context.
And speaking of loving one's country and being impressed with it, US citizens also have a reputation for taking it too far, even by the standards of some of the most snobbish countries in the world. You'll frequently hear, or hear about, Americans claiming they're the richest country in the world with the highest standard of living even when the facts say otherwise, call themselves world champions in sports they've not even competed against anyone in, praise their own generosity when they've given far less than others (again, size and wealth considered), talk about how they invented stuff that everybody else knows originated from another country, and basically assume themselves superior in plenty of areas they might not even know anything about.
Again, pride and perspective are a big part of it, but it also means Americans don't have a lot of credibility when they state their alleged superiority in an area, because lots of people pretty much expect them to do it as a matter of habit. They could have actual reasons, but it's not something people expect of them. If I asked the question "who's the best at Armenian folk dancing", I'd halfway expect the US to just automatically reply "us". And again, all those claims to superiority, especially in contexts where size is a huge part of it, doesn't just come across as praising your own country, it also comes across as dismissing others.
To get back to the war business, the US has a different experience with wars than many other countries, and different roles in it. You've pretty much been safe in a huge country with lots of resources, and the idea that someone can just walk in a take over your country is foreign, while for other countries, it's the harsh reality. To take Denmark as an example, when Germany was about to invade, with an army possibly bigger than our population and only flat terrain to cross, there was nothing to do. That puts thing in a much different perspective, and makes it much harder to glorify war.
Here, the courage of people to resist (and not just in physical fighting) in the face of military occupation is admired, probably the because the biggest victory here was a humane accomplishment (the vast majority of Danish Jews survived the holocaust thanks to the collective effort of the population), not a military one. Being anti-war (or more correctly, war sceptical) is not just acceptable here, but something many people take pride in. As I mentioned earlier, some of these people are among the greatest heroes in the country, the WW2 resistance fighters. They weren't offered free training, jobs, or money to do what they did, they didn't have any propaganda to tell them it was noble, they couldn't count on being admired and glorified in public, and they risked their lives anyway.
The way RH dismissively talks of 'riff-raff' and 'lefties', and the way Escef supports him in it and equate being a soldier with being willing to risk your life for a good cause (or worse, equates being willing to risk your life for a good cause with being a soldier), is an insult to those people, as well as an insult to my whole country. And that insult was not just stated, it was delivered completely off-handedly as if it was the most natural thing in the world and the idea that someone should find it objectionable is inconceivable. At the very same time as those guys were demanding special respect
The issue with Americans, or rather, with an America-centric world-view, is not some fault like being fat or stupid (that's just to make fun off), and if you think people only go hard on Americans you're sorely misinformed – for proof, learn a Scandinavian language and look up anywhere on the internet where Scandinavians interact with each other, and bear in mind that we're supposed to be each other's brother-people.
The issue is that when your world-view clashes with someone else's, or when there's any sort of miscommunication related to coming from different backgrounds, you have a tendency to assume it's the responsibility of the other to adapt, or don't even consider than an adaptation is necessary in the first place, and thus fail to appreciate the effort of those who make it. Most of the time, you're right, because American culture (part of it at least) is more well known, so the chance of someone else being able to relate to you is bigger than vice versa, but that doesn't make it less annoying.
And finally, it's also worth noticing that just like you unintentionally offend people all the time, other people also risk offending you when you reach conclusions completely unintended by them. For instance, I don't see Pluisjen's or my comments as in any way indicating that the US forced anyone, yet this is assumed as a matter of fact. Debating with Americans under circumstances like this feels like being constantly strawmanned by someone completely unskilled, who don't even bother coming up with a remotely plausible position for you, but simply state outright that you're saying something else, and then discover to your horror that people actually agree with it. It makes for a very strong motivation to drop all attempts at debating civilly.
I mean it looks to me like people took Bush's words "If you're not with us, you're against us" to mean if you didn't send troops to Iraq that we would invade most of Europe along with Iraq when only a moron would believe that.
Maybe it's just me, but if people in Denmark and smaller countries like that were as afraid of invasion and the rapid take over of their country as you say, then they would be a little more suspicious of people coming into their country invited or otherwise. But no, the way we Americans see it, you all let anything you want happen because you know, that once again America is going to charge in on their big white horse and liberate you no matter what happens.
You all just give up. Then decide to hold out for reinforcements while deciding to do what you can to minimize the damage. Good for you, you decided to protect your jewish citizens from being deported to death camps. Great! I'm very proud you decided to make a stand on that at least. But maybe you wouldn't have had to if you had had the foresight after WWI that despite the treaties it might be a good idea to have a strong military of your own instead hoping someone else would expel the Germans for you or hoping that because of the treaties no one would ever invade (but that would mean that you all weren't afraid of invasion and defeats the purpose of your entire post.)
I mean it must be great to know that we, Americans, will come to your rescue no matter how much your citizens belittle us. Safe in that knowledge, instead of being grateful for our protection you decide that you know better than us how to use our military, where to send it, and what kind of people comprise it.
Aww hell, if I or our military expected gratefulness that would make us the scumbags they think we are. So, oh well.
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
Maybe if you weren't blaming the USA for your crap government deciding to support the war effort in Iraq it might be a good idea to state that. All I see when I read the posts is "our government caved to America and so it's their, America's, fault we're in this mess."
I mean it looks to me like people took Bush's words "If you're not with us, you're against us" to mean if you didn't send troops to Iraq that we would invade most of Europe along with Iraq when only a moron would believe that.
Where on earth did you get that? It doesn't even make sense. Let me spell it out for you: US= Big country + large population + fairly wealthy + large army + big influence + lots of export opportunities = someone you can benefit from being good friends with. Simple as that, no one is blaming the US for being what it is, but you have to live with the fact that when you're as influential as that, people are going to take that into account when deciding their actions, especially when the US makes it clear how much it dislikes people who don't comply. What Pluisjen and I said was strictly regarding the motivation of our own government. If we wanted to blame the US for something (taking the liberty of speaking for you P), we would go directly to the war and Bush's reasons for it. Your instance that what we're saying is really not what we're saying is a perfect illustration of why the reputation of the US is such that even the French are calling them arrogant, which is a damn shame considering how many decent Americans there are.
You all just give up. Then decide to hold out for reinforcements while deciding to do what you can to minimize the damage. Good for you, you decided to protect your jewish citizens from being deported to death camps. Great! I'm very proud you decided to make a stand on that at least. But maybe you wouldn't have had to if you had had the foresight after WWI that despite the treaties it might be a good idea to have a strong military of your own instead hoping someone else would expel the Germans for you or hoping that because of the treaties no one would ever invade (but that would mean that you all weren't afraid of invasion and defeats the purpose of your entire post.)
Again, let me spell it out for you:
Population of Denmark: 5 million
Population of Germany: 81 million
Defensibility of Danish landscape: Non-existent
Proximity to Germany: Neighbour
Sometimes resistance is not an option. It doesn't matter how much you fight, you're not going to win anything by it. You could enlist half the adult population in the army and bankrupt the country, and you still wont be able to match the enemy's resources. You can snarl and bare your teeth, tell about how much you're going to fight all the way, and even live up to it, but when you're a key to the Baltic Sea, a piece of land mostly covered by fertile fields, and the gateway to Norway, you're not going to convince the enemy to give up. Denmark have had wars with Germany (and Sweden, and several other countries) before, and guess what? A lot of the time we didn't stand a chance even when we bankrupted the country and enlisted as many as we could.
It's very easy when you sit safe at home, knowing you only have to get out if you want to, and if you do, you'll have superior numbers and equipment, and a huge backing. Especially if we're to believe your version of the events, where the US wasn't even attacked, or had any economic interests in the result, but participated solely out of the goodness of their hearts. But in reality, many people are willing to take jobs in the army, but few of them are going to throw their family and children to their death for someone else's principle. You see it all over the world, people want to survive, no matter how bad the situation is most of them cling to life and tries to make the best of it. Denmark have soldiers in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and several other countries, as UN troops, and Denmark is among the countries giving the largest % of their GDP (which is fairly large for the size of the country) as financial aid to, among other things, people in warzones, which benefits the soldiers in these areas.
I'm sorry we're not 300 million people. I'm sorry our country is smaller than many American lakes. I'm sorry we've experienced the worst sides of war so much more often than you have historically, and on both sides to boot. I'm sorry that we're eager to avoid it again and choose to work more through diplomacy and aid than you do. I'm sorry we're dependant on trade and that our government often have to take other countries into account when making decisions. I'm sorry that this means the name of the US will come up when discussing the motivations of our government, for good or bad. But most of all, I'm sorry I ever took the time to try to explain a historical reason for a change of perspective in order to illuminate why something that's considered self-evident in one place is highly offensive in another, given that it turns out the people I'm trying to communicate with is the worst of a stereotype many people here consider an anti-American rumour.
Well, at least we can agree on something Erato.
You are very sorry. Got it.
Would you swim across the Atlantic to defend your country? You'd have about the same chance to do achieve something good as a country like ours had in the second world war. It's not that the Netherlands didn't fight. It's that our entire army was crushed in 5 days, so it just looks like we didn't fight.
And anyway. I guess it's hard to imagine being in a position of "the small fish" when you are raised to feel like the big fish all the time.
It doesn't feel as much like protection as you'd like it to feel. It feels more like a country looking for excuses to go to war.
And if you don't like that, I'd suggest working on your countries' PR a lot.
Don't get me started on our "friends" to the north. During the Cold War, you all decided to practically dismantle your own military because you know that we'll protect you too.
Idolis, the language is strong, but I agree with the sentiment. Its hard to have sympathy for countries which bash the US for spending on our military when it has helped and pressumably will help them in the future.
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
You don't do it because you want to help, you do it because you want special privileges. Look at this situation, Pluisjen and I were saying something that's completely neutral in regards to the US (that a lot of the population believe our government want to suck up to it), and you immediately respond with very specific, but completely false, statements drawn out of thin air, such as that we're saying the US threatened to invade (where the **** did that come from?), and when we're objecting, your first response is to say "nyah nyah, a war over 50 years ago was fought in Europe, so you're totally dependant on us and we don't need you (that's why it took the US, Canada, the USSR, and several parts of Europe, among others, to win the war, because the US could totally have done it by themselves) and we only participated to help you (we just happened to get attacked first), so therefore we have the right to make your statements out to be whatever the hell we want, even if you haven't said any of things we accuse you off, and you just have to agree with it nyah nyah".
Come on, you likely weren't even born at that time, and you still use it to act like any given non-American owes a depth of gratitude to every American, instead of answering the points raised.
There isn't currently much of a threat of a world war, and honestly, if there's going to be one, I'm betting my money on the USA starting it. Hate to break it to you, but that's the opinion many people currently have regarding the american peoples.
Really? See, 'cause I'd put my money on North Korea. Because Kim Jong Il is a delusional lunatic.
Kind of the beauty of American democracy, even if you get a warmongering idiot into the White House, you know the leadership will change in a maximum of 8 years.
And Goldo,
Don't get me started on our "friends" to the north. During the Cold War, you all decided to practically dismantle your own military because you know that we'll protect you too.
To be fair, Canuckistan committed to WWs I & II before we did.
Really? See, 'cause I'd put my money on North Korea. Because Kim Jong Il is a delusional lunatic.
Kind of the beauty of American democracy, even if you can a warmongering idiot into the White House, you know the leadership will change in a maximum of 8 years.
Well, it only takes a few months to start a world war, so an 8 year rotation isn't fast enough to prevent that.
And, once again, I hate to break it to you, but many people considered Bush to be a delusional lunatic as well. So again, you should put some serious work on your countries' PR.
I was under the impression that the Cold War didn't end till the 90's. What was all that stuff about being afraid of being invaded about then if it ended more than 50 years ago?
And, once again, I hate to break it to you, but many people considered Bush to be a delusional lunatic as well.
Yup, and a lot of them were Americans. /me raises hand.
Bush the Younger worried me. A lot.
The point is, Erato and Pluisjen, that America's military, comprised according to you all of criminals and retards, is what is protecting you from that sort of thing happening again. But like I said, gratitude is a little too much to ask.
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
And for the record, I never called the US soldiers criminals or retards. In fact, I'm not even sure I said anything about US soldiers
I didn't even realise we were talking about American soldiers when someone said 'soldiers'. If that's how we play, then the next time someone says that all people have the right to freedom, I'd be tempted to assume they're talking about all American people and start accusing them of bigotry. Anyway:I illustrated a (imo), very important point, namely that, historically, civilians with no interest in the army have often done greater things, and sacrificed more, than the actual army here. Whether this makes the Danish army inferior (or possibly just older) or the common Danish population superior, I don't know and I'm not interested in discussing it. However, because we have more civilian heroes, and glorify war less, it is considered very bad form (as well as a falsehood) to indicate that civilians aren't brave or willing to sacrifice much, which was essentially what people here were doing. However disrespectful you might find my stance that I'll give respect to people individually, that plenty of groups are as worthy of it as soldiers, and that soldiering is generally a violent occupation, the fact of the matter is that by my cultural standards, the statements made before that were equally offensive.
The point being that if you can't show respect, don't expect it back. It's like those religious people who wont tolerate other faiths, but get really defensive and cry 'disrespect!' whenever others don't follow their religion. I don't disrespect soldiers, and I don't expect extra special respect for civilian heroes (not even the ones I respect the most myself), but you seem to be of the opinion that you (soldiers, or perhaps more correctly, US soldiers since that's apparently the one ones relevant) are entitled to extra respect, and furthermore are allowed to denigrate others. If that's true, then it's it seems pretty likely that whatever you do military is more a matter of superiority than anything else.
The problem with claiming to be someone's saving angel is that they're not all going to accept you in that capacity if you verbally urinate on them. And why should they? Your actions indicate that you're expecting to be allowed to dictate the rules, including getting to offend people from other countries, and taking whatever they say to mean whatever you want and immediately start complaining how offensive they are.
Really Erato?
I was under the impression that the Cold War didn't end till the 90's. What was all that stuff about being afraid of being invaded about then if it ended more than 50 years ago?
Are you seriously suggesting the US fought the cold war for other people's sake, and never got any support for it anywhere?
(we just happened to get attacked first)
Incorrect. We aided Britain long before we were attacked and hesitated to enter even after being attacked for some time. In other words, we were content to send ships and bleed for Europe without even punching back until Dec 7 1941.
Come on, you likely weren't even born at that time, and you still use it to act like any given non-American owes a depth of gratitude to every American, instead of answering the points raised.
You do. There'd be no [insert country here] were it not for the blood of American soldiers and civilians shed in two World Wars that they didn't start and were not geographically threatened by. That said, you also owe a debt of gratitude to the Brits, Canadians, Poles, etc, etc and on and on. And that said, us Americans owe a huge debt of gratitude to the French because without them there'd be no USA. This, though, doesn't excuse any lack of response or oddball expectations of deference. It simply means that we all do need to remember why we're still around and who died to make that possible - if only so that we remember to be slightly kinder to one another when having heated discussions.
You do. There'd be no [insert country here] were it not for the blood of American soldiers and civilians shed in two World Wars that they didn't start and were not geographically threatened by.
The way I heard it, WWI was already going against Germany by the time we joined. We didn't tip the scales on that one.
The way I heard it, WWI was already going against Germany by the time we joined. We didn't tip the scales on that one.
I've actually read it both ways. In any event, our Doughboys still suffered and died in the trenches other men dug. To me, if someone is willing to die to aid you - whether they prove to be the deciding factor or not, whether they are successful or not - they deserve your respect. Those white crosses overseas (you know, the ones frequently defaced) reside over the bodies of men who did just that.
I think Erato is pretty much dead-on. Trying to fight a war when you have the size of Denmark or the Netherlands isn't about "defending your country", it's about "lining up for the slaughter". When your enemy has more soldiers then you have living souls in your country, battle is not an option.
Would you swim across the Atlantic to defend your country? You'd have about the same chance to do achieve something good as a country like ours had in the second world war. It's not that the Netherlands didn't fight. It's that our entire army was crushed in 5 days, so it just looks like we didn't fight.
And anyway. I guess it's hard to imagine being in a position of "the small fish" when you are raised to feel like the big fish all the time.
You do realize technology far outstrips numbers right? (See how Brittain held out. It wasn't because of a little strip of water. It was due to Radar, superior aircraft, and lots of funding from the US.)
Who's fault was it that you didn't even keep a Token force after WW1? Or that during WW1 or before that you didn't go conquering new territory (even if it is remote from your location) to make sure you could keep up at least someone in a resource race?
But then, when you're a little fish country that expects everyone else to bail you out of the fire, I guess military tech to compensate for small numbers doesn't really enter the picture either.
Hell just retreating back with your army (had it even existed in the first place), to rally several of the smaller countries together could have done quite abit of damage to germany. Possibly enough to take the load off of poor Brittain's back as it got the snot beat of it.
Or had France not just cheaped out on the Magineau (sp cause I am pretty much illiterate with French) they could have held the Germans in place for quite a while. When they attacked what -was- there of the Line it took them quite a while to break it. Again it could have bought time.
And maybe had the small fish rallied, and france had the Line of Doom in place maybe Hitler would have given up, once he lost in Russia.
Brittain did a hell of alot more to save the Jews than Denmark, and it's own people. Had they not been able to even hold on as long as they did before lend lease it's quite likely that the Jewish ethnic group would have been completely exterminated. Danish efforts or no.
Really Erato?
I was under the impression that the Cold War didn't end till the 90's. What was all that stuff about being afraid of being invaded about then if it ended more than 50 years ago?
Are you seriously suggesting the US fought the cold war for other people's sake, and never got any support for it anywhere?
I'm not suggesting anything. You laid out quite clearly that you weren't able to do anything against Germany. Did something happen after WWII that suddenly made your country capable of defeating the Russians? I mean...besides our military bases in Germany.
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
You do. There'd be no [insert country here] were it not for the blood of American soldiers and civilians shed in two World Wars that they didn't start and were not geographically threatened by. That said, you also owe a debt of gratitude to the Brits, Canadians, Poles, etc, etc and on and on. And that said, us Americans owe a huge debt of gratitude to the French because without them there'd be no USA. This, though, doesn't excuse any lack of response or oddball expectations of deference. It simply means that we all do need to remember why we're still around and who died to make that possible - if only so that we remember to be slightly kinder to one another when having heated discussions.
To me, people are not their country. The people who populate the world today are not the people who populated the world 60 years ago. History gives perspective to the present, culture gives you a sense of belonging, it's a good thing to remind each other that we're all connected and interdependent, and a little nationalism now and then is a reasonable indulgence, but getting stuck in the past is dangerous. Nazism evolved in Germany (though the ideological parts of it we find most objectionable today were embraced by most countries at that time), but the Germans today have very little to do with the Germany of the past. In my experience, they're among the most tolerant, friendly, and respectful people you can find, and bringing up that past to use against them is disgusting, because at least they learned, which is more than can be said for most countries.
In my opinion, the past is about explaining the present, not to mindlessly cling to in order to justify something. America is shaped by being mostly safe from direct invasion and (on a different, but no less interesting note) developing much of its culture at a time with amble land, while countries like Denmark and Holland are shaped by the opposite. It makes for interesting comparisons, and might make cultural differences easier to understand (and hopefully accept), and that's what it should be used to. The "nyah nyah we're better than you because of our military" parts will hopefully not down in history as something people will collectively blame the US for in the future (and hopefully not even now, as it doesn't represents the whole country, but that's too much to hope for), but it could easily go down in history as lesson to the future that no matter how much you think you sacrifice yourself for others (and possible even do), you're not going to win many friends by acting like a jerk.
I'm not suggesting anything. You laid out quite clearly that you weren't able to do anything against Germany. Did something happen after WWII that suddenly made your country capable of defeating the Russians? I mean...besides our military bases in Germany.
Oh but Russia wouldn't have attacked them without a Deterrent force. They were quite happy with what they had.... it's not like they later invaded Afghanistan and started attempting to spread in asia or anything where American Presence was low.
I'm not suggesting anything. You laid out quite clearly that you weren't able to do anything against Germany. Did something happen after WWII that suddenly made your country capable of defeating the Russians? I mean...besides our military bases in Germany.
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
That wasn't the question (not to mention the US still wouldn't have been able to act alone). Did the US fight the war for other people's sake? Did it put Islamic extremist in power in Afghanistan for the sake of the people in Afghanistan or because it had an interest in keeping the Russians form power? Because if you think the former, you'll be the first I've heard, even among Americans.
Not to mention you've not admitted you were wrong, let alone apologised, for indicating that smaller countries actually had a chance against the Nazis, so your argument contradicts itself. Not to mention excusing a lack of civility and respect with former deeds (that you likely weren't even part of) is pretty pathetic, and also, imo, shame the people you claim made those sacrifices.
I'm not suggesting anything. You laid out quite clearly that you weren't able to do anything against Germany. Did something happen after WWII that suddenly made your country capable of defeating the Russians? I mean...besides our military bases in Germany.
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
That wasn't the question (not to mention the US still wouldn't have been able to act alone). Did the US fight the war for other people's sake? Did it put Islamic extremist in power in Afghanistan for the sake of the people in Afghanistan or because it had an interest in keeping the Russians form power? Because if you think the former, you'll be the first I've heard, even among Americans.
Not to mention you've not admitted you were wrong, let alone apologised, for indicating that smaller countries actually had a chance against the Nazis, so your argument contradicts itself. Not to mention excusing a lack of civility and respect with former deeds (that you likely weren't even part of) is pretty pathetic, and also, imo, shame the people you claim made those sacrifices.
As far as keeping bases in Germany to protect Europe, yes. As far as Afganistan, sort of. We supplied Afgani fighters to fight against the Russians. Those fighters happening to be religious fanatics was unfortunate but largely due to their defeat in Afganistan the Russians were bankrupt and so an invasion of Europe became more unlikely. So it as much for Afganistan as it was for you and your countrymen.
Edit:
As for the other part, I will not apologize to you. There is always a choice and your people chose defeat and surrender instead of fighting and I will not respect that choice.
And...
If I was offensive in my comments well that too frickin' bad. Apparently its okay for people like you to insult our military but when people like me defend them its offensive and I don't accept those terms of discourse.
To me, people are not their country. The people who populate the world today are not the people who populated the world 60 years ago. History gives perspective to the present, culture gives you a sense of belonging, it's a good thing to remind each other that we're all connected and interdependent, and a little nationalism now and then is a reasonable indulgence, but getting stuck in the past is dangerous. Nazism evolved in Germany (though the ideological parts of it we find most objectionable today were embraced by most countries at that time), but the Germans today have very little to do with the Germany of the past. In my experience, they're among the most tolerant, friendly, and respectful people you can find, and bringing up that past to use against them is disgusting, because at least they learned, which is more than can be said for most countries.In my opinion, the past is about explaining the present, not to mindlessly cling to in order to justify something. America is shaped by being mostly safe from direct invasion and (on a different, but no less interesting note) developing much of its culture at a time with amble land, while countries like Denmark and Holland are shaped by the opposite. It makes for interesting comparisons, and might make cultural differences easier to understand (and hopefully accept), and that's what it should be used to. The "nyah nyah we're better than you because of our military" parts will hopefully not down in history as something people will collectively blame the US for in the future (and hopefully not even now, as it doesn't represents the whole country, but that's too much to hope for), but it could easily go down in history as lesson to the future that no matter how much you think you sacrifice yourself for others (and possible even do), you're not going to win many friends by acting like a jerk.
That's all fine with me, to be totally honest. I just really do think it's important to remember that there'd be no now without the then and that that then involved a lot of sacrifice from people that had no real call to do it. I don't suggest that we hold grudges for the misdeeds, either - rather that we focus on the good things we did for each other when the need arose. As you say, Germany now is nowhere near what they were then and using that to attack them now is wrong. We can't forget it - just like we can't forget what the Japanese did to the Chinese (and many more) and what we did to the Native Americans and what the ... you get it, but we must also give credit where it is due: both nations, today, are contributing members of our global society.
Anyhoo, it's not so much about being stuck in the past as remembering that past because it shaped today. Oh, and I agree that nationalism can be a damned dangerous thing. And that 'don't be a dick' stuff, too.
Not to mention excusing a lack of civility and respect with former deeds (that you likely weren't even part of) is pretty pathetic, and also, imo, shame the people you claim made those sacrifices.
This is important. Those men didn't die so that we could wave our flag in the faces of those they died for.
There is always a choice and your people chose defeat and surrender instead of fighting and I will not respect that choice.
To be fair, I'd rather be reviled as the leader who surrendered than reviled as the leader who ordered his people to die in a war they could not win.
Not to mention excusing a lack of civility and respect with former deeds (that you likely weren't even part of) is pretty pathetic, and also, imo, shame the people you claim made those sacrifices.
This is important. Those men didn't die so that we could wave our flag in the faces of those they died for.
Who's waving flags? I simply stated the truth about those sacrifices. It has been stated in various threads by Erato and those of her ilk that they don't like our military and I just reminded them that if it wasn't for our military they wouldn't be as secure as they are.
I didn't realize pointing that out was a low blow.
To your point though, yeah I agree with that.
Who's waving flags? I simply stated the truth about those sacrifices. It has been stated in various threads by Erato and those of her ilk that they don't like our military and I just reminded them that if it wasn't for our military they wouldn't be as secure as they are.
I didn't realize pointing that out was a low blow.
To your point though, yeah I agree with that.
Pointing it out is like seeking credit for it. Seeking credit for a sacrifice cheapens it immeasurably. You do the men that sacrificed dishonor by shoving their sacrifice in the face of those they sacrificed for. Those men didn't ask for anything other than to go home. That one thing they asked for, they didn't get. The truth of the matter is some people don't care. Others do but won't put on a show for someone that simply comes from the country that sent its men to die for them. We need to keep that in mind. Demanding respect won't earn it for you. Demanding respect for deeds you had no part in makes you appear arrogant and lowers the value of what was done. This isn't a bargaining chip and there should be no expectations. What was done is done and though we may think respect is owed, it's not up to us. Basically, it's one of those things we'd just be better off letting go. We know what they did, we respect them for it. They didn't even ask for that.
It's also important to note that the respect we feel is deserved certainly isn't our due (barring exceptions). There's no use taking it personally.
Who's waving flags? I simply stated the truth about those sacrifices. It has been stated in various threads by Erato and those of her ilk that they don't like our military and I just reminded them that if it wasn't for our military they wouldn't be as secure as they are.
I didn't realize pointing that out was a low blow.
To your point though, yeah I agree with that.
Pointing it out is like seeking credit for it. Seeking credit for a sacrifice cheapens it immeasurably. You do the men that sacrificed dishonor by shoving their sacrifice in the face of those they sacrificed for. Those men didn't ask for anything other than to go home. That one thing they asked for, they didn't get. The truth of the matter is some people don't care. Others do but won't put on a show for someone that simply comes from the country that sent its men to die for them. We need to keep that in mind. Demanding respect won't earn it for you. Demanding respect for deeds you had no part in makes you appear arrogant and lowers the value of what was done. This isn't a bargaining chip and there should be no expectations. What was done is done and though we may think respect is owed, it's not up to us. Basically, it's one of those things we'd just be better off letting go. We know what they did, we respect them for it. They didn't even ask for that.
It's also important to note that the respect we feel is deserved certainly isn't our due (barring exceptions). There's no use taking it personally.
Okay, I see now where my mistake was. Thanks ZB.
Still, people forgetting what happened and who was responsible for what is a sad occurence. I didn't mean to "cheapen" their sacrifice. What was intended is that people who choose to denigrate our military remember that it did and still does act in a selfless manner.
I didn't demand people respect them. I even went so far as to say that gratitude was too much to ask. Still, a reminder once in a while is a good thing, I think. But I guess I was wrong.
You do. There'd be no [insert country here] were it not for the blood of American soldiers and civilians shed in two World Wars that they didn't start and were not geographically threatened by.
The way I heard it, WWI was already going against Germany by the time we joined. We didn't tip the scales on that one.
I didn't even know USA was involved in WWI untill I saw a Hollywood movie on tv about some lost batallion or something.
And about WWII... I'm pretty sure most scale-tipping was done by the Soviets. Regrettably, at Poland's expense.
The way I heard it, WWI was already going against Germany by the time we joined. We didn't tip the scales on that one.
I'm not sure who would have won or lost the war if the U.S. hadn't joined. But because the generals on both sides - or their leadership - never got the bright idea of letting the other side go "over the top" all the time, and get decimated, rather than reciprocating until the other fellow didn't have anyone left to fight with... if it hadn't been for the fresh troops coming in from the United States, it's entirely possible that the soldiers on both sides would have mutinied, and anarchists or socialists or Marxists of one stripe or another would have been in charge of what was left of Europe from one end to the other.
If the U.S. didn't tip the scales as to who won, it tipped the scales as to how many soldiers, on both sides, survived to come home after that war.
Not to mention you've not admitted you were wrong, let alone apologised, for indicating that smaller countries actually had a chance against the Nazis, so your argument contradicts itself.
When it comes to regimes like the Nazis and the Communists, somebody has to fight them. Obviously, Czechoslovakia couldn't fight Nazi Germany all by itself, so no one blames it for not winning World War II before it started.
Denmark was invaded by Germany in April 1940, and had no chance to resist. Although in 2003, a Danish politician did characterize the terms Denmark worked out with Germany as "morally unjustifiable", the question, I suppose, boils down to whether Denmark should have joined with Britain and France in September, 1939 in declaring war on Germany after it invaded Poland.
If it had done so, this would have given British and French troops an advantageous location for the invasion of Germany. Note, of course, that Britain and France respected Danish neutrality - unlike the Germans, who plowed through Belgium in order to avoid the Maginot Line - which, contrary to popular belief, was strong enough to prevent Germany from successfully invading France.
If one is going to criticize Denmark, then, it would be for deciding to remain neutral in 1939, not for working out the best terms it could in 1940.
To keep everyone from coming under the rule of tyranny like that of Hitler or Stalin, somebody has to fight. Of course that means someone who has a chance of winning. Britain and France were the two strongest countries in Europe aside from Germany. Obviously, though, every additional country that fought together with them as an ally would have made them that much stronger.
Under Communism, the people of Russia, the captive nations, and the satellite countries lived the same kind of nightmare that people did under the Nazi heel. Because of atomic weapons and the missiles that carried them, the United States could no longer pretend that things going on far away didn't affect it. So instead of repeating the mistake of isolationism, it joined together with Western Europe to form NATO and contribute to everyone's freedom.
It isn't a question of whether America did this out of the goodness of its own heart to help Europe remain free, or it did it selfishly to remain free itself. Because both of those things were the result of the United States and Western Europe uniting against Communism. Since freedom is so much preferable to conquest and slavery - after the downfall of the Soviet Union, if you don't believe me, you don't have to travel far to talk to a lot of former East Germans, a lot of Poles, a lot of Czechs, a lot of Slovaks, a lot of Hungarians, and so on, who will tell you plenty about this - the formation of NATO and the joint U.S.-European cooperation in the Cold War was a good thing.
So I don't understand any complaint that the U.S. was trying to bully Western Europe, or obtain undue influence or trade concessions or something from it. The free countries of the world were facing a deadly menace from another evil tyranny, which, like Nazi Germany, showed that it was willing to commit aggression against its smaller defenseless neighbors. And when you have an evil and heavily armed enemy who wants to enslave you, if you can fight, because you have enough allies that together you are strong enough to resist - well, then you do stand up and you should be happy for the opportunity.
Compare the people of South Korea with the Vietnamese boat people. Again, the U.S. was trying - but this time it failed - to protect people from Communist aggression. Unfortunately, enemy propaganda fooled a lot of young people in many of the countries of the free world into protesting against the U.S. defense of South Vietnam. Why shouldn't those who recognized what a deadly menace the U.S.S.R. was, and how the people it had enslaved were suffering, from being annoyed with such foolishness?
This isn't "oh, we rescued you in World War II, so now you have to do whatever we say", this is, "did you forget that this is your war too?" And, given that al-Qaeda terrorists have struck in the subways of London and the railyards of Spain, I don't think people in the U.S. are being quite that unreasonable for thinking that the war against al-Qaeda, being carried out in Afghanistan, is a war for everyone's freedom, not just for purely U.S. goals.
Anyhoo, it's not so much about being stuck in the past as remembering that past because it shaped today. Oh, and I agree that nationalism can be a damned dangerous thing. And that 'don't be a dick' stuff, too.
Well, for me it's actually just as much about not admitting that you're shaped by the past. I don't mean in the moral sense, since many countries who've committed dreadful atrocities have learned from it, while countries we now see as being morally right (at the time) have become uncritical and full of themselves, but in regards to what collective memories you carry, and what your perspective on the future is. (This is going to be a long post, but I'd appreciate an answer when you have the time)
That's why I brought up WW2 (now I wish I didn't, but the "nyah nyah" was bound to show up anyway). I don't see people as their country (and considering how much Americans tend to empathise their differences, I'm surprised so many of them do), and I'm not interested in discussing who's 'right' (I wouldn't know if the US would have surrendered under the same conditions as Denmark, and if they had, if they'd have made the same civilian effort to rescue their Jews, and I don't know if Denmark would have been or less active in the war if they'd been in the same situation as the US, and if they had, how they'd have done it), I brought up a historical perspective to explain why R_H and Escef's remarks were offensive (not so much in general, but more in the context of demanding extra respect).
Many Danes, and other people, live with the knowledge that historically, the government and the army have not always been the most courageous or unselfish people, or best friends of the people. As an example of this attitude, though we trust our government more than most people (and with good reason, despite how it currently sucks), even Danish children require explanations as to why someone blowing themselves up is worse than an official army shooting people down. The distinction between armies and unlawful combatants is not as intrinsically clear here (and again, with good reason), and blowing yourself up is seem more as act of desperation than something inherently worse than killing people as a soldier (quite the contrary sometimes).
For some reason, despite being less nationalistic, I suspect Danes also see themselves more as part of a whole, with soldiers owing thanks to the people who feed, clothe, and heal them just as much as vice versa. We also have more of a tradition for keeping in power down to earth (deserved or not), meaning that a soldier acting disrespectfully is more likely to be seen as worse because s/he's a soldier (and should be better than that), than more excusable because of it.
So when R_H and Escef make remarks raising up soldiers, and especially dismissing people not of the army, my associations are tyranny (people with weapons setting themselves above others), concern, and disrespect (for the many civilian contributions). I don't know if it's more right, or wrong, but it's my perspective, my associations, my historical background, and my immediate reaction. So even though my stance is still that I don't hold any disrespect for soldiers, something like that is bound to make me angry. Which is the reason for my less than polite replies. In hindsight, I probably should have tried to explain even better why they were being disrespectful, and possibly have read less insult in it than I did (on behalf of Escef) but at least I realised a lot of things I hadn't thought of earlier.
But what frustrates me about this, is that even though I have heard a lot of comments relating to history on this thread, most of it of the "nyah nyah" category, I haven't heard a whole lot of historical perspective. It's all about looking back to point fingers, and make judgements on countries in positions the US have never been in (this might also relate back to perspective, as Scandinavians are traditionally more concerned with people than countries, and thus don't see quite the same value in wasting millions of lives to offer a token resistance as the US, which again makes Americans come across as arrogant because they're making judgements on situations they've never been in and hard choices they've never had to make, but I digress), but precious little in the way of historical explanations to shed light on their current behaviour.
For instance, I thought it was quite clear that the discussion was mostly about soldiers in general, and possibly about countries (to which I include my own) making wara for political reasons as opposed to self-defence, and yet, it's quite clear that this is taken as a personal attack on both the US and the US army. I also distinctly recall this thing starting with people saying soldiers should per definition be respected above and beyond other people, but the answers I receive seem to assume as a matter of fact that I don't give soldiers any respect. Where I'm from, it is also pretty accepted that soldiering is a violent profession (as in, profession dealing a lot with violence, and not just on the receiving end), but stating this doesn't just cause disagreement (which could be interesting), it makes someone assume I'm claiming that the US army is made up of criminals and retards. And when Pluisjen and me state that it's a common perception in our respective countries that the governments chose to go to war to curry favour with the US, and suddenly, Americans are throwing themselves at us demanding an apology for supposedly claiming the US threatened anyone. Etc. etc.
And no one gives a reason. No one stops to analyse what's going on, or consider that your perspective has a lot of power over your reactions, and that perspective is very different depending on where you're from. I mean, if I can do it (and I'm not the most calm and unemotional individual, as you already know), everybody can. And that's what I think history is for, to give perspective and explanations to make something more understandable and relatable, to enable people to say "This is my background, this is my perspective, when you do something like that, it evokes these associations, is this intentional or is it different for you?"
Perhaps it's a bit like how people from large countries have more trouble speaking foreign language. Being surrounded by people speaking your language, all books being translated, dubbing instead of subtitles etc., it often confers a mastery of one's native language, but it makes the process of dealing with other languages unfamiliar. I don't know, but it's part of what I told (or failed to tell) Micha, it often seems that the process of viewing yourself as a foreigner is very, well, foreign to many Americans, and is causing more difficulty than any national characteristic, including the religious fundamentalism and fondness for war. Or maybe it's just me 
Maybe you're right. We Americans are unfamiliar with the Danish experience. However, you and people like you make sweeping generalities, religious fandamentalism and fondness of war anyone?
Anyway, our experience is everytime something goes wrong we're the ones that are called on to fix it. Maybe if Denmark was called on to stop the "Red Menace" or "Terrorist Threat" instead of us, we would be more welcoming of your criticism but to us it just sounds like "what have you done for me lately" because you have been safe from invasion and have free medical care and things of that sort because you don't have to have a standing army of any note.
No, your countries remain safe because the power, both militarily and politically, that the US can exert on any threat that exists. We don't enjoy war but we're the ones that are called upon to fight them because countries like yours can't or won't.
For this reason, we respect our military more than most because we know we're not just fighting for us but because we're fighting for you and anyone else that falls under the umbrella of our protection which is growing and has been growing since the fall of the USSR.
Sending token forces to help out is all fine and good but it doesn't seem like much when we, Americans, are the ones doing the lion's share of everything from war to helping countries recover from natural disasters.
So excuse us, if we don't share your disrespect for the warriors that defend you without so much as a thank you. Hmmm, how bout the next time an earthquake hits, Denmark export your free health care to some of those who were effected instead of expecting us to do for it. Or how bout, NATO send a few planes over the next time Al Qaeda decides to attack us. You know, we've kind of busy for the last 50+ years. A little help, not much just a little would be nice.
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
When it comes to regimes like the Nazis and the Communists, somebody has to fight them. Obviously, Czechoslovakia couldn't fight Nazi Germany all by itself, so no one blames it for not winning World War II before it started.
Denmark was invaded by Germany in April 1940, and had no chance to resist. Although in 2003, a Danish politician did characterize the terms Denmark worked out with Germany as "morally unjustifiable", the question, I suppose, boils down to whether Denmark should have joined with Britain and France in September, 1939 in declaring war on Germany after it invaded Poland.
That politician (prime minister) also happens to be a nationalist who couldn't be farther from the groups who offered the most resistance in Denmark, and he was trying to shame people into going to war in Iraq, rather than offer good arguments. But he does have a point, and most Danes don't exactly see the behaviour as heroic. Then again, as a small country, you can pretty much expect to be bullied no matter what you do, so it's often a matter of survival to try to stay away from larger nations. It's not like the Brits or French have treated Denmark any better in the past (e.g. the bombardment of Copenhagen).
I doubt Denmark would have been able to avoid occupation, but whether fighting or staying out would have cost more lives is hard to say. The Danish rescue of the Jews (and Sweden staying neutral to receive them), negotiation to spare lives, and actually having a country in a good enough condition to house and feed refugees afterwards (Dutch, German, who cares?), did something. Whether it was the best or not is not clear. But since Denmark is part of NATO and have troops fighting for it, it's hopefully not a dilemma that will become relevant again..
This isn't "oh, we rescued you in World War II, so now you have to do whatever we say", this is, "did you forget that this is your war too?" And, given that al-Qaeda terrorists have struck in the subways of London and the railyards of Spain, I don't think people in the U.S. are being quite that unreasonable for thinking that the war against al-Qaeda, being carried out in Afghanistan, is a war for everyone's freedom, not just for purely U.S. goals.
Actually, it's pretty obviously "oh, we rescued you in World War II, so now you have to do whatever we say". It's not about war, it's about definitions. When I or Pluisjen say something, are immediately assumed to have said something else, clarify that we didn't mean whatever the Hell is implied we did, and are met, not with quotes to explain where someone got that idea or any explanations or even someone just saying that we're lying (which could at least explain why 'I didn't say' could be ignored), but simply with the same claims (often ridiculously specific but always unexplained) repeated and people working themselves to fury over a perceived slight to the US army, and then justify their behaviour with the claim that they're defending the US army, and with added arrogant and ignorant insults to our countries, it reeks of a sense of entitlement which the people in question have made no attempt to hide their reason for.
Not to mention that while I have a lot of respect for people who say "I have an immense respect for my workplace (the army) and my colleagues" (and have never objected to anyone expressing that respect), stating "I'm entitled to special respect because I'm a soldier, and people are wrong and ungrateful for not giving it to me" (as per the original topic derail, the families of soldiers being allowed privacy at funerals, while the families of many victims of hate-crimes have to put up with people cheering in the graveyards) doesn't do anything for me. If you think so low of people that you don't want to allow them to make their own judgements, then it's not respect you want, but submission.
The war in Afghanistan has not, to my knowledge, been mentioned (and Denmark has troops there anyway), and if anyone is expressing dissatisfaction with the US, for my part, it's that most of the population represented here have not bothered to even attempt to explain where they come up with their bizarre interpretations of what is said here, but just hid behind accusations of cowardice born of supreme ignorance and various variations of "You're wrong because we had more soldiers in WW2 than you", which is not just insulting to Denmark, and especially Holland (and if we'd been anywhere near as nationalistic, this thread would have been closed by now), to also to their own troops whom they claim to respect. I don't care about the American war effort in this context, I care about what Americans are saying right now in the name of a military force none of them were part of.
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
Erato,
Maybe you're right. We Americans are unfamiliar with the Danish experience. However, you and people like you make sweeping generalities, religious fandamentalism and fondness of war anyone?
Of course, national stereotypes are based on generalisations. People from a certain nation tend towards a certain behaviour, and regardless of the fact that plenty of people in that country don't fit the stereotype, they nonetheless become known for it anyway (and in some cases, the stereotype is simply created, such as a long list of French military defeats leading to the stereotype of French cowardice (mainly in the US, and possibly Britain), something which, btw, is pretty insulting to countries with many defeats behind them, who knows what an effort it is to build up a country after that).
Often, it's more about what you do compared to others. Again, seeing yourself more as a foreigner might help with that. You guys have political candidates with a serious change of getting elected for your leading party who considers masturbation to be the enemy. It doesn't matter how moderate many Americans are, that's going to stick because it's very different compared to most Western countries. In the same way, I fully expect people to see nationalism and a dislike of foreigners to be a Danish characteristic (sadly acquired in less then a decade ), regardless of how many Danes aren't like that. But I also expect people to be able to recognise the different between an individual and a country.
When Micha suggested that Americans tended to be a certain way (fat loud-mouthed slobs), I simply corrected him that these weren't (in my experience) the American traits that people had the most problems with. Since national stereotypes are an ordinary part of my life, I didn't think more of it. It's not a special attempt at singling out Americans to generalise, but in exchanges between people from the US, and from somewhere else, there are certain things I see go wrong often. I can say the same about Danes, who often experience difficulties due to not respecting religion and not understanding many forms of offence.
Anyway, our experience is everytime something goes wrong we're the ones that are called on to fix it. Maybe if Denmark was called on to stop the "Red Menace" or "Terrorist Threat" instead of us, we would be more welcoming of your criticism but to us it just sounds like "what have you done for me lately" because you have been safe from invasion and have free medical care and things of that sort because you don't have to have a standing army of any note.
No, your countries remain safe because the power, both militarily and politically, that the US can exert on any threat that exists. We don't enjoy war but we're the ones that are called upon to fight them because countries like yours can't or won't.
Perhaps if you started seeing people more as allies, and started admitting that you have as much an interest in a safe world as anyone else, that would change. With the loudest advocate and representative of the US military (RH) saying what he does about me and my country, and all the Nordic countries for that matter, it's not just hard to believe the US army is operating solely for the good of others, it's hard to believe the good of anyone else is even a priority. And I know he doesn't represent your people, but if he represents your military (hence why being entitled to respect per default, regardless of whom he is as an individual) and you support your military like you seem to, then you have more nerve suggesting they're doing anything unselfish than all the criticism you (rightfully or not) perceive to be levelled at you.
Denmark contribute to NATO, but with fewer the 1/50 population of what the US has, it's not going to be seen enough for the US to stop telling us how much we owe them no matter what. The US contributes a lot, but also have a booming military industry, soldiers who enjoy their work, more leeway in their treatment of human rights (though this is generally a choice more than an option, being a large military power does give you protection from sanctions that other countries don't enjoy), bragging rights, and a lot of influence (which is often used).
So excuse us, if we don't share your disrespect for the warriors that defend you without so much as a thank you. Hmmm, how bout the next time an earthquake hits, Denmark export your free health care to some of those who were effected instead of expecting us to do for it. Or how bout, NATO send a few planes over the next time Al Qaeda decides to attack us. You know, we've kind of busy for the last 50+ years. A little help, not much just a little would be nice.
The next time an earthquake hits, Denmark is probably going to respond by contributing with more food and more healthcare per inhabitant than the US. As always.
I think you guys give Goldo too little credit. He knows what he is doing and what he is saying. He does it on purpose because of how others react.
Not really. These are my opinions. I just find it extraordinary that people haven't heard something similar before or jsut consider them ridiculus. Of course I do make a effort to stay informed by browsing various sources of information and question single thought propaganda when ever I see it. But apparently that is rare.
I get that they are your opinions. As you say, it would be amazing that others have not heard them before. I'm pretty sure they are. Your opinions are not that amazing. They are held by plenty of people. Your ideas aren't original, unique, or revolutionary.
The thing is... you know that. You are smart enough to know that stating your opinion may or may not get a reaction. You are also smart enough to understand how to use language to incite anger in others.
It isn't what you say, it is how you say it. You say things in a certain way because you know how you say it will cause an emotional response. Sure, you could claim that English is not your first language and you make mistakes. I can give you that when it comes to grammar. Your spelling is not always correct, but a lot of native English speakers have bad grammar as well. This, however, does not excuse your word choice. It is possible that you may not understand the connotations that certain words have. I just think you are smarter than that. You know the effect they have when you use them. It is why you use them.
You can pretend to not have a good grasp of the English language, but we both know that is a lie. Your word choices are purposeful. Your statements aren't anything amazing. They have been said before. The difference is that others have chosen a more diplomatic manner to convey their message. You may not want to admit it, but you enjoy the reactions you get from others like RH.
Your forgetting that you are not talking to rational people. RH said he would fight the war on terror until his death rather then loose. And one of the US's state has the moto "live free or die" on their license plate.
Of course, this is all talk if you ask me.
So now you call me "irrational", because I would fight and die for what I believe in?
And you call a whole state "irrational" because they have "Live Free or Die" on their license plates?
You are beneath contempt.
And you wonder why most of us detest you...
She clings to a failed system, already proven to not work and hold its citizens captive, depressing innovation and initiative, believing only in the continuation and health of "the system", not its citizens.
*shrug*
What she says means nothing to me, and I wouldn't trust her, or anything she says.
As a Communist, she is an enemy of everything I believe in.
And she never passes a chance to bash America or its military.
The thing is... you know that. You are smart enough to know that stating your opinion may or may not get a reaction. You are also smart enough to understand how to use language to incite anger in others.
It isn't what you say, it is how you say it. You say things in a certain way because you know how you say it will cause an emotional response. Sure, you could claim that English is not your first language and you make mistakes. I can give you that when it comes to grammar. Your spelling is not always correct, but a lot of native English speakers have bad grammar as well. This, however, does not excuse your word choice.
Actually, word choice is a huge part of it. I don't know enough French to be sure it's the same way, but the English way of using words (or possibly the American) is different from the Danish way. I frequently find myself searching for a word (and usually finding it pretty fast, but that just means my English is good, not that it comes naturally to me) and end up having it not quite mean what I want it to mean. And the cultural context is a big part of it too.
I might not always agree with goldo or condone the way he presents his points, but if I have trouble understanding why he sometimes gets attacked when others (including myself) don't, I have no trouble believing the same holds true for him. Just because he doesn't make the same effort as many foreign speakers to be careful and polite doesn't mean he's being intentionally offensive.
Not to mention that the amount of wilful offence, and acceptance of it, from people who criticise goldo seems highly hypocritical to me. Again, it could be a difference in culture, but I'm used to excusing yourself with your military rank being considered worse than excusing yourself with speaking a foreign language. Then again, his proficiency in French could make him more familiar with Latin, which again could give him a better sense of which English words, if not grammar, to use (provided they haven't changed meaning after being converted to English). But I'm not going to assume this is the case with his words saying the opposite and him being the most knowledgeable about the subject here.
Erato is an avowed Communist and thus, by default, hates anything American... especially our wealth and power.
She clings to a failed system, already proven to not work and hold its citizens captive, depressing innovation and initiative, believing only in the continuation and health of "the system", not its citizens.
*shrug*
What she says means nothing to me, and I wouldn't trust her, or anything she says.
As a Communist, she is an enemy of everything I believe in.
And she never passes a chance to bash America or its military.
While that may (or may not) be true of Erato, it is not necessarily true of communists. Most communists I've met are idealistic kids who don't understand that communism doesn't work and are frustrated by their own lack of money. They're young, idealistic, and are enchanted with the idea of a system that, on the surface, looks "fair".
Erato is an avowed Communist and thus, by default, hates anything American... especially our wealth and power.
She clings to a failed system, already proven to not work and hold its citizens captive, depressing innovation and initiative, believing only in the continuation and health of "the system", not its citizens.
*shrug*
What she says means nothing to me, and I wouldn't trust her, or anything she says.
As a Communist, she is an enemy of everything I believe in.
And she never passes a chance to bash America or its military.
What.
While that may (or may not) be true of Erato
Since avowed (according to the dictionary) means declared, it's not. I mentioned once that if Obama is a socialist (a claim I consider ridiculous) then Denmark (and the other Nordic countries) are communist by default. If RH really uses those definitions and stand by his will to die (and more importantly, kill) fighting people who live in these societies, then he's the enemy of a good deal of the democratic world. I don't expect you to understand this, but I'm not inclined to show any special respect to those kinds of people.
For the record, the only time I declared my political stance, it was somewhere between social-democrat and social-liberal, both of which are far from theoretical communism, and even farther from the practical examples of communism. I'm also not anti-military, I'm simply not pro-military any more than I'm pro-agriculture, pro-hunting, or pro-industry, and if you can't accept that, then screw you, especially considering the **** you accept RH saying while touting his military past.
For the record...
You did declare in a post in Astrids some time ago that you were a communist.
I am not making it up.
Erato is an avowed Communist and thus, by default, hates anything American... especially our wealth and power.
She clings to a failed system, already proven to not work and hold its citizens captive, depressing innovation and initiative, believing only in the continuation and health of "the system", not its citizens.
*shrug*
What she says means nothing to me, and I wouldn't trust her, or anything she says.
As a Communist, she is an enemy of everything I believe in.
And she never passes a chance to bash America or its military.
What.
Yes.
...and if you can't accept that, then screw you, especially considering the **** you accept RH saying while touting his military past.
Gee, last time I try to talk about understanding and moderatation to Hoodlum in your presence. Are you sure you aren't keen on the military, because you sure are hostile as all
.Erato...
For the record...
You did declare in a post in Astrids some time ago that you were a communist.
I am not making it up.
I corrected you claiming I was a socialist (another wrong claim, as were most of the ones you made about me in that thread), and said you should claim I was a communist, because by the definitions that make Obama a socialist, I was. So are most people in my country, and several other countries too, not to mention a good deal of the population in the US. I have explained this to you several times, it's not my fault you lack a sense of both irony and proportion, and keep referring to it as proof.
and if you can't accept that, then screw you, especially considering the **** you accept RH saying while touting his military past.
Hey!
Escef and I butt heads more frequently than we agree. Just because someone else sees through your baloney and happens to maybe agree with parts of what I say, that's no reason to treat him like that.
Contrary to what escef may believe, and in spite of past altercations with him, I happen to think rather highly of him...
And I don't think you are being very fair to him.
Your ire should be directed at me.
Actually, word choice is a huge part of it. I don't know enough French to be sure it's the same way, but the English way of using words (or possibly the American) is different from the Danish way. I frequently find myself searching for a word (and usually finding it pretty fast, but that just means my English is good, not that it comes naturally to me) and end up having it not quite mean what I want it to mean. And the cultural context is a big part of it too.
First, you are not Goldo. I responded to Goldo, not you. Yes, YOU may have trouble with word choice, but Goldo doesn't. At least not to that extent. He knows what he writes and what kind of a response he can elicit through his word choice.
I might not always agree with goldo or condone the way he presents his points, but if I have trouble understanding why he sometimes gets attacked when others (including myself) don't, I have no trouble believing the same holds true for him. Just because he doesn't make the same effort as many foreign speakers to be careful and polite doesn't mean he's being intentionally offensive.
It is because of the way he represents his point. I can say to you, "I disagree with your point" or I can say "you are ridiculous, and your points are ridiculous." You can easily imply that by calling you ridiculous I am disagreeing with you. Yet, the second way of stating it is meant to provoke you. Word choice matters and Goldo knows that. You, like others, give him little credit. He isn't a dumb guy. He has interacted with plenty of English speakers (Canada has many English speakers).
Furthermore, he makes an effort. The thing is that the effort he makes is to provoke.
Not to mention that the amount of wilful offence, and acceptance of it, from people who criticise goldo seems highly hypocritical to me. Again, it could be a difference in culture, but I'm used to excusing yourself with your military rank being considered worse than excusing yourself with speaking a foreign language. Then again, his proficiency in French could make him more familiar with Latin, which again could give him a better sense of which English words, if not grammar, to use (provided they haven't changed meaning after being converted to English). But I'm not going to assume this is the case with his words saying the opposite and him being the most knowledgeable about the subject here.
It's true, there are a lot of times when he is attacked for his stance on some subject. That just reinforces his behavior (word choice). He gets a rise out of people. They become angry and insult him. Which means he got an emotional reaction from them. So he gets what he wanted.
Erato...
For the record...
You did declare in a post in Astrids some time ago that you were a communist.
I am not making it up.
I corrected you claiming I was a socialist (another wrong claim, as were most of the ones you made about me in that thread), and said you should claim I was a communist, because by the definitions that make Obama a socialist, I was. So are most people in my country, and several other countries too, not to mention a good deal of the population in the US. I have explained this to you several times, it's not my fault you lack a sense of both irony and proportion, and keep referring to it as proof.
No... I don't think it went down like that at all.
Unless you dig up the old thread and prove me wrong, I don't believe you.
I'm simply not pro-military any more than I'm pro-agriculture, pro-hunting, or pro-industry, and if you can't accept that, then screw you, especially considering the **** you accept RH saying while touting his military past.
Must you be so childish?
Gee, last time I try to talk about understanding and moderatation to Hoodlum in your presence. Are you sure you aren't keen on the military, because you sure are hostile as all
I'm not hostile to the military. I'm neutral to the military and judge it according to what it achieves, how, and why. To not do that, merely because the military is from my own country, or America, is to do a disservice to the principles soldiers are supposed to fight for. And when the military is brought up in some capacity, I'm going to judge it in that capacity. The last time it was brought up, it was to demand default respect to people like RH from people like me.
As I said before, there can be something very noble in dying for a cause (and living for it), but the cause itself cause has to be noble in order to demand the kind of respect you're looking. The US doesn't expect its citizens to show a special respect to military troops in foreign countries who shout anti-American slurs and declare the US an enemy, and you certainly don't express gratitude to the French for vital military support in the past. Don't demand what you're not willing to give.
Gee, last time I try to talk about understanding and moderatation to Hoodlum in your presence. Are you sure you aren't keen on the military, because you sure are hostile as all
I'm not hostile to the military.
I wasn't talking about your view on the military, I was talking about you being hostile to other people. Because you are. I know that I frequently come off as hostile or adversarial without meaning to, but you seem to be going out of your way to do so.
Nah, 'cause as detestable as I think their message is, I agree with the Supreme Court that it's constitutionally protected free speech, and that in all likelihood all the state laws that sprung up to stop them protesting funerals aren't constitutional.
Oh, and I'd probably get in a jab about how no one cared about them protesting funerals until they started protesting the funerals of soldiers. Back when they only protested at the funerals of aids-victims it was A-OK, apparently.
Well, back when they were doing that, I didn't hear about it in the news.
Disturbing people at funerals diminishes the value of the memorial services they paid good money for, therefore it's action, not speech. If they don't like the war in Afghanistan, they can write a book or a letter to the editor. That's the kind of speech that should be Constitutionally protected.
Current Supreme Court decisions in the U.S. have interpreted the First Amendment in an overly broad fashion, in my opinion. People should not be put in jail because of the opinions they express, no matter how vile the community may regard that opinion - so it should be perfectly legal to write a book explaining why the U.S. should follow the lead of Nazi Germany in setting up concentration camps.
But how you express your opinion should basically be fair game. Graffiti is still illegal. Noisy loudspeakers that disturb people are illegal.
What should have unlimited protection is rational argument, presented in an appropriate venue.
Slapping an NC-17 rating on a movie which presents ethnic stereotypes, on the other hand, should not be a problem.
Laws that ban panhandling should not be a problem.
Prohibiting conduct likely to inspire a violent riot should not be a problem. That would take care of the Westboro Baptist Church, I would think.
First, you are not Goldo. I responded to Goldo, not you. Yes, YOU may have trouble with word choice, but Goldo doesn't. At least not to that extent. He knows what he writes and what kind of a response he can elicit through his word choice.
I'm a foreign speaker (are you?) who has a certain talent for language, have experienced many of the problems goldo claims to also have, and have been accused of much the same with pretty much the same arguments. Personal feelings aside it would be hypocritical of me to not extend the same courtesy to that I'm extending to all other foreign speakers and would very much appreciate myself.
It is because of the way he represents his point. I can say to you, "I disagree with your point" or I can say "you are ridiculous, and your points are ridiculous." You can easily imply that by calling you ridiculous I am disagreeing with you. Yet, the second way of stating it is meant to provoke you. Word choice matters and Goldo knows that. You, like others, give him little credit. He isn't a dumb guy. He has interacted with plenty of English speakers (Canada has many English speakers).
Furthermore, he makes an effort. The thing is that the effort he makes is to provoke.
There's a difference between being blunt and being a troll. Goldo's bluntness might come across as worse, because not thinking about your posts often have more disastrous results when you're not completely familiar with the language. He's making a double effort to be rude, or a double lack of effort to be polite, and while the first is within his own control, I wouldn't assume the latter is. There are also plenty of posts here I'd peg as aiming to offend if most people didn't act like they're totally acceptable, so I have no indication that rudeness isn't just the kind of stuff people of another culture expects everybody to put up with.
Since goldo often includes stuff I would appreciate more in a debate than what frequently happens here (not necessarily his opinions, not even the words, but the method), such as making actual explanations (acceptable or not) to his posts, tends towards insulting his opponent as part of a debate and often aims more at statements than people, doesn't usually quote other people's personal attacks to agree with them, and is ideologically consistent, it doesn't seem like trolling to me. He sometimes annoy me in a different way than some other people, but he doesn't annoy me more.
It's true, there are a lot of times when he is attacked for his stance on some subject. That just reinforces his behavior (word choice). He gets a rise out of people. They become angry and insult him. Which means he got an emotional reaction from them. So he gets what he wanted.
What an awful lot you know about goldo. People also know a lot about me, including stuff I have never done and wouldn't even have had the chance to. So forgive me for taking it with a grain of salt. He admits he likes pissing certain people off. So do others. Several posters, including at least one who proceed to start to post here, took pride in roaming the 4E boards merely to talk about how much 4E sucks. Some posters in Astrid's admitted they just wanted to argue with 'the feminists', spent most of their time trying to prevent others from having any conversation, and/or openly stated that they aimed to get the board closed. And I've already mentioned people here.
html_removed
html_removed
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->Erato,
Maybe you're right. We Americans are unfamiliar with the Danish experience. However, you and people like you make sweeping generalities, religious fandamentalism and fondness of war anyone?
Of course, national stereotypes are based on generalisations. People from a certain nation tend towards a certain behaviour, and regardless of the fact that plenty of people in that country don't fit the stereotype, they nonetheless become known for it anyway (and in some cases, the stereotype is simply created, such as a long list of French military defeats leading to the stereotype of French cowardice (mainly in the US, and possibly Britain), something which, btw, is pretty insulting to countries with many defeats behind them, who knows what an effort it is to build up a country after that).Often, it's more about what you do compared to others. Again, seeing yourself more as a foreigner might help with that. You guys have political candidates with a serious change of getting elected for your leading party who considers masturbation to be the enemy. It doesn't matter how moderate many Americans are, that's going to stick because it's very different compared to most Western countries. In the same way, I fully expect people to see nationalism and a dislike of foreigners to be a Danish characteristic (sadly acquired in less then a decade
When Micha suggested that Americans tended to be a certain way (fat loud-mouthed slobs), I simply corrected him that these weren't (in my experience) the American traits that people had the most problems with. Since national stereotypes are an ordinary part of my life, I didn't think more of it. It's not a special attempt at singling out Americans to generalise, but in exchanges between people from the US, and from somewhere else, there are certain things I see go wrong often. I can say the same about Danes, who often experience difficulties due to not respecting religion and not understanding many forms of offence.
Anyway, our experience is everytime something goes wrong we're the ones that are called on to fix it. Maybe if Denmark was called on to stop the "Red Menace" or "Terrorist Threat" instead of us, we would be more welcoming of your criticism but to us it just sounds like "what have you done for me lately" because you have been safe from invasion and have free medical care and things of that sort because you don't have to have a standing army of any note.
No, your countries remain safe because the power, both militarily and politically, that the US can exert on any threat that exists. We don't enjoy war but we're the ones that are called upon to fight them because countries like yours can't or won't.
Perhaps if you started seeing people more as allies, and started admitting that you have as much an interest in a safe world as anyone else, that would change. With the loudest advocate and representative of the US military (RH) saying what he does about me and my country, and all the Nordic countries for that matter, it's not just hard to believe the US army is operating solely for the good of others, it's hard to believe the good of anyone else is even a priority. And I know he doesn't represent your people, but if he represents your military (hence why being entitled to respect per default, regardless of whom he is as an individual) and you support your military like you seem to, then you have more nerve suggesting they're doing anything unselfish than all the criticism you (rightfully or not) perceive to be levelled at you.Denmark contribute to NATO, but with fewer the 1/50 population of what the US has, it's not going to be seen enough for the US to stop telling us how much we owe them no matter what. The US contributes a lot, but also have a booming military industry, soldiers who enjoy their work, more leeway in their treatment of human rights (though this is generally a choice more than an option, being a large military power does give you protection from sanctions that other countries don't enjoy), bragging rights, and a lot of influence (which is often used).
So excuse us, if we don't share your disrespect for the warriors that defend you without so much as a thank you. Hmmm, how bout the next time an earthquake hits, Denmark export your free health care to some of those who were effected instead of expecting us to do for it. Or how bout, NATO send a few planes over the next time Al Qaeda decides to attack us. You know, we've kind of busy for the last 50+ years. A little help, not much just a little would be nice.
The next time an earthquake hits, Denmark is probably going to respond by contributing with more food and more healthcare per inhabitant than the US. As always.
Sorry for the extra long quote job but I wanted it made clear what I am responding to.
Erato,
It is kind of hard to see other countries as allies when all they do is bitch and moan about how we do the things (most times) asked of us. Its like the stuff in Rwanda or even Bosnia. All we hear is "you didn't do enough", "you didn't get there soon enough", or "why couldn't you just have left well enough alone".
Do I realize that we are not always respected and often feared? Yes. But if you really don't like us being your friend and helping out where we're needed then quit asking for our help. If the world would stop asking us to fix things, you can bet there would be enough popular support at home that we would do just that.
It gets tiresome for us to defend the way we do things. If you don't like it, vote for change. Encourage your German neighbors to tell us to close our bases there. If Saudi Arabia told us to get out, we probably would but as far as I know they haven't (my knowledge on that subject is limited so I could be very wrong.)
Yes a safe world is in our interest and it is in your interest too so its a two way street. Can't you see how hypocritical it is to ask for or expect our help and then to bitch about the way we do it?
I personally have no experience in the military but as I've stated in other threads my brother and my Dad and a lot of my uncles cousins served or are serving. I get a little defensive when people don't respect the things they do or have done.
I'm a foreign speaker (are you?) who has a certain talent for language, have experienced many of the problems goldo claims to also have, and have been accused of much the same with pretty much the same arguments. Personal feelings aside it would be hypocritical of me to not extend the same courtesy to that I'm extending to all other foreign speakers and would very much appreciate myself.
Yes, English is my second language. My first is Spanish.
There's a difference between being blunt and being a troll.
Funny, I have never accused Goldo of being a troll.
Goldo's bluntness might come across as worse, because not thinking about your posts often have more disastrous results when you're not completely familiar with the language. He's making a double effort to be rude, or a double lack of effort to be polite, and while the first is within his own control, I wouldn't assume the latter is. There are also plenty of posts here I'd peg as aiming to offend if most people didn't act like they're totally acceptable, so I have no indication that rudeness isn't just the kind of stuff people of another culture expects everybody to put up with.
I don't think Canadians expect others to put up with rudeness. Why myst you insult Canada? What did Canada ever do to you?
There are plenty of English speakers in Canada. I'm willing to bet that Goldo has interacted with many. He has a pretty good handle on the language. He can get his point across just fine.
Since goldo often includes stuff I would appreciate more in a debate than what frequently happens here (not necessarily his opinions, not even the words, but the method), such as making actual explanations (acceptable or not) to his posts, tends towards insulting his opponent as part of a debate and often aims more at statements than people, doesn't usually quote other people's personal attacks to agree with them, and is ideologically consistent, it doesn't seem like trolling to me. He sometimes annoy me in a different way than some other people, but he doesn't annoy me more.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. you got a bit confusing. I'll chalk it up to English not being your first language.
What an awful lot you know about goldo.
What can I say? I enjoy reading his posts and the reactions he gets.
People also know a lot about me, including stuff I have never done and wouldn't even have had the chance to. So forgive me for taking it with a grain of salt. He admits he likes pissing certain people off. So do others. Several posters, including at least one who proceed to start to post here, took pride in roaming the 4E boards merely to talk about how much 4E sucks. Some posters in Astrid's admitted they just wanted to argue with 'the feminists', spent most of their time trying to prevent others from having any conversation, and/or openly stated that they aimed to get the board closed. And I've already mentioned people here. html_removed
html_removed
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
Yes, he has admitted to enjoying pissing people off. He is good at it. He has a pretty good mastery of the English language with which to do so. The rest of your examples just show that he isn't the only one who enjoys this type of behavior.
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
I wasn't talking about your view on the military, I was talking about you being hostile to other people. Because you are. I know that I frequently come off as hostile or adversarial without meaning to, but you seem to be going out of your way to do so.
Perhaps that's what annoys me. You don't even have to make an effort for it
I'm actually halfway serious about this, many of the things American nationalists and most ardent fans of the military say are highly provocative, and only go because most people aren't that nationalistic. The idea that soldiers can demand special respect per default (undemocratic, goes completely against the nature of respect to begin with, goes against the very unselfishness that's claimed as the reason for the respect), the idea that even people who mock you and declare you the enemy are entitled to respect for 'protecting' you (even though it's clear the same respect will not be extended to a liberal, social-democratic, socialist, or social-liberal soldier in Afghanistan), the claims about what others are saying about the US and its military even in the face of people outright stating that this isn't the case (as well as the tendency to ignore those people and repeat the claim with just as little proof or explanation as the first time), the exploitation of superior numbers and position to point fingers, hiding behind dead soldiers and expecting credit for their deeds, dismissal of contributions combined with accusations of not making them ("the next time an earthquake hits, Denmark export your free health care to some of those who were effected instead of expecting us to do for it") etc. etc.
You are unbelievably offensive, and you do it so offhandedly it just adds a whole new layer to it, because you're not only expecting people to put up with it, you also demand respect and see every objection as a personal insult. I'm still not clear on where exactly you (general you) got all the stuff I and others were supposed to have said about the US military, especially not because it's so specific and yet doesn't appear in any other posts, but despite numerous statements of this, I haven't gotten just a single quote and an explanation for where it came from. Of course I'm hostile, considering how big a reaction came from a whole bunch of you over a few statements, most of which were explained, whole at the same time directing some pretty obvious attacks on everybody else, basically going "your **** country have such an inferior culture that they don't even know how to show respect to us". I'm trying really hard to not be prejudged, but this thread keeps telling me that whatever anti-American stereotypes exist, they don't seem very far removed form reality.
Just a frickin' suggestion, princess.
Not to mention that the whole "well if you don't like it, just leave" argument never really works, and kinda ignores the whole point of whatever discussion is at hand, no?
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->I wasn't talking about your view on the military, I was talking about you being hostile to other people. Because you are. I know that I frequently come off as hostile or adversarial without meaning to, but you seem to be going out of your way to do so.
Perhaps that's what annoys me. You don't even have to make an effort for it
No, with you it's mostly on purpose. Because you act even more arrogant and self-centered than I did when I was in high school. And I was bad, I was an arrogant little
who probably could have stood to have someone come up to him and beat the snot out of him and then explain to him why afterwards.See, I don't like talking to you because I wouldn't mind slapping the crap out of you, but I don't have the patience to explain the reasons to you. I'm not the guy for the job.
Best toys, best logistics, and top tier training.
= the best.
Actually, I heard that Isreal had the best military. It doesn't hurt their standing however that we are basically their army's Sharper Image catalogue.
Sorry for the extra long quote job but I wanted it made clear what I am responding to.
I'll avoid taking up more space and let people go back themselves. Your reasoning relies on several premises, such as people asking you (the way I remember it, the US took the initiative in both Afghanistan and Iraq, thus doing the asking), 'people' being one big homogeneous mass of non-America, other countries not contributing, etc. But as I've already said, you give as well as you get. You make various offensive statements about us all the time, often we just to choose to laugh (at you, granted) instead of getting angry. You also have to count on different countries having different opinions (I can't recall a lot of decisions being commented on by foreign nations here that didn't include lots of different opinions either).
And your assumption that others don't help out doesn't make it better. While Bush was unusually friendly and made a big deal about the 'coalition of the willing' or whatever it was, when it came to supporting an unpopular war, most of the time we don't get that kind of credit. You didn't even seem to consider that there are Danish (and many other) troops involved in various of wars your country is fighting. Your seemed to outright claim that Danes (and again, many others) don't help out in emergencies, despite Denmark and the rest of the Nordic countries being pretty consistently in the top when it comes to financial aid to disaster areas.
So no matter if we fight in wars with the US or not, we'll be criticised for not doing it. No matter if we donate emergency aid or not, we'll be told we're not contributing. No matter what we actually say, we'll be told that 'you' asked for it whenever the US interferes. When we act in response to a dilemma the US will never have to face in a way they don't like, we're criticised for it, and when we do what they (believe they) would have done, we're forgotten. Sorry, but things aren't exactly looking rosy from over here.
html_removed
html_removed
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
And I'll climb off my horse when everyone else climbs off theirs.
I find it funny that for over a month I kept my nose out of the arguements that takes place here despite how offensive I found them but as soon as I start speaking my mind like everybody else I'm the one offending people and its not to be tolerated.
Erato says offensive things all the frickin' time and then demands we show her where she said them and then when people show her its "Well that's not what I meant. It's my struggle with the english language you see."
If she can't say what she means then she shouldn't speak.
Maybe my language is crude and rather rude but there is no ambiguity in the way I say things and I'm pretty proud of that.
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
See, I don't like talking to you because I wouldn't mind slapping the crap out of you, but I don't have the patience to explain the reasons to you. I'm not the guy for the job.
So you talk to me enough to quote some of what I say, state that you're offended and I suck, but not provide any explanation, you're been doing it from the start, and yet you somehow conclude that I'm the arrogant one. Couldn't you for once actually make good of your claim of not continuing this discussion instead of just baiting.
Best toys, best logistics, and top tier training.
= the best.
Actually, I heard that Isreal had the best military. It doesn't hurt their standing however that we are basically their army's Sharper Image catalogue.
Pound for pound, the Isrealis have quite possibly the best military in the world. Unfortunately (for them), quantity is a quality of its own, and some less sophisticated, less well trained militaries are stronger because of sheer numbers.
That said, anyone who thinks they are going to get the Isrealis out of what is now Isreal needs their head examined. The amount of materials and human life sacrificed for such an endevour would be horrific. Let them be.
If only the Isrealis and Palestinians would take that attitude towards each other. But each side is afraid to be the first one to put their guns down.
Best toys, best logistics, and top tier training.
= the best.
Actually, I heard that Isreal had the best military. It doesn't hurt their standing however that we are basically their army's Sharper Image catalogue.
Yep at discount rates too. And we're generally nice enough to them to provide them basic training with the new toys we give them.
And then they train their soldiers with it.
Israel has probably the best trained, and one of the best equipped armies on the planet. I don't think their logistic capabilities measure up to our own though, since they generally don't have to be across the world and Deployed 96 hours or less.
As Escef above just said. Anyone that thinks that they are going to get Israel off the map without nuclear weapons is crazy. At least among their neighbors and probably a very large swath of Europe too come to think of it.
But this isn't a conversation Escher, its a series of inflamatory remarks by both sides and then denials which is what I said.
And I'll climb off my horse when everyone else climbs off theirs.
I find it funny that for over a month I kept my nose out of the arguements that takes place here despite how offensive I found them but as soon as I start speaking my mind like everybody else I'm the one offending people and its not to be tolerated.
Erato says offensive things all the frickin' time and then demands we show her where she said them and then when people show her its "Well that's not what I meant. It's my struggle with the english language you see."
If she can't say what she means then she shouldn't speak.
Maybe my language is crude and rather rude but there is no ambiguity in the way I say things and I'm pretty proud of that.
I don't demand any special respect. I don't require you to be in awe of what my country is doing, I don't even require you to agree. You can agree or disagree with me as you like, and barring harassment, you can give me all the respect or lack of same as you want.
I have been very clear in many of my questions. I have said that I did not say that the US military consisted of criminals and retards as you (I believe) claimed, and you have yet to show me where I said it. Pluisjen and I have both stated that when we talk about sucking up, currying favour, and otherwise getting goodwill from another country, there is no indication on our part that this requires an active effort from the receiving country, let alone a threatening one. So far, no one has explained if this is the case in English, and in so fall, how to otherwise phrase it. Quoting something again,, repeat that it means something else, and using words that were nowhere in the original statement, is not proof Idolis.
So I'll ask you again: Where did I state that the US army consisted of criminals and retards? In which way is one supposed to communicate in English one country's decision to do something in order to get on the good side of another country that haven't used any coercion? Why did you make the accusation that Denmark doesn't offer medical aid to people in disaster areas right after telling about how people failed to be grateful to the US?
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->See, I don't like talking to you because I wouldn't mind slapping the crap out of you, but I don't have the patience to explain the reasons to you. I'm not the guy for the job.
So you talk to me enough to quote some of what I say, state that you're offended and I suck, but not provide any explanation, you're been doing it from the start, and yet you somehow conclude that I'm the arrogant one. Couldn't you for once actually make good of your claim of not continuing this discussion instead of just baiting.
If you think I'm baiting, report me. And I was ignoring you until you jumped on me for something I said to Hoodlum. I addressed Hoodlum in post #258, then you jumped on me in post #260, and I responded in post #263. The last time I had addressed you was post #153. I left you be for over 100 posts, until you jumped on me. You said a lot of crap in the meantime that I disagreed with, but I stayed silent. But if you think I'm going to just sit here while you straw man me you're
ing crazy.Sorry for the extra long quote job but I wanted it made clear what I am responding to.
I'll avoid taking up more space and let people go back themselves. Your reasoning relies on several premises, such as people asking you (the way I remember it, the US took the initiative in both Afghanistan and Iraq, thus doing the asking), 'people' being one big homogeneous mass of non-America, other countries not contributing, etc. But as I've already said, you give as well as you get. You make various offensive statements about us all the time, often we just to choose to laugh (at you, granted) instead of getting angry. You also have to count on different countries having different opinions (I can't recall a lot of decisions being commented on by foreign nations here that didn't include lots of different opinions either).
And your assumption that others don't help out doesn't make it better. While Bush was unusually friendly and made a big deal about the 'coalition of the willing' or whatever it was, when it came to supporting an unpopular war, most of the time we don't get that kind of credit. You didn't even seem to consider that there are Danish (and many other) troops involved in various of wars your country is fighting. Your seemed to outright claim that Danes (and again, many others) don't help out in emergencies, despite Denmark and the rest of the Nordic countries being pretty consistently in the top when it comes to financial aid to disaster areas.
So no matter if we fight in wars with the US or not, we'll be criticised for not doing it. No matter if we donate emergency aid or not, we'll be told we're not contributing. No matter what we actually say, we'll be told that 'you' asked for it whenever the US interferes. When we act in response to a dilemma the US will never have to face in a way they don't like, we're criticised for it, and when we do what they (believe they) would have done, we're forgotten. Sorry, but things aren't exactly looking rosy from over here. html_removed html_removed
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
Yeah, okay. But I said you sent a token force to "our" wars but how this whole thing got started and what brought me into the conversation was your and Pluisjen's assertion that you're only there because of undo pressure (possibly the threat of invasion but I'm not sure) from the United States government. That your leaders are puppets of the USA and you can't possibly elect leaders that won't bow to the US's every whim.
That's what I was offended by.
The rest, well that came from reading numerous threads that were closed that I took no stand on the time but I took the opportunity to state my opinions on them. Basically, this is all a giant exhale of pent up emotions and thoughts that I've had on various subjects that have been discussed recently.
That being said, the countries of Europe were just as bad as us (sometimes worse) when they were our age. The only difference is that we have more technology than they did when they were "sowing their wild oats".
One thing that gets my goat is that a lot of foreign people mistake U.S. citizens for "The U.S." Just because we all have a say in our governmental policy doesn't mean that we agree with everything it does. Most Americans are too busy trying to make ends meet to educate themselves about every political candidate and read the actual text of proposed laws.
Yeah, okay. But I said you sent a token force to "our" wars but how this whole thing got started and what brought me into the conversation was your and Pluisjen's assertion that you're only there because of undo pressure (possibly the threat of invasion but I'm not sure) from the United States government. That your leaders are puppets of the USA and you can't possibly elect leaders that won't bow to the US's every whim.
That's what I was offended by.
The rest, well that came from reading numerous threads that were closed that I took no stand on the time but I took the opportunity to state my opinions on them. Basically, this is all a giant exhale of pent up emotions and thoughts that I've had on various subjects that have been discussed recently.
Again, please stop making it about pressure. We were making the statement that it was a common perception in our countries that our governments had mainly gone along (not being forced) with the war in Iraq (not any other war) because they wanted a more favourable relationship with the US (which doesn't include anything about fearing an invasion). Look up the actual quotes, there wasn't anything about force in it, and I'm continuously baffled as to how it got interpreted that way.
The only things I can remember which came close to pressure on behalf of the US, were boycotts and disapproval. Not always an easy thing for a small country, but not anywhere near enough count as force. Neither Pluisjen's or my post said anything about that, and I'm sorry if you got that impression, and would sincerely like to know if there's something in the posts which caused it, and a way to avoid it.
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
Yeah, okay. But I said you sent a token force to "our" wars but how this whole thing got started and what brought me into the conversation was your and Pluisjen's assertion that you're only there because of undo pressure (possibly the threat of invasion but I'm not sure) from the United States government. That your leaders are puppets of the USA and you can't possibly elect leaders that won't bow to the US's every whim.
That's what I was offended by.
The rest, well that came from reading numerous threads that were closed that I took no stand on the time but I took the opportunity to state my opinions on them. Basically, this is all a giant exhale of pent up emotions and thoughts that I've had on various subjects that have been discussed recently.
Again, please stop making it about pressure. We were making the statement that it was a common perception in our countries that our governments had mainly gone along (not being forced) with the war in Iraq (not any other war) because they wanted a more favourable relationship with the US (which doesn't include anything about fearing an invasion). Look up the actual quotes, there wasn't anything about force in it, and I'm continuously baffled as to how it got interpreted that way.
The only things I can remember which came close to pressure on behalf of the US, were boycotts and disapproval. Not always an easy thing for a small country, but not anywhere near enough count as force. Neither Pluisjen's or my post said anything about that, and I'm sorry if you got that impression, and would sincerely like to know if there's something in the posts which caused it, and a way to avoid it.
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
You don't see those statements as basically saying your involvement in Iraq is the USA's fault? That your government is in the pocket or in fear of what would happen if they refused?
But this isn't a conversation Escher, its a series of inflamatory remarks by both sides and then denials which is what I said.
Looks like, sounds like, moves like.
I find it funny that for over a month I kept my nose out of the arguements that takes place here despite how offensive I found them but as soon as I start speaking my mind like everybody else I'm the one offending people and its not to be tolerated.
Meh. Offend people all you want. What I find over-the-line is telling someone they just shouldn't speak to Americans at all. That's over the line, and way against what our nation fights for.
And if it's any comfort, I responded to what *you* said because I actually read it. For the most part I don't even bother reading Erato's wall-of-text wars with people.
You don't see those statements as basically saying your involvement in Iraq is the USA's fault? That your government is in the pocket or in fear of what would happen if they refused?
No. If our governments are in the pocket, they placed themselves there. The US seems a bit more eager than many other countries to show their displeasure with people who don't agree with them, they're not prone to crossing the line into crime when it comes to their allies.
There was a pizza baker here who refused French and German customers because he thought they should have supported the Iraqi war. The courts here ruled it was illegal discrimination, as individuals are not representative of their government, but the US army showed it's support for the discrimination by ordering a pizza from the guy. It wasn't exactly what we'd call a classy move, especially not in the context of the war allegedly being at least partly motivated to oppose discrimination (Sunni against Shia), but it also wasn't anything but symbolic. And that, along with the term 'freedom fries', is what we remember best about the treatment of countries opposed to the war.
The government here have made lots of decisions which has cost us money and goodwill, and whatever Bush would do, it wasn't likely to be worse than the boycott and attacks from the Middle East we suffered because of some silly drawings of Muhammed, and you wont see the government regret that. So if the government had truly had an ideological opposition to invading Iraq, we wouldn't have gone.
Taking the wishes of larger countries in account, and measuring what you stand to lose and gain for various decisions, is just politics. Dirty politics perhaps, but politics nonetheless. The current government chose to cast their lot with the US (and probably just as much with Britain), and probably wouldn't have supported the war if it wasn't proposed by president Bush. But that doesn't make their decision to join the fault of the US, and it doesn't make Bush a tyrant, whatever else people might think about him.
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
And if it's any comfort, I responded to what *you* said because I actually read it. For the most part I don't even bother reading Erato's wall-of-text wars with people.
I'm sorry
But when I try to keep things short, people read a lot more into it than when there's more to read. The two most controversial statements I've made in this thread are among the shortest, and the ones most misinterpreted.It looked to me like those statements were feeding into the hyperbole that America is an empire and that other governments are incapable of thinking for themselves.
I apologize (even though I said I wouldn't).
You do realize technology far outstrips numbers right? (See how Brittain held out. It wasn't because of a little strip of water. It was due to Radar, superior aircraft, and lots of funding from the US.)
Who's fault was it that you didn't even keep a Token force after WW1? Or that during WW1 or before that you didn't go conquering new territory (even if it is remote from your location) to make sure you could keep up at least someone in a resource race?
But then, when you're a little fish country that expects everyone else to bail you out of the fire, I guess military tech to compensate for small numbers doesn't really enter the picture either.
Hell just retreating back with your army (had it even existed in the first place), to rally several of the smaller countries together could have done quite abit of damage to germany. Possibly enough to take the load off of poor Brittain's back as it got the snot beat of it.
Or had France not just cheaped out on the Magineau (sp cause I am pretty much illiterate with French) they could have held the Germans in place for quite a while. When they attacked what -was- there of the Line it took them quite a while to break it. Again it could have bought time.
And maybe had the small fish rallied, and france had the Line of Doom in place maybe Hitler would have given up, once he lost in Russia.
Brittain did a hell of alot more to save the Jews than Denmark, and it's own people. Had they not been able to even hold on as long as they did before lend lease it's quite likely that the Jewish ethnic group would have been completely exterminated. Danish efforts or no.
Ok, I don't think you have any idea what the Netherlands are, so I'm going to give you a quick overview.
Who's fault was it that you didn't even keep a Token force after WW1?
The full standing Dutch military is about as big as what you would call a "token force". Keep in mind the USA has 20 times as many inhabitants, so logically our army would be 20 times smaller then yours. We cannot field a big military, we don't have the bodies.
Or that during WW1 or before that you didn't go conquering new territory (even if it is remote from your location) to make sure you could keep up at least someone in a resource race?
Conquer territory with what, exactly? We don't have the manpower to capture anything anymore. And a colony on the far side of the world isn't exactly very beneficial in the middle of a war. We had some, and they didn't exactly tip the scales.
Hell just retreating back with your army
Retreat where? The Netherlands are completely flat and have no natural terrain whatsoever. We took down the forests, there's never been any hills or mountains, it's all city. We have Germany on one side and the Canal on the other side. The only place we could "retreat" was England, meaning we'd still have surrendered. The only option would be Belgium, expect they're just as small as we are so that wouldn't help much.
military tech to compensate for small numbers
Paid from where? Military tech is expensive regardless of population size, we don't have the money needed to pay for it. It doesn't matter if you have 15 or 300 million people, technological breakthrough cost the same kind of money, making them incredibly hard for us to achieve on our own.
And maybe had the small fish rallied, and france had the Line of Doom in place maybe Hitler would have given up, once he lost in Russia.
All the small fish combined would still have an army less then half the size of Germanies'. Also, Hitler was allied with Russia until after he conquered the rest of Europe, so he wouldn't have attacked Russia anyway.
As for some more information on the Netherlands. We have no natural resources. Just about anything we have, we import. Most of it came from Germany. If they stop supplying, we don't have anything to build weapons from. We won't even have enough food, since most of that is imported as well.
Our population density is almost 15 times higher then that of the USA. Nearly everything in the Netherlands is city. If you combine this with the fact that the USA has 20 times more people you should realise that the US is 300 times bigger then we are. We are dependant on trade for everything simply because we don't have any natural resources. You know what our main export product is? Knowledge and technology. It's the only thing we can reliably produce here, since we don't have the natural resources for anything else and lack the room to produce our own food... if you cut our trade, the population starves. And guess what Germany can do pretty easily if they can control the canal? You can surround this entire country like an old medieval city and starve it to death. We can't fight that.
Also, if technology made up for numbers, the Germans could've never lost the war. Their tanks were so powerful that American soldiers shat their pants (figuratively, probably... but you never know) when it was even mentioned they'd have to fight them. Yet the Russians managed to defeat the Germans on their side with sheer numbers and massproduced cheap tanks.
And yeah, in comparison the Germans could easily overwhelm us with their numbers, even if you forgot for a moment they had one of the best militaries in the world at the time.
Funny, I have never accused Goldo of being a troll.
No, but the things you're accusing him of doing are among the definitions of a troll.
I don't think Canadians expect others to put up with rudeness. Why myst you insult Canada? What did Canada ever do to you?
I didn't insult Canada. When in a foreign country, there is a good chance of the natives doing something that's rude by your standards. Pluisjen and I are good examples, what we say is being perceived as something completely different than what we think we're telling, and yet the incredible rudeness and ignorant comments from Americans here are being brushed aside by most of their fellow citizens as meaning nothing.
In both Denmark and Holland, people expect you to put up with people's explanations for various political motivations being less glamorised than they seem to be in America. In America, you have to put up with the attitude that, even though the US itself has never done it, they fully expect you to be willing to sacrifice most of your civilian population to offer a token resistance, rather than live to fight another day. Both of these tendencies come across as rude to people on the outside, but not to natives.
There are plenty of English speakers in Canada. I'm willing to bet that Goldo has interacted with many. He has a pretty good handle on the language. He can get his point across just fine.
The same has been said about me, so I'm not that inclined to trust people's ability to perceive where a language problem lie. Since goldo has now said he doesn't have problems with word nuances, that's what I'll go with, but if he didn't, it'd be entirely plausible too.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. you got a bit confusing. I'll chalk it up to English not being your first language.
Thank you, most people don't give that courtesy. The short version is that the way he argues is less insulting and more constructive, in relation to the way I'm raised. Or in other words, goldo's way of arguing would be what I'd do if I only wanted to be mildly insulting or just didn't care about being insulting. The method of several other posters here is how I'd argue if I had no intention of doing anything constructive and just wanted to be offensive. I recognise that others feel differently, but I'm not willing to simply assume that goldo does too unless he says so.
Yes, he has admitted to enjoying pissing people off. He is good at it. He has a pretty good mastery of the English language with which to do so. The rest of your examples just show that he isn't the only one who enjoys this type of behavior.
And yet he's being called out on it far more often.
Ok, I don't think you have any idea what the Netherlands are, so I'm going to give you a quick overview.
(...)
Something I wanted to say for a while:
It's easy to feel powerful, magnificent and indestructible when all your enemies are conveniently overseas.
The guy keeps telling to people they are stupid, ignorant and communists.
That's because they are.
You are just a sad individual who cannot even have a conversation with someone he disagrees without insulting them of misinterpreting their comments.
Not with "someone" goldo, just you.
Either because you are a pitiful under bridge dweller or because you are just loathsome and pathetic. Suck my ****en **** ****. [censored] you prick.
I really wanted to report this, but that's not my style.
So, I will just quote it here and let people make up their own minds about you.
Okay then. We are in agreement that the government you elected is responsible for the Danish presence in Iraq. Good to know. I don't think I would have been offended if you have left the USA out of that statement but it looked to me like you were saying the opposite. It looked to me like you and Pluisjen were saying that your governments can't do anything without the USA's approval and I took offense to that.
It looked to me like those statements were feeding into the hyperbole that America is an empire and that other governments are incapable of thinking for themselves.
I apologize (even though I said I wouldn't).
There's not really any way Pluisjen and I could have said what we said by leaving the USA out of it. It would have been like "in our countries many people believe that the government went to war in Iraq because the government wanted to go to war in Iraq". It's superfluous and pretty nonsensical. Here, no one is confusing political favours with being under threat. They are two different things, and just because your government choose to throw your lot with another country it doesn't indicate that said country have done anything wrong (in that regard at least). But it also doesn't make said country a non-factor in the decision.
Sorry to keep this going, but it's sort of a dilemma for me. The funny thing about being considered rude and aggressive, is that even though no one believe you'd abstain from directly saying something insulting, a lot of them still assume that there's some hidden insult in a lot of what you say. Believe me, if I was going to say that the US made Denmark go to war, I would have said just that, but it seems there's no way to actually say what Pluisjen and I said without provoking abnormally strong reactions and insults, even if what we said was not insulting.
Ok, I don't think you have any idea what the Netherlands are, so I'm going to give you a quick overview.
(...)
Something I wanted to say for a while:
It's easy to feel powerful, magnificent and indestructible when all your enemies are conveniently overseas.
I usually consider posting just to agree with a negative stance to be rude, but QFT. So ****ing QFT.
The pizzeria still made money which is all he cared about, I’d bet. Is there a subject you don’t blow out of proportion?
Money from one pizza? Who's blowing what out of proportion?
The pizzeria still made money which is all he cared about, I’d bet. Is there a subject you don’t blow out of proportion?Money from one pizza? Who's blowing what out of proportion?
Really Erato?
You think the Army bought ONE pizza?
Anyway, they were simply supporting a business that was supporting them.
Nothing at all wrong with that.
And Dragonbane is right.
If you put as much effort in improving your own country as you do in bashing mine, you might be a little better off.
As it is, I am glad more people are seeing through your BS.
If the US army only bought ONE pizza, I'd say you are...Stop.
Yes, it was a symbolic gesture. I don't know if the pizza baker contacted the press or if they found out, but they told about it, and he emerged on TV making his one pizza, telling about how proud he was for the gesture. The alternative would be the US army secretly having thousands of pizzas smuggled out of the country to be transported across the Atlantic, and the proud pizza baker choosing to not brag about it. I find that highly unlikely, but the purchase of a symbolic pizza (which will be nigh inedible when it finally gets there) fits well with calling fried potatoes 'freedom fries' and eating them with ketchup in the French national colours. If it had been anything but symbolic, I'm pretty sure they would found another way of doing it.
Something I wanted to say for a while:
It's easy to feel powerful, magnificent and indestructible when all your enemies are conveniently overseas.It feels good too. BTW we can still reach out and touch every square inch of the planet. That makes us feel good too.
Just like you touched Korea, Vietnam and Iraq?
And maybe you should learn a bit about a culture before claiming that it sucks. Poland has next to nothing in common with Dennmark or Netherlands for instance.
(actually, for centuries Poland was what USA may claim to be today - the first line of defence of the "civilised" [historically: Christian] world; except we actually had our enemies just east and south [and later west and north] of the border)
Ok, I don't think you have any idea what the Netherlands are, so I'm going to give you a quick overview.
The full standing Dutch military is about as big as what you would call a "token force". Keep in mind the USA has 20 times as many inhabitants, so logically our army would be 20 times smaller then yours. We cannot field a big military, we don't have the bodies.
Conquer territory with what, exactly? We don't have the manpower to capture anything anymore. And a colony on the far side of the world isn't exactly very beneficial in the middle of a war. We had some, and they didn't exactly tip the scales.
Retreat where? The Netherlands are completely flat and have no natural terrain whatsoever. We took down the forests, there's never been any hills or mountains, it's all city. We have Germany on one side and the Canal on the other side. The only place we could "retreat" was England, meaning we'd still have surrendered. The only option would be Belgium, expect they're just as small as we are so that wouldn't help much.
Paid from where? Military tech is expensive regardless of population size, we don't have the money needed to pay for it. It doesn't matter if you have 15 or 300 million people, technological breakthrough cost the same kind of money, making them incredibly hard for us to achieve on our own.
All the small fish combined would still have an army less then half the size of Germanies'. Also, Hitler was allied with Russia until after he conquered the rest of Europe, so he wouldn't have attacked Russia anyway.
As for some more information on the Netherlands. We have no natural resources. Just about anything we have, we import. Most of it came from Germany. If they stop supplying, we don't have anything to build weapons from. We won't even have enough food, since most of that is imported as well.
Our population density is almost 15 times higher then that of the USA. Nearly everything in the Netherlands is city. If you combine this with the fact that the USA has 20 times more people you should realise that the US is 300 times bigger then we are. We are dependant on trade for everything simply because we don't have any natural resources. You know what our main export product is? Knowledge and technology. It's the only thing we can reliably produce here, since we don't have the natural resources for anything else and lack the room to produce our own food... if you cut our trade, the population starves. And guess what Germany can do pretty easily if they can control the canal? You can surround this entire country like an old medieval city and starve it to death. We can't fight that.
Also, if technology made up for numbers, the Germans could've never lost the war. Their tanks were so powerful that American soldiers shat their pants (figuratively, probably... but you never know) when it was even mentioned they'd have to fight them. Yet the Russians managed to defeat the Germans on their side with sheer numbers and massproduced cheap tanks.
And yeah, in comparison the Germans could easily overwhelm us with their numbers, even if you forgot for a moment they had one of the best militaries in the world at the time.
Oh I don't know, moving the armed forces out of the country to areas that are more defensible perhaps?
Of course the Dutch and the danes weren't the only ones that played "yessir can we have some more?" Pretty much all the small countries did that. (and poland. And you can't tell me that Europe was so Dense as to not see the Germans coming. You don't build up that kind of manpower without various Intelligence communities taking notice. The Brits knew, the US knew and I'm pretty damned sure the French knew (as they started working on the Line again just as the Nazis started massing forces).
You put enough hornets on something it's going to die. Your little token countries had the capabiity of evacuating and redeploying north in say Norway. But didn't. Instead the Danes sunk their own Navy. Which geographically speaking would have been stupidly frustrating to try and take when you put in pockets of military units. (same reason why no one wants to invade switzerland.)
Sure the populace is going to suffer in war. But frankly Brittain had the balls to suffer. And they were carpet bombed. Over and Over and over again.
You don't need to match the size and -beat- them. You would have just needed to hold them off. For a bigger fish to have come along. (which could have been Russia, or maybe Brittain once they got a chance to rebuild) Anyone that would have thought either Hitler or Stalin wouldn't have broken that treaty would have been kidding themselves. But then this was an Era where nearly an entire continent was stupid enough to practically disarm themselves, with no natural boundaries to make invasion more difficult.
Europe decided, Germany and Russia aside to not keep any serious significant military forces after WW1. Which is what allowed Hitler to Steamroll everyone on the continent except for Russia. There's a lesson to be learned there.
Actually the Panzers were not that superior. They were very prone to mechanical failure and were overly complicated to make. Especially as the war raged on. They were also incredibly slow which allowed them to be out flanked. In the case of the Panzer vs the Russian T34 the T34 was superior. There are many accounts where the Germans would fire, the round would hit the T34 and it would keep coming. It didn't even have to shoot back. The Russians would just Ram the German tanks and break them.
Poland had some pretty good tanks as well. They just didn't have the numbers. Because of that silly disarm the military mindset that came after WW1.
The Germans were also a little outmatched in the air in their campaign against Brittain with the Spitfire and later the Triumph.
In the case of Brittain, you had many of the same if not more disadvantages the little landfish had in WW2. Know what kept them going? American backed funding, and supply chains. Something which would have quite likely been extended to the other countries that would have been willing to fight, since the US even armed the "Red Menace" to fight the germans before the US even entered the war.
If the US army only bought ONE pizza, I'd say you are...Stop.
Yes, it was a symbolic gesture. I don't know if the pizza baker contacted the press or if they found out, but they told about it, and he emerged on TV making his one pizza, telling about how proud he was for the gesture. The alternative would be the US army secretly having thousands of pizzas smuggled out of the country to be transported across the Atlantic, and the proud pizza baker choosing to not brag about it. I find that highly unlikely, but the purchase of a symbolic pizza (which will be nigh inedible when it finally gets there) fits well with calling fried potatoes 'freedom fries' and eating them with ketchup in the French national colours. If it had been anything but symbolic, I'm pretty sure they would found another way of doing it.
Wait a minute...
When you said the Army bought pizza, I thought you meant some soldiers from a nearby base bought pizzas.
So you are saying someone from the US (North America) ordered the pizza and had it shipped over the Atlantic?
I have never heard of that...
Oh I don't know, moving the armed forces out of the country to areas that are more defensible perhaps?
Dude... have you listened to what I said? Or looked at a map recently? If you are in The Netherlands, and you are fighting against Germany there is nowhere to go. The only way to relocate an army to Norway is straight through 300km of Germany.
Take a look at the map and info here:
www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=netherland...
They have this helpful big-ass arrow because we're just a little speck on the globe. If you look for a map of proximity you will notice that there is no way out of the country except straight through Germany, through Belgium (which was captured at the same speed) or across the canal, which was full of German ships.
Not to mention that we're not the USA. The Netherlands is not a european state, nor is it a province. It's a country. Even if we relocate the army off shore, our only hope is that somebody else pays the wages, supplies the troops with food and everything else, while the country is still captured and forced to surrender.
When you said the Army bought pizza, I thought you meant some soldiers from a nearby base bought pizzas.
It sounds like it wasn't so much "some dude" as it was "US politicians making a gesture by ordering a single pizza". I doubt they would've really cared if some guy ordered a pizza. The whole thing was probably a political gesture from the US to say "yes, we support discrimination" / "yes, all people who do not believe in this war our against us".
(and poland. And you can't tell me that Europe was so Dense as to not see the Germans coming. You don't build up that kind of manpower without various Intelligence communities taking notice. The Brits knew, the US knew and I'm pretty damned sure the French knew (as they started working on the Line again just as the Nazis started massing forces).
Actually, Polish government wanted to make a preemptive strike in 1936, but the international community vetoed that. You may also want to know that at first Hitler wanted to cooperate with Poland, only after he was declined he turned to Soviets.
Speaking of Soviets, it was their offensive on September 17th that was most unexpected. Poland was armed in the west, but not so much in the east. This and the Sitzkrieg were probably the man reasons behind the fall and following occupation.
And Cap'n...
I am not home right now, so I don't have access to my WWII library (which is extensive-I have thousands of dollars worth of hardback books on the subject), so I cannot be 100% sure, but I am 98% sure the Poles hardly had any tanks when WWII started, and those they did possess were old WWI designs.
But they did have an elite and effective calvary force.
Also, contrary to popular belief, most of the German Army was "leg" infantry. Very few units were actually "mechanized", but the "mechanized" units were very, very effective, mainly due to mobility and "shock" power.
Right there that is exactly my point. My opinions aren't extraordinary, but in these forums people react to what I say violently, like they are or like they never heard anything like it before.
You are correct. But let’s not forget that your word choices are what cause such a hostile reaction from certain people. You are smart enough to know that the way you state your opinion will cause certain types of responses.
I think you enjoy getting emotional responses from some people here. If you were actually offended and bothered by what others said to you, you would not continue to post on these forums.
I know some of my ideas will raise anger. So should I shut up? Because this is what basically people want. If Mark Twain used the words assassins in uniformes to talk about US soldiers, he was just saying his opinion, even if it sturded up anger. Should he have used life extinquishers in suits, censoring himself because some people do not like what he thinks?I never used my lacunes in English other then justify my grammatical and spelling errors (and some stuff I do not understand). The words I chose reflect my opinions. I do not chose them to provoke people, but I do know that my opinions will provoke people. That is their problem, not mine.I never pretended this. You are placing words in my mouth. Like RH and Idolis placed some in Erato and Plu's. The more I read and the more I am wondering if English speakers on these boards are the ones who need to learn how to read posts.First, I would never put you in the same group as Plu. You actually believe in what you say. Plu has previously admitted that he is a hypocrite who makes random statements to get others angry and he doesn’t actually believe in what he says. He also admitted to feeling like the incredible hulk. Don’t make him angry. You won’t like him when he is angry… blah blah blah…
I have more respect for you than that. As for Erato… she gets offended pretty easily. Also, as far as I have seen, you have never said that what a few people here post has offended the entire country of Canada. Erato makes some silly claims that what two people on a D&D forum say has somehow offended the entire country of Denmark. You may make some funny claims, but at least you have never made such a truly ridiculous claim.
If you feel that I am putting words in your mouth, ten I apologize. That was not my intent. In any case, yes, your opinions may provoke others. That isn’t the point. The point is how you express your opinion. A while back there was a thread (if I am not mistaken, it was started by you) about some hostage that was skilled when a U.S. soldier threw a grenade. After a follow up article was published where it was found that the soldier had not informed his commanding officer about having thrown the grenade. He was found to have caused her death (I might be mistaken… can’t remember). Your response was something to the effect of gloating because he was found to have had culpability in the hostage’s death. You made a statement about gloating over this. You made a few people angry (RH I think). The gloating wasn’t supporting your point of view was it?
And yes I am blunt, impolite, rude and arrogant. Sue me. No one is perfect. I just find it very hypocritical that a lot of people are on my back and RH is spared all the critism. The guy keeps telling to people they are stupid, ignorant and communists.That is true. People tend to give RH and others a free pass. I agree that they should get the same treatment that you do. My intent was not to criticize you. I am merely making an observation that other people give you very little credit when they call you stupid and ridiculous. You aren’t stupid or ridiculous. You are quite smart and you show that by your word choice when making a statement. You know exactly how people will react to what you say because of how you say it. You are purposefully blunt, impolite, rude, and arrogant. You are all those things because you choose to be so when making those statements.
I’m pretty sure you don’t speak the same way to your boss as you do to people here. it isn’t as if you lack the self control to speak to others in a cordial manner. You choose not to on your own. You do it purposefully. It gets your point across and it makes some people angry enough to respond to you with hostility. But you already know that. I am merely telling you this for the fun of it. It is nothing new to you.
Oh!
And Cap'n...
I am not home right now, so I don't have access to my WWII library (which is extensive-I have thousands of dollars worth of hardback books on the subject), so I cannot be 100% sure, but I am 98% sure the Poles hardly had any tanks when WWII started, and those they did possess were old WWI designs.
But they did have an elite and effective calvary force.
Also, contrary to popular belief, most of the German Army was "leg" infantry. Very few units were actually "mechanized", but the "mechanized" units were very, very effective, mainly due to mobility and "shock" power.
Yeah, those weird dual-barreled jokes on tracks. Well, maybe they weren't that awful, but still pretty bad.
But the cavalry is still remembered, even if it sounds weird at first.
Oh, and they had some rather good anti-tank rifles from what I know.
RH, do you happen to have any books by Norman Davies?
Oh I don't know, moving the armed forces out of the country to areas that are more defensible perhaps?
Dude... have you listened to what I said? Or looked at a map recently? If you are in The Netherlands, and you are fighting against Germany there is nowhere to go. The only way to relocate an army to Norway is straight through 300km of Germany.
Take a look at the map and info here:
www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=netherland...
They have this helpful big-ass arrow because we're just a little speck on the globe. If you look for a map of proximity you will notice that there is no way out of the country except straight through Germany, through Belgium (which was captured at the same speed) or across the canal, which was full of German ships.
Not to mention that we're not the USA. The Netherlands is not a european state, nor is it a province. It's a country. Even if we relocate the army off shore, our only hope is that somebody else pays the wages, supplies the troops with food and everything else, while the country is still captured and forced to surrender.When you said the Army bought pizza, I thought you meant some soldiers from a nearby base bought pizzas.
It sounds like it wasn't so much "some dude" as it was "US politicians making a gesture by ordering a single pizza". I doubt they would've really cared if some guy ordered a pizza. The whole thing was probably a political gesture from the US to say "yes, we support discrimination" / "yes, all people who do not believe in this war our against us".
Unlike you, I didn't fail geography. I know where they Netherlands are. The place that's oh I don't know surrounded by water, and and has a very large swath of it's land mass below sea level.
Did you know there's this thing called Ships?
And that we used them to get over there?
Same logic. Your country could have ferried itself across the water.
And there was this other thing a certain US policy called Lend Lease.... That supplied arms and equipment to people willing to fight the germans. Well there's your supply line and money right there!
RH, do you happen to have any books by Norman Davies?
Does he write military history?
I will check when I get home.
Did you know there's this thing called Ships?
You mean those huge mechanical bullseyes that were target practice for the Germans? I think we had a few when the war began, though.
But moving an entire military across water while being hunted down by the Germans doesn't sound like a very viable plan to me. I think most of the people in command at the time agreed with that notion.
RH, do you happen to have any books by Norman Davies?
Does he write military history?
I will check when I get home.
I wouldn't mention him otherwise.
That was their largest "fault", if it can be called such.
Also, communication and co-operation among allied armies in the field at that time were spotty at best.
Combine that with outdated equipment and poor training and...
Well, the rest is history.
Maybe they could have retreated into northern France and helped the Allies defend there, but they didn't really have the time or, more than likely, the means.
RH, do you happen to have any books by Norman Davies?
Does he write military history?
I will check when I get home.
I wouldn't mention him otherwise.
No need to be smart mouthed about it. I wasn't sure since you put that smiley at the end, and I thought it may be a joke or something.
Wait a minute...
Did he write Six Armies In Normandy?
EDIT: No he didn't. I just checked and Six Armies In Normandy was by Keegan.
I looked up Davies, and by looking at the list of works, no, I don't think I do have any books by him.
But thanks! Now I know what to look for the next time I go to the bookstore!
No need to be smart mouthed about it. I wasn't sure since you put that smiley at the end, and I thought it may be a joke or something.
I've meant to put a
at the end.You're welcome!
I have more respect for you than that. As for Erato… she gets offended pretty easily. Also, as far as I have seen, you have never said that what a few people here post has offended the entire country of Canada. Erato makes some silly claims that what two people on a D&D forum say has somehow offended the entire country of Denmark. You may make some funny claims, but at least you have never made such a truly ridiculous claim.
If you're going to make claims about me, make them to me. I'm not easily offended, I just get mad when I encounter hypocrisy. People who go after goldo but leave RH. People who interpret something as an insult to the US and complain about it, only to turn around an make direct attacks (no interpretation needed) and call it justified. People who talk about how America is always blamed and how people don't know how it is to be in their position, and then make various criticisms concerning situations they've never been in themselves.
And while goldo have not said anything about Canada being offended, you've been quick to accuse me of offending Canada yourself, despite the actual Canadian here saying nothing – and I don't actually think it's because goldo is OK with people offending Canada, I think it's because he knows just as well as I do that it wasn't an insult to begin with. In fact, I'd be very interested in hearing if he thinks there's any reason to be offended over that comment you objected to, or if the problems go away as soon as someone stops reading things into it.
Or that during WW1 or before that you didn't go conquering new territory (even if it is remote from your location) to make sure you could keep up at least someone in a resource race?
Conquer territory with what, exactly? We don't have the manpower to capture anything anymore. And a colony on the far side of the world isn't exactly very beneficial in the middle of a war. We had some, and they didn't exactly tip the scales.
I'm more curious about what kind of territory people are supposed to conquer I though it was generally considered a bad thing to invade other countries simply to gain resources for yourself. Getting a bigger military might help stop a war, but invading another country is guaranteed to start one.
In both Denmark and Holland, people expect you to put up with people's explanations for various political motivations being less glamorised than they seem to be in America. In America, you have to put up with the attitude that, even though the US itself has never done it, they fully expect you to be willing to sacrifice most of your civilian population to offer a token resistance, rather than live to fight another day. Both of these tendencies come across as rude to people on the outside, but not to natives.
This is somewhat untrue. During our Civil War both sides willingly fought and died for their ideals. I may not agree with the Confederacy or its ideal but we have to admire their testicular fortitude. Even when their vaunted general, Robert E. Lee decided it was time to call it quits growing tired of watching his brave men march to their deaths to the far better equipped and trained Union lines, his men wanted to keep fighting. For the longest time, General Lee was considered a coward for giving up. So the willingness of Americans to die for what they believe in has never been in doubt ever since.
I just get mad when I encounter hypocrisy. People who go after goldo but leave RH.
Want some cheese with your whine?
I do not make the ridiculous and ignorant claims that goldo does.
You misquote me sir. I believe that is Erato you wanted to quote.
This is somewhat untrue. During our Civil War both sides willingly fought and died for their ideals. I may not agree with the Confederacy or its ideal but we have to admire their testicular fortitude. Even when their vaunted general, Robert E. Lee decided it was time to call it quits growing tired of watching his brave men march to their deaths to the far better equipped and trained Union lines, his men wanted to keep fighting. For the longest time, General Lee was considered a coward for giving up. So the willingness of Americans to die for what they believe in has never been in doubt ever since.
Civil war in which both sides appeared to have at least some chance of winning, not evacuating your entire army to a foreign country, to allow your own to be taken and the people the army is supposed to protect being left to the enemy, and run the very high risk that the army will starve or be killed before it has a chance of taking back the land, all so that foreign countries who haven't historically been your friends might win a victory with fewer losses sometimes in the future. You have never sacrificed civilians for the sake of strangers, and I don't blame you, but if the situation should come, I don't believe it would be as a clear a choice as you make it.
I just get mad when I encounter hypocrisy. People who go after goldo but leave RH.
Want some cheese with your whine?
I do not make the ridiculous and ignorant claims that goldo does.
You misquote me sir. I believe that is Erato you wanted to quote.
ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!
How did that happen!?
Yes, I meant to quote Erato, not you...
I just get mad when I encounter hypocrisy. People who go after goldo but leave RH.
Want some cheese with your whine?
I don't make the ridiculous and ignorant claims that goldo does.
I have more respect for you than that. As for Erato… she gets offended pretty easily. Also, as far as I have seen, you have never said that what a few people here post has offended the entire country of Canada. Erato makes some silly claims that what two people on a D&D forum say has somehow offended the entire country of Denmark. You may make some funny claims, but at least you have never made such a truly ridiculous claim.
If you're going to make claims about me, make them to me. I'm not easily offended, I just get mad when I encounter hypocrisy. People who go after goldo but leave RH. People who interpret something as an insult to the US and complain about it, only to turn around an make direct attacks (no interpretation needed) and call it justified. People who talk about how America is always blamed and how people don't know how it is to be in their position, and then make various criticisms concerning situations they've never been in themselves.And while goldo have not said anything about Canada being offended, you've been quick to accuse me of offending Canada yourself, despite the actual Canadian here saying nothing – and I don't actually think it's because goldo is OK with people offending Canada, I think it's because he knows just as well as I do that it wasn't an insult to begin with. In fact, I'd be very interested in hearing if he thinks there's any reason to be offended over that comment you objected to, or if the problems go away as soon as someone stops reading things into it.
You having offended Canada was meant as a joke. I think it's funnier that you didn't get it. It also supports my claim that you get too easily offended. Relax girlie. You take life too seriously...
If you would like, I can say it to you. You get offended too easily. Saying that RH and Escef have insulted the entire country of Denmark is pretty silly. I'm sure there are plenty of people there who don't care what is being discussed on this D&D forum.
Funny, I have never accused Goldo of being a troll.
No, but the things you're accusing him of doing are among the definitions of a troll.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I made an observation about him and that people give him too little credit. You take away from him by even suggesting that I would make such a claim. Goldo uses word choice to get a stronger reaction to his view points. He still believes in his view point. He wants to get people to discuss those view points. He achieves this by stating his view points in a manner that will incite emotional reactions from others. you and I can put up a thread about dealing with other people (having nothing to do with politics or the military) and we would probably get a few people responding. Goldo gets pages and pages before it is locked. He is good at it. He knows what it takes to get attention and reactions. The best part is that he likes it. That is why he keeps doing it. Ever bad reaction and hostile comment he gets reinforces his behavior.
Unlike most here, I enjoy reading what he writes. It’s good entertainment. He says something. Someone else responds. He makes funny statement. Other posters fall for it, get angry, and become hostile. I laugh.
I don't think Canadians expect others to put up with rudeness. Why myst you insult Canada? What did Canada ever do to you?
I didn't insult Canada. When in a foreign country, there is a good chance of the natives doing something that's rude by your standards. Pluisjen and I are good examples, what we say is being perceived as something completely different than what we think we're telling, and yet the incredible rudeness and ignorant comments from Americans here are being brushed aside by most of their fellow citizens as meaning nothing.
This was meant as a joke. You failed your perception check. I would have rather you responded to my statement of English being my second language.
Plu is a hypocrite who admits to not believing in what he says. If I am not mistaken, it is somewhere in the discussion he and I had in the post about the biggest weapons upgrade in the last 50 years. I would quote it for you, but it was locked. You can look it up if you’d like.
If I were you, I would not be putting myself in the same category as him. While I may disagree with your perspective on things, I can’t say that you make statements that you don’t believe in. Plu on the other hand…
In both Denmark and Holland, people expect you to put up with people's explanations for various political motivations being less glamorised than they seem to be in America. In America, you have to put up with the attitude that, even though the US itself has never done it, they fully expect you to be willing to sacrifice most of your civilian population to offer a token resistance, rather than live to fight another day. Both of these tendencies come across as rude to people on the outside, but not to natives.
You have a very negative perspective view on the U.S. I know you said America, but I’m going to assume you meant the U.S. I’ll chalk it up to the news media. It happens everywhere. They focus on the things tat will get them ratings. All the bad press the U.S. gets is similar to the press that protesters of the U.S. get in Iran. The government rounds up some people and tells them to go protest and the world media goes and covers it. Members of the media know it is orchestrated by the government, but they still cover it because you and I will watch it and that gets their ratings up. The higher the ratings, the more money they can ask advertisers to pay them.
In a similar fashion, the French have a bad reputation as being rude. I’m not going to claim that there are no rude French people. There are rude people in every country. A couple of months ago there was a segment on one of these news shows here. I think it was Dateline, if I am not mistaking. In any case, they wanted to test the theory that the French were rude to Americans. They sent a nice couple over to France and had them dress to fit what we assume is the European stereotype of Americans. They had t-shirts with the U.S. flag, hats that said Texas, and walked around in flip flops. They acted obnoxiously and were extremely loud. The couple went over to a nice restaurant and had them order some type of steak tartare. Then had the lady call the waiter over and ask for something else because the meat was raw. You would expect some kind of snooty attitude from this French waiter. Instead, he very nicely asked her what she would like. He helped her chose something to her liking and brought it to her. The only people that got upset with her and her husband were other American tourists who said they needed to learn how to behave.
France has rude people. So does every other country. Your view of the U.S. and its citizenry is heavily influenced by what you see in the news. It is sad and an overgeneralization. Sure, you can claim that the people on these forums reinforce your beliefs, but look at the small group you are using to generalize an entire country.
It is similar to making a generalization about your country based on you. Would that be fair? Not really.
There are plenty of English speakers in Canada. I'm willing to bet that Goldo has interacted with many. He has a pretty good handle on the language. He can get his point across just fine.
The same has been said about me, so I'm not that inclined to trust people's ability to perceive where a language problem lie. Since goldo has now said he doesn't have problems with word nuances, that's what I'll go with, but if he didn't, it'd be entirely plausible too.
So I take it that you see my point then? He has a fine grasp on the English language. He knows that the manner in which he states his point of view will get certain types of reactions. He is smart. He knows what he is doing.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. you got a bit confusing. I'll chalk it up to English not being your first language.
Thank you, most people don't give that courtesy. The short version is that the way he argues is less insulting and more constructive, in relation to the way I'm raised. Or in other words, goldo's way of arguing would be what I'd do if I only wanted to be mildly insulting or just didn't care about being insulting. The method of several other posters here is how I'd argue if I had no intention of doing anything constructive and just wanted to be offensive. I recognise that others feel differently, but I'm not willing to simply assume that goldo does too unless he says so.
This is why I have not labeled Goldo a troll. This is his method of getting more people to react to his posts. His points are neither revolutionary nor original. He knows this. To his credit, he admits it. Goldo knows how to get people to react to these, otherwise, banal ideas. His word choice is what makes his ideas stand out. He knows it.
Yes, he has admitted to enjoying pissing people off. He is good at it. He has a pretty good mastery of the English language with which to do so. The rest of your examples just show that he isn't the only one who enjoys this type of behavior.
And yet he's being called out on it far more often.
Goldo is better than most. Also, you fail to take into account that Goldo also makes a greater number of posts than others.
If I were you, I would not be putting myself in the same category as him. While I may disagree with your perspective on things, I can’t say that you make statements that you don’t believe in. Plu on the other hand…
I don't see it as putting myself in the same category as Plu, I see it as acknowledging that in this case, we face much of the same problem, namely that in our cultures and languages (at least from what I know of Holland), saying that a government tries to curry favor with another country doesn't come with the implicit claim that said country has acted threateningly, and none of us were aware that this was the case in the US. I don't condone if he makes (serious) statements he doesn't believe in, and I don't always agree with goldo's way of saying things, but that doesn't mean I have to be categorically against them when I think they have a fair point.
You have a very negative perspective view on the U.S. I know you said America, but I’m going to assume you meant the U.S. I’ll chalk it up to the news media. It happens everywhere. They focus on the things tat will get them ratings. All the bad press the U.S. gets is similar to the press that protesters of the U.S. get in Iran. The government rounds up some people and tells them to go protest and the world media goes and covers it. Members of the media know it is orchestrated by the government, but they still cover it because you and I will watch it and that gets their ratings up. The higher the ratings, the more money they can ask advertisers to pay them.France has rude people. So does every other country. Your view of the U.S. and its citizenry is heavily influenced by what you see in the news. It is sad and an overgeneralization. Sure, you can claim that the people on these forums reinforce your beliefs, but look at the small group you are using to generalize an entire country.
It is similar to making a generalization about your country based on you. Would that be fair? Not really.
It's not so much the media, in fact, I think the media often has the effect of making Americans feel like it's all about them and that everyone is against them. Many of the statements I've made which have been interpreted as attacks on the US have not been attacks, and several of them haven't even been about the US in the first place. I have often experienced saying something, and then have posters (almost excursively American) interpret it a very specific way more reminiscent of the kind of anti-Americanism you see in the media, or just as often, hear claims about in the media.
The funny thing is that for the most part, I don't know who's from the US here and who's not, and there was a time when I didn't think about it. However, I once mentioned some of what went on on this board to my boyfriend, and he immediately replied by telling me certain posters couldn't be American, but must be Canadian. I accused him of anti-Americanism and said some pretty unflattering things to him, but about half a year later, there was a thread in which several posters identified as Canadian, and it turned out he had been right. Almost all the Americans I had been getting well along with, or at least found easier to see eye to eye with even when we disagreed, turned out to be Canadian. I checked my friend list here (and I hardly ever invite someone, and only accept friendship requests from people I've had at least one good conversation with, so it's no coincidence), the same held true there, Northern Europe and Canada were overrepresented, and I hadn't been aware of it.
That doesn't mean there aren't Americans I'm getting along fine with, and many I respect, but there are cultural differences that make communication harder. And it's not just hard with Americans, they're also often more reluctant to acknowledge that difference, preferring instead to fall back on stereotypes of anti-Americanism. Most of my reactions are actually due to what people here say, but when they bring America into it (and make supremely ignorant comments about other countries), it naturally starts to become more about the country than the individuals.
So I take it that you see my point then? He has a fine grasp on the English language. He knows that the manner in which he states his point of view will get certain types of reactions. He is smart. He knows what he is doing.
I take his point. If he thinks the language isn't a problem, then I'll accept it. However, his statements that it is his ideas people object to, even though he considers them very common, suggested otherwise, and I'd be a hypocrite if I brought up differences in culture and language as part of my own conflicts, but wasn't willing to acknowledge the same possibility for plu or goldo.
Plu is a hypocrite who admits to not believing in what he says. If I am not mistaken, it is somewhere in the discussion he and I had in the post about the biggest weapons upgrade in the last 50 years. I would quote it for you, but it was locked. You can look it up if you’d like.
Yeah I tend to troll around a bit when threads get too long or get to discussion the same thing over and over and over again. At some point, all useful things have been said and it's just funny to mess around a bit
As I said then; don't take any of this too serious. Although most of what I've said here so far hasn't been trolling sfar as I can remember (I have very bad memory though
)You having offended Canada was meant as a joke. I think it's funnier that you didn't get it. It also supports my claim that you get too easily offended. Relax girlie. You take life too seriously...
If you would like, I can say it to you. You get offended too easily. Saying that RH and Escef have insulted the entire country of Denmark is pretty silly. I'm sure there are plenty of people there who don't care what is being discussed on this D&D forum.
Poe's law, you didn't sound different than people who're serious, and sarcasm doesn't translate well, especially not over the internet. Also, in Danish, there's a difference between an insult and something that insults. Muslims stomping on our flag to protest some drawings of Muhammad is definitely an insult (an expression of contempt), but it doesn't mean most of the population is insulted. The statements of RH and escef are an insult, not just to Denmark, but to several countries and several people who've died protect others. It's not offensive per se, but in the context of how much they demand in order to not be offended themselves, it's quite provocative.
This is why I have not labeled Goldo a troll. This is his method of getting more people to react to his posts. His points are neither revolutionary nor original. He knows this. To his credit, he admits it. Goldo knows how to get people to react to these, otherwise, banal ideas. His word choice is what makes his ideas stand out. He knows it.Goldo is better than most. Also, you fail to take into account that Goldo also makes a greater number of posts than others.
Fair enough. I already wrote my perception of this in the previous post.
I don't see it as putting myself in the same category as Plu, I see it as acknowledging that in this case, we face much of the same problem, namely that in our cultures and languages (at least from what I know of Holland), saying that a government tries to curry favor with another country doesn't come with the implicit claim that said country has acted threateningly, and none of us were aware that this was the case in the US. I don't condone if he makes (serious) statements he doesn't believe in, and I don't always agree with goldo's way of saying things, but that doesn't mean I have to be categorically against them when I think they have a fair point.
Let’s see… you, Goldo, and PLU face much of the same problem. I see that as a category the three of you fit into. Maybe it’s a language thing. in any case, seeing as he has previously admitting to not believing what he says makes anything Plu says suspect. So it is hard for me to see him making a fair point when he doesn’t believe in it.
It's not so much the media, in fact, I think the media often has the effect of making Americans feel like it's all about them and that everyone is against them. Many of the statements I've made which have been interpreted as attacks on the US have not been attacks, and several of them haven't even been about the US in the first place. I have often experienced saying something, and then have posters (almost excursively American) interpret it a very specific way more reminiscent of the kind of anti-Americanism you see in the media, or just as often, hear claims about in the media.
Again, you are looking at it through your own experience. When was the last time you came to the U.S. and saw a U.S. news show? You make assumptions based on your personal experiences.
You are making generalizations about an entire country based on the few people that you have interacted with. I don’t know any other person from Denmark, except for you. Should I use you to generalize about your entire country? I think that would be extremely insulting to some people in your country.
The funny thing is that for the most part, I don't know who's from the US here and who's not, and there was a time when I didn't think about it. However, I once mentioned some of what went on on this board to my boyfriend, and he immediately replied by telling me certain posters couldn't be American, but must be Canadian. I accused him of anti-Americanism and said some pretty unflattering things to him, but about half a year later, there was a thread in which several posters identified as Canadian, and it turned out he had been right. Almost all the Americans I had been getting well along with, or at least found easier to see eye to eye with even when we disagreed, turned out to be Canadian. I checked my friend list here (and I hardly ever invite someone, and only accept friendship requests form people I've had at least one good conversation with), the same held true there, Northern Europe and Canada were overrepresented, and I hadn't been aware of it.
I am sure you have had good experiences with people from Canada and Europe. But are you going to say that every Canadian is nice? Even Goldo admits that many Quebecois are a pain and give the rest of them a bad reputation.
You stereotype Americans in a negative way when in fact there are many Americans who are the complete opposite of your stereotype. You need to take some of your own advice and look at it from the perspective of others.
Also, take this into consideration. i may not agree with your opinions, but i have not mentioned a single word about you being anti-American have I? Also, you may feel as if you are getting attacked, but remember, you responded to a post I wrote to Goldo. I honestly would not have written to you had you not responded to me.
That doesn't mean there aren't Americans I'm getting along fine with, and many I respect, but there are cultural differences that make communication harder. And it's not just hard with Americans, they're also often more reluctant to acknowledge that difference, preferring instead to fall back on stereotypes of anti-Americanism. Most of my reactions are actually due to what people here say, but when they bring America into it (and make supremely ignorant comments about other countries), it naturally starts to become more about the country than the individuals.
May be the ones you’ve met. It is sad that you have met a very small number of Americans and that your perception of us has been so tainted. Quebecois have been called arrogant, even by other Canadians. Should they be looked at as the representation of all Canadians?
You need to stop stereotyping people and then using those ridiculous stereotypes to support your points. It’s weak sauce.
I take his point that if he thinks the language isn't a problem, then I'll accept it. However, his statements that it I his ideas people object to, even though he considers them very common, suggested otherwise, and I'd be a hypocrite if I brought up differences in culture and language as part of my own conflicts, but wasn't willing to acknowledge the same possibility for plu or goldo.
Goldo has problems with grammar. He has a good grasp on the English language. He knows what he is doing and saying quite well. Why do I feel like I have to defend his intelligence to you?
If you want to test the theory that it is his ideas that are so controversial and garner such extreme and hostile responses, then let’s run a little experiment. Make some of the same claims, but you need to do so in a cordial way. Choose words that are not meant to incite anger. Let’s see the responses you get then.
Furthermore, you had previously asked if I had any experience with English not being my first language and trying to communicate in it. I answered that English is not my first language. Yet you have failed to acknowledge that. Ignoring your mistakes is bad form. You should learn from them.
If you feel that I am putting words in your mouth, ten I apologize. That was not my intent. In any case, yes, your opinions may provoke others. That isn’t the point. The point is how you express your opinion. A while back there was a thread (if I am not mistaken, it was started by you) about some hostage that was skilled when a U.S. soldier threw a grenade. After a follow up article was published where it was found that the soldier had not informed his commanding officer about having thrown the grenade. He was found to have caused her death (I might be mistaken… can’t remember). Your response was something to the effect of gloating because he was found to have had culpability in the hostage’s death. You made a statement about gloating over this. You made a few people angry (RH I think). The gloating wasn’t supporting your point of view was it?
I didn't start that thread. It was ADHadh if I am not mistaken. Not sure I gloated. This goes a while back. I was very critical of the military and that alone gets RH mad. But anything that goes middly against RH's beliefs gets him mad. He is very emotional.I’m pretty sure you don’t speak the same way to your boss as you do to people here. it isn’t as if you lack the self control to speak to others in a cordial manner. You choose not to on your own. You do it purposefully. It gets your point across and it makes some people angry enough to respond to you with hostility. But you already know that. I am merely telling you this for the fun of it. It is nothing new to you.
I do not speak to my boss this way, but to my friends I do. I am naturally arrogant and blunt. I have known this since I was 5. So this is how I trully express myself. Actually I try to make a effort to be nice. Hard to believe, isn't?
Actually, you did gloat. I would look up the thread and the post, but I am getting ready for Thanksgiving diner. Maybe tomorrow I'll look it up for you.
As far as being arrogant and blunt with your friends... it is expected that you don't behave the way would with your boss. My point is that you have control over how you communicate. As far as I know, there hasn't been any new internet tourettes syndrome added to the DSM. While you are arrogant and blunt with your friends, you are also cordial and respectful with your boss. you naturally express yourself as allowed by the situation. I always find it funny how people define themselves.
You are just a sad individual who cannot even have a conversation with someone he disagrees without insulting them of misinterpreting their comments.
Not with "someone" goldo, just you.
Just me? Yet below you say "they".The guy keeps telling to people they are stupid, ignorant and communists.
That's because they are.
Not very consitent. Typical RH behavior.
Baiting post... typical goldo.
*shrug*
No.
Very consistent.
I only called you uneducated (not stupid, there is a difference) and ignorant (because you are, see uneducated)
It is Erato I called a Communist... you know, because she said herself that she was one.
I could tell you what I really think about you, but it's been a long time since I've had a ride on the banned wagon, and I kinda like it that way.
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
page 16, post 151.
That is you gloating.
But we have some guy running around calling people stupid and communist and other people applauding is claims.
So what?
If someone claims to be a communist, and I call them one... whats the problem?
And if someone makes wild, ridiculous claims and appear to be uneducated, and I call then uneducated, whats the problem?
You are really not helping yourself here goldo...
Try again...
But we have some guy running around calling people stupid and communist and other people applauding is claims.
So what?
If someone claims to be a communist, and I call them one... whats the problem?
And if someone makes wild, ridiculous claims and appear to be uneducated, and I call then uneducated, whats the problem?
You are really not helping yourself here goldo...
Try again...
Typical baiting behavior by RH.
Especially since your claims aren't true. You just spread half-truth life some spread gonorrhea. If you actually could prove your claims, I might give you credites. But you just say: un-hun to you nun-huh. Really sad and typical of right wing misleading propaganda.
HA!
Pot calling the kettle black!
You have nerve telling somebody they can't support their claims.
Then why are you having such a hard time getting along with people on here? A much harder time than I have?
Why don't you and Erato stop whining and just report stuff?
If it needs to be moderated, it will be.
Let’s see… you, Goldo, and PLU face much of the same problem. I see that as a category the three of you fit into. Maybe it’s a language thing. in any case, seeing as he has previously admitting to not believing what he says makes anything Plu says suspect. So it is hard for me to see him making a fair point when he doesn’t believe in it.
It must be a cultural thing. I see no reason to distance myself from plu in areas where we have something in common, and I don't perceive this as somehow agreeing with him if he does what you say.
Again, you are looking at it through your own experience. When was the last time you came to the U.S. and saw a U.S. news show? You make assumptions based on your personal experiences.[snip]
You stereotype Americans in a negative way when in fact there are many Americans who are the complete opposite of your stereotype. You need to take some of your own advice and look at it from the perspective of others.
Also, take this into consideration. i may not agree with your opinions, but i have not mentioned a single word about you being anti-American have I? Also, you may feel as if you are getting attacked, but remember, you responded to a post I wrote to Goldo. I honestly would not have written to you had you not responded to me.
I was in the US 4-5 years ago. I watch 60 Minutes and the Daily Show, though not consistently. I watch and read statements from American politicians, and analysis of American culture and politics, frequently from Americans themselves. I probably don't get even close to the whole picture, but then again, neither do most Americans. And when my experience tells me many Americans feel like people are against them, I'm going to accept that as a relatively common, if by no means universal feeling.
And again, perhaps it's the language, but holding negative views on the US is called anti-Americanism here. So from here, it definitely sounds like you have mentioned in more than a single word that I am anti-American. I could have chosen to not say this, but just kept repeating that you're calling me anti-American, but I don't. If you truly don't believe you have called me anti-American, then I'll take your word for it, and figure there's some distinction between negatively stereotyping Americans and being anti-American in our language that isn't in mine. And I don't feel like getting attacked, disagreements aside I feel like we're actually talking, which is a welcome change.
May be the ones you’ve met. It is sad that you have met a very small number of Americans and that your perception of us has been so tainted. Quebecois have been called arrogant, even by other Canadians. Should they be looked at as the representation of all Canadians?You need to stop stereotyping people and then using those ridiculous stereotypes to support your points. It’s weak sauce.
I bring them up when I see them before. There are some glaring examples, such as confusing Poles and Viking, and the claims about non-American contributions. And since it all came about because someone perceived insults to the US, I think it's pretty relevant to bring up when they're acting offensive themselves.
Goldo has problems with grammar. He has a good grasp on the English language. He knows what he is doing and saying quite well. Why do I feel like I have to defend his intelligence to you?If you want to test the theory that it is his ideas that are so controversial and garner such extreme and hostile responses, then let’s run a little experiment. Make some of the same claims, but you need to do so in a cordial way. Choose words that are not meant to incite anger. Let’s see the responses you get then.
Furthermore, you had previously asked if I had any experience with English not being my first language and trying to communicate in it. I answered that English is not my first language. Yet you have failed to acknowledge that. Ignoring your mistakes is bad form. You should learn from them.
I didn't realize I was supposed to acknowledge anything. Since I've already said I'm willing to accept if goldo says he doesn't have those problems, but I'm also not going to dismiss him if he says he has. The same to you, if you don't experience the same blocks in communication then good for you.
Civil war in which both sides appeared to have at least some chance of winning, not evacuating your entire army to a foreign country, to allow your own to be taken and the people the army is supposed to protect being left to the enemy, and run the very high risk that the army will starve or be killed before it has a chance of taking back the land, all so that foreign countries who haven't historically been your friends might win a victory with fewer losses sometimes in the future. You have never sacrificed civilians for the sake of strangers, and I don't blame you, but if the situation should come, I don't believe it would be as a clear a choice as you make it.
While this may have been true at the beginning but is highly debatable, toward the end, which is what I'm talking about, this is not the case. The Union had the advantage in numbers, technology, and training and still the Confederacy wanted to fight on. General Lee convinced them that while a guerilla war, which is what it would have devolved into, would have been effective in lengthening the war and possibly buy enough time for an outside ally to equip and train a new army that it was just better not to delay the inevitable.
Still didn't stop his own men from calling him a coward because his men believed it was better to die fighting than give up fighting for what they believed.
The point is, from those days forward it is well known and indisputable that Americans are more than willing to face insurmountable odds to fight for what they believe.
On an unrelated note, I get tired of hearing how arragant we Americans are. Too many times, we were told "It can't be done. No way no how" and everytime we proved them wrong. It isn't bragging if you can back it up and we have time and time again backed it up.
Someone once said, "Those who say it can't be done shouldn't interrupt those doing it." I have no idea where that quote comes from but it sounds distinctly like something an American would say whether it was or wasn't said by one.
ORC_Chaos