Finedessert: The biggest WMD in Iraq is Saddam himself, and his past actions prove it.
Grandpa
Grandpa
War started
- Thread starter Ralexx
- Start date
Paris is tormented by weekly manifestations against war - 100,000 persons only Saturday. This morning I received another letter, slid under my door (the 5th letter !) calling me to be a good "citoyen français" and to protest against the war in Iraq. (The NGO who sent the message was something I immediately catalogued as "disgusting" : the French Marxist Students of Jussieu University. The noun in the middle was enough to make me sick, as I remembered the days of Red Roumania before 1989... DoubleMeatWhopper, you have - I believe - similar souvenirs from a Red Cuba...)
To be honest, I am now more & more pro-war. It happens that sometimes force must prevail ; diplomacy is still a refined language that barbarians like Saddam will never appreciate, learn or care about it : it simply means you cannot use it anymore with such creatures. 2,300 years ago a (mmm, handsome) guy named Alexander of Macedonia ("the Great") showed that extreme solutions are needed for extreme cases : he simply cut the Gordian knot. That's what US are doing. Oil is irrelevant compared to the freedom of 25-30 million human beings.
Saddam (not Iraq) was from 1979 a source of instability in the region. Think a bit : 8 years of war against Iran, 1 year of peace (1989), continuously harassing Israel, war against Kuwait, 12 years of embargo and crisis mixed with Anglo-American bombing, internal problems with the Kurds, dictatorship. A great combination, huh !... The unique problem with this war is the fact that there is no international law to invoke in order to wage it (creating it would mean turning the world into chaos) - but there is a undeniable moral legitimacy. I talked yesterday to some Iraqi students, whose families fled Iraq in 1987. To say that the entire nation is oppressed is just being superficial. What must be properly understood is that US are not fighting the Iraqi nation but Saddam and his clique (his family, mostly), no matter the pretext (disarmement, etc). I know what liberation means for a people after 24 years of true tyranny - Iraq aches for liberty as much as Eastern European countries ached for it 50 years after 1945. Everybody expected a big Anglo-Franco-American war to liberate the 11 states from Soviet domination, but it never happened. Iraq might be luckier.
I do regret seeing Europe pathetically loosing its guts, drowned in its post-1945 political irresponsibility. I do regret seeing Europe hidden behind an impractical, juvenile pacifism. I understand Europe and her supreme hatred for war (2 "things" like those in 10 different years plunged Europe into being a grave for some 40,000,000 human beings and a colossal ruin, morally and physically), I know European unity is still to come, but Europe seems damaged by some temporary amnesia. She forgot Munich 1938 (stopping Hitler = stopping Saddam : what if one day an A-bomb launched from Iraq will erase Athens, just because Greece is a part of the "satanic NATO" ? Tears will be useless, chére France); Europe forgot the bomb-blasts "in the name of Algeria" that shivered EU citizens in 1995 and 1996 - and that meant terror. Terror I also felt last week when we were announced "a suspect parcel was found in the Glacière tube station, the train will not halt there; thank you for you comprehension", terror that makes me wonder "when the next hit comes ?"
I don't say this as a Roumanian whose country was invited last November to join NATO and who will participate in this war with de-contamination units and peace-keeping troops after the "dirty job" is done - I say it as someone who believes in an old (European, my dear France, my dear Germany and my dear Belgium) saying : "cut the evil from the roots".
(PS - besides, trust me, I know a lot of French applauding this war. The French Coq didn't die : he just appreciates precaution more. )
To be honest, I am now more & more pro-war. It happens that sometimes force must prevail ; diplomacy is still a refined language that barbarians like Saddam will never appreciate, learn or care about it : it simply means you cannot use it anymore with such creatures. 2,300 years ago a (mmm, handsome) guy named Alexander of Macedonia ("the Great") showed that extreme solutions are needed for extreme cases : he simply cut the Gordian knot. That's what US are doing. Oil is irrelevant compared to the freedom of 25-30 million human beings.
Saddam (not Iraq) was from 1979 a source of instability in the region. Think a bit : 8 years of war against Iran, 1 year of peace (1989), continuously harassing Israel, war against Kuwait, 12 years of embargo and crisis mixed with Anglo-American bombing, internal problems with the Kurds, dictatorship. A great combination, huh !... The unique problem with this war is the fact that there is no international law to invoke in order to wage it (creating it would mean turning the world into chaos) - but there is a undeniable moral legitimacy. I talked yesterday to some Iraqi students, whose families fled Iraq in 1987. To say that the entire nation is oppressed is just being superficial. What must be properly understood is that US are not fighting the Iraqi nation but Saddam and his clique (his family, mostly), no matter the pretext (disarmement, etc). I know what liberation means for a people after 24 years of true tyranny - Iraq aches for liberty as much as Eastern European countries ached for it 50 years after 1945. Everybody expected a big Anglo-Franco-American war to liberate the 11 states from Soviet domination, but it never happened. Iraq might be luckier.
I do regret seeing Europe pathetically loosing its guts, drowned in its post-1945 political irresponsibility. I do regret seeing Europe hidden behind an impractical, juvenile pacifism. I understand Europe and her supreme hatred for war (2 "things" like those in 10 different years plunged Europe into being a grave for some 40,000,000 human beings and a colossal ruin, morally and physically), I know European unity is still to come, but Europe seems damaged by some temporary amnesia. She forgot Munich 1938 (stopping Hitler = stopping Saddam : what if one day an A-bomb launched from Iraq will erase Athens, just because Greece is a part of the "satanic NATO" ? Tears will be useless, chére France); Europe forgot the bomb-blasts "in the name of Algeria" that shivered EU citizens in 1995 and 1996 - and that meant terror. Terror I also felt last week when we were announced "a suspect parcel was found in the Glacière tube station, the train will not halt there; thank you for you comprehension", terror that makes me wonder "when the next hit comes ?"
I don't say this as a Roumanian whose country was invited last November to join NATO and who will participate in this war with de-contamination units and peace-keeping troops after the "dirty job" is done - I say it as someone who believes in an old (European, my dear France, my dear Germany and my dear Belgium) saying : "cut the evil from the roots".
(PS - besides, trust me, I know a lot of French applauding this war. The French Coq didn't die : he just appreciates precaution more. )
The "Union des Banques Suisses - Warburg" financial consortium made public yesterday that the second Iraq war, combined with the US economy's recession and the basic problems of the US economy (deficits, etc.) are probably going to bring the US $ to a uncomortable parity with the uro : 1 = 1.2 at the end of 2003, and 1 = 1.25 for 2004. I wouldn't really bet on this, but...
At already 1.06-1.08 $ for 1 some American acquaintances of mine, here in Paris, told me Europe is getting more and more expensive to visit.
At already 1.06-1.08 $ for 1 some American acquaintances of mine, here in Paris, told me Europe is getting more and more expensive to visit.
hung: We need to remember this fact:
Peaceful people are indeed quite different from Peacemakers. We have Peacemakers in Iraq from the United Kingdom and the United States of America along with about 34 allied countries.
The Peaceful life in France, Germany, China and Russia only because Iraq owes each of these countries Billions. Therefore they are peaceful because then want their money from Iraq.
Peaceful people are indeed quite different from Peacemakers. We have Peacemakers in Iraq from the United Kingdom and the United States of America along with about 34 allied countries.
The Peaceful life in France, Germany, China and Russia only because Iraq owes each of these countries Billions. Therefore they are peaceful because then want their money from Iraq.
Hung wrote :
Roumania wants its money from Iraq and it's neither peaceful, nor a great power ! (Bulgaria also.)
Iraq owes Roumania $ 1.2 billion, as a result of short-term loans made by Ceausescu to Saddam during the 1980s, when Roumania had pro-Arab attitudes (in the name of "anti-imperialist resistance").
November 2002 : Tarek Aziz, Iraqi minister for foreign affairs, to Mircea Geoana, Roumanian minister for foreign affairs, when hearing that Roumania joined the pro-war camp: "You want you money back ? Go now and ask America for it !"
Just a little example of "Iraqi diplomacy"...
Roumania wants its money from Iraq and it's neither peaceful, nor a great power ! (Bulgaria also.)
Iraq owes Roumania $ 1.2 billion, as a result of short-term loans made by Ceausescu to Saddam during the 1980s, when Roumania had pro-Arab attitudes (in the name of "anti-imperialist resistance").
November 2002 : Tarek Aziz, Iraqi minister for foreign affairs, to Mircea Geoana, Roumanian minister for foreign affairs, when hearing that Roumania joined the pro-war camp: "You want you money back ? Go now and ask America for it !"
Just a little example of "Iraqi diplomacy"...
BIGBOYDAVE: As I stated in a few posts back The oil will be used to pay for the war and the repair of the Iraq nation after this is over.
Maybe you should ask Mr Bush if he can use it to pay Iraq's debts after the war. I am sure there is going to be plenty of money from oil to go around and that way it will be easier to keep Iraq's people in control for many years to come. Lets forget about having gotten rid of the Person who caused the debts, lets just make his "newly liberated people" Pay for his misdeeds. Lets have them continually under the punishment of there liberators a punishment for having lived all these years under a world hated Dictator that they were to weak to get rid of. Get the Picture!
Maybe you should ask Mr Bush if he can use it to pay Iraq's debts after the war. I am sure there is going to be plenty of money from oil to go around and that way it will be easier to keep Iraq's people in control for many years to come. Lets forget about having gotten rid of the Person who caused the debts, lets just make his "newly liberated people" Pay for his misdeeds. Lets have them continually under the punishment of there liberators a punishment for having lived all these years under a world hated Dictator that they were to weak to get rid of. Get the Picture!
Please excuse me if my ramblings are obscured by a slight alcoholic haze, but rest assured this is Jacinto talking, not the tequila.
Do I agree that Saddam Hussein should not be in a position of power? Yeah, I'm in agreement there. Do I believe that the USA and the UK have the right to break international law, defy the UN and ignore the protests of their international allies in order to remove him from power? Absolutely not. Moral 'obligations' do not empower anyone to become a vigilante.
I saw Donald Rumsfeld on CNN complaining that Iraq had violated the Geneva Convention by showing the American POWs in a position of subjugation on Iraqi television. His outrage might have been more effective if I hadn't seen Iraqi soldiers with their hands on their heads held at gunpoint by UK military on American network news just two hours earlier. Excuse me, but who's the pot and who's the kettle?
But here's what bothers me most. Dubya says our objective is to free the Iraqis of a dictator so they can set up a democratic government. Am I the only one who can't envision a Shi'ite dominated country having a clue what a democratic government entails? Does anyone remember when another Shi'ite country (Iran) ousted their tyrannical ruler (the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi)? Who replaced him? The Ayatollah Khomeini! Hello!?!? When Sodomy Insane is a smoldering charcoal briquet, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Iraqis erect a fundamentalist Muslim as their head honcho. The Sunnis will swap places with the Shi'ites as the second class citizens, and the Kurds will be as oppressed as ever. Such is the way when Islam and government collide.
Finally, I can't see myself supporting war in principle. Regardless of who wins, all sides lose.
Do I agree that Saddam Hussein should not be in a position of power? Yeah, I'm in agreement there. Do I believe that the USA and the UK have the right to break international law, defy the UN and ignore the protests of their international allies in order to remove him from power? Absolutely not. Moral 'obligations' do not empower anyone to become a vigilante.
I saw Donald Rumsfeld on CNN complaining that Iraq had violated the Geneva Convention by showing the American POWs in a position of subjugation on Iraqi television. His outrage might have been more effective if I hadn't seen Iraqi soldiers with their hands on their heads held at gunpoint by UK military on American network news just two hours earlier. Excuse me, but who's the pot and who's the kettle?
But here's what bothers me most. Dubya says our objective is to free the Iraqis of a dictator so they can set up a democratic government. Am I the only one who can't envision a Shi'ite dominated country having a clue what a democratic government entails? Does anyone remember when another Shi'ite country (Iran) ousted their tyrannical ruler (the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi)? Who replaced him? The Ayatollah Khomeini! Hello!?!? When Sodomy Insane is a smoldering charcoal briquet, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Iraqis erect a fundamentalist Muslim as their head honcho. The Sunnis will swap places with the Shi'ites as the second class citizens, and the Kurds will be as oppressed as ever. Such is the way when Islam and government collide.
Finally, I can't see myself supporting war in principle. Regardless of who wins, all sides lose.
mindseye: CBS News reports again today, that the coalition still hasn't found any chemical weapons.
Update: March 27: They didn't find any today, either.
Update: March 30:
"Ten days into a war fought under the flag of disarmament, U.S.-led troops have found no substantial sign of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. . . . U.S. forces have tested 10 of their best intelligence leads, four that first day and another half dozen since, without result.
Update: April 2: Even now that troops have closed in on Baghdad and are engaged in combat with the Republican Guard, they still haven't found any banned weapons.
Update: April 4: In fairness, I should now report that troops have now discovered a substance that may turn out to be a banned chemical weapon. Samples of the substance, which has thus far been found at only a single site, have been sent to labs for evaluation.
Update: April 11: In case anyone's still keeping track, Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged today that the coalition forces still have not found any biological or chemical weapons in Iraq.
Update: March 27: They didn't find any today, either.
Update: March 30:
"Ten days into a war fought under the flag of disarmament, U.S.-led troops have found no substantial sign of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. . . . U.S. forces have tested 10 of their best intelligence leads, four that first day and another half dozen since, without result.
Update: April 2: Even now that troops have closed in on Baghdad and are engaged in combat with the Republican Guard, they still haven't found any banned weapons.
Update: April 4: In fairness, I should now report that troops have now discovered a substance that may turn out to be a banned chemical weapon. Samples of the substance, which has thus far been found at only a single site, have been sent to labs for evaluation.
Update: April 11: In case anyone's still keeping track, Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged today that the coalition forces still have not found any biological or chemical weapons in Iraq.
- jonb,
[quote author=mindseye link=board=99;num=1048153410;start=15#27 date=03/25/03 at 21:17:10]CBS News reports again today, that the coalition still hasn't found any chemical weapons.[/quote]
I'm still surprised we're fighting a war based on the idea that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And since the US actually has chemical weapons, should we not be bombing ourselves?
I'm still surprised we're fighting a war based on the idea that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And since the US actually has chemical weapons, should we not be bombing ourselves?
BIGBOYDAVE: [quote author=jonb link=board=99;num=1048153410;start=15#29 date=03/26/03 at 16:02:02]
I'm still surprised we're fighting a war based on the idea that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And since the US actually has chemical weapons, should we not be bombing ourselves?
[/quote]
Oh No No America is a "Civilized Country" It wouldn't dare use Weapons of Mass Destruction. America only wants to have weapons of mass destruction to "protect" itself But by gosh America would Never Never concider the Use of Them .
Its just nice to have the Biggest and Best Toys to play with. Why else would America continue to develop Newer and Bigger Bombs and other such toys.
They are for Defence Of "The American Way" and the protection of "THE HOMELAND".
It would be unthinkable to get rid of them.
Then who Could America BOSS around.
Besides There would be nobody left to play with if America used them anyway.
I'm still surprised we're fighting a war based on the idea that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And since the US actually has chemical weapons, should we not be bombing ourselves?
[/quote]
Oh No No America is a "Civilized Country" It wouldn't dare use Weapons of Mass Destruction. America only wants to have weapons of mass destruction to "protect" itself But by gosh America would Never Never concider the Use of Them .
Its just nice to have the Biggest and Best Toys to play with. Why else would America continue to develop Newer and Bigger Bombs and other such toys.
They are for Defence Of "The American Way" and the protection of "THE HOMELAND".
It would be unthinkable to get rid of them.
Then who Could America BOSS around.
Besides There would be nobody left to play with if America used them anyway.
miniver_cheevy: one of the worst things about the war, besides the dead and maimed (largely unreported) civilians and soldiers is how the war is polarizing the nation.
we support our troops, but we don't have to support they're doing. it's their commanders, and most of all their commander-in-chief who the devils here.
look how dubya stole the election, and now he's acting as if he has the mandate of the entire population! he's forced most of us to choose his side. this is totally unilateral. nothing multi-lateral about it. it would unpatriotic not to support the war. i am not a patriot?
look how it's polarizing our board. i have newly formed opinions (cheering some on, loathing others) about a lot of the guys i wouldn't have entertained before.
this is not an era of consensus. there are no coalition forces. might as well call them anglo-america forces. it is a divide and conquer strategy that is very dangerous, very dangerous to the stability of the globe. and america is at fault.
we have set up many, many dictators throughout our history. (for example the shah of iran. what was the result of that: the ayatolla khomeina (sp?)) which new dicatator will we find in iraq, when all is said and done, when we've pulled out -- sooner rather than later, i'll bet. i think it's pretty clear that most arabic nations don't seem to be able to "handle" democracy...
american is like a dog. brave and fearless, but dumb as a friggin' post.
my two cents.
we support our troops, but we don't have to support they're doing. it's their commanders, and most of all their commander-in-chief who the devils here.
look how dubya stole the election, and now he's acting as if he has the mandate of the entire population! he's forced most of us to choose his side. this is totally unilateral. nothing multi-lateral about it. it would unpatriotic not to support the war. i am not a patriot?
look how it's polarizing our board. i have newly formed opinions (cheering some on, loathing others) about a lot of the guys i wouldn't have entertained before.
this is not an era of consensus. there are no coalition forces. might as well call them anglo-america forces. it is a divide and conquer strategy that is very dangerous, very dangerous to the stability of the globe. and america is at fault.
we have set up many, many dictators throughout our history. (for example the shah of iran. what was the result of that: the ayatolla khomeina (sp?)) which new dicatator will we find in iraq, when all is said and done, when we've pulled out -- sooner rather than later, i'll bet. i think it's pretty clear that most arabic nations don't seem to be able to "handle" democracy...
american is like a dog. brave and fearless, but dumb as a friggin' post.
my two cents.
MisterMark
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Posts
- 2,021
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 126
- Points
- 383
- Location
- Palm Springs, CA
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
One of my big concerns is about the reputation that the U.S. will have now and for the foreseeable future. I saw on the news yesterday that protesters in Australia are burning American flags on the street.
It's one thing to see Iraqis burning American flags, but Australians? It ain't a good sign. :-/
It's one thing to see Iraqis burning American flags, but Australians? It ain't a good sign. :-/
BIGBOYDAVE: [quote author=Mark_LPSG Administrator link=board=99;num=1048153410;start=30#32 date=03/27/03 at 22:25:11]One of my big concerns is about the reputation that the U.S. will have now and for the foreseeable future. I saw on the news yesterday that protesters in Australia are burning American flags on the street.
It's one thing to see Iraqis burning American flags, but Australians? It ain't a good sign. :-/[/quote]
Now Why should it be a suprise throughout recent History people have burned The Flags of those they oppose and it gets the Attention of the Newsmedia therefore they get there desired attention.
I am not saying its right or that I agree But It works.
The flag in this case is the American Flag A symbole to those against the American lead invasion of Another Foreign Country.
Australia is a part of that invading coalation who is At war with Iraq they have troops supporting the battle but I guess like here in America there is a large vocal opposition.
What suprises me is so far in this bloody war that no American flags have been burned here in America by Americans.
But here in America I have seen the Flags of France burned and of the UN because we don't like it that they won't do what we want them to do which is agree with the American Government's position on this war.
I have seen protests boycoting wine from France which included dumping perfectly good wine and champaign's down the drain and boycoting of French resturants, perfumes, clothing etc. including travel To France. Thats the American Way "We'll Fix You For Not Supporting Our Ideals And Doing What We here in America Thing is Right"
The Flag is a symbol of a Country and its government therefor it becomes a target too.
It's one thing to see Iraqis burning American flags, but Australians? It ain't a good sign. :-/[/quote]
Now Why should it be a suprise throughout recent History people have burned The Flags of those they oppose and it gets the Attention of the Newsmedia therefore they get there desired attention.
I am not saying its right or that I agree But It works.
The flag in this case is the American Flag A symbole to those against the American lead invasion of Another Foreign Country.
Australia is a part of that invading coalation who is At war with Iraq they have troops supporting the battle but I guess like here in America there is a large vocal opposition.
What suprises me is so far in this bloody war that no American flags have been burned here in America by Americans.
But here in America I have seen the Flags of France burned and of the UN because we don't like it that they won't do what we want them to do which is agree with the American Government's position on this war.
I have seen protests boycoting wine from France which included dumping perfectly good wine and champaign's down the drain and boycoting of French resturants, perfumes, clothing etc. including travel To France. Thats the American Way "We'll Fix You For Not Supporting Our Ideals And Doing What We here in America Thing is Right"
The Flag is a symbol of a Country and its government therefor it becomes a target too.
Marko,
This is life : friendships lost, alliances broken, vanished sympathies. Nothing lasts forever, especially during crisis...
BIGBOYDAVE,
Maybe that's the American way "we'll fix" you, but it doesn't fit the French realities. France is neither shocked by such actions, nor impressed or saddened/offeneded. Her commerce is incredibly EU oriented, her "éspace" is Europe and herself. Though it is a premier for France : her flag burnt on the streets of US...! c'est quelquechose bien nouveau.
I was reading some articles of The Weekly Standard (Rupert Murdoch subsidised) against France and, to be honest, instead of making me furious, it made me laugh : such a superficial view of the North-Atlantic relationship ! After 1989 the US-Europe connection was never the same : some American right circles didn't get it... yet.
Yours naughtiest, Ralexx
This is life : friendships lost, alliances broken, vanished sympathies. Nothing lasts forever, especially during crisis...
BIGBOYDAVE,
Maybe that's the American way "we'll fix" you, but it doesn't fit the French realities. France is neither shocked by such actions, nor impressed or saddened/offeneded. Her commerce is incredibly EU oriented, her "éspace" is Europe and herself. Though it is a premier for France : her flag burnt on the streets of US...! c'est quelquechose bien nouveau.
I was reading some articles of The Weekly Standard (Rupert Murdoch subsidised) against France and, to be honest, instead of making me furious, it made me laugh : such a superficial view of the North-Atlantic relationship ! After 1989 the US-Europe connection was never the same : some American right circles didn't get it... yet.
Yours naughtiest, Ralexx
Of course, flag burning doesn't piss off every country like it does the US ... and the non-Americans who burn US flags in protest know it. Americans are well known for worshipping their flag ... I've read the coined term drapolatry. Americans ignore such international courtesies as dipping the flag as a sign of respect to a foreign head of state because the US considers dipping the flag to represent subjugation ... which is a silly notion. The US national anthem is not a song about our country, but a song about the flag. And I've heard flag burning referred to as 'desecration'. Desecration? Excuse me, but that's a word reserved for the profanation of religious articles, relics and churches and such. This a flag we're talking about, not the Shroud of Turin. You cannot desecrate that which is not sacred ... and that's sacred in the strictest religious sense. I have heard people say, "I believe in the flag." You believe in a piece of cloth? It's okay to believe in your country and its ideals, but if that's what you mean, then say that instead. People were outraged when the cover of Penthouse featured an otherwise nude model wrapped in an American flag ... more cries of "Desecration!" People, ths is my adopted country. I have respect for it, though, of course, that doesn't mean that I have to agree with the policies of the executive branch ... in fact, I'm opposed to their handling of the Iraq situation. I consider myself an American, but I don't consider an Australian or an Iraqi burning 'Old Glory' to be a personal attack. And if an American thinks burning a French flag to have the same meaning to a Frenchman, he's so wrong.
Sorry for rambling.
Sorry for rambling.
MisterMark
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Posts
- 2,021
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 126
- Points
- 383
- Location
- Palm Springs, CA
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Just to clarify - it's not the actual burning of the flag that concerns me, it's the feeling of hatred and/or vitriol toward Americans that worries me.
tott666: [quote author=Mark_LPSG Administrator link=board=99;num=1048153410;start=30#36 date=03/28/03 at 11:21:23]Just to clarify - it's not the actual burning of the flag that concerns me, it's the feeling of hatred and/or vitriol toward Americans that worries me.[/quote]
I hope and believe that people can distinguish between politics and populations...
In my experience, there are some fundemantal values (attitudes?) that are quite different if you compare USA/Europe, though. Besides the flag worshipping.
To put it simply, European countries are more communal while USA is more individualistic. Americans seem to get personally offended and hostile if foreigners question or criticise the American way and politics, Europeans don't react as if it's a personal insult (though they too might be annoyed) and might be more inclined to debate issues.
I think Europeans are more critical and interested when it comes to politics than Americans. Americans are sometimes wieved as very conservative, inflexible and dogmatic.
I don't know, I feel like I'm repeating cliches and rambling... Anyway, I fear that Americans are less likely than Europeans to actually separate politics/population.
What do you think? Am I simply prejudiced about Americans?
I hope and believe that people can distinguish between politics and populations...
In my experience, there are some fundemantal values (attitudes?) that are quite different if you compare USA/Europe, though. Besides the flag worshipping.
To put it simply, European countries are more communal while USA is more individualistic. Americans seem to get personally offended and hostile if foreigners question or criticise the American way and politics, Europeans don't react as if it's a personal insult (though they too might be annoyed) and might be more inclined to debate issues.
I think Europeans are more critical and interested when it comes to politics than Americans. Americans are sometimes wieved as very conservative, inflexible and dogmatic.
I don't know, I feel like I'm repeating cliches and rambling... Anyway, I fear that Americans are less likely than Europeans to actually separate politics/population.
What do you think? Am I simply prejudiced about Americans?
BIGBOYDAVE: [quote author=Mark_LPSG Administrator link=board=99;num=1048153410;start=30#36 date=03/28/03 at 11:21:23]Just to clarify - it's not the actual burning of the flag that concerns me, it's the feeling of hatred and/or vitriol toward Americans that worries me.[/quote]
Now thats a different Kettle of Fish
But In reality its not hatred towards Individual Americans
Its hatred towards American Government Policies Its a hatred based on Double standards and Fair Play which the Governments of The Usa past and present espouse
This should be easily figured out We hate Sadam and his reigm but we don't hate the Iraqui people DO WE?
Now thats a different Kettle of Fish
But In reality its not hatred towards Individual Americans
Its hatred towards American Government Policies Its a hatred based on Double standards and Fair Play which the Governments of The Usa past and present espouse
This should be easily figured out We hate Sadam and his reigm but we don't hate the Iraqui people DO WE?
