US hospitality

[laszlo.nemedi]

...
Personally, I don't see much of what I read in foriegn newspapers as Anti-Ameri-canism. If you want anti-American sentiment, people should read some of the Arab newspaper. Their articles are based completely on lies and written with the intent to create hostility and violence toward the United States.

Can you name some of this type of newspaper? I choose some of them randomly and I cannot find this type of hateness.

If they are only few of them we cannot generalize (same as the US newspaper are not anti-Arabs, but some extrem newspaper can be)...

But I am ready to change my view if you point me to some (big) Arabic newspaper...

 

[Marko]

invasion - the act of invading; the act of an army that invades for conquest or plunder

war - the waging of armed conflict against an enemy

victory - a successful ending of a struggle or contest; "the general always gets credit for his army's victory"; "the agreement was a triumph for common sense

freedom - the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints

external - outward features

liberty - immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence

independence - freedom from control or influence of another or others


So by the definition of words themselves, Iraq is far from free and far from being the second US state in the middle east. The first being Afghanistan - lol. When will Americans realise that democracy, freedom and liberty when shoved down your throat are not always easy to digest. US culture is not the norm - it is the exception - it is not perfect and in it's own corporate fashion kills thousands just like Saddam. Infact isn't the US the only place where children are sentenced to death and then executed when they are adults ? With regards to the US and terrorists:

Wielding Aid, U.S. Targets Sudan, The Washington Post
Nearly $20 million in surplus U.S. military equipment will be sent to Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda, the officials said, adding that the three countries support Sudanese opposition groups preparing a joint offensive to topple the government of Sudan. -- November 10, 1996

America to Fund Arms for Iraqi Rebels, The Independent
The bill allocating $97m worth of military equipment to the Iraqi opposition was forced on the administration by Congress . . . Laith Kubba, an Iraqi intellectual, said: "The only result of this will be to turn Iraq into another Lebanon, with the development of militias armed by foreign powers in the name of democracy." -- October 16, 1998

The U.S. bombing of Iraq, June 26, 1993, in retaliation for an alleged Iraqi plot to assassinate former president George Bush, "was essential," said President Clinton, "to send a message to those who engage in state-sponsored terrorism . . . and to affirm the expectation of civilized behavior among nations."

Following is a list of prominent individuals whose assassination (or planning for same) the United States has been involved in since the end of the Second World War. The list does not include several assassinations in various parts of the world carried out by anti-Castro Cubans employed by the CIA and headquartered in the United States.

1949 - Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader
1950s - CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of numerous political figures in West Germany
1955 - Jose Antonio Remon, President of Panama
1950s - Chou En-Lai, Prime Minister of China, several attempts on his life
1950s - Sukarno, President of Indonesia
1951 - Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea
1950s (mid) - Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader
1955 - Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India
1957 - Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt
1959 and 1963 - Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia
1960 - Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq
1950s-70s - Jose Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life
1961 - Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, leader of Haiti
1961 - Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo (Zaire)
1961 - Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic
1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam
1960s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts on his life
1960s - Raul Castro, high official in government of Cuba
1965 - Francisco Caamano, Dominican Republic opposition leader
1965 - Pierre Ngendandumwe, Prime Minister of Burundi
1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France
1967 - Che Guevara, Cuban leader 1970 - Salvador Allende, President of Chile
1970 - Gen Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile
1970s, 1981 - Gen. Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama
1972 - General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence
1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire
1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica
1980-1986 - Muammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, several plots and attempts on his life
1982 - Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran
1983 - Gen. Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander
1983 - Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua
1984 - The nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate
1985 - Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (80 people killed in attempt)
1991 - Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq

During 1997 there were a total of 123 attacks against the U.S. Of these, 97 occurred in Latin America; 4 in the Middle East.


On average far fewer Americans are killed each year by terrorists than are killed by lightning, deer accidents, or peanut allergies. To call terrorism a threat to national security is scarcely plausible.
... economic sanctions may well have been a necessary cause of the deaths of more people in Iraq than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout history

 

[Comanche]

Why don't you name some terrorists the US harbors?

Venezuela Electronic News

Venezuelanalysis.com correspondent Eva Golinger writes that the US press is not reporting on the contradictory actions of the Bush administration when it comes to dealing with Venezuela and its progressive, democratically-elected president Hugo Chavez Frias ... as Bush continues to increase his defense budget by $ billions and justifies unwarranted aggression and violence against other nations as part of his ‘war against terror,’ the US Department of Homeland Security looks the other way as terrorists flood through the arrival gates in Miami.

The US Citizenship & Immigration Services ... the division of the Department of Homeland Security that handles asylum petitions and immigration matters ... is currently considering asylum applications filed by two terror suspects fleeing from justice in Venezuela. An Interpol alert has been issued for the two rebel military officers who are suspects in the terrorist attacks against the Spanish Embassy and Consulate of Colombia in Caracas last February.

Major newspapers in the US are not reporting that Venezuelan military rebels and suspected terrorists Jose Antonio Colina and German Varela may very well soon be lawful permanent US residents ... shacked up in the safe-haven of Miami ... along with fellow fugitive from justice, Carlos Fernandez, one of the leaders of a business lock-out and sabotage of Venezuela’s oil industry which caused $10 billion in losses last year ... who is also awaiting his asylum hearing. Varela and Colina are part of a group of military officers who have sought to overthrow the Venezuelan government.

The US media’s conduct comes as no surprise as The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, Newsday and the Washington Post cheered on a short-lived coup d’etat against Chavez Frias in 2002. Some of them later apologized when the pro-US dictator was forced to step down by mass mobilizations and Chavez returned to power.

But, how can President Bush claim to be fighting a war against terrorism and at the same time, welcome terror suspects and coup leaders conspiring against democratic governments with open arms?

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/230104friendlyterrorists.html

This article only deals with Venezuela but the "free" Cubans seeking refuge in South Florida are also responsible for car bombings and other acts of terror in Cuba which would also constitute harboring terrorists. :clap:

 

[Marko]

The main point is a simple one and should be understandable by most: US hypocrisy. Obviously this hypocrisy is evident in every country in the world today. However, it is the level and intensity of hypocrisy that leaves a sour taste in the mouths of the decent people of this world. So in what areas is the US hypocritical ?

How about:

War crimes

Human rights

Trade

International Law

International Treaties

UN Resolutions

Supporting terrorism

So the war in Iraq can be used as an example:

Broke International Law in invasion, war crimes against civilians, human rights abuses with prisoners, opting out of ICC, SF ops to fuel terrorism before war, and finally a failure to listen to the UN or get UN approval. And of course there is one huge factor overlooked by all of this – LYING. Colin Powel and Bush and Blair and Rice – standing up in front of the world’s media and lying. As the investigations begin into an illegal war – the politicians start to blame the spies, so add cowards to the list. This is obviously not a reflection of the US populace – just the ruling powers – which unfortunately is the way in which the world judge a nation. I mean to the US most Palestinian people are dogs due to the Palestinian freedom fighters and the image they portray, but Palestinians just like Iraqis are normal people – simply have differing beliefs.

 

[Cortez]

I hate to be the guy that brings up the past... but no one has done it yet (I think), so I am going to go for the World War Two argument. In the end... my British friend, if America hadn't been there for Britain (Not to mention those that don't support us: France, China, Russia, etc.), their beloved sovereignty would have been destroyed. When you speak of the United States of America as a nation that is fundamentally 'bad' you are just fooling yourself. Everyday you wake up you should thank us that you're still living in a Her Majesty's Consitutional Monarchy and not the Third Reich. Not to mention everything else that this American ingenuity brought you. In addition to our Abrams, Bradleys, 16s, and everything else.

And do you know what happens if America does nothing? You know yourself of the huge numbers of muslims, many of them sympathetic to the Al-Qaeda cause, that live in the United Kingdom. You become just a slave to the ambitions of madmen. When did it occur to any other country that they had the right to tell America what to do and when to do it, when we're the ones who they owe their very existence to.

I'm an American Imperialist - The Future is Coming. Hah.

 

[Cortez]

And not to throw you one, but...

I'm voting Kerry in 2004, I don't particularly like Bush.

 

[Comanche]

I hate to be the guy that brings up the past...

If you want to bring up the past you can make the argument the US owes its very existence to France. Without its help you would still be living in Her Majesty's Monarchy and pledging allegiance to the Union Jack.

 

[Cortez]

If you want to bring the Berets into this.. we can do that.

World War One.. we saved France from being obliterated, and.. World War Two.. we did the same thing. Without America, France would be done, twice. So they still owe us one. I'll be patiently waiting.

 

[JAMiAM]

If you want to bring the Berets into this.. we can do that.

World War One.. we saved France from being obliterated, and.. World War Two.. we did the same thing. Without America, France would be done, twice. So they still owe us one. I'll be patiently waiting.

Technically, they tied down the bulk of Britain's strength fighting Napolean during the War of 1812. So, in that respect, I'd say we are even. Two wars where they helped us get on our feet with, and two wars that we kept them in the ring, or gave them cpr afterwards.

 

[Cortez]

Let's say they owe us.. "Maybe one." Because we don't know for sure that if Britain was set free it would have won. Besides, Britain was building an Empire throughout the 19th-Century, and they did send many of their best, battle-hardened forces after Napoleon was defeated. We do know that France would've bit the dust in both World War I and World War II.

 

[Wolf]

Let's say they owe us.. "Maybe one." Because we don't know for sure that if Britain was set free it would have won. Besides, Britain was building an Empire throughout the 19th-Century, and they did send many of their best, battle-hardened forces after Napoleon was defeated. We do know that France would've bit the dust in both World War I and World War II.

France didn't and wouldn't hade bitten the dust in world War I - the US helped shorten the war, but I refuse to believe that the US won WWI - WWII is different, but don't forget your unsinkable aircraft carrier.

 

[Cortez]

What you think the bloodied BEF (British Expeditionary Force) could've held a candle to Imperial Germany if America had stayed neutral during the war? No way.

France would have fallen, if not sooner, than later. The United States not only broke the back of Germany with its Arsenal, but also with the political effectiveness of the U.S. entrance into the war. It was getting more and more apparent to the Germans that it was a lost conflict. When America joined it it was just a matter of time.

France owes its independence to America... Twice.

 

[Tripps]

Let's say they owe us.. "Maybe one." Because we don't know for sure that if Britain was set free it would have won. Besides, Britain was building an Empire throughout the 19th-Century, and they did send many of their best, battle-hardened forces after Napoleon was defeated. We do know that France would've bit the dust in both World War I and World War II.

Y'know, I always wonder how so many people believe America won the 2 world wars...
Germany, in WWI, was economically broke by the time USA entered WWI, and although I don't deny the entry of US forces had no impact, I simply refuse to accept they "saved" France.
Germany, by 1944, when America finally came along to 'liberate' France, was already beaten, again, with financial assistance, and eventual ground forces, they shortened the whole affair, but to assume the USA came along and won it by themselves is stupid.

 

[Tripps]

France would have fallen, if not sooner, than later. The United States not only broke the back of Germany with its Arsenal, but also with the political effectiveness of the U.S. entrance into the war. It was getting more and more apparent to the Germans that it was a lost conflict. When America joined it it was just a matter of time.

Cortez, are we talking WWI or II here?
If its WWII, can you explain how the arsenal and political impact of USA declaring war on Germany in 1941 broke her back?
Or was it maybe Barbarossa?

 

[Prester John]

Y'know, I always wonder how so many people believe America won the 2 world wars...
Germany, in WWI, was economically broke by the time USA entered WWI, and although I don't deny the entry of US forces had no impact, I simply refuse to accept they "saved" France.
Germany, by 1944, when America finally came along to 'liberate' France, was already beaten, again, with financial assistance, and eventual ground forces, they shortened the whole affair, but to assume the USA came along and won it by themselves is stupid.

You obviously don't watch enough Hollywood movies. Biggest laugh I had watching a WW2 movie, U-571, was when they changed it from Royal to US Navy capturing the German submarine enigma machine. I can now imagine what the Soviet history books must be like too.

 

[Marko]

I hate to be the guy that brings up the past... but no one has done it yet (I think), so I am going to go for the World War Two argument. In the end... my British friend, if America hadn't been there for Britain (Not to mention those that don't support us: France, China, Russia, etc.), their beloved sovereignty would have been destroyed. When you speak of the United States of America as a nation that is fundamentally 'bad' you are just fooling yourself. Everyday you wake up you should thank us that you're still living in a Her Majesty's Consitutional Monarchy and not the Third Reich. Not to mention everything else that this American ingenuity brought you. In addition to our Abrams, Bradleys, 16s, and everything else.

And do you know what happens if America does nothing? You know yourself of the huge numbers of muslims, many of them sympathetic to the Al-Qaeda cause, that live in the United Kingdom. You become just a slave to the ambitions of madmen. When did it occur to any other country that they had the right to tell America what to do and when to do it, when we're the ones who they owe their very existence to.

I'm an American Imperialist - The Future is Coming. Hah.

Oh jesus H Christ...and if it wasn't for Britain there would be no f88king US of A .... muppet. So if wasn't for us you'd be an Indian - native indian that is.

 

[Cortez]

And Indian native? Shouldn't you be calling them savages, Tommy?

What are you talking about the U.S.. "Liberated" France in quotation marks?
Read a history book.

The arsenal of democracy was present in both cases, without American help, Europe would be Hun-ruled.

 

[Tripps]

And Indian native? Shouldn't you be calling them savages, Tommy?

What are you talking about the U.S.. "Liberated" France in quotation marks?
Read a history book.

The arsenal of democracy was present in both cases, without American help, Europe would be Hun-ruled.

I take it the last 2 paragraphs are for me, and not Marko?
I read plenty of history books, I just dont see where you can justify your statement about USA alone breaking Germany's back.

By the time D-Day happened, Germany was a shadow of its former strength.
Not taking anything away from strategic bombing and lend-lease/war loans, to take all the credit is downright arrogant and just plain wrong, Germanys back was broken on the Eastern front, where the arsenal of communism was :cheeky:

 

[Cortez]

U.S. Declaration of War - December, 1941

Invasion of Normandy - June 6th, 1944

No one ever said that the U.S. had all the credit. The United States of America invaded North Africa first, launched massive bomber campaigns with enormous early losses, invaded Sicily and then mainland Italy itself, fought naval battles in the North Atlantic and Pacific. Brought empires to its knees. Without the U.S. Your country would be part of the Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere (If you don't know what that is.. ask me.) Without us they would've lost the war. And just the thought of that not being true disgraces the thousands that died in that war. On every allied side.

 

[Tripps]

No one ever said that the U.S. had all the credit.

World War One.. we saved France from being obliterated, and.. World War Two.. we did the same thing. Without America, France would be done, twice. So they still owe us one. I'll be patiently waiting.

But your impying it, all this "we" stuff, they still owe "us" etc etc

The United States of America invaded North Africa first, launched massive bomber campaigns with enormous early losses, invaded Sicily and then mainland Italy itself, fought naval battles in the North Atlantic and Pacific. Brought empires to its knees. Without the U.S. Your country would be part of the Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere (If you don't know what that is.. ask me.) Without us they would've lost the war. And just the thought of that not being true disgraces the thousands that died in that war. On every allied side.

I know what it is, and at the time, "my country" was probably Holland, as thats where my grandparents were.
I never said those things you mentioned didnt help, but revise what you said please:
The USA invaded North Africa, you forget the French, British, NZ, Aussie, South Africans, Indians and more than likely a whole bunch of other Allied forces were already there, and had the Africa Corps on the back foot.
And had been fighting for quite some time.
The massive bomber campaigns (I assume you mean Europe here) did have an effect on German industry, and slowed down production, even though overall Germany Productivity went up in '43 and '44. And again, it wasnt just the USA doing all the work.
Invasion of Sicily/North Atlantic - do I need to mention the other allied forces again?
The Pacific was not really relevant to bringing Germany to its knees, I guess that was a little off topic to try and involve my current country of residence, and how much we must grovel whenever an American speaks.
Your lack of acknowledgement of the other forces does them injustice.

Who you speak of in regards to "they" I do not know, as you are now going off-topic and mentioning other areas, but if you mean Britain and Russia, I beg to differ.
While I defer to what I have already said in regards to American assistance, to say for 100% certainty that without American assistance 'they' would have lost, I do not agree with.