There's no black British Prime Minister, no black French leadership. I have never seen any British shows filled with blacks. A token one here or there. We have shows (even tv networks) geared specifically for African Americans. Europe was more anti-semitic than us (synagogues were frequently burned in France when I was growing up. YOU HYPOCRITES. Sanctimonious hypocrites.
@germanamericanable Who gives a hoot if the UK has never had a black PM! Obama was a token gesture by the establishment to get the black vote, to create the illusion of a country united, and support for a policy that promised much, but in reality once in power has carried on in the same vein.
As for anti-semitism, in particular the hatred of Jews, it's been going on for 1000's of years and not just in Europe; now surprise me and tell me something that isn't old news!
@kjean1965 When you see all of those people who cheered Obama and their diversity, to say nothing of the non-Americans who cheered Obama's victory, how can you accuse him of just being a ploy to gain the black vote? Obama is a very charismatic man, which is why he won alot of people over, not just blacks. That and confidence in the GOP couldn't have been lower. And the fact that anti-semitism has been constant for lord only knows how long is supposed to excuse it?
@TakumProti show me a semite of the tribe of Judah and I'll show you anti-semitism! These Khazars who now occupy the land of Israel are about as close to being Israelites as an ethnic Chinese is to being a black African.
As for Obama, the proof's in the pudding; what has he done for the US since taking office apart from spending more $, plunging the country into further debt and creating even further hatred for the US worldwide!?
@kjean1965 There's still no excuse for anti-semitism much less any form of bigotry. And over half of Israel's Jewish population are Mizrahi Jews, you know, Jews actually from the Middle East?
@kjean1965 And Obama may not be as competent as he should be, but he wasn't the government con that you accuse him of being, he earned the vote of many Americans and the support of many non Americans.
@TakumProti Of course he earned the vote but it doesn't change the fact that he's a manufactured puppet, a stooge for those that really dictate policy in Washington. Democracy and the bi-party system's a mirage.
@kjean1965 Our nation's democracy is far from a mirage, as is our bipartisanship. The problem is that our democracy has been hijacked by special interests, domestic and foreign, whom have purchased our republic in order to further their agenda of profit. Combine this with the overall incompetence of our politicians, Obama included, in all affairs of state, their complacence, their being out of touch with our society, and their selfish career ambitions, has led to current kleptocracy that exists.
@TakumProti you've just proved my point; it doesn't matter who gets voted in, the whole process is manufactured in that whichever party wins the winning candidate's first allegiance is to those who've groomed & supported his campaign, those who've most to gain, the industrial military complex and financing bankers who dictate policy in the US.
@kjean1965 Actually no, I haven't proved your point. Your point is that our government is from top to bottom a con, mine is that it's not and that the problem is corruption. Our system has been hijacked, the people within the system are have an agenda contrary to that of the people. The two parties are similar in that they're both ran by rich whites, they're rivalry is one of the things slowing down government process with both sides opposing good ideas just because the other side supported it.
@TakumProti I've not mentioned anything about 'top to bottom'. The few, the inner circle, those that affect policy, the key positions within Government, are positions which are not decided upon by democratic vote. These are the power players within US politics.
Like I've already mentioned, this illusion of democracy is a mockery!
@kjean1965 You're implying it. These powerful individuals aren't all in the government, some like I said are powerful special interests whom have stolen our republic from us. As I have said before, our democracy is not an illusion or a mockery, it's not a fantasy; it's just being hijacked by the powerful.
@TakumProti Are you that naive to think that those that surround the President, key positions within Government, aren't on-board when it comes to common interests, the interests of the power elite that dictate policy in Washington!
Of course these powerful individuals aren't all in Govt; why draw attention to themselves when they can just as easily accomplish their goals in the background pulling the strings.
@kjean1965 You're not making much sense here now. This is pretty much what I was saying. It's impossible for you to call me naive when what I'm saying hardly differs from you now at this point.
@TakumProti the positions I'm talking about, within the Presidents close circle, examples like Timothy Geithner, Secretary of Treasury, who spent 5yrs as President of The Federal Reserve. These positions are not up before public scrutiny, candidates are not democratically elected in.
As for the 'powerful individuals' comment, I'm referring to those not in politics but in the background pulling the strings.
@kjean1965 But the President and Congress are and they're the people that I'm referring to as being bought and paid for by powerful special interests such as Goldman Sachs and the Saudi Royal family.
@TakumProti Nothing will change, it's emdemic to politics, the destiny of generations dictated by those with only selfish interests at heart. It matters not who's in power because the 'puppet masters' remain the same.
That's what I'm referring to when I say 'a mirage' because in reality that's what it is, an illusion; an illusion created by the ruling elite!
@kjean1965 Certainly not with that negative and defeatist attitude. And while these puppetmasters are real, our democracy is still not a mirage, it's as real as the people stealing it from us. It's not an illusion at all, it's being taken from us and we have to take it back.
@TakumProti and just how do you plan on taking it back? Since 9/11, people manipulated by fear, panic and ignorance have allowed the Govt to slowly erode civil liberties; readily buying the 'if you're doing nothing wrong you've nothing to fear' line with regard to surveillance and intrusion. Now with the requirement for all email/internet and telephone records to be kept, a further infringement making us increasingly a population under surveillance.
@kjean1965 I may not have any overall solution to this, but don't sit there and act like we're inevitably doomed. You give these people too much credit and treat them like they're gods when they're as mortal as the rest of us and far from invincible. What I do know is that it's going to take an act of revolution and reform to take back our republic. When the people band together in order take what's theirs, they will win. But the first thing to do is quit acting like there's nothing you can do.
@TakumProti [smiling] I'm just clarifying that you know exactly what you're up against. It's surprising just how ignorant the vast majority are in the US, how what we've just discussed would be classed as unpatriotic. But I'd class it as the patriotic duty of every citizen to claim back what's rightfully theirs.
@kjean1965 These aren't the Gods of Olympus that we're dealing with, they aren't unstoppable, and they know it. That's why they ensure that we're decieved and distracted.
@TakumProti True, but you're preaching to the converted here. The biggest problem is getting the message out there and getting people to understand and believe.
@kjean1965 They are democratically decided. This is where you and I differ. Our democratic system exists, but it's being taken from us and negated by these powerful interests.
RACIST? We have a fucking BLACK PRESIDENT. I thought Europeans loved their irony. Germany is RACIST against Blacks like the US was back in the 1950s! They've done documentaries and caught Germans laughing at blacks, refusing them housing. German schools BRAINWASH their kids about America to the point of absurdity. You bring German exchange students to the US and those misconceptions evaporate like soap bubbles. I've seen it over and over. American exchange students find out quickly.
We are also hated by the world for our support of Israel and this is a major issue particularly with the islamic countries. Yet France sells the most weapons to Israel. America is hated for being friends with them, you never hear France criticised. They are the worlds fourth largest weapons manufacturer/ arms dealer but hardly a word is said because everyone is so keen on criticizing Americans because it's easy.
@germanamericanable Those Khazars thiefs that have stolen the land of Palestine and have sentenced the Palestinians to a life of abject misery. Israel is a lie, those Jews are not sons of Judah, they are Khazars who belong to the synagogue of satan.
The Europeans basically went SILENT about the World War in the Congo where 5.4 MILLION people have died. They didn't want to get their hands dirty so they have been mute (Sweden recently cut military aid). They've been silent on a lot of issues letting the US do the grunt mule work. Now anti-americanism is just vogue for people to hop on the bandwagon so they can pretend their hands are clean.
Wow, I'm even more uninformed and ignorant than Americans, because I'm too stupid to recognize that my country has almost the exact same foreign policy.
"American is fundamentally racist"
Translates:
"We like to pretend we dont have massive racism in our societies by ignoring it and instead focusing on the most diverse country in the world with the black head of state."
Now let's go protest French Imperialism in Africa.
@Jerseysdevil The solution is simple, withdraw from NATO. Withdraw from the UN. Leave them to fend for themselves. We’ve been doing this for seven decades. Time to stop, wouldn’t you say? And as far as the world affairs go, the Mid East in particular, they’re part of the same hypocrisy. Don’t go into Afghanistan, but do go into Bosnia. Don’t go into Iraq, but do go into Libya. Don’t support Israel, but do help us with Iran. BASTA!
how about we educate instead of scrutinize each other........hmmm
so you see a part of America and that must generalize the whole country like walking into a store straight to the milk section then walk out and think that store only sells milk.
@dezboss Really? Well, perhaps we should commission some works of art incorporating said furniture into some of our great historical moments. I would suggest one with the pub table crossing the Delaware. The cushions could be leading Pickett's Charge. We could have the bench storming the beaches at Normandy. Or how about the chair landing on the moon? Just a thought.
@TheDoLeMike1977 I wouldn't bother, old history and fine culture is something that the US will never have. However much it tries to take it from Europe.
@dezboss It depends on your perception. I tend to think of the USA as an extension of Western Civilization. Something distinct, but not completely separated from it. Europe did give birth to the USA. Nobody’s arguing against the cultural achievements of Europe. The advancements in the arts, learning, music, science and philosophy of certain European cultures have been unpatrolled in the history of the world. Trying to draw the best from those particular cultures makes perfect sense.
It's kinda how people hate the police. It's safe. It's fun.
But it's also juvenile. But what people don't understand is that it takes an emotional toll on the police to be so negative all the time.
And that's what Europeans don't understand. You are very much lending to the propaganda of the enemy when you vent on us. You aren't losing any skin or money fighting against the Sadaam Husseins and Bin Ladens. So just mind your own business.
@RomansGalatians What exactly should we be encouraging? The US has perhaps been the most irresponsible and possibly least successful superpower in world history.
@nigee1970 The guy's your typical con(neo), a misled patriot. A radical who's full of hate and little humanity, who has little idea or just doesn't care what he incites.
@tevitarosa Sounds like your autobiography..You two buttpirates are the ones hating. In this case it's yourselves and the US. Care? Me? About YOU? LMAO! You fuckin drunk ass toilet bowl scrubber! LOL
@nigee1970 This is true, in much the same way that without US troops in europe, the campaign against the nazis would have been much harder by either the british or soviets. We didnt fight it alone, but we did contribute there as well.
@nigee1970 the japs occupied burma. The US was the ones who were pushing against japan itself. Not saying there were no british there, but the pacific was primarily a US war.
@nigee1970 Nah, your name is probably Sambo, Festus, Rastus, or just plain "Boy". How can you live in England without fried chicken and watermelon? Oh wait...There is KFC in England, and you're probably their #1 customer!
@nigee1970 England has become a squalid, uncomfortable, ugly place ... an intolerant, racist, homophobic, narrow-minded, authoritarian, rat-hole run by vicious, suburban-minded, materialistic philistines.
@nigee1970 Thinking is the most unhealthy thing in the world, and people die of it just as they die of any other disease. Fortunately, in England at any rate, thought is not catching.
@nigee1970 [England is] like a prostitute who, having sold her body all her life, decides to quit and close her business, and then tells everybody she wants to be chaste and protect her flesh as if it were jade.
He Manzi, Chinese politician, in the Shanghai Liberation Daily
@nigee1970 chinese yes, britain no. The US had many more soldiers and ships in the pacific than the UK did. most battles between the japnese and the brits, the japanese won (hong kong, singapore, burma). The chinese did hold down a lot of japanese land forces, but the US aided them as well. The US was focused on beating japan, not nazi germany and if we had to, we would have focused more efforts to the pacific
@CodArk2 then you clearly have never heard of what happened in burma. The british had way to much to worry about in europe so fighting against japan was a secondary thought but as soon as india was under threat the brits threw alot more at the japanese and you can tell by the out come of the battles. Britain smashed the japs in burma as they did to the germans in the battle of britain. Never under estimate the british mate argentina did to long ago and we beat them with a few ships and a few men
@ruthio1 The japanese occupied burma. This is a fact of history. America was focused on beatigng japan. We did not fight them alone, but we were the reason they lost the war. America was the primary nation that beat Japan in WW2, jut as the USSR was the primary nation that beat germany. And argentina is a third world country, not that hard to beat really.
@CodArk2 Yes the japanese occupied burma but the british then counter attacked and drove the japs out of burma and causing one of japans biggest military defeats with them losing 30,000 men. Did you know the british beat the japanese in burma because ur talking like you dont.Well put it this way when the russians had a pact with germany and america refused to fight any body germany,italy,austria and japan were all fighting against britain and they still couldnt beat us.
@CodArk2 lol falklands we fought argentina in their back yard and beat them in weeks. And a third world country ? they had some of the best jets and rockets of the time not as third world as you think mate where as america got bogged down in vietnam for years and you were only fighting half the country because the south were fighting for you. The british always fight and win the americans fight but only win when the british give them a hand or the french. i know it hurts but its the truth
@ruthio1 Just like iraq wasnt third world in 1991, nor was korea in the 50s. but yet we americans always have a rep of attacking small weak nations. While when britain does the same thing, its heroic. America has won wars without britain before as well, and you fought and won real well against the french (normans) who took over in 1066.
@CodArk2 lol u really dont get it britain fought along side you in iraq and korea. the only war u won without help was against the spanish when they had no empire.And do you know bringing up the battle of hastings shows ur stupidity because although we lost it was the last time ANYBODY has ever invaded us 1066 thats the best record in the world nobody else even comes close.Also the normans were vikings who moved to northern france we were taught that at school.
@ruthio1 America tends to fight wars with others not because we are weak, but because we seek the legitimacy that comes with a coalition. America has only been invaded twice, and both times we pushed them back. The normans spoke french and had french customs and law. Thats why you spell things like "colour" and "honour" and "favourite" which all look like french words (because 40 percent of english comes from french).
@CodArk2 LMAO also britian didnt attack argentina. Argentina invaded british soil u fool how can u compare that with occasions when america attacks small countries. Plus argentina is no where near small or weak country it has a similar gdp to iran a country america would not invade even now and a population of 40 million its not even close to third world.if u look through ur history u will see u were once driven from the canadian border to new orleans by the canadians and a few brits.LMAO
@ruthio1 I know argentina attacked the falklands, that said, other nations have attacked the US too, just in europe you view it as american aggression no matter what really happened. And argentina is not a powerful nation. it was bankrupt for most of the last decade lol. It is third world, as is all of south america. These are not wealthy or powerful nations, certainly weaker than iraq was in 1991
@davevak publically it was because they had weapons of mass destruction supposedly. IN reality I suspect it was because bush jr. wanted to finish what his daddy supposedly started in 91. besides, britain has no room to lecture on unwanted or unlawful aggression since historically europeans are much much worse in that regard.
@CodArk2 True, Europeans do have a bad rep. when it comes to Imperialism; the British historically being the worse offenders. But why, in the case of the US, stir up world wide hatred by following in those self same foot steps: historically, there can only be one out-come.
@davevak America is not quite the same as the european empires of old. We don't go to other nations and set up colonies. In iraq we didnt go there with the intention of making it part of the US. The undercurrent of isolationism is strong in the US, and most people dont want us involved in wars in other nations unless we are threatened here in the US.
@davevak imperialism ia what was practiced in most of asia and africa by europeans. America has not really done that, setting up a govt ruling over the native population with intent to stay, even just as a government.
@CodArk2 Imperialism is the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
The US Govt. by its own admission leverages the politics, decisions and the economies of very many countries.
@davevak we dont have political hegemony, nor have we sought one, even in iraq and afghanistan. We can be said to have econmic hegemony, but we are the worlds largest economy so it kinda follows our influence will be felt worldwide (another thing europeans can't stand)
@davevak Not really, its not like we are setting up US government in these nations. It is not americas fault the world likes our movies and food and cars either. If you don't like it, don't buy it. China doesn't control the US politically, but we trade a lot with them.
@CodArk2 I think you really do need to grow up abit. Take some time out and read up on US Foreign Policy, it's affect on numerous countries worldwide. Imperialism in the 20th Century, Economic hitmen and Private Coporations. Last but not least US Debt, you'll be surprised by just how much of the US Debt is owned by China!
@davevak Yes, we had a large affect on world affairs, but then again, so have other powers. And most of US debt is debt the US government owes to itself (other branches of the US gov). America had some imperialism, like the phillipines and puerto rico and such, but by and large we kept to ourselves. Corporations in the US are not owned by the gov., they go to where labor is cheapest, even if thats bad for the US.
@CodArk2 The US Govt owes nothing, because it pays nothing. The debt rests squarely on the shoulders of the American people, and your childrens children. The Govt accumulates revenue to pay off this debt through taxes levied on the private sector but with an ever growing public sector this money is dwindling by the year.
@CodArk2 The US has a national Debt of over 15 Trillion which is rising exponentially. That's over $48,000 per man/woman/child and over $134,000 per tax payer.
@ruthio1 A token effort. Britain's economy is haemorrhaging, losing investment, stunting growth due to an enormous public sector. You have to remember that when the Govt. creates a job by taxing more it’s destroying jobs elsewhere by the act of taxation (private sector jobs).
Picture a bath tub 3/4 full of water (debt) with the tap turned on (deficit) adding to this debt. Now picture trying to empty that tub with an egg cup. That egg cup represents George Osborne's token effort.
Even though we are making cuts we are still taking on far more debt than we are taking out in cuts. The level of debt continues to rise! In spite of cuts we are getting more and more in debt.
@ruthio1 Britain’s debt is gigantic and getting bigger all the time and some believe this isn’t just insane it’s deeply immoral. The scale of debt and deficit is so huge that in affect the Government is borrowing money from people that haven’t even been born yet in order to pay for your and my lifestyles, as we speak, which can’t be right! It’s a complete fraud, it’s a complete theft.
@ruthio1 We’re paying todays beneficiaries, we’re paying ourselves out of our children’s and grandchildren’s money. It’s criminal and the reason we get away with it is because the unborn don’t vote! The immorality of this is breath taking.
@CodArk2 The War in 2003 was unlawful, the President along with those that advised going to War, should have been impeached.
The excuse of WMD's, the fight against terrorism, freeing the people from a tyrant,a facade for the strategic and economic benefits long realised by those in power, that the region affords.
@davevak the only one i could agree with was the freeing people from saddam. I dont think impeachment would have been legal. Bush actually got permission from congress, while other presidents, like clinton and obama, did not (see, kosovo, libya). For the US to officially enter a war, congress has to declare war. Congress also funds the wars because they control the budget. Most europeans dont understand how the US govt. works and assume its all the president
@CodArk2 I understand how the US Govt works, to an extent, that like all democracries there are checks and balances to avoid absolute power or the power to yield it, being vested one man.
@CodArk2 The real reason had nothing to do with the aforementioned and more to do with the fact that Saddam Hussein was looking at, in defiance of the US administration, establishing an oil ‘bourse’ (exchange) which would enable oil to be traded in Euros. Moving oil sales away from their usual denomination of dollars it would, it is argued, have undermined the American currency with grave consequences for the US economy.
@davevak I am sure it was a mix of economics and humanitarian reasons. No one would say saddam was a good guy, but I doubt we would have invaded just because of that. Most people I know dont like the iraq war, but not liking a war is different from not liking a whole nation (and europeans disliked americans before the iraq war, they just use that as an excuse).
@CodArk2 Like tevitarosa has mentioned, The US supports Democracy if, and only if, it accords with US strategic and economic objectives! The US has no problem in overthrowing a government, if it goes against the economic interests of the US.
Saddam was supported for many years by the US, before he stepped out of line. Then what happened, Iraq was subjected to economic sanctions, then calls for more sanctions, threats of military aggression and then an outright invasion.
@davevak for the most part yes, that is true. this was true of european powers as well, though we actually dont do it that often. In the cold war we did sometimes, but thats only because communists tried enforcing their governments on nations too (afghanistan in the 80s, korea, vietnam, several latin american nations, etc). saddam was only sanctioned when he invaded kuwait and tried building nukes, and gassing the kurds
@davevak And the Europeans don't do exactly the same thing with other nations? For the most part Europe and the USA has always marched step in step when it comes to this. You're part of the same hypocrisy too.
@TheDoLeMike1977 I think you are right, but unfortunately western civilisation is not as dominant as it was. And, much to my regret, the USA could be the best force in preserving it but the way things are going, it doesn't look like that will happen.
We in Europe will always keep our culture, traditions and heritage etc but we are not powerful enough to keep them as a dominant force in the world. Only the USA can do that.
@dezboss See, we do come in handy now and then. Hey, I'm not trying to start an argument with you, but I've heard it said by Europeans many times that the US is behind them 200 yrs or so. In what sense exactly? Culturally? OK, I could honestly buy some aspects of that. Technologically? How so?
@CodArk2 A key element of national sovereignty is that wars of aggression against other nations which have not attacked ones' own nation are prohibited under international law. Wars of aggression were declared illegal at the Nuremberg trials after World War II, which established the invasion of other nations by Germany as the type-case.
@davevak many wars the US has been in lately could be said to be that way. the persian gulf war was somewhat one, the nation being invaded could not defend itself. Vietnam? South Vietnam was being attacked by North Vietnam. Korea? South Korea was attacked by North Korea. By that logic, the US should not have entered WW2 in europe, since they had not attacked the US either...but yet more europeans complain that we didn't enter in 1939...why would we have?
@davevak vietnam declared independence from france, france lost the war against vietnam, which was divided. The US helped the south, the chinese and soviets the north. We didnt go there to rule over it but to stop communist expansion.
@CodArk2 your knowledge of events surrounding and leading up to the US sending troops to Vietnam are scant at best!
lol@communist expansion. The mid to late 1950's US rhetoric used to describe Ho Chi Minh's desire for national recognition and the people of Vietnam's desire for self determination.
Try reading up on The Geneva Convention of 1954 and how the US although agreeing to it, thwarted the process of Democracy within that divided nation at every turn.
@davevak france was in infochina. they got kicked out. US helped the south vietnamese, north vietnamese were communist supported. there were supposed to be national elections but there never were. I am not an expert on vietnam, nor did I claim to be.
@davevak USA and South Viet Nam, NEVER AGREED to or SIGNED the resolution of 1954. The US diplomats didn't directly particiapate in negotiaions. The US only promised not to disturb them by force. What part of "didn't agree to" or "sign" don't you understand? What the hell are these liberal college profeesors teaching you kids these days?
@CheckM8King2 The US agreed to the dictates of the Convention and issued a "unilateral declaration" in which it agreed to "refrain from the threat or the use of force to disturb" the accords, an outright bold faced lie.
@davevak If the US didn't directly prticipate in the convention or sign the accords what is your source for "unilateral declaration"? Please don't say Wikipedia!...LOL
@CheckM8King2 haven't a clue what you're on about, wikipedia! The point in matter is how the US has been the singlemost disruptive factor in world affairs over the last 60yrs.
@CheckM8King2 The "Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities in Viet Nam" was signed on July 20, 1954, by South Vietnam's representative, Brigadier Henri Delteil, acting for the "Commander in Chief of the French Union forces in Indo-China" and by Ta Quang Buu, Vice-Minister of National defence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, on behalf of the "Commander in Chief of the People's Army of Vietnam."
@CodArk2 Subsequently, the United Nations General Assembly has enacted resolutions prohibiting military aggression, invasions, and occupations of one country by another - except in self-defence, when the target nation had attacked first.
The Invasion of Iraq in 2003, under International Law was totally illegal.
@davevak I suppose it was, though its still better saddam is not in power there. Besides, the US is one of the makers of international law, europe is not the only part of the world that get a say so. besides, europeans started both word wars, and a lot of other ones. This peace for 50 years was mostly maintained by the US.
@CodArk2 So what you're trying to say is that because the US being one of the pillars of international law, this gives it 'carte blanche' to come and go as it pleases!
@davevak To a point. We are a world power. What really steams europeans is not that america is this evil warmonger, but that we have the power and they don't. When european nations were the world power they did things that if americans did it would have europeans screaming for international sanctions or war. And this was only in the last 200 years, what bothers europeans is not a carte blanche by anyone, just that *they* don't have it
@davevak But a true one. Most europeans jsut don't want to admit they are jealous of the fact the US has power. Most others have reflexive anti-americanism that is extremely annoying, and unjustified. They invoke the iraq war like they were all iraqi and the US was bombing them, even though i ran into many that hated the US even in 1998 and 1999 when i visited europe and in 2000 when i visited canada
@ruthio1 and i am familiar with the war of 1812, a war england started by stopping american ships and taking americans off american ships to serve in the british navy against napoleon. This was illegal of course, but brits ignore this. You also act like britain took over the US in that war, which is untrue. the british in canada could no more invade the US than the US could invade canada. both sides invaded the other, and both failed
@CodArk2 well america tried to invade canada and the war last battle was fought new orleans u may say it was a draw but tactically we won ur goal was to take over canada and we fought u to new orleans. U say u have only been invaded 2 but u have only been around for 200 odd years.well no if america was being invaded how would we say its american agression. we call it agression when u invaded small central american countries to topple demcratically elected parties
@ruthio1 both sides tried invading the other. the US didn't have the ability to attack britain itself, so it attacked part of the british empire: canada. Our goal was to stop impressment of US sailors and open of trade, the invasion of canada was only to hit at the british.
@ruthio1 In addition, you are making it sound like brtain took over the whole US, and only new orleans was left. in reality, they landed at new orleans from the gulf of mexico and we kicked them back into the sea. the only other major invasion was washington DC, and yes, as american territory both were invasions. it was aggression against the US. look up the history of the war of 1812. usually the central american things were communist related, and we dont like communism
@CodArk2 hahaha u dnt like communism but who the hell are u to tell other countries what to do.And you really need to read a book the war of 1812 was started because america tried to invade canada. Britain was fighting napoleon at that time not only was that war more important but you were only at back water at the time invading you was pointless.
@ruthio1 I would ask the same thing of the soviets. WHo the hell were they to put castro in power in cuba? And no, the war was not started so the US could invade canada. It was started because britain was raiding US shipping lanes for any ship suspected of going to france, and taking off sailors from US flagged ships, which was an act of war. we invaded canada because we couldnt hit britain itself.
@CodArk2 simple fact is america tried time after time to invade canada. Yet you want to give reasons which enermies are obliged to do as a reason for trying to invade british land. Look simple fact is america declared war on britian tried to invade canada. Britain then beat napoleon sailed more soldiers to america burnt down the white house. Any fool can see britian won that war and america started it. And ur defence is well the soveits did it but ur supposed to be the better country haha
@ruthio1 Actually we only tried in the war of 1812, after that we didn't really care. If britain hadn't been raiding american shipping, which was illegal, there would have been no war. Britain started it, we simply acknowledged it. Britain didnt win the war, it was a draw,and seeing the white house burning is an example of winning a battle and thinking you won the war. And otherwise much of the planet would have been communist
@CodArk2 no not just burning the white house fact that americans were running away from battles against the british thats exactly why we could burn the white house because nobody was going to confront the british. And you did try to invade time after time when you took control of ontario and lower canada that doesnt happen without a so called invasion although we threw u out staright away still means u tried
@ruthio1 Americans didn't run away from most battles. The battle at washington was between a militia and the british army. The US back then was not a superpower. America invaded canada to drive out the british. We were at war with the british so it follows we would fight them. Besides, you tried invading the US, and we threw you out as well
@CodArk2 yes america invaded canada to drive the british out although it was our land and the canadians wanted to remain in the commonwealth. So u wanted to go against what the canadian people wanted because it didnt suite u americans lol typical ur still doing the same thing today. LOL also britian didnt invade america we founded it and had british people living there. And the war of independence britain won 90 per cent of the battles until u ran to the french,dutch and spanish haha
@ruthio1 Well americans didn't , so why invade the US? Oh right because you were an imperialist power that thought you were better than everyone else. Besides, america was not a superpower back then, britain was. you wanted to go against what the american people wanted as well. So what if it was founded by england,we didnt want to be part of it. americans also lived in canada and britain at the time. and the french helped us, but we still won the war against a superpower
@CodArk2 LMFAO again we didnt invade america we founded it as part of britian thus u had to pay taxes but correctly u didnt like having no say on how the tax was spent. LOL u had every power in the world at the time against us and u didnt kick us out it was not worth fighting for anymore cost us more in fighting than we were gaining. And ur european allies jealous of british success were the main reason fighting was so hard u barely had and army at the time
@ruthio1 so american troops in canada is an invasion, but british troops in america isn't one? we didnt want to be part of england. no taxation without representation was valid, and englands reaction to that demand is what led to us breaking off. We kicked you out of the US, twice actually. Britain was the monumental asshole nation back then that most tend to see america as now. And its for much the same reasons, some are jealous, and some is justified.
@CodArk2How the hell was their british troops in america when at the time america wasnt even a country. British troops were in their own land which is america today because the land was owned by britian. Dont you see the fact is we made you and u are us just over an ocean so to say british troops in america is wrong it was british troops in their own land.u kicked us out really we were just across the border mate.u couldnt of kicked us out that well if we could just come back and burn ur capital
@ruthio1 Uh, america was a country in 1812. Canada was not a country in 1812 though, it was part of the british empire. British troops were in the US in the war of 1812, and american troops were in what became canada. America was sovereign back then, it was just as much an invasion for british troops to be in washington DC as it was for american troops to be in canada, besides, we could have kicked britain out of the US on land, its the navy where britain dominated
@CodArk2 I thought u meant the war of independence. I have to disagree britian has always had a small army but they have been the best trained on this planet for hundreds of years.The thin red line RARELY broke if we are easy to kick out of ur country then how were british soldiers able to march from canada to washington DC and burn ur capital. Just so u know many people in britian dont even know this war happened but we were fighting napoleon at the same time were we ended his reign
@ruthio1 To a point yes, thats why they were a superpower. And bitain didnt march from canada to washington, they landed with ships in chesapeake bay and marched to washington, which was only defended by a small militia, not the army. The army was at baltimore because they thought the british would attack the port there. And many americans don't think world war two started until 1941, but to most brits it started in 1939, so not knowing about it doesnt matter really
@ruthio1 lol u dont get me the fact that the war started in canada and before u know it its in washington.And to call the small malitia statement,britian fought under manned right up until napoleon was beat.
@CodArk2 Today british people will agree with u taxation without representation is wrong. U claim britian was a asshole nation yet today u live and work in a style of society made by britain as has the rest of the world. Most of the world use british laws,tax systems,court systems,policing,True democracy and so on. Britain took the world forward hundreds of years including america. Do u think that if spain or france controlled america u would be the country u are today,its because ofthe british
@ruthio1 Yes, america owes a lot to the british, though to be fair, much of the things british people claim as britsh also come from elsewhere. The legal system is largely roman based, the language is largely latin and germanic, democracy comes form the greeks, etc. Britain took it and refined it, just as the US did with some of the things britain and other nations did. And some of the ways britain "took the world forward" were outright barbaric.
@CodArk2 lol british laws are romanic u clearly have never hear that the romans were usually by a dictator that woule be murdered rathe than elected out romans gave britain and europe alot of things but plotical systems are not one of them they were an ancient people with great buildings army and stability but poltically the system they had was never taken up by anyone they had democracy for the smallest amount of time. The greeks were the closest to the british political system of the 1800s
@ruthio1 Actually the romans had a democracy at first that slid into dictatorship. The idea of councils and such came from the germanic tribes that settled britain, and were based more on family bonds than anything else. An infusion of continental ideas came with the normals, in fact the word "parliament" comes from the french"parle" meaning speak. Parliament was a place to speak
@CodArk2 lol romans had demorcay where only a certain amunt of people could vote and they would change who could vote every year. The fact is britian wa the first place on this planet to introduce a real form of demoracy. Ever heard of the magna carta doesnt matter where it came from the brits took to it more than anywhere else. Even if its french their noblity were telling starving people to eat cake while britian had spread demoracy around the world.
@ruthio1 Same with britain, only a few could vote, you had the house of lords, and later the house of commons. the greeks had a form of democracy, as did many other societies.
@CodArk2 yes a form of democracy but they also held slaves im talking about 18th century democracy that britian spread around the world other might have started it but britian invented the form that we all use today
@CodArk2 whilst the french were having a revolution britian had already cut its monarchs powers and had primes minister for 200 years. When it comes to demoracy and politics britian has made the modern world even countries like senegal use british systems of politics and law as do 90 per of the countries in the world it a known fact
@ruthio1 Some nations use british, some use a US system, and osme use others entirely. The US uses a different form of government from britain, and was more influenced by french thinkers than british ones
@CodArk2 where no talking abou theories we are talking laws that are put in wiriting and 90 per cent of american law is based on the british common law reasecrh them both and u will see the are scarily simliar and but british common law came around 100 years before america was even born u yanks nhate giving us brits credit for anythin. If u would have followed france u would be 50 years behind where u are now
How're you doing? LOL!!!!
ThierryvanDijk 4 days ago
3:41 - 3:50 sums up the entire video.
whyeff21 1 week ago
There's no black British Prime Minister, no black French leadership. I have never seen any British shows filled with blacks. A token one here or there. We have shows (even tv networks) geared specifically for African Americans. Europe was more anti-semitic than us (synagogues were frequently burned in France when I was growing up. YOU HYPOCRITES. Sanctimonious hypocrites.
germanamericanable 1 month ago
@germanamericanable Who gives a hoot if the UK has never had a black PM! Obama was a token gesture by the establishment to get the black vote, to create the illusion of a country united, and support for a policy that promised much, but in reality once in power has carried on in the same vein.
As for anti-semitism, in particular the hatred of Jews, it's been going on for 1000's of years and not just in Europe; now surprise me and tell me something that isn't old news!
kjean1965 4 weeks ago
@kjean1965 When you see all of those people who cheered Obama and their diversity, to say nothing of the non-Americans who cheered Obama's victory, how can you accuse him of just being a ploy to gain the black vote? Obama is a very charismatic man, which is why he won alot of people over, not just blacks. That and confidence in the GOP couldn't have been lower. And the fact that anti-semitism has been constant for lord only knows how long is supposed to excuse it?
TakumProti 2 weeks ago
@TakumProti show me a semite of the tribe of Judah and I'll show you anti-semitism! These Khazars who now occupy the land of Israel are about as close to being Israelites as an ethnic Chinese is to being a black African.
As for Obama, the proof's in the pudding; what has he done for the US since taking office apart from spending more $, plunging the country into further debt and creating even further hatred for the US worldwide!?
kjean1965 2 weeks ago
@kjean1965 There's still no excuse for anti-semitism much less any form of bigotry. And over half of Israel's Jewish population are Mizrahi Jews, you know, Jews actually from the Middle East?
TakumProti 2 weeks ago
@kjean1965 And Obama may not be as competent as he should be, but he wasn't the government con that you accuse him of being, he earned the vote of many Americans and the support of many non Americans.
TakumProti 2 weeks ago
@TakumProti Of course he earned the vote but it doesn't change the fact that he's a manufactured puppet, a stooge for those that really dictate policy in Washington. Democracy and the bi-party system's a mirage.
kjean1965 2 weeks ago
@kjean1965 Our nation's democracy is far from a mirage, as is our bipartisanship. The problem is that our democracy has been hijacked by special interests, domestic and foreign, whom have purchased our republic in order to further their agenda of profit. Combine this with the overall incompetence of our politicians, Obama included, in all affairs of state, their complacence, their being out of touch with our society, and their selfish career ambitions, has led to current kleptocracy that exists.
TakumProti 2 weeks ago
@TakumProti you've just proved my point; it doesn't matter who gets voted in, the whole process is manufactured in that whichever party wins the winning candidate's first allegiance is to those who've groomed & supported his campaign, those who've most to gain, the industrial military complex and financing bankers who dictate policy in the US.
The whole process is a mockery.
kjean1965 2 weeks ago
@kjean1965 Actually no, I haven't proved your point. Your point is that our government is from top to bottom a con, mine is that it's not and that the problem is corruption. Our system has been hijacked, the people within the system are have an agenda contrary to that of the people. The two parties are similar in that they're both ran by rich whites, they're rivalry is one of the things slowing down government process with both sides opposing good ideas just because the other side supported it.
TakumProti 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
kjean1965 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TakumProti I've not mentioned anything about 'top to bottom'. The few, the inner circle, those that affect policy, the key positions within Government, are positions which are not decided upon by democratic vote. These are the power players within US politics.
Like I've already mentioned, this illusion of democracy is a mockery!
kjean1965 2 weeks ago
@kjean1965 You're implying it. These powerful individuals aren't all in the government, some like I said are powerful special interests whom have stolen our republic from us. As I have said before, our democracy is not an illusion or a mockery, it's not a fantasy; it's just being hijacked by the powerful.
TakumProti 2 weeks ago
@TakumProti Are you that naive to think that those that surround the President, key positions within Government, aren't on-board when it comes to common interests, the interests of the power elite that dictate policy in Washington!
Of course these powerful individuals aren't all in Govt; why draw attention to themselves when they can just as easily accomplish their goals in the background pulling the strings.
kjean1965 2 weeks ago
@kjean1965 You're not making much sense here now. This is pretty much what I was saying. It's impossible for you to call me naive when what I'm saying hardly differs from you now at this point.
TakumProti 2 weeks ago
@TakumProti the positions I'm talking about, within the Presidents close circle, examples like Timothy Geithner, Secretary of Treasury, who spent 5yrs as President of The Federal Reserve. These positions are not up before public scrutiny, candidates are not democratically elected in.
As for the 'powerful individuals' comment, I'm referring to those not in politics but in the background pulling the strings.
kjean1965 2 weeks ago
@kjean1965 But the President and Congress are and they're the people that I'm referring to as being bought and paid for by powerful special interests such as Goldman Sachs and the Saudi Royal family.
TakumProti 2 weeks ago
@TakumProti Nothing will change, it's emdemic to politics, the destiny of generations dictated by those with only selfish interests at heart. It matters not who's in power because the 'puppet masters' remain the same.
That's what I'm referring to when I say 'a mirage' because in reality that's what it is, an illusion; an illusion created by the ruling elite!
kjean1965 2 weeks ago
@kjean1965 Certainly not with that negative and defeatist attitude. And while these puppetmasters are real, our democracy is still not a mirage, it's as real as the people stealing it from us. It's not an illusion at all, it's being taken from us and we have to take it back.
TakumProti 2 weeks ago
@TakumProti and just how do you plan on taking it back? Since 9/11, people manipulated by fear, panic and ignorance have allowed the Govt to slowly erode civil liberties; readily buying the 'if you're doing nothing wrong you've nothing to fear' line with regard to surveillance and intrusion. Now with the requirement for all email/internet and telephone records to be kept, a further infringement making us increasingly a population under surveillance.
Just what are your plans!
kjean1965 2 weeks ago
@kjean1965 I may not have any overall solution to this, but don't sit there and act like we're inevitably doomed. You give these people too much credit and treat them like they're gods when they're as mortal as the rest of us and far from invincible. What I do know is that it's going to take an act of revolution and reform to take back our republic. When the people band together in order take what's theirs, they will win. But the first thing to do is quit acting like there's nothing you can do.
TakumProti 2 weeks ago
@TakumProti [smiling] I'm just clarifying that you know exactly what you're up against. It's surprising just how ignorant the vast majority are in the US, how what we've just discussed would be classed as unpatriotic. But I'd class it as the patriotic duty of every citizen to claim back what's rightfully theirs.
kjean1965 2 weeks ago
@kjean1965 These aren't the Gods of Olympus that we're dealing with, they aren't unstoppable, and they know it. That's why they ensure that we're decieved and distracted.
TakumProti 2 weeks ago
@TakumProti True, but you're preaching to the converted here. The biggest problem is getting the message out there and getting people to understand and believe.
kjean1965 2 weeks ago
@TakumProti and like I've already said, these positions aren't decided by a democratic universal vote.
kjean1965 2 weeks ago
@kjean1965 They are democratically decided. This is where you and I differ. Our democratic system exists, but it's being taken from us and negated by these powerful interests.
TakumProti 2 weeks ago
RACIST? We have a fucking BLACK PRESIDENT. I thought Europeans loved their irony. Germany is RACIST against Blacks like the US was back in the 1950s! They've done documentaries and caught Germans laughing at blacks, refusing them housing. German schools BRAINWASH their kids about America to the point of absurdity. You bring German exchange students to the US and those misconceptions evaporate like soap bubbles. I've seen it over and over. American exchange students find out quickly.
germanamericanable 1 month ago
We are also hated by the world for our support of Israel and this is a major issue particularly with the islamic countries. Yet France sells the most weapons to Israel. America is hated for being friends with them, you never hear France criticised. They are the worlds fourth largest weapons manufacturer/ arms dealer but hardly a word is said because everyone is so keen on criticizing Americans because it's easy.
germanamericanable 1 month ago
@germanamericanable Those Khazars thiefs that have stolen the land of Palestine and have sentenced the Palestinians to a life of abject misery. Israel is a lie, those Jews are not sons of Judah, they are Khazars who belong to the synagogue of satan.
kjean1965 4 weeks ago
The Europeans basically went SILENT about the World War in the Congo where 5.4 MILLION people have died. They didn't want to get their hands dirty so they have been mute (Sweden recently cut military aid). They've been silent on a lot of issues letting the US do the grunt mule work. Now anti-americanism is just vogue for people to hop on the bandwagon so they can pretend their hands are clean.
germanamericanable 1 month ago
"We hate American foreign policy!!"
Translates:
Wow, I'm even more uninformed and ignorant than Americans, because I'm too stupid to recognize that my country has almost the exact same foreign policy.
"American is fundamentally racist"
Translates:
"We like to pretend we dont have massive racism in our societies by ignoring it and instead focusing on the most diverse country in the world with the black head of state."
Now let's go protest French Imperialism in Africa.
No war for Chocolate!
Jerseysdevil 1 month ago 3
@Jerseysdevil The solution is simple, withdraw from NATO. Withdraw from the UN. Leave them to fend for themselves. We’ve been doing this for seven decades. Time to stop, wouldn’t you say? And as far as the world affairs go, the Mid East in particular, they’re part of the same hypocrisy. Don’t go into Afghanistan, but do go into Bosnia. Don’t go into Iraq, but do go into Libya. Don’t support Israel, but do help us with Iran. BASTA!
TheDoLeMike1977 1 month ago
how about we educate instead of scrutinize each other........hmmm
so you see a part of America and that must generalize the whole country like walking into a store straight to the milk section then walk out and think that store only sells milk.
c'on people this is how racism starts
rarolland 1 month ago
oh fuck it, if it's not a monarchy than it cant be an empire, is that what was that guy saying, what a crack of shit
CroMarduk 1 month ago
It amuses me that we actually have chairs and tables in England that are older and have more history than the USA. Lol.
dezboss 1 month ago
@dezboss Yes, but as interesting a history?
TheDoLeMike1977 1 month ago
@TheDoLeMike1977 I'd say so.
dezboss 1 month ago
@dezboss Really? Well, perhaps we should commission some works of art incorporating said furniture into some of our great historical moments. I would suggest one with the pub table crossing the Delaware. The cushions could be leading Pickett's Charge. We could have the bench storming the beaches at Normandy. Or how about the chair landing on the moon? Just a thought.
TheDoLeMike1977 1 month ago
@TheDoLeMike1977 I wouldn't bother, old history and fine culture is something that the US will never have. However much it tries to take it from Europe.
dezboss 1 month ago
@dezboss It depends on your perception. I tend to think of the USA as an extension of Western Civilization. Something distinct, but not completely separated from it. Europe did give birth to the USA. Nobody’s arguing against the cultural achievements of Europe. The advancements in the arts, learning, music, science and philosophy of certain European cultures have been unpatrolled in the history of the world. Trying to draw the best from those particular cultures makes perfect sense.
TheDoLeMike1977 1 month ago
It's kinda how people hate the police. It's safe. It's fun.
But it's also juvenile. But what people don't understand is that it takes an emotional toll on the police to be so negative all the time.
And that's what Europeans don't understand. You are very much lending to the propaganda of the enemy when you vent on us. You aren't losing any skin or money fighting against the Sadaam Husseins and Bin Ladens. So just mind your own business.
Or, hell, you could even lend an encouraging word
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
@RomansGalatians What exactly should we be encouraging? The US has perhaps been the most irresponsible and possibly least successful superpower in world history.
dezboss 1 month ago
Long live Europe & all it's countries.
TheNicho223 1 month ago
oofta these are some mean people lol I guess everyone has mean people though.
sillyjontag321 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@432ps1 wishing (as he sits there in his trailer).
While his outcast of a wife services the queue outside with blow jobs to earn the family crust.
lol
sheoladh go fraochÚn de mo bhean chéile maidir le!
davevak 2 months ago 2
Comment removed
davevak 2 months ago
@nigee1970 Jenkum isn't beer, Private Cuntlips.
432ps1 2 months ago
@nigee1970 The guy's your typical con(neo), a misled patriot. A radical who's full of hate and little humanity, who has little idea or just doesn't care what he incites.
tevitarosa 2 months ago
@tevitarosa Sounds like your autobiography..You two buttpirates are the ones hating. In this case it's yourselves and the US. Care? Me? About YOU? LMAO! You fuckin drunk ass toilet bowl scrubber! LOL
432ps1 2 months ago
@nigee1970 This is true, in much the same way that without US troops in europe, the campaign against the nazis would have been much harder by either the british or soviets. We didnt fight it alone, but we did contribute there as well.
CodArk2 2 months ago
@nigee1970 the japs occupied burma. The US was the ones who were pushing against japan itself. Not saying there were no british there, but the pacific was primarily a US war.
CodArk2 2 months ago
@nigee1970 Nah, your name is probably Sambo, Festus, Rastus, or just plain "Boy". How can you live in England without fried chicken and watermelon? Oh wait...There is KFC in England, and you're probably their #1 customer!
432ps1 2 months ago
@nigee1970 Me a Jew? Fuckin get real. Jews are more like you: Self loathing swarthy, filthy niggardly cowards
432ps1 2 months ago
@nigee1970 Bobby Fischer: Useful idiot, who cares. Now who won the cold war again?
432ps1 2 months ago
@nigee1970 England has become a squalid, uncomfortable, ugly place ... an intolerant, racist, homophobic, narrow-minded, authoritarian, rat-hole run by vicious, suburban-minded, materialistic philistines.
Hanif Kureishi, British writer, 1988
432ps1 2 months ago
@432ps1 I wonder why he wrote that! You don't think it maybe had something to do with being a Muslim and living in the UK!!
davevak 2 months ago
@nigee1970 Thinking is the most unhealthy thing in the world, and people die of it just as they die of any other disease. Fortunately, in England at any rate, thought is not catching.
Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying, 1889
432ps1 2 months ago
@nigee1970 The perfidious, savage, disdainful, stupid, slothful, inhospitable, stupid English.
Julius Caesar Scaliger, French physician and scholar
432ps1 2 months ago
@nigee1970 Because we keep the good stuff for ourselves. My dog pisses in the stuff we send over to you Limey cocksuckers.
432ps1 2 months ago
@nigee1970 [England is] like a prostitute who, having sold her body all her life, decides to quit and close her business, and then tells everybody she wants to be chaste and protect her flesh as if it were jade.
He Manzi, Chinese politician, in the Shanghai Liberation Daily
432ps1 2 months ago
@nigee1970 chinese yes, britain no. The US had many more soldiers and ships in the pacific than the UK did. most battles between the japnese and the brits, the japanese won (hong kong, singapore, burma). The chinese did hold down a lot of japanese land forces, but the US aided them as well. The US was focused on beating japan, not nazi germany and if we had to, we would have focused more efforts to the pacific
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 then you clearly have never heard of what happened in burma. The british had way to much to worry about in europe so fighting against japan was a secondary thought but as soon as india was under threat the brits threw alot more at the japanese and you can tell by the out come of the battles. Britain smashed the japs in burma as they did to the germans in the battle of britain. Never under estimate the british mate argentina did to long ago and we beat them with a few ships and a few men
ruthio1 2 months ago
@ruthio1 The japanese occupied burma. This is a fact of history. America was focused on beatigng japan. We did not fight them alone, but we were the reason they lost the war. America was the primary nation that beat Japan in WW2, jut as the USSR was the primary nation that beat germany. And argentina is a third world country, not that hard to beat really.
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 Yes the japanese occupied burma but the british then counter attacked and drove the japs out of burma and causing one of japans biggest military defeats with them losing 30,000 men. Did you know the british beat the japanese in burma because ur talking like you dont.Well put it this way when the russians had a pact with germany and america refused to fight any body germany,italy,austria and japan were all fighting against britain and they still couldnt beat us.
ruthio1 2 months ago
@CodArk2 lol falklands we fought argentina in their back yard and beat them in weeks. And a third world country ? they had some of the best jets and rockets of the time not as third world as you think mate where as america got bogged down in vietnam for years and you were only fighting half the country because the south were fighting for you. The british always fight and win the americans fight but only win when the british give them a hand or the french. i know it hurts but its the truth
ruthio1 2 months ago
@ruthio1 Just like iraq wasnt third world in 1991, nor was korea in the 50s. but yet we americans always have a rep of attacking small weak nations. While when britain does the same thing, its heroic. America has won wars without britain before as well, and you fought and won real well against the french (normans) who took over in 1066.
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 lol u really dont get it britain fought along side you in iraq and korea. the only war u won without help was against the spanish when they had no empire.And do you know bringing up the battle of hastings shows ur stupidity because although we lost it was the last time ANYBODY has ever invaded us 1066 thats the best record in the world nobody else even comes close.Also the normans were vikings who moved to northern france we were taught that at school.
ruthio1 2 months ago
@ruthio1 America tends to fight wars with others not because we are weak, but because we seek the legitimacy that comes with a coalition. America has only been invaded twice, and both times we pushed them back. The normans spoke french and had french customs and law. Thats why you spell things like "colour" and "honour" and "favourite" which all look like french words (because 40 percent of english comes from french).
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 LMAO also britian didnt attack argentina. Argentina invaded british soil u fool how can u compare that with occasions when america attacks small countries. Plus argentina is no where near small or weak country it has a similar gdp to iran a country america would not invade even now and a population of 40 million its not even close to third world.if u look through ur history u will see u were once driven from the canadian border to new orleans by the canadians and a few brits.LMAO
ruthio1 2 months ago
@ruthio1 I know argentina attacked the falklands, that said, other nations have attacked the US too, just in europe you view it as american aggression no matter what really happened. And argentina is not a powerful nation. it was bankrupt for most of the last decade lol. It is third world, as is all of south america. These are not wealthy or powerful nations, certainly weaker than iraq was in 1991
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 an example of unwarranted aggression not to mention unlawful, what exactly was the reason behind the invasion of Iraq in 2003?
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak publically it was because they had weapons of mass destruction supposedly. IN reality I suspect it was because bush jr. wanted to finish what his daddy supposedly started in 91. besides, britain has no room to lecture on unwanted or unlawful aggression since historically europeans are much much worse in that regard.
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 True, Europeans do have a bad rep. when it comes to Imperialism; the British historically being the worse offenders. But why, in the case of the US, stir up world wide hatred by following in those self same foot steps: historically, there can only be one out-come.
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak America is not quite the same as the european empires of old. We don't go to other nations and set up colonies. In iraq we didnt go there with the intention of making it part of the US. The undercurrent of isolationism is strong in the US, and most people dont want us involved in wars in other nations unless we are threatened here in the US.
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 You seem to be confusing Colonialism with Imperialism, two totally separate ideals.
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak imperialism ia what was practiced in most of asia and africa by europeans. America has not really done that, setting up a govt ruling over the native population with intent to stay, even just as a government.
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 Imperialism is the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
The US Govt. by its own admission leverages the politics, decisions and the economies of very many countries.
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak we dont have political hegemony, nor have we sought one, even in iraq and afghanistan. We can be said to have econmic hegemony, but we are the worlds largest economy so it kinda follows our influence will be felt worldwide (another thing europeans can't stand)
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 Just to set the record straight, you seem to think I'm European, I'm not.
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak Many that bash the US are not in the US, but i never said you were european.
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 That last statement was pretty naive to say the least. Economics and Politics amounts to the same thing.
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak Not really, its not like we are setting up US government in these nations. It is not americas fault the world likes our movies and food and cars either. If you don't like it, don't buy it. China doesn't control the US politically, but we trade a lot with them.
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 I think you really do need to grow up abit. Take some time out and read up on US Foreign Policy, it's affect on numerous countries worldwide. Imperialism in the 20th Century, Economic hitmen and Private Coporations. Last but not least US Debt, you'll be surprised by just how much of the US Debt is owned by China!
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak Yes, we had a large affect on world affairs, but then again, so have other powers. And most of US debt is debt the US government owes to itself (other branches of the US gov). America had some imperialism, like the phillipines and puerto rico and such, but by and large we kept to ourselves. Corporations in the US are not owned by the gov., they go to where labor is cheapest, even if thats bad for the US.
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 The US Govt owes nothing, because it pays nothing. The debt rests squarely on the shoulders of the American people, and your childrens children. The Govt accumulates revenue to pay off this debt through taxes levied on the private sector but with an ever growing public sector this money is dwindling by the year.
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak Hence why 'The Debt Ceiling' (remember Aug 11) keeps getting bigger and bigger.
davevak 2 months ago
@CodArk2 The US has a national Debt of over 15 Trillion which is rising exponentially. That's over $48,000 per man/woman/child and over $134,000 per tax payer.
davevak 2 months ago
@CodArk2 The naional debt is +100% of GDP
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak So is it in many european nations...if not higher.
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 but then again the UK with a debt of over £4 trillion is no better off!
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak yes but britian is cutting is services where as america just raises the debt ceiling every 90 days.
ruthio1 2 months ago
@ruthio1 A token effort. Britain's economy is haemorrhaging, losing investment, stunting growth due to an enormous public sector. You have to remember that when the Govt. creates a job by taxing more it’s destroying jobs elsewhere by the act of taxation (private sector jobs).
Picture a bath tub 3/4 full of water (debt) with the tap turned on (deficit) adding to this debt. Now picture trying to empty that tub with an egg cup. That egg cup represents George Osborne's token effort.
davevak 2 months ago
@ruthio1 (1)
Even though we are making cuts we are still taking on far more debt than we are taking out in cuts. The level of debt continues to rise! In spite of cuts we are getting more and more in debt.
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak so do u think cutting nothing instead of abit each term is the ansewr. I really dont think so.
ruthio1 2 months ago
@ruthio1 of course cuts are good, but as I've already alluded to it's no where near enough.
davevak 2 months ago
@ruthio1 Britain’s debt is gigantic and getting bigger all the time and some believe this isn’t just insane it’s deeply immoral. The scale of debt and deficit is so huge that in affect the Government is borrowing money from people that haven’t even been born yet in order to pay for your and my lifestyles, as we speak, which can’t be right! It’s a complete fraud, it’s a complete theft.
davevak 2 months ago
@ruthio1 We’re paying todays beneficiaries, we’re paying ourselves out of our children’s and grandchildren’s money. It’s criminal and the reason we get away with it is because the unborn don’t vote! The immorality of this is breath taking.
davevak 2 months ago
@CodArk2 The War in 2003 was unlawful, the President along with those that advised going to War, should have been impeached.
The excuse of WMD's, the fight against terrorism, freeing the people from a tyrant,a facade for the strategic and economic benefits long realised by those in power, that the region affords.
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak the only one i could agree with was the freeing people from saddam. I dont think impeachment would have been legal. Bush actually got permission from congress, while other presidents, like clinton and obama, did not (see, kosovo, libya). For the US to officially enter a war, congress has to declare war. Congress also funds the wars because they control the budget. Most europeans dont understand how the US govt. works and assume its all the president
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 I understand how the US Govt works, to an extent, that like all democracries there are checks and balances to avoid absolute power or the power to yield it, being vested one man.
davevak 2 months ago
@CodArk2 The real reason had nothing to do with the aforementioned and more to do with the fact that Saddam Hussein was looking at, in defiance of the US administration, establishing an oil ‘bourse’ (exchange) which would enable oil to be traded in Euros. Moving oil sales away from their usual denomination of dollars it would, it is argued, have undermined the American currency with grave consequences for the US economy.
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak I am sure it was a mix of economics and humanitarian reasons. No one would say saddam was a good guy, but I doubt we would have invaded just because of that. Most people I know dont like the iraq war, but not liking a war is different from not liking a whole nation (and europeans disliked americans before the iraq war, they just use that as an excuse).
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 Like tevitarosa has mentioned, The US supports Democracy if, and only if, it accords with US strategic and economic objectives! The US has no problem in overthrowing a government, if it goes against the economic interests of the US.
Saddam was supported for many years by the US, before he stepped out of line. Then what happened, Iraq was subjected to economic sanctions, then calls for more sanctions, threats of military aggression and then an outright invasion.
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak for the most part yes, that is true. this was true of european powers as well, though we actually dont do it that often. In the cold war we did sometimes, but thats only because communists tried enforcing their governments on nations too (afghanistan in the 80s, korea, vietnam, several latin american nations, etc). saddam was only sanctioned when he invaded kuwait and tried building nukes, and gassing the kurds
CodArk2 2 months ago
@davevak And the Europeans don't do exactly the same thing with other nations? For the most part Europe and the USA has always marched step in step when it comes to this. You're part of the same hypocrisy too.
TheDoLeMike1977 1 month ago
@TheDoLeMike1977 I think you are right, but unfortunately western civilisation is not as dominant as it was. And, much to my regret, the USA could be the best force in preserving it but the way things are going, it doesn't look like that will happen.
We in Europe will always keep our culture, traditions and heritage etc but we are not powerful enough to keep them as a dominant force in the world. Only the USA can do that.
dezboss 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dezboss See, we do come in handy now and then. Hey, I'm not trying to start an argument with you, but I've heard it said by Europeans many times that the US is behind them 200 yrs or so. In what sense exactly? Culturally? OK, I could honestly buy some aspects of that. Technologically? How so?
TheDoLeMike1977 4 weeks ago
@TheDoLeMike1977 The difference now is, the stakes are alot higher!
davevak 1 month ago
@CodArk2 All for the simple reason that he refused to 'tow the line'.
davevak 2 months ago
@CodArk2 A key element of national sovereignty is that wars of aggression against other nations which have not attacked ones' own nation are prohibited under international law. Wars of aggression were declared illegal at the Nuremberg trials after World War II, which established the invasion of other nations by Germany as the type-case.
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak many wars the US has been in lately could be said to be that way. the persian gulf war was somewhat one, the nation being invaded could not defend itself. Vietnam? South Vietnam was being attacked by North Vietnam. Korea? South Korea was attacked by North Korea. By that logic, the US should not have entered WW2 in europe, since they had not attacked the US either...but yet more europeans complain that we didn't enter in 1939...why would we have?
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 I think you need to read up on the history of Vietnam, you seem to be slightly confused.
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak vietnam declared independence from france, france lost the war against vietnam, which was divided. The US helped the south, the chinese and soviets the north. We didnt go there to rule over it but to stop communist expansion.
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 your knowledge of events surrounding and leading up to the US sending troops to Vietnam are scant at best!
lol@communist expansion. The mid to late 1950's US rhetoric used to describe Ho Chi Minh's desire for national recognition and the people of Vietnam's desire for self determination.
Try reading up on The Geneva Convention of 1954 and how the US although agreeing to it, thwarted the process of Democracy within that divided nation at every turn.
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak france was in infochina. they got kicked out. US helped the south vietnamese, north vietnamese were communist supported. there were supposed to be national elections but there never were. I am not an expert on vietnam, nor did I claim to be.
CodArk2 2 months ago
@davevak Better do some reading yourself. The US while it did attend the Geneva Accords, was never a signatory to them....
CheckM8King2 1 month ago
@CheckM8King2 I said they agreed to it, I never said anything about them being a signatory. Try reading then digest before posting........
davevak 1 month ago
@davevak USA and South Viet Nam, NEVER AGREED to or SIGNED the resolution of 1954. The US diplomats didn't directly particiapate in negotiaions. The US only promised not to disturb them by force. What part of "didn't agree to" or "sign" don't you understand? What the hell are these liberal college profeesors teaching you kids these days?
CheckM8King2 1 month ago
@CheckM8King2 The US agreed to the dictates of the Convention and issued a "unilateral declaration" in which it agreed to "refrain from the threat or the use of force to disturb" the accords, an outright bold faced lie.
davevak 1 month ago
@davevak If the US didn't directly prticipate in the convention or sign the accords what is your source for "unilateral declaration"? Please don't say Wikipedia!...LOL
CheckM8King2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CheckM8King2 haven't a clue what you're on about, wikipedia! The point in matter is how the US has been the singlemost disruptive factor in world affairs over the last 60yrs.
davevak 1 month ago
@CheckM8King2 The "Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities in Viet Nam" was signed on July 20, 1954, by South Vietnam's representative, Brigadier Henri Delteil, acting for the "Commander in Chief of the French Union forces in Indo-China" and by Ta Quang Buu, Vice-Minister of National defence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, on behalf of the "Commander in Chief of the People's Army of Vietnam."
davevak 1 month ago
Comment removed
CheckM8King2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Subsequently, the United Nations General Assembly has enacted resolutions prohibiting military aggression, invasions, and occupations of one country by another - except in self-defence, when the target nation had attacked first.
The Invasion of Iraq in 2003, under International Law was totally illegal.
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak I suppose it was, though its still better saddam is not in power there. Besides, the US is one of the makers of international law, europe is not the only part of the world that get a say so. besides, europeans started both word wars, and a lot of other ones. This peace for 50 years was mostly maintained by the US.
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 So what you're trying to say is that because the US being one of the pillars of international law, this gives it 'carte blanche' to come and go as it pleases!
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak To a point. We are a world power. What really steams europeans is not that america is this evil warmonger, but that we have the power and they don't. When european nations were the world power they did things that if americans did it would have europeans screaming for international sanctions or war. And this was only in the last 200 years, what bothers europeans is not a carte blanche by anyone, just that *they* don't have it
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 a juvernile statement.
davevak 2 months ago
@davevak But a true one. Most europeans jsut don't want to admit they are jealous of the fact the US has power. Most others have reflexive anti-americanism that is extremely annoying, and unjustified. They invoke the iraq war like they were all iraqi and the US was bombing them, even though i ran into many that hated the US even in 1998 and 1999 when i visited europe and in 2000 when i visited canada
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 lol@jealousy, I doubt that very much. Europeans as they say, 'have been there, done it and have got the tee-shirt to prove it'
Power is nothing to be envious about, it's more the dangers that come with that power and who's really the one yielding it.
davevak 2 months ago
@ruthio1 and i am familiar with the war of 1812, a war england started by stopping american ships and taking americans off american ships to serve in the british navy against napoleon. This was illegal of course, but brits ignore this. You also act like britain took over the US in that war, which is untrue. the british in canada could no more invade the US than the US could invade canada. both sides invaded the other, and both failed
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 well america tried to invade canada and the war last battle was fought new orleans u may say it was a draw but tactically we won ur goal was to take over canada and we fought u to new orleans. U say u have only been invaded 2 but u have only been around for 200 odd years.well no if america was being invaded how would we say its american agression. we call it agression when u invaded small central american countries to topple demcratically elected parties
ruthio1 2 months ago
@ruthio1 both sides tried invading the other. the US didn't have the ability to attack britain itself, so it attacked part of the british empire: canada. Our goal was to stop impressment of US sailors and open of trade, the invasion of canada was only to hit at the british.
CodArk2 2 months ago
@ruthio1 In addition, you are making it sound like brtain took over the whole US, and only new orleans was left. in reality, they landed at new orleans from the gulf of mexico and we kicked them back into the sea. the only other major invasion was washington DC, and yes, as american territory both were invasions. it was aggression against the US. look up the history of the war of 1812. usually the central american things were communist related, and we dont like communism
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 hahaha u dnt like communism but who the hell are u to tell other countries what to do.And you really need to read a book the war of 1812 was started because america tried to invade canada. Britain was fighting napoleon at that time not only was that war more important but you were only at back water at the time invading you was pointless.
ruthio1 2 months ago
@ruthio1 I would ask the same thing of the soviets. WHo the hell were they to put castro in power in cuba? And no, the war was not started so the US could invade canada. It was started because britain was raiding US shipping lanes for any ship suspected of going to france, and taking off sailors from US flagged ships, which was an act of war. we invaded canada because we couldnt hit britain itself.
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 simple fact is america tried time after time to invade canada. Yet you want to give reasons which enermies are obliged to do as a reason for trying to invade british land. Look simple fact is america declared war on britian tried to invade canada. Britain then beat napoleon sailed more soldiers to america burnt down the white house. Any fool can see britian won that war and america started it. And ur defence is well the soveits did it but ur supposed to be the better country haha
ruthio1 2 months ago
@ruthio1 Actually we only tried in the war of 1812, after that we didn't really care. If britain hadn't been raiding american shipping, which was illegal, there would have been no war. Britain started it, we simply acknowledged it. Britain didnt win the war, it was a draw,and seeing the white house burning is an example of winning a battle and thinking you won the war. And otherwise much of the planet would have been communist
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 no not just burning the white house fact that americans were running away from battles against the british thats exactly why we could burn the white house because nobody was going to confront the british. And you did try to invade time after time when you took control of ontario and lower canada that doesnt happen without a so called invasion although we threw u out staright away still means u tried
ruthio1 2 months ago
@ruthio1 Americans didn't run away from most battles. The battle at washington was between a militia and the british army. The US back then was not a superpower. America invaded canada to drive out the british. We were at war with the british so it follows we would fight them. Besides, you tried invading the US, and we threw you out as well
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 yes america invaded canada to drive the british out although it was our land and the canadians wanted to remain in the commonwealth. So u wanted to go against what the canadian people wanted because it didnt suite u americans lol typical ur still doing the same thing today. LOL also britian didnt invade america we founded it and had british people living there. And the war of independence britain won 90 per cent of the battles until u ran to the french,dutch and spanish haha
ruthio1 2 months ago
@ruthio1 Well americans didn't , so why invade the US? Oh right because you were an imperialist power that thought you were better than everyone else. Besides, america was not a superpower back then, britain was. you wanted to go against what the american people wanted as well. So what if it was founded by england,we didnt want to be part of it. americans also lived in canada and britain at the time. and the french helped us, but we still won the war against a superpower
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 LMFAO again we didnt invade america we founded it as part of britian thus u had to pay taxes but correctly u didnt like having no say on how the tax was spent. LOL u had every power in the world at the time against us and u didnt kick us out it was not worth fighting for anymore cost us more in fighting than we were gaining. And ur european allies jealous of british success were the main reason fighting was so hard u barely had and army at the time
ruthio1 2 months ago
@ruthio1 so american troops in canada is an invasion, but british troops in america isn't one? we didnt want to be part of england. no taxation without representation was valid, and englands reaction to that demand is what led to us breaking off. We kicked you out of the US, twice actually. Britain was the monumental asshole nation back then that most tend to see america as now. And its for much the same reasons, some are jealous, and some is justified.
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2How the hell was their british troops in america when at the time america wasnt even a country. British troops were in their own land which is america today because the land was owned by britian. Dont you see the fact is we made you and u are us just over an ocean so to say british troops in america is wrong it was british troops in their own land.u kicked us out really we were just across the border mate.u couldnt of kicked us out that well if we could just come back and burn ur capital
ruthio1 2 months ago
@ruthio1 Uh, america was a country in 1812. Canada was not a country in 1812 though, it was part of the british empire. British troops were in the US in the war of 1812, and american troops were in what became canada. America was sovereign back then, it was just as much an invasion for british troops to be in washington DC as it was for american troops to be in canada, besides, we could have kicked britain out of the US on land, its the navy where britain dominated
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 I thought u meant the war of independence. I have to disagree britian has always had a small army but they have been the best trained on this planet for hundreds of years.The thin red line RARELY broke if we are easy to kick out of ur country then how were british soldiers able to march from canada to washington DC and burn ur capital. Just so u know many people in britian dont even know this war happened but we were fighting napoleon at the same time were we ended his reign
ruthio1 2 months ago
@ruthio1 To a point yes, thats why they were a superpower. And bitain didnt march from canada to washington, they landed with ships in chesapeake bay and marched to washington, which was only defended by a small militia, not the army. The army was at baltimore because they thought the british would attack the port there. And many americans don't think world war two started until 1941, but to most brits it started in 1939, so not knowing about it doesnt matter really
CodArk2 2 months ago
@ruthio1 lol u dont get me the fact that the war started in canada and before u know it its in washington.And to call the small malitia statement,britian fought under manned right up until napoleon was beat.
ruthio1 2 months ago
@CodArk2 Today british people will agree with u taxation without representation is wrong. U claim britian was a asshole nation yet today u live and work in a style of society made by britain as has the rest of the world. Most of the world use british laws,tax systems,court systems,policing,True democracy and so on. Britain took the world forward hundreds of years including america. Do u think that if spain or france controlled america u would be the country u are today,its because ofthe british
ruthio1 2 months ago
@ruthio1 Yes, america owes a lot to the british, though to be fair, much of the things british people claim as britsh also come from elsewhere. The legal system is largely roman based, the language is largely latin and germanic, democracy comes form the greeks, etc. Britain took it and refined it, just as the US did with some of the things britain and other nations did. And some of the ways britain "took the world forward" were outright barbaric.
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 lol british laws are romanic u clearly have never hear that the romans were usually by a dictator that woule be murdered rathe than elected out romans gave britain and europe alot of things but plotical systems are not one of them they were an ancient people with great buildings army and stability but poltically the system they had was never taken up by anyone they had democracy for the smallest amount of time. The greeks were the closest to the british political system of the 1800s
ruthio1 1 month ago
@ruthio1 Actually the romans had a democracy at first that slid into dictatorship. The idea of councils and such came from the germanic tribes that settled britain, and were based more on family bonds than anything else. An infusion of continental ideas came with the normals, in fact the word "parliament" comes from the french"parle" meaning speak. Parliament was a place to speak
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 lol romans had demorcay where only a certain amunt of people could vote and they would change who could vote every year. The fact is britian wa the first place on this planet to introduce a real form of demoracy. Ever heard of the magna carta doesnt matter where it came from the brits took to it more than anywhere else. Even if its french their noblity were telling starving people to eat cake while britian had spread demoracy around the world.
ruthio1 1 month ago
@ruthio1 Same with britain, only a few could vote, you had the house of lords, and later the house of commons. the greeks had a form of democracy, as did many other societies.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 yes a form of democracy but they also held slaves im talking about 18th century democracy that britian spread around the world other might have started it but britian invented the form that we all use today
ruthio1 1 month ago
@CodArk2 whilst the french were having a revolution britian had already cut its monarchs powers and had primes minister for 200 years. When it comes to demoracy and politics britian has made the modern world even countries like senegal use british systems of politics and law as do 90 per of the countries in the world it a known fact
ruthio1 1 month ago
@ruthio1 Some nations use british, some use a US system, and osme use others entirely. The US uses a different form of government from britain, and was more influenced by french thinkers than british ones
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 lmao the US system LOL the US is a british one with a few acceptions that u only have 2 parties and that u have caucuses
ruthio1 1 month ago
@CodArk2 where no talking abou theories we are talking laws that are put in wiriting and 90 per cent of american law is based on the british common law reasecrh them both and u will see the are scarily simliar and but british common law came around 100 years before america was even born u yanks nhate giving us brits credit for anythin. If u would have followed france u would be 50 years behind where u are now
ruthio1 1 month ago