German Poll

[Guest Powerplay]

Cool, a half-decent response for once.

 

So I'm ahead of you 1-0 now, eh ?

 

The reason that many Europeans (leaving aside their governments who are no doubt as corrupt as any other in the world, and concentrating on the average citizens) opposed American intervention in Iraq was that it was seen as an American war on a country that had done nothing recently to oppose the states. Hussein may have been a dictator and unco-operative to the states and threatened the stability of their region, but this is no different to many more governments in the world, both now and in the past. The fact that Americans were over-eager to go into Iraq and, seemingly, finish off the last Gulf War rubbed many anti-Americans up the way, and since then the Americans have done nothing to suggest that they were justified to go into Iraq. I don'tthink that the manner in which the US have gone in to Iraq has improved the stability of the Middle East or America's standing in the world.

 

But does a country need to do something to actively oppose us to be evil? I mean, we could argue that because of our recent rally in the Middle East Peace Process and Saddam's well know support of both Suicide Bombers could be used. Can you honestly tell me that he could remain in the region if we were attempting Middle East Peace?

 

Secondly, there are few other regiemes that threaten stability like Iraq does. Most African nations can barely do anything in their own country, let alone outside of it. North Korea, Iraq, and maybe a few others can be put into the category of "Destabilizing threats". And with our redoubling efforts in the Mid-East (Most likely as a way to curb terrorism against the West by fixing the very thing that they cite against us), Saddam and Iraq were huge threats.

 

And, to ask, what manner would liked us to go in? I mean, would you have liked us to waste more time with inspectors? Lets have them get jerked around yet again and waste more valuable time while civilians live like slaves. Whoo. Or maybe a coalition force to go in? Not likely, considering France was absolutely adamant against any aggressive action. Germany's can be written off, considering that they didn't have a Veto option, but France and their "We are vetoing anything and everything on the table" would not have allowed any other way. At least with our way we got through relatively bloodless and we are dealing with the internal problems well enough. At least this way the Iraqis have a chance at getting a good country out of this.

 

European nations have done many things for the good of the worls that you may be unaware of, just as I'm sure that your country has done much good you're unaware of.

 

Then please, give me an example. We've seen so many examples of the US helping people be attributed to our massive greed, how 'bout giving us a shot at the same thing? Honestly, I'm sure you have, but you can't say that yours are completely and utterly pure while ours are only clever business wrangling and that we intend to screw the hapless country at the first chance.

 

I think MB may be suggesting that American involvement in Vietnam was tied in with the recent capitalism in the region, but I might be wrong.

 

First off, if that's true, it's bad in what way? Would you rather them suffer under Communism some more?

 

Secondly, the Vietnam war ended in the 70's. The government we supported is gone, and the one in power doesn't want anything to do with us. There is no connection between the Vietnam War and the sudden upspring in Capitalism now. Did you ever consider China's recent change, moving slowly towards a more market-based economy could be the cause? Or does it HAVE to be the Vietnam War?

 

Also, you don't have to be a conspiracist to believe that the US government looks after itself above all others. That's common sense...

 

Who SHOULD we look out for first? I mean, if we don't look out for ourselves, who will help all the countries we give aid to? France? It's like asking "Why doesn't that guy who works 50 hours a week with 10 kids give more to charity. He should be a little more selfless, ya know?"

 

And if the ultimate goal of the American government is to "stay in business", I feel sorry for your country.

 

Then what the hell is your country's idea? To go out of business? Again, one can't do anything if they've lost all their power due to bad business deals. We have to keep the power so we can help other people.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Cool, a half-decent response for once.

 

 

So I'm ahead of you 1-0 now, eh ?

 

Last time I compliment you

 

But does a country need to do something to actively oppose us to be evil? I mean, we could argue that because of our recent rally in the Middle East Peace Process and Saddam's well know support of both Suicide Bombers could be used. Can you honestly tell me that he could remain in the region if we were attempting Middle East Peace?

 

Secondly, there are few other regiemes that threaten stability like Iraq does. Most African nations can barely do anything in their own country, let alone outside of it. North Korea, Iraq, and maybe a few others can be put into the category of "Destabilizing threats". And with our redoubling efforts in the Mid-East (Most likely as a way to curb terrorism against the West by fixing the very thing that they cite against us), Saddam and Iraq were huge threats.

 

And, to ask, what manner would liked us to go in? I mean, would you have liked us to waste more time with inspectors? Lets have them get jerked around yet again and waste more valuable time while civilians live like slaves. Whoo. Or maybe a coalition force to go in? Not likely, considering France was absolutely adamant against any aggressive action. Germany's can be written off, considering that they didn't have a Veto option, but France and their "We are vetoing anything and everything on the table" would not have allowed any other way. At least with our way we got through relatively bloodless and we are dealing with the internal problems well enough. At least this way the Iraqis have a chance at getting a good country out of this.

 

At this point it's still questionable as to whether going into Iraq in the way the US did (without UN sanctions or complete UN support) is beneficial to the Midle East's stability and peace. From outside the Us, this still looks like an American war for oil, and fits in with the stereotypical view of Americans (loud, brash, egocentric rednecks). It has certainlt brought done America in the eyes of many foreigners.

 

Then please, give me an example. We've seen so many examples of the US helping people be attributed to our massive greed, how 'bout giving us a shot at the same thing? Honestly, I'm sure you have, but you can't say that yours are completely and utterly pure while ours are only clever business wrangling and that we intend to screw the hapless country at the first chance.

 

I didn't mean in the sense that Europeans go in doing missions of charity with no thought for their own benefit, more in the sense that Europeans often go in alongside Americans, and that their lost lives trauma suffered are every bit as important as those suffered by Americans. European nations are as blame-worthy as Americans, I just meant that they aren't unimportant globally.

 

First off, if that's true, it's bad in what way? Would you rather them suffer under Communism some more?

 

Secondly, the Vietnam war ended in the 70's. The government we supported is gone, and the one in power doesn't want anything to do with us. There is no connection between the Vietnam War and the sudden upspring in Capitalism now. Did you ever consider China's recent change, moving slowly towards a more market-based economy could be the cause? Or does it HAVE to be the Vietnam War?

 

That was MB's point, not mine. I have no idea what he was getting at, just trying to give a possible explaination.

 

Who SHOULD we look out for first? I mean, if we don't look out for ourselves, who will help all the countries we give aid to? France? It's like asking "Why doesn't that guy who works 50 hours a week with 10 kids give more to charity. He should be a little more selfless, ya know?"

 

Again, agreed. I was just pointing out that saying America looks after itself more than anyone else, doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist, which is what you were insinuating in your first post.

 

Then what the hell is your country's idea? To go out of business? Again, one can't do anything if they've lost all their power due to bad business deals. We have to keep the power so we can help other people.

 

There is a difference between balancing a budget and running your country as a business, with the sole intention of making as much money as possible.

[Guest Powerplay]

Cool, a half-decent response for once.

 

 

So I'm ahead of you 1-0 now, eh ?

 

Last time I compliment you

At least you still have a sense of humor.

 

But does a country need to do something to actively oppose us to be evil? I mean, we could argue that because of our recent rally in the Middle East Peace Process and Saddam's well know support of both Suicide Bombers could be used. Can you honestly tell me that he could remain in the region if we were attempting Middle East Peace?

 

Secondly, there are few other regiemes that threaten stability like Iraq does. Most African nations can barely do anything in their own country, let alone outside of it. North Korea, Iraq, and maybe a few others can be put into the category of "Destabilizing threats". And with our redoubling efforts in the Mid-East (Most likely as a way to curb terrorism against the West by fixing the very thing that they cite against us), Saddam and Iraq were huge threats.

 

And, to ask, what manner would liked us to go in? I mean, would you have liked us to waste more time with inspectors? Lets have them get jerked around yet again and waste more valuable time while civilians live like slaves. Whoo. Or maybe a coalition force to go in? Not likely, considering France was absolutely adamant against any aggressive action. Germany's can be written off, considering that they didn't have a Veto option, but France and their "We are vetoing anything and everything on the table" would not have allowed any other way. At least with our way we got through relatively bloodless and we are dealing with the internal problems well enough. At least this way the Iraqis have a chance at getting a good country out of this.

 

At this point it's still questionable as to whether going into Iraq in the way the US did (without UN sanctions or complete UN support) is beneficial to the Midle East's stability and peace. From outside the Us, this still looks like an American war for oil, and fits in with the stereotypical view of Americans (loud, brash, egocentric rednecks). It has certainlt brought done America in the eyes of many foreigners.

 

How was it to our benefit that Saddam stayed in power besides maintaining the status quo? Explain that one.

 

And it wasn't without full UN support, it was without France's support. Just like when we went into Kosovo, it wasn't considered without UN support, it was without Russia's support. Just because one country cock-blocks a motion in the UN doesn't mean it doesn't have support.

 

From inside the US, Europeans (Especially the French) seem to be angry, bitter people who lack the power to do anything to us outside some semblance of influence in a horribly mismanaged "World Congress", that they are perfectly content to let others suffer as long as it doesn't effect them, are interested in oil as well (Again, France and Germany's holdings in Iraq), and are snooty, coniving people who are simply bitter because they feel they deserve some say because "They are older and more established than us". Again, I'm sure you'll dispute this, but you come off looking no better here for your actions.

 

First off, if that's true, it's bad in what way? Would you rather them suffer under Communism some more?

 

Secondly, the Vietnam war ended in the 70's. The government we supported is gone, and the one in power doesn't want anything to do with us. There is no connection between the Vietnam War and the sudden upspring in Capitalism now. Did you ever consider China's recent change, moving slowly towards a more market-based economy could be the cause? Or does it HAVE to be the Vietnam War?

 

That was MB's point, not mine. I have no idea what he was getting at, just trying to give a possible explaination.

 

Far enough. But still, you rallied round it, so I shot it down.

 

Who SHOULD we look out for first? I mean, if we don't look out for ourselves, who will help all the countries we give aid to? France? It's like asking "Why doesn't that guy who works 50 hours a week with 10 kids give more to charity. He should be a little more selfless, ya know?"

 

Again, agreed. I was just pointing out that saying America looks after itself more than anyone else, doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist, which is what you were insinuating in your first post.

 

Then what the hell is your country's idea? To go out of business? Again, one can't do anything if they've lost all their power due to bad business deals. We have to keep the power so we can help other people.

 

There is a difference between balancing a budget and running your country as a business, with the sole intention of making as much money as possible.

 

I insinuated that MB was a conspiracy theorist because he was trying to connect a rise in capitalism in Vietnam to the Vietnam War and claim it was the result that we intend all that to have. That is conspiracy theorist material.

 

Secondly, you are arguing that we shouldn't ask anything of the people we liberated or help. If that were true, we'd go bankrupt, our debts would skyrocket faster than any President could possibly do, and we'd lose all our power. To "stay in business", it takes more than just balancing the budget. You have to make deals, and you are just taking the stereotypical route of claiming that every deal we make is to screw the other guy out of all his money. Making a deal is perfectly acceptable when both guys benefit. When was the last time we screwed someone out of tons of money, leaving their country to waste as we sat on our packed coffers smoking cigars and adjusting our monocles?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I don't care enough about the topic at hand to dissect everyone's opinions, but most of the liberals on this thread are being morons. Stop, seriously, you're making our cause look bad. Use real logic and stuff, not just party-line BS.

 

This has been a public service message from Tyler McClelland

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

How was it to our benefit that Saddam stayed in power besides maintaining the status quo? Explain that one.

 

And it wasn't without full UN support, it was without France's support. Just like when we went into Kosovo, it wasn't considered without UN support, it was without Russia's support. Just because one country cock-blocks a motion in the UN doesn't mean it doesn't have support.

 

Hey, I was all for going into Iraq. But you've got to understand that the way in which the US did it rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way.

 

From inside the US, Europeans (Especially the French) seem to be angry, bitter people who lack the power to do anything to us outside some semblance of influence in a horribly mismanaged "World Congress", that they are perfectly content to let others suffer as long as it doesn't effect them, are interested in oil as well (Again, France and Germany's holdings in Iraq), and are snooty, coniving people who are simply bitter because they feel they deserve some say because "They are older and more established than us".

 

Hell, that's pretty muchthe same reason that a lot of Europeans dislike Americans. That and the arrogance...

 

Again, I'm sure you'll dispute this, but you come off looking no better here for your actions.

 

What the hell does that mean? I argue against you so I look like a jackass?

 

Far enough. But still, you rallied round it, so I shot it down.

 

When did I rally round it? I was as confused as you!

 

Secondly, you are arguing that we shouldn't ask anything of the people we liberated or help. If that were true, we'd go bankrupt, our debts would skyrocket faster than any President could possibly do, and we'd lose all our power. To "stay in business", it takes more than just balancing the budget. You have to make deals, and you are just taking the stereotypical route of claiming that every deal we make is to screw the other guy out of all his money. Making a deal is perfectly acceptable when both guys benefit. When was the last time we screwed someone out of tons of money, leaving their country to waste as we sat on our packed coffers smoking cigars and adjusting our monocles?

 

As I said, there is a difference between keeping a government in the black, and using the government as a business to make money for the people who run it. A government should be concerned with it's people, not money.

[Guest Powerplay]

How was it to our benefit that Saddam stayed in power besides maintaining the status quo? Explain that one.

 

And it wasn't without full UN support, it was without France's support. Just like when we went into Kosovo, it wasn't considered without UN support, it was without Russia's support. Just because one country cock-blocks a motion in the UN doesn't mean it doesn't have support.

 

Hey, I was all for going into Iraq. But you've got to understand that the way in which the US did it rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way.

And some people will always be rubbed wrong. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have gone in.

 

From inside the US, Europeans (Especially the French) seem to be angry, bitter people who lack the power to do anything to us outside some semblance of influence in a horribly mismanaged "World Congress", that they are perfectly content to let others suffer as long as it doesn't effect them, are interested in oil as well (Again, France and Germany's holdings in Iraq), and are snooty, coniving people who are simply bitter because they feel they deserve some say because "They are older and more established than us".

 

 

Hell, that's pretty muchthe same reason that a lot of Europeans dislike Americans. That and the arrogance...

 

So basically we are exactly the same, which is why we hate each other .

 

Again, I'm sure you'll dispute this, but you come off looking no better here for your actions.

 

 

 

What the hell does that mean? I argue against you so I look like a jackass?

 

No no no... not you personally, but I was talking about how you said Americans made themselves look bad in the eyes of Europeans, and the Europeans (With their reactions) have done exactly the same. I was saying you'd probably dispute all I said about Euros such as yourself, but it wasn't an personal attack.

 

Far enough. But still, you rallied round it, so I shot it down.

 

 

When did I rally round it? I was as confused as you!

 

Sorry, I got the impression that you agreed with it, but my bad then.

 

Secondly, you are arguing that we shouldn't ask anything of the people we liberated or help. If that were true, we'd go bankrupt, our debts would skyrocket faster than any President could possibly do, and we'd lose all our power. To "stay in business", it takes more than just balancing the budget. You have to make deals, and you are just taking the stereotypical route of claiming that every deal we make is to screw the other guy out of all his money. Making a deal is perfectly acceptable when both guys benefit. When was the last time we screwed someone out of tons of money, leaving their country to waste as we sat on our packed coffers smoking cigars and adjusting our monocles? 

 

 

As I said, there is a difference between keeping a government in the black, and using the government as a business to make money for the people who run it. A government should be concerned with it's people, not money.

 

We are concerned with not only our people, but other people. We aren't concerned just about money, but we are concern about having money so we can take care of our people. One begets the other, I suppose.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Hell, Powerplay, looks like we've agreed with almost everything. I shall now leave this thread for greener pastures...

[Guest Powerplay]

Hell, Powerplay, looks like we've agreed with almost everything. I shall now leave this thread for greener pastures...

Indeed, then. What the hell WERE we arguing about?

[Guest mach7]

An interesting read for those who have open minds and can accept the concept that it IS possible for the government to be corrupt:

 

It's so hilarious when people talk about having an open mind like this; I do accept that governments can be corrupt, but YOU don't seem to be able to accept that sometimes they can be honest.

 

Grow up.

Excuse me? Holy-putting-words-in-my-mouth, Batman. Show me where I stated that I can't accept that govt's can be honest at times. I don't recall saying that once.

[Guest mach7]

What's sad is that Jewish schools in your country still need armed guards to protect them from your peace-loving citizens, and that graffiti proclaiming "SIX MILLION JEWS WEREN'T ENOUGH" is a fairly unremarkable sight in Berlin.

Try cleaning up the South before you start throwing stones about Racism in another country.

[Guest JMA]

I'm from Alabama myself (and I'm a liberal). Racism isn't here as much as people think. Sure, there are your crazy, redneck, gun-nut bigots here and there, but they're mostly looked down on. On to other things.

 

It is obviously wrong to wish death on someone just because you don't like him/her or disagree. Hell, I hate Ann Coulter's guts, but that doesn't mean I want her hurt or killed. I've also already stated my positions in stereotyping and grouping the people of countries together (this goes for those who stereotype America as well). I pretty much find nationalism for any country to be repellent.

 

And Vyce,

 

Didn't you once say you wished Shawn Michaels had fallen from the rafters instead of Owen Hart? That seems to me to be similar to what Murmuring Beast said. They both sound very wrong. I'm not trying to attack you, I'm just saying.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Hell, Powerplay, looks like we've agreed with almost everything. I shall now leave this thread for greener pastures...

Indeed, then. What the hell WERE we arguing about?

I really don't know....

[Guest Anorak]

Anti-Semitism does still exist in Germany as well as other places around Europe but anybody who claims these views are held by any more than a minority (a very dangerous minority admittedly) of people in these nations is talking absolute rubbish.

 

Bigotry and propaganda aren't exclusive to anywhere. Just a read of this folder and a watch of 'The West Wing' could teach you that nugget of wisdom.

[Guest Vyce]

And Vyce,

 

Didn't you once say you wished Shawn Michaels had fallen from the rafters instead of Owen Hart? That seems to me to be similar to what Murmuring Beast said. They both sound very wrong. I'm not trying to attack you, I'm just saying.

That does sound like something I may have said.

 

This is lame, but I didn't REALLY mean those remarks about Shawn Michaels (I don't know Beast well enough to know if he's just making a mean-spirited joke like I was).

 

But even if I did, he's just a pro wrestler, instead of two prominent members of the current administration.

 

I see what you're saying, and you have an excellent point, but I think the whole high school kids / secret service thread from a couple months back should have taught us to question the wisdom of casually tossing out remarks about someone killing heads of state.

 

12-17% of Germans polled in April 2003 believe that Israel was behind 9/11. That's out of 83,251,851 people. Comparable? Don't make me laugh.

 

I generally suck at math, but even going by the lower percentage, that's around 10 million people.

 

Oh, and for those who care, I'm something like 1/4th to 1/8th German. Does this make me a self-hater?

[Guest Vyce]

Survey: Many Germans Believe U.S. Sponsored Hitler

(2003-07-24) -- About a third of young Germans believe the United States attacked itself on September 11, 2001, and that Adolf Hitler was a Cleveland-born foreign exchange student sponsored by the FBI.

 

The survey of 1,000 people for the weekly Die Zeit (The Pimple), also showed that most Germans believe the following:

-- The U.S. paid the Emperor of Japan to attack Pearl Harbor in hopes it would lead eventually to more fuel-efficient cars.

-- The U.S. has sponsored four of the last five San Francisco earthquakes.

-- David Hasselhoff really drives a talking car and is the greatest rock and roll singer of the past 100 years.

-- CNN and MSNBC are American news organizations.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I bet they believe Fox News is fair and balanced, too.

[Guest Insane Bump Machine]

Survey: Many Germans Believe U.S. Sponsored Hitler

(2003-07-24) -- About a third of young Germans believe the United States attacked itself on September 11, 2001, and that Adolf Hitler was a Cleveland-born foreign exchange student sponsored by the FBI.

 

The survey of 1,000 people for the weekly Die Zeit (The Pimple), also showed that most Germans believe the following:

-- The U.S. paid the Emperor of Japan to attack Pearl Harbor in hopes it would lead eventually to more fuel-efficient cars.

-- The U.S. has sponsored four of the last five San Francisco earthquakes.

-- David Hasselhoff really drives a talking car and is the greatest rock and roll singer of the past 100 years.

-- CNN and MSNBC are American news organizations.

 

Yeah, right. Do you think we're retards or something? Where do you get such ridiculous news items from? I'm really curious. The fact that they translated 'Die Zeit' with 'The Pimple' shows the credibility of that article. The correct translation would be 'The Times' or 'The Time'.

 

I could of course find plenty of idiotic articles like this about America, what's the point?

[Murmuring Beast 0]

This is utter bullshit propangda to try and force the weakminded in to the same old American thinking mentality of "we're right and you're wrong, so fuck off".

[Guest Powerplay]

This is utter bullshit propangda to try and force the weakminded in to the same old American thinking mentality of "we're right and you're wrong, so fuck off".

... The fact that you actually BELIEVED that is a testament to your intelligence. Bravo. Bravo.

 

IT WAS A JOKE. GET WITH IT.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

HO, HO. Sorry, but I take this crap seriously. Why would anyone joke about this?

[Guest Powerplay]

HO, HO. Sorry, but I take this crap seriously. Why would anyone joke about this?

Because why should you you take it seriously? Isn't it fairly obvious it's a joke? Christ, at least you could make a joke back, like Tyler. A liberal without a heart to bleed, what a find, what a find. Maybe that explains why your total lack of proof or logic: You don't have any blood getting pumped into your brain.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

I would laugh, but it isn't funny.

[Guest Insane Bump Machine]

Because why should you you take it seriously? Isn't it fairly obvious it's a joke? Christ, at least you could make a joke back, like Tyler. A liberal without a heart to bleed, what a find, what a find. Maybe that explains why your total lack of proof or logic: You don't have any blood getting pumped into your brain.

Maybe because most of the 'arguments' in this thread are so ridiculous that it's hard to notice when somebody's actually joking I guess. That's why I misinterpreted it at least.

 

But if there's a glimmer of hope that everything Vyce said in this discussion was a joke, it's all good.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

This should go in general with all the other happy birthday and "I GOT TEH 3435234 posts" threads.

[Guest Powerplay]

This should go in general with all the other happy birthday and "I GOT TEH 3435234 posts" threads.

I'd say your posts should end up in the "Incredibly Ridiculous Ultra-Leftist Propaganda" forum, but sadly that means you'd have to track down wherever the hell Ozymandias or Frank Zappa Mask now frequent.

 

IBM: The last post he made was obviously a joke. Whether his whole argument is unseated, I dunno. I generally skipped over the whole "German hate Jews" argument.

[Guest Insane Bump Machine]

I generally skipped over the whole "German hate Jews" argument.

good for you, because that shouldn't even be an issue anymore.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

No, but certain people still like to laugh and rub things in when they are dead and buried.

[Guest Powerplay]

On the Germany/Jew mess, I'm not going to go there. I don't really care about it, and all the "OMGODZ TEH US IZ BEINGZ TEH BADSZ*@#()!" side is trying to use it to divert attention as their arguments on the US = Greed are being shot down. Leave it be and try arguing your point.

I never did. I stated it in the first post, because I saw it as muddling up the whole argument at hand.

[Guest Some Guy]

Survey: Many Germans Believe U.S. Sponsored Hitler

(2003-07-24) -- About a third of young Germans believe the United States attacked itself on September 11, 2001, and that Adolf Hitler was a Cleveland-born foreign exchange student sponsored by the FBI.

 

The survey of 1,000 people for the weekly Die Zeit (The Pimple), also showed that most Germans believe the following:

-- The U.S. paid the Emperor of Japan to attack Pearl Harbor in hopes it would lead eventually to more fuel-efficient cars.

-- The U.S. has sponsored four of the last five San Francisco earthquakes.

-- David Hasselhoff really drives a talking car and is the greatest rock and roll singer of the past 100 years.

-- CNN and MSNBC are American news organizations.

DI you people who took this seriosly actually read it? How the fuck could the US "sponser" an earthquake?

 

Who in the fuck likes David hasselhoff? Oh wait I think he is actually really popular with teh Germans. What's the deal with that anyway?

[Guest redbaron51]

The only stage attack that I could see is the Pentagon and the plane shot down in the middle of Pennsylvania

 

Remember the guy said he saw something going after the plain, and was never spotted again.