So far the only place i see it mentioned is here:

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/n...t__1st_Update_

What may be of interest to you (or not) is that, if true, the article says FEMA wasn't asking them not to take pictures, just not to show them. Big difference.

As i said on the last page, I see no good purpose to forcing families of the victims to see images of their poor dead Aunt Tillys corpse tied to a lamp post every time they turn on the TV.

Well, of course we think our country is the greatest, isn't that natural for people? We are a patriotic and proud people and putting this down won't change it. Speaking for myself, I like to see people who are proud of their country.

I've heard that frequently from non-Americans, and some have tried to explain it to me...I'm still not sure I get it. When has the US done things that turned out great that should have affected Europe greatly???

iraq a just war?
 

You could be right, perhaps not all of them, perhaps not all the time. But some of them go to extremes to give a different impression...

Mind you; AAs are not people criticizing America - everybody has the right and often enough reason to do so.
AAs are biased and prejudiced people who have an almost doctrinairian vision upon US policies, especially foreign policy. Not hampered by reasonable doubt or global responsabilities themselves they are incapable to see anything positive in US policy. They turn one - if necessairy two - blind eyes towards facts that don't comply with their line of reasoning and are completely naïve amoungst themselves.
A typical example is the (in)famous Bush quote: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."
It is a known fact that Bush himself never said this and there are no records of this so-called "quote". It seems to come from Palestinean prime minister Mahmoud Abbas. That is disturbing news for any serious critic of Bush. AAs take these quote's on face value and happily quote each other as sources. On person exclaimed yesterday during an anti-Bush jam session: "Who needs sources!"
For AAs facts can indeed be annoying...

One of their characteristics is that AAs themselves are extremely picky to criticism.
Selfcriticism is a complete taboo (imagine Moore doubting if he is right on all facts in 'Farenheit 911' :rotfl: ) and criticism is seen as a constant stream flowing like a river towards the U.S. Criticism upon AAs is as annoying to them as water flowing upstream to Newton.

AAs don't mix with 'normal' US critics.
'Normal' critics who point out that America is a great country that has done a lot for the world, but has some serious flaws here and there, are attacked as ferocious as America itself. Even if you agree on one or two points with AAs, you won't be safe. The reason is that such 'normal' criticism is often too factual and lacks an ideological frame work.
An example:
Are you criticising the US when you say: the preparations for hurricane Kathrina in Louisiana were poorly executed?
Some would say yes. AAs would point out that the ideological dimension is completely lacking and that this criticism sounds too much like human incompetence.
Such criticism is only valid is you first point out that the US is the worlds biggest energy consumer, refuses to sigm the Kyoto protocol, is therefor one of the causes of global warming and as such to blame for hurricanes. Then you should put all the blame on the federal gouvernment instead on local authorities, because some of them are black. You have to point out that Bush first send the National Guard of Louisiana to Iraq and then didn't give much thought about search and rescue operations in New Orleans because two third of the population was black.
If somebody should point out that Bush declared an emergency two days before the hurricane struck most AAs wouldn't believe you. Faced with the facts they would probably say that he did so to cover his ass. Never will they admit that Bush - or any US President for that matter, made a correct decision, because that doesn't fit with their doctrine.

Neal, when your president tells on TV to international audience that his country is the greatest, I think it's BS. Who is he to decide that, and what has the US done overall that warrants it such a term? Patriotism blind leads in the end to nazionalism hardcore. BUt i know I'm asking for the impossible, i.e. being realistic, hence I accept that each country thinks it's the greatest - just that I find it sad when 1000 iraqies die in one week it's a report in the news in the morning, but when 1000 americans perish in the flood, it is 'served' as a much greater tragedy - all in all which are quite equal. Hard to say it exactly, but I think you understand what I mean. All nations are equal, but some are more equal than others. Which is absurd.

Europe is affected by the US because Europe finances the US national debt along with Asia. So it's obvious that the creditors are worried when the US is going into any sort of crisis. US in the past in time of crisis have told the world to stuff it. That's why it's important to watch what happens when the country goes through crisis - and in turn how it affects europe.

The US abandoned BrettonWoods treaty when it came to return of post WW2 aid (France almost collapsed the dollar when asked for gold instead of borrowed dollars, that lead to france later quitting Nato once the US said 'no', and on came the Oil crisis 3-4 years later). Actually, it's fascinating story one on which i did my Business school bachelor thesis, which covered the inflation export by the US via the Marshall plan. When I say fascinating it's not only to those who have finance degrees, it's just general politics and how clever the US played the post war inflation that it HAD to face after printing money for 4 years. BrettonWood treaty was about 1dollar carrying a value of gold backed by the national reserve. IN other words if you had a greenbak you can just ask for gold in return. Needless to say that when the US lent money, it never wanted them back. in the 90s, and perhaps still, like 2/3rds of american currency was outside of the US. Anyway, tht's off topic. :D sorry.

Not always. The US has been fairly patriotic for centuries (almost three of them :-j ) and we opposed nazionalism, we didn't side with it. And it cost us plenty.

As for Bush saying to an international audience that his country is the greatest, other US Presidents have probably done the same. I know they have said that to US audiences. That really bothers you, huh? Well, don't sweat it, it's just an opinion.

Why do Europe and Aisa finance the US national debt? Tell me that. Why? Becuase they make reams of profit from it with relative low risk, that's why. And I have nothing against that, but don't make it sound like a humanitarian effort :)

Thanks for the example, I know only a little about the Bretton Woods treaty (and corresponding Marshall Plan). From what I remember they were efforts by the US to help Europe, both to rebuild and to stave off your new Soviet Overlords. It would have been a terrible thing for Europe to collapse into anarchy and poverty after WWII and to be absobed by Stalin. Terrible for Europe and not good for us, either.


I did a quick check for more info, and from reading this, I don't see how the US was a bad guy, we just exhausted our ability to continue support.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/...1/braithwa.htm


Anyway, good discussion :up:

Hello there,

oops, what a thread !

Well, i guess it really depends on what you know - or what you think you know. The news shown in the media in Europe seem to differ from those the US media presents to the inhabitants of the US. It is not about the pictures of a third world, USA - natural disasters can strike everywhere. Europe is simply wondering why sending help took so long. Talk in the US media about help and loads of resources being transported to Louisiana were obviously wrong, there was no delivery of medicaments, food, water and whatever until the fourth day after the disaster started. The mayor who dared to criticize the non-existant help and delivery of food, water etc. which is talked about all the time in the media is now called a whiner and a**hole, at the same time Bush is the man of the day. Sweden is still wondering why their ships and aircraft are not being requested by the US for help, they made the proposal a week ago.

If Europe dares to shyly ask why and what has happened, we are instantly called unpatriotic, AA (sic!) and worse. I have no problem with people loving their country, or being patriotic. But if obvious things happen, i will not shut my mouth and be political correct. People come first, before patriotism and political correctness. If people suffer or die because of mistakes being made you call a spade a spade. People that defend their party's or leader's actions against better knowledge are the a**holes in my opinion.

Additionally you have to see that excessive patriotism (or chauvinism) somehow came out of fashion since 1945 in Germany, and for some obvious reasons. We have some north american friends that visit us every two years, kindest ones i know and good friends, but i was dumbfounded what they said as soon as the talk turned to politics :dead: .
The American people should bear with us, we are most probably not properly informed over here.

Back to the original poll:

do you think america should have got involved in iraq ?
Yes, but for removing Saddam as a criminal and dictator. Unfortunately the USA were not considered credible for this special action. The rest of the world outside the US thinks of an imperial blow to secure resources.

did they make lies to get oil?
Yes, but some politicians have obviously been fooled. Powell himself just stated he had not been properly informed by his own intelligence and presented lies or at least some faked or made-up material to the UN. Wolfowitz certainly is another case... It is not so difficult, just imagine who benefits from a certain situation, or action. Even some good US friends of mine at Baker-Hughes and Halliburton have their own view about this. No, they are not "AA".

was it all worth it?
I hope the Iraqi people will somehow benefit in the long run. But with their own people partly supporting Al Quaida it will be tough. It sure did not help to keep the oil price/barrel down. The removal of Saddam was worth it.

what will america and her allies gain?
The US have unfortunately lost some reputation and credability by linking the Iraq to 9/11. As for the declaration of war towards international terrorism i wonder what has been said to the US training Al Quaida as long as they fought against the USSR in Afghanistan. Or supporting Saddam with weapons (what about Noriega, Pinochet and other dictators). There remains a problem: How do you want to kill one terrorist who lives in a 12 floor building somewhere in New York with helicopters and stealth fighters (i refer to this "terrorists are doomed" video where hundreds of ships, subs and planes shoot ammunition in a rate that compares with the gross national product of India).

whats your total opinion on the matter
You think you already know my opinion ? You are wrong. I think it was right to invade Iraq, if not for the sake of a 9/11 revenge. I am no leftist and not "revolutional", but politicians and secret agencies do not gain trust or conviction by telling bull**** to their people. Call a spade a spade and tell why you really do it. Some truth does not hurt.

Greetings,
Catfish

Two interviews regarding this thread.

German secretary Andreas von Buelow.

http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/...es/buelow.html

And UK secretary Michael Meacher .

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...036687,00.html

Nice findings, Fish. How comes you remind those links so well? Profession of yours, maybe? are you a journalist in these matters? I usually do not remmeber links that are two years old. We could have needed you in the archives wehre I once worked :)

I'm just curious, that's all.

Neal, from what I researched a while back, the nutshell of the Marshal plan was this.

First, it was money along with goods. LOTS of money. And all in US Dollars. It was given as a GIFT. Not a loan. The thing with loans is they have to be repaid. Gifts or grants - not so much. Now, it's all honkydory but when you have a lot of dollars,and the US economy struggles - what you do with dollars is you sell them off. Or lend somehwere else - i.e. Russia in late 80s and early 90s. On the same token, you have millions of dollars that was carried by the US military during the WW2 that was left in europe (remember all them little sports car they brought back home, the alfas, etc..) Now, that money stays in Europe, but it MUST come back tot he US. And when you have the BrettonWoods that says that in foreign exchange the US dollar is an equivalent of gold - you want to return them sooner or later. When France did exactly that, the US ended up cancelling the system, and for the first time we ended up with world currency that was ...paper. It was not money. Around that time we started to descend into the use of derivatives of creating wealth, and by 80s it was the Wall Street time when everyone wanted to Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas (j/k). But actually that time was very crucial in mid 70s because instead of creating wealth by means of production and real assests, we switched to using financial instruments to creat wealth. And to make the long story short, that's why we no longer have the prospering economies - because we live in debt, because the rules of capitalism do not apply to 'fake' wealth creating and borrowing from future to sustain our own growth. If you can't afford a car in 60s - may be you don't buy it. YET, today many own one despite not being able to really afford it. You see these people switch to bikes when an oil crisis comes. ;)

Anyway, it's much much big subject to discuss, but Marshall Plan was good and it was also a great scheme that the US used to export all the extra money it printed during the WW2 to finance the war effort. But the economy didn't have to observe the huge money supply - because it was 'exported' as a Marshall Plan to the nations that recieved it.

When the dollar collapsed back in the early 70s, guess which European countries DID NOT suffer from it? That's right, the ones who didn't accept the plan. One such country was Finland (and when I say did not accept i mean the gigantic monetary gifts). When Stalin forbid Warsaw pact countries from accepting it, this was one of the reasons it's argued - he didn't want the us dollar to be poured into those economies (or perhaps his advisors didn't want to). Of course the Marshall Plan is credited for rebuilding Europe. But it should also be credited for preventing a hyper post war inflation in the United States. :yep:


Which actually is connected to the Iraq and USA war. One of the things Iraq did in 2002 was to switch to Euro in all of its oil transactions, one of the first if not THE first arab oil exporter. That in long run would have hurt the US Dollar, as other arab countries might have followed suit. Europe trades a lot with arab countries. It is argued that it was one of many little reasons that added up to the Iraq war (argued more in Finance and Economics classes probably, and not so much in the Media. WMD are more interesting to the regular Joe than some foreign transaction currency mambojumbo).

I truly hope you know more about your country than you do about mine. The hurricane hit on Monday--they thought they bit the bullet, survived it as they did most hurricanes. The levees broke Tuesday. Food was coming in on Wednesday.

The MAYOR, whom is the first line of defense when his city is in trouble, and the GOVENOR, whom is the 2nd, did nothing cept whine. The school buses which were supposed to be used to transport ppl out, are STILL sitting parked at their orginal location.
The govenor didn't request the National Guard until Thursday or Friday.

There is no comparison between this and the 9/11 disaster that hit NY city, except for one thing. NY had a mayor and a govenor that knew what to do in an ermergency instead of expecting everyone else to handle it for them.

2nd channel TV news, some minutes ago: reporters now are officially prohibited to join expeditions into the to-be-searched areas of the flooded cities. They are prohibited to board boates with officials, or take boats by themselves.

And on page 2 I wrote: "Not that it is necessary to show such material again and again. It just should not be supressed or prohibited."

The more bodies beeing shown on TV, the worse the impression people have about the ammount of failure of the leadership - and the worse for the administration. That simple censorship can be explained. No images - no public awerness.

Ouch, and Bush's personal buddy, head of FEMA, was ordered back to Washington. yesterday they said he was replaced by some coastguard man. If he was pulled out due to his incompetence I wonder why he is still allowed to continue as head of FEMA (status of this news: yesterday). seems it helps to be a friend of the president. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4231648.stm
I think he will serve dual purpose now: ending his inexperience and incompetence, and turning him into a pawn to be sacrificed in order to bring some relief from critizism of Bush's handling of this crisis.

The American system did nor really shine in glory and honour in all this. Observation this is, no malicious joy.

Again - much more written - and then deleted. Hey Neal, your recipe works! :)

Hello Sharkstooth,
you wrote:

"I truly hope you know more about your country than you do about mine. The hurricane hit on Monday--they thought they bit the bullet, survived it as they did most hurricanes. The levees broke Tuesday. Food was coming in on Wednesday."

Is there any need for this ? Obviously the media here tell something else than you saw. People were told to leave the city before monday as far as i know. Food did not arrive on wednesday.

"The MAYOR, whom is the first line of defense when his city is in trouble, and the GOVENOR, whom is the 2nd, did nothing cept whine. The school buses which were supposed to be used to transport ppl out, are STILL sitting parked at their orginal location.
The govenor didn't request the National Guard until Thursday or Friday."

I really do not get it. The information i saw on TV here was that mayor and governor told the people to leave the city, but there were too few cars and transports available, not all had a car and some did not want to leave. The mayor already called for help before the levees broke, the answer was "they overestimated the hurricane". Next thing was politicians talking about "Louisiana being helped by trucks and helicopters" in the media, which led to the mayor saying something like "Stop talking nonsense, there is no one here helping".
So despite talking in the media CNN said there was no material even headed for Louisiana at this point. First assistance arrived on thursday, but it did not get to the center where it was needed.

I did not say there is any relation between 9/11 and the hurricane, there is none. I just wanted to explain to Neal why patriotism does not have the same influence here as it had before 1945. The first part of the posting was a reaction to some postings just before this one, the end was related to the original topic by Kapitein.

Greetings,
Catfish

I'm willing to say that Bush with the republicans is the closest thing to dictatorship the U.S. has probably ever had.
Just my opinion.

Brad

It went out of style where it caused WWII :) Not here, of course.

I guess you know that when you talk politics to your north american friends, they are probably equally as dumbfounded, right? :arrgh!:

More than FDR?