I merely pointed out the fallacy in your argument; US foreign policy is lot more detrimental to world piece than Dutch could ever be. It is a prevalent sentiment in discussions here that any country that does not share the US’ geopolitical vision is a visceral America hater, a traitor and surely a Muslim/terrorist sympathizer, let it be the French, the Russians, the Germans or anybody else. The world is not your playground anymore. The Roman Empire lasted for 2000 years, the Third Reich for a mere 10, you did marginally better.

Name calling isn’t just my forte, I believe “loogie” is not what you would call your loved ones. It is not my job or duty to defend anything or anybody around here, but the anti-European bias exhibited by some is annoying.

The US is the biggest polluter in the world (In 2001, the United States had a per capita energy consumption of 341.8 million Btu, greater than 5.2 times the world's per capita energy consumption. Per capita carbon emissions are similar to energy consumption patterns, with the United States emitting 5.5 metric tons of carbon per person, the world on average 1.1 metric tons.), has the highest percentage of prison population per capita, has one of the highest crime and murder rate in the industrialized world, consumes ¼ of the world’s daily oil consumption, just to name a few problem areas some of which greatly affects the rest of the world. Seems that its citizens should be concerned more about their own problems than lecturing others.

As to your rather flippant brushing aside of the slavery issue, I just would like to ask Rosa Park what took her so long, damn she waited 95 years. Surely that war has resolved things in an orderly and swift fashion. Or has it? Wait, a disproportionatly large prison population (in some states almost half) is made up of minorities, old habits die slow.

“In his first inaugural address in 1993, President Clinton spoke of the United States as the "world's oldest democracy." [16] Is it? Presumably, this history starts the clock of democracy in 1787 when the Constitution was ratified. But many would consider this problematic, since this Constitution excluded as much as a sixth of the country's population--its slave population--from any of the rights of citizenship. Can we then start the clock of democracy in 1865 when slavery was abolished, or in 1868 when the Confederate states re-entered the Union with a commitment (in their state constitutions) to equal rights for all citizens? That too is dubious.
For another hundred years, the United States was not a democracy for all its citizens. At first through terrorist methods, and, later, starting in the 1890s, through amendments in the state constitution, the Southern states pressed ahead in their effort to exclude blacks from the political process. This resulted in "the disfranchisement of nearly all black citizens and the removal from office of nearly all black legislators in the former Confederate states by 1910." [17] Arguably, we might start the clock in the 1960s, when the blacks launched the Civil Rights Movement to regain their political rights. However, this process is far from complete. Under felony disenfranchisement laws, still on the books since the days of segregation, some 4.7 million Americans are denied their voting rights. Under these laws black men are disenfranchised at seven times the rate for all Americans. [18]

For the complete record on American 'compassion,' read William Blum, Killing Hope: US military and CIA interventions since World War II (Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2004)?”
http://www.counterpunch.org/alam03232004.html

No need for the hypocrisy, few people believe it, your country has a rather checkered past and present. As some people pointed out it would foolhardy to believe that the US is the only one with questionable foreign policy, but the amount of propaganda is dishonest and distasteful.
Perhaps spending a few months in a refugee camp would alter your perception of reality.

Pointing out duplicity is not an insult.

Regarding the Europeans killing each other, it did not and do not affect you in America, why the uncontrollable urge to get involved (without studying the history and the cultures of the countries involved, thereby invariably making crucial mistakes not just in Europe)? But of course, war is good for business, especially on foreign lands. So, let me carpet bomb your cities, wipe out your industries, destroy all of your infrastucture then offer you some money to buy suplies from me (perhaps at somewhat inflated prices) to rebuild, why I am a genious.

“The only major power whose infrastructure had not been significantly harmed was the United States. It had entered the war later than most European countries, and had only suffered limited damage to its own territory. American gold reserves were still intact as was its massive agricultural and manufacturing base, the country enjoying a robust economy. The war years had seen the fastest period of economic growth in the nation's history, as American factories supported both its own war effort and that of its allies. After the war, these plants quickly retooled to produce consumer goods, and the scarcity of the war years was replaced by a boom in consumer spending. The long term health of the economy was dependent on trade, however, as continued prosperity would require markets to export these goods. Marshall Plan aid would largely be used by the Europeans to buy manufactured goods and raw materials from the United States.”

About being a happy mutt, good for you, as long as you are happy. I, on occasion, read the writings of my ancestors form many, many centuries ago, fondly recall my high school history classes and if I look in the phone book I see many of the same names there used a thousand years ago. It all may mean nothing to you in the US, but unless you can do the same you are in no position to lecture Europeans about culture, history, and heritage.

As to the Marshall plan, it seems that there is a controversy around it:

“In the 1980s, a new school developed with some historians arguing that the Marshall Plan might not have played as decisive a role in Europe's recovery as was previously believed. The first person to make this argument was the economic historian Alan S. Milward and the analysis was developed by the German historian Gerd Hardach in Der Marshall Plan (1994). Such critics have pointed out that economic growth in many European countries revived before the large-scale arrival of U.S. aid, and was fastest among some of the lesser recipients. While aid from the Marshall Plan eased immediate difficulties and contributed to the recovery of some key sectors, growth from the postwar nadir was largely an independent process. (European socialists argue that a similar amount of reconstruction money could have been obtained by nationalizing the holdings of wealthy Europeans who deposited their money in U.S. banks during World War II.)
Tyler Cowen, economist, has stated that nations receiving the most aid from the Marshall Plan (Britain, Sweden, Greece) saw the least returns and grew the least between 1947 & 1955. Those nations who received little (Germany, Austria, and Italy) grew the most. It should pointed out the latter countries were also the most devastated, and thus had the most potential for recovery.”

As I have stated before I don’t believe that US has ever done anything truly ultraistic on an international level, there are always conditions attached to every dollar given. It is fine too, nobody is obligated to give away aid, but then be honest about it and stop the chest beating.

Alex

Not than the Dutch ever could be. Go read some history.

B

Anti-Americanism Is Racist Envy
Paul Johnson, 07.21.03, 12:00 AM ET

Anti-Americanism is the prevailing disease of intellectuals today. Like other diseases, it doesn't have to be logical or rational. But, like other diseases, it has a syndrome--a concurrent set of underlying symptoms that are also causes.

• First, an unadmitted contempt for democracy. The U.S. is the world's most successful democracy. The right of voters to elect more than 80,000 public officials, the length and thoroughness of electoral campaigns, the pervasiveness of the media and the almost daily reports by opinion polls ensure that government and electorate do not diverge for long and that Washington generally reflects the majority opinion in its actions.

It is this feature that intellectuals--especially in Europe--find embittering. They know they must genuflect to democracy as a system. They cannot openly admit that an entire people--especially one comprising nearly 300 million, who enjoy all the freedoms--can be mistaken. But in their hearts these intellectuals do not accept the principle of one person, one vote. They scornfully, if privately, reject the notion that a farmer in Kansas, a miner in Pennsylvania or an auto assembler in Michigan can carry as much social and moral weight as they do. In fact, they have a special derogatory word for anyone who acts on this assumption: "populist." A populist is someone who accepts the people's verdict, even--and especially--when it runs counter to the intellectual consensus (as with capital punishment, for example). In the jargon of intellectual persiflage, populism is almost as bad as fascism--indeed, it's a step toward it. Hence, the argument goes, the U.S. is not so much an "educated democracy" as it is a media-swayed and interest-group-controlled populist regime.

The truth is, on the European Continent there is little experience of working democracy. Italy and Germany have had democracy only since the late 1940s; Spain, since the 1960s. France is not a democracy; it is a republic run by bureaucratic and party elites, whose errors are dealt with by strikes, street riots and blockades instead of by votes. Elements of the French system are being imposed throughout the EU, even in countries such as Denmark and Sweden that have long practiced democracy with success. In a French-style pseudodemocracy, intellectuals have considerable influence, at both government and street levels. In a true democracy, intellectuals are no more powerful than their arguments.

• Second, anti-Americanism is a function of cultural racism. An astonishingly high proportion of European elites know very little about U.S. history or culture and even deny that they have a separate existence apart from their European roots. It is strange that those seeking to bring about a European federal state or union have at no stage sought to study the lessons Americans learned during the creation of the U.S. in the 1780s. After all, the U.S. Constitution (suitably amended) has lasted for more than 200 years, and within its framework the country has emerged as the richest and most powerful society in world history. You might think, therefore, that European elites would seek to learn something from such a successful process. Not at all: The view is that sophisticated, civilized Europe has nothing to learn from "adolescent" America. What these Euro-elites particularly abhor is the way in which the framers of the Constitution made every effort to involve the population through the process of public debates, town meetings and ratification votes--and this at a time when Europe was still governed (for the most part) by the absolute sovereigns of the ancien régime.

This cultural racism is particularly directed at the supposedly "know-nothing" President George W. Bush and his "gung ho" Texas background. The European intelligentsia gets its notion of America chiefly from Hollywood, TV soaps like Dallas and fiction. Few of them have any experience of America, outside of three or four big cities. Middle America is unexplored territory. The fact that the U.S. has proved a highly efficient crucible for melding different peoples into a human sum greater than its constituent parts is seen as a misfortune in Europe because it produces a cultural stew that lacks purity of any kind and is therefore at the mercy of commercial forces.

• Third, European elites tend to look at Americans as a subcivilized mass, whose function is to be obedient consumers in a system run by big business. The role of competition in U.S. economic life--and in every other aspect of life--is ignored, because competition is something Continental Europeans like to keep to a minimum and under careful control.

Although Americans are seen as highly materialistic consumers, they are also despised and feared for their spiritual interests, their participation in religious worship and their subscription to creeds of morality. Europeans see no inconsistency in their condemnation of the U.S. for being at one and the same time paganly unethical and morally zealous.

The truth is, any accusation that comes to hand is used without scruple by the Old World intelligentsia. Anti-Americanism is factually absurd, contradictory, racist, crude, childish, self-defeating and, at bottom, nonsensical. It is based on the powerful but irrational impulse of envy--an envy of American wealth, power, success and determination. It is an envy made all the more poisonous because of a fearful European conviction that America's strength is rising while Europe's is falling.



Paul Johnson , eminent British historian and author, Lee Kuan Yew , senior minister of Singapore, and Ernesto Zedillo , former president of Mexico, in addition to Forbes Chairman Caspar W. Weinberger , are now periodically writing this column. To see past Current Events columns go to www.forbes.com/currentevents.

How many troops have the Dutch committed to stop hunger or genocide?

Interesting that he has showcased Rosa "Park" as an example of America's continued failure to address race equality, when Miss "Park" was essentially an icon of America's ability to look within itself, and through primarily peaceful means, effect significant social and cultural change.

Had Rosa "Park" lived in Dacia's birthplace in 1955, I wonder if the revolutionary movement she triggered would have flowered, or if it's founding fathers would have been dragged into the woods and slaughtered. It's certainly unlikely that Miss "Park" would have been in a position to wait 95 years for anything. I wouldn't compare Miss "Park's" pre-1955 circumstances to that of a pre-Civil War slave, but perhaps to that of the average eastern European citizen.

I'm awaiting Dacia's showcase of a country, government and/or culture that we should emulate. I'm particularly interested in the identity of a country in which its government and inhabitants are free of prejudice, bias or partiality. It is most certainly not in eastern Europe.

I suspect that this may be the most flagrant case of the pot calling the kettle black I've encountered in quite some time.

Dacia, I patiently await your apology for calling me a stray dog. It was personally offensive and unwarranted.

Pointless. His mind is as closed as he claims ours to be.

It's interesting to note that Dacia has essentially told us to mind our own back yard before venturing outside its boundaries after attempting to chastise me for my implying that Vronsky should do the same. How odd.

He went Dutch on himself.

Dacia means Romanian is that what he was before he strayed?

Apparently. Not a nice place is it? I'd rather live in Detroit.

only the ones who acted honorably. Japanes soldiers were brutal torturers that showed little respect for human life, don't pity them. Same for the Nazis.

Apparently some of it came naturally because he told me that when we were just about to move from New Mexico to OlyWA he got word from a buddy that they were going to have a GTG. He was right in the middle of planning a big move and couldn't do it.

Yeah, you're right, the VA would be the outfit for it -- I was saying pentagon as sorta shorthand for gub-mint military.

You make some good points, I regret that so many people are willing to dismiss it as America bashing. We've been reading and digesting our own press releases for so long, we've started to believe 'em.

However, many peoples have migrated over the centuries. The people you descended from likely as not came from somewhere else and displaced another people.

Many of your ancestors likely as not did horrible things to neandrathals, speeding them to a date with extinction. I dunno, seems like war and mass killing is going to happen now and then no matter what.
I could be wrong (it's happened) but I think he was referring to America as a whole rather than you specifically.

I believe the intent was that a warrior is not a criminal. Not all of the Imperial armed forces or the Third Reich were as you described in your oversimplified generalization.

any Native Americans in this thread?
 

The author makes an awful lot of assertions, seems to have some serious issues with Continental Europe, failed to mention the UK and its Royal family as the antidote to democracy even once in his tirade (but of course he is British). I am not sure where gets his information from, there are many countries in Continental Europe (30, some of which actually invented democracy), and a lot more intellectuals, speaking as many if not more languages. I find it somewhat difficult to see how they all would speak with a unified voice when it comes to the US.
He finds the US’ system glorious for its just, honest and inclusionary (is that a word) ways yet, if my recollection is correct, on this very board there were accusation of vote fixing, coercion and outright fraud with the voting machines during the most recent election, and the leader may not have been elected as the will of the majority. Mentioning Bush was a particularly bad example, it has been shown (by Bush, himself no less) many times he is a near imbecile, especially when compared to some of the previous presidents.
It is also known that televised debates make or break an incumbent’s aspiration, for some of the viewers care more about style than substance. Rather shallow, but then again, “nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public”.
The same may apply to other countries, it is just the author is sure that democracy is flawless in the States. As to the spiritual interest, religious worship (as if was something to be proud of in the 21st century), creeds and morality he should have read a few statistics before going on a diatribe. Enron, WorldCom, Exxon Valdez, Bhopal, television evangelism, murder/rape/robbery etc. rate, crime infested inner cities, racism against blacks and Mexicans, the list is long. The popular criticism the US is receiving in Europe is for its foreign policy and its chest beating, loudmouth propaganda.
Interesting how a black civil right activist fighting against white racism in America ended up to be white America’s icon in changing “itself”. I guess some of the black readers here would disagree with you on that claim. She inspired not all Americans but black Americans to fight for their rights. If it were up to mainstream America, the status quo would have been just fine. The fight wasn’t “primarily” peaceful either, there were race riots for years, King was shot. Yes, her name was ParkS.
Had she lived in my birthplace in 1955 she would have been an ordinary member of society for there has never been slavery there, no Klux-Klux-Klan, no cross burning and/or lynching.
As to comparing her circumstances to that of an average Eastern European (this term is rather misleading, it is a geopolitical invention, the Iron Curtain divided Central Europe and West Europe) shows how little you know about that era. You are making a fool of yourself in your lame attempt to belittle her work.
I never claimed that other governments and/or countries are free of problems, but the most obnoxious yelling and screaming coming from your corner, as if it was your god given right to lecture others about the infallibility of the “truth, justice and the American way”.
Dacia was the name of a Roman province, approximately the area in which today’s Romania is located. Incidentally, it is also the name of the car I owned when I lived in Austria (it was a Renault 12 essentially, manufactured under license).
True, human history is about conquest, but I never claimed that my people were the lightning rod for humanity.
Americans on the other hand:
“All too often, politicians rally their audience with inflated claims of American greatness. The United States is "the greatest country in the world." At other times, it is "the greatest country ever," "the greatest country ever conceived," or "the greatest country in the history of mankind." When the exuberance soars, America also "kicks ass!"
Nearly as often, one hears of the United States as the great Samaritan: second to none at 'civilizing' half-breed races. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, the United States is the "the last best hope of mankind," no less. More frequently, it is "the shining beacon on the hill." Recently, John Kerry, Democratic Presidential candidate, roused students at UCLA, "I believe we can bring a real victory in the War on Terror. I believe we must, not only for ourselves but for all who look to America as the last best hope of earth." I have to wonder if the Vietnamese civilians killed by Kerry and his crew also looked upon them as "the last best hope of earth."”
http://www.counterpunch.org/alam03232004.html

English does not differentiate between singular "you" and plural “you", sometimes it is cumbersome to make the distinction. In that comment the plural “you” was meant to be used.

Alex