• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are we an arrogant country?

Are we an Arrogant country?


  • Total voters
    64
Or maybe the Soviet Union and Communism would still be on the march around the world...

We won. I'm not making any apologies. And I won't second guess any of it.

;)

I'll just make this observation:

The team that wins the Superbowl doesn't make any blather about "it doesn't matter who wins, it's how you play the game".

The Communists are still babbling about winning not being important.

The good guys won, the left lost.

That what really counts, that, and making sure the left doesn't win the peace.
 
Obama on his US World Apology tour, recently stated that we are an arrogant country.

Questions:

Are we?

What do you think of Obama's statements?

I find Obama's statements extremely offensive, naive and very misguided.

If you compare our nations policies versus those of former and present Communist nations along with most of Europe’s, you find that we are perhaps the least arrogant when it comes to foreign policy.

Suggesting that America is arrogant is about as idiotic and suggesting that our troops lost the fight in Iraq. But when it comes to Liberals, since when did REALITY or the FACTS get in the way of their lunatic diatribe.

:2wave:
 
I want to thank you for posting this, because its a good example of the arrogance that the President talked about overseas. I really don't mean to criticize you, I just think its very convenient that you said this.

President Obama compared these statements of American arrogance to the ignorance and sometimes the attitude the Europeans have towards Americans. I think its about time our President has come out and said this.

Wherever I have lived I have always said that Americans are sometimes arrogant. But its not like we are that way all the time, I love this country, and one reason I love it is because we can have our leader go overseas and admit something that his own people are sometimes afraid to admit. These people are so afraid they are then quick to label our leader's remarks as, like you said, "horrendous" or something to that extent.

Unfortunately, Reverend_Hellhound, in the only way that he knows how, has made an unfair poll, something I have done time and again. I don't think our country is arrogant, but we are also not modest, so it can't be dealt with in absolutes. We are not necessarily an arrogant country in general, but I think we can be called arrogant.

I'm also not saying we should do things like pull out of world diplomacy completely, this would be wrong. We are powerful enough a country to be almost "policing" the world, but along with this power comes the arrogance of some Americans.

I say this to you and many other Liberals all over the world:

When you look at the historical arrogance of England, France, Germany the former Soviet Union, Saddam's Iraq, Syria, Iran, Japan (along with their profound racism) and China, what Americans represent pales in comparison.

In order to have a world view that is so myopic and distorted one has to be wallowing in willful denial or historical ignorance.

The United States has been the most forgiving nation in the world. The United States has been the largest promoter of freedom in the world. The United States has been the most GIVING/GENEROUS nation in the world.

How did we recently earn the title of being the most arrogant in Liberals minds? By having a President who had the audacity to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq and who actually did what he says he is going to do. What a shocker.

But alas, Liberals are happy now; America has a Community Organizer empty shirt to fulfill the role of a lot of talk, with very little substance who desperately wants to turn the Community Organization of the United States into a follower of European folly and hand over the tough decisions to a UN body that is feckless and useless at best and infested with a mind set that cow tows to despots and impugns free nations for being perceived "arrogant."

You cannot fabricate the level of ignorance it takes to have such views; but given enough time, and allowing Liberals to infest our education systems with such blatant disregard for reality, and the historic truth, soon all nations will be led by ingrates who comprehend little in the way of free markets, capital formation and how to negotiate with terrorist, despots, dictators or tyrants.

Is it any wonder that the people who seem most pleased with this Community Organizer are the very enemies of America the previous LEADER sought to protect us from.

America is arrogant? Hardly when contrasted with the other world powers on the globe. But to Liberals, it is an arrogant thing to lead a coalition into Iraq to depose a tyrant and instill a freely elected Government and make the sacrifice to create two new Democracies in the Middle East.

To those in the rest of the world who choose to insult us with that label, I say this; before you suggest that we Americans are “arrogant”, perhaps a good long look in the historical mirror would do you some good.

I find it particularly distasteful when I see former European allies and former European enemies take such stances after all America did after the world war to ensure they were free from tyranny and became prosperous democracies. Frances actions in particular represents the greatest arrogance and thankless behavior bar none; particularly when we look at it’s former attempts at “empire building” and it’s failures in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. England and Germany is a close second and third. Russia’s actions speak for themselves but go beyond arrogance and actually represent tyranny.

Carry on. :roll:
 
I find Obama's statements extremely offensive, naive and very misguided.

If you compare our nations policies versus those of former and present Communist nations along with most of Europe’s, you find that we are perhaps the least arrogant when it comes to foreign policy.

Suggesting that America is arrogant is about as idiotic and suggesting that our troops lost the fight in Iraq. But when it comes to Liberals, since when did REALITY or the FACTS get in the way of their lunatic diatribe.

:2wave:

i too find them offensive ,especially coming from someone who possibly was not born a natural citizen. but then thats a diff. post. i do know that most of the europeans owe us a great debt for what we have done for them in the past, and if they think we are arrogant,they should consider where they would have been without us.
 
I find Obama's statements extremely offensive, naive and very misguided.

If you compare our nations policies versus those of former and present Communist nations along with most of Europe’s, you find that we are perhaps the least arrogant when it comes to foreign policy.
Well you said it so it must be true.

Suggesting that America is arrogant is about as idiotic and suggesting that our troops lost the fight in Iraq. But when it comes to Liberals, since when did REALITY or the FACTS get in the way of their lunatic diatribe.

:2wave:
Damn liberals!! They are always the root cause of evil in this world!!!!!!!!

:2rofll:

Could you be a bit more detailed so I can take your position seriously?
 
Last edited:
The full quote was:
"There have been times where Americans have shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive; but in Europe there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious."

He was speaking to the evils of arrogance worldwide... and he didn't say America is an arrogant nation, he said that Americans at times have shown arrogance. Big difference.

Nice :spin: though.

The full quote was:

"In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive. "

Then he went on to suggest that:

"But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual, but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what is bad. On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America."

Does the underlined sound familiar? The DNC promoted this notion in their campaign of ignorance on the Bush Administration. The irony of such comments is that the very people who promoted such anti-American rabid anti-Bush attitudes in the first place for purely partisan political purposes to regain the power they so desperately felt they are entitled to now want to turn the tables and suggest that the world forgets all the good we have done. How trite and convenient. The DNC and Liberal media even went so far as to campaign on the idea that we were defeated in Iraq, in a quagmire, and that we were criminal in our conduct and even perhaps that Bush had lied to get us into Iraq.

How ironic that now that Democrats infest all areas of Government, they now want to suggest to Europe that they should set aside the attitudes promoted by American Liberals now that Liberals are in charge here and willing to hand over our leadership to Europe and the UN.

Carry on. :2wave:
 
Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Iraq, Lebanon, Somali, Georgia, phillipines, Haiti, Columbia, arab-Israeli conflicts, Grenada, Cuba.

We are big on doing things "my way or the highway ". All for the fighting of communism/terrorism/democracy of course.

So let me understand this; you think Communist arrogance and domination is fine, but our efforts to prevent Communist takeovers of Governments in our hemisphere in particular and promote free market Democracies an example of arrogance? This has to be one of those "you're kidding me right?"

How are we arrogant in Iraq? If anything we removed an arrogant tyrant who laughed at the world and the UN and felt he could continue to defy the UN body’s resolutions for decades more. This also was a tyrant armed to the teeth by the Communist Soviet Union in an effort to extend their influence in the region.

Lebanon? How are we arrogant towards Lebanon; this should be good for a laugh or an "are you kidding me?"

Haiti? How are we arrogant towards Haiti; this should be good for a laugh or an "are you kidding me?"

Nicaragua? How are we arrogant towards Nicaragua; this should be good for a laugh or an "are you kidding me?"

Honduras? How are we arrogant towards Honduras; this should be good for a laugh or an "are you kidding me?"

Panama? How are we arrogant towards Panama; this should be good for a laugh or an "are you kidding me?"

Somali? How are we arrogant towards Somali; this should be good for a laugh or an "are you kidding me?"

Georgia? How are we arrogant towards Georgia; this should be good for a laugh or an "are you kidding me?"

Philippines? How are we arrogant towards Philippines; this should be good for a laugh or an "are you kidding me?"

Columbia? How are we arrogant towards Columbia; this should be good for a laugh or an "are you kidding me?"

Grenada? How are we arrogant towards Grenada; this should be good for a laugh or an "are you kidding me?"

Cuba? How are we arrogant towards Cuba; this should be good for a laugh or an "are you kidding me?"

Any of the above South American nations we could have dominated and taken over and removed their governments with ease. Our policy has been strictly to support regimes to prevent them from being overthrown by Communists.

Arab-Israeli conflicts? How are we arrogant towards Arab-Israeli conflicts; this should be good for a laugh or an "are you kidding me?"

In the particular issues of the Middle East, it requires historical ignorance at best to suggest that the US was the cause of all the issues and territorial fighting going on.

I look forward to specific examples in each of the above to prove your inane suggestion that America has somehow been arrogant towards it's South American neighbors instead of accommodating to those regimes that refuted Communism.

Being that you apparently are an apologist for Communism, perhaps a lecture on what is good about Communism in your mind is also in order.

Simplistic one liners just don’t do it for me dude.

Carry on. :2wave:
 
So supporting despots in S america is justified? Bombing cities to find one man that results in thousands of deaths is justified? Standing by and watching civilians get slaughtered because our preisdent was too scared for his political career to do anything about it is justified?
That an intentionally vague enemy of communism and terrorism is a viable reason for any action for any administration?

Some actions were reasonable and justified. Some were not. We are not an infallible beacon of righteuosness nor are we the Great Satan. Own up to and admit our mistakes and wrong doings while praising and glorifying our noble accomplishments. That is all.

Your narrow minded, myopic and selective outrage against America has been noted; as is your obvious denial of how communism/tyranny/terrorism/dictatorships are implemented.
 
It's much older than the fight against terrorism, we're great at installing tinpot dictators in murderous regimes in other countries when they do what we want, then as soon as they decide they don't have to listen to us, we go and wipe them out.

Many times it is a hard choice between a dictator who actually allows citizens to have free access to markets and freedom to come and go and allowing Communist dictators who shut down freedoms, access and runs their nations into the ground.

I think when we look at our actions historically and in context, they don't illustrate arrogance, merely an effort to protect OUR interests and those of our neighbors from tyranny.

I am sure the Saddam/Terrorist apologists of the forum think otherwise, but if anything, Cuba is an example of the OTHER choice and it doesn't work well for their people or, in the example during Kennedy's Presidency, our security.

These are people who despise our way of life, human rights and freedoms; there is no reason to support regimes that would supplant them if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

The Shah of Iran has been described historically as a tyrant; yet under his regime Iranians prospered and were allowed freedoms they can only dream of now. It took a Democrat President which allowed the current terrorist supporting regime to take power we now see in Iran. It took a Democrat Congress to allow the North Vietnamese to breach all their treaties with us and the South and allow Communism to take hold in Southeast Asia; millions dying as a result.

How did that all work out for us? Not too good when placed in historical perspective. China will never be our "friend." It will only be a convenience as long as they allow selective abuse of their cheap labor. Russia will never be our "friend." They will always remain jealous of their third world position in the world. Europeans will never be our "friend." They will always be envious of our global power and influence which supplanted their Imperialist ambitions, not to mention our benevolent treatment of the victors and vanquished after World War II. I am sure many Frenchman hated to see Germany become an industrialized power house in Europe over their own ineptness and would be quick to blame the US.

So please demagogue the actions of American within historical context. I am not suggesting that we did not commit our own set of atrocities becoming the nation we have become; but that is in our distant past and in some cases, the civil war for example, the price paid in blood far exceeds the need to dwell on past injustices in my opinion.
 
The question isn't about what the Russians do, it's about how the United States acts. Regardless of Russia's actions, our responsibility for our actions is our own, we can't blame them and say two wrongs make a right. The fact is, both the US and USSR spent a great deal of the Cold War propping up sympathetic regimes and trying to impose their pet political systems worldwide in the bizarre belief that their way is automatically the best for everyone, screw the wishes of the native population. The Russians wanted to oppose capitalism and force communism on everyone they could, the U.S. wanted to do the opposite and both sides were utterly blinded by their irrational hatred of the other that they did some really idiotic things. That's why we ended up supporting the Taliban, because they were fighting the Russians and the enemy of our enemy must automatically be our friend. That's why we supported the Shah in Iran. That's why so many of these tinpot dictators that we've propped up have come back to haunt us in the end, we spent a lot of years trying to get them damn Russkis at every turn.

Maybe if we had stopped to think about what we were doing along the way, we wouldn't have made so many mistakes.

What is missing in your diatribe and willful denial is that had the Communists not attempted to overthrow governments to supplant them with Communist dictatorships, the US would not have involved itself in nations or political elements in opposition.

It was not OUR actions that prompted the "cold" war people; it was the Soviet Union and Communist China. :roll:
 
Well you said it so it must be true.

Damn liberals!! They are always the root cause of evil in this world!!!!!!!!

:2rofll:

Could you be a bit more detailed so I can take your position seriously?

This coming from the person making these comments?

Quote: Originally Posted by scourge99
Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Iraq, Lebanon, Somali, Georgia, phillipines, Haiti, Columbia, arab-Israeli conflicts, Grenada, Cuba.

We are big on doing things "my way or the highway ". All for the fighting of communism/terrorism/democracy of course.


Your posts always smack of profound irony Scourge. Carry on. :rofl
 
This coming from the person making these comments?

Quote: Originally Posted by scourge99
Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Iraq, Lebanon, Somali, Georgia, phillipines, Haiti, Columbia, arab-Israeli conflicts, Grenada, Cuba.

We are big on doing things "my way or the highway ". All for the fighting of communism/terrorism/democracy of course.


Your posts always smack of profound irony Scourge. Carry on. :rofl
LaMid understood and gave a valid legitimate response free of rhetoric and with defensible statements. Perhaps an old fogey like you could learn something from him?

You are wasting what little life you have left old man. Carry on DENIED. :sigh:
 
LaMid understood and gave a valid legitimate response free of rhetoric and with defensible statements. Perhaps an old fogey like you could learn something from him?

You are wasting what little life you have left old man. Carry on DENIED. :sigh:

Once again I see little substance but plenty of intellectually insulting hyperbole.

Carry on. :2wave:
 
How did we recently earn the title of being the most arrogant in Liberals minds? By having a President who had the audacity to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq and who actually did what he says he is going to do. What a shocker.

There's a lot more truth to this than most here will admit. The 'arrogance' of the U.S. seems to be complained about most by liberals at home and abroad when we have a president with an (R) behind his name. Funny how that works.

;)
 
LaMid understood and gave a valid legitimate response free of rhetoric and with defensible statements. Perhaps an old fogey like you could learn something from him?

A synopsis of abject nonsense, my favorite of course is the absurd notion that Nassar was a US ally, that one is a doozy. Perhaps a history lesson is in order so that you won’t continue making such outrageously absurd comments in a vacuum of facts and the truth:

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamal_Abdel_Nasser]Gamal Abdel Nasser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Hell Yeeeeeaaaahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When you ARE number 1 you're obligated to talk **** and live it up like you ARE #1!!!!

!!!U S A! USA! U S A!!!

Our pres is doing a great job brown nosing the world while perpetuating the same foundations of Bush's, Clintons' and previous presidents foreign policy; same book, different cover. But just ignore that and let us mesmerize you with his pretty speeches and charming mantras. Its worked so far! "Change" "Hope" "Peace"


Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Iraq, Lebanon, Somali, Georgia, phillipines, Haiti, Columbia, arab-Israeli conflicts, Grenada, Cuba.

We are big on doing things "my way or the highway ". All for the fighting of communism/terrorism/democracy of course.


But it was arrogant to go into gulf war 2 with a "coalition of the willing" despite the politics, wouldn't you say?

Reagen era: despite the fact that we opened the door to Israel who then made a mess of things and then we stood by and watched as the mess we created created a civilian slaughter? :no:

So that proves something?

true. But in hindsight it appears we were a bit too arrogant in addressing Russias concerns.

don't know enough about it to comment much.

same reason we are all over S America.

Nasir and Egypt were our ally until we took an unflinching pro-israeli stance in the 6-day war. Nasir did the only rationale thing and opened his arms to the Soviets. By failing to moderate our approach we poisoned our relationship with the Arabs. Such disdain is still present today and we are reaping what we sowed.

so we can do no evil? All is fair? We've failed PATHETICALLY with Cuba. I don't know if another strategy would work better but I do know our goals have not been achieved.

So supporting despots in S america is justified? Bombing cities to find one man that results in thousands of deaths is justified? Standing by and watching civilians get slaughtered because our preisdent was too scared for his political career to do anything about it is justified?
That an intentionally vague enemy of communism and terrorism is a viable reason for any action for any administration?

Some actions were reasonable and justified. Some were not. We are not an infallible beacon of righteuosness nor are we the Great Satan. Own up to and admit our mistakes and wrong doings while praising and glorifying our noble accomplishments. That is all.

so when you can't respond to arguments you attack the poster? Petty and childish.

You'll be ignored until you can respond rationally.

If it wasn't apparent why all of those countries were mentioned then there's no point in me continuing the discussion with you. Obviously another poster, LaMidRighter, understood the post. Perhaps you should consult his response for some clues.

The first post wasn't an argument. It was a personal opinion that was made in jest. *could you not tell by the obvious hyperbole and ridiculous emoticons* I guess not.

The second post was a serious argument supported by historical events which was enitely seperated and unrelated to the first post.


The perceived hypocrisy that you falsely believe exists does nothing to address the arguments. Try again.

You are wasting your time and mine.

Not necessarily. Any number of events could of made Saddam irrelevant. Clinton put half-hearted efforts into undermining the man but like JFK got cold feet and botched the whole thing culminating in the failed 1996 attempt making Saddam clear his ranks of any perceived loyalty and destroying all intelligence sources for the near future.

But we made the situation far worse. We hold the reins on Israel and the only thing stopping a president from using them is backlash from the pro-Israel lobby in the US.

Israel had hedged their bets that the Christian militia could establish dominance and thus a friendly government in Lebanon could be established. However, things did not goes as planned. The result was the Christian militia slaughtering civilian Muslims claiming that they were PLO all while Israeli forces guarded the doors and the US military watched from the seas.

In the end the Israel achieved a momentary reprieve from PLO and Hezbollah assault but sowed the seeds for future attacks by so effectively dismantling the government of Lebanon leaving a civil war to rage for the next decade where Hezbollah would eventually return in strength.

I think it was probably a good thing. Re-reading it, it should be off the list I created.

Were are talking about Georgia right?

And now the Arabs are left without a leader who could of brought wide ranging peace and stability. Nasir was this hope.

ME conflict has been around intensely since post WW2.

I don't really have a solution. I wouldn't want the country to get stronger but it sucks punishing the people.


I'm saying that its common procedure to establish a vague enemy so that tertiary goals can be achieved under its guise.

That is, declare a "war on terror" and anybody that participates in terror (which includes just about any country with a military or intelligence agency) and you've got a lot of public support whenever you use your buzzword.

Grenada - Communists! Democracy!

Iraq - Terrorists! Democracy!

Panama - Drugs! Democracy!

The list goes on.

This is not to say that many of these conflicts are not justifiable or needed but merely that the propaganda is... well, propaganda. The facts come later.... sometimes much later. Democracy! :doh

Well you said it so it must be true.

Damn liberals!! They are always the root cause of evil in this world!!!!!!!!

:2rofll:

Could you be a bit more detailed so I can take your position seriously?

LaMid understood and gave a valid legitimate response free of rhetoric and with defensible statements. Perhaps an old fogey like you could learn something from him?

You are wasting what little life you have left old man. Carry on DENIED. :sigh:
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You don't agree that freedom is better than slavery?

That depends. I tend to think that people get the form of government they deserve. If people are not willing to fight against the slavery in their own backyard, then they deserve to be slaves. For decades now, the U.S. has run around like the world's policeman, forcing everyone to play by *OUR* rules, screw what the local populations want or are willing to fight for. The U.S. and USSR played a global game of chess, moving pieces who didn't volunteer to be pawns around to gain the best political advantage for the players, rarely to the pieces being moved.

Also, we did what we needed to to do survive the threat the Soviet Union presented to us.

Which demonstrable threat was that? And don't bother going with the "we had to make the world safe for democracy!" line.

Should we have let the Soviets conquer Afghanland, and thus have Russian troops on Iran's south eastern border, or should we have assisted the people who lived there who wanted to resist the invaders?

If they specifically asked us for help, then by all means, we ought to do so. But we didn't, not directly, we backed local warlords with U.S. funding and weapons and that decision came back to bite us, as so many of these propped up regimes have done.

There's a lot of "oh no, they MIGHT do this if we let them do that..." nonsense going on, a lot of imagined motives and future actions with little or no substantive evidence to back them up. The U.S. needs to stop treating the rest of the planet as it's support system, we're part of a global economic and political system, we're not the top dog that requires everyone else to bow down to us and offer us offerings.
 
Which demonstrable threat was that? And don't bother going with the "we had to make the world safe for democracy!" line.
Putting missiles in Cuba was a demonstrable threat.

Khrushchev's "We will bury you" rhetoric was a demonstrable threat.

Invading Afghanistan was a demonstrable threat to the West's access to the Persian Gulf states.

Stealing US nuclear weapons secrets and technology was a demonstrable threat.

Stealing US submarine technology was a demonstrable threat.

How many demonstrable threats are needed to acknowledge that someone desires to be your enemy?
 
How many demonstrable threats are needed to acknowledge that someone desires to be your enemy?

What you're failing to understand, celticlord, is that if you have a perceived enemy, the appropriate steps are as follows:

a. Do nothing until they do something 'really' bad. That way you are certain they are angry at us.

b. After they do something 'really' bad, gather together our friends and allies to discuss the situation and gauge their feelings.

c. Do a bit of soul-searching, and come to a better understanding of 'why' they hate us.

d. Acknowledge our past mistakes and offenses. Apologize.

e. Having given our friends and allies time to gauge their feelings, call upon them to act with us forcefully by boycotting the Special Olympics, and call upon the American people to carpool to work in order to reduce oil imports.

f. After praying on the matter for almost a year... launch a few cruise missiles at tampon factories as a clear, demonstrable, and overwhelming show of military might.

Did I miss anything?

:confused:
 
Last edited:
What you're failing to understand, celticlord, is that if you have a perceived enemy, the appropriate steps are as follows:

a. Do nothing until they do something 'really' bad. That way you are certain they are angry at us.

b. After they do something 'really' bad, gather together our friends and allies to discuss the situation and gauge their feelings.

c. Do a bit of soul-searching, and come to a better understanding of 'why' they hate us.

d. Acknowledge our past mistakes and offenses. Apologize.

e. Having given our friends and allies time to gauge their feelings, call upon them to act with us forcefully by boycotting the Special Olympics, and call upon the American people to carpool to work in order to reduce oil imports.

f. After praying on the matter for almost a year... launch a few cruise missiles at tampon factories as a clear, demonstrable, and overwhelming show of military might.

Did I miss anything?

:confused:

The appropriate steps for an enemy, perceived or otherwise:
  1. To maintain my own honor, tell said enemy that peace will be achieved through one of two paths: him ending his opposition to me or me killing him.
  2. If said enemy ends his opposition, offer him my right hand while keeping my left hand on my weapon.
  3. If said enemy does not end his opposition, kill him.
 
The appropriate steps for an enemy, perceived or otherwise:
  1. To maintain my own honor, tell said enemy that peace will be achieved through one of two paths: him ending his opposition to me or me killing him.
  2. If said enemy ends his opposition, offer him my right hand while keeping my left hand on my weapon.
  3. If said enemy does not end his opposition, kill him.
Works for me.
 
A synopsis of abject nonsense, my favorite of course is the absurd notion that Nassar was a US ally, that one is a doozy. Perhaps a history lesson is in order so that you won’t continue making such outrageously absurd comments in a vacuum of facts and the truth:

Gamal Abdel Nasser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Way to quote nothing of use. Here, I will educate you even though its obvious an old dog can't learn new tricks.

-------------------------------------
Post Nasser

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Egypt]Foreign relations of Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Relations with the United States

After the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, Egyptian foreign policy began to shift as a result of the change in Egypt's leadership from President Gamal Abdel-Nasser to Anwar Sadat and the emerging peace process between Egypt and Israel. Sadat realized that reaching a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a precondition for Egyptian development. To achieve this goal, Sadat ventured to enhance US-Egyptian relations to foster a peace process with Israel.

[edit] Military cooperation

Between 1979 and 2003, the US has provided Egypt with about $19 billion in military aid, making Egypt the second largest non-NATO recipient of US military aid after Israel. Also, Egypt received about $30 billion in economic aid within the same time frame.

Military cooperation between the US and Egypt is probably the strongest aspect of their strategic partnership.

Us-Egyptian relations dropped precipitously after the Arab Israeli wars
American orientalism: the United ... - Google Book Search

The United States, Great Britain ... - Google Book Search


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aswan_Dam]Aswan Dam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Aswan Dam in International Perspective

In 1955 Nasser was trying to portray himself as leader of Arab nationalism, in opposition to Hashemite Iraq, especially following the Baghdad pact of 1955. At this time the US was much more concerned with the possibility of communism spreading to the Middle East than protecting Israel, and saw Nasser as a natural leader of an anti-communist Arab league. And the USA and Britain offered to help finance construction with a loan of USD $270 million in return for Nasser's leadership on resolving the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Nasser presented himself as a tactical neutralist, and sought to play off US and Soviet concerns to Egyptian and Arab benefit.[4]

Angered by the Baghdad Pact and following Ben-Gurionist theory, Israel attacked Egyptian forces in Gaza and defeated them soundly. Nasser realized that he could not legitimately portray himself as the leader of pan-Arab nationalism if Israel could push him around militarily. He looked to quickly modernize his military, and he turned to the USA first.

John Foster Dulles and Dwight Eisenhower tell Nasser that the US will supply him with weapons only if they can send military personnel to supervise the training and use of the weapons. Nasser doesn’t like these preconditions and looks to the USSR. Dulles believes that Nasser is only bluffing, and that the Soviet Union won’t aid Nasser. But the USSR promises Nasser a quantity of arms in exchange for a deferred payment of Egyptian grain and cotton. Instead of retaliating against Nasser for turning to the Soviets, Dulles sought to improve relations with Nasser. This explains the US/British offer of December ’55.

Though the Czech arms deal actually increased US willingness to invest in Aswan, the British cited the deal as a reason for withdrawing their funding. What angered Dulles much more was Nasser’s recognition of communist China, which was in direct conflict with Dulles’s policy of containment. There are several other reasons the US decided to withdraw the offer of funding. Dulles believed that the Soviet Union wouldn’t actually make good on its promise to help the Egyptians out. He was also irritated by Nasser’s neutrality and attempts to play both sides of the Cold War. Actual NATO allies in the Middle East, like Turkey and Iraq, were irritated that a persistently neutral country like Egypt was being offered so much aid.

Egypt, politics and society, 1945-1990 - Google Book Search

Now its quite obvious Egypt wasn't anything of an ally like Great Britain or France but we have had positive and meaningful relations with them with zero hostilities: we provided military and economic aid and worked to finance their dam. We even sabotaged British and French plans to capture the Sinai. We were every bit afraid that the Soviets would step in and capitalize on any animosity we directed toward Egypt. Nasser was in charge of a strong Arab country who had the ability to lead all Arab countries. This all changed with the Arab-Israeli conflicts and especially after the 6 day war when we stopped player neutral and backed Israel 100%.
 
Last edited:
celticlord said:
Putting missiles in Cuba was a demonstrable threat.

It was a test to see what we'd do. I mean, it isn't like we put missles in West Germany or anything... :roll:

Khrushchev's "We will bury you" rhetoric was a demonstrable threat.

Didn't mean much in the end, did it?

Invading Afghanistan was a demonstrable threat to the West's access to the Persian Gulf states.

Read: it got in the way of our undisputed control over a foreign nation's oil. Gotcha.

Stealing US nuclear weapons secrets and technology was a demonstrable threat.

Stealing US submarine technology was a demonstrable threat.

Because we didn't have spies in the Kremlin or try to steal their MiG technology or anything.

Pot. Kettle. Black.
 
What you're failing to understand, celticlord, is that if you have a perceived enemy, the appropriate steps are as follows:

a. Do nothing until they do something 'really' bad. That way you are certain they are angry at us.

b. After they do something 'really' bad, gather together our friends and allies to discuss the situation and gauge their feelings.

c. Do a bit of soul-searching, and come to a better understanding of 'why' they hate us.

d. Acknowledge our past mistakes and offenses. Apologize.

e. Having given our friends and allies time to gauge their feelings, call upon them to act with us forcefully by boycotting the Special Olympics, and call upon the American people to carpool to work in order to reduce oil imports.

f. After praying on the matter for almost a year... launch a few cruise missiles at tampon factories as a clear, demonstrable, and overwhelming show of military might.

Did I miss anything?

:confused:

It is OBVIOUS that you comprehend the new change in foreign policy of the Community Organization of the United States. :applaud

:rofl
 
Way to quote nothing of use. Here, I will educate you even though its obvious an old dog can't learn new tricks.

What profound irony considering the fact that you were the one who suggested that Egypt was a US ally. But when I prove this a false assertion you blather the thread with the above nonsense proving my argument and then state the following:

Now its quite obvious Egypt wasn't anything of an ally like Great Britain or France but we have had positive and meaningful relations with them with zero hostilities: we provided military and economic aid and worked to finance their dam. We even sabotaged British and French plans to capture the Sinai. We were every bit afraid that the Soviets would step in and capitalize on any animosity we directed toward Egypt. Nasser was in charge of a strong Arab country who had the ability to lead all Arab countries. This all changed with the Arab-Israeli conflicts and especially after the 6 day war when we stopped player neutral and backed Israel 100%.

What level of willful denial and trolling does it take to make a false assertion, then when called on it suggest you could lecture ANYONE here on DP about history and the FACTS and then whine and rail about hyper partisanship?

The only thing readily apparent here is your desperate trolling, your willful denial and suspension of disbelief and your warped versions of history to support your hate America first mentality.

Please spare me more of your absurdity. You couldn’t make a coherent factual argument if it walked up and slapped you on your hate America first skull.
 
In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad.

I don't see what is so complicated here. He said that America has shown arrogance and we have. There are people in this country who still show arrogance. He didn't bring up the arrogance of other countries as a comparison at all as if to say we are any less or more arrogant than others. He simply stated that we have shown arrogance. He even went on to call out Europe on their anti-Americanism. Of course, people don't choose to focus on that part of his comments.
 
Back
Top Bottom