Bush vs. Kerry

[Hockley_Blues]

Blimey, i've opened a can of worms with this thread

 

[chaco27saf]

Quote[/b] (Jávea Shrimper @ Oct. 23 2004,11:42)]

Quote[/b] (chaco27saf @ Oct. 23 2004,11:21)]Finally, this post isn't directed at everyone, just those people who are vehemently anti-America for some reason or another.

Seth, I know you weren't aiming that comment at me, but I think I've already explained that I am very anti-American in terms of their dumb-*** administration, not necessarily the American citizens themselves. The policies of George W Bush and his administration have made this world a far, far more dangerous place to live in OUTSIDE of the good old US of A. Thanks a bunch, Dubya, and your lapdog Tony Blair, you couple of to**ers ...

WS

There is definitely a difference between making a well informed argument against Bush (as you have been doing, Mike) and making generalizations about the American people (like FM is doing).  Luckily there are people like you, Mike, who can distiniguish between the people of America and the man who is unfortunately our representative to the world.  I never made that post to defend Bush, only to defend Americans as a whole against ignorant allegations of stupidity.

 

[chaco27saf]

Quote[/b] (Jávea Shrimper @ Oct. 23 2004,16:38)]

Quote[/b] (BluePartridge @ Oct. 24 2004,00:00)]Plus they never actually entered the war when it suited them (because that seemed like never) it was Hitler who squared up to America.

Indeed. When Japan attacked the US in Hawaii, the Yanks responded to this threat of imperialist expansion by declaring war on the Japs and consequently on all the Axis Powers - Japan, Germany and Italy. The US had no reason to enter the war until the attack of Pearl Harbour. Indeed public consensus until that point what to keep well out of it (remembering the horror of WWI) as there was little, if any, threat to the country and the administration couldn't be seen to act without the approval of its population.

However one could argue that the US was indeed contributing to the war effort in Europe long before they were forced into world conflict. When the UK ran out of cash needed to buy arms from the US in early 1941, the American administration passed a lend / lease act which effectively allowed the US to give away unlimited amounts of arms to any country for free. Without it, would Britain have survived?

WS

Perfectly said, Mike.  Before 1941 WWII was seen as European conflict, and as Mike said, we were not keen to get involved becuase of WWI, after which, America became much more isolationist.

 

[navy shrimper]

i've got to agree with chaco and spanish shrimper, ive been to the USA several times and ive got to say despite there reputations as an arrogent self loving race, they are anything but. they are some of the most welcoming and friendly people ive come across on my travels, and ive been a fair few places! these comment where made by a vast minority of americans im sure. besides, i dont know about you but i wouldnt be happy if another country tried to interfere with an election over here

 

[Ron Manager]

What would the reaction be if a US newspaper ran a similar campaign to influence the result of a General Election in this country? Can you imagine the brain-dead comments that would be sent flying across the Atlantic? There are stupid people all over the world, insular and zenophobic idiots who will generalise about the faults of entire nations and yet not see the flaws in themselves. It is of course unfortunate for the US that one of these people has been elected President.

I believe that we have the right to pass comment on the US election and our newspapers have a right to express an opinion on who will make the better president. However it is arrogance and intellectual snobbery in it's extreme (something The Guardian is often guilty of , and I say that as someone with politics firmly to the left of centre) to believe we have a right to influence the people of the USA when it comes to electing their leader.

 

[Javea Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Ron Manager @ Oct. 24 2004,10:56)]I believe that we have the right to pass comment on the US election and our newspapers have a right to express an opinion on who will make the better president. However it is arrogance and intellectual snobbery in it's extreme (something The Guardian is often guilty of , and I say that as someone with politics firmly to the left of centre) to believe we have a right to influence the people of the USA when it comes to electing their leader.

Unfortunately the outcome of the US Presidential elections will affect us ALL on this planet and therefore I think we ALL should have a concerned interest in who will be sliding his feet under the table in the Oval Office over the next four years. Whether we like it or not (and I grimace at the very thought), US policy affects everyone, not just those in the US of A. The administration of George W. Bush has made a complete rat's arse of US foreign policy, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they're not doing much better at home. The paranoid fear of everyone from outside their borders (brokered deliberately by the Administration?) means that the US is likely to become more isolated in this world, yet bizarrely just about every decision made by Bush and his cronies affects us all. I genuinely feel sorry for a lot of Americans, many of whom must feel duped after the disgraceful fiasco in Florida four years ago. The last few years have seen the popularity of the US plummet as their Administration smashes its way blindly through the 'problems' of this world ... and we ALL suffer ...

WS

PS - Would John Kerry be any better?

 

[BluePartridge]

Quote[/b] (chaco27saf @ Oct. 24 2004,01:04)]

Quote[/b] (Jávea Shrimper @ Oct. 23 2004,16:38)]

Quote[/b] (BluePartridge @ Oct. 24 2004,00:00)]Plus they never actually entered the war when it suited them (because that seemed like never) it was Hitler who squared up to America.

Indeed. When Japan attacked the US in Hawaii, the Yanks responded to this threat of imperialist expansion by declaring war on the Japs and consequently on all the Axis Powers - Japan, Germany and Italy. The US had no reason to enter the war until the attack of Pearl Harbour. Indeed public consensus until that point what to keep well out of it (remembering the horror of WWI) as there was little, if any, threat to the country and the administration couldn't be seen to act without the approval of its population.

However one could argue that the US was indeed contributing to the war effort in Europe long before they were forced into world conflict. When the UK ran out of cash needed to buy arms from the US in early 1941, the American administration passed a lend / lease act which effectively allowed the US to give away unlimited amounts of arms to any country for free. Without it, would Britain have survived?

WS

Perfectly said, Mike.  Before 1941 WWII was seen as European conflict, and as Mike said, we were not keen to get involved becuase of WWI, after which, America became much more isolationist.

Well it wasn't the American people IIRC that brought all the lend lease through it was Eisenhower who fair play always seemed to want to come to fight Fascism in Europe, they also gave alot of supplies to the USSR which without they wouldn't have been able to survive to stand at Stalingrad. They still charged us money for it though and was it Barbados we gave to them? Still though I don't believe that American would've brought troops into Europe if it wasn't for Germany's pact with Japan (which Hitler didn't really have to honour) and Germany declaring war on America, because the American people weren't attacked by Germany, but Japan, and they maybe didn't connect the two quite as much.

 

[Ron Manager]

Quote[/b] (Jávea Shrimper @ Oct. 24 2004,10:33)]Unfortunately the outcome of the US Presidential elections will affect us ALL on this planet and therefore I think we ALL should have a concerned interest in who will be sliding his feet under the table in the Oval Office over the next four years.

A concerned interest yes - anyone with a modicum of intelligence and concern about the future of this planet should take a keen interest in the outcome of the election. However I believe this Guardian campaign went beyond this. How would you feel if a US newspaper tried the same to influence a British (or Spanish) election?

 

[Hockley_Blues]

Quote[/b] (Ron Manager @ Oct. 24 2004,12:51)]

Quote[/b] (Jávea Shrimper @ Oct. 24 2004,10:33)]Unfortunately the outcome of the US Presidential elections will affect us ALL on this planet and therefore I think we ALL should have a concerned interest in who will be sliding his feet under the table in the Oval Office over the next four years.

A concerned interest yes - anyone with a modicum of intelligence and concern about the future of this planet should take a keen interest in the outcome of the election. However I believe this Guardian campaign went beyond this. How would you feel if a US newspaper tried the same to influence a British (or Spanish) election?

Good point, obviously we have to be concerned about the unfolding events over the pond, but the guardian well and truly overstepped that boundary. Like Ron manager said, I am sure many of us would not take to kindly, for example, if the New York post sent a bundle of letters telling us which way to vote next year..

 

[Ron Manager]

Quote[/b] (Javea Shrimper @ Oct. 24 2004,10:33)]PS - Would John Kerry be any better?

Could he be any worse? At the very least he does seem to be aware that there is a world outside of the borders of the USA!

 

[chaco27saf]

Quote[/b] (BluePartridge @ Oct. 24 2004,04:39)]Well it wasn't the American people IIRC that brought all the lend lease through it was Eisenhower who fair play always seemed to want to come to fight Fascism in Europe, they also gave alot of supplies to the USSR which without they wouldn't have been able to survive to stand at Stalingrad. They still charged us money for it though and was it Barbados we gave to them? Still though I don't believe that American would've brought troops into Europe if it wasn't for Germany's pact with Japan (which Hitler didn't really have to honour) and Germany declaring war on America, because the American people weren't attacked by Germany, but Japan, and they maybe didn't connect the two quite as much.

Before Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt was doing everything in his power to help the British and French.  However, a series of Neutrality Acts passed in the 1930's made this very difficult.  These acts made it illegal to sell arms or give aid to any country that was fighting a war.  A loophole, and a weakening of these acts in the late 30's allowed Roosevelt to begin giving arms to Britain through the Lend-Lease Act.

Roosevelt was also trying to get America into the war, but he couldn't do this without some provocation.  He assured Churchill during a summit in Newfoundland that as soon as the Germans provoked us, we would enter the war.  He was assuming that before too long Germany would attack a ship with Americans on it and then America could enter the war.  (Like the sinking of the Lusitania started American involvement in WWI).  He never expected the Japanese to attack the US, but as soon as they did, America entered the war.

Hopefully this will clear up any confusion about why America took so long to enter the war.

 

[chaco27saf]

Quote[/b] (Ron Manager @ Oct. 24 2004,05:16)]

Quote[/b] (Jávea Shrimper @ Oct. 24 2004,10:33)]PS - Would John Kerry be any better?

Could he be any worse? At the very least he does seem to be aware that there is a world outside of the borders of the USA!

John Kerry is a risk, but as RM said, could he really be worse? However, seeing as how he would likely be one of the most liberal presidents in history if he is elected, I would hope that the Republicans would keep their majority in congress to keep a check on some of his policies.

The biggest problem in this election is that it has become too polarized. Moderates (like myself) are stuck in the middle, with neither canidate even coming close to our views. That being said, I have become so disillusioned with President Bush over the past couple of years that I cast my vote not so much for Kerry, just against Bush.

 

[chaco27saf]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Oct. 22 2004,18:08)]Oh and i love how they go on about us being a little island and how they beat us in 1772 and they are far bigger than us, well they don't mention we found there country and don't have to relay on Vietnam to fill our history books.

Before you call us ignorant and say we need an IQ test, you might want to check your facts first.  The American Revolution didn't even start until 1776!

BTW, we don't 'relay' on Vietnam to fill our History books.

You obviously don't know anything about American History, so stop acting like you do!

 

[BluePartridge]

Quote[/b] (chaco27saf @ Oct. 24 2004,23:23)]

Quote[/b] (BluePartridge @ Oct. 24 2004,04:39)]Well it wasn't the American people IIRC that brought all the lend lease through it was Eisenhower who fair play always seemed to want to come to fight Fascism in Europe, they also gave alot of supplies to the USSR which without they wouldn't have been able to survive to stand at Stalingrad. They still charged us money for it though and was it Barbados we gave to them? Still though I don't believe that American would've brought troops into Europe if it wasn't for Germany's pact with Japan (which Hitler didn't really have to honour) and Germany declaring war on America, because the American people weren't attacked by Germany, but Japan, and they maybe didn't connect the two quite as much.

Before Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt was doing everything in his power to help the British and French.  However, a series of Neutrality Acts passed in the 1930's made this very difficult.  These acts made it illegal to sell arms or give aid to any country that was fighting a war.  A loophole, and a weakening of these acts in the late 30's allowed Roosevelt to begin giving arms to Britain through the Lend-Lease Act.

Roosevelt was also trying to get America into the war, but he couldn't do this without some provocation.  He assured Churchill during a summit in Newfoundland that as soon as the Germans provoked us, we would enter the war.  He was assuming that before too long Germany would attack a ship with Americans on it and then America could enter the war.  (Like the sinking of the Lusitania started American involvement in WWI).  He never expected the Japanese to attack the US, but as soon as they did, America entered the war.

Hopefully this will clear up any confusion about why America took so long to enter the war.

Yes that's right Roosevelt. D'oh!

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Am I right in thinking that one of the things we value most in a democratic society is the right to self-determine?

Am I therefore also right in thinking that, by their letter-writing campaign, the Grauniad has tried to subvert that process of self-determination by attempting to sway the voters of Clark County, Ohio?

This is a new low for the champagne-socialist navel gazers that occupy the desks at the Grauniad.  A cheap journalistic gimmick it might have been, but the fact that they've conned so many of their leather-patched organic cardigan-wearing neo-socialist middle class readers into doing their dirty work for them is, frankly, something that should shame us all.

At a time when vast swathes of the UK deplore the interference of Europe into our lives, it is hypocrisy on a gargantuan scale that we should be writing to Ohians and endeavouring to interfere in their free and fair elections.

Were I a resident of Clark County, the receipt of such a letter would, frankly, drive me into the arms of the Bush campaign.

An embarrassed (that I've ever bought the Grauniad) and shocked,

MtS

P.S.

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Oct. 23 2004,02:08)]Sorry guys but the arrogance and shire stupidness of the American people really gets up my nose.

w***ers !

Luke, for you that is, frankly, a new low. Whilst the reactions of some of the American letter-writers was perhaps a tad strident, they had (IMHO) every right to be sorely, sorely p*ssed off. If a Frenchman or an American wrote to me before the General Election next year and told me how to vote, I'd tell him to mind his own fcuking business!

Their anger - which is totally understandable - does not then give you the right to bad-mouth an entire nation when it is patently obvious that you know next to nothing about its history or its people. Have you even been there? How many Americans have you got to know, Luke?

Whilst, undoubtedly, some of the curious stereotypes and hypocrisies of America as a nation are occasionally hard to fathom (universal gun ownership yet limited passport ownership, or what about the general prudishness in parts of a country with the world's largest porn industry), there can be no question that the vast majority of Americans are personable, intelligent, well-mannered and, frankly, delightful.

Maybe you should go to the place and find out for yourself before you choose to bad-mouth them...

 

[TrueBlue]

wellyou know Matt with all this pressure with ARSENAL BEING A BEATEN TEAM

what can you expect!

 

[footymad13]

Quote[/b] (chaco27saf @ Oct. 24 2004,22:23)]

Quote[/b] (BluePartridge @ Oct. 24 2004,04:39)]Well it wasn't the American people IIRC that brought all the lend lease through it was Eisenhower who fair play always seemed to want to come to fight Fascism in Europe, they also gave alot of supplies to the USSR which without they wouldn't have been able to survive to stand at Stalingrad. They still charged us money for it though and was it Barbados we gave to them? Still though I don't believe that American would've brought troops into Europe if it wasn't for Germany's pact with Japan (which Hitler didn't really have to honour) and Germany declaring war on America, because the American people weren't attacked by Germany, but Japan, and they maybe didn't connect the two quite as much.

Before Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt was doing everything in his power to help the British and French.  However, a series of Neutrality Acts passed in the 1930's made this very difficult.  These acts made it illegal to sell arms or give aid to any country that was fighting a war.  A loophole, and a weakening of these acts in the late 30's allowed Roosevelt to begin giving arms to Britain through the Lend-Lease Act.

Roosevelt was also trying to get America into the war, but he couldn't do this without some provocation.  He assured Churchill during a summit in Newfoundland that as soon as the Germans provoked us, we would enter the war.  He was assuming that before too long Germany would attack a ship with Americans on it and then America could enter the war.  (Like the sinking of the Lusitania started American involvement in WWI).  He never expected the Japanese to attack the US, but as soon as they did, America entered the war.

Hopefully this will clear up any confusion about why America took so long to enter the war.

Thats a nice way of putting it, but America entered the war late and come out of it the best. We got left with all that 'debt' to repay, we were fighting for our lives and the lives of others and you were charging us to use your Shermans etc. We were left with thousands enemployed and had to rebuild totally. The fact the Americans talk about freedom in WW2 so much is worrying when they watched Europe being overtaken by the Third Reich and couldn't enter the war because it was 'europes problem' ?. They went into the war when they really had to.

I have met many many lovely Americans and love the place itself. But i do believe that the general attitude is of arrogance and can be stupid at times. And it is shown in that web site and in verious media sources.

I caught a bit of panaroma last night, about 9/11 and why some of the families are voting for Kerry, it was a good insight and alot of questions brought up.Why did Bush go into Iraq when the job with Al-Qieda (the people who did attack the US) was only half finished ?

As for your history books, well no i don't know a great deal about American history but i have noticed alot about Vietnam on the verious history channels in the states and a few text books i read over there. But the American attitude at times will upset and anger alot of people. Look at Iraq, Vietnam etc

I do not wish to offend anyone, and im not saying that Americans are not nice people because generally they are very friendly and good people. but the country in general does have problems with its attitude and its image and this is shown in the election with it basicly being split over Bush & Kerry.

 

[The Artful Shrimper]

Bush refused to sign the Kyoto and the (certain sections of)nuclear programs limitation agreements. Two treaties that,particularly the first is more of a threat to humanity than a few maniacs with bombs in their rucksacks.
American power is seen as arrogant and greedy, which is why there is a proliferation of books with titles like "Why America is hated".
For America to be accepted in the world, and ultimately Capitalism/so called democracy there needs to be a huge attitude re-think.
I've never been much of an advocate for democracy, give us the vote to choose none of the above and I'm all for it.


Perhaps like FM I am ignorant of the inner policies and workings of the U.S. but we are then victims of the Americans unwilling/unable to portray themselves better.

--
P.S.
The American war of Independence was a done deal when the Brethren from both sides shook hands, winked and declared their brotherly fraternal love in the sprits to which Freemasons enjoy.  

 

[Javea Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Oct. 25 2004,15:54)]a) Thats a nice way of putting it, but America entered the war late ... couldn't enter the war because it was 'europes problem' ?

b) I have met many many lovely Americans ... but i do believe that the general attitude is of arrogance and can be stupid at times.

c) As for your history books, well no i don't know a great deal about American history but i have noticed a lot about Vietnam ...

d) I do not wish to offend anyone ...

a) And why should they have entered a 'European War' when there was no effect (direct or indirect) towards their own country?! I fail to see the point you are trying to make. The USA entered WWII when their own country was attacked by an Axis Power (i.e. Japan). As I have said before, they had NO reason to enter the conflict beforehand and therefore I fail to see just what you are trying to get at ...

b) You really need to spend a summer on the Costa Blanca sometime to experience the very same traits in the vast majority of Brits who holiday there ...

c) Absolutely ridiculous statement to make, although I'm not surprised it has come from you, Luke. For far too long you have made unfounded comments to your own detriment and this just makes you look even more stupid. "I don't know a great deal about American history ..." you say - and then attempt to rip the sh*te out of the American people by making false and unfounded accusations about a history that you ADMIT you know NOTHING about. Pathetic ...

d) Well you clearly have ...

WS

 

[TrueBlue]

Quote[/b] ]well no i don't know a great deal about American history

then why all the debate?