Help me understand.

[-33ker 0]

Hitler WAS the German Chancellor...

Hindenburg was the President and the was one of the worst Presidents ever! He was much too old to realize that he was tricked by the Nazis. The only thing he was elected for, was his Victory at Tannenberg in WWI!

[Bernadotte 0]

Comparing starving germany of the Weimarer Republic with the USA 2000 is slightly inadequate!

I didn't say anything about people starving.  Besides, there were plenty of nations starving in the years of the Great Depression that did not launch into war.

Are you saying that nobody was complaining about the Versaille Treaty and that Germans were quite content with how the rest of the world was treating them?  I think not.

In any case, just because the 2 situations are mostly dissimilar doesn't mean we should be afraid to compare them.  Those who focus too much on the details and keep their eyes peeled for swastikas and other congruent symbols will be less able to recognise the real threat when it returns.

[Donnervogel 0]

Are you saying that nobody was complaining about the Versaille Treaty and that Germans were quite content with how the rest of the world was treating them? I think not.

First. I am not German ;)

Of course people were complianing about Versaille threaty. It was one aspect that made the people join the Nazis who said they would free Germany from the humilliation of the Versaille treaty. And todays historians pretty much agree that the Versaille treaty was a big mistake. It was not fair in any sense. They demanded reparation payments from Germany that, if the Germany government could have pay everything on time - which it couldn't - would have been left with nothing until the 1960's or something like that. So that would mean many years without finacial means. many years without industrial products. Many years with not enough resources to feed the population. The economy would have been totally wrecked by then. In such an enviroment you can't even think of a stable government. Such enviroments boost radical views. And remember. While other countries had the great depression only, or the depression and some war damage (but they got german reparation payments) the germans suffered from three effects: great dperession - war dammages - reparation payments.

@Sputnik Monroe

Now there is the problem again

you said:

Quote[/b] ]The only thing you know about them is what you see in Hollywood productions.

and I replied:

Quote[/b] ]Not quite. I think people know more about reality than the information from the movies. [...] But the point I wanted to make is that the US culutral infuence on western europe is promoting the picture of the clown-cowboys and stuff. It's like an image-campaign. But it's not controled from europe but from the american movie industry ;)

you relied again:

Quote[/b] ]That's exactly what I said and meant.

see what I mean and what I tried to tell you earlier? No offense though. Prolly just a problem in communication.

[Pathy 0]

I'm attaching myself to Albert Schweizer.....he doesnt know it yet, but im going to leach off his intellegence

[soul_assassin 1747]

1st , Albert, that is a very accurate list u had there. Those are indeed the primary points of the us-mistrust.

Quote[/b] ]Ah, and that is where Europe is being blind and foolish. America is the primary target because it is the "great satan". We're the flagship of the West. Al Queida (sp?) has declared war on the West, and America is just the most notable target.

Do you really think Spain would have been left alone if it hadn't gone into Iraq? Why do other middle-eastern countries get attacked by Al-Queida then? There are plenty of examples of Al-Queida attacks all over Europe, even before the Iraq war. Sweden is not a primary target because it doesn't have as much influence as America/Britain/Spain/France/Germany has. Just because the Spainards elected this new clown, doesn't mean that Al-Queida is going to leave them alone. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Pulling troops out of Saudi Arabia isn't going to make Americans safer. Anyone who believes that is buying into Bin Laden's bullshit. The only way to stop these terrorists is to make them incapable of harming us, by killing them, breaking up their networks, and making sure that no country will harbor them.

Maybe its time to stop being a flagship of the west, stop having all that influence and concentrate on your own problems. That will certainly make ur country as safe as Sweden.

[Satchel 0]

Many negative foreign views on the U.S. are based on foreign policies as exercised by the administration in charge. Recent developments certainly don't give much of a motive to endorse the actions of this adminstration. Dismissed as plain anti-americanism by those who are the actual target of critique, it appeals to domestic morale to gather a broad front to bolster their shady cause.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]My taxes are relatively low. (Although, after WWII they shot up and have only gotten higher since). I am still free to spend over half the money I earn.

I do not see why this is a good thing. I live in Sweden which has a very high tax. We get free (and working!) hospitals, schools, libraries, roads, decoration, entertainment, etc, etc.

   That statement always drives me nutty. Free health care pfft. NOTHING IN LIFE IS FREE! Your paying for it with higher taxes. Perhaps your not paying for it, but your neighbors sure as hell are.

    Personally I'd rather have the money myself to spend as I see fit. I don't need big brother deciding how to spend my money one me.  When the government is the one spending the money they choose the doctor. I'd would much rather choose my own.

[Pathy 0]

Yeh thats fine until someone ends up needing expensive surgery and cannot afford it....our system....it doesnt matter what your class is, how much you earn, ect, you will still get good treatment......

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]... We get free (and working!) hospitals, schools, libraries, roads, decoration, entertainment, etc, etc.

   That statement always drives me nutty. Free health care pfft. NOTHING IN LIFE IS FREE! Your paying for it with higher taxes. ....

And who pays for the very costly but "free" emergency care that every American can get when they couldn't afford to get proper and less expensive treatment earlier in the course of their illness?

You are, pal.

[GoOB 0]

That statement always drives me nutty. Free health care pfft. NOTHING IN LIFE IS FREE! Your paying for it with higher taxes. Perhaps your not paying for it, but your neighbors sure as hell are.

Personally I'd rather have the money myself to spend as I see fit. I don't need big brother deciding how to spend my money one me. When the government is the one spending the money they choose the doctor. I'd would much rather choose my own.

The problem with that is:

Say, your kid develops cancer, Leukemia, you just bought a house and a car. The insurance company won't pay for the treatment that you know your child needs. What do you do? You know the treatment will take several years and with your current job, you won't afford the full treatment even if you sell your house.

And the government in Sweden, atleast, doesn't tell you how to spend your money. You give the state a certain percantage of your income each month, so does everyone else. When something goes wrong in your life, the government tries to pick up the pieces for you. And do you think that people have no choice in countries where the healthcare is not run by private companies? If you are not happy with your doctor, you can get another one.

And really, I have never heard of any doctor mucking up seriously here in Sweden. I wouldn't trade this system off for any other one, personally I'd much rather be secure IF anything happens, rather than spending the money that is left after taxes on things that will mean nothing to me when my life goes down the drain.

(On another note: Getting yourself homeless is VERY hard here in Sweden. Most if not all are addicts, former addicts and mentally ill people malplaced in the system)

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]I do not see why this is a good thing. I live in Sweden which has a very high tax. We get free (and working!) hospitals, schools, libraries, roads, decoration, entertainment, etc, etc.

What if somebody never uses a taxpayer-funded library, or movie theater, etc? Why should they be FORCED to pay for others to visit that place? Every individual has different tastes, so there is no way that a government could satisfy everybody's tastes at the same time. The best way to do things is to let the individual decide for himself, what he wants to spend his money on.

Quote[/b] ]You give the state a certain percantage of your income each month, so does everyone else. When something goes wrong in your life, the government tries to pick up the pieces for you.

That sounds an awfull lot like... insurance. And if I'm not mistaken, that is something that can be provided by private enterprises, instead of the government. And with private companies, you have competition, which means better service than you would get under a monopoly (the government). But unfortunately, due to the government's f*cking around in the free market, insurance prices are sky-high around here.

I'm not into all this collectivist bullshit. The funny thing about a truly capitalist society, is that people are still free to create their own socialist organizations/groups if they wish... however, the reverse is not true under a socialist society. Well, I guess its OK for the rest of you who don't mind having a government tell you how to live your life...

Quote[/b] ]You also, by extremley far marignal, have the highest gun murder rate.

We also have the highest non-gun murder rate, which means that overall, we have more violent people than other places do. Taking away guns won't make anyone less violent; it will just make us law-abiding people defenseless.

Quote[/b] ]This is not correct, since California quite recentley introduced a new law against smoking, and that is a very good thing.

That is why I said, people are trying to take those rights away. I don't see why it should be illegal for someone to ruin their own body (be it with drugs, cigs, fatty foods or lack of excersize), since they aren't hurting anybody but themselves.

Quote[/b] ]No, it is more likely that bin Laden is an evil man who just kills people because he was born evil. He just hates for the sake of hate and because he is a bad bad man... yeah. A very good example of a typically American oversimplifed view (done to death by US media and believed by many people).

Sorry to disappoint you, but the world is not quite that simple. AQ does have a coherent agenda which should be taken seriously....

you have to start thinking about why they hate you

That is a bunch of liberal bullshit. It really cracks me up when people start talking like that. Should the British have asked themselves "why the Germans hate us" in WWII? Did the Germans have a "coherent agenda which should be taken seriously"? Yes they did; they wanted the expansion of the German state. And to garner support for that agenda, they played on the racism and anti-semeticism of the German population. Should the Jews in the death camps have been asking themselves, "what did I do to make them hate me like this?"

The fact of the matter is, Bin Laden is evil. And Al Queida is a bunch of religious kooks. A bunch of racist, anti-semetic kooks. Any group who thinks that to get into heaven, they need "to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military...to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it," is a bunch of evil people who need to be killed or captured, NOT brought out for tea and a friendly discussion of America's foreign policy.

You and I may think that there are legitimate qualms against the US's foreign policy. But as rational, sane, decent people, there is no way we could make the leap from that, to sacrificing our lives to kill American civillians who have never been overseas. You and I may not like Jews or Christians, but there is no way we could make the leap from that, to sacrificing your lives in a Holy War against the evil Jews and Christians.

It takes a certain type of person to believe that killing innocent people is God's Work. I would call that person "evil". You can call him "misunderstood" or whatever, but the fact of the matter is, there is nothing anybody can do to make that person suddenly change his mind. Therefore, he must be killed.

How could we stop people from getting to the above point? We need to stop the brainwashing of Arab children in madrassas and in racist families. Something is wrong when you see pictures of cheering, smiling Palestinian children after the WTC attacks. No child should be cheering the murder of innocent people, unless they have been corrupted by their parents or their society or their "schools".

[GoOB 0]

Quote[/b] ]I do not see why this is a good thing. I live in Sweden which has a very high tax. We get free (and working!) hospitals, schools, libraries, roads, decoration, entertainment, etc, etc.

What if somebody never uses a taxpayer-funded library, or movie theater, etc? Why should they be FORCED to pay for others to visit that place? Every individual has different tastes, so there is no way that a government could satisfy everybody's tastes at the same time. The best way to do things is to let the individual decide for himself, what he wants to spend his money on.

Quote[/b] ]You also, by extremley far marignal, have the highest gun murder rate.

We also have the highest non-gun murder rate, which means that overall, we have more violent people than other places do. Taking away guns won't make anyone less violent; it will just make us law-abiding people defenseless.

Point one: What if some people aren't handicaped and need the extra care provided by the government? Should we just let the people that are born with natural disorders get by on their own? The main point about even having a government, is to let said government take CARE of it's citizens. Not ignore them and let them live on their own.

I myself have a small handicap, compared to others. My muscles decay easily, due to a lack of a certain protein in my muscles. This makes me wear out real easy during the winter months, and also if I neglect excersize causes certain joints to contract.

I have had, one, two, three, four five. Yes six surgical operations, all paid for by the taxpayers and the government. My parents got paid to stay home with me for six weeks after each operation. I also, in my early years got a personal assitant to help me in situations I couldn't manage myself. And the beauty of it, everyone can get this aid, had I been living in the US those operations would probably have had a large impact on the rest of my family economics wise.

Point two: Oh sure... You are so much safer if you have a gun in your hands whilst being robbed by another person with a gun. Then you have a 50-50 chance of getting out alive, on the other hand. If you didn't have a gun in your hands, you'd walk away from there a wallet and a cellphone poorer, but you'd still have your life. Violence feeds violence...

And also, face it. There is no good/evil, only specific agendas that people go about realizing in different ways. I assure you Usama doesn't order attacks on the US just for the heck of it, he has an agenda, may it be "evil" in your eyes or not. Remember, he percives Americas actions as "evil" and unrighteous.

[der bastler 0]

What if somebody never uses a taxpayer-funded library, or movie theater, etc? Why should they be FORCED to pay for others to visit that place? Every individual has different tastes, so there is no way that a government could satisfy everybody's tastes at the same time. The best way to do things is to let the individual decide for himself, what he wants to spend his money on.

Well, that's called community. You pay taxes which are used to maintain public services which can be used.

Like health insurances: Suppose you pay month by month and get never ill --you won't get your money back. Because your money is summed up with all the money of other members to support the members which got ill. Some kind of community...

Quote[/b] ]That sounds an awfull lot like... insurance. And if I'm not mistaken, that is something that can be provided by private enterprises, instead of the government. And with private companies, you have competition, which means better service than you would get under a monopoly (the government). But unfortunately, due to the government's f*cking around in the free market, insurance prices are sky-high around here.

Well, well, strictly private insurances companies, ruled by market and shareholders? Than you better never catch any expensive deseases --the company will expel you faster than you get sick. Because such cases ruin the shareholder value...

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]How could we stop people from getting to the above point? We need to stop the brainwashing of Arab children in madrassas and in racist families.

There are many things in your post id like to comment on, but ill just answer to this part (doing some homeworks now).

To stop racism and brainwashing, you need schools.

To have schools, you need money.

The problem in some arab countries is the lack of money.

Thats where the fundamentalists come in to picture: they offer a education (unlike the "goverments") which poor people could not afford, and in some cases teach hate, racism´, fundamentalism. The families dont send them to school to become extrimists, they send kids to school so that they would learn a occupation, and one day be the food/money provider to the family.

The question is why have the countrys come to the situation that there isnt any chance to get to publicly funded school?(unless you have money). What is the reasons of poverty in those countrys?

[The Real Armstrong 0]

Good answers to Barron have allready been stated, except this one:

That is why I said, people are trying to take those rights away. I don't see why it should be illegal for someone to ruin their own body (be it with drugs, cigs, fatty foods or lack of excersize), since they aren't hurting anybody but themselves.

Smoking DO hurt more than the smokers. In fact, it's more dangerous to people breathing in the smoke from smokers than the smokers em selves. And what about astma? Should Astmaticers not be allowed to go to a musical consert or a pub without getting an attack?

[denoir 0]

That is a bunch of liberal bullshit. It really cracks me up when people start talking like that. Should the British have asked themselves "why the Germans hate us" in WWII? Did the Germans have a "coherent agenda which should be taken seriously"? Yes they did; they wanted the expansion of the German state. And to garner support for that agenda, they played on the racism and anti-semeticism of the German population. Should the Jews in the death camps have been asking themselves, "what did I do to make them hate me like this?"

Thanks for bringing it up, it's a perfect example. Yes, unlike after WWI, those questions were asked and action was taken. The allies did not dismiss Hitler as a madman, but asked the question "How did we get to the point where the Germans supported this guy. How did he get to power?". A large portion of the answer to that was the humiliation that Germany was subjected to after WW1.

And after WW2 a completely different approach was taken. Germany's economy was tied with the French and British one - the corner stone of today's EU.

And that was possible because the allies were smart enough not to dismiss Nazis as crazy 'evildoers'. They analyzed and knew what had to be done. Hitler was a symptom of a deeper problem, just like bin Laden is.

Quote[/b] ]It takes a certain type of person to believe that killing innocent people is God's Work. I would call that person "evil".

You mean like Bush? He has more civilian blood on his hands than bin Laden. IMO they're both religious kooks. Bin Laden beats Bush by the fact that he is explicitly out to kill civilians, but Bush on the other hand tops him in numbers and has infinitely more resources. I'd like to see a world that is both Bin Laden-free and Bush-free.

Anyway, back to the point - killing bin Laden is not in any way enough. AQ is a symptom of a deeper problem. It's political and cultural and can't be solved through violence. Getting rid of the currently active batch of terrorists is one thing. Coming up with a permanent solution is a completely different.

Quote[/b] ]How could we stop people from getting to the above point? We need to stop the brainwashing of Arab children in madrassas and in racist families. Something is wrong when you see pictures of cheering, smiling Palestinian children after the WTC attacks.

As opposed to cheering, smiling American children waving US flags, when Iraq is bombed? You'd think it's patriotic.

It's fucked up in both directions. Arab-American relations need some serious improvement. And that isn’t going to happen with smart bombs or suicide bombers. The Iraq invasion only gave them a good reason to be even more suspicious. The Arabs have a big part in this cultural conflict, but America is not an innocent bystander either. You've given them 50 years of foreign policy that they have every right to be mistrustful of. And sure enough, when a critical mass in the population is reached, people like bin Laden thrive. And on the other side, W. "I'm a war time president" Bush thrives as well.

It's a well-worn cliché that violence feeds violence, but it is very much true. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't defend yourself. You do however make sure that you are really defending yourself - otherwise you are no better than the ones that attacked you. And with no moral differential, it's just a spiral of violence.

[ozanzac 0]

Meh. I don't hate Americans. I only judge a person on a personal level.

I don't like ignorant people., but do appreciate inquisitive people, such as you MilitiaSniper. An American asking a question to the world, rather than imposing an opinion onto the world, is quite a welcome change, and I thank you for that.

I don't like religious fundamentalism. Unfortunately, America at the moment has religion and politics under the same umbrella. It makes me cringe when Bush says 'god gave me a vision', or 'god said to me to___'. I accept that there will always be a political party with a religious agenda floating around somewhere on the outskirts, but baffles me as to how Bush is able to speak as if he were a priest and get away with it.

I don't like left or right wingers. I like people who are actually 'fair and balanced', and not people who claim to be.

I don't like war. They are inevitable. But if there is to be one, there better bloody well be a good reason for it.

I'll never dismiss anyone purely because of his or her nationality. Only on their personal traits would I ever 'hate' someone and it doesn't matter if you’re a pigheaded American or a pigheaded Australian. If your pigheaded (or insert negative personal trait here). I probably won't like you.

It's TBA’s fault that America is hated throughout the western countries. It reflects poorly on the American public because the American public elected TBA.

Everyone who has a distaste for America, probably has that distaste for a legitimate reason. The response you’ll get from people of different backgrounds will of course be different. But keep in mind, America does and has trod on a lot of peoples toes. It’s a huge problem and I’ve seen few Americans come to admit the mistakes of the past.

The first step to change the world’s opinion of America is to change your government. Re-elect bush…… and the world opinion of america and americans will only continue to decline. Insert a new president, with better attitudes towards the rest of the world, & better attitudes will be returned.  

[Harnu 0]

It reflects poorly on the American public because the American public elected TBA.

No we didn't.

[SpecOp9 0]

So I hear people hate Americans because of George Bush.

How retarded. I did'nt know I am George Bush, I did'nt know My Family is George Bush, I did'nt know John Kerry is George Bush.

So if people hate Americans because of George Bush, I think some people need to have surgery and get their monkey brains replaced with some updated 21st century human brains.

[turms 0]

So I hear people hate Americans because of George Bush.

How retarded.  I did'nt know I am George Bush, I did'nt know My Family is George Bush, I did'nt know John Kerry is George Bush.

So if people hate Americans because of George Bush, I think some people need to have surgery and get their monkey brains replaced with some updated 21st century human brains.

Quote[/b] ]So I hear people hate Americans because of George Bush.

I think that the people here tried to say that they hate USA becouse of bush not citizens of USA...

[ozanzac 0]

It reflects poorly on the American public because the American public elected TBA.

No we didn't.

That's when you should have used that right to bear arms against your government

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]That's when you should have used that right to bear arms against your government

There is still time to arm bears!

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well, that's called community. You pay taxes which are used to maintain public services which can be used.

Like health insurances: Suppose you pay month by month and get never ill --you won't get your money back. Because your money is summed up with all the money of other members to support the members which got ill. Some kind of community...

Yeah, well what if someone wants to "opt out" of that community? What should happen to that person? Should he be thrown in jail?

Quote[/b] ]Well, well, strictly private insurances companies, ruled by market and shareholders? Than you better never catch any expensive deseases --the company will expel you faster than you get sick. Because such cases ruin the shareholder value...

It all depends on what contract you and the company agree on when you sign up with them. If they agree to pay for such expensive diseases at the time you sign on, then they can't just "expel you".

Quote[/b] ]As opposed to cheering, smiling American children waving US flags, when Iraq is bombed? You'd think it's patriotic.

I must have missed that picture. Where did you see it?

Quote[/b] ]You mean like Bush? He has more civilian blood on his hands than bin Laden. IMO they're both religious kooks. Bin Laden beats Bush by the fact that he is explicitly out to kill civilians, but Bush on the other hand tops him in numbers and has infinitely more resources. I'd like to see a world that is both Bin Laden-free and Bush-free.

Quote[/b] ]And also, face it. There is no good/evil, only specific agendas that people go about realizing in different ways.

There you go: "there is no good or evil". That statement gets right down to the root of the bullshit. You mean to tell me that flying a plane into a building full of officeworkers is morally equivalent to bombing Al-Queida training camps in Afganistan? Oh, but we can't judge, I forgot. If I rape some 8 year old girl, then chop her head off, that isn't an evil act. It is just "my own agenda that I am realizing in a different way". What a load of horseshit. I'm sorry, but when somebody starts feeding me that line of crap, and then tries to tell me how the US is wrong to do this or that, I have to shake my head in amazement.

Quote[/b] ]The question is why have the countrys come to the situation that there isnt any chance to get to publicly funded school?(unless you have money). What is the reasons of poverty in those countrys?

That is a good point, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear people blame the US for that.

Quote[/b] ]It's TBA’s fault that America is hated throughout the western countries. It reflects poorly on the American public because the American public elected TBA.

Really? So the French just loved us, up until Bush became president? I find that hard to believe.

Also, most of the policies that people are complaining about are relics of the cold war, which took place before Bush took office. Do you think that we didn't have troops in Saudi Arabia until Bush was elected? Did you think that we didn't have sanctions on Iraq when Clinton was in office? Did you think that we never supported certain dictators until Bush took office? Give me a break.

[General Barron 0]

It reflects poorly on the American public because the American public elected TBA.

No we didn't.

We didn't elect Clinton, either. At least, he didn't get over 50% of the vote.

[Harnu 0]

It reflects poorly on the American public because the American public elected TBA.

No we didn't.

We didn't elect Clinton, either. At least, he didn't get over 50% of the vote.

However he did have more votes than the other candidates. Not the case with George W.