|
VitalSigns posted:Europeans didn't like it when the US did stupid poo poo, and asked the US to do stuff that wasn't so stupid? It's more like "oh hey we actually do like you being world police, just when it (explicitly) benefits us".
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
computer parts posted:It's more like "oh hey we actually do like you being world police, just when it (explicitly) benefits us". Huh weird. It's almost like Europeans agree with some things the US does and not other things. What hypocrites, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Huh weird. It's almost like Europeans agree with some things the US does and not other things. What hypocrites, right? When the rhetoric up till then had been "you guys need to let the world manage its own affairs", yes it was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's less of a thing with Russia but when Libya was going down the Europeans wanted the US to take charge, which is a far cry from their criticisms of us as world police only a few years prior. Ahh, that famously unified hive mind of "Europe".
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:When the rhetoric up till then had been "you guys need to let the world manage its own affairs", yes it was. You should have let Iraq manage its own affairs. You should not have let Lydia manage her own affairs. You can make bad decisions and good decisions. That can make you a good policeman or a bad policemen. You can also make ice cream in your own fridge at home!
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
computer parts posted:When the rhetoric up till then had been "you guys need to let the world manage its own affairs", yes it was. This sort of utter inabiltiy to understand context is probably one of the better examples of the stereotypes of "american things western Europeans dislike" but then I don't really want to speak for people whose language I cannot understand or read, like you want to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Ah yes, the treasured "we had to nuke the Japs, they were going to resist us in a grueling ground campaign and 1 million GIs would have perished." It doesn't matter; they won: http://m.imgur.com/gallery/DRpks Look at that. How is that not a complete loving invasion and takeover.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Volcott posted:He also mentioned that, in his experience, the only people who displayed American levels of national pride were the far-right. Yeah, I'd say so. Varies a little throughout Europe. I'm from England, but when I came to Denmark, I was a little surprised to see the sheer amount of Danish flags on show. In England, you are pretty much certain to get ridiculed as an idiotic football fan (at best, crazy nationalist at worst) for having a giant England flag outside your house.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:It's decidedly against the immediate fiscal interests of France and Germany to oppose Russian aggression, likewise for the UK. We're all tied heavily to Russian economic interests. Really, clamping down on Russia is a net loss for us, and other Europeans too. It's still worth it, but talking about it from the point of view of 'gain' is ridiculous. that right there is whats wrong with stupid europeans. blah blah blah well lose money..... even though we know we really should stop russia because its worth it. if its worth it then America shouldnt have to drag europe kicking and screaming to do the right thing for their own benefit. Disinterested posted:You need a certain amount of money down to get the gear to fight a war on another continent semi-independently, something only France and the UK have shown capability to do in recent times. But yes, the idea that Europe is a continent of military minnows is misleading. It's just not mobilised towards potential multi-continental major conflict at all times. if its misleading then I guess If russia rolls through europe with Tanks theyll be able to defend themselves from their next door neighbor.....their prepared for that threat right? Or is the expectation that America will come to the rescue? loving american scum
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:You should have let Iraq manage its own affairs. You should not have let Lydia manage her own affairs. yeah because its really easy to know when to let countries destroy themselves and when not. Syria, lybia, egypt, Georgia, ukraine, every little thing in africa, every big thing in the middle east. theres people on both sides of the aisle demanding action inaction. Whatever you do will get picked apart to death about how you did it wrong, should have done it from couch generals with hindsight 20/20 Frankly the US should just let the world fend for itself and only use its military to keep the Big players china/russia from getting out of hand cold war style
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 16:09
|
|
davidb posted:if its misleading then I guess If russia rolls through europe with Tanks theyll be able to defend themselves from their next door neighbor.....their prepared for that threat right? Or is the expectation that America will come to the rescue? loving american scum You seem to think that Russians could just invade Europe easily like it's 1945. They really couldn't. (Putting aside the fact that two of the major European nations have nukes). quote:that right there is whats wrong with stupid europeans. blah blah blah well lose money..... even though we know we really should stop russia because its worth it. I don't see America rushing to commit its troops to Ukraine. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
davidb posted:
Yeah they are actually, Poland would absolutely love a crack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:You should have let Iraq manage its own affairs. You should not have let Lydia manage her own affairs. Really, because I'm hearing exactly the opposite these days (regarding Libya, not Iraq) from people in this forum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:You seem to think that Russians could just invade Europe easily like it's 1945. They really couldn't. (Putting aside the fact that two of the major European nations have nukes). People really see the world as a videogame where Russia wants the World Domination victory condition. Its a pretty far cry from Russia snapping up parts of its old terroritory with Russians in and them conquering the whole of Europe for no reason. The only world power explicitly operating with World Domination as their goal is the States (and ISIS but they ain't a power) and by the same logic the states should be conquering and occupying South America and Canada.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:People really see the world as a videogame where Russia wants the World Domination victory condition. Its a pretty far cry from Russia snapping up parts of its old terroritory with Russians in and them conquering the whole of Europe for no reason. Edit: Although at this point Western Europe is safe from itself because they'd all run out of bombs about 15 minutes into the next "gently caress YOU ALSACE IS OURS" contest. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:No sense worrying about Russia annexing bits of its neighbors on flimsy pretense. This has never happened before in Europe and definitely never lead to giant, horrible wars. You do realize that saying that Russia isn't going to roll a million tanks from Belarus to Portugal isn't the same thing as saying that Russia's actions warrant no concern whatsoever? Or is that too nuanced for you? Also it's heartening to see someone stand up for good 'ol USA #1 in the year of our Lord twenty-fifteen. Makes you all nostalgic, it does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You do realize that saying that Russia isn't going to roll a million tanks from Belarus to Portugal isn't the same thing as saying that Russia's actions warrant no concern whatsoever? Or is that too nuanced for you? Ultimately I think we can all agree that it's probably a good thing that Western Europe has seriously toned down the national pride. That stuff used to get them in a lot of trouble and we're all much better off now with the US doing the military heavy lifting on the continent because frankly most Americans don't know where Alsace is and wouldn't care about it if they did because there probably isn't an Olive Garden there. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
I guess I'm sort of proud of my country, in as much as it is my country (or indeed anyone's country) My parents on my mother's side have been here a lot longer than my parents on my father's side (mother is Roma, going back even further there's a whole bunch of other stuff but it's difficult to trace for obvious reasons). My father was a second generation Indian. His parents actually live in England. Britain on the whole is a nation of immigrants and in most cases you can't go back at least two generations before you come across someone who wasn't born in the country you now live. I guess I'm slightly proud of the shared culture/heritage my country has, and it has produced some pretty great people, but for the most part me living here is accident of birth. My mother could have just as easily been living a couple of miles across the border when I was born. On the UK as a whole, I'm really not proud of our country at the moment. We don't protect the most vulnerable or the most in need as we should, and the future looks particularly grim.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Germany is very concerned that gas prices not go up, if that's what you mean. Which could be be accomplished by putting the whole Ukraine under EU/Russian oversight so that we finally get a winter without our gas delieveries mysteriously disappearing in Kiev.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:No sense worrying about Russia annexing bits of its neighbors on flimsy pretense. This has never happened before in Europe and definitely never lead to giant, horrible wars. Hey lets not forget that the last two World Wars were started by grand alliances of otherwise disinterested states all pledging to go to war over territory they didn't care about. *Glances at NATO* Oh.... shi- Also if people think that Russia annexing Crimea and Ukraine is the first step towards them annexing Germany and France and starting WW3 then honestly bravo, that is an impressive brain you have there. e: Thats not to say a WW3 scenario is impossible, but if it happens it's not gonna be the nasty Russians fault. Lets not forget the US was trying to play cold war with mini coups in Ukraine which is RIGHT NEXT TO RUSSIA. gently caress the Russian invasions but they were a hell of a lot more legitimate than the Coalition's little excursions of late. Communist Thoughts fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Hey lets not forget that the last two World Wars were started by grand alliances of otherwise disinterested states all pledging to go to war over territory they didn't care about. *in high pitched nerd voice*
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:When the rhetoric up till then had been "you guys need to let the world manage its own affairs", yes it was. So did you just forget about the War in Afghanistan, or...?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Hey lets not forget that the last two World Wars were started by grand alliances of otherwise disinterested states all pledging to go to war over territory they didn't care about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
RonMexicosPitbull posted:*in high pitched nerd voice* The correct way to read all my posts! *snort* On topic, I'm fairly proud of the people of my country but the state itself is basically a den of theives and pedos and is historically responsible for most of the things wrong with the modern world. When America bankrupts itself in WW3 and becomes a second-rate power unofficially ruled by whichever state did the best war profiteering it'll also become awkward to be patriotic too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I'm pretty sure WW2 got started because the Germans decided they should conquer and/or exterminate the rest of the human race. But if your version of history makes you feel better you should stick with it. Hitler was a maniac but its a bit rich crowing about his lust for Greater Germany which would have been significantly smaller than the British Empire was at the time whose goals were literally conquer or exterminate all the non-white races in the whole world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:29
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Hitler was a maniac but its a bit rich crowing about his lust for Greater Germany which would have been significantly smaller than the British Empire was at the time whose goals were literally conquer or exterminate all the non-white races in the whole world. Ahahahaha. quote:Hitler was a maniac but
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Hitler was a maniac but its a bit rich crowing about his lust for Greater Germany which would have been significantly smaller than the British Empire was at the time whose goals were literally conquer or exterminate all the non-white races in the whole world. First of all the British Empire was pretty content with plundering the parts of the world that they already had post WW1. Second of all, what the gently caress is wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:racism is over you stupid Euro, we got rid of it over 50 years ago. infact slavery and Jim Crow are points of pride for our country because white middle class WASPs have twisted them so much they actually feel more proud of getting rid of them than they feel any shame for them existing to begin with This is the beauty of a comedy post on SA. Never really saw it that way. Hmn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Colonial British rule in most of the world was just as brutal and deadly as the Holocaust, Stalin, and Mao. This is a historical fact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:First of all the British Empire was pretty content with plundering the parts of the world that they already had post WW1. Second of all, what the gently caress is wrong with you? Of course we were content, we had the largest empire on earth. I'm not saying the Allies started the war. I'm just saying the British Empire was already a world-spanning white supremacist empire seeking to wipe out or conquer the other races.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:42
|
|
the boston bomber posted:Colonial British rule in most of the world was just as brutal and deadly as the Holocaust, Stalin, and Mao. This is a historical fact. I think you'd have quite a lot of work ahead of you demonstrating this on more or less any basis of analysis. nopantsjack posted:I'm just saying the British Empire was already a world-spanning white supremacist empire seeking to wipe out or conquer the other races. The notion that Britain was actively engaged in race war along Hitlerian lines is just...bizarre. There's also an agency problem, since the Empire did a lot of different things in different places, under different leadership etc. It's not as monolithic an entity as Nazi Germany. It certainly did not have one central or consistent ideology (or approach to questions of race or conquest). A lot of the architects and theorists of empire weren't racist. You only need read people like Pelly, Mill and Layard arguing about India to see that something more complex was going on. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think you'd have quite a lot of work ahead of you demonstrating this on more or less any basis of analysis. The standard that says that Mao caused millions of people to die would equally apply to the British.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:America isn't even a democracy itself, let alone some sort of force for spreading democracy around the world. So germany, japan, south korea being democracys with the some of the best economies in the world doesnt count? I mean its only been less than 50 years since those success stories...whats america done RECENTLY am i right? Oh and throw in polands democracy which wouldnt exist if russia handnt collapsed competing with america. But BESIDES that what have they done recently. I mean, i guess besides founding israel democracy in middle east, and iraq democracy. Those dont count....what are they REALLY doing to spread democracy around the world...those american scum
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:56
|
|
computer parts posted:The standard that says that Mao caused millions of people to die would equally apply to the British. You still have a picoHitlers problem. 45 million in 4 years is probably better than the British Empire managed in over 200 years.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Of course we were content, we had the largest empire on earth. I'm not saying the Allies started the war. Given that the British Empire was content with what it had, what motivation would it have for further wiping out or conquering other races? Shits and giggles? See, while the British Empire sure as hell was bad, their motivations were slightly more nuanced than murder and conquest for its own sake. Disinterested posted:I think you'd have quite a lot of work ahead of you demonstrating this on more or less any basis of analysis. Actually that's pretty much true. In India alone the British let tens of millions starve to death in successive famines. Check it out. Disinterested posted:The notion that Britain was actively engaged in race war along Hitlerian lines is just...bizarre. There's also an agency problem, since the Empire did a lot of different things in different places, under different leadership etc. It's not as monolithic an entity as Nazi Germany. It certainly did not have one central or consistent ideology (or approach to questions of race or conquest). The consistent ideology of the brits was to rob the gently caress out of wherever they colonized, and gently caress the natives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Are you seriously going to waste time and keystrokes defending an institution as hilariously, abjectly vile as the British Empire? I mean, really? Is this Niall Ferguson's account?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:You still have a picoHitlers problem. 45 million in 4 years is probably better than the British Empire managed in over 200 years. That's only due to scale though. Proportionally the Irish Potato Famine had a much greater impact on the country and the British were directly responsible in not providing aid. If Ireland was the size of China you would have seen 100 million people die.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
You're still a long way from demonstrating comparability with the holocaust, particularly considering that famines are not wholly preventable. Most of them were made worse by British rule (though after the worst of them British relief efforts picked up in some cases). It's a long road from killing people with neglect and indifference to hoarding them according to ethnic group into trains to gas them (particularly in light of how much more developed a society we're talking about in 1945 Germany vs Britain in the early 1800's). Although you always get a Malthusian somewhere in these famines who think a big die off is a jolly good show. zeal posted:Are you seriously going to waste time and keystrokes defending an institution as hilariously, abjectly vile as the British Empire? I mean, really? Is this Niall Ferguson's account? I think the British Empire was dreadful. I just think it's slightly unreasonable to compare it to the holocaust. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think you'd have quite a lot of work ahead of you demonstrating this on more or less any basis of analysis. Well I mean its center was Westminster and Racial darwinism was the order of the day as to how we looked at the empire. A tiered genetic system where white men are born to rule and administer and other races are born to serve, fight or be quitely wiped out with inattention after their resources were seized. Undoubtably the core of the Empire was motivated on mercenary profit, but the ideology that backed this up was white supremacism. Even the history books that like the Empire have to make mention of it once or twice. I mean gently caress the entirety of our history in India was us complaining that the Indians were an unsuitable, effeminate race that were racially incapable of ruling themselves. e: at least the Hindu ones, then we split the whole country down the middle and gave half of it to muslim fundamentalists just to gently caress Ghandi and against advice at the time. Killing up to 500,000 people and leading to the lovely situation we find today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 08:12 |
|
nopantsjack posted:Well I mean its center was Westminster and Racial darwinism was the order of the day as to how we looked at the empire. A tiered genetic system where white men are born to rule and administer and other races are born to serve, fight or be quitely wiped out with inattention after their resources were seized. It's a more mixed bag than that. To pick the most easy example by far: quite a lot of people thought it was nothing to do with race, just that they'd become savage because they didn't love Jesus. A bit of Jesus and they'd be back on the road to progress in no time. A lot of people went down this road to prejudice, (e.g. they have an inferior religion but they're not inherently inferior biologically). Funnily enough, it was usually this school that caused bigger problems in terms of local outrage than hidebound racists and indifferent mercenary plunderers.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 18:16
|
|