Anti-Americanism/Irish Neutrality

lazydaisy

Hagar wrote:

Well I tried to put a ham sandwich, two buckets, a saxophone and a canoe in the Red Cross Box but they wouldn't fit.

Imagine the gall of a country our size merely sending money as aid. I'm ashamed of us. :rolleyes:

I will remind you I was asking a question not making a comment. It was said by a poster [Hobbes] that Ireland gave more than money but the poster didn't elaborate and I wasn't aware of what s/he meant. He or she later answered the question. It was certainly not inteded as a criticism, but as an inquiry.

Despite being a small country, isn't Ireland the richest or second richest in the EU? Again - a question - not a comment.

Hagar

lazydaisy wrote:

Despite being a small country, isn't Ireland the richest or second richest in the EU? Again - a question - not a comment.

And California is the 5th largest economy in the world....
And you have a movie star running it. Good choice.:rolleyes:

What do you want from us?
Call back your armies from all your occupied lands and help your own people. I can't do it all on my own you know.

fly_agaric

lazydaisy wrote:

Despite being a small country, isn't Ireland the richest or second richest in the EU? Again - a question - not a comment.

Measured as GDP per capita, yes. The population is small so the total size of the economy as a whole is not that impressive, maybe ~ 1/100 the size of the US economy. Alot of the GDP is also due to exports of large (US) multinational companies that make things here and sell them on - really American wealth channelled through the Irish economy as far as I understand it (which is probably not very far). Ireland has a very large number of such companies' European operations based here, far out of proportaion to its size.

Also the country has not been wealthy for too long, and is now undergoing a rapid increase in population. If you live here you must realise how under stress the infrastructure of all types in Ireland is. I don't think we would be able to help ourselves God forbid we really had a serious disaster on our hands. I don't see how much good we could have done for the US beyond giving money.

bonkey

lazydaisy wrote:

Taking someone's opinion with a grain of salt because of their nationality, I think is a somewhat racist,

This will now be the second time I'll point out that America is a nation, not a race, despite you not bothering to address the point the first time I raised it.

I also didn't discount the author's opinion because he is American. I discounted his opinion because he's an American trying to suggest that America is superior because Europe has its flaws, which basically boild down to "its not enough like us". He didn't engage in a fair or balanced comparison, rather suggested that because Europe has its flaws, America is better. He ignored entirely the flaws that America has which should also be taken into consideration.

As I pointed out already, my issue is with the author and the argument he made. If you want to abstract this into me being racist (Again, America isn't a race. I have no idea what race the author is, in fact) you go right ahead. If you want to construe it as anti-American because the author is American, you're entirely free to do that too.

I can only clarify so many times what it is I objected to. If you want to repeatedly decide that I have some ulterior agenda/motive, and that my stated reasons are not, in fact, the reasons I really have, then you go right ahead.

There are people [not me though] who would argue that quoting the Bible at me when you don't know what my faith is is Eurocentric, arrogant, preachy and biblethumping.

I'm sure there are. If you look hard enough, you'll find people who will argue pretty much anything. It doesn't make it a particularly intelligent or considered point though...especially because it would involve making as many assumptions about my faith, nationality and my reasoning for using the quote as its suggesting I've made about yours.

I'm not really sure why you brought this up if you don't agree with it though. Are you trying to offer additional illustration of the type of hysterical arguments (like the Anti-Americanism you started the thread about)? If so, I agree fully - its a good example of a hysterical reaction based on nothing but assumption and generalisation.

If you've another reason for bringing it up, though, I'm at a loss to see it. Maybe you could clarify that for me? Why did you mention an argument you don't agree with and that isn't relevant to the thread?

I know you're just trying to tell me I'm a hypocrite

I'd never suggest anything of the sort, that being a personal attack.

I may find your your argument somewhat hypocritical in nature but only because I believe you are engaging in a different but equivalent branding of people who's stances you disagree with.

Mostly though, I find it ironic. Which is what I said. As I mentioned above, however, if you want to disregard what I say and decide that I meant something else....you go right ahead.

jc

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

And you have based this extremely simplified observation and over-generalisation on what study? 'European values and European intellect' have seen Europe plunge the world into war twice in a century when the Europeans have looked to the US to bail it out, while European powers have historically tried to colonise the world. Now while I'm not saying Europe owes the US anything, but let's not get too smug and self satisifed over some supposed intellectual advantage over the Americans.

And you're buying into one of the reasons why america gets criticised so much. The idea that the Europe has constantly looked to the US for help. WW1 the US declared war only when its own shipping was attacked. If it was so interested in our wellbeing wouldn't it have joined in 1914? WW2, the US only joined the European war when Hitler declared war when becoming allied to Japan.

This is the sort of reasons why I get annoyed with the whole american mentality. Americans often refer to how they saved our asses. Sure they helped. But for their own reasons, and mostly because they were forced into it. Hell, even the cold war support was out of their own fear of communist influence.

Europe owes the US squat. Only as much as the US owes Europe for being allied to them & allowing US bases on their soil for the last 50+ years.

Mr.Nice Guy

Deleted User wrote:

And you're buying into one of the reasons why america gets criticised so much. The idea that the Europe has constantly looked to the US for help. WW1 the US declared war only when its own shipping was attacked. If it was so interested in our wellbeing wouldn't it have joined in 1914? WW2, the US only joined the European war when Hitler declared war when becoming allied to Japan.

America had a history of staying out of European conflicts prior to 1914. You overlook the aid that America gave to Britain despite being neutral in both wars.

Deleted User wrote:

This is the sort of reasons why I get annoyed with the whole american mentality. Americans often refer to how they saved our asses. Sure they helped. But for their own reasons, and mostly because they were forced into it.

And we stayed neutral for our own reasons. America's contribution to the war effort was greater than ours so we are hardly in a position to judge them.

Deleted User wrote:

Europe owes the US squat.

Well I won't speak for 'Europe' but I will speak for Ireland and say that we owe them plenty. They are responsible for many jobs here in Ireland.

solas

laizydaisy wrote:

There are people [not me though] who would argue that quoting the Bible at me when you don't know what my faith is is Eurocentric, arrogant, preachy and biblethumping. In case you care, I do not take offense at it. I know you're just trying to tell me I'm a hypocrite and not trying to impose your Judeo-Christian values on me.

surely this is the true grit of your argument?
This really isnt about Ireland and it's neutrality at all is it?
Sounds more like the undercurrent of your average angry American democrat at the moment.

*goes off to dust me beloved images of JFK and the Pope which hang lovingly over me mantle.

egan007

Ray777 wrote:

The phrase 'Anti-Americanism' is basically nothing more than a slur, used (in the absence of any kind of intellectual debate) against people who despise the actions of a warmongering, power-hungry administration that shows nothing but pure contempt for international law.

Seconded

America had a history of staying out of European conflicts prior to 1914. You overlook the aid that America gave to Britain despite being neutral in both wars.

Actually I'm not, but I'll refer to it now.
WW1 - What Aid beyond what was purchased from the US?

WW2 - Lend Lease? A commercial agreement that cost Britain quite alot. I read this book a while back that mentioned that Britain gave up the majority of its gold reserves to America for the aid it received during WW2. That would be quite a bit considering the size of its Empire at that time.

And we stayed neutral for our own reasons. America's contribution to the war effort was greater than ours so we are hardly in a position to judge them.

You serious? I'll judge when praise is given where its not due. If people said that Ireland saved Europe for its aid during WW2 i'd criticse them.

America's contribution was far greater once they joined the war. Prior to that they were just another neutral nation unwilling to commit itself. But you're right Ireland did very little, and I'm not denying that.

Also its not so easy to compare contributions when you consider the size difference. Perhaps compare us to a country of comparable size, and population?

Well I won't speak for 'Europe' but I will speak for Ireland and say that we owe them plenty. They are responsible for many jobs here in Ireland.

You speak for Ireland? When did I vote YOU into office?

You can speak for yourself, just I speak for myself. Offer your own opinions.

The US (commercial business rather than the actual US government) is responsible for jobs in Ireland for which they received tax cuts and grants for. They were more than suitably rewarded for any employment they provided, and in most cases they packed up and left once those grants were removed.

Businesses move to where they get the best deals, which is why a fair number have gone to Northern Ireland, and Scotland in the last few years as opposed to Ireland. We don't offer enough incentives anymore.

dahamsta

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Well I won't speak for 'Europe' but I will speak for Ireland and say that we owe them plenty. They are responsible for many jobs here in Ireland.

Another myth. "They" are not in Ireland for the good of our health and "they" are not doing us a favour. American corporations are here for the well-educated workforce and the low corporation tax, period.

I know America is ruled to a certain degree by corporations but still: corporations != america. Just like Bush != America.

adam

Mr.Nice Guy

Deleted User wrote:

Actually I'm not, but I'll refer to it now.
WW1 - What Aid beyond what was purchased from the US?

Moral support.

Deleted User wrote:

WW2 - Lend Lease? A commercial agreement that cost Britain quite alot. I read this book a while back that mentioned that Britain gave up the majority of its gold reserves to America for the aid it received during WW2.

I've read books that have said it saved lives.

Deleted User wrote:

You serious? I'll judge when praise is given where its not due.

Not due? What about the thousands of American men who gave their lives in the fight against Nazism? Not to mention the fighting in the Far East. Such ignorance...

Deleted User wrote:

If people said that Ireland saved Europe for its aid during WW2 i'd criticse them.

Why wouldn't you? That would be a ridiculous claim.

Deleted User wrote:

America's contribution was far greater once they joined the war. Prior to that they were just another neutral nation unwilling to commit itself. But you're right Ireland did very little, and I'm not denying that.

Isn't it the principle behind most neutral countries to be neutral until attacked?

Deleted User wrote:

You speak for Ireland? When did I vote YOU into office?

Presumably around the time I voted YOU into office in Brussels:

Deleted User wrote:

Europe owes the US squat.

:rolleyes:

Deleted User wrote:

You can speak for yourself, just I speak for myself.

Don't forget how you speak for an entire continent...

Deleted User wrote:

Offer your own opinions.

LOL.

Deleted User wrote:

The US (commercial business rather than the actual US government) is responsible for jobs in Ireland for which they received tax cuts and grants for. They were more than suitably rewarded for any employment they provided, and in most cases they packed up and left once those grants were removed.

Businesses move to where they get the best deals, which is why a fair number have gone to Northern Ireland, and Scotland in the last few years as opposed to Ireland. We don't offer enough incentives anymore.

So when you said that Europe owed the US squat you were merely referring to the US government? Oh I see...

Ken Shabby wrote:

Another myth. "They" are not in Ireland for the good of our health and "they" are not doing us a favour. American corporations are here for the well-educated workforce and the low corporation tax, period.

They are still of enormous benefit to this country which is why our government has done alot to entice them here.

Ken Shabby wrote:

corporations != america. Just like Bush != America.

Bush = America? I was under the impression America was a democracy rather than a Totalitarian State. I was unaware Dubya was the embodiment of an entire nation. Does Ahern = Ireland too?

Moral support.

Oh Joy. Anything else?

I've read books that have said it saved lives.

Aye at what cost? Europe gave most of its Gold reserves to the US for the aid it received. While Europe was being fought over, America was building up its economy and industrial might on european monies paid for lend lease. Sure it saved lives, but it wasn't done without the US receiving a major amount of capital.

Not due? What about the thousands of American men who gave their lives in the fight against Nazism? Not to mention the fighting in the Far East. Such ignorance...

Ignorance? For what? Do Americans thank Europe for the British, French, Russian etc dead soldiers that protected them from Nazism? It works the same way.

As for the Far East, thats your opinion. I don't see why they're there in the first place.

Why wouldn't you? That would be a ridiculous claim.

No more ridiculous that America saved Europe out of the goodness of its heart. In just about every conflict that America has joined Europe it had its own motives for doing so. Its just that America has a much better propaganda machine.

Don't get wrong. American influence has helped in the past, and their contribution in the various wars was great. But you're being naive when you seem to indicate that they did so without any gains, or their own motives for doing so.

Isn't it the principle behind most neutral countries to be neutral until attacked?

Or until they declare war. Like Britain & France did during WW2, to help their ally Poland.

But you've been making out that the US joined the war to help Europe. They did so only in part. The rest consists of their own reasons. The US only really joined when they could get nothing more from Europe, and knew they'd be much better fighting Nazi Germany on European soil, rather than their own. Countries look to their own benefits.

Presumably around the time I voted YOU into office in Brussels:

Where did I take your opinion, or say I spoke for the Ireland?

Don't forget how you speak for an entire continent...

Again, where did I?

So when you said that Europe owed the US squat you were merely referring to the US government? Oh I see...

Do you really? You seem to be so grateful to America. We should be grateful for their help throughout the last 60 years, and the employment they created here in Ireland. And yet, in each case what did they receive to come to our aid, or to create businesses here?

But do you really want to examine your beliefs, regardless of what has influenced them?

This ties in directly with being called anti-american. if you challenge the beliefs that have been long held about America on just about any level, you can be labeled anti-american. Just as I don't believe we can lay all of Irelands troubles prior to our independence on the British. So would call me pro-British. I'm not either, but it is my right to believe otehrwise to the common beliefs.

dahamsta

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

They are still of enormous benefit to this country

They are, but they're doing it for their benefit, not ours. I don't have a problem with them being here in general, but I don't owe them anything, as the parent was suggesting.

Bush = America?

"Bush != America", which is programmer for "not equal". I should have just said that, sorry.

adam

Mr.Nice Guy

Deleted User wrote:

Oh Joy. Anything else?

What would you have preferred them to have done?

Deleted User wrote:

Aye at what cost? Europe gave most of its Gold reserves to the US for the aid it received. While Europe was being fought over, America was building up its economy and industrial might on european monies paid for lend lease. Sure it saved lives, but it wasn't done without the US receiving a major amount of capital.

Clearly America benefitted from the war from an economic standpoint but does that really matter?

Deleted User wrote:

Ignorance? For what? Do Americans thank Europe for the British, French, Russian etc dead soldiers that protected them from Nazism?

Yes they do. If you listen to the words of US officials at Remembrance celebrations you can see that they are appreciative. There might be a few who take the view that they "saved our asses" but that doesn't necessarily reflect American opinion as a whole just like an Irish person calling for "Brits out" doesn't reflect Irish opinion as a whole.

Deleted User wrote:

As for the Far East, thats your opinion. I don't see why they're there in the first place.

I was referring to the fighting with the Japanese.

Deleted User wrote:

Don't get wrong. American influence has helped in the past, and their contribution in the various wars was great. But you're being naive when you seem to indicate that they did so without any gains, or their own motives for doing so.

I'm not being naive. I never stated they went to war out of the goodness of their heart.

Deleted User wrote:

But you've been making out that the US joined the war to help Europe. They did so only in part. The rest consists of their own reasons. The US only really joined when they could get nothing more from Europe, and knew they'd be much better fighting Nazi Germany on European soil, rather than their own. Countries look to their own benefits.

I don't believe the US joined purely to help Europe. I do believe they would have joined anyway regardless of Pearl Harbour and that seems to have been Hitler's view as well.

Deleted User wrote:

Where did I take your opinion, or say I spoke for the Ireland?

Again, where did I?

You said: "Europe owes the US squat." You tried to be smart telling me not to speak for Ireland yet forgot the fact that you yourself had spoken for all of Europe. Poor form.

Deleted User wrote:

Do you really? You seem to be so grateful to America. We should be grateful for their help throughout the last 60 years, and the employment they created here in Ireland. And yet, in each case what did they receive to come to our aid, or to create businesses here?

I am appreciative of their efforts. I see nothing wrong in holding that view.

Deleted User wrote:

This ties in directly with being called anti-american. if you challenge the beliefs that have been long held about America on just about any level, you can be labeled anti-american. Just as I don't believe we can lay all of Irelands troubles prior to our independence on the British. So would call me pro-British. I'm not either, but it is my right to believe otehrwise to the common beliefs.

There's nothing wrong with challenging beliefs but it was only a short time ago that everything was all sunshine and roses with regards to the Irish-American relationship. Clinton was in power, the US were helping the effort which culminated in the GFA. Now here we are in 2005 with Bush in power and it seems to me that the anti-Bush hysteria has developed into anti-American attitudes. Clearly I'm not alone in that view.

What would you have preferred them to have done?

No the question is what did you think they had done that we should be grateful for? Really, I mean, moral support? come on. Am I being too extreme on this? You've made it out like they did something wonderful to help europe.... Sorry, Europe looked to the US to bail us out twice...

learly America benefitted from the war from an economic standpoint but does that really matter?

Of course it does, when you take the standpoint that Europe should be grateful to the US for saving their freedoms. Europe almost bankrupted itself, buying help from the US and fighting a war against germany, and the US only joined when Europe no longer had much to give. Thats my perspective, from the number of books I've read, and I stand by it. Why should we be grateful, and be constantly reminded about it, when the US did it totally for its own interests.

If it was the Aid that they gave to the Asian relief fund, then I'd agree with you and be grateful, but the US had their own aims for helping in Europe.

Yes they do. If you listen to the words of US officials at Remembrance celebrations you can see that they are appreciative. There might be a few who take the view that they "saved our asses" but that doesn't necessarily reflect American opinion as a whole just like an Irish person calling for "Brits out" doesn't reflect Irish opinion as a whole.

A few? lol. Really? I can't tell you the number of times I've heard from Americans who talk about America saving us from the Nazi's. About America's huge sacrifice. etc.

I was referring to the fighting with the Japanese.

The Japanese? Ahh but I thought you were oriuginally saying that we should be grateful for them saving us. I'm not sure Ireland is located anywhere near Pacific. Regardless, the US went to war in the Pacific because they were attacked. No choice whatsoever.

I'm not being naive. I never stated they went to war out of the goodness of their heart.

Fair enough. In hindsight I realise I saw differently. My mistake.

I don't believe the US joined purely to help Europe. I do believe they would have joined anyway regardless of Pearl Harbour and that seems to have been Hitler's view as well.

How long would they have waited, I wonder?

You said: "Europe owes the US squat." You tried to be smart telling me not to speak for Ireland yet forgot the fact that you yourself had spoken for all of Europe. Poor form.

Fair enough. Sorry about that. Are you sorry for doing the same?

There's nothing wrong with challenging beliefs but it was only a short time ago that everything was all sunshine and roses with regards to the Irish-American relationship. Clinton was in power, the US were helping the effort which culminated in the GFA. Now here we are in 2005 with Bush in power and it seems to me that the anti-Bush hysteria has developed into anti-American attitudes. Clearly I'm not alone in that view.

And you're entitled to your viewpoint. However I don't want to be labeled anti-american because I disagree with your & many americans viewpoints? Know what I mean? Anti-american is a phrase thats used to lower the value of opinion against someone. Its a spin word. I'm not accusing you of using it, but many people that approve of recent US actions use it quite a bit.

lazydaisy

It annoys me to no end when I hear Americans go on and on about saving the world in WW2 but there are also plenty of Americans on both sides of the political fence who wish they'd shut up about it. Many Americans forget that they were able to secure contracts through the Marshall plan, just as many Irish forget they received 133 million from it, or indeed that is was an American computer company (I wont name here in case it's illegal for me to do so) was assisting the Nazis. We all know the Brits pretty much did most of the fighting there and the US came in at the last minute under FDRs directive and against the popular sentiment of the American people at the time. Part of what ushered them in was pressure from the Jewish lobby, just as pressure from the Irish American lobby sent the US to help with the peace process and the GFA. WW2 was so exceptional and terrifying it's hard to get sanctimonious about anyone's actions or inactions, but I am certainly becoming more understanding of how hysteria spreads.

American corporations are in Ireland for purely profit related reasons. But they are corporations, not development agencies, so who would expect anything else? Quite frankly, IMHO i think Hearney should have done something to secure more investment and less transient contracts and hopefully Martin is doing that now. Or as minister for enterprise, do more to encourage entrepreneurship and small business development for the Irish so they wouldn't be as dependent on foreign trade and employment.

Can someone remind me what the sentiment was when Clinton sent troops into Iraq and bombed Palestine? I don't recall it being how it is now.

Mr.Nice Guy

Deleted User wrote:

No the question is what did you think they had done that we should be grateful for? Really, I mean, moral support? come on. Am I being too extreme on this? You've made it out like they did something wonderful to help europe.... Sorry, Europe looked to the US to bail us out twice...

I don't blame the US position prior to the sinking of the Lusitania. I think it was understandable. I also think they had a significant role in WW1 that deserves respect.

Deleted User wrote:

Of course it does, when you take the standpoint that Europe should be grateful to the US for saving their freedoms. Europe almost bankrupted itself, buying help from the US and fighting a war against germany, and the US only joined when Europe no longer had much to give. Thats my perspective, from the number of books I've read, and I stand by it. Why should we be grateful, and be constantly reminded about it, when the US did it totally for its own interests.

Well I disagree with you. I think they paid a price through the blood of their citizens. The US might have joined the war out of its own interest but most countries act out of their own interest. For example, did Britain declare war on Germany because it was concerned about Poland or because it was concerned about its position in the face of German expansion? In fairness to the US, they're damned if they do, and they're damned if they don't. If Ireland were attacked tomorrow and America chose to do nothing, they'd be criticised.

Deleted User wrote:

A few? lol. Really? I can't tell you the number of times I've heard from Americans who talk about America saving us from the Nazi's. About America's huge sacrifice. etc.

Well, I have to say my own experiences with Americans have been positive.

Deleted User wrote:

The Japanese? Ahh but I thought you were oriuginally saying that we should be grateful for them saving us. I'm not sure Ireland is located anywhere near Pacific. Regardless, the US went to war in the Pacific because they were attacked. No choice whatsoever.

The point is though that whilst Europe was celebrating the fall of Nazism, they were still embroiled with an enemy which refused to surrender. Until the A-Bomb came along of course...

Deleted User wrote:

How long would they have waited, I wonder?

I think it would have depended on public opinion.

Deleted User wrote:

Fair enough. Sorry about that. Are you sorry for doing the same?

Alright, fine.;)

Deleted User wrote:

And you're entitled to your viewpoint. However I don't want to be labeled anti-american because I disagree with your & many americans viewpoints? Know what I mean? Anti-american is a phrase thats used to lower the value of opinion against someone. Its a spin word. I'm not accusing you of using it, but many people that approve of recent US actions use it quite a bit.

People just find it irksome that hostility towards Bush leads to hostility towards America. I guess it can be compared to Irish attitudes toward Britain while Thatcher was in power. I think is a shame to see people bash the US as I personally happen to admire the country so I do have a probem with these ignorant anti-American types but you do not strike me as being anti-American so I wouldn't label you that.

mcgarnicle

lazydaisy wrote:

It annoys me to no end when I hear Americans go on and on about saving the world in WW2 but there are also plenty of Americans on both sides of the political fence who wish they'd shut up about it. Many Americans forget that they were able to secure contracts through the Marshall plan, just as many Irish forget they received 133 million from it, or indeed that is was an American computer company (I wont name here in case it's illegal for me to do so) was assisting the Nazis. We all know the Brits pretty much did most of the fighting there and the US came in at the last minute under FDRs directive and against the popular sentiment of the American people at the time. Part of what ushered them in was pressure from the Jewish lobby, just as pressure from the Irish American lobby sent the US to help with the peace process and the GFA. WW2 was so exceptional and terrifying it's hard to get sanctimonious about anyone's actions or inactions, but I am certainly becoming more understanding of how hysteria spreads.

American corporations are in Ireland for purely profit related reasons. But they are corporations, not development agencies, so who would expect anything else? Quite frankly, IMHO i think Hearney should have done something to secure more investment and less transient contracts and hopefully Martin is doing that now. Or as minister for enterprise, do more to encourage entrepreneurship and small business development for the Irish so they wouldn't be as dependent on foreign trade and employment.

Can someone remind me what the sentiment was when Clinton sent troops into Iraq and bombed Palestine? I don't recall it being how it is now.

The US didn't come in in the last minute, most of the fighting on the western front was still to come when they joined. The British were an important part but it is clear that it was the Russians who did most of the fighting and in fact they would have beaten the Nazis without any US help. The Jewish lobby caused the US to join the war, not Hitler's declaration of war? While it is true that public opinion at the time was not fully in favour of war, the post pearl harbour atmosphere meant that Hitler's decaration was enough for FDR to gain a large measure of public support for his war strategy of europe first. This Jewish lobby rubbish is thrown around too often if that was the case then why didnt the US Air Force put the concentration camps out of use before the end of the war, it is clear they knew about them.

Maybe I'm stupid but i don't remember Clinton ever invading Iraq (bombing yes, when was this invasion?) nor can i remember the US bombing Palestine, again maybe I'm wrong. Please enlighten me.

lazydaisy

The Jewish lobby had been pressuring them beforehand and was one of the participating factors in it. Pearl Harbor forced the decision. They definitely knew about the concentration camps. They didn't do anything because the US was very isolationist at the time.

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I had always thought they came in at the last minute and that the Brits did most of the fighting. I was also under the impression that the war would have been lost without US intervention but you're saying that Russia could have beaten the Nazis on its own? Interesting.

Sorry - I meant to say Clinton sent a missile to Pakistan, not Palestine. I was thinking Pakistan and typed Palestine. Apologies.:o Didn't he also bomb Serbia? Though there was not a formal occupation/invasion of Iraq I believe reserves were sent in. I could be wrong but I was told this by a couple of Marines.

mcgarnicle

lazydaisy wrote:

The Jewish lobby had been pressuring them beforehand and was one of the participating factors in it. Pearl Harbor forced the decision. They definitely knew about the concentration camps. They didn't do anything because the US was very isolationist at the time.

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I had always thought they came in at the last minute and that the Brits did most of the fighting. I was also under the impression that the war would have been lost without US intervention but you're saying that Russia could have beaten the Nazis on its own? Interesting.

Sorry - I meant to say Clinton sent a missile to Pakistan, not Palestine. I was thinking Pakistan and typed Palestine. Apologies.:o Didn't he also bomb Serbia? Though there was not a formal occupation/invasion of Iraq I believe reserves were sent in. I could be wrong but I was told this by a couple of Marines.

I've read a few books on WW2 and never once heard mention of a Jewish lobby playing a role in the US entering the war. There was no decission it was Hitler who declared war on america, not the other way around. I dont understand what you mean about the us not destroying the camps because they were isolationist. You are suggesting that america went to war because of pressure from a Jewish lobby, if this was the case then surely once at war (and i dont think the US remained isolationist during the war) they would have made it a primary goal to deal with the camps, we know that they were well aware of the existence of the camps.

Im not suggesting in the least that the US did not play a vital role in the war and I do believe that western europe owes them. Not for saving us from the Nazis but from the Soviets, had the Americans not entered the war the Russians would probably have marched through europe and taken france and i doubt they would have stopped there.

lazydaisy

Yes, that would certainly make sense - that they should have done something about the camps. I have no idea why they wouldn't have.I did not mean to imply that it was their isolationism which prevented them from entering the camps once they had entered the war. I'm not a military strategist or know much about military strategy so I don't have a clue why they didn't. However, the Jewish lobby is often referred to in US documentaries and some history books about WW2 as a group which consistently laid on pressure [when no one else in the country would] to the US to get involved and that when Pearl Harbour was bombed, the US finally believed that there was a malevolent and aggresive force at work that they themselves were vulnerable to. It would be interesting to find out if entering the war was one of the millions of times FDR disregarded the will of congress. [I believe he holds the record for vetoes?]

The US was strictly isolationist before they entered the war, and even after they did the population was still hestitant to support its involvement.

Another interesting piece of history trivia - when founders of the US were deciding on a national language, German was in second place in the vote. Imagine if it was voted in?

mcgarnicle

lazydaisy wrote:

Yes, that would certainly make sense - that they should have done something about the camps. I have no idea why they wouldn't have.I did not mean to imply that it was their isolationism which prevented them from entering the camps once they had entered the war. I'm not a military strategist or know much about military strategy so I don't have a clue why they didn't. However, the Jewish lobby is often referred to in US documentaries and some history books about WW2 as a group which consistently laid on pressure [when no one else in the country would] to the US to get involved and that when Pearl Harbour was bombed, the US finally believed that there was a malevolent and aggresive force at work that they themselves were vulnerable to. It would be interesting to find out if entering the war was one of the millions of times FDR disregarded the will of congress. [I believe he holds the record for vetoes?]

The US was strictly isolationist before they entered the war, and even after they did the population was still hestitant to support its involvement.

Another interesting piece of history trivia - when founders of the US were deciding on a national language, German was in second place in the vote. Imagine if it was voted in?

Again the us did not decide to go to war with germany, hitler declared war on the us. If you are talking about Japan then the vote was 388-1 in favour, the 1 was Janette Rankin. She is famous because she also voted against going to war in WW1.
Im sure every Jewish lobby in the world wanted whatever country they were in to fight the nazis, it doesnt mean they had an effect.

sceptre

lazydaisy wrote:

Another interesting piece of history trivia - when founders of the US were deciding on a national language, German was in second place in the vote. Imagine if it was voted in?

Imagine if it was true. It's an urban myth spread by people who never bothered checking whether there was any truth in it or not. There isn't.

fly_agaric

lazydaisy wrote:

Apologies.:o Didn't he also bomb Serbia?

Yep. When it seemed like Milosevic was gearing up for a repeat what happened in Bosnia.

lazydaisy wrote:

Though there was not a formal occupation/invasion of Iraq I believe reserves were sent in. I could be wrong but I was told this by a couple of Marines.

AFAICR, the US and the UK bombed Iraq several times while Clinton was in power as part of enforcing the No-fly zones. US/UK jets were targetted by Iraqi air defences - so they bombed them.

mcgarnicle

fly_agaric wrote:

Yep. When it seemed like Milosevic was gearing up for a repeat what happened in Bosnia.

AFAICR, the US and the UK bombed Iraq several times while Clinton was in power as part of enforcing the No-fly zones. US/UK jets were targetted by Iraqi air defences - so they bombed them.

Yes they enforced the no fly zone and opperation desert fox was a bigger bombing campaign when sadam kicked out the weapons inspectors. There were no ground forces envolved.
Serbia was bombed because of what was going on in Kosovo.

dahamsta

Watching 30 Days on More4 at the moment, with Morgan Spurlock, the guy that did Super Size Me. It's about trying to live on minimum wage in the US, and it'd make you sick. Like the guy who tells Spurlock that he's earning less now than he did in his first job for an auto maker 25 years ago.

Still not anti-american to think it's wrong though. Anti "the american way" maybe. Capitalism is great, but america needs to learn when to stop. As do we, since we follow america further down that road day by day.

Victor

I'm wondering is anti-American the same as McCarthy era "un-American"?

rsynnott

netwhizkid wrote:

I am anti-bush and anti-capitalist.

Except while being an imaginary internet millionaire, eh?

lazydaisy wrote:

or indeed that is was an American computer company (I wont name here in case it's illegal for me to do so) was assisting the Nazis.

IBM, you mean? Well, they sold them equipment, which helped them with the concentration camps, yes. It wasn't exactly active help, any more than, say, America selling weapons and such to Iraq a while back was.

lazydaisy wrote:

The Jewish lobby had been pressuring them beforehand and was one of the participating factors in it. Pearl Harbor forced the decision. They definitely knew about the concentration camps.

Ah, yes, the secret Jewish conspiracy who we hear so much about. You know, I assume, that even before America joined the war Germany was experimenting with the 'Amerikabomber' ramjet missile design, and that their plan for the A rocket program that produced the V-2 included the A-8 (the V-2 was the A-4), an ICBM designed to strike the US east coast? If America had let them consolidate in Europe, they would have been in serious trouble a few years down the line. America went to war from necessity.

Victor wrote:

I'm wondering is anti-American the same as McCarthy era "un-American"?

Indeed. If you're not with us you're against us, and so on.

I suspect part of the reason for increasing dislike of America as a society here, beyond the completely explicable horror at America's invasion of random countries, its torture of prisoners and its worrying 'moral' tendencies, is that we are becoming in many ways more and more like them, and we'd prefer not to think about it. We're beginning to see a surge of support for the idea of greedy under-regulated capitalism, our health system is in danger of privatisation, we may soon have the same obesity crisis...

lazydaisy

Victor wrote:

I'm wondering is anti-American the same as McCarthy era "un-American"?

"Un-American" was a term used by McCarthyests to label Americans suspected of sympathising with or assisting communists. It was an accusation of treason.

I do not equate anti-American sentiments with the support of communism if that's what you mean or certainly not of treason, as I am clearly not talking to Americans here. I sincerely doubt that those who use this term mean it in the way McCarthy and his supporters did.

dahamsta

I think the lads are probably considering the phrase in the manner in which it's used. It was crystal clear to me that that's what Victor was saying anyway, and I agree with him. But I think perhaps you know that very well, and you're being obtuse just for the sake of it, for appearances.

“Are you, or have you ever been, pissed off with the Bush administration or the excesses of overeager capitalism?”