Would you consider yourself to be Anti-American?

PH01

Would you agree with recent remarks from Mary Horney about anti-Americanism in Ireland?

Thorbar

I can't understand how anyone could claim to be anti-American unless they've lived over here for a few months otherwise deciding what you think of around 250 million people on a few tourists who go through your home town is pure ****e. I've been living in Boston for 5 weeks now and granted that's a short period and this is a friendly city with a fairly relaxed atmosphere, The vast majority of people I've met have been salt of the earth, dead friendly and willing to help you find where your way around. I think a lot of the anti-American sentiment is a nice mixture of begrudery and ignorance. I'll tell ya I feel a lot safer walk though Boston at 5 am pissed out of my skull then I do walking though Dublin.

How could this country be anti american when hundreds of thousands of people on the friday after 9-11 packed churches and grave yards in a national day of mourning??

Anti American my foot!

This country is not a fan of an invasion of Iraq for sure, but we aren't alone in that.

Mind you if we were still on the security council, maybe Bush would have built Berties bowl in return for a yes vote on the 2nd...(or rather 18th) resolution
mm

mike65

I'm not anti-American nor am I anti War on Saddam Hussain. But I don't have much time for Bush in other respects.

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan

I think everyone with some opinion with regards to America should make a contirbution here; I for example said I was pro - America but anti-Bush. I imagine that some people will feel that I am messed up in the head when all of my posts so far may indicate rabid anti-americanism (which I am sure at least one person will quote). Allow me to clarify:
The present American administration has demonstrated its incompetence, first by offending both Russia and China within a short space after taking power (1972 ABM and Spying respectively) and later by the ridiculous 'they hate our freedoms' type speeches following 9/11. Then we have this moronic policy (seemingly) of strike first, think later, with the Bush administration at the head of a coalition which wants to right 'daddy's' wrongs (am I alone in being reminded of the position of the DUP in Northern Ireland with the constant demand for deadlines to be met and even though weapons have been handed in, still not enough no matter what?). Thus I am completely anti-Bush and the 'hawks' which favour a 'pro-active' (aka unilateral, be damned to the rest of the world') approach, not to mention against their internal policies of 'balancing the budget' meaning the national deficit at the expense of libraries, schools, welfare etc.
With respect to America as a nation, no country should have that much power; in fact in the hands of a nation where people worshipped as stars can possibly score as pathetically as they do on the US version of the 'Weakest Link' (did anyone see today's episode?; these people have no comprehension of a world outside US borders) then it is positively disastrous. Before we hear the cries of self-justifying Americans, yes I apply that equally to China, Russia, the former European Empires etc.
With respect to American people, I engage in conversation with many many Americans every evening; and my general opinion is that there are indeed many blind idiots who like the idea of war with whoever, who like the idea of removing welfare entirely since they think all it does is prop up lazy people, who look down on intellectualism and who despise anyone who says they are wrong, branding them 'euro-weenies,' 'muslims' or 'communists' without actually realising what they say but at the same time there is a smaller group of people aware of the world outside America and who are the 'good guys' - however these people feel disenfranchised from their 'two party' political system resulting in republicrats as Michael Moore and others have termed the resulting political faction
I think that America, having enjoyed a general immunity from world affairs since Pearl Harbour needs to wake up to a reality that does not include terrorists around every street corner. Those of you who have seen 'Bowling for Columbine' will understand what I mean especially well; the atmosphere of fear portrayed.
I think America like so many other countries has the potential (speaking from a non class politics point of view) to do a lot of good if only it would realise that they cannot adopt the arrogance inferred by the 'do what I say, not as I do' approach and cannot push other sovereign nations around as they like whether by trade sanctions or by interfering in due electoral process.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Thorbar
I'll tell ya I feel a lot safer walk though Boston at 5 am pissed out of my skull then I do walking though Dublin.

Someone who has obviously never been to the 'Combat Zone' during that time. Other then that, most of Boston is cool, although there are still some areas that are dodgy.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

pyure

the only problem i have with america is the so called 'axis of evil' crap that bush (or weed as ive heard my american relatives call him ) has come up with.

fair enough, bomb the hell out of agfhanistan, that was pretty much expected. but bush has gone a lil over board with iraq.

i have to laugh when he accuses iraq of supporting al'quieda (?) terrorists etc, when how many goverments were overthrown, terrorists financed and trained by the american cia ?
hell didnt they help out terrorists (sorry 'freedom fighters' as they were called) in afghanistan when they were fighting the russians in the 80s? hey yeah, how about we arm and train terrorists then **** em over ? i bet they wont be pissed at us!
stupid stupid stupid.
also, the way i see it, you can pretty much blame the entire drug problem in south america on their northern brothers.

american people = cool...a lil dumb (as proven be the weakest likn ) but cool.
american governments = burn in hell you two faced ****s

my 2 cents.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Thorbar

Originally posted by Hobbes
Someone who has obviously never been to the 'Combat Zone' during that time. Other then that, most of Boston is cool, although there are still some areas that are dodgy.

Yeah we were lucky enough to get a cheap flat in a rich almost 90% jewish area. Basically you wont see a soul on the street after 10 o'clock.

Biffa Bacon

Pro-America.
Pro-Bush.
Pro-War on Terror
Pro-liberation of Iraq.

Éomer of Rohan

Actually Daveirl, there is a better one somewhere about the North Koreans striking against America with nuclear weapons if America were to invade; to show America that she cannot bully weaker countries etc - and I still hold with that but you neglected to read my post regarding the American administration that followed what Sand quoted; this laid out that mayhaps I was wrong since it was not really the fault of [Italics] Americans as a people [/Italics] more a fault of their system and their government since as with all indirect democracies, the people have NO real say over Foreign Policy when they elect their representatives.

Éomer of Rohan

Sorry I forgot to mention that I know me better than you do and I KNOW I am not anti-American considering I have american friends. Oh and that maybe instead of posting arguments that I preempted and dealt with in my post, you should consider the argument in hand?

MY 2 cents. lol.

BattleBoar

Eomer, I feel the need to highlight that you are more than simply anti-american. How can you claim to NOT be anti-american when you advocate genocide of the American people:

"Maybe we should just allow Osama and his crackpot adherents to eliminate America entirely. He would be doing the world a favour. "----Éomer of Rohan, 01-03-2003 21.07

Trying to spin this one away is ridiculous... :rolleyes:

This, not withstanding your advocation of the elimination of the capitalist system which forms the basis for the american and western economic system and the republic form of government which is laid out in the american constitution. The fact that you are actually attempting to claim that you are pro-american because you have a few american friends or because you are not anti-american people is an amazingly poor argument. I have a friend from Pakistan. Does that makes me pro-pakistani? If I say that I realize there are wonderfully nice people in Zimbabwe, does that make me pro-zimbabwe? Not any more than it makes you pro-american for having an american friend or two. I am not pro- either of these countries, I don't like the ideals. But I would never go so far as to advocate the indisciminate genocide of either of its peoples.

You either like the idea of what america represents or you don't, and you Eomer, don't. And what I mean by that is not that people cannot and do not disagree with the one or more individual policies of america, but rather the notion of the american ideal. In other words, do you like the idea of representative democracy? Do you like the idea of a being free to work hard and better yourself? Do you like the idea of the freedoms laid out in the american constitution?

I do not consider the right-wing fundamentalists who would curtail the individual rights of citizens to be pro-american at all any more than I would consider the taliban to be pro-islam. They have their own little sheltered brand of what they consider to be "right". They live in their own little world. They would impose their ideals on others, thus stripping the rights of others. You, Eomer, would do the same with your Marxist philosophy.

As for me, I do like the principles america was founded upon, I just happen to think that america has gone astray in the sense that she should not be trying to take care of the world for better or for worse. Whether you would argue that these actions of interventionism are for the selfish gain of the country or for the benevolance and generosity of american spririt, the fact is that the cold war is over and with it died any plausible reason for interventionist foreign policy. Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and George Washinton were both very skeptical of any interventionist foreign policy. The distinction must be drawn that we are not taking about isolationist policy, merely non-interventionist policy...put simply, we should mind our own business - refusing to send american forces or wealth to places in the world where we are not threatened, but still maintain beneficial economic relations. Hence, both were very positive in forming economic relationships and trade with other countries.

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none”— Thomas Jefferson

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."— George Washington

I am an american. I do not like Bush. I did not like Clinton. I voted for neither. I do not like the idea of war against Iraq at this time for my own reasons which are outside the bounds of this topic.
I do not consider myself inferior intellectually or culturally to europeans (Eomer). And, I most definitely consider you, Eomer, to be wholeheatedly and unabashedly anti-american based on every post of yours I have read.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
more a fault of their system and their government since as with all indirect democracies, the people have NO real say over Foreign Policy when they elect their representatives.

So Éomer, are you on the extreme left then or extreme right then?

I know me better than you do and I KNOW I am not anti-American considering I have american friends

You sound like a stereotypical 'Jim-Bob' character from Mississippi who’ll argue that he’s not racist because he lets a local “negro” mow his lawn

I like you Éomer. You remind me of when I was young and stupid.

Well i guess its my time to get torn up.

I don't have a problem with americans. However i do have a problem with america. If thats anti-americanism then, sign me up.

I have the problem with a number of issues:

1) America's proposed invasion of Iraq, which as far as i can see is illegal.
2) America's Proposed invasion of other nations once Iraq has been colonised.
3) America being put forward as the last foundation of democracy.
4) The level of aggression thats currently coming from America.
5) the lack of standards whereby America is allowed to have stockpiles of WMD's, but nobody else is. Either all or none.

Before the Iraq-America conflict of the last few months, i didn't think too much abt america. They didn't inflict themselves too much on my life. Nor did i care what they did internally. However when it comes to their approach of dealing with the outside world, thats when my breath comes out short.

Sept 11 was a terrible disaster. And i'm going to get really flamed over this, but "Get over it". they have already invaded one nation as a result of the attack. They have the leader of the attack. Where will it end?

America is more than happy to tell other countries that suffer from continous terrorist attacks to be calm, and peaceful in their responses, but they have a double standard when it comes to themselves. They have been attacked once on their own soiul, by a terrorist attack. Grand, alotof people died, however, how many people have died as a result of landmines left in Vietnam, or the number of people killed/injured by Palestinian Bombers over the last 30 years? Now they have Justice (which i see as revenge) on their side, as they take out every country that has ever looked at them sideways.

It would be nice to see America actually follow some international laws for a period of time, when it doesn't involve their own interests. By their actions, all confidence in the UN is fast disappearing.


Now on the other side of the coin. I like in essence what america represents. I'm not talking abt it being a superpower, or how large its army is, but rather the groundwork its "constitution" put down for them. Also i like the concept of "freedom of speech" etc, that American's feel so proud of.

In Summary.

I have no problem with the americans themselves. However, within the period of Bush comin into power, i've gone from indifferent, to anti. I have american friends, & i've been to america and i totally enjoy being in their company.

So dependent on whose definition of anti-americanism, i could be either.

In fact, i'd love for a definition to be beaten out here in this thread, and for one of the moderators to place a sticky of it. That way there wouldn't be so much confusion abt the term.


(I didn't want to hi-jack the thread, but most of my feelings against america stems from the current conflict)

Hellrazer

Originally posted by klaz
Well i guess its my time to get torn up.

I don't have a problem with americans. However i do have a problem with america. If thats anti-americanism then, sign me up.

I have the problem with a number of issues:

1) America's proposed invasion of Iraq, which as far as i can see is illegal.
2) America's Proposed invasion of other nations once Iraq has been colonised.
3) America being put forward as the last foundation of democracy.
4) The level of aggression thats currently coming from America.
5) the lack of standards whereby America is allowed to have stockpiles of WMD's, but nobody else is. Either all or none.

Before the Iraq-America conflict of the last few months, i didn't think too much abt america. They didn't inflict themselves too much on my life. Nor did i care what they did internally. However when it comes to their approach of dealing with the outside world, thats when my breath comes out short.

Sept 11 was a terrible disaster. And i'm going to get really flamed over this, but "Get over it". they have already invaded one nation as a result of the attack. They have the leader of the attack. Where will it end?

America is more than happy to tell other countries that suffer from continous terrorist attacks to be calm, and peaceful in their responses, but they have a double standard when it comes to themselves. They have been attacked once on their own soiul, by a terrorist attack. Grand, alotof people died, however, how many people have died as a result of landmines left in Vietnam, or the number of people killed/injured by Palestinian Bombers over the last 30 years? Now they have Justice (which i see as revenge) on their side, as they take out every country that has ever looked at them sideways.

It would be nice to see America actually follow some international laws for a period of time, when it doesn't involve their own interests. By their actions, all confidence in the UN is fast disappearing.


Now on the other side of the coin. I like in essence what america represents. I'm not talking abt it being a superpower, or how large its army is, but rather the groundwork its "constitution" put down for them. Also i like the concept of "freedom of speech" etc, that American's feel so proud of.

In Summary.

I have no problem with the americans themselves. However, within the period of Bush comin into power, i've gone from indifferent, to anti. I have american friends, & i've been to america and i totally enjoy being in their company.

So dependent on whose definition of anti-americanism, i could be either.

In fact, i'd love for a definition to be beaten out here in this thread, and for one of the moderators to place a sticky of it. That way there wouldn't be so much confusion abt the term.


(I didn't want to hi-jack the thread, but most of my feelings against america stems from the current conflict)

I would have to say that I agree 100% with Klaz on this one.Before Mr Warmonger Bush took up residence in the White House US politics didnt really have an effect on my everyday life.But US foreign policy recently has really started pi$$ing me off.
There seems to be a lot of double standards in the US foreign policy.
1.The US can have all the nukes they want yet no-one else can.
2.They can target "pre-emptively" those countries that may or may not want to attacK the US.Yet other countries could be frowned upon/sanctioned for doing likewise.
3.The Israeli situation sickens me.The US has consistently allowed Israel to attack stone throwing Palestinians with gun ships.Ok maybe a bit OTT but still the US have let Israel invade Palestine and attack refugee camps with Gunships.Attacks like the ones carried out in Gaza etc are obviously illegal by UN standards(and could be seen as an act of war) but again it seems like Israel and America dont abide by UN charters.
And if this means Im Anti-US then yes I am.

Shinji

You know what? Yes, I'm anti-American. This isn't a blind irrational hatred, or a random childish decision that I don't like an entire nation across the sea from us. This is a considered, educated stance; I do not detest the people of America, but I do despise "America" and the "American way". I loathe their foreign and domestic policies, the way they treat the weak both on an international and an internal level. I loathe their contempt for education and their hypocritical stance on freedom of education. I abhor their wanton consumption of this planet's resources without thinking of the damage they are doing.

I hate their institutionalised racism, which persists even now and even in some of the most unlikely places. Their attitudes to gun control, juxtaposed with their incredibly hardline attitudes on harmless things like soft drugs and their increasing moves towards media censorship, disgust me.

I have met a great many American people who I have liked and whose company I have enjoyed. I don't wish death on the people of America. I bear them no ill will.

But I despise their society; and if the people are "Americans", then the society and the system they have created and in which they now live is "America", and I am certainly "anti-America". Six months ago I would have said I was anti-Bush, but a lot of thought and research on the matter simply shows that Bush is only one of the heads of this hydra, and he's not even a particularly important one.

Visit Los Angeles. See what this greedy, violent, consumer-driven, fearful, ignorant model of society has done to the sunny valleys and shorelines of southern California, and to the millions of people living in them. Read up on Panama, on Chile, on Iran. Then come and tell me that America's way is right, and they you're not "anti-America".

bertiebowl

I'm definitely not anti-American - but I am anti moran bush and his co-hort.

Sure we can all laugh at our sterotypes of uneducated Americans......but answer this - what country do the worlds biggest book stores come from?

Also people can dig up all the past history about Chile etc. where America did not cover herself in glory - true enough.

But this is coming from a country who sent notes of respect to the Germans when Hitler died!! A country who had no problem in feeding the armies of Saddam Hussein while he was gassing Kurds/Iranians etc.!!!!

So lets get a little perspective on the debate. Remember would you rather live in North Korea or Boston?

Wook

Here's a list of the countries that the U.S. has bombed since the end of World War II, compiled by historian William Blum:

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-99
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999

Me anti-American...?

Definetly. If you mention anything that the US have done in the past, military wise, you're automatically anti-american. Welcome to the Club.

Sure we can all laugh at our sterotypes of uneducated Americans......but answer this - what country do the worlds biggest book stores come from?

Actually i'm thinking Germany. They might not be in English, but they do have large stores.

Also people can dig up all the past history about Chile etc. where America did not cover herself in glory - true enough.

True. But people can also dig up other theatres where the US has messed up.

But this is coming from a country who sent notes of respect to the Germans when Hitler died!! A country who had no problem in feeding the armies of Saddam Hussein while he was gassing Kurds/Iranians etc.!!!!

Yup. We're polite.

As for feeding Iraq, so has the rest of the world. Also consider its better to be feeding them, than bombing everything that moves. I prefer feeding a country than constantly calling for more air-strikes, and continous sanctions.

So lets get a little perspective on the debate. Remember would you rather live in North Korea or Boston?

Why do people always compare the US to N.Korea as places to live? We're Europeans. At least use european countries as reference. I live in Ireland. If i wanted to live in America, i'd be living there. I don't. I live in Ireland because my friends are here.

The comparison between N.Korea & the US does not bring perspective. All it does is make a comparison between two nations with very different politics and history. Its not relevent to this discussion.

The Corinthian

Europeans (including the British and Irish) have long had a somewhat cynical attitude towards their colonial cousins. We like them, we’re almost proud of them in the same way as we would be of younger cousins, but we still consider them to be a bit crass and vulgar, even if well meaning. A prejudice, I know, but a common one.

Anti-Americanism is where, due to recent political events (that even predate Bush), many non-Americans have begun to feel uneasy and in some cases even resentful towards what is perceived as uncontrolled American influence. An America that would help us chase out the Nazi’s and keep the Soviets at bay was welcomed. An America that handed out foreign aid and took up the responsibility of international policing on our behalf was applauded. But then we all get upset when we find that they are in a position of complete dominance and can do whatever they like?

In this I would certainly agree with the Bush administration’s view of Old Europe, that unable or unwilling to be at the forefront of that international policing, basking in the apathetic glow of peaceful neutrality, we can hardly be respected for defiantly stamping our feet now.

As Europeans, we are probably beginning to feel what many in the Third World have felt for a long time, the frustrated helplessness that comes with our destinies becoming subject to the political whims of a foreign state.

Tough - we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Welcome to the New American Century.

Tough - we have no one to blame but ourselves

I agree totally.

However it doesn't change the feeling of anger against the current US mentality. What am i saying??? its close to the mentality the US has had since Reagan.

I dunno. I'd love to see Europe take a hand at policing the world. But the fact remains that the US does indeed provide most of the support for NATO. Any contribution Europe makes will always be overshadowed by that.

But hey, i'd rather american troops dying, than Irish troops dying. An awful argument, but one i'm willing to admit to.

They've pushed to become the sheriffs of the world. Let them have it. It's not going to make me appreciate their culture, or history any better.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by klaz
But hey, i'd rather american troops dying, than Irish troops dying. An awful argument, but one i'm willing to admit to.

That was my point, and why Europe finds itself where it is and why America, quite rightly, does not take too seriously European letter-opener rattling.

They've pushed to become the sheriffs of the world. Let them have it. It's not going to make me appreciate their culture, or history any better.

That’s not really your choice anymore though, is it?

And your children may not even know that there was a choice in the first place...

That’s not really your choice anymore though, is it?

Well if you want to be realistic, it was NEVER my choice. BUt i don't have to like it, do i? Especially since, there is no chance of me, personally, being able to change it.

Éomer of Rohan

Quote from the Corinthian

That was my point, and why Europe finds itself where it is and why America, quite rightly, does not take too seriously European letter-opener rattling.

You do neglect to mention however that over the last one hundred years, Europe has experienced more bloodshed that all the rest of the world put together thus they have very good reason not to bask in the foreglow of an upcoming imperial contest. And I ask, why should Europe lose her sons in a war for American glory? This is not a 'police action,' this upcoming war is a war for control of resources, a war therefore of imperialism.

Quote from Klaz

Well if you want to be realistic, it was NEVER my choice. BUt i don't have to like it, do i? Especially since, there is no chance of me, personally, being able to change it

Make no mistake my friend, if you wanted to change it, there are others who will want the same, and doesn't the world turn on the hopes and dreams of idealistic men who want to change things for the better, not just the pragmatists who can help it happen?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
You do neglect to mention however that over the last one hundred years, Europe has experienced more bloodshed that all the rest of the world put together thus they have very good reason not to bask in the foreglow of an upcoming imperial contest.

Hardly a reason to pretend that the rest of the world does not exist.

And I ask, why should Europe lose her sons in a war for American glory? This is not a 'police action,' this upcoming war is a war for control of resources, a war therefore of imperialism.

You really are missing the point, you silly little boy, which is that as a result of such pacifistic intellectual masturbation Europe is too weak to be credible on a military level.

And whether people like it or not that is what it comes down to. Try debating with a cruise missile sent up your arse.

Might is right. Bottom line.

Éomer of Rohan

Hardly a reason to pretend that the rest of the world does not exist

So what you are in fact saying here is that Europe not wanting to endure casualties for American power is not a reason to pretend the rest of the world does not exist? That does not even make sense; first of all, Europe is not pretending the world does not exist, as I stated, but you ignored, she is simple unwilling to suffer for a pointless goal.

You really are missing the point, you silly little boy, which is that as a result of such pacifistic intellectual masturbation Europe is too weak to be credible on a military level.

And whether people like it or not that is what it comes down to. Try debating with a cruise missile sent up your arse.

Might is right. Bottom line.

I'm missing the point? The principle of all western civilisation is that might is NOT right and that is the purpose of a democracy; at the very least internally, otherwise we would still be stuck in a feudal period of one man killing to overcome another etc.

You obviously disdain intellectually advanced people then, from what I derive from your insulting comments so I will keep this simple for you; it is as a result of such militaristic attitudes that arms races come about and much money is spent on pointless ventures such as Anti Ballistic Missiles and this new weapon that I have heard disturning reports of from a post on these boards; Big Blue rather than on social welfare and protecting the environment; if the west was not a threat to other people, they would not be a threat to us. The fact you ignore also is that the UK, France and Germany are still very advanced nations, militarily speaking and could deal with any threat to themselves, even though one does not exist at present. Thus your arguments whilst comforting I am sure to those politicians who backed a 265 Billion USD hike in the defence spending, they are more than worrying from the rest of us.

One last thing, are you american by any chance? Not a criticism, just a question.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
So what you are in fact saying here is that Europe not wanting to endure casualties for American power is not a reason to pretend the rest of the world does not exist?

I am in fact saying that just because Europe does not seek war it does not mean that war will not seek Europe, or in fact that given Europe’s lack of interest in such military adventures, that someone else will not take advantage and profit from similar adventures.

I'm missing the point? The principle of all western civilisation is that might is NOT right and that is the purpose of a democracy; at the very least internally, otherwise we would still be stuck in a feudal period of one man killing to overcome another etc.

Grow up. What part of history did you get that bit of clarity? Rule of law in a feudal state would have been less violent than a supposedly democratic one of the same period if only for the greater emphasis on law there would have been in the more autocratic feudal society.

The law between states is and always will be - Might Is Right. Dislike it and you will be silenced. That is the only reality.

One last thing, are you american by any chance? Not a criticism, just a question.

I am not American. And before you ask either, I’m not a Jew either, just in case that’s also on your agenda.

Éomer of Rohan

I am in fact saying that just because Europe does not seek war it does not mean that war will not seek Europe, or in fact that given Europe’s lack of interest in such military adventures, that someone else will not take advantage and profit from similar adventures

Who, for example, poses a credible military threat to Europe? Even the Soviets did not pose such a threat; the most imperialist of all Soviet leades, Iosef Vissarionovich Stalin refused to contemplate conquering all of Germany even, never mind pushing to the channel and this was decided long before the Americans used the nuclear weapons on Japan.

Grow up. What part of history did you get that bit of clarity? Rule of law in a feudal state would have been less violent than a supposedly democratic one of the same period if only for the greater emphasis on law there would have been in the more autocratic feudal society.

The law between states is and always will be - Might Is Right. Dislike it and you will be silenced. That is the only reality

I am thinking that my knowledge of history is vastly better than yours and I intend backing that up, so don't get all indignant. If rule of law in a feudal state would have been less violent, why were those men at the top constantly knocking each other off? Consider England in Anglo Saxon times, prior to 1066AD. Edward 'the Confessor' was king yet Harold Godwinssons' father was the foremost earl, during which time he led armies against rebellions in Northumbria and Mercia; to suppress his rivals - a result of a power dynamic justified by the might is right theory; of course post Battle of Hastings we saw such peace as William I of England killed of almost the entire population of Exeter despite their submission and laid waste all of Northern England as an example of the 'rule of law.' In a democracy, roughly equitable to this level of advancement since we must remember that the early middle or Dark Ages occurred after the fall of 'civilisation' in the North, Hellenic Athens, in all the years that democracy was in place (508 though some say 511 to 404BC), there was only one uprising in Athens - and then it was by oligarchs in 411BC who wished to overthrow the Boule of 500 and the Ekklesia of 6000 to substitute it with the Areopagus of 400 'good' (a euphemism of Ancient Sources meaning rich) men. What is more, Athenian democracy practically laid the foundations for Western Democracy.

The law between states is and always will be - Might Is Right. Dislike it and you will be silenced. That is the only reality

Personally I think that this is ridiculous and put in for the 'sound byte' effect. If this were the case then the United Nations would not have been founded on the principles it was founded on, to create peace. Of course indubitably we will hear something on the Pax Romana and how Roman power solved the problem of war; anyone who really thinks that needs a little more time in the library.

What is more, you are outrightly wrong. You consider only those nations with an imperial imperative; what about nations which are genuinely peaceful? Have you ever heard of an armed dispute between Cuba and the Dominican Republic for example?? If we think like you do then I personally think that the security of the world is in real danger, we may even end up creating enemies out of powerless little thrid world nations....oh wait, the First World already did that didn't they - it was called Viet Nam.