A place for me to pour out my rants without clogging the inboxes of my friends and family. Also a place to give info on myself and Mary, our family news and events.
Published on December 17, 2004 By Rightwinger In Politics
The following article is based freely on a reply I made to someone on a post:

Every so often, I see on here some comment by a foreign national or by a self-loathing, America-last, apologist US-born liberal, dumping on Americans for our supposed "arrogance". How we're arrogant doesn't always come up, but it seems we just are.

Well, as I've said several times before.....why shouldn't we be? After all, we've saved the world three times in the last hundred years alone.
From 1917 to 1991, in five major conflicts, we arrogant Americans allowed the blood of some of our best and brightest to be spilled on foreign soil, in the name of freedom for other people.
Twice in 20 years to Europe (once to save it from tyranny, the other to pretty much save it from its own short-sightedness, which resulted in a horrifying tyranny none of them could have guessed at); and as for Asia, we saved them twice, too; once from the Japanese, the other from the Chinese. You're welcome.

WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam and Desert Storm (and let's not forget the entire Cold War and all the money and supplies spent in that 40-year era) are all prime examples of American altruism. You're welcome.

Every year, billions of dollars, culled from the hard-earned taxes of us arrogant Americans, are sent overseas to prop up the failing economies of smaller, poorer countries; countries which wouldn't exist if we didn't send aid. You're welcome.

Every year, relief workers, more money and hundreds of tons of supplies (and more money) are sent overseas to assist with recovery operations after natural disasters, to fight disease and to help refugees from political strife, such as civil wars. You're welcome.

Yet, how many relief workers from overseas were there in Florida during the hurricanes, helping to board up windows and to clear debris and repair damage? None that I ever heard of.

I'm tired of hearing how arrogant we are, when we happily help those other nations and peoples that come to us in need. If the world would stop coming to us and asking us to solve their problems for them, maybe we wouldn't be so arrogant.
Our arrogance is well-earned, paid for in the blood of our fathers and grandfathers, and by all that which we willingly and cheerfully give to other nations. You're welcome.

We, these 50 United States of America, have done more, in less than three hundred years, than most other nations have done in milennia of existence. Others come here for a better life; they don't go to Germany, France, Russia, Findland, China, Cuba, Japan or Haiti. They come here, and we have a right to be proud, thank you very much.

To all those foreign nationals who see us arrogant Americans in such a harsh light., I close as I did in the reply I base this on:

"Start paying us back, or go get screwed."

And while I'm at it......shut up.

Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Dec 17, 2004
Nicely said
on Dec 17, 2004
nice post and all, i like the patriotism, but ur forgetting that we never won Nam', and that to this day the two koreas and china are technically at a standstill war with each other, and us. what we did in ww1 and 2 was cool as well.butur forgetting that we and russia are guilty of propping up brutal regimes friendly to either faction during the cold war *cough south vietnam, diem regime cough*. oh, did any of u guys study why iran is so ticked off at us? back in like the 60s or 50s, the people of iran democratically elected this president guy kinda the way we do in the free world here. as i remember, their leader had an anti british sentiment due to all that colonial stuff, and he shut down i believe a british logging company or something from working in iran. that really ticked off the brits, and they came to the us. so the usa got rid of the iranian president in a coup, and you know who replaced him? the brutal shah regime, which i believe could be compared to the taliban or similiar governments. nones perfect i guess.
on Dec 17, 2004
We, these 50 United States of America, have done more, in less than three hundred years, than most other nations have done in milennia of existence.


This is patently ridiculous. The US empire is larger than the British, the Roman, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Persian etc empires ever were, but this is facilitated by a technological level built on by millennia of foreign research. Add to that the fact that the US has only really had a global reach since the first world war and its stupid to think that its effect on the world is anywhere near as large or as potentially long-lasting as say Rome's effect, or the Mongols, or even the influence of Chandragupta's India.

Yet, how many relief workers from overseas were there in Florida during the hurricanes, helping to board up windows and to clear debris and repair damage? None that I ever heard of.


And this stands as a firm example of alleged American arrogance. You don't know because you can't be arsed to look. A brigade of Australian emergency services were flown in to assist. I believe the Canadians sent medical teams, but I could be wrong. It is the unthinking assumption, without any basis in fact, that the US stands alone in doing good that so infuriates many foreigners. Add to that the tendency to be 'ugly' tourists and it should come as no surprise that Americans wonder "where's the love?" when looking at the outside world.
on Dec 18, 2004
but ur forgetting that we never won Nam'
---catholic libral

True, but for twenty years we kept the North at bay for the South....we arrogant Americans fought their war for them, and lost almost 60,000 of our own in the process, thank you so much for noticing.
It was only when we finally tired of propping them up and doing what they should have been doing for themselves, and finally withdrew, that we "lost". In truth, however, we never lost a pitched battle in Vietnam. We lost the war by default, you might say.
See drguy's blog on the subject.
As for Korea, the uneasy peace there has only been maintained (for 51 years, mind you) through the continued presence of the US military there and the backing of the US government.

butur forgetting that we and russia are guilty of propping up brutal regimes friendly to either faction during the cold war *cough south vietnam, diem regime cough*.
--catholic libral

*cough--I know--cough* That's the way it was during the Cold War, or any war, for that matter; you take your friends where you can find them. For God's sake, that icon of liberalism F D Roosevelt allowed the US to ally itself with Stalin's USSR; Stalin was responsible, to that point in history, for the deaths of twenty to thirty million of his own, innocent people. All in the name of Communism and power. He was a worse murderer than Hitler, but we needed him.
That's reality, liberal, try it sometime.


oh, did any of u guys study why iran is so ticked off at us? back in like the 60s or 50s, the people of iran democratically elected this president guy kinda the way we do in the free world here. as i remember, their leader had an anti british sentiment due to all that colonial stuff, and he shut down i believe a british logging company or something from working in iran. that really ticked off the brits, and they came to the us. so the usa got rid of the iranian president in a coup, and you know who replaced him? the brutal shah regime, which i believe could be compared to the taliban or similiar governments. nones perfect i guess.
----catholic libral

To compare the westernized, progressive regime of the Shah Reza Palavi to the Taliban shows just how skewed your thinking processes are. Let's not forget what replaced that "brutal regime", shall we? The Ayatollah Khomeni and his Islamic Fundamentalist whackos. Big improvement for all, wasn't it?.

This is patently ridiculous. The US empire is larger than the British, the Roman, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Persian etc empires ever were, but this is facilitated by a technological level built on by millennia of foreign research. Add to that the fact that the US has only really had a global reach since the first world war and its stupid to think that its effect on the world is anywhere near as large or as potentially long-lasting as say Rome's effect, or the Mongols, or even the influence of Chandragupta's India.
--cactoblasta

Perhaps, but which nation perfected these technologies? Which nation perfected the use of the telegraph, invented the telephone, the phonograph, radio, television, computers and the internet? The US has given so much to the world, through invention or the fine-tuning of older inventions, that your statement is "patently ridiculous". Get it? Patent? Little joke there to lighten the mood.

And do you really think that American "Imperialism" won't have the lasting effect of Rome, the Mongols or Chandrahoozits India? Hmm....let's see.....I have to wonder how many people in the world can quote Kennedy at Berlin in '61? Reagan at Berlin in '88? Roosevelt's "Pearl Harbor " speech? Can recognize pictures of George Washington? Abraham Lincoln? Roosevelt? JFK?
How about Darth Vader's relationship to Luke Skywalker? What did Rhett Butler say to Scarlett O'Hara as he was leaving?
Now, how many people in the modern world understand Latin as a first language? None. Everyone who spoke it as a first language died about a thousand years ago or more. Can identify famous Romans by their statues or busts? Not as many as can recognize Yoda the Jedi Master, Miss Piggy or John Wayne, I'd bet. Perhaps this isn't necessarily a good thing, of course, but you get my point.
How many people even know who Chandrahoozit was? I read a lot of history, and I'm sorry to say that that one went by me. I'll have to look it up. Thank you for that, anyway.
People today can quote the Romans, yes, but how many really understand what was said? See my point?
And what we did to the Germans and Japanese has had a pretty lasting effect thus far.....they're thriving, successful democracies governing themselves very well, thanks to our guidance. Could the Mongols have given them that? Did they? I do believe the Mongols reached the Rhine, didn't they? I know they attacked Japan, but just now (7AM after a 15-hour shift) the details escape me. Sorry.

We always hear stories from far-flung countries of how the people there appreciate American styles, movies, music, TV shows. Our democracy and system of government have had an effect on the world that I think our Founding Fathers could never have imagined would grow out of their little experiment.
I had a boss once...the man was from Nigeria. He and several of his friends came to America as students, in the '80s, intent on learning all they could about American democracy and government, and taking it back to Nigeria in an attempt to effect change there. Instead, they all loved it here so much that they all decided to stay.
So many people decide to stay; that's because they realize what a great country this is, despite the America-hating rhetoric you libs spew.


And this stands as a firm example of alleged American arrogance. You don't know because you can't be arsed to look. A brigade of Australian emergency services were flown in to assist. I believe the Canadians sent medical teams, but I could be wrong. It is the unthinking assumption, without any basis in fact, that the US stands alone in doing good that so infuriates many foreigners. Add to that the tendency to be 'ugly' tourists and it should come as no surprise that Americans wonder "where's the love?" when looking at the outside world.
---cactoblasta

Well, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Sorry on that point....but then, I never said that the "US stands alone in doing good"....you made that assumption yourself. When you make an assumption, you make an "ass" out of "u" and 'umption. I did.
Sure other countries send aid and supplies, but none of them seem to get shit on quite as much for it, despite all they do. America-bashing is a fun sport, I'm sure, but I shudder to think what the world would be like without us.

A guy from Denmark once told me that the US Army was the "most efficient killing machine ever devised". I thanked him for the compliment, and told him that I wasn't going to apologize for having a strong military defending me. I also said that he should be on his knees thanking God for that "killing machine", because it was directly repsonsible for the liberation of most of Europe. Twice. Put that in your crackpipe and smoke it.

And to say, especially at this still relatively early point in US history, that America's impact on the world will be temporary and superficial, is the height of America-loathing arrogance. I do hope you're from another country, cacto; I'd hate for you to be one of us.

on Dec 18, 2004

Reply #3 By: cactoblasta - 12/17/2004 10:13:01 PM
We, these 50 United States of America, have done more, in less than three hundred years, than most other nations have done in milennia of existence.


This is patently ridiculous. The US empire is larger than the British, the Roman, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Persian etc empires ever were, but this is facilitated by a technological level built on by millennia of foreign research. Add to that the fact that the US has only really had a global reach since the first world war and its stupid to think that its effect on the world is anywhere near as large or as potentially long-lasting as say Rome's effect, or the Mongols


No, *this* is patently ridiculous! I think you should go look at empire maps once more. Especially the British, the Romans, and the Persians. I would tend to think on closer examination you'll find that the 3 were a lot bigger individually than *anything* the US could throw together.
on Dec 18, 2004
I'm tired of hearing how arrogant we are, when we happily help those other nations and peoples that come to us in need. If the world would stop coming to us and asking us to solve their problems for them, maybe we wouldn't be so arrogant.


You sir are the reason why people thing we are arrogant. I am not arrogant... people like you are. While we are the best country in my eyes, I will not shove it down the throats of people because we are not that much better. While there was a time when we were, people like you are the reason we are not. I would like to point out that if you want to talk humanitarian efforts, let us look to the UN. The UN provides humanitarian efforts, and guess who does NOT support the UN. Well... its the United States. Interesting. How many US peace keepers are in Sudan right now? Why doesn't the United Sates support democracies all over the world if we are so great? The reason is because of cooks like you. Frankly, I am not tired of people calling me arrogant, I'm tired of people like you being arrogant.





We, these 50 United States of America, have done more, in less than three hundred years, than most other nations have done in milennia of existence. Others come here for a better life; they don't go to Germany, France, Russia, Findland, China, Cuba, Japan or Haiti. They come here, and we have a right to be proud, thank you very much.


Are you mad? They do in fact go to many of those countries. And that first statment is inflamitory and out of line. Wheres your evidence? What do you base this statment on? Do you know when we entered world war II? After we were attacked? Do you think Iraq is a humanitarian effort? While we have done alot and have a right to be proud, I for one am not proud that we have people like you in our country.
on Dec 18, 2004

Reply #7 By: sandy2 - 12/18/2004 11:18:59 AM
I'm tired of hearing how arrogant we are, when we happily help those other nations and peoples that come to us in need. If the world would stop coming to us and asking us to solve their problems for them, maybe we wouldn't be so arrogant.


You sir are the reason why people thing we are arrogant. I am not arrogant... people like you are. While we are the best country in my eyes, I will not shove it down the throats of people because we are not that much better. While there was a time when we were, people like you are the reason we are not. I would like to point out that if you want to talk humanitarian efforts, let us look to the UN. The UN provides humanitarian efforts, and guess who does NOT support the UN. Well... its the United States. Interesting. How many US peace keepers are in Sudan right now? Why doesn't the United Sates support democracies all over the world if we are so great? The reason is because of cooks like you. Frankly, I am not tired of people calling me arrogant, I'm tired of people like you being arrogant.






We, these 50 United States of America, have done more, in less than three hundred years, than most other nations have done in milennia of existence. Others come here for a better life; they don't go to Germany, France, Russia, Findland, China, Cuba, Japan or Haiti. They come here, and we have a right to be proud, thank you very much.


Are you mad? They do in fact go to many of those countries. And that first statment is inflamitory and out of line. Wheres your evidence? What do you base this statment on? Do you know when we entered world war II? After we were attacked? Do you think Iraq is a humanitarian effort? While we have done alot and have a right to be proud, I for one am not proud that we have people like you in our country.


Nor are *we* prroud that we have people like you around.
on Dec 18, 2004
*A guy from Denmark once told me that the US Army was the "most efficient killing machine ever devised". I thanked him for the compliment, and told him that I wasn't going to apologize for having a strong military defending me. I also said that he should be on his knees thanking God for that "killing machine", because it was directly repsonsible for the liberation of most of Europe. Twice. *

I don't know about efficient, but we are effective. We run into a dichotomy with the whole killing machine thing though. I wish we were more terrible and frightening than we are, because then the threat of the US Army showing up on your doorstep would make bad guys stop what they are doing. As it is, they know that we are nice guys and play by rules. If they choose not to play by the same rules, we're at a disadvantage. I think too many people have forgotten that the US Army isn't supposed to be about policing, it's supposed to be about breaking things and shooting people. I think what we need is some more shock and awe.
on Dec 18, 2004
Great Article, RW, as usual!


Thanks, LW....that means a lot, coming from you. I appreciate it.

I just stopped by on my way to check my mail and haven't got time right now to answer the replies (Christmas shopping calls), but I'll be back.
In the meantime, thanks go to LW, drmiler and hyperborean wanderer for handing things until I can get back here.

Go Steelers! 13-1 Baby! Yeah! Here we go, Steelers! Here we go! Here we go, Steelers! Here we go!
Pittsburgh Steelers 33
New York Giants 30

on Dec 18, 2004
And do you really think that American "Imperialism" won't have the lasting effect of Rome, the Mongols or Chandrahoozits India? Hmm....let's see.....I have to wonder how many people in the world can quote Kennedy at Berlin in '61? Reagan at Berlin in '88? Roosevelt's "Pearl Harbor " speech? Can recognize pictures of George Washington? Abraham Lincoln? Roosevelt? JFK?
How about Darth Vader's relationship to Luke Skywalker? What did Rhett Butler say to Scarlett O'Hara as he was leaving?


Well, yes, I don't really think that American imperialism (a stupid term but I'll use it if you insist) has had the lasting effect of Rome. Chandragupta (if you don't know who he is, that's fine - his advisor Kautilya, inventor of Machiavellian political theory is deservedly much more famous) and the Mongols? I'm certain America will have a bigger effect than their empire, and I think it might have done so far. It's hard to quantify, and I'm prepared to concede the argument on these two. As for Rome... how can you quantify the influence of Rome on the West? The US used the Roman republic as a baseline for its government, Julius Caesar's name is known by every school student, and only the most ignorant can't recognise the famous "I came, I saw, I conquered" line. And that's not even mentioning Constantine's influence in the Catholic Church, an institution which has wielded massive influence across the western known world for nearly two millenia now.

As for your statements, I can't quote Kennedy or Reagan at Berlin unless it was that "I am a ham roll" line and God only knows what Roosevelt said at Pearl Harbor. I know what Martin Luther King said, but only because that was taught as part of a much wider race relations course. I would probably get Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt mixed up if I saw their pictures, but I'd probably be able to make out JFK if only because he would be the one wearing a modern suit. I get the Star Wars reference, but the Scarlett O'Hara one is either well before my time or fairly obscure. It's a cultural relic rather than something on the level of Plato's Republic or Sun Tzu's Art of War.

Which nation perfected the use of the telegraph, invented the telephone, the phonograph, radio, television, computers and the internet? The US has given so much to the world, through invention or the fine-tuning of older inventions, that your statement is "patently ridiculous".


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the telephone actually invented by Tesla or am I getting it mixed up with someone else? My scientific history is a little patchy, so correct me if I say anything too ludicrous. I know the TV was invented by the Brits, the precursor to the phonograph by a European and the foundation of modern music, the sampler, was an Aussie invention (see LW? Australia is a bastion of world influence!). I remember reading a book which claimed that the internet was created by the Europeans as well, but I can't for the life of me remember if it was a proper history book or some airport trash. Probably the latter, but I for one don't tend to think of technological advances as being more lasting than cultural developments.

After all who really cares that Benz and his buddies created the first car? It's far more important what's coming out of the factories in Brazil, the US or Japan. Who will care that the US made the internet in 50 years? Americans certainly, but chances are it will be remembered more for its impact than for its creator. Can many people name the country which invented the wheelbarrow? Probably not correctly, but I'm sure many people could remember Shakespeare if given a prompt. I think I've started to ramble here so I might stop on this point.

And to say, especially at this still relatively early point in US history, that America's impact on the world will be temporary and superficial


I never said it would be temporary and superficial, I just said it was less than that of Rome, the Mongols and India. On reflection and in sobriety I think the Mongols and Chandragupta are probably less influential than America is at the current moment. But as I said above I definitely think Rome is much more influential than America is. That could change, but without the benefit of amazing psychic powers I'd rather not speculate on an uncertain future.

No, *this* is patently ridiculous! I think you should go look at empire maps once more. Especially the British, the Romans, and the Persians. I would tend to think on closer examination you'll find that the 3 were a lot bigger individually than *anything* the US could throw together.


Come now Doctor, surely you have some understanding of the subtleties of modern international relations? The US stations troops in dozens of countries; do you really think these countries would be permitted to become hostile? That they choose to be friendly is merely a matter of good sense rather than any great love for the US. The US 'empire' is less in name than in influence, but at the height of the Cold War could anyone really say that, for example, Nicaragua would be allowed to choose a Soviet line? Or that Cuba would be willingly surrendered because the US doesn't consider it "theirs'? Groups like PNAC (a bogeyman for unwashed university socialist parties) actively push for an "American Century", which suggests, to me at least, that the day of empire in name as well is not far off.

Sure other countries send aid and supplies, but none of them seem to get shit on quite as much for it, despite all they do. America-bashing is a fun sport, I'm sure, but I shudder to think what the world would be like without us.


I agreee with this. But it's important to remember that the US hasn't acted alone very often in its past. It's easy to say that the US won the Cold War, or that the US won WWI and WWII, but in reality without the price paid in blood by their allies those wars would not have been so easily won. Evidently I was wrong, but In reading your article I got the impression that you believed the US stood alone and that as a force for good there was no equal, and thus arrogance was the only appropriate state of mind for an American. That and the hour (it was early in the morning and I had a killer hangover) were why I might have come off as a little... incensed. My apologies.
on Dec 19, 2004

Reply #12 By: cactoblasta - 12/18/2004 8:10:15 PM
I can't quote Kennedy or Reagan at Berlin unless it was that "I am a ham roll" line and God only knows what Roosevelt said at Pearl Harbor



I on the other hand can quote all 3

Kennedy "Ech bin ein Berliner"

Reagan "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall"

FDR " Dec 7th, a day that will live in infamy"
No, *this* is patently ridiculous! I think you should go look at empire maps once more. Especially the British, the Romans, and the Persians. I would tend to think on closer examination you'll find that the 3 were a lot bigger individually than *anything* the US could throw together.


Come now Doctor, surely you have some understanding of the subtleties of modern international relations?



I do, do you know the meaning of the word empire? Are you seriously trying to tell me that the US can order the people around from other countries just because we have a military pesense in their country? The rest of the world would not stand idly by while that happened.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the telephone actually invented by Tesla or am I getting it mixed up with someone else? My scientific history is a little patchy, so correct me if I say anything too ludicrous. I know the TV was invented by the Brits, the precursor to the phonograph by a European and the foundation of modern music, the sampler, was an Aussie invention (see LW? Australia is a bastion of world influence!). I remember reading a book which claimed that the internet was created by the Europeans as well, but I can't for the life of me remember if it was a proper history book or some airport trash. Probably the latter, but I for one don't tend to think of technological advances as being more lasting than cultural developments.


Telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell (an american). TV was not "invented" by a brit. Check link.
Link

on Dec 19, 2004
RIngwinger, Great Article!!! At a time when it seems stylish to hang out the U.S. dirty laundry, it is nice to read reminders of the good we as a nation have done.

nice post and all, i like the patriotism, but ur forgetting that we never won Nam', and that to this day the two koreas and china are technically at a standstill war with each other, and us.


So what you are saying here is, if the firefighters fail to save your house from burning to the ground, you see no reason to thank them for the effort of fighting the fire??


I 've never heard of a great person who didn't have at least as many faults as reasons to be admired. If we want to look up to a great person, we choose to applaud the accomplishments and dismiss the faults. On the other hand, if we want to paint that same person as a villain, we do the opposite. I, for one, would rather view the United States of America as an imperfect hero than a villain who happens to actually do something good once in awhile. But that's just me.

on Dec 19, 2004
I on the other hand can quote all 3

Kennedy "Ech bin ein Berliner"

Reagan "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall"

FDR " Dec 7th, a day that will live in infamy"


Ah, so it was Kennedy who made a fool of himself. Thanks for the info. But I would contend that knowledge of these lines is more a result of a grounding in American history than in world history.

I do, do you know the meaning of the word empire? Are you seriously trying to tell me that the US can order the people around from other countries just because we have a military pesense in their country? The rest of the world would not stand idly by while that happened.


They have and they do. Regularly. How many nations mobilised armed forces to defend Iraq? Perhaps I missed the news, but to the best of my knowledge none did, despite the widespread opposition to the intervention. How many nations turned a blind eye to the horrors of Chile's American-supported dictator, Pinochet? How many nations make any real effort to resist American foreign policy? When the French tried it earlier this decade there was significant public outcry in the US about French treachery. There could be no such outcry if France was truly considered an independent nation with a right to its own opinion. The US could be said to expect total support from its vassals; that it doesn't bother to crush resistance wherever it is found is either a great virtue or a great flaw.

Telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell (an american). TV was not "invented" by a brit


Thanks, I wasn't sure about these. I knew there was controversy about American claimants in one of them. It was a German rather than a Brit who came up with the idea, but it was a Brit who invented colour TV.
on Dec 19, 2004
So what you are saying here is, if the firefighters fail to save your house from burning to the ground, you see no reason to thank them for the effort of fighting the fire??


That really depends. If the firefighters choose to cover my house in petrol in order to burn the fire out, then I think I'd be fairly pissed off rather than grateful, especially if they decide it will be necessary to defoliate my garden to make especially sure no fire can take root nearby.

The US is a global force, but I think it has a serious multiple personality disorder. On the one hand it does a lot of good, but on the other it spends the rest of its time indulging in wanton acts of cruelty or recklessness. I've yet to come to a final opinion on whether the US is really a force for good, a force for stability or a force for evil. It probably doesn't matter anyway.
on Dec 19, 2004
Cacto---
Whether the US's influence on the world will be as long-lasting as Rome's, or of the same or greater impact is kind of academic, as far as we're concerned. After all, none of us here today will be alive to see if it will or not.
Though I agree that the ripples Rome made in history are still reverberating today, allow me to point out that you're championing the Roman Empire, and in the same breath accusing the US of having a sort of ":empire" of its own, a thing which you seem to fear. Is one really better than the other?
Rome, for all its glories and wonders, was a brutal ruler, keeping its (militarily) conquered subjects firmly under its heel; this, I guess, was okay for them, but would not be for the US if it so desired? Why is that?
The US has been, and continues to be, a force for good in the world. The world just chooses not to see it.

Who will care that the US made the internet in 50 years? Americans certainly, but chances are it will be remembered more for its impact than for its creator.
---Cacto

Same today with the Catholic Church and Roman senatorial procedures.



The US stations troops in dozens of countries; do you really think these countries would be permitted to become hostile?
--Cacto

In case you've somehow missed it in the last two or three years, the US stations troops at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, a hostile country.
Our troops in S. Korea are there to protect that nation against a resurgence of hostilities from the North. Our troops in Germany and Japan are, well, let's still call them occupational forces (after all, that's what they were), but let's not forget that other nations (Great Britain, France and Russia)also occupied Germany . Not really sure at the moment, but they might still have troops there.
Our troops in Germany also protected that nation in its weakness from the USSR, and Japan from both the USSR and China, so I won't apologize for this; once again, we were doing them a favor.
Maintaining those outposts costs the US billions a year, which also helped to keep the post-war economies of those former Axis nations afloat. Even after they got back on their feet economically, I'm sure they didn't mind the extra money coming in every year.


I agreee with this. But it's important to remember that the US hasn't acted alone very often in its past. It's easy to say that the US won the Cold War, or that the US won WWI and WWII, but in reality without the price paid in blood by their allies those wars would not have been so easily won. Evidently I was wrong, but In reading your article I got the impression that you believed the US stood alone and that as a force for good there was no equal, and thus arrogance was the only appropriate state of mind for an American. That and the hour (it was early in the morning and I had a killer hangover) were why I might have come off as a little... incensed. My apologies.
--cacto

That was never my contention.
Apology accepted, but with a caveat; let me just say this: when the US chose to involve itself in the European wars, we had no real stake in the conflicts.
In WW2, Japan was the nation that attacked us; we could just as easily have sent the bulk of our forces to the Pacific, and told Europe and England to go pound salt.
True, we most likely would have ended up fighting the Nazis at some point in the future anyhow (so it was best for us to get involved, while we still had allies), but just remember that public sentiment at the time was for us to remain neutral and stay out of the war in Europe entirely.
Roosevelt sent troops there first because of his pledge to help England in her stand against Germany. The only thing that really swayed public sentiment was the fact that Hitler himself officially declared war on us (making us the only nation in the entire war to receive that dubious honor) , as an act of solidarity with his Axis partner, the only such act of his regime.

Russia likes to think that it won its "Great Patriotic War against German Fascism" by itself, but the truth is that, without American supplies, shipped through the Arctic Circle for example, by merchant vessels protected from the German U-Boat "Wolf Packs" by the US Navy and brought in by air by the US Army Air Corps, she wouldn't have won at all.
The Soviets, by 1944, were using American guns, ammuntion, trucks, tanks and boots, among numerous other supplies (which, I believe, were never paid for).
The "USA" stamped or painted on the items stood for, Soviet troops were told, "Get the Sonofabitch Adolf", in slang and abbreviated from the Syrrillic.
The British, whom we came to defend, complained that our troops were "oversexed, overpaid and over here" (of course, the American troops were happy to point out that the Brits were just pissed off because they were "underpaid, undersexed and under Eisenhower").So as you can see, our efforts to help were being shit on at least as far back as the Second World War. Once again, you're welcome.
Also (and not to belittle the effect made by the other armed forces there, Brits and French, for example), without the American forces pushing in on the Western Front, Russia would have been facing a much larger and more well-equipped Wehrmact and Luftwaffe than they in fact did.


Just FYI, the television in use today was perfected by a man named Leo Farnsworth, who lived right here in Fort Wayne, Indiana

.
RIngwinger, Great Article!!! At a time when it seems stylish to hang out the U.S. dirty laundry, it is nice to read reminders of the good we as a nation have done.


Thank you, ParaTed2K----I'm glad you enjoyed it. By the way, you made an excellent point about thanking the firefighters. That was well said.



I don't know about efficient, but we are effective. We run into a dichotomy with the whole killing machine thing though. I wish we were more terrible and frightening than we are, because then the threat of the US Army showing up on your doorstep would make bad guys stop what they are doing. As it is, they know that we are nice guys and play by rules. If they choose not to play by the same rules, we're at a disadvantage. I think too many people have forgotten that the US Army isn't supposed to be about policing, it's supposed to be about breaking things and shooting people. I think what we need is some more shock and awe.
---Hyperborean Wanderer

This is very, very true, especailly the part about us not really being the policemen of the world.
Cacto so appreciates the Romans, and much of what I wrote focused on WW2. What made Cacto's Romans so awesome was the fact that they were conquerors. Their legions were a disciplined fighting force that kicked ass and took names and didn't give a shit who they offended. Same, unfortunately, with the Germans and Japanese, and the North Koreans and Chinese in Korea, and the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. Attrocities committed by those forces abounded. Most, especially during Vietnam, were ignored by the world press. Including our own.
We, on the other hand, are treated as though we're so horrible and cruel, but on the few and far between occasions when we do, in fact, "break the rules" (My Lai and Abu Grahib leap to mind) and kick a little ass and take a few names ourselves, the world cries out in outrage. This is totally unfair, of course. They, perhaps intentionally, lump us in with our enemies by doing so.
You're right, the job of a military force is to "break things and shoot people". We do indeed need more shock and awe, but what would the world do about it when we gave it to them? More outrage.

By the way, HW....thank you for your service. Same goes to your comrades in arms. God bless all of you.
3 Pages1 2 3