Us arrogant Americans

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 2)

Rightwinger

on Dec 19, 2004

Are you mad? They do in fact go to many of those countries

Sorry to have missed you, Sandy2.
I'll gladly compare immigration statistics for the US with those of other nations any time. Of course, this might not be easy, because of the many people who come here illegally.
And no, Iraq is a military effort....and we could be makingit much, much tougher on them. it is, of course, within our power; but, if you read the rest of this thread, to do so would not be acceptible to the rest of the world.

Oh, and fuck the UN mafia and their little baby blue beanies.

cactoblasta

on Dec 19, 2004

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.

Not entirely. Cuba is a special case - the US government is extremely hostile towards Cuba, but the Cuban government directs nearly all of its ire towards a tiny segment of the US population in Miami. It's largely one-way on a government-to-government level, and I don't think it's accurate to call Cuba a hostile enemy. When was the last time Cuba launched an attack on US interests? Personally I can't remember the last time, but my knowledge of American history is admittedly a little rusty. After all they could have been obnoxious about the Guantanamo Bay detainees and made the Americans look like fools, but they chose not too.

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.

What I liked about the Romans was their honesty more than anything else. Many US citizens believe their country doesn't have ambitions beyond securing its borders. And yet centuries of foreign policy show otherwise. The Romans never said they slaughtered a village to save it, or condemned whole civilisations to destruction in order to protect a political ideology. They did it to extend their own dominions and spread the glory of Rome, and they considered that reason enough for action. The doublespeak of successive American governments is what gets my goat - imperial ambitions disguised as nobility of purpose and soul. Perhaps it's necessary for the good of the world to have a lie covering the truth, but it's still grating. I don't fear the American empire (after all, it's made both my country and my family wealthy and privileged) but I do dislike its innate dishonesty and its pessimism about humanity. And of course I wish that it was my own country with the power - go the mighty Australian Empire!

I'm sure I wouldn't like living under a Romesque American empire, but at least there would be some honesty in international politics.

We do indeed need more shock and awe, but what would the world do about it when we gave it to them?

Personally I think they'd get over the outrage pretty quickly and starting feeling the fear. It's near impossible to be a good ruler of any large patch of ground, but probably the easiest way is to stick wholeheartedly to one side of rule - being completely and utterly despicable. I'm sure we'll see this become a greater part of the American war-fighting reportoire in future years. Subversion is so Cold War.

drmiler

on Dec 19, 2004

Reply #15 By: cactoblasta - 12/19/2004 2:43:48 AM
I on the other hand can quote all 3

Kennedy "Ich 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

And just how did he make a fool of himself? Direct translation of the phrase "Ich bin ein Berliner" means "I am a citizen of Berlin." Check translation link below.

Link

Rightwinger

on Dec 19, 2004

And just how did he make a fool of himself? Direct translation of the phrase "Ich bin ein Berliner" means "I am a citizen of Berlin." Check translation link below.

---drmiler

There was a rumor some years ago, that still enjoys currency, that he mispronounced something and REALLY said "I am a jelly donut"....or some other variant of the quote that I've heard.

---cactblasta

Cuban agents took part in the Central American communist insurgencies in the 80s. Seems to me there may have been more recent cases, but I can't think of any just now. Still, Cuba is a government hostile to ours, so, though I have to concede your point to an extent, I'll still keep mine.

--Cacto

Well, they didn't have to lie....they were conquerors, taking what they wanted and to hell with everybody. For that matter, you could say the same for Nazi Germany. They told the world exactly what they were going to do, then set about doing it. Neither had a care for the opinions of other nations.
Why is it that the US is reviled for manipulating other nations for its own security and best interests, but other countries are freely allowed that leeway? The greatest example of this attitude in modern times was the Soviet Union. They maintained, quite literally, a moscow-controlled empire of friendly governments around their borders, and worked dilligently at undermining democratic governments the world over. This was accepted as the norm, something that was expected. Yet, when the US did the same sort of thing to better our position, we got called "imperialistic"....often by the Soviets, no less.
Let the US prop up a friendly government in danger of collapse, or manipulate the election in a country to assure the ascent of a friendly ruler, as the Soviets often did, and we were evil.
It's still the same. Other countries, France, for example, manipulates treaties and sells arms to Iraq, a nation against which they agreed to hold sanctions, but that's okay. They sold a nuclear reactor to Jordon, which quickly put it to use making weapons-grade plutonium, right up till the time the Isrealis sent planes to level it. But that's okay. That's crock is what it is.

cacto, all countries are just as dishonest and untrustworthy in their politics as the US.....that's the nature of politcis, for God's sake. They all lie to get what they want. Even friendly goverments spy on each other, to try to discern true motives behind decisions and policies. That's the way it is.

You say your family is wealthy and priviledged somehow because of America, yet you can sit there and cynically rip us to shreds. Sorry, cacto; you're intelligent, well spoken and seem like a good sort of guy, but in my mind this makes you a terrible hypocrite.

whoman69

on Dec 19, 2004

Rightwinger, not sure if it takes away from your arguments, but Nazi Germany declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan. That was in accord with the Axis pact. Europe involved us in their war, which we eventually would have entered in any case to assist the British who declared war on Japan as we did.

cactoblasta

on Dec 19, 2004

You say your family is wealthy and priviledged somehow because of America, yet you can sit there and cynically rip us to shreds. Sorry, cacto; you're intelligent, well spoken and seem like a good sort of guy, but in my mind this makes you a terrible hypocrite.

Yep, I am a hypocrite. It's hard not to be. My family's wealth was built on various quasi-legal enterprises during the last few years of the colonies, and maintained through investments in US foreign venture companies like UFC. It's only in recent years that what remains of that money is being put into more ethical pursuits.

My beef isn't that the US is dishonest; you're right in saying that every country is dishonest. It's that the US claims it isn't dishonest and that it's a genuine, no arguments entered force for good. The French have never claimed that, and the Soviets are no more - I see no reason to consider them as an equal to modern-day America. The French after all have always prided themselves on being sneaky buggers; that's why they're so well-respected as diplomats. For them to even hold to a treaty with contemptible foreigners is a constant surprise. They act like you expect them to - they speak in greys and act in greys, and rarely bother with black and white bullshit. But US presidents, and particularly recent ones (including everyone's favourite lecher, Clinton and everyone's favourite Bible-basher, Bush) speak in black and white and act in greys. Age will probably make me more cynical and less idealistic about the need for this sort of inconsistency, but at the moment it still grates.

Rightwinger

on Dec 20, 2004

---whoman69

Germany declared war on us; this was what finally shocked the people calling for isolationism into seeing what kind of situation we were in. That was what made it "okay" that we finally got into the war in Europe.
Roosevelt would have loved to have gotten us into the war sooner, to aid Britan, and I'm not saying that that was a bad thing (it's always good to have friends in a war instead of doing all the fighting yourself, which was exactly what Britan was doing to that point). But, we had already declared war on Japan, who had actually attacked us; Germany didn't. We had no REAL reason to go to war in Europe UNTIL Hitler's declaration. We could still have very easily ignored it and thrown everything we had against the Japanese, and worried about Germany later.

---cacto

Heh...you sound like Michael Corleone, "The Godfather", trying his damndest to legitimize the Corleone crime family against their will.

Cacto, history is my thing; the only reason I used the Soviets as an example was simply to make my point. I know what you're saying, but I have to say at this point that idealism, though admirable, is for suckers. It's not for realists.
Things are as they are. Human nature isn't going to change; noone, especially couintries, is entirely honest or trustworthy. Every country is out for themselves, and their agenda (this is exactly why the UN will never be entirely successful). All you can do is reason with them logically and hope they see the light somehow.

Good luck to you.

cactoblasta

on Dec 20, 2004

Heh...you sound like Michael Corleone, "The Godfather", trying his damndest to legitimize the Corleone crime family against their will.

Nah, it's not really anything like that. It was more like "own slums and underground boxing rings whilst buying shares in exploitative companies because exploitation and degredation are where the money's at" than extortion, drugs, strongarming and illegal gambling. Although it would be kind of cool to be the scion of a famous crime family. Then I'd be able to legimately have a fully pimped-out ride and smoke cigars without looking like a ponce.

I get your point about lies in politics, but the only logical conclusion is that it's hardly surprising that people looking at the US think it's arrogant when it's so easy to see both pride and a multitude of flaws, even if they could easily do the same to their own country. It's always easier to judge another than to judge ourselves.

whoman69

on Dec 20, 2004

We could still have very easily ignored it and thrown everything we had against the Japanese, and worried about Germany later.

That's bunk. Churchill would not have stood up for it. They gave us a heck of alot of help against the Japanese with their troops in India and Burma. Additionally without the support of Britain we would not have been able to have supply bases in Australia. Pearl was a good location but lacked the area to serve as a supply center. We would have had to supply Guadalcanal with flights from LA, not real feasible with the range of planes back then.

Draginol

on Dec 21, 2004

One has to wonder -- if achievements such as the moon landing, the Internet, the airplane, the personal computer, the television, the telephone, the lightbulb, mass production of automobiles, the motion picture, and countless other innovations aren't worthy enough that people will remember who came up with them that whether anything then will ever be remembered for who came up with it.

You can't have it both ways. It's not like continental Europe has been cranking out very much other than failed ideologies, psychopathic dictators, and colonialism for the past hundred years. Seriously, it is a strain to come up with any truly compelling *positive* achievements in the past century.

Which I wouldn't bring up if I didn't constantly read on these forums from pretentious Europeans trying to somehow argue that US achievements are not note worthy or exceptional or positive. Hell, the Europeans didn't even come up with their beloved UN. In other words, don't throw stones if you're living in glass house.

I have a lot of European friends and they're some of the nicest, hardest working, most honest people I know. But the governments of their respective countries have tended to be pretty lousy at creating an environment for positive achievement in the past century. I think this will change over time but it is a change that is occuring mainly because it was forced upon them - literally - by the United States putting troops permanently in Europe so that the latest wannabe emperor of the world wouldn't be able to get off the ground.

Draginol

on Dec 21, 2004

Do you realize how absurd this argument is? This is akin to saying that if the neighbor hadn't let us use his water spigget we would have had a hard time putting out the fire that was burning down their house.

You also don't seem to know very much about logistics. You think we were supplying troops with cargo planes in the Pacific? The Pacific OCEAN? Good grief. Great Britain's contribution in the Pacific was pretty marginal. That's not its fault, it was very busy in Europe and it was, of all the powers, the most heroic and steadfast nation of World War II (even more so than the US). The UK didn't have to get involved in the war in the first place.

But don't kid yourself, the US could have just focused on Japan if it had wanted to. A more cynical leader would have let the Russians and Germans bleed each other to death and then come in and mopped up later.

Rightwinger

on Dec 21, 2004

I think Draginol has just about made all my rebuttals for me. Thanks, pal. Good to have you aboard.

One thing that came to me earlier this evening, too (I was reading something that mentioned it), was the Marshall Plan, in which the US rebuilt Europe (and then Japan, by the way) in an effort to avoid the recriminations, bad feelings and thirst for revenge that had grown out of WW1 and set off WW2.
It's easy for modern Europeans to pont fingers at us and make snide comments, forgetting just who it was that set their countries back on the path to self-determination, to the tune of $13 billion bucks.
That's a lot of dead presidents today, but six decades ago, when a loaf of bread cost a dime and milk was fifteen cents a gallon, gas was ten cents a gallon, and smokes cost maybe a quarter a pack? A ton of scratch, to say the least.

Am I an arrogant American? Yes, and I won't apologize. We've done more for this world than it wants (or likes) to admit.
Despite all their pissing and moaning, bitching and sniping, if they need something from us, they know we'll give it. Willingly.

And really, I think that that, on some level, is what bugs them the most.

cactoblasta

on Dec 21, 2004

I don't think any Europeans have commented on this thread, have they? At least none that I'm aware of. So why are Europe's troubles or sucesses even relevent? I was speaking of ancient Europe in my responses, not modern Europe, and I see no reason to disagree with you about Europe's perceived lack of any success in the last 100 years. If you want to be accurate, I'm a pretentious Australian. Don't tar Europeans in an attempt to attack me. It's not like they've said anything here to deserve it.

whoman69

on Dec 21, 2004

His house wasn't burning against the Japanese, it was ours. Churchill was certainly in a better position to ignore the Japanese than we were to ignore the Nazis.

hitparade

on Dec 21, 2004

There is nothing new in old Europe viewing Americans as arrogant. Europe has a long history of doing so, and I, as an American, for one wholeheartedly agree that we Americans are indeed an arrogant bunch-- even to a fault: i.e., every American who died on foreign soil in defense of the liberty and freedoms of some other fella, who was a complete stranger no less, might by some be considered a fault.

It was indeed an arrogant thing when the founding fathers of America challenged the old order of Europe, and declared the ideal of individual liberty, born out of the rugged wilderness of the new world. Yes, it was indeed an arrogant thing of Americans to declare independence from the colonial rule of England, and promulgate that We Americans “hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal….” Yes, t was indeed an arrogant thing when the great American patriot, Patrick Henry, declared in March, 1775, in The War Inevitable, that: “ I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Yes, it is indeed true that We Americans are an arrogant bunch. So I ask the world: in light of all of America’s conceded arrogance, is the world indeed a better thing-- place?

Being merely of this earth, I don’t know the answer to that question, but I do know that for me America is a noble thing indeed. So while I will plead guilty to being born in a Nation of arrogant men& women, I will not ever concede that we are selfish with our arrogance. Just go ask the living relatives of 19,000 arrogant Americans who died in Europe’s war at the battle of the bulge, and every other American who has arrogantly died for some other guy he doesn’t even know. It is not we Americans who are arrogant, but our ideals that are arrogant. Freedom is not only an arrogant thing, but is also a noble thing indeed. I for one am so very grateful that the consciousness that I am was born here in America. My only regret about being born an American is that I only wish I was born 125 plus years earlier when the West was still wild, and rugged individualism carried the day.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!