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 3)

Draginol

on Dec 22, 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.

And here I thought Australia, Singapore, and goodly chunks of the Pacific were part of the British Empire / Commonwealth. Silly me. Meanwhile, yes, the US base of Guam was occupied. Our house wasn't on fire, maybe our mailbox.

But regardless, anyone arguing that Britain was a major contributor in the Pacific war is..well ignorant of history. Britain was essential in Europe. Without Churchill the world would be a much poorer place. But the Japanese were doomed the moment they attacked Pearl Harbor.

Ultimately, by August 1945, World War II was going to come to an end one way or the other. Because at that point, those B-29s and B-17s would have been dropping Atomic bombs on any aggressive powers. It is fortunate for Germany that they surrendered prior to that date.

Rightwinger

on Dec 22, 2004

Without Churchill the world would be a much poorer place. But the Japanese were doomed the moment they attacked Pearl Harbor.
Ultimately, by August 1945, World War II was going to come to an end one way or the other. Because at that point, those B-29s and B-17s would have been dropping Atomic bombs on any aggressive powers. It is fortunate for Germany that they surrendered prior to that date.

I agree whole-heartedly, especially about Chrurchill.....he was the only one in British politics in the 30s who was warning that the world should be watching Hitler. Everyone else was either ignoring him or thinking he was just another German do-nothing politican.
Churchill had a network of private spies and informants in Germany all during the late 1920's and the 30s, keeping him up on what was going on. He knew his shit.

Berlin was actually chosen as the site for the first combat use of the atom bomb. They were, indeed fortunate.
Of course, by 1945, the entire country looked pretty much like A-bombs had been dropped everywhere, so were they really all that fortunate? All the Bomb would have done was blow around and irradiate the rubble.

catholic libral

on Dec 22, 2004

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

20 years? dude, we were in vietnam from 1965-1972. do you know how to count rightwinger?thats 7 years, count it. oh, and we didnt send military aid(as in cash, equipment) to france till like 1952 or something. and dont tell me you stick up for the french overlording over indochina, what they were doing to vietnam could be compared to the way england used the us during the revolutionary era.yeah we did lose alot of good guys over there. dont u ever say I dont care about the casualties. i should know, my 3 uncles served over there, and 2 of them are dead, thank yuo very much.

He was a worse murderer than Hitler, but we needed him.

true, very true, but u forget what motivated the killing. hitler killed in the name of eliminating entire groups of people that he considered "subhuman". hitler was motivated by hate and prejudism. stalin killed because he was a paranoid dickhead who was scared of the dark. oh, by the way, who was it that entered berlin and aprehended those sobs in their own captital?us? or was it the ruskies?and stalin also didnt start a war that killed over 20 million people from all over the world, it was the fascists.

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.

yeah?well why dont we finish the job we started over their and liberate those poor north koreans?that bastard kim jong holds an iron grip over those people, and doesnt care about their pain and suffering.and plus, he got wmds, and hes publically stated that whenever he wants hes gonna bomb the south into the apocalypse. this peace has been quite beneficial, hasnt it rightwinger?

To "catholic libral"....hmm, and here i always though one got a better education in parochial schools. Not only is your understanding of history totally distorted, you even seem challenged in the spelling of your own blogging name. Its "liberal' Not libral.

this is why i dont like arguing with u conservatives. you always got to go all personal and start saying insults eh? this is why the world hates americans, because we got to go and insult them all. treat people as you want to be treated, did you ever hear that little whip? i would appreciate if u would debate and discuss your points withought having to turn to calling names and insulting others. if i wasnt such a considerate person, i would probably tell you watch your damn tongue you fucking fascist pig, but alas, i want to have a civilized discussion with good people. please have some more respect towards others is all im asking.

drmiler

on Dec 22, 2004

Reply #35 By: catholic libral - 12/22/2004 5:09:27 PM

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

20 years? dude, we were in vietnam from 1965-1972. do you know how to count rightwinger?thats 7 years, count it. oh, and we didnt send military aid(as in cash, equipment) to france till like 1952 or something. and dont tell me you stick up for the french overlording over indochina, what they were doing to vietnam could be compared to the way england used the us during the revolutionary era.yeah we did lose alot of good guys over there. dont u ever say I dont care about the casualties. i should know, my 3 uncles served over there, and 2 of them are dead, thank yuo very much.

Guess again mr catholic liberal.Do a google search before you say something for certain. I have. Americans first landed in Vietnam as observers in 1957 under Eisenhower. So that puts the 20yr thing back in play as the right answer.

drmiler

on Dec 22, 2004

Reply #35 By: catholic libral - 12/22/2004 5:09:27 PM
oh, by the way, who was it that entered berlin and aprehended those sobs in their own captital?us? or was it the ruskies?

Actually it was both of us. Which is one of the reasons there was an east AND west Berlin.

Draginol

on Dec 22, 2004

Amd catholic liberal says this without a trace of irony.

cactoblasta

on Dec 22, 2004

They were, but as you are obviously well aware, British imperial troops had better things to do than defend colonies whose goods were too vulnerable to attack from German U-boats. That's why the war in the Pacific was largely left to ANZAC and local defence militias rather than the British Army. It also explains why the Japanese faced so little resistance on their push south; with only small armies of British-led militias and a handful of Aussie and NZ troops, there wasn't that much that could be done.

Rightwinger

on Dec 23, 2004

Double post deleted.

Rightwinger

on Dec 23, 2004

Catholic lib---I said "twenty years" as a way to convey a span of two decades, but the "20 years" still holds. You're referring to the ACTUAL war we were involved in, after the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Incident, when Congress let the (*cough* democrat *cough*) president get us into it full-force and gave him the free hand he wanted. (I wish you libs would stop pretending Bush was the first president to do someting "underhanded" to get us into a foreign war. A North Vietnamese gunboat attacked an American destroyer...kind of like the equivalent of a horsefly biting an elephant.....and BADA-BING! we were in the war)
drmilier is right....we started aiding them in '57 as observers and "advisors" (no combat, right? Sure......) but we were there as early as '53 or '54, actually, Eisenhower having sent emissaries to look into the French's problems in the area.

And does the motivation make the innocent people any less dead?
Yes, Adolf Hitler was a sociopathic monster who caused the deaths, through war and official Nazi policies, of 20 or more million people around the world.
Stalin, however, was responsible for 30 or more million deaths IN HIS OWN COUNTRY, perpertrated on HIS OWN PEOPLE. In the name of official Soviet policy. Who's worse? Hitler, right? Because he was a reactionary Rightie and the Left always falls into line in the defense of the Communists?? Nice reasoning. I think you need to read Myrrander's recent post (never thought I'd hear myself say that) "Communism's Death Toll", and get yourself some edyoumakation.
And just FYI, Patton badly wanted to push all the way to Berlin , which was well within the reach of his Third Army, and take it before the Russians, but Eisenhower, under orders from Churchill, told him to stop and let the Russians have it, for political reasons.

Because we signed a cease-fire agreement with them 51 years ago, and have to this very day honored it to the letter. Let them break it. The poor North Koreans are totally unaware that they're the bad guys. Kim Jong Il, their "Beloved Leader", has them completely brainwashed into thinking that we're coming to get them at any moment and that they should hate us, which they do, with a passion.
He tells them that America is a nation of concentration camps and everyday political assassination. A nation where the government regularly executes or starves its citizens to death. Does that sound familiar, CL? It sounds like North Korea to me.
Yes, they need liberation, which may happen at some point in the future, but not unless they move first, as it should be, and Kim isn't going to do that because he's nothing but a full-of-shit poseur. And his nukes he's so proud of?
That squinty-eyed jerkoff isn't going to use his pissy little nulcear arsenal at any point in the near future, because he knows damn well that for every one that he lobs at Seoul or Tokyo, or especially LA or San Francisco, we could be throwing back ten or twenty. In less than an hour his country would be about a million or two years more backward than it already is. This would put a serious dent in his personal power. Besides, we've still got China holding his leash.

You know, I might have agreed with you here, because I, myself, try to avoid getting personal, but you're so self-righteous, smug and hateful that you deserved it. And you're often completely unaware of the true, historical facts in many places. And, like soooo many liberals, you seem to miss the big picture entirely. Learn to spell and to use caps and punctuation if you want to write on these forums, for God's sake. It may get you more respect.

God bless your uncles....I have nothing but respect for Vietnam veterans (all veterans and service people, actually), and always make the effort to shake hands and thank them for their service.

Rightwinger

on Dec 23, 2004

This is true.....my ex-father-in-law, a, a proud veteran of the war in the Pacific, always said "without the Aussies and the damn rat-eaters (Filipinos

), we'd have lost the War in the South Pacific They both fought like hell". He was very racist, and had little trust for foreigners, but had nothing but praise for those two peoples.

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!