board77

Ara-anna wrote:

I'm sure France, Poland, Austria and the Jews all appreciate that.

If the bulldog hadn't held the hun back, and valiantly weakened it's forces, America would have had a much tougher time of it. OK, so the British didn't manage to advance on the continent until the US came along, but Hitler didn't manage to advance on the US, because Britain got in the way.

Russia (though the USSR was, I admit, a living hell for many) helped too.

Quote:

but Hitler didn't manage to advance on the US, because Britain got in the way.

Britain, and the Atlantic Ocean. I always say the Atlantic Ocean doesn't get enough credit for helping to win WWII.

Faramond wrote:

Quote:

but Hitler didn't manage to advance on the US, because Britain got in the way.

Britain, and the Atlantic Ocean. I always say the Atlantic Ocean doesn't get enough credit for helping to win WWII.

Not to mention Fat Man and Little Boy.

OK I just started reading thyis thread. I don't know if it was pointed out but I think in some places of the world, some people had a good idea of Bush's negative side long before he got elected. I think it stuff that the general US public was unaware so when Americans witnessed it was sort of a shock. I feel very confident saying that george Bush did not know much or care much about foreign policy. THen when September 11th happened the response was well dissapointingly unsurprising. I remember once when he was running for President the first time, he got asked who was the Prime Minister of Pakistan was. He didn't know and maybe to some people it didn't matter since who cares about Pakistan anyway. September 11 th happened, I am sure Bush was practicing how to say "Musharaff" (I don't know how to spell it, me sorry). Some Canadians did a joke on him when Bush was running for President the first time where it was extraordinarily clear that Bush did not know the name of our Prime Minister and on top of that at the time I think Jean Chretien was our Prime minister w for like 6 years so he wasn't new. I mean It's Bush's next door neighbour and largest trading partner!!!
I mean that was a pretty bad sign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Hour_ ... an_Poutine
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2000/03/ ... 00302.html
http://dewit.ca/archs/poutine/index.html

I am sure there is video somewhere but I can't find it!!!

EDIT: after some more thinking about my terrible and very dissapointing experience working in the Ontario Election today .Rather then putting it in a another post, other nations do terrible horrible things (Canada has) yet they are not quite as under the microscrope as the US and that makes it much easier for other countries to sweep things under the rug. About countries helping out other countries it happens yet, it seems after a few decades of history ( or heck even a week) that help is minimized and even ignored, even if it was vital at the time.

Lets just say my work today sort shattered my faith in some older "adults"

OK I read the thread now. Oh dear. I think, Iaavas Saar hit the nail on the head with the US thinking they are the model to the world and they are the freest etc. I think that is the big problem many other parts of the world have with the US.

Also whoa TM what you said about the rest of the world sitting idly by while dictators rise and the US has to quel them, well you know many of the "dictators" were allies when the US supported them and looked the other way when terrible crimes happened . THey only became dictators against "feedom" Once these "Allies" decided not to do what the US wanted. Really stuff about freedom and dictators and the U.S. being the moral police of the world is really truly and honestly about the US protecting their foreign economic interests. Because when a country has a "dictator/ally" which has not much economic value, the U.S. and many other countries don't give a damn *coughRwandacough* Ever heard of the term "Regime change"?. Alot the time that is said in many US speeches that don't get widely publized (sp?) regime change isn't about spreading freedom to repressed countries (although the U.S media and gov't may claim to be), it's really about taking a down a gov't the U.S. dosen't like and installing or supporting a gov't that will be friendly to U.S. interests. The average citizen that has been "liberated by the U.S." they are just as repressed as before if not more. Research the U.S. foreign policy in the mideast. You know Hussein was "friends"/supported by the US right? When a 19 Saudi guys hijack and crash planes into buildings it just has to be Iraq's fault.

I tried very hard to be polite, if it did not show through I am sorry.

Wilma wrote:

I think in some places of the world, some people had a good idea of Bush's negative side long before he got elected.

That includes about 51% of the US itself.

Wilma wrote:

OK I read the thread now. Oh dear. I think, Iaavas Saar hit the nail on the head with the US thinking they are the model to the world and they are the freest etc. I think that is the big problem many other parts of the world have with the US.

Also whoa TM what you said about the rest of the world sitting idly by while dictators rise and the US has to quel them, well you know many of the "dictators" were allies when the US supported them and looked the other way when terrible crimes happened . THey only became dictators against "feedom" Once these "Allies" decided not to do what the US wanted. Really stuff about freedom and dictators and the U.S. being the moral police of the world is really truly and honestly about the US protecting their foreign economic interests. Because when a country has a "dictator/ally" which has not much economic value, the U.S. and many other countries don't give a damn *coughRwandacough* Ever heard of the term "Regime change"?. Alot the time that is said in many US speeches that don't get widely publized (sp?) regime change isn't about spreading freedom to repressed countries (although the U.S media and gov't may claim to be), it's really about taking a down a gov't the U.S. dosen't like and installing or supporting a gov't that will be friendly to U.S. interests. The average citizen that has been "liberated by the U.S." they are just as repressed as before if not more. Research the U.S. foreign policy in the mideast. You know Hussein was "friends"/supported by the US right? When a 19 Saudi guys hijack and crash planes into buildings it just has to be Iraq's fault.

I tried very hard to be polite, if it did not show through I am sorry.

The old maxom during the Reagan years was, "The US were late for WW1, late for WW2, but plan on being bang on time for WW3."

I'd say these days they're planning on being early.

The US has only been a "superpower" for about 60 years. I wouldn't get all worked up about it. How much longer can that status last? How long was the British Empire a superpower? (Yes, I'm ignorant, I really don't know!) The Soviet Union didn't last long as a superpower. How long can the US retain the status with dwindling natural resources?

My point is that right now, the US is still a major influence on the rest of the world. For now. It won't last long. A couple of decades or a couple of centuries and someone else will be the big dog. The US hasn't been big scary superpower for the length of a single long human life yet. Either way we won't have made as much of a splash in history as the Roman Empire. We are just a flash in the pan so far.

The British Empire lasted quite a while...

It was the largest empire in history...

It's origins are wayyy back in 1496, when they discovered Canada (looking for Asia). Of course, for me, it's conquest began back in the 11th century when they took my country, but that's just me.

[quote = "Wikipedia"]By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world's population. It covered about 36.6 million km² (14.2 million square miles), about a quarter of Earth's total land area. As a result, its legacy is widespread, in legal and governmental systems, economic practice, militarily, educational systems, sports (such as cricket, rugby and football), and in the global spread of the English language. At the peak of its power, it was often said that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous colonies or subject nations.[/quote]

In the fifty years after WW2, most of the Empire gained independence.
The British Empire ended realistically in 1997, when Hong Kong gained independence, but there are still 14 overseas territories that recognise British sovereignty.

You didn't offend Wilma I know your heart is in the right place. My posts were emotional and lacked substance.

There is a lot of UK talk and not nearly enough US bashing going on

TheMary wrote:

There is a lot of UK talk and not nearly enough US bashing going on

We could talk about the Spanish empire, which was the biggest of its time (the 16th-17th century), spanned from America (see, I'm talking about America ) to the Philippines and large chunks of Europe, including for some time England as Philip II married Mary Tudor so for a brief spell he was king of England.

The Spanish empire slowly collapsed because it was impossible to maintain such wide-ranging dominions with the communications of the age; also, it was (very) badly managed by the Spanish crown. But bits of it lasted until the end of the 19th century, when the US declared war on Spain and we lost Cuba, the last Spanish possession in America.

"Empires" may last centuries, although their heyday may be brief. I've heard the 20th century referred to as "the American century"; I don't doubt that the US influence will still be felt worldwide for a long time, although it might be that it's starting to wane. I wouldn't know; I'm not an expert in international politics. But it does look as if China is starting to jostle for the position of "most powerful nation on earth".

And a last note on America/the US: I know it's common usage, but my pedant side gets annoyed when the two terms are used interchangeably. It's a failure of the English language not to have a word for "USA citizen" (like "Englishman" for "English person"), because the one used - "American" - is incorrect: Argentinians, Canadians, Mexicans etc. are Americans too, as the word refers to the continent. In Spanish we have a highly useful term - "estadounidense", which means "citizen of the Estados Unidos de America (USA)". I miss such a word in English.

I fairly certain that I had to learn "estadounidense" in Spanish during my four years in high school . To be serious though Ber, you have a very valid point concerning the loose usage of the word American and I never even thought of it until you brought forth your observation .

Man I love history, I just wish I were better at it

I don't know if other languages have a similar word. I guess the way languages evolve, we've had centuries to devise special words for the Chinese, Egyptian, British, German*, French... and the United States is a relatively modern country, so maybe it isn't surprising that there aren't special term for its citizens.

*Germany is a relatively recent country too, as is Italy: until the 19th century both countries were loose associations of states, although they had a sort of national identity, i.e. the idea of "Italian" and "German" existed as a sort of umbrella nationality above that of Bavarians, Tuscans etc.

History is fascinating, isn't it?

Berhael wrote:

I don't know if other languages have a similar word.

How about "Yankee"? I know it's considered slang, but it conveniently fills a void in the language.

One of the problems is that the U.S. doesn't have a name - "United States of America" is a description, not a name. So why don't you come up with one?

In fact, we could have a naming contest right here on this board!

It's telling that there ARE unique names for people from the various states in the US. I'm a Missourian. People from New York are New Yorkers. If you're from Utah, you're a, um, Utovian. Yeah, that's it, Utovian. Those from Wyoming are Wyomites, not to be confused with Sodomites. From Maine you have Maniacs, from New Hampshire, Tax Resisters. Massachusetts produces Chowderheads. No one is actually from Connecticut, thank God.

...

...

And you had better be careful if you try calling a Southerner a Yankee. Them’s fightin’ words.

Let’s see, I don’t guess USAian would work. How about Statesmen! Oh no, GWB disproved that concept.

The thing about the other North and South American countries sharing the name “American” is that they already have their own names. Argentinian, Canadian, Mexican - it may be presumptuous of us (us being US) to use the name American exclusively for ourselves, but is there really any confusion caused by doing so?

I’m perfectly happy to be called a Southerner myself, although there are many places in the world that are “south” that are not the South.

Edit - cross posted with Eru - well, great minds and all ...

I was referred to as "the Yank" when I was in England.
There was no distinction between north and south.
At least I wasn't called the rebel.

Because there are continents called America is no reason people living in the US can't be called Americans. America is at least part of our name. And I am not so sure we named ourselves anyway. People not from this country call us Americans.

Personally I think it is much ado about nuthin.
I couldn't care less. You can call me a Colonist if you want.