France is our friend again.

[moeur]

It looks as if the people of France have come to their senses and elected a sensible man as president
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/eu...ion/index.html

The liberal opposition, in true form, rioted when they didn't get their way.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/eu...eut/index.html

This is something that I have begun to associate with liberals. When they can't get their way in fair Democratic elections they try to take it by other means.

Welcome back to sanity France!

[Valleysboy1978]

Typical of French liberals especially. If they don't get their way they attack the police. It's hardly their fault!
I for one am happy he's in power because France will continue to shrink in importance on the world stage. I mean seriously, considering they consider the UK inferior to them, how is it that thousands of professional French workers are emigrating here leaving France with an untrained workforce, unattractive to big investors in business

[Valleysboy1978]

Apparently though the French military has the quickest response time in history, and the training is also the most specific and quickest in the world. Quite impressive!

Of course all they do is surrender at the first sign of trouble

[vbNeo]

I never disliked France.

[nemaroller]

It looks as if the people of France have come to their senses and elected a sensible man as president
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/eu...ion/index.html

The liberal opposition, in true form, rioted when they didn't get their way.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/eu...eut/index.html

This is something that I have begun to associate with liberals. When they can't get their way in fair Democratic elections they try to take it by other means.

Welcome back to sanity France!

Now we just need to hope he can reverse the French slide to socialism.

[moeur]

Americans secretly like the French people. We like to listen to their accents.

[Shaggy Hiker]

They've been the butt of jokes since at least the 1940's.

By the way, I'm reading about the Terror at the moment. I don't think France ever really recovered. This guy just won because of basic xenophobia. Without that push, he wouldn't have made it. That's ok, unless it begins to rule his government.

[FunkyDexter]

They've been the butt of jokes

Hurr Hurr, you said Butt.

I don't understand why anyone would think that someone cannot be their freind unless they share the same politics.

[moeur]

Friends help each other.

[Shaggy Hiker]

France isn't going to help us, they just won't be quite as vocal in opposition.

A friend is someone who will help you move. A good friend is someone who will help you move a body.

France is not a good friend, and we only really need good friends now.

[FunkyDexter]

Friends help each other.

...with ...Wars of Independence, for example.

...thanks for helping both us and France in the Suez crisis by the way. Oh wait, you didn't.

[Xanith]

...with ...Wars of Independence, for example.

...thanks for helping both us and France in the Suez crisis by the way. Oh wait, you didn't.

At the time of the Suez Crisis the Soviets were ruthlessly putting down an anti-Communist uprising in Hungary which was more of a concern. Both Britain and France had the help of the Israeli’s in an attempt to hold together their crumbing empires. The US did help broker a cease-fire and a peace before a wider conflict happened. The conflict only lasted a week and all troops were gone from the area within a month. So you are incorrect in your assessment of the Suez Crisis in stating that the US didn’t help, it did, just no military help because it wasn’t necessary as the Soviets didn’t carry through on their threat to intervene on behalf of the Egyptians.

Had the Soviets actually carried through on their threat I am pretty positive the US would have supported both Britain and France, after all the US spent the entirety of the Cold War shielding Europe from the Soviets.
As for the War of Independence, yes France helped us gain our independence from the Brits and spared us from having the Queen on our money and having a boring sport like Cricket as our national game. Thanks France!

X

[MasterBlaster]

...with ...Wars of Independence, for example.

...thanks for helping both us and France in the Suez crisis by the way. Oh wait, you didn't.

WWI, WWII and Vietnam don't count as helping out?

What about turning a flakey piece of tasteless pastry into the hevanly gift known as the "crosandwich"? That is the true dfinition of friendship.

[FunkyDexter]

WWI, WWII and Vietnam don't count as helping out?

I didn't say that and certainly didn't mean to imply it.

So you are incorrect in your assessment of the Suez Crisis in stating that the US didn’t help, it did, just no military help because it wasn’t necessary as the Soviets didn’t carry through on their threat to intervene on behalf of the Egyptians.

The US actively opposed British and French intervention in Suez, seeking and ultimately achieveing UN resolutions to force a ceasefire that France and Britain didn't want. I deliberately used Suez as an example because the American position then was almost exactly the same as the French positon prior to Iraq, the only substantial difference being that the US succeeded where France failed. And yet Brtitain and France continued to view the US as their freinds - just freinds that were disagreeing with them on the current issue.

In contrast, when France opposed the US on Iraq, you guys started boycotting Frech stores and renaming French Fries (which are correctly referred to as "Chips", by the way ) "Freedom Fries". All of which made you look a bit silly, frankly.

[nemaroller]

In contrast, when France opposed the US on Iraq, you guys started boycotting Frech stores and renaming French Fries (which are correctly referred to as "Chips", by the way ) "Freedom Fries". All of which made you look a bit silly, frankly.

We have a proud history of strong reactions (from Wikipedia):
'Politically-motivated euphemism[s] like this is reminiscent of anti-German sentiment during the First World War, when sauerkraut was renamed as liberty cabbage, dachshunds (wiener dogs) as liberty pups, frankfurters as hot dogs, and hamburgers as liberty steaks or Salisbury steaks. Even the German measles were instead called liberty measles. [9] This similarity is intentional: Rowland described a conversation about these renamed foods during World War I as the inspiration for "freedom fries". [10]'

But, we most likely inherited that funniness from guess who? That's right...

'United Kingdom: During World War I, the German Shepherd was renamed the Alsatian and German biscuits were renamed Empire biscuits due to strong anti-German sentiment.'

See, we still have a strong British influence in our country

(Of course, no one calls fried potato sticks 'Freedom Fries', since only Congressional legislators labeled them as such - and it never stuck.)

[FunkyDexter]

sauerkraut was renamed as liberty cabbage, dachshunds (wiener dogs) as liberty pups, frankfurters as hot dogs, and hamburgers as liberty steaks or Salisbury steaks. Even the German measles were instead called liberty measles.

I'd never heard those before. Do you reckon Liberty pup wears tight spandex shorts and a cape?

from guess who? That's right...

Guilty as charged but the difference is that we (and you) were fighting against the Germans in WWI - that's a fairly good reason for declaring someone isn't your freind (it pretty much goes without saying in fact). The French weren't fighting against you in Iraq, they just weren't fighting with you.

only Congressional legislators labeled them as such

You mean it was an "official" thing I just thought it was some crackpot burger bar owners. Just goes to show what I've always believe:, your people are posessed of alot more sanity than your politicians.

edit> By the end of this thread I may just remember that freind is spelt friend.

[MasterBlaster]

In contrast, when France opposed the US on Iraq, you guys started boycotting Frech stores and renaming French Fries (which are correctly referred to as "Chips", by the way ) "Freedom Fries". All of which made you look a bit silly, frankly.

I've only heard the words Freedom Fries used in jest to mock the stupidity of the jackarse who thought of it. Chips are different than french fries. In the US, chips are called jo jo's if seasoned cajun style or potato wedges. Chips are larger than french fries with a deliciously fried crisp golden outside and a wonderfully soft potato inside. French fries are thin strips of potato that are chemically transformed from potato to burnt lard held together by the remnants of the starch from the spud.

WTH is a German biscuit?

[penagate]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_biscuit

[Valleysboy1978]

WWI, WWII and Vietnam don't count as helping out?

No. The US considered WWII a "European Conflict" until Japan bloodied its nose a bit in Pearl Harbour. The US would have been happy to see the UK, and the rest of Europe with it, be conquered by Nazi Germany. Some friends.

[MasterBlaster]

No. The US considered WWII a "European Conflict" until Japan bloodied its nose a bit in Pearl Harbour. The US would have been happy to see the UK, and the rest of Europe with it, be conquered by Nazi Germany. Some friends.

Tell that to three of my Grandmothers brothers. Wait, you cant. Two are under six feet of dirt and a white cross in France and the other went down over Germany and was never found. If we hadn't been supplying your troops before we actually got our troops involved, there would have been no reason for Japan to attack the US. BTW I'll be sure to tell my nan that her brothers weren't good friends of england or france. I'm sure that will make her day knowing that it was only a european war.

Honestly, in hindsite, it may not have been a bad Idea to let germany take over europe. At least your dental program would be better.

[moeur]

The US would have been happy to see the UK, and the rest of Europe with it, be conquered by Nazi Germany.

There is no evidence what so ever that this statement is true. I guess it could even be called a lie; or maybe just propaganda. Valleysboy, why do you spread such vicious propaganda?

Then as now there were anti-war activists, but the President saw the good that he could do by taking the country to war so he did.

[MasterBlaster]

I believe the term you're looking for is Bullsheit, Of course I may offend someone by saying that so I will translate it to the english version "MadCowsheit".

[Shaggy Hiker]

Actually, both positions are right (as usually happens in this country, since political division is nothing new). There were VERY strong pro-German sentiments in the US, including the anti-semitism which was strong in the US, too. One notable American hero was a strong Nazi supporter prior to the war (lindberg), and toured Germany. There was also a large contingent that was completely isolationist without regard to any other issues: They just wanted to stay home and not deal with anybody else's issues.

On the other hand, there was a strong pro-British contingent, and Roosevelt felt quite strongly that we should be fighting the Germans. He could easily have lost this argument had the Germans not put their foot in it to some extent, but he was also actively helping the Brits, even without war being declared.

As for Japan, I don't think the war with Germany really caused that. I think it was primarily a Japanese perception that the US was going to keep expanding its influence to the extent that a small island nation like Japan would ultimately and deliberately, be smothered. They attacked out of a feeling of economic desperation, which was possibly correct, or possibly mistaken.

[MasterBlaster]

Actually, both positions are right (as usually happens in this country, since political division is nothing new). There were VERY strong pro-German sentiments in the US, including the anti-semitism which was strong in the US, too. One notable American hero was a strong Nazi supporter prior to the war (lindberg), and toured Germany. There was also a large contingent that was completely isolationist without regard to any other issues: They just wanted to stay home and not deal with anybody else's issues.

On the other hand, there was a strong pro-British contingent, and Roosevelt felt quite strongly that we should be fighting the Germans. He could easily have lost this argument had the Germans not put their foot in it to some extent, but he was also actively helping the Brits, even without war being declared.

As for Japan, I don't think the war with Germany really caused that. I think it was primarily a Japanese perception that the US was going to keep expanding its influence to the extent that a small island nation like Japan would ultimately and deliberately, be smothered. They attacked out of a feeling of economic desperation, which was possibly correct, or possibly mistaken.

Japans excuse for destroying the US pacific fleet was: Since the US felt the need to use it's atlantic fleet to support a war against a nation expanding it's borders, It would do the same with its pacific fleet to stop Japan from taking over the pacific Islands. Japan was overcrowded and lacked the resources to sustain it's self, so they decided to invade their neighbors.

It was a preemptive strike based on our past behaviour of supporting England and France.

[vbNeo]

What I don't understand with all of this is that the US keeps fighting somebody elses war.

I can't say I'm not grateful for the help they gave Europe during both the first and the second world war, and after that the cold war - and believe me, many europeans feel this way.

What confuses me though is that, it seems the like the US is a pretty messed up country the way it is right now, there's a huge gap between rich and poor, and it seems like emergency infrastructure doesn't even function as it's supposed to(Like with the hurricane in New Orleans).

The US army spends such a vast amount of money fighting wars abroad, whilst it seems like there's one to be fought at home. That's just the view of an outsider though, I don't know how you Americans look at this?

(I appologize for the sudden topic switch BTW, just got me thinking when reading the pro/cons of a US/French alliance )

[MasterBlaster]

What I don't understand with all of this is that the US keeps fighting somebody elses war.

I can't say I'm not grateful for the help they gave Europe during both the first and the second world war, and after that the cold war - and believe me, many europeans feel this way.

I don't understand it either. I definatly don't agree with it. For some reason the rest of the world thinks the US owes them something and the US government feels the need to honor that..

What confuses me though is that, it seems the like the US is a pretty messed up country the way it is right now, there's a huge gap between rich and poor, and it seems like emergency infrastructure doesn't even function as it's supposed to(Like with the hurricane in New Orleans).

There is a gap because ther are a bunch of lazy basterds in the US. Any one can get rich in this country, but it requires work. They didn't call New Orleans the "Big Easy" for nothing. They had years notice and were given the funds to fix the levy. Guess what, a bunch of lazy basterds elected a bunch of lazy basterds and it never got built.

The US army spends such a vast amount of money fighting wars abroad, whilst it seems like there's one to be fought at home. That's just the view of an outsider though, I don't know how you Americans look at this?

(I appologize for the sudden topic switch BTW, just got me thinking when reading the pro/cons of a US/French alliance )

It's a view of a lot of insiders as well.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I don't understand it either. I definatly don't agree with it. For some reason the rest of the world thinks the US owes them something and the US government feels the need to honor that..

Do you really think that we, with our internationally dependent economy, would stay out of other peoples business? This country isn't self sustaining, and is pushing hard to become less so. When much food comes from oversea, most of our energy resources come from oversea, much of our wealth comes from oversea industry, etc., then the policy of the government will be interventionist. Prior to WWII, this was explicitly so, with wars and influence being overtly directed towards proping up the economic interests of those who greased the wheels of government. It was the accepted role of a government to support the economy, which meant the support of those groups seen as being crucial pieces of the economy. Since those groups were largely self-identified, they called the tune.

There is a gap because ther are a bunch of lazy basterds in the US. Any one can get rich in this country, but it requires work.

That's mostly a myth. You need MUCH more than just hard work, few people without a college degree end up wealthy, but those that do are held up as examples to support a myth that was never true. I had crews of hard working people. Not a one of them was wealthy, nor would they ever be, no matter how hard they worked. They lacked the skills necessary to get good paying jobs, but worse, they lacked the skills necessary to acquire the skills necessary to get better jobs.

They didn't call New Orleans the "Big Easy" for nothing. They had years notice and were given the funds to fix the levy.

They were never actually given the money to do the job. They usually didn't even get promises, then what was built was built wrong. The ACE has acknowledged that it built the levies wrong, and that the whole Katrina thing was a man-made disaster resulting from incompetence and bad design. Of course, this was mostly known before the storm hit, but it was, and will always be, easier for an elected politician to hope that the bill doesn't come due on their watch.

And look, it hasn't!! Who has paid the price for the mistakes that were made? NOBODY! One FEMA director was fired, then hired back as a contractor, and he certainly had nothing to do with the poor design. How about the politicians? Well, they got re-elected, except for Bush, who can't run again. NOBODY paid, so good lesson will be learned. It wasn't a question of laziness, it was simple economics.


This happened after hurricane Andrew, as well. The simple truth is that plenty of people are smart enough to realize that they can cut costs, and never pay for it. It happened before Katrina, it happened during Katrina, and if you have been following the reconstruction efforts, you know that it is happening again. The lessons were learned: You won't pay any price for cutting corners.

[MasterBlaster]

Do you really think that we, with our internationally dependent economy, would stay out of other peoples business? This country isn't self sustaining, and is pushing hard to become less so. When much food comes from oversea, most of our energy resources come from oversea, much of our wealth comes from oversea industry, etc., then the policy of the government will be interventionist. Prior to WWII, this was explicitly so, with wars and influence being overtly directed towards proping up the economic interests of those who greased the wheels of government. It was the accepted role of a government to support the economy, which meant the support of those groups seen as being crucial pieces of the economy. Since those groups were largely self-identified, they called the tune.

I never said it wasn't true and completly understand why it happened. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

That's mostly a myth. You need MUCH more than just hard work, few people without a college degree end up wealthy, but those that do are held up as examples to support a myth that was never true. I had crews of hard working people. Not a one of them was wealthy, nor would they ever be, no matter how hard they worked. They lacked the skills necessary to get good paying jobs, but worse, they lacked the skills necessary to acquire the skills necessary to get better jobs.

I've heard that goddamn sob story my entire life. If they were working hard they would be making enough to at least afford to go to school part time. And even if they can't afford it, anyone can go to a community college basically free on loans and grants, or join the military and get their tuition paid. There are always ways. People are to damn lazy to look for them. You mean to tell me that the people on your crews can't read? Last I heard the public library was still free and is full of books on how to make an arseload of money in a capitalist society. I seem to remember learning the dewey decimal system in the "second fooking grade" I had $0 at the age of 17 and am almost ready to retire at the age of 33. They don't lack skills, they lack the motivation and initative to take personal responsability for their financial future. The sad part Is, my taxes are paying for these dirtbags when they retire.

They were never actually given the money to do the job. They usually didn't even get promises, then what was built was built wrong. The ACE has acknowledged that it built the levies wrong, and that the whole Katrina thing was a man-made disaster resulting from incompetence and bad design. Of course, this was mostly known before the storm hit, but it was, and will always be, easier for an elected politician to hope that the bill doesn't come due on their watch.

You are quite mistaken. They were given the money to start the construction by the federal government in 1999 or 2000. The govenor decided to use the money to invest in tourism infrastructure instead.

And look, it hasn't!! Who has paid the price for the mistakes that were made? NOBODY! One FEMA director was fired, then hired back as a contractor, and he certainly had nothing to do with the poor design. How about the politicians? Well, they got re-elected, except for Bush, who can't run again. NOBODY paid, so good lesson will be learned. It wasn't a question of laziness, it was simple economics.

The people who were responsible for electing idiots have paid the price for the mistakes THEY made.

[vbNeo]

The people who were responsible for electing idiots have paid the price for the mistakes THEY made.

What about those who voted for the other guy? .

It's an interesting discussion however. In Denmark we have a bit more of a socialist approach to liberalism than you guys have in the US. We see it in somewhat high taxes(50% of our salary isn't abnormal), however, this just means the government has that much more money to play around with - which in our case paid off.

Anyone here has exactly the same freedom as you have in the states, and if anything, we get money if we want to start our own business etc.

We have a working health care system, where treatment doesn't cost a dime, education is free as well and by the end of the day there's still enough money for seniors and people on disability.

On top of all this we have a very(and I mean veery) large middle class, which means the gap between rich and poor isn't that big.

I'm not saying Denmark is a paradise, but it's getting there, and of course it took a lot of hard work, but I suppose social liberalism as we have it here is somewhat hindered by the US constitution, or maybe not?

Anyways, I use Denmark as an example because I live here of course, but also because I haven't see anything work better anywhere else. It may be that it's just because we're a smaller country, and as such we're easier to govern, but wouldn't a larger country just mean more natural ressourcers and work power?

Any thoughts on this from you guys?

[MasterBlaster]

Any thoughts on this from you guys?

Yes, If the government wanted 50% of my hard earned money, they would have to take it out of my cold dead hands. I'm already miffed about the 30% they already take and waste. Lucilly we can write a chunk of that off by investing in things the government approves of and donating it to charities that we believe in. Infact some of the environmental groups I donated to actually scored a nice win last week in puget sound! It's absolutly awesome to know that if people believe in something and take action instead of complaining things can get done.

Socialism breeds lazyness. People become too dependant on the governement and loose the ability to provide for themselvs. Once they loose that ability they loose their own humanity. I don't know about you but there are only a handfull of people I would unquestionably trust with my life and there definatly ain't a single politician on that list. Is there one on yours?

[vbNeo]

Socialism breeds lazyness? Seems like a rather onesided view of things.

I'm not lazy, in fact I just busted my ass off this week getting an 80 pages report done, and so did 20 of my class mates. From what I've heard around the world, people are generally fond of Danes because we're not afraid to lend a hand when one is needed, we're good at taking initiative and action when needed.

I didn't say we were socialists, I said we were social liberalists. In my opinion we've found the golden middle road. I happily pay my taxes because I know it pays for my education, and I'll keep paying them happily because if I one day end up getting sick, or one of my loved ones do, I KNOW society will kick in and help out.

I'm pretty much with shaggy on this one. Forging your own luck is all good in theory and all, but practically I really don't find it that good; by helping each other, we can help society become stronger than if it was every man for himself.

[System_Error]

Any thoughts on this from you guys?

Yeah, it sucks. Take off the rose colored lenses.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I've heard that goddamn sob story my entire life.

I think we've had this discussion before. I didn't include the rest of your post, because something was going really wrong with the quoting, and I had no idea what would actually show up.

With these people, it was very much a lack of something, and it was neither effort nor money. It was a lack on dreams. They never considered the possibility that there could be more to life that the narrow path they were told about. We all do that to some extent. I never considered any options other than college. It wasn't that there was any pressure to go to college, it was just such a "given" that I never considered that college was optional until long after I was out. Grad school was optional, and I took the option, but college was not. For those workers, they never recognized that they had other options until, generally, it was too late.

The longer I live, the more I think that it is the real exceptional individual who breaks beyond the bounds that are set for them by the society (at a family or friend level, not general community level) they grow up in.

If you can retire in your early thirties, well, what of it? I chose a career that was unlikely to make me wealthy. Most people (except city folks) are a bit jealous of my day to day activities, but on the other hand, I'll never be rich, either. Maybe this was also a result of growing up so comfortably: My objectives were not material wealth (I could always assume sufficiency, though not wealth), but other goals. Those gals (the crew I refer to was almost exclusively female) were raised to a different goal (need I say what it was?), and achieved it. It wasn't a matter of lazy for them, they were successful by the measure they were raised to value, so was I. They will never be rich, and I probably won't either, but it isn't out of laziness, just different values.

You are quite mistaken. They were given the money to start the construction by the federal government in 1999 or 2000. The govenor decided to use the money to invest in tourism infrastructure instead.

Care to add a citation for that? It is not consistent with what I heard.

The people who were responsible for electing idiots have paid the price for the mistakes THEY made.

Oh, now we elect the ACE? And are you suggesting that the idiots you elect are better? Blaming people for their own misfortune is a wonderful way of absolving yourself of any responsibility. You are effectively saying that they suffer because they deserve it. That's absurd in this case. The people didn't vote in an engineering failure.


I'm glad you're proud of your own accomplishments, but you gain no respect from me by casually classifying whole categories of people as lazy and stupid because they have not your glorious radiance. You yourself, despite all your accomplishments, are no more than the roll of the dice away from the gutter.

[vbNeo]

Yeah, it sucks. Take off the rose colored lenses.

Hey, it's your country :P putting words in your mouth would just give me an offensive reaction.

[System_Error]

Hey, it's your country :P putting words in your mouth would just give me an offensive reaction.

I was speaking of the 50% tax and shared trust idea The world will only become a better place when I take it over

[vbNeo]

I was speaking of the 50% tax and shared trust idea The world will only become a better place when I take it over

It's not an idea, it's how it works here... But yea, I guess you taking over the world would make it a better place anyway, so who cares?

(Can I have Florida?)

[System_Error]

It's not an idea, it's how it works here... But yea, I guess you taking over the world would make it a better place anyway, so who cares?

How a country is run is really out of the small peoples control, so it's something I don't give a crap about (but I love to complain and criticize). But who cares, just like you said.

(Can I have Florida?)

I hope you like water

[FunkyDexter]

From where I sit (Britain) the Sandinavian countries seem to have it just about right. They consistently score amongst the highest countries in the world for healthcare and eduction and amongst the lowest for crime and poverty. They have an exellent public transport system and chuck out some pretty good furniture too (though frankly the things you guys'll do to a pilchard just don't bear thinking about).

You can argue that social liberalism makes for laziness but the Sandinavian countries would seem to provide an example that proves you wrong, I just did a quick calculation based on the GDP and population figures on Wikkipoedia and US gave a GDP/head of 0.043. Sweden gave 0.042 and Denmark gave (drumroll) 0.05 (pat yourself on the back, VBNeo). I don't know how acurate those figures are and in particular the GDP list has a caveat that the figures need updating but I think they provide an indication that the Scandinavians are, at the very least, as industrious as the US and are quite possible more so.

On the downside The Northern Sanidnavian counties (ie Norway, Sweden and Finland) have disturbingly high suicide rates but it's geneally reconised that this is more to do with the six month long nights causing depression once you move North of the Arctic circle than to do with any socio-political reasons. Personally I reckon the predeliction for dodgy death metal might have something to do with it too

There seems to be a growing trend in the US to condemn compassion as some kind of weakness. I think that's a) a shame and b) pretty frightening in the most militarily powerful country on earth.




NB The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour had absolutely nothing to do with preventing US from supplying Europe. The Japanese recognised that the US would oppose any Japanese expansion in the Pacific for the same reason that they would have (and had, dimplomatically) opposed the Europen powers expandng in the Pacific: because it would have threatened US dominance in the theatre. You'd already wrangled over Japanese expansionism in China during the Sino-Japanese war and the Japanese knew exactly what your position would be.

The US's entry into WW2 wasn't some act of generosityand brotherhood towards you poor beleagured European cousins, it was an act of reprisal and self interest when you found yourself under attack. That's not condemnation, it's the same reason we all entered the war: because we felt threatened. We realised that the war was bigger than any single nation and, if we didn't fight, we'd eventually be swallowed up. Britain and France came to that realisation in '39 because it was right on their doorstep. For the US the situation was remote so it's hardly surprising that it took you until '41 to realise how great the threat was.

Another criticism that's often levelled at the US is that they profitted from the war. They did, but we'd have done the same. If you want an idea of how the British would have behaved if the threat had been distant enough for us to ignore it for a few years you only need to look at our behaviour throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, the Napoleonic period in particular. We constantly took advantage of European conflicts to grab any colonial holdings any other European nation had while they were busy fighting each other, all the time secure from direct attack ourselves.

Nations are made up of individuals and individuls are self interested. They make a profit when they can and avoid getting involved in other peoples problems until they have to.

[nemaroller]

What confuses me though is that, it seems the like the US is a pretty messed up country the way it is right now, there's a huge gap between rich and poor, and it seems like emergency infrastructure doesn't even function as it's supposed to(Like with the hurricane in New Orleans).

The US army spends such a vast amount of money fighting wars abroad, whilst it seems like there's one to be fought at home. That's just the view of an outsider though, I don't know how you Americans look at this?

(I appologize for the sudden topic switch BTW, just got me thinking when reading the pro/cons of a US/French alliance )

Frankly, I don't see a 'gap' between rich and poor as being a problem.

You have understand vbNeo - some people don't really care how much money they make. I know that might sound foreign to you, but as long as people can have enough to eat - and have decent clothes - that's a quality life for them. My uncle did nothing but sell cars and chase girls all his life. He's flat broke. But he thinks he had the best life of all. A person that knows him thinks he's wasted his life. Who's wrong, who's right?

Say I have a $260,000 house, and someone builds a $5,000,000 dollar house next door. Am I supposed to feel poor now - should I complain to the government that I'm obviously not getting mine? Should I believe the next door neighbor should pay more tax as a percentage than me? No, that would be ridiculous. If you feel poor in relation to others - that's your problem and you have to fix it - not the government.

The thing is the 'poor' are a diverse group - you cannot successfully eliminate poverty because 'poverty' exists for entirely different reasons for just about any one individual. I was poor until I was 27 - never made more than $6,000 in one year. But I never felt poor. I had my own computer (i thought i was rich), an apartment I shared with a few friends - I was about as poor as they get. Yet, it was actually one of the best times of my life. If you came to me as an outsider and asked, "Don't you think the rich should pay more of their share so you don't have to be poor?" I would punch you for calling me poor.

Since 2004 - I make just shy of 6 figures - and while I enjoy the luxuries, my life is not all that exciting right now since I have to work so much and I have kids to take care of - and mortagages to pay, and car payments, etc, etc.

So you see, I may not be poor anymore - but I don't feel as alive and free either.


Now, you say you pay 50% tax.
My effective tax rate was just under 15% - and I got a $4,000 refund check from the federal and local government. (I have 3 kids so - I get that).

So let me ask you - Do you feel poor?

(By the way, as far as New Orleans - you don't even know anything about that - not your fault of course - but all the media hyped urban legends upon urban legends without one ounce of proof. Its good for ratings and during a catastrophe - you don't need proof - just a good story).

[Valleysboy1978]

Next time you feel hard done by I'd suggest volunteering at your local hospital for a few hours. Believe me, financial issues are the least of your worries and if what you see doesn't affect you, you don't have a heart.

I myself volunteer when I can (which granted isn't much these days) but the worst was when a 10 year old boy was going into surgery for a triple heart bypass. Kind of put things into perspective