Rightwinger Rightwinger

Us arrogant Americans

▼

Us arrogant Americans

from JoeUser Forums
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.
politics
13,881 views 40 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

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.

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
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 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.
Reply #29 from PolMach Forums Top
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.


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.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #33 from PolMach Forums Top


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.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top




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.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

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,

Amd catholic liberal says this without a trace of irony.

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.


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.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Double post deleted.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.

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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.


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.