Australians Losing Faith In the United States.

dadpad wrote:

dlowan wrote:

dadpad wrote:

We already flogged the welsh.

We did?
When?
How?
Where?

Rugby union world cup pool matche in cardiff about a week ago. Catch up wabbit thats an important cultural victory.

Aaaah, is that all?


We shoulda let them win.....look at who they have for a prince, poor bastards.

dlowan wrote:

dadpad wrote:

dlowan wrote:

dadpad wrote:

We already flogged the welsh.

We did?
When?
How?
Where?

Rugby union world cup pool matche in cardiff about a week ago. Catch up wabbit thats an important cultural victory.

Aaaah, is that all?


We shoulda let them win.....look at who they have for a prince, poor bastards.

That idiot prince is gunna be our king, soon enough! Unless we get rid of him - I'm not too fussy which way!

I think that you don't really believe that the U.S. helped during the second world war.

Finn dAbuzz
Recognition of the exceptional nature of America doesn't require uncritical support. It doesn't require support of any kind, just an honest and intelligent perception of history.

if one lives in a land kept free by American involvement, it is only civil to express some measure of gratitude.

The accurate comment made that without US involvement in WWII, Australia would have fallen to the Japanese is an understandable expression of displeasure with perceived ingratitude.

A very large number of Americans died in fighting a war that took place on foreign soil. Whether or not one is able to acknowledge the altruistic nature of America's involvement,

It is customary for critics of America to totally ignore the most distinquishing aspect of it's actions relative to WWII:

Very funny, mysterman.

You actually seem to be saying that no other country in history has achieved as much as the United States have.

That's really cute.

How many other countries put a man on the moon?
How many other countries developed the cures to so many diseases?

How many other countries had a constitution like ours before us?

How many other countries have accomplished what the US has?

What I mean is,why didnt a country like England, one which has been around for several hundred years,create as much,build as much,or accomplish as much as the US?

I am not saying that other countries havent accomplished anything, but in many ways it seems that the US has lead the world.

Why is that when we are still a young country,compared to the countries of Europe or China?

Shouldnt those countries have done as much or more?

I had spent a lot of time in Australia.( sydney)
Australians are as intellectual as Americans if not more..
Am i wrong?
I stand for your corrective civil response

Vikorr
I don't want gratitude. Just honesty.

If you want to point out the injustices of various countries why don't you concentrate on your own country and point out the attempt to eradicate the people who were in your country before you got there as the U. S . europeans did the the American Indian. Before you point out the injustice of other countries admit to your own first.

I think Australians are at least as intellectual as Americans. And the corollary is true as well I believe.

I think Australians are at least as intellectual as Americans. And the corollary is true as well I believe.

Rabel22

Quote:

I think that you don't really believe that the U.S. helped during the second world war.

You need to clarify who you are talking about.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Finn dAbuzz
Recognition of the exceptional nature of America doesn't require uncritical support. It doesn't require support of any kind, just an honest and intelligent perception of history.

Interesting…this statement contradicts so much of what you have said in the rest of your post…the rest of the post appears to say that you want people to show gratitude, and it appears aimed squarely at those that have criticised the US.

How so? Critcal support does not preclude some measure of gratitude.
Gratitude is not synonomous with support.

The above quote contradicts this :

Quote:

if one lives in a land kept free by American involvement, it is only civil to express some measure of gratitude.

and this :

Quote:

The accurate comment made that without US involvement in WWII, Australia would have fallen to the Japanese is an understandable expression of displeasure with perceived ingratitude.

and this :

Quote:

A very large number of Americans died in fighting a war that took place on foreign soil. Whether or not one is able to acknowledge the altruistic nature of America's involvement,

And this :

Quote:

It is customary for critics of America to totally ignore the most distinquishing aspect of it's actions relative to WWII:

In relation to this :
just an honest and intelligent perception of historyhonest, and intelligent perception of history' would show that America's involvement was not entirely altruistic as you describe it…I'm sure that it had many good and benevolent motives… and altruism isn't one of them or it would have entered the war much, much earlier. The US only declared war on Japan only after Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor.

You are struggling here to maintain some postion I'm not even aware you ever took. I've not described America's involvement in any conflict as entirely altruistic. In fact I have specifically conceded that America's motive have not been entirely altruistic.

I'm not sure what you think altruism means but it's hard to imagine that the US had good and benevolent reasons for entering WWII that were not in some way based on altruism.

Altruism is throwing yourself in front of a bus to push aside a young woman who would otherwise have been killed.

Unless you can mount a credible argument that America throwing itself in front of the WWII bus was a act of pure self-interest, altruism existed.

…………………………………..

As another side of the gratitude argument, tell me, do you like someone blaming you for something your country did before you were even born? …say, murdering 1.4 Million Philipino's in the aforementioned American invasion of the Philipines 1899-1902? If not, then why do you insist on claiming the gratitude earned by your forebears during WW2? Do you only claim the positive things, and not the negative things?


I don't want your gratitude. I never earned it. Those who died or suffered, like my uncle, deserve your gratitude even if you were not born during the days of their heroics. If you wish to dodge what is merely a civil obligation by citing America's past sins, go for it. Your ingratitude speaks far more loudly of your character than of America's.

…………………………………….

Personally, I am thankful to the Australian, American, New Zealand, Canadian, Indian, British and any other troops that at any stage took part in the defense against the Japanese.

Good for you!

For the Americans - they shed a lot of blood that benefited my country, other countries, and also the US, and I am thankful that their actions benefited my country. Most people I know, myself included, are thankful that American might helped turn the tide of the War and keep Australia from being invaded. This does not, and should not stop Australians (or anyone) from expressing their concern over things they disagree with.

Of course not - who has argued that it should?

By the way, to say anything other than Americans helped win the war is to lessen the lives of every other soldier from every other nation that took part in the war. Very few Americans seem to understand this.

Nonsense. Americans do not believe that they alone won WWII or, more importantly, that they alone suffered losses.

The point you seem unable to recognize is that of the major allies, only America was spending blood and treasure in a war in which it's homeland was not directly under attack. There were scores of British, Australian, New Zealander, Phillipino, Chinese, Burmese, and Nepalese heros during WWII, but they were fighting for something different that what the Yanks were.

This is not at all to denigrate the contribution of the Canadians, and the Brazilians who also spent blood and treasure in a war in which they were not directly threatened, and deserve the gratitude of the citizens of nations under direct threat.

My basic point is that not only did America spend blood and treasure in a war in which it was not directly threatened, when it it was all over and it was on top of the world, not only did it not attempt to own that world, it spent additional treasure on restoring its enemies. If this is not exceptional within the context of history, I don't know what is.

Recognition of the exceptional nature of America doesn't require uncritical support

It doesn't require support of any kind, just an honest and intelligent perception of history.

Critcal support does not preclude some measure of gratitude.

You are struggling here to maintain some postion I'm not even aware you ever took. I've not described America's involvement in any conflict as entirely altruistic

Page 6
This is not to suggest that the US is fully motivated by altruism (although I am a firm believer that the American Empire has been the most altruistic in history

Page 7
Of course this doesn't mean that the intervention was born solely of altruism, but it should be hard to impugn the motives of a nation that could easily have ruled the world post WWII and not only did not, but sunk tons of treasure into rebuilding the defeated wolves that started the whole mess.

Page 10
A very large number of Americans died in fighting a war that took place on foreign soil. Whether or not one is able to acknowledge the altruistic nature of America's involvement

I'm not sure what you think altruism means but it's hard to imagine that the US had good and benevolent reasons for entering WWII that were not in some way based on altruism.

I don't want your gratitude. I never earned it. Those who died or suffered, like my uncle, deserve your gratitude even if you were not born during the days of their heroics. If you wish to dodge what is merely a civil obligation by citing America's past sins, go for it. Your ingratitude speaks far more loudly of your character than of America's.

The point you seem unable to recognize is that of the major allies, only America was spending blood and treasure in a war in which it's homeland was not directly under attack.

My basic point is that not only did America spend blood and treasure in a war in which it was not directly threatened, when it it was all over and it was on top of the world, not only did it not attempt to own that world, it spent additional treasure on restoring its enemies. If this is not exceptional within the context of history, I don't know what is.