Americans display utter lack of class

[Usul]

In the final of the men's 8 rowing, the heavy favorites going in were the American boat and the Canadian boat. This rivalry has existed for some time. The American boat slaughtered the field and the Canadians, in true Canadian fashion, [censored] all over the proverbial bed and placed fifth.

After the race the Canadians were obviously heartbroken, and were seen hanging thier heads in shame. The Americans, in true American fashion were seen pointing at the Canadian boat and taunting them. It's not news that Canadians blow it when the pressure is on. It's also not news that the Americans act like jackasses in front of the rest of the world. Yet another example in the long list of classless acts from American atheletes.

[Duke]

That's not even classless. I don't even know what that is.

~D

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet another example in the long list of classless acts from American atheletes.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think you can behave how you like when you win - some choose to behave like wankers and i have seen a few american examples - i'm thinking that gary hall is a wanker

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
It's also not news that the Americans act like jackasses in front of the rest of the world. Yet another example in the long list of classless acts from American atheletes.

[/ QUOTE ]

So condemn all American atheletes due to the actions of a few? I've seen many examples of American atheletes being gracious in victory and defeat during the Olympics.

[dsm]

One our male runners too, after winning one of the 100m semi-final rounds, started pointing into the t.v. camera, talkin' to the camera, letting us know that he da man. When it happens, I feel like they aren't representing anybody but themselves. This is fine for, let's say, professional boxing, but is so god damn inappropriate for the olympics IMO.

[MMMMMM]

I am trying to remember that hockey incident that occurred in Canada a year or so ago? Lots of Canadians booing the United States national anthem before the game or something like that? Maybe you or someone else could help refresh my memory.

[The Armchair]

It's truly embarrassing that they would do this while purportedly representing our nation.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
I am trying to remember that hockey incident that occurred in Canada a year or so ago? Lots of Canadians booing the United States national anthem before the game or something like that? Maybe you or someone else could help refresh my memory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice MMMMMMMMMM.

Also, who knows, maybe there was a lot of trash being talked back and forth.

You know, I think these kind of actions are brutal, but to imply that all americans lack class probably stems from jealousy that we absolutely kick ass!!

[Milo Balzich]

[ QUOTE ]
In the final of the men's 8 rowing, the heavy favorites going in were the American boat and the Canadian boat. This rivalry has existed for some time. The American boat slaughtered the field and the Canadians, in true Canadian fashion, [censored] all over the proverbial bed and placed fifth.

After the race the Canadians were obviously heartbroken, and were seen hanging thier heads in shame. The Americans, in true American fashion were seen pointing at the Canadian boat and taunting them. It's not news that Canadians blow it when the pressure is on. It's also not news that the Americans act like jackasses in front of the rest of the world. Yet another example in the long list of classless acts from American atheletes.

[/ QUOTE ]

BEN JOHNSON.

[nothumb]

Not only were they Canadians, they were French Canadians. Booo!

Of course, I doubt that these same Canadians were in the rowboat during the contest. Had they been, I think this conduct would be almost understandable.

Two wrongs don't make a right yet, do they? I know some people are trying to perfect the formula.

NT

[MMMMMM]

My point is not that two wrongs make a right, but rather that those who live in glass houses should think twice before throwing stones (hint to Usul).

[Francis Dollarhyde]

[ QUOTE ]
Not only were they Canadians, they were French Canadians. Booo!

Of course, I doubt that these same Canadians were in the rowboat during the contest. Had they been, I think this conduct would be almost understandable.

Two wrongs don't make a right yet, do they? I know some people are trying to perfect the formula.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like everyone says on the WPT forum, we don't know the whole story here. Sport often involves rivalries, and verbal rivalries at that. From what I understand, these particular two teams have been going at it for some time. Furthermore, the Canadians have been making a habit of "rubbing it in" when they beat the U.S. - the only difference is that those other events were not the Olympics and did not have much exposure.

The only difference here is that this was the Olympics and most are only privy to the snapshot of that one race. Yeah, it looks stupid, and it is. But, both teams have committed themselves to looking stupid to outsiders as they continue their rivalry. Its really their choice.

The Canadians are just as involved as the Americans.

With that said, many Americans do end up looking like jerks - NEWSFLASH - they probably are. Who cares, the rest of the world thinks Americans are jerks and nothing "we"* do will change that opinion. *(As if these individual atheletes represent any of us: what a strange notion.)

The Olympics have been crowded out by corporate money, anyway. If you are able to crowd back in, you just might get 15 minutes and a few bucks. Rulon Gardener did that by accident ... he was a great story, personable guy, and he was sincere about his quest. People respond to that, and he has become a quasi-celebrity from a relatively obscure sport.

Others see this, and may want to achieve notoriety and fame. Its just that they try to force it and it looks stupid.

[Usul]

If you recall, the Canadians booing the national anthem was in response to a couple things. Firstly, I believe the Americans booed the Canadian anthem first, and if not, did it several times afterward, not just the one. Secondly, this whole controversy started after an American pilot, hopped up on government issue stimulants, bombed the [censored] out of a Canadian outpost in Afgahnistan, killing several Canadian soldiers.

So I guess I've just been way out of line here.

[oljumpstart]

Forget a year ago, try this past playoff season. The Montreal fans do that every year. It seems America junior continues to suffer from a bit of an inferiority complex.

[Cubswin]

Ok...i just watched the race and i didnt see anything out of line. Maybe it was just the editing but i saw nothing wrong with the celebration.

Dont get your panties in a bundle canada... the winter olympics are coming soon and im sure you guys will rack up those curling medals /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

cubs

[Gamblor]

The anthem booing incident began on Long Island, when Islanders fans booed the Canadian anthem in their series vs. the Maple Leafs in the Conference Quarter-Finals in 2002.

[Usul]

I consider America Jr. to be an insult. Canadians as a whole embrace very different values from thier American counterparts. This is seen in our government, our foriegn policy, and our sportsmanship.

[Cubswin]

Could you please tell me these very different values that canada embraces that the US does not? The countries are much more similiar then they are different....including in the areas of government and foreign policy. The 'america junior' comment is a joke...so lighten up a bit... we all know that the 51st state is Israel and not Canada.

regards
cubswin

[Usul]

I didn't mean to have a tone at all. I don't take anything on this forum entirely seriously, so I hope the same courtesy is extended to me. I also did not want to turn this topic into another useless Canada vs. U.S.A. debate, as that is a waste of everyone's time. The motive for the post was simply that seeing that American rower pointing and laughing at the dejected Canadians really pissed me off.

As for your question about different values, I think Canadians value social progams much more. Now this is an extremely simplified statement, but obviously the average Canadian falls a little to the left of the average American. To me, this indicates a general concern among Canadians for the well being of other Canadians, whereas it is obviously a lot easier as an American to get ahead as an individual. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I think we can all agree on that.

[Francis Dollarhyde]

[ QUOTE ]
I consider America Jr. to be an insult. Canadians as a whole embrace very different values from thier American counterparts. This is seen in our government, our foriegn policy, and our sportsmanship.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Todd Bertuzzi, Marty McSorely, Don Cherry. I get it.

[Cubswin]

Im definitely not trying to turn this into a US v Canada thing because like i said earlier the two countries, and the people of these two countries, are much more alike then they are different.

As far as the race goes i still havnt seen an unedited version of it. That being said, if the US rowers singled out the Canadian team chances are there is much more to the story then just the mocking that occured at the end of the race.

regards
cubs

[ThaSaltCracka]

The Olympics this year are full of Europeans who hate our athletes for no other reason than that they come from the U.S. I hope all the US athletes that win give a big [censored] you to the rest of the world for treating them like [censored].
Yeah Americans are cocky, but thats because we are the best, so tough loss Canada on that valuable 8-man rowing medal, I am sure that was a big loss for your sorry "country".

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Dont get your panties in a bundle canada... the winter olympics are coming soon and im sure you guys will rack up those curling medals

[/ QUOTE ] Perfect.... see they like the winter olympics because they can bitch whenever someone doesn't win and then a judging scandal will be found. You Canadians are the biggest bunch of whiners.

[Mayhap]

There are many countries in the world known to make a fine whine out of sour grapes.
/M

[MMMMMM]

Interestingly, the Europeans who hate America and think we are so much less "progressive" than they, have for decades paid for much of their social programs with American dollars--indirectly, that is, because they did not have to invest heavily in defense since America provided the security umbrella (at enormous cost to America, I might add). So America footing most of the bill for Europe's security has resulted in Europeans having much more cash to spend on things like socialized medicine and the 35-hour work week.

High time now that a U.S. President pulls out a large number troops from over there--kudos to Bush for that--although predictably, Germany is griping about it already.

Of course, Canada too has benefited greatly in the financial sense due to the security umbrella America has provided--and thus has had more money to spend on social programs--but at least we didn't have to spend gazillions of dollars stationing troops in Canada to protect them (a function of geographical location for the most part).

I find it quite ironic that those same countries, had they had to provide entirely for their own defense, would probably not have developed such massive social programs--nor would they now be quite so eager to throw money hand-over-fist into social programs.

Europe has developed social programs to an unprecedented extent and at unprecedented cost--I doubt that it is merely coincidence that Europe also has been the largest beneficiary of America's provisions for their defense.

Of course, the more you do for others, the more they generally tend to resent you in the long run. Just good old human nature at work.

[Cubswin]

Well put M.... you must have read Kagan's "Of Paradise and Power". If you havnt i think you might enjoy it... its a quick read.

regards
cubs

[MMMMMM]

I will check it out, thx for the recommendation.

[Ulysses]

I think it's cool that both Puerto Rico and Canada get to have their own Olympic teams.

[The once and future king]

Amount of spending on defence as GDP.

USA 3.9%
UK 2.4%
France 2.6%

World Average 2%.

[oljumpstart]

They also both get to have the Expos.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it quite ironic that those same countries, had they had to provide entirely for their own defense, would probably not have developed such massive social programs--nor would they now be quite so eager to throw money hand-over-fist into social programs

[/ QUOTE ]

either that or perhaps they have governments that arent driven by an indecent obsession with image and are in fact a truckload better than the government you have


[ QUOTE ]
Of course, the more you do for others, the more they generally tend to resent you in the long run. Just good old human nature at work.

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps those alleged feelings of hatred from europeans are driven by repulsion at repeated displays of breath taking arrogance

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[ddollevoet]

[ QUOTE ]
Amount of spending on defence as GDP.

USA 3.9%
UK 2.4%
France 2.6%

World Average 2%.

[/ QUOTE ]


2003 GDP per capita:

United States - $37,800
United Kingdom - $27,700
France - $27,500

[nicky g]

Those figures are vastly higher than world averages. So they're still spending much more than the world average in both relative and absolute terms and much more than most countries other than the US.

[The once and future king]

Your point being ?

[sfer]

We are, as suggested by nearly all polling research into the subject, a self-described classless society after all.

[Garbonzo]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you please tell me these very different values that canada embraces that the US does not? The countries are much more similiar then they are different....including in the areas of government and foreign policy. The 'america junior' comment is a joke...so lighten up a bit... we all know that the 51st state is Israel and not Canada.

regards
cubswin

[/ QUOTE ]

Legalization of Marijuana for one, and that's not some small thing....

[MMMMMM]

Europe would have had to spend much more than what they did spend during the Cold War, if America did not provide the primary buffer against military absorbtion by the U.S.S.R.

[The once and future king]

And America would have had to spend alot more if Europe hadnt been there to back up American forces.

America and Europe both had no choice. The last thing America could afford to happen is have Europe be over run by communism.

Again you raise a point that is no more than illogical nonsence.

Because of the red threat both Europe and USA spent well above the world average on defence.

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
Amount of spending on defence as GDP.

USA 3.9%
UK 2.4%
France 2.6%

World Average 2%.

[/ QUOTE ]

These statistics are misleading for a myraid of reasons. All NATO countries (Including the US) reduced defense spending as a % of GDP after the Soviets fell. In real money terms however, the US has continued to escalate spending while Europe has remained stagnant in defense spending (The UK excepted). This is because the US economy grew at an average rate of 3.46% from 1992-2001, while a country like France saw only 1.88% GDP growth. You also must consider how the money is being spent. The US spends large amounts on developing new military technology. France, Germany and much of Europe spend most of their defense money on pensions and keeping large standing armies who are not equipped with the most state of the art equipment and for the most part completely untested in combat (Again the UK excepted). The same goes for Canada. These nations are vassal states of the US Empire. Any nation that depends on another for protection cannot be otherwise defined. It is fortunate for them the US Empire is thus far benign.

[The once and future king]

The figure are a fine reflection of defence spending because they show how much each country is spending relative to its total recources.

The figures show that the UK is not skimping on defence so it can embark on massive social spending.

How ever much the UK spent on defence it wouldnt matter in terms of USA being benighn, theres no way europe could win a war against the USA/OLD soviet Russia anyway.

Thats why they/were are superpowers.

[MMMMMM]

You are changing the argument. I am not arguing that America would have been strategically wise to let Europe fend for herself--rather I am merely pointing out that Europe derived great financial benefit from the U.S. military subsidizing Europe's defense to a large extent.

If Europe had reimbursed the U.S. for the cost of stationing those troops in Europe, that would have been different.

The point is not which course was strategically wisest, but that Europe derived a huge financial subsidy from the U.S., which in turn allowed Europe to spend more on social programs. I don't see how you can argue against this point. That the U.S. might have been strategically compelled to defend Europe does not change the fact that this U.S.-provided, free, military umbrella represented a de facto transfer of wealth from the U.S.A. to Europe.

[The once and future king]

I havnt changed the arguement at all.

I have just pointed out the facile nature of your arguemnt.

You said:

1 "they did not have to invest heavily in defense"

Then asserting that Europe could only have spent X amount of GDP on social programms due to USA subsidising its defence spending, however the figures show that both UK and France spend above average amounts of there GDP on defence.

Further, without NATO and and its alliance with USA it wouldnt have mattered how much Europe spent on defence as it would have never have been enough to counter the threat of the USSR. This renders your other observation facile :

"Europe would have had to spend much more than what they did spend during the Cold War, if America did not provide the primary buffer against military absorbtion by the U.S.S.R. "

So as we can see, its not because Europe was spending all its money on Social programmes that it couldnt defend itself, it was allready spending a hefty wack of its recources on defence, its just that this spending could never be enough so the USA had to assist us even though as I have allready said our Defence spending was well above average.

[MMMMMM]

So if Europe had reimbursed the U.S. the cost of defending Europe during the Cold War, Europe would have had a lot less money to spend on social programs. Hence the U.S. effectively subsidized Europe's social programs. Hence Europeans who think the U.S. is not as "progressive" and "enlightened" as they, might do well to consider that their own heavy emphasis on social spending was made possible in significant measure by U.S. spending on their behalf. Europe's social programs, especially during the Cold War, have been paid for in significant part by the U.S., albeit indirectly. Q.E.D.

If you doubt this, calculate what it would have cost for Europe to reimburse the U.S. for her expenditures, or alternatively, to build up enough of a military machine to defend against the U.S.S.R. (as can be seen by the example of Germany, such a military buildup would have been possible if all Europeans had truly decided to buildup enough to defend themselves).

So you guys can actually thank the U.S. for a significant portion of your decades-old social programs...instead of calling us "unenlightened" or "lacking in social consciousness".

[The once and future king]

LOL

Do you realize how badly the Russians spanked the Germans in WW2? They were responsible for 85%+ of German casualties.

The scale of the war on the eastern front was on a whole other level compared to our little front on the west.

If Europe had tried to defend itself it wouldnt have had the money to spend on any programmes and the russian meat grinder would have consumed it effortlessy. Half of Europe was allready communist anyway.

If anyone is changing the arguement it is you.

Your intial arguement was that Europe could afford
social programmes

" because they did not have to invest heavily in defense"

As I have proven this statement is utterly false. Europe did invest heavily in defence and given a state of no alliance with another superpower (USA) how much we spent on defence would have been irrelevant because there is no way we could have hoped to defeat the masssive armoured tank brigades of the USSR on our own.

[Cubswin]

Based on your response you still don’t get his argument.

His argument is simply that the size of the European welfare state grew and became as large as it is today in part because the European states didn’t have to spend an exorbitant amount on military during the cold war era.

He is not saying that European nations didn’t contribute to this security umbrella and he is not saying Europe was spending all its money on social programs so it couldn’t defend itself. He is simply saying that the US paid for a large part of European security during the cold war era which allowed European nations to divert money into social programs... this is irrefutable. It does not matter that France and the UK spent above average amounts on defense the US still footed a huge chunk on European defense costs during this period and this gave european states a large ammount of discretionary money.


regards
cubs

[The once and future king]

I can only take his arguemnt as he states it.

If you read his original post he states that we could afford social programmes because

"because they did not have to invest heavily in defense"

As we can see we did invest heavily in defence. To say we wouldnt have had any social programmes without USA is a misnomer becasue without the USA Europe would have been ALOT more socialistic than it is today. As in full on communist.

Let me put it another way. Do you think the USA would have won the cold war if it had let Europe stand alone.

No way, if the USSR had taken Europe the World would today either be a pile of radioactive slag or on the way to full communist rule.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Your intial arguement was that Europe could afford
social programmes

" because they did not have to invest heavily in defense"

[/ QUOTE ]

That was not my argument at all. Why don't you learn how to read, here is what I wrote:

"Interestingly, the Europeans who hate America and think we are so much less "progressive" than they, have for decades paid for much of their social programs with American dollars--indirectly, that is, because they did not have to invest heavily in defense since America provided the security umbrella (at enormous cost to America, I might add). So America footing most of the bill for Europe's security has resulted in Europeans having much more cash to spend on things like socialized medicine and the 35-hour work week."


Plainly, my argument is that the Europeans benefitted significantly from American military subsidization--which allowed them to spend significantly more on social programs. I did not state that American military spending subsidiaztion was the raison de etre for Europe's entire social spending programs--only that the indirect subsidization significantly bolstered their ability to spend.

If you cannot see how that is conceptually different than what you just said my original argument was, go back and read it again or go back to grammar school.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
To say we wouldnt have had any social programmes without USA is a misnomer ...

[/ QUOTE ]

onceandfutureking,

I DIDN'T say that. Please go back and reread the paragraph referenced in my post until you get it right.

[Cubswin]

You can deduce from the context of his post that he was arguing that europe didnt have to invest as heavily as it should have as the result of US intervention.

[ QUOTE ]
To say we wouldnt have had any social programmes without USA is a misnomer

[/ QUOTE ]

This was not his argument at all.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me put it another way. Do you think the USA would have won the cold war if it had let Europe stand alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly does this have to do with explaining the growth of the european welfare state.

cubs

[The once and future king]

For you both.

As simply as I can.

1. Europe DID invest heavily in defence.

2. To discuss how much we would have spent without the alliance with the USA is an utter irrelavance. We could have spent 100% of our GDP on defence we still would have fallen under the communist yoke.

3. The whole point of my posts is therefore that you cannot say that the USA spent x on the defence of Europe. Surely you can see why? This money the USA in fact spent defending itself. You cannot seperate defence of Europe from the defence of the USA and discuss them seperately, it is a nonsence.

[Cubswin]

OK king...your right.

Europe has always spent more then its fair share on defense/military spending and as a result has the military mite to handle the security in their own backyward. Clearly this thesis is supported by europe's ability to effectively handle kosovo and bosnia all by itself.

regards
cubs

[smudgex68]

[ QUOTE ]
I am trying to remember that hockey incident that occurred in Canada a year or so ago? Lots of Canadians booing the United States national anthem before the game or something like that? Maybe you or someone else could help refresh my memory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed the point - it was a criticism of some athletes, not the Americans fans or people

[smudgex68]

Post deleted by smudgex68

[Cubswin]

Im not sure what your point is smudge....could you please articulate it better because at the moment its a little ambiguous.

cubs

[smudgex68]

I deleted the post because I realised I was replying to a message that didn't deserve an intelligent response. However, it related to the British word "twaddle", which means rubbish, but because of typing too fast, I wrote "twat". /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Cubswin]

Im still not sure where you stand.... I hope you picked up my sarcasm. If you did pick up my sarcasm and still think my statement is rubbish id like to hear how Europe was equipped to handle the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia.

If you said my statement was rubbish not realizing that it was sarcasm then carry on. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

cubs

[smudgex68]

[ QUOTE ]
You are changing the argument. I am not arguing that America would have been strategically wise to let Europe fend for herself--rather I am merely pointing out that Europe derived great financial benefit from the U.S. military subsidizing Europe's defense to a large extent.

If Europe had reimbursed the U.S. for the cost of stationing those troops in Europe, that would have been different.

The point is not which course was strategically wisest, but that Europe derived a huge financial subsidy from the U.S., which in turn allowed Europe to spend more on social programs. I don't see how you can argue against this point. That the U.S. might have been strategically compelled to defend Europe does not change the fact that this U.S.-provided, free, military umbrella represented a de facto transfer of wealth from the U.S.A. to Europe.


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting - in fact the United Kingdom will make the last payment of 650 million pounds to the United States in 2006 for lend-lease agreements providing equipment to fight the Nazis in WWII (during first 3 years when the US was not actively involved). So at least Europe does pay back eventually.

[smudgex68]

[ QUOTE ]
Im still not sure where you stand.... I hope you picked up my sarcasm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry cubs, I've re-read the various posts and I must admit I haven't picked up many traces of either sarcasm or irony - but then I know that's not really an American forte - but let's save that argument for another week. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

"Interesting - in fact the United Kingdom will make the last payment of 650 million pounds to the United States in 2006 for lend-lease agreements providing equipment to fight the Nazis in WWII (during first 3 years when the US was not actively involved). So at least Europe does pay back eventually."

Fine, Europe or the U.K. may have paid for some equipment--but the U.S. paid the salaries of all those troops all those years. That will never be paid back.

[smudgex68]

[ QUOTE ]
Fine, Europe or the U.K. may have paid for some equipment--but the U.S. paid the salaries of all those troops all those years. That will never be paid back.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm organising a whip-round as we speak.

[MMMMMM]

king,

Your argument is totally besides the point that Europeans were subsidized in their military defense, thereby allowing them to spend more money on social programs than they otherwise would have been able to spend.

[Oski]

Gentlemen, MMMMMM and CubsWin: You guys are wasting your time. "King" either does not get it, or is purposefully being an ass.

As for my two cents, I agree with you two. As a general statement, I often am amused at how quickly the Europeans are to dismiss the help they received (and continue to receive) from the U.S., especially when it comes to providing the security umbrella.

Of course, U.S. supplying the support was in its best interests; yet, that ignores the reality that the benefits were not exclusive to the U.S. To be blunt (but don't smoke me) Europe got fat on our dime. A little thank you once in awhile would be nice.

Now, instead of digging out from the ruins of Communism, Europe has been preserved as our summer playground - which is a good thing.

[Cubswin]

I agree with everything you say except i dont need, nor expect, a thank you from europe. Acknowledgment of reality is appreciated though. Friends scratch each others backs in time of need.

cubs

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with everything you say except i dont need, nor expect, a thank you from europe. Acknowledgment of reality is appreciated though. Friends scratch each others backs in time of need.

cubs

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put: That is much more in line with how I feel about it ... I just did not express it as well. Thanks.

[Gamblor]

we all know that the 51st state is Israel and not Canada.

While he does obviously need to lighten up, you may wish to know that the USA gives about 1.7 billion a year to Egypt, while Israel receives only slightly more, about 2.2 billion.

Now let's read an Israeli newspaper: we love America, America gave us curly fries and technology, and we do almost all of oour foreign trade with Israel.

Now, let's read an Egyptian newspaper: Jews drink Arab blood for breakfast, blah blah blah American imperialism, hegemony, terrorist Bush, blah blah blah.

But I digress. Canada's values ARE indeed different. Canadians are far more willing to sacrifice individual rights for the greater good - it's a born and bred socialist society. Americans are more concerned with "me me me!" and their policy shows it.

[Bubbagump]

[ QUOTE ]
We are, as suggested by nearly all polling research into the subject, a self-described classless society after all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speak for yourself man. If you want apoligize to the rest of the world for being an American, fine. But you take that guilt trip alone. Don't drag the rest of us with you. You can find poll data to support just about any argument you want.

You shouldn't believe everything you read. Ultimately, it all comes down to spin. If you truly feel this way, move somewhere else. I'll even hold the door for you.

Bubbagump

[Cubswin]

Interesting... i didnt realize the US gave that much aid to Egypt... im guessing it has a lot to do with that little canel. However, I must update your figures as per this CRS report. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf

Israel = 2.62 billion
Egypt = 1.87 billion

Per Capita spending

Israel = $434.53
Egypt = $26.45

OK....now we can see why Israel is the 51st state and Egypt is not.

[MMMMMM]

"Canadians are far more willing to sacrifice individual rights for the greater good - it's a born and bred socialist society. Americans are more concerned with "me me me!" and their policy shows it."

Maybe so, Gamblor...but you might be surprised just how much "greater good" or "good for society" is accomplished through enlightened self-interest. Conversely, you might be surprised just how regressive many supposedly progressive ideas often turn out to be in the end.

[sfer]

Uhh, you missed the sarcasm dude. Americans overwhelmingly believe that class distinctions (as in working, middle, upper) are fluid enough to be nonexistent.

I don't have any guilt about anything so lighten up.

[nicky g]

"Interesting... i didnt realize the US gave that much aid to Egypt... im guessing it has a lot to do with that little canel. "

No. It is effectively a bribe to Egypt to recognise and maintain relatively peaceful relations with Israel. These figures don't include loan guarantees which amount to over US$2bn a year. Most US loans to Israel are eventually forgiven.

[nicky g]

I've confused two points in the above posts - loans and loan guarantees.

Loans: Israel owes the US several billion dollars in loans. In the past, nearly all such loans have been forgiven (tens of billions worth), making them effectively grants.

Loan guarantees: These don't cost the US anything if Israel doesn't default. That's a big if though. Given the state of the Israeli economy and the costs of the occupation and absorbing immigrants, there's a big question mark over whether it will be able to repay the bonds issued on the back of these loans. Past loan guarantees have been used in part to repay previous debts under loan guarantees. Israel could well need further loan guarantees to be able to repay such loans and eventually, further aid, so whether they default or not these will have a substantial cost at some point. Given the risk of default a portion of the guarantees should really be included as a cost in the US budget; they aren;t so in theory they cost the US taxpayer nothing, but in reality the risks do represent a cost.

[The once and future king]

So yea Cubswin, this obviously changes everything.

If MMMMMMetc had said the moneys spent during the Kosovo crises had allowed Europe to invest heavily in social programmes I obviously wouldnt have objected. Silly me thought we were talking about the cold war.

Look you are failing to understand something quite intrinsic to this arguement.

Even if Europe and USA spent the same proportion of their budget on defence the USA would still have a much larger military presence than Europe. It will allways have a much larger military presence to any individual european country because it dwarfs them all in size.

Europe would have to spend an infeasible amount of its total GDP if it were to match the USA for military efficacy. As it stands we still spend a substantial amount but you can never expect that amount to produce the raw military power than American nation has access to due to economic geographical and demographic factors.

Also it is worth noting that even though we spend all that money on social programmes (Thank you yanks!!!) We brits are still out there helping you Septics in Iraq.

[The once and future king]

Lol.

So during the cold war the USA wasnt even going to allow a asian backwater like Vietnam become communist. What do you think it thought about Europe being over run.

Its defence of europe which in fact was the front line of the cold war wasnt a case of self intrest it was a case of national survival.

To say that USA subsidised Europe you would have to arrive at a sum that would have been spent if the USA hadnt been involved. To even to attempt that is an absurdity pure and simple. Especialy given that a spend of 100% of GDP wouldnt have been enough to withstand the USSR.

[Dr Wogga]

.....and I hate the canadians as well. So boo this canuck a-holes............ehhhhhhhhhhhhh?

Also, the Good Dr continues to boyoctt everything canadian as well as everything french. france and canada - they deserve each other...........creeps. Good for the USA Olympians. Screw canada

[smudgex68]

[ QUOTE ]
To be blunt (but don't smoke me) Europe got fat on our dime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lmao. Your ignorance of European post-war affairs astounds me, but unfortunately doesn't surprise me.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
To be blunt (but don't smoke me) Europe got fat on our dime.

[/ QUOTE ]



Lmao. Your ignorance of European post-war affairs astounds me, but unfortunately doesn't surprise me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, educate me, please. Make sure you remind me of all the aid Europe provided the U.S. for "protection" and for footing the cost of WWII.

Further, you must be a master to divine my level of (mis)understanding of Europe post-WWII from that short statement.

I will admit, Milan has always been reliable in times of Fashion Emergency.

[smudgex68]

[ QUOTE ]
aid Europe provided the U.S. for "protection" and for footing the cost of WWII.


[/ QUOTE ]

So all the weapons and equipment provided to the allies during WWII were free - lmao. Guess who got rich producing those.

This has nothing to do with the sacrifice of American lives during many wars, for which I'm sure all Europeans are extremely grateful.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
aid Europe provided the U.S. for "protection" and for footing the cost of WWII.


[/ QUOTE ]

So all the weapons and equipment provided to the allies during WWII were free - lmao. Guess who got rich producing those.

This has nothing to do with the sacrifice of American lives during many wars, for which I'm sure all Europeans are extremely grateful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you got me. I guess it was all paid for by Il Douche's collection of stolen art treasures.

I did like Italy's idea of invading Germany with a "Calvary" of Vespas.

[smudgex68]

You may be confusing allies and axis - but at least this confirms my original message

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
You may be confusing allies and axis - but at least this confirms my original message

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah...Italy remained in the Axis after liberation. I see.

[Cubswin]

I believe there is much truth to this statement. I guess i am ignorant too even with a master's degree in European Politics and Policy from prolly the best social science school there is. Toot toot toot my own horn.

regards
cubs

[smudgex68]

If you say so. However, I can't wait until we have those types of degrees in Europe. "European Policy and Politics" - that sounds like fun. I had to do the boring old Politics, Philosophy and Economics degree.

[Cubswin]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't wait until we have those types of degrees in Europe

[/ QUOTE ]

ummm... i did my MSc in Europe

[smudgex68]

[ QUOTE ]
ummm... i did my MSc in Europe

[/ QUOTE ]

How much did that cost your mum and dad?

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ummm... i did my MSc in Europe

[/ QUOTE ]

How much did that cost your mum and dad?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, you are just being a punk. I guess I'm not surprised.

[smudgex68]

I was just making the general comment that European universities are starved of cash and are grateful for fee-paying foreign students, but I don't agree with the argument that entrance requirements for fee-paying students are lower

[Cubswin]

I am very grateful to my parents for all the help they provided me in pursuing my educations. That being said, i am quite proud of my own contributions that i made toward paying for my education. I worked at least 20 hours a week all through my undergrad, worked full time during my summer breaks and managed to work 30 hours a week while writting my MSc. I went to a 2 year school before transferring to a 4 year university to save money. I paid all fees for 4 years in undergrad and paid my room and board while pursuing my MSc in London. My parents were nice enough to pay for my graduate school tution which amounted to little under 15k... but even with their help and all my saving i still had to take out a 22k loan which i am currently paying off.

If the US had spent the $200,000,000,000 (in 2004 terms) on the higher education system here, rather then providing grants to Europe through the Marshall Plan, im pretty sure my secondary education would have been heavily subsidized like many of the European countries are today.... but thats a whole nother story.

regards
cubswin

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
I was just making the general comment that European universities are starved of cash and are grateful for fee-paying foreign students, but I don't agree with the argument that entrance requirements for fee-paying students are lower

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, at no prior time, did you make this "general comment," nor did anyone start the argument to which you are "responding." You must have your internet-cafe conversations mixed up. Maybe you should open that book once in awhile that you carry around with you for affect.

[Cubswin]

PS... just so you know... "full time" here is considered 40 hours a week /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cubswin]

To be fair...i was being a punk too but i was much more suave in my punky ways /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[smudgex68]

[ QUOTE ]
and managed to work 30 hours a week while writting [sic] my MSc

[/ QUOTE ]

Fortunate, I only managed to work about 10 hours a week throughout my PhD. I thought the Marshall Plan would come up somewhere in the conversation.

[Cubswin]

Working while going to school is a tough task and should be commended. I have no doubt my marks would have been much higher had i not had to work.... either that or i would have drank more and gotten fatter with all that extra time.

Where exactly did you do ur PHD and what was it in? I was thinking about doing one at the European Institute in Florence but decided against it.

My comments about the Marshall Plan were only said in jest... i think it was worth every penny... if only to hang it over the heads of you Europeans. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

cubs

[nicky g]

"If the US had spent the $200,000,000,000 (in 2004 terms) on the higher education system here, rather then providing grants to Europe through the Marshall Plan, im pretty sure my secondary education would have been heavily subsidized like many of the European countries are today.... but thats a whole nother story."

Do you really think that is true? The US could afford similar programmes; it prefers lower taxes and massive defence spending (you can argue if you want that that was necessary to make up for lower European spending to protect Europe from the Soviets during the cold war - that certainly isn;t true any more). I'm not going to get into the merits of that choice but the idea that by far far and away the richest country in the world could not afford to pay for European style social programmes is absurd. Note also that for a very long time the US has given a vastly smaller proportion of its wealth as overseas aid than any other developed country. How is it that the Scandinavian countries, which give between five and seven times the GDP proportion of foreign aid the US does, can amply afford massive social and education programmes?

[Cyrus]

...Although is is useful for you to remind us, from time to time, that you are ignorant as well. As we speak, soldiers from France, the country you are so fond of ridiculing, are fighting side by side with American and other soldiers in Afghanistasn, and getting injured or killed in the process.

But ignorance and racism always went hand in hand, so nothing spectacular there.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
But ignorance and racism always went hand in hand, so nothing spectacular there.

[/ QUOTE ]

French is a race?

[elwoodblues]

and a salad dressing. It is now just called Freedom.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
and a salad dressing. It is now just called Freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mmmmm Freedom Fries...

[elwoodblues]

Even better...freedom kissing (no, I'm not hitting on you).


To respond to your original question regarding race --- the way that we've defined race has evolved over the years. Race used to be based on geography and culture (thus, one dictionary definition: A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race).

Now, it seems we've moved more toward physical differences that are unique to geographies (thus, another definition: A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.)

[Cubswin]

Like i said, the statement was said in jest. Let me address this point:

[ QUOTE ]
Note also that for a very long time the US has given a vastly smaller proportion of its wealth as overseas aid than any other developed country...

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing that is quite often overlooked when comparing US foreign aid giving to other countries is that US citizens gives a heck of a lot of aid that does not go through formal state channels. Your statement that the US gives "a vastly smaller proportion of its wealth as overseas aid than any other developed country" fails to recognize the reach of private giving. Let's look at these factoids:

-In 2000, U.S. universities and colleges gave more to developing countries in foreign scholarships than Australia, Belgium, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland each gave in ODA. (http://www.usaid.gov/fani/ch06/privateaid.htm)

-Remittances from U.S. immigrants to their homelands exceeded ODA from Japan-the largest provider (in dollar amounts) of government aid to developing countries. (http://www.usaid.gov/fani/ch06/privateaid.htm)

- U.S. private philanthropy abroad is about $17.5 billion, nearly three times the size of United States government official development assistance. (http://www.onphilanthropy.com/op2001-09-06n.html)

Does it still seem that the US is not giving a large share of foriegn aid? Just because a large chunk of US foreign aid does not go through formal state channels does not mean it should be ignored.

regards
cubs

[nicky g]

I don't know that I'd count immigrants sending money home to their families as charitable aid.


Even with the private philanthropc giving, that is still a smaller percentage of GDP than Scandinavian governments alone give as foreign aid (I'm sure their citizens give private aid too). My point wasn't that US citizens are stingy when it comes to aid. It was that the idea that the US can't afford European style social programmes because of foreign aid is silly.

[Cubswin]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know that I'd count immigrants sending money home to their families as charitable aid.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. These figures are not included in U.S. private philanthropy abroad figure of $17.5 billion.

[ QUOTE ]
My point wasn't that US citizens are stingy when it comes to aid. It was that the idea that the US can't afford European style social programmes because of foreign aid is silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point wasnt that the US cant afford European style programs because of foreign aid, my point was that European social programs grew at a time when the US was injecting huge amounts of money into the European economy. During this same time period there was little growth in US social programs.

There were many factors that led to the growth of the european social state including a strong socialist movements, growing post-war economy and higher tax rates. The US injection of money gave the european governments more discretionary money which helped spur the growth of the social state. It is not the cause but is nonetheless a cause of the growth of the Europoean social state.

My point is that the $200 billion (in 2004 dollars) of the Marshall Plan could have been invested domesticly to grow social programs here but was not. Again, i think the Marshall Plan was the right thing to do but it also meant that this money couldnt be spend on domestic programs such as secondary education, pension etc etc.

Today, without a doubt, the European social state is financed by higher taxes but it got its start, in part, because of increased dirscretionary money from outside aid.


regards
cubs

[nicky g]

"Today, without a doubt, the European social state is financed by higher taxes but it got its start, in part, because of increased dirscretionary money from outside aid"

OK. I;m not going to dispute that; the Marshall plan was crucial to European development of Europe after WWII. I just want to dispute the notion that because of it or other foreign aid the US could not afford the level of spending Europe makes on social programmes.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to dispute the notion that because of it or other foreign aid the US could not afford the level of spending Europe makes on social programmes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure that was ever the issue.

"Social programmes" are not really a high priority in our society. Sure, they get a lot of lipservice, but our philosophy is (generally)that the individual is better of fending for oneself and can make better choices to suit one's needs.

Thus, social programs are kept at a minimum.

[nicky g]

"
"Social programmes" are not really a high priority in our society. Sure, they get a lot of lipservice, but our philosophy is (generally)that the individual is better of fending for oneself and can make better choices to suit one's needs.

Thus, social programs are kept at a minimum. "

I agree that this is an important reason why such programmes are not a priority in the US . A few posts back Cubsiwn suggested that education was expensive in the US because of US aid to Europe, although he seems to have been joking.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
"
although he seems to have been joking.

[/ QUOTE ]

he was...that is why its not a debatable topic. Yawn.

[Cubswin]

I was indeed joking.... but could you imagine how many college educations that $13.3 billion could pay for or help subsidize today if it earned a modest interest rate.

For all my joking I am actually quite happy with my lower tax rate, better schools and better medical care of this less social country even if i have to pay for some of these services out of my own pocket.

cubs

[nicky g]

"my take my lower tax rate, better schools and better medical care "

I'm sure you are. The people with no access to those schools and health care are probably less so.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
"my take my lower tax rate, better schools and better medical care "

I'm sure you are. The people with no access to those schools and health care are probably less so.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a point ... that is why immigration rates to the U.S. are so low. Nobody wants to risk moving to a country that won't take care them.

[nicky g]

Those people are largley coming from poor countries that can compete with neither European or US social care because, regardless of their health care/educational models.social programme, they are skint. Few of them are coming from Scandinavia.

I'm going to bed.

[Cubswin]

[ QUOTE ]
The people with no access.... to health care are probably less so

[/ QUOTE ]

Arnt those people called NHS patients? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
You have a point ... that is why immigration rates to the U.S. are so low. Nobody wants to risk moving to a country that won't take care them.

[/ QUOTE ] good.

[Dr Wogga]

This post belongs under the "Mor(e) on Big Dump post.

Aside to the cyrus apologists of the world - the only thing worse than an anti-semite is a gay anti-semite. Think: McGreevey..........ehhhhhh???

[Cyrus]

"The only thing worse than an anti-semite is a gay anti-semite. Think: McGreevey..........ehhhhhh???"

Liberals and gay people come off as identical in your mind. Probably because some of the issues supported by liberals are perceived by you as overly sensitive, conciliatory, altruistic, not aggressive enough -- in other words as feminine.

Which takes us back to what I said about the ignorance of the racists.

...Carry on.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus: "Liberals and gay people come off as identical in your mind."


Is this not perhaps an unfortunate choice of words?