Evangelical Disconnect

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

With due respect Lim and nothing personal intended... NNS was not saying that the US "saved civilisation" in my interpretation. She was paraphrasing your allegation and making a rebuttal explaining the rationale behind the viewpoints of the US people you were describing.

Also... I think her point was that the US generally cop flack and criticism for a lot of their foreign policy and actions on the world stage (some of that criticism being justified she admits)... but the appreciation for the good and help the US has provided is awfully quiet in comparison.

The Allied forces won WWII. But the American assistance, both in soldiers and military supplies, was a very important factor that arguably tipped the balance significantly. You obviously are fully aware that GB (and Ireland) were fighting to save their own countries from German Nazi rule. The German invasion threat to America's soil was practically and realistically nonexistent (despite Hitler declaring war on the US... which seems about as crazy as Japan bombing Pearl Harbor in hindsight). America was there in major part to help a friend IMO (world political ramifications of Nazi European dominance notwithstanding).

I am in agreement with you on most subjects that come up in this forum Lim. I think that US foreign policy can be arrogant... as well as the attitude of some of it's loudest citizens and political figures. But I think European arrogance that Europeans know more about world history than any other country's peoples is also prevalent... as well as the Eurocentric bias to "world" history that Europeans seem to have... as a generalisation. You make personal judgments about NNS' knowledge that betray a tendency to stereotype US people. I agree that the UK and France have had a long history of colonization and have learnt a lot about occupation of other countries. But a lot of Europe's current generation ride on the coattails of that history I feel, without having any direct experience themselves. From my experience living in the US... the country has some extremely diverse viewpoints from different people within it's citizenship.... and until you live here IMO... it is easy to generalize too much on a uniform US trait/viewpoint (which I was guilty of doing before I came here).

Also... it is fairly obvious that you generally dislike America and Americans from your past posts in other threads. That may be affecting your objectivity a little... ;)Ireland did not fight and maintained neutrality throughout WW2.

I sincerely do not get why we as a people think a politician's personal affairs are our business. I'm not married to the guy, so I couldn't care less whether he's cheating on his wife. As long as he's doing his damn job to the best of his abilities . . . that's all that matters to me. Whether or not Bill Clinton is getting hummers in the Oval Office has no bearing on my life, unless it interferes with his ability to do his job. Heck, if it cleared his mind so he could think more clearly regarding some big decision . . . have more Bill.

Instead, we made it a collosal affair so that the entire "scandal" SURELY weighed on his mind and interfered with his abilities to do the job we actually paid him to do.I think many people still think personal character and decisions provide evidence of how people will behave and act in their public roles. Bill Clinton exemplifies this. His philandering and harassment of others was a symptom of his overall character flaws which did carry over into public life. Despite this, was he still a good president? That's up for debate.

Ireland did not fight and maintained neutrality throughout WW2.Thanks. I remembered a post where Lim mentioned that many Irish soldiers fought for Britain... (but not on behalf of their own country) and I confused it. IIRC. But you're right about the country staying neutral.

With due respect Lim and nothing personal intended... NNS was not saying that the US "saved civilisation" in my interpretation. She was paraphrasing your allegation and making a rebuttal explaining the rationale behind the viewpoints of the US people you were describing.

Also... I think her point was that the US generally cop flack and criticism for a lot of their foreign policy and actions on the world stage (some of that criticism being justified she admits)... but the appreciation for the good and help the US has provided is awfully quiet in comparison.



The rationale behind the viewpoint, that America saved Europe, is a (mis)perception which seems to be shared by a considerable amount of Americans.

My point was that as soon as current American foreign policy is questioned by non-Americans, some Americans get extremely defensive about their country's current foreign policy being questioned and they start harking back to events like WW2.

Anyone who has read the political/military/historical facts concerning WW2 would recognise that American input to WW2 was not the decisive factor
in the outcome of WW2.
That doesn't mean that Americas contribution was neglible.
Far from it.
But to suggest that US involvement in WW2 saved Europe or that America saved Europe in the aftermath of WW2 is incorrect.
And that's why I challenged NNS on this.
Maybe NNS did not intend to make that point - but reading the posts, it seemed lear to me that that was the point being made!



I think that US foreign policy can be arrogant... as well as the attitude of some of it's loudest citizens and political figures. But I think European arrogance that Europeans know more about world history than any other country's peoples is also prevalent... as well as the Eurocentric bias to "world" history that Europeans seem to have... as a generalisation. You make personal judgments about NNS' knowledge that betray a tendency to stereotype US people. I agree that the UK and France have had a long history of colonization and have learnt a lot about occupation of other countries. But a lot of Europe's current generation ride on the coattails of that history I feel, without having any direct experience themselves. From my experience living in the US... the country has some extremely diverse viewpoints from different people within it's citizenship.... and until you live here IMO... it is easy to generalize too much on a uniform US trait/viewpoint (which I was guilty of doing before I came here).

Also... it is fairly obvious that you generally dislike America and Americans from your past posts in other threads. That may be affecting your objectivity a little... ;)

I know nothing about NNS - save that NNS told us that she is 41!

As regards America, I definitely do oppose the foreign policy of the US, particularly it's 21st century foreign policy.

The rationale behind the viewpoint, that America saved Europe, is a (mis)perception which seems to be shared by a considerable amount of Americans.

My point was that as soon as current American foreign policy is questioned by non-Americans, some Americans get extremely defensive about their country's current foreign policy being questioned and they start harking back to events like WW2.

Anyone who has read the political/military/historical facts concerning WW2 would recognise that American input to WW2 was not the decisive factor
in the outcome of WW2.
That doesn't mean that Americas contribution was neglible.
Far from it.
But to suggest that US involvement in WW2 saved Europe or that America saved Europe in the aftermath of WW2 is incorrect.
And that's why I challenged NNS on this.
Maybe NNS did not intend to make that point - but reading the posts, it seemed lear to me that that was the point being made!




I know nothing about NNS - save that NNS told us that she is 41!

As regards America, I definitely do oppose the foreign policy of the US, particularly it's 21st century foreign policy.You may be right about America... I can't really comment... because the subject of WW2 hasn't arisen in conversation yet. My knowledge of WW2 is sketchy, but If any one country had the platform to claim a major influence on the defeat of Nazi Germany, it was perhaps the Russians. Realistically that was Germany's main focus with at least 75% of it's forces deployed on the eastern front. The war was probably ideologically underpinned primarily by Nazi Germany vs. Communist Russia AFAIK. However the US funneled billions of dollars I believe to Russia to support their war effort.

Like you say... it was a combined Allied effort. It also pisses me off a bit when the English sing that they won both world wars at football games against Germany.

Realistically... all countries should be aware IMO, that history can be skewed in it's retelling to favor the storyteller. And the natural instinct of wanting one's own country to have a glorious past doesn't help the objectivity of the listener.

I think many people still think personal character and decisions provide evidence of how people will behave and act in their public roles. Bill Clinton exemplifies this. His philandering and harassment of others was a symptom of his overall character flaws which did carry over into public life. Despite this, was he still a good president? That's up for debate.
I am wondering if a Republican congress had anything to do with the strong economic situation we had when Clinton was President?
What policies did Clinton actually put in place while in office?
When we look at how our government operates, as far as the relationship between President and Congress, I personally think the standing President gets too much credit.

I am wondering if a Republican congress had anything to do with the strong economic situation we had when Clinton was President?
What policies did Clinton actually put in place while in office?
When we look at how our government operates, as far as the relationship between President and Congress, I personally think the standing President gets too much credit.I think government, generally, is given too much credit for influencing the economy. But if you want to single out congress as an important determining factor... we have the perfect comparison sample between 1994-2006. Twelve years of Republican congressional reign... the first half with a Democratic president... the second half with a Republican president. One could argue that the period betwen 2000-2006, the Republicans had the capability to enact Republican policy in congress with a Republican President. However the first six years was arguably more prosperous than the last six years with a Bush Presidency.

For me... there are too many other factors that come into play.... the internet boom/bubble... which had little to do with Clinton and would have occurred no matter who was the President... and the huge costs of wars and Homeland Security spending post 2001 (albeit that Bush/Republican arguably had a big influence on causing war expenses).

I'm not surprised by this response.

Is that what they teach you over there?
That your country saved civilisation?

With respect, you haven't got the first clue about what events saved civilisation.




And loads of people are still alive because of the many men/women - throughout the ALLIED nations in many locations - who fought throughout WW2.

You do your argument no favours at all by trying to claim credit for something which you, yourself, took no part in.
Not suprisingly, your response falls back in to the same defensive opinion exhibited by some Americans when their country's foreign policy is questioned.




Really?

I have two relatives who fought with US during WW2.

Never during any conversation with these people, have they tried to claim any credit for what they did.

Unlike you - they would never try to make grandiose claims about "saving civilisation" either.

You do your points no favours, NNS.Fucken aye!!!! Stick it to the silly seppo cow.

...but I would argue that the reaction to that goes to an opposite "extreme" so to speak, that the US shouldn't ever do anything unilaterally, and that the blessing of other nations is somehow...required...for American action. I'm sorry, I don't want a President who thinks that way either. (That ultimately sunk John Kerry, IMHO...) Or who thinks we should apologize for being the most powerful country in the world atm...

Nutjob.

With due respect Lim and nothing personal intended... NNS was not saying that the US "saved civilisation" in my interpretation. She was paraphrasing your allegation and making a rebuttal explaining the rationale behind the viewpoints of the US people you were describing.Captain obvious is back in town!!

Also... I think her point was that the US generally cop flack and criticism for a lot of their foreign policy and actions on the world stage (some of that criticism being justified she admits)... but the appreciation for the good and help the US has provided is awfully quiet in comparison.Broad sweeping and completely useless generalization.

The Allied forces won WWII.Aye aye Captain.

But the American assistance, both in soldiers and military supplies, was a very important factor that arguably tipped the balance significantly.your opinion based on......a hunch????


You obviously are fully aware that GB (and Ireland) were fighting to save their own countries from German Nazi rule. The German invasion threat to America's soil was practically and realistically nonexistent (despite Hitler declaring war on the US... which seems about as crazy as Japan bombing Pearl Harbor in hindsight). America was there in major part to help a friend IMO (world political ramifications of Nazi European dominance notwithstanding). Last time I checked American companies profited greatly by supplying Nazi Germany during WW2. While my family died.


I am in agreement with you on most subjects that come up in this forum Lim. I think that US foreign policy can be arrogant... as well as the attitude of some of it's loudest citizens and political figures. But I think European arrogance that Europeans know more about world history than any other country's peoples is also prevalent... as well as the Eurocentric bias to "world" history that Europeans seem to have... as a generalisation. You make personal judgments about NNS' knowledge that betray a tendency to stereotype US people. I agree that the UK and France have had a long history of colonization and have learnt a lot about occupation of other countries. But a lot of Europe's current generation ride on the coattails of that history I feel, without having any direct experience themselves. From my experience living in the US... the country has some extremely diverse viewpoints from different people within it's citizenship.... and until you live here IMO... it is easy to generalize too much on a uniform US trait/viewpoint Look out its Dr Phil giving us a lesson on historical geopolitics delving insightfully into the psyche of sovereign nations....http://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif No stereotypes here....


(which I was guilty of doing before I came here).It would appear not much has changed.

I am wondering if a Republican congress had anything to do with the strong economic situation we had when Clinton was President?
What policies did Clinton actually put in place while in office?
When we look at how our government operates, as far as the relationship between President and Congress, I personally think the standing President gets too much credit.
http://kejda.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/increases-in-national-debt.jpg

o0o

http://kejda.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/increases-in-national-debt.jpg

o0o
I wonder if that chart has any meaning as applied to Congress?

Fucken aye!!!! Stick it to the silly seppo cow.Bigot.

Look out its Dr Phil giving us a lesson on historical geopolitics delving insightfully into the psyche of sovereign nations....:rolleyes: No stereotypes here....

Making a generalization ("a lot of Europeans...) is different from labeling an individual prematurely with a stereotype, which was my point.

And mocking someone else's "Dr. Phil" psyche-eval opinions by claiming you know better is hypocritical. We're in the soap box forum btw. Unbridled opinions are not uncommon here.

And I don't claim my opinions are truth. I just put them out there so others can show me (with evidence) where my thinking is perhaps wrong. That way I can adjust my thinking. It's called having an open mind.

And classic.... why don't you just post your opinions under your normal handle without the sock-puppet you hide behind? You're going to give Aussies a bad "stereotype" as wimps.

Making a generalization ("a lot of Europeans...) is different from labeling an individual prematurely with a stereotype, which was my point.

And mocking someone else's "Dr. Phil" psyche-eval opinions by claiming you know better is hypocritical. We're in the soap box forum btw. Unbridled opinions are not uncommon here.

And I don't claim my opinions are truth. I just put them out there so others can show me (with evidence) where my thinking is perhaps wrong. That way I can adjust my thinking. It's called having an open mind.

And classic.... why don't you just post your opinions under your normal handle without the sock-puppet you hide behind? You're going to give Aussies a bad "stereotype" as wimps.***Yawn***

http://www.chaobell.net/gallery/d/1311-1/1174785627546.jpg

***Yawn***

http://www.chaobell.net/gallery/d/1311-1/1174785627546.jpgHorace Whimp... the big tough man on forums. http://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

You've done well in your many years of posting to rip off a cliche forum response used everywhere. And you couldn't even change the graph to reflect that it was only 10:00 am in Oz, so it's a bit early that you had lunch a couple of hours ago. Can't you think of your own arguments?

"Silly Seppo Cow"... lovely.

lol. I am having a slow day. You're not worth the effort. http://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

We may have buried the next 19 suicide bombers in a cave in Tora Bora.
.And the next 3000 infidels may have been buried in ground zero.

You see how this logic gets you nowhere:rolleyes:

And the next 3000 infidels may have been buried in ground zero.

You see how this logic gets you nowhere:rolleyes:+1. Good point.

+1. Good point.
Only just joined the party, time to do some reading and get serious!