Kansasau

I thought I'd put together a brief list of Earl's views so you dont' have to
bother reading his posts. From what I can tell, the following is a pretty
thorough summary:

The United States sucks
Americans are idiots
Americans are greedy
Americans are xenophobic
Bush is an idiot
Bush is greedy
Bush is xenophobic
U.S. fiscal policy sucks
The United States is imperialist
The United States is trying to take over the world
The United States is unilateralist
The purpose of this newsgroup is to disparage the U.S.
U.S. anti-terrorism efforts are oppressive

Please feel free to add to this list if you feel I've ommitted any of Earl's
common themes.

Joey Balonio

Many of those statements are demonstrably true. Many
of them probably reflect Evleth's opinions, but that's
up to him. But you're obviously very touchy. Someone
struck your "defensive" nerve. A bit to close to the
truth for you.

KansasAU wrote:
    >
    > I thought I'd put together a brief list of Earl's views so you dont' have to
    > bother reading his posts. From what I can tell, the following is a pretty
    > thorough summary:
    >
    > The United States sucks
    > Americans are idiots
    > Americans are greedy
    > Americans are xenophobic
    > Bush is an idiot
    > Bush is greedy
    > Bush is xenophobic
    > U.S. fiscal policy sucks
    > The United States is imperialist
    > The United States is trying to take over the world
    > The United States is unilateralist
    > The purpose of this newsgroup is to disparage the U.S.
    > U.S. anti-terrorism efforts are oppressive
    >
    > Please feel free to add to this list if you feel I've ommitted any of Earl's
    > common themes.

Tim Kroesen

How about you demonstrating *any* are FACTUAL...<g> Somewhere else more
topical Please!

Tim K

"Joey Balonio" <> wrote in message
news:...
    > Many of those statements are demonstrably true. Many
    > of them probably reflect Evleth's opinions, but that's
    > up to him. But you're obviously very touchy. Someone
    > struck your "defensive" nerve. A bit to close to the
    > truth for you.
    > KansasAU wrote:
    > >
    > > I thought I'd put together a brief list of Earl's views so you dont'
have to
    > > bother reading his posts. From what I can tell, the following is a
pretty
    > > thorough summary:
    > >
    > > The United States sucks
    > > Americans are idiots
    > > Americans are greedy
    > > Americans are xenophobic
    > > Bush is an idiot
    > > Bush is greedy
    > > Bush is xenophobic
    > > U.S. fiscal policy sucks
    > > The United States is imperialist
    > > The United States is trying to take over the world
    > > The United States is unilateralist
    > > The purpose of this newsgroup is to disparage the U.S.
    > > U.S. anti-terrorism efforts are oppressive
    > >
    > > Please feel free to add to this list if you feel I've ommitted any
of Earl's
    > > common themes.

Judith Umbria

"KansasAU" <> wrote in message
news:...
    > I thought I'd put together a brief list of Earl's views so you dont' have
to
    > bother reading his posts. From what I can tell, the following is a pretty
    > thorough summary:

You don't have to read Evleth's posts to garner some of those opinions just
from the wasteland of opinion thrown out by those who think this is a good
place to air their politics.
If you take as prejudice anything said by anyone who doesn't live in the US,
you will be part of the problem. I rarely see a criticism offered by a
non-USA poster for no reason, but they are attracted to the US posts
claiming superiority, largesse and a debt from Europe for having saved their
skins twice. Arrogance and ignorance are a large set of problems but they
don't need to be aired here. On the other hand, it might be as well not to
share these when traveling in Europe, or anywhere.

Jens Arne Maennig

KansasAU wrote:

    > I thought I'd put together a brief list of Earl's views so you dont' have to
    > bother reading his posts. From what I can tell, the following is a pretty
    > thorough summary:
    >
    > The United States sucks
    > Americans are idiots
    > Americans are greedy
    > Americans are xenophobic
    > Bush is an idiot
    > Bush is greedy
    > Bush is xenophobic
    > U.S. fiscal policy sucks

In all these regards, the US of A, their inhabitants and their leader
seem to be in the good company of 95 % of the rest of the world. So -
Where's the problem?

    > The United States is imperialist
    > The United States is trying to take over the world
    > The United States is unilateralist
    > The purpose of this newsgroup is to disparage the U.S.
    > U.S. anti-terrorism efforts are oppressive

These are indeed problems worht being discussed. However this seems to
be the wrong place.

Jens

Nightjar

"KansasAU" <> wrote in message
news:...
    > I thought I'd put together a brief list of Earl's views so you dont' have
to
    > bother reading his posts. From what I can tell, the following is a pretty
    > thorough summary:
...
    > Americans are greedy
    > Americans are xenophobic
    > Bush is an idiot
    > Bush is greedy
    > Bush is xenophobic
    > U.S. fiscal policy sucks
    > The United States is imperialist
    > The United States is trying to take over the world
    > The United States is unilateralist
...
    > U.S. anti-terrorism efforts are oppressive

I suppose this is more or less on topic, as, apart from the offerings I've
snipped, this fairly well covers the opinions of a very large proportion of
Europeans, including most Britons other than Tony Blair. However, I don't
see that there is much to gain from discussing them all over again.

Colin Bignell

Earl Evleth

On 9/01/04 2:42, in article ,
"KansasAU" <> wrote:

    > I thought I'd put together a brief list of Earl's views so you dont' have to
    > bother reading his posts. From what I can tell, the following is a pretty
    > thorough summary:
    >
    > The United States sucks

If they use straws. The expression lack specificity.

    > Americans are idiots

All of them? Being American I would have to include myself, certainly not!
No, I would say around 50%

    > Americans are greedy

To be greedy, you have to have money. Most Americans like most
Europeans don`t have enough money to be greedy with.


    > Americans are xenophobic

Certainly not those who travel a lot.

    > Bush is an idiot

Bingo.

    > Bush is greedy

Bingo

    > Bush is xenophobic

Bingo

    > U.S. fiscal policy sucks

Bush`s policy is in error, if you
mean that. I would say it is blowing

    > The United States is imperialist

Currently Bush`s policies are control freakish.

    > The United States is trying to take over the world

The capitalist element is for globalization and internationalist.
Exporting jobs and screwing the American worker is OK. There
are no Americans in that community, the American plutocrats are
no longer Americans of a classic mold. Why else maintain tax
free corporations in the Caribbean? That is patriotic?

    > The United States is unilateralist

Correction, the Bush administration is unilateralist.

    > The purpose of this newsgroup is to disparage the U.S.

I am a truth monger.

    > U.S. anti-terrorism efforts are oppressive

They can be, this is the worry of American libertarians, log on to
www.cato.org and find out.

The problem now is the US progressively discouraging travel to the US.
Making Europeans dance to a certain tune, might not please them.
The reverse would also be true. Travel must be as free as possible,
its militarization and politization are not good signs.

Earl

Casey

    > Americans are xenophobic
    > Bush is an idiot
    > Bush is greedy
    > U.S. fiscal policy sucks
    > The United States is unilateralist

I think the above are true. Add these to the list:
- Bush is arrogant (most arrogant president in 70+ years)
- Americans are materialistic
- Bush is a typical corrupt politician


Casey

Casey

    > a debt from Europe for having saved their skins twice.

In WWI the USA came in at the very end of the war and turned
the tide against the Germans, but Americans hardly did most of the
fighting, let alone dying. In WWII, in the European Theatre, the
Soviets were responsible for 85-90% of Nazi casualties, so one
can hardly claim that the Americans won the war in Europe. The
war in the Pacific is another matter, as the Americans won that
war pretty much by themselves. And lets not forget that the French
greatly assisted the USA during its Revolutionary War, with most
experts agreeing that the British would have won that war without
the help of the French.


Casey

Earl Evleth

On 9/01/04 17:24, in article
1BALb.504$, "Casey"
<> wrote:

    >> a debt from Europe for having saved their skins twice.
    >
    > In WWI the USA came in at the very end of the war and turned
    > the tide against the Germans, but Americans hardly did most of the
    > fighting, let alone dying. In WWII, in the European Theatre, the
    > Soviets were responsible for 85-90% of Nazi casualties, so one
    > can hardly claim that the Americans won the war in Europe. The
    > war in the Pacific is another matter, as the Americans won that
    > war pretty much by themselves. And lets not forget that the French
    > greatly assisted the USA during its Revolutionary War, with most
    > experts agreeing that the British would have won that war without
    > the help of the French.
    >

This above analysis is pretty much my own too.

The Battle of Normandy was ify, Hitler fortunately immobilized
a number of units up in the Pas de Calais area where the Germans
were convinced the real landing would have taken place.

That landing would have been a disaster if a major portion of
the German Army was not engaged with the Red Army.

The US would have eventually defeated Germany with the Atomic Bomb
but years later.

One feature of the Revolutionary War which Americans are not familiar
with is that the French were 75% of the total fighting force
engaged in the Battle of Yorktown. It is viewed as an American
victory and I know of no French who have every tried to say otherwise.
Nor demanded gratitude for it.

But none of this aid should be considered totally altruistic, the French
had their anti-British agenda. The French have always
been generally pro-American as they have been anti-British!

Earl

Here is a run down of that.

******

from http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/sfelshi...ge/frhist.html an
educational and not a think tank source.


The French Contribution to the American War of Independence

To understand the background of the Revolutionary War, it is necessary to
understand the history of the preceding twenty years, and especially the
Seven Years? War (1756-1763). The Seven Years? War was fought by the
European colonial powers from Canada to the West Indies and from Europe to
far-flung colonial empires in India and the Philippines. In North America,
we know the part of the Seven Years' war that was fought here as the French
and Indian Wars. The Seven Years' War was largely a disaster for France and
her allies. In the aftermath of the war, which resulted in the loss of most
French territory in North America and India, the French instituted sweeping
reform of the army and navy. The French army that landed in Newport in 1781
was the product of this thorough and fundamental reorganization.

The English victory, however, was dearly bought. The cost of fielding the
army that secured the safety of the English colonies was tremendous. This
expense, together with the continuing cost of protecting these colonies
after the war, led to English demands that the American colonists contribute
to the cost of their own protection. As a result, a series of Acts of
Parliament imposed a variety of taxes on the colonists during the 1760s and
early 1770s. For many colonists, the chains that had linked them to Britain
for almost 150 years became the chains of servitude, foreign domination and
unjust tyranny. These taxes ultimately fueled the tensions and passions that
burst into flames on Lexington Green on April 19, 1775.

From the outbreak of armed rebellion in 1775, many in France sympathized
with the colonists. Young, idealistic French officers like the Marquis de
Lafayette volunteered their services and in many cases their personal wealth
to help equip, train and lead the fledgling Continental army. The French
government hoped to redress the balance of power that resulted from the
French humiliation in the Seven Years Wars, which gave considerable economic
and military advantages to Britain. While maintaining formal neutrality,
France assisted in supplying arms, uniforms and other military supplies to
the American colonists.

This clandestine assistance became open after the defeat of General Burgoyne
at Saratoga in 1777, which demonstrated the possibility of British defeat in
the conflict and led to French recognition of the colonies in February 1778.
As a result of the victory of the Continental forces at Saratoga, Benjamin
Franklin, who had gone to Paris as ambassador in 1776, was able to negotiate
a Treaty of Amity and Commerce and a Treaty of Alliance with France. From
this point, French support became increasingly significant. The French
extended considerable financial support to the Congressional forces. France
also supplied vital military arms and supplies, and loaned money to pay for
their purchase.

French military aid was also a decisive factor in the American victory.
French land and sea forces fought on the side of the American colonists
against the British. At the same time, British and French (and to a lesser
extent, Dutch and Spanish) forces fought for colonial wealth and empire
around the world. From 1778 through 1783 -- two years after the defeat of
Cornwallis at Yorktown -- French forces fought the British in the West
Indies, Africa and India.

From the perspective of the American Revolution, however, the high point of
French support is the landing of five battalions of French infantry and
artillery in Rhode Island in 1780. In 1781, these French troops under the
command of Count Rochambeau marched south to Virginia where they joined
Continental forces under Washington and Lafayette . Cornwallis, encamped on
the Yorktown peninsula, hoped to be rescued by the British navy. A French
fleet under the command of Admiral DeGrasse intercepted and, after a fierce
battle lasting several days, defeated the British fleet and forced it to
withdraw. This left the French navy to land heavy siege cannon and other
supplies and trapped Cornwallis on the Yorktown peninsula.

At that point, the defeat of Cornwallis was essentially a matter of time. On
September 14, 1781, the French and Continental armies completed their 700
mile march and soon thereafter laid siege to the British positions. After a
number of weeks and several brief but intense engagements, Cornwallis,
besieged on the peninsula by the large and well-equipped French-American
army, and stricken by dysentery, determined to surrender his army. On
October 19, 1781, the British forces marched out between the silent ranks of
the Americans and French, arrayed in parallel lines a mile long, and cast
down their arms.

Abbé Robin, who witnessed the surrender, described the victorious American
and French forces present at the ceremony. "Among the Americans, the wide
variety in age -- 12 to 14-year old children stood side by side with
grandfathers -- the absence of uniformity in their bearing and their ragged
clothing made the French allies appear more splendid by contrast. The
latter, in their immaculate white uniforms and blue braid, gave an
impression of martial vigor despite their fatigue. We were all astonished by
the excellent condition of the English troops, by their number -- we were
expecting scarcely 3,000 and they numbered more than 8,000 -- and by their
discipline."

George Woodbridge summed up the Yorktown campaign in the following words:
"The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeau's; the French fleet was there
as a result of his arrangements; the tactics of the battle were his; the
American army was present because he had lent money to Washington; in total
naval and military participants the French outnumbered the Americans between
three and four to one. Yorktown was Rochambeau's victory.

How strange it must have been for these French troops and their new-found
colonial allies, some of whom had fought each other as enemies barely
fifteen years earlier, to stand shoulder to shoulder in armed conflict with
France's ancient enemy and the colonist's blood kin! In the end, these
French soldiers became the hard anvil upon which the new American nation was
forged and the chains of British imperial domination were finally broken.