quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
That, I think, is probably the best way to move forward in today's world, but I can see that the Brits (at least the ones posting here) don't want to hear stuff like that. They'd rather deflect the issue and make it seem like it's all America's fault, as if we're nothing more than a bunch of uncultured, greedy pirates and barbarians out for loot and plunder. And when we call them on that, all they can do is make jokes about Mary Poppins.

quote:


'uncultured, greedy pirates and barbarians'

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

I never came up with any such notion,

Indeed you did:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Anyone who thinks Eisenhower was some British pawn, ...

Next:

quote:

anyone able to read can see that.

Indeed they can.

quote:

The Assertion was the US acted at Britians request, this was never the case [creditable historians and firsthand accounts say otherwise], America acted in Americas own interest.

There was no such "Assertion" that the US had no potential interests, I merely pointed out how the US became involved in this particular episode. This is far different than saying the US otherwise had no interest in the matter. That's all yours.

Your interpretation skills are 'different' than others here, which is the reason why you and no one else made such a fuss over a side comment made in process of a post speaking to a broader issue.

I did not imply, suggest, intimate, hint, or otherwise in any way say anything to purpose of claiming that "Eisenhower was some British pawn." Again, that 'reading' was all yours, and yours alone.

Those in acquaintance with normal society know to keep their hallucinations to themselves.

quote:

For one thing, the U.S. rarely does anything for its own benefit anymore, not since World War II at least.

quote:

Were the British 'spreading democracy' when they requested the services of the US CIA in overthrowing Mosaddegh in Iran? Was that the US' part in 'spreading democracy,' to overthrow yet another democratically elected government?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
That, I think, is probably the best way to move forward in today's world, but I can see that the Brits (at least the ones posting here) don't want to hear stuff like that. They'd rather deflect the issue and make it seem like it's all America's fault, as if we're nothing more than a bunch of uncultured, greedy pirates and barbarians out for loot and plunder. And when we call them on that, all they can do is make jokes about Mary Poppins.

What I've often tried to convey - but apparently failed in your case Zonie, is that a view of Britain and British people as seeing Americans as 'uncultured, greedy pirates and barbarians' is projection. That is why I pointed to the stereotypes of the English Big Bad Villain in Pocohontas, the Jungle Book and the DieHard Films which, of course, were American creations.

quote:


It can sometimes seem that certain Americans are involved in an increasingly angry search for someone or some group to feel scorned, bullied and oppressed by. In this case, for instance, a repeated statement by myself and others that 'it's laughable to assume that Eisenhower was a dupe of the British' has somehow metamorphosed into 'Ah, what's being said here is, underneath it all, Eisenhower in fact duped the British! Bingo! Brits saying we Americans are all vicious savages all over again!'.

quote:

But there are always two sides to every situation. You and others were saying that Eisenhower (and by extrapolation, other U.S. Presidents) were acting in America's interests, so my response was "Oh yeah? Show me where." That's what I was asking, and that question is still open and unanswered, if any of you guys wish to to take a stab at it.

quote:

You could argue a case for bulwarks against communism, but on humanitarian grounds only Kosovo, and maybe Korea could be considered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Edwynn... Dont put words in my mouth ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Anyone who thinks Eisenhower was some British pawn, and not acting in Americas interests needs a head test.

quote:

just because you are incapable of following what transpired in the thread. I never claimed Eisenhower was the UKs puppet. I was answering the insinuation that the US was acting for the UK.

quote:

Zonie said in post 283

quote:

For one thing, the U.S. rarely does anything for its own benefit anymore, not since World War II at least.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Who's said that Eisenhower was a British pawn? That's hilarious!

quote:

You replied in post 284

quote:

Were the British 'spreading democracy' when they requested the services of the US CIA in overthrowing Mosaddegh in Iran? Was that the US' part in 'spreading democracy,' to overthrow yet another democratically elected government?

quote:

If you look, the suggestion is clearly that the US was acting in Britains interest.

quote:

Stop lying that I started the idea the US, and in particular Eisenhower was a British puppet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
That, I think, is probably the best way to move forward in today's world, but I can see that the Brits (at least the ones posting here) don't want to hear stuff like that. They'd rather deflect the issue and make it seem like it's all America's fault, as if we're nothing more than a bunch of uncultured, greedy pirates and barbarians out for loot and plunder. And when we call them on that, all they can do is make jokes about Mary Poppins.

What I've often tried to convey - but apparently failed in your case Zonie, is that a view of Britain and British people as seeing Americans as 'uncultured, greedy pirates and barbarians' is projection. That is why I pointed to the stereotypes of the English Big Bad Villain in Pocohontas, the Jungle Book and the DieHard Films which, of course, were American creations.

It's not just from movies, but I do see what many Brits have written about America, not just here but elsewhere.

Speaking in all honesty and sincerity, I'm not looking for stuff to get angry about, but sometimes I see things written by those from across the pond, and all I wonder is, "Where the hell are they coming from? Where are they getting their ideas about America?"

quote:


It can sometimes seem that certain Americans are involved in an increasingly angry search for someone or some group to feel scorned, bullied and oppressed by. In this case, for instance, a repeated statement by myself and others that 'it's laughable to assume that Eisenhower was a dupe of the British' has somehow metamorphosed into 'Ah, what's being said here is, underneath it all, Eisenhower in fact duped the British! Bingo! Brits saying we Americans are all vicious savages all over again!'.

But there are always two sides to every situation. You and others were saying that Eisenhower (and by extrapolation, other U.S. Presidents) were acting in America's interests, so my response was "Oh yeah? Show me where." That's what I was asking, and that question is still open and unanswered, if any of you guys wish to to take a stab at it.

I never said that Eisenhower was a puppet or a pawn of the British. Maybe he was a dupe, maybe not. Even if he was a dupe, it wouldn't necessarily mean that he'd be a dupe of the British. Eisenhower, like many of that era, tended to be ideologically driven towards a hard line against communism, wherever it may crop up in the world. Wherever there's communism in the world, we have to fight them, bomb them, mine their harbors, quarantine them - whatever it takes to show the communists that we mean business. Through all the chest-pounding, saber-rattling, and excessive zeal associated with anti-communism, none of it really seemed all that pro-American or explicitly for American interests, at least not on the surface. We had stopped thinking in those terms, and during the McCarthy era, people grew fearful of thinking in any other terms.

So, when I said that America rarely does anything for her own interests, I wasn't implying that we did things altruistically. Anti-communism is more of an ideological position, and there were people who genuinely feared a possible Soviet takeover of America. We grew up in fear of nuclear war, and even today, terrorism is our fear of the moment. Fear is a strong motivator, but not all fears are sensible or helpful for our national interests. If anything, a foreign policy driven by ideological fear and geopolitical paranoia (along with a fair amount of ignorance) can harm our national interests more than it can help. America's national interests? I just don't see that as a very high priority in what our leaders have done. I'm not saying that they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, but whatever it may be, I just don't see it as practical or helpful for our national interests. We're not doing ourselves any favors anyway. Most of the world's hot spots today are merely the consequences of our own previous fuck ups. If our leaders are supposedly working for our national interests, then they're clearly doing a shit job of it.

So, whenever I hear notions of America working for its own national interests, like some kind of transnational corporate cabal out to get more loot and plunder around the world, it seems like it's too pat an answer. It's too easy and convenient to say that, but I don't think it even scratches the surface. It may add a certain logic to the puzzle, a certain method to their madness, but I think U.S. foreign policy has grown far too complex and tangled in a world which has become equally complex and tangled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Edwynn... Dont put words in my mouth ...

You mean like this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Anyone who thinks Eisenhower was some British pawn, and not acting in Americas interests needs a head test.

Yeah, we'll take the word of the expert on that one.

quote:

just because you are incapable of following what transpired in the thread. I never claimed Eisenhower was the UKs puppet. I was answering the insinuation that the US was acting for the UK.

There was no such insinuation, anymore than you have a clue how to use simple punctuation.

quote:

Zonie said in post 283

quote:

For one thing, the U.S. rarely does anything for its own benefit anymore, not since World War II at least.

Zonie's claim that the US does all it does in the international realm supposedly for not much benefit to itself immediately equates (in your warped mind) to Eisenhower being a pawn of the British. Right. I think we see the problem here.

I'm not the only one perplexed on this one, and it's certainly the case that no one else in the whole thread had read the matter at all in the manner that you, and only you, had theretofore. Witness:

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Who's said that Eisenhower was a British pawn? That's hilarious!

quote:

You replied in post 284

quote:

Were the British 'spreading democracy' when they requested the services of the US CIA in overthrowing Mosaddegh in Iran? Was that the US' part in 'spreading democracy,' to overthrow yet another democratically elected government?

The mass of that response to Zonie was my pointing out that clearly that the US was/is not acting merely in others' interests (therefore just as clearly, not solely to British interests), while they themselves otherwise had no concern.

You missed that. All of it. The only thing in the whole post that caught your attention was the penultimate sentence. Just that one sentence. Thanks for pointing out that you weren't up to the task else wise.

You are demonstrably incapable of properly comprehending a single post, so don't expect others to take you seriously in your estimation of others' ability concerning what transpires in the whole thread.

quote:

If you look, the suggestion is clearly that the US was acting in Britains interest.

There was clearly no such 'suggestion,' either in Zonie's post or mine, nor was it 'clear' that Britain was the only proposed, or 'suggested' or 'proclaimed' or 'insinuated' or 'intimated,' or whatever else, beneficiary (by anyone other than yourself, if only as self-convoluted product to for you to refute, which no one said to begin with, which is all you ever do here). You are so beyond any bounds of demonstrable reason, forget anything resembling basic comprehension skills to begin with.

quote:

Stop lying that I started the idea the US, and in particular Eisenhower was a British puppet.

You absolutely did, in assigning that 'suggestion' to others, especially as you directly alluded to one sentence of mine which in fact said no such thing, that however 'suggested,' 'insinuated, 'implied,' or whatever host of other things, some bizarre thing in your peculiar mind. All of which indicates that you are far from up to the task in this discussion.

Or any other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

But there are always two sides to every situation. You and others were saying that Eisenhower (and by extrapolation, other U.S. Presidents) were acting in America's interests, so my response was "Oh yeah? Show me where." That's what I was asking, and that question is still open and unanswered, if any of you guys wish to to take a stab at it.

Nice last post. I finally get where you are coming from on this issue. You may not like my answer but it is honest, none the less.

You are asking the wrong people, you need to asking that of all your former political leaders.

quote:


America didnt walk into Indochina blindly, your leaders knew Ho Chi Minh was determinied to free Vietnam from French rule, at least after WW2 ended. America didnt step into the Suez Crisis to assist Britain, Israel or France, it was for Americas own interest. American interest in the Gulf first time around was about stopping Saddams invasion of Kuwait, that wasnt the case the second time around. Once Saddam had gone the Iraqi people didnt end up any better off, indeed idealism under Bremer actually made it worse. Corruption in Afghanistan didnt end with the installation of Americas preferred choice of leader, if anything it got worse.

quote:


Your leaders, like it or not, act in Americas interest, how on earht do you think the US has become the most powerful nation in the world.

quote:

One thing is sure, Britain has long since been able to influence the US into acting in British interests unless those same interests fit with American strategy.

quote:


You could argue a case for bulwarks against communism, but on humanitarian grounds only Kosovo, and maybe Korea could be considered.

I would agree with you the interest of a nation isnt always the interest of ALL its people, normally its the poor that lose out, even in times of crisis. The rich can transfer assets between cash to stocks etc, buying nthem when they are at their cheapest.