Anti-Americanism/Irish Neutrality

lazydaisy

I realise that these could be under two different threads. But I suspect they are linked. Maybe I'm wrong.

Does anyone else feel the anti-Americanism in Ireland is hysteria or at least partially so? It just seems so automatic and visceral, and that there is an unspoken censorship of defending the US or Ireland's assistance whether it be financial or through the use of ports and intelligence.

dahamsta

What anti-americanism? Perhaps you mean the current dislike of the current american adminisatration, which isn't the same thing?

Ray777

The phrase 'Anti-Americanism' is basically nothing more than a slur, used (in the absence of any kind of intellectual debate) against people who despise the actions of a warmongering, power-hungry administration that shows nothing but pure contempt for international law.

Memnoch

Ray777 wrote:

The phrase 'Anti-Americanism' is basically nothing more than a slur, used (in the absence of any kind of intellectual debate) against people who despise the actions of a warmongering, power-hungry administration that shows nothing but pure contempt for international law.

QFT

lazydaisy

Well, I'm using it and you [Ray 777] have no idea how I feel about the war or the people who oppose it. Your response is just more evidence of what I originally posted. And it is more than a slur. It is a reality. By anti-americanism I mean both the dislike of the administration which has permeated into a dislike of the people. By anti-americanism I mean the unsolicited and undeserved vitreol I and I am sure other people with American accents get when they are minding their own business at a Christmas party or having a quit drink in a pub or doing any other kind of mundane task. It's more than dislike, it's something else that is much deeper. And it has been around before Iraq. I'm not the only one who has noticed. I've listed several of many articles on the subject below if anyone is interested.

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2005/01/23/story1689.asp

http://www.nuzhound.com/Irish_Eagle/articles/2003/jan31_anti-Americanism__Irish-Voice.php

http://www.rte.ie/news/2001/1125/harney.html

http://www.irishabroad.com/news/irishinamerica/columnists/intelligencer/intelligencer-050921.asp

Memnoch

well it's no surprise that some of the ill will towards the government spills over.

In terms of world opinion the american government and as a result the american nation are at an all time low.

I guess people can't help but stretch this to the citizens of the country that after all did elect those leaders and stand by their actions. Even though that's wrong.

The problem is that a collection of individuals can do terrible things even though individuals themselves can be nice family people.

And you're right, it's not dislike it is much deeper. I'd say it's a mixture of anger, frustration and guilt.

At the end of the day when people see what's happening around them and they see the way the american media propagandises a lot of things it breeds anger. Most people however are powerless to do anything about it that would make any difference and I guess it that anger and frustration builds up, so when they see an "american" it all comes out, as a vent of their feelings. I'm not saying this is right, but I think this is probably the explanation behind it.

It's silly and pointless to give out to or verbally abuse individual americans OR people with an american accent. Though I must admit that whenever I am around americans who are friends of mine it's hard to not launch into a diatribe about their government and what their country is up to.

I guess what i'm trying to say is that I understand where you are coming from but I don't know what the solution could be. These kind of sentiments are likely to prevail and spread if things continue as they are at the moment. But you gotta admit the american "we don't give sh*t about those eurinals" attitude doesn't help much.

Ray777

Ray777 wrote:

The phrase 'Anti-Americanism' is basically nothing more than a slur, used (in the absence of any kind of intellectual debate) against people who despise the actions of a warmongering, power-hungry administration that shows nothing but pure contempt for international law.

Thats essentially correct.

Back in September 2001, this country ground to a halt and had a day of mourning for those that died in New York.
A few years of the Bush administration later and I doubt the same thing would happen again.
Thats an evolution, based on people forming opinions on what they think is wrong.
I suspect , one wouldn't get a million or more people into the Phoenix park today either for Pope Benedict, like was the case in '79 for JP2.

Memnoch wrote:

At the end of the day when people see what's happening around them and they see the way the american media propagandises a lot of things it breeds anger.

I'd understand saying that about the likes of fox news but the rest of the mainstream U.S media have grown as tired of Bush as the voters have.

Have a look at this thread if you dont believe me and particularally Hobbes's link.

Hagar

I don't think it's as simple as saying the Americans are nice people but their Government are bad people.

The American elected and re-elected their leaders. You can't absolve the individuals from the actions of the group.

The American phrases "Government of the people by the people"
and "My country right or wrong" spring to mind. You cannot seperate the American people from the actions of their leaders.

The American Empire is expanding the way the Roman Empire did. "Knell before us or die"

Dev sucessfully defended our neutrality and ports against pressure from the British during WWII now some muppet will sell them out for a few jobs in a factory that will close as soon as they can get cheaper labour elsewhere.

Hobbes

lazydaisy wrote:

Well, I'm using it and you [Ray 777] have no idea how I feel about the war or the people who oppose it.

Your links are somewhat misplaced. Ignoring the 2001 news report, the US administration try to wrap themselves up in the American flag and claim that disrespecting them is disrespecting the USA. It isn't.

Don't know where you dragged that Kathrina story up from as thats the first I heard of it, and the Irish had no problems giving money to it. In fact if you wander through the boards you would see more complaints of why not more?

By anti-americanism I mean both the dislike of the administration which has permeated into a dislike of the people.

Both? So to point out that Bush is a complete tool is somehow against America? Bare in mind nearly 50% of America at the time of voting also thought he wasn't a capable president and currently is running at 63% think hes better off gone.

Add to that his administration being indicted for corruption and possible treason charges, getting no bid contracts to rip the tax payers off, showing how bad of a leader during the Kathrina crisis (hell of a job Brownie). That most jobs are now going to China/India, US is heavily in debt to China and the middle east, and numerous Americans are dead/wounded because they were sent into a war on a lie. Also baby boomers are set to retire, US is going to be looking at a huge employment shortage and no way to pay the retirement funds.

How can anyone sit there and say that this person and administration is representative of the US?!

And it has been around before Iraq. I'm not the only one who has noticed.

Well to be fair the USA has been dicking around in numerous other countries long before Bush came into power (even in the EU). For example "November 17" terrorist group came into force due to US intervention in an illegal coup in Greece to oust an democratically elected president. Quite a few Americans died because of that (not to mention lots of Greeks dead/tortured).

It is only with Bush that the US might actually notice what it is doing outside its own country. At the end of the day, you elect the idiots. You can't absolve yourself from the blame for that. No the feeling is less of blame but more of how can people be so blind to what an administration is doing in thier name.

Hatred for Americans? More like feeling sorry for them that they can't do anything about the mess their country is in.

Hagar

Hagar wrote:

I don't think it's as simple as saying the Americans are nice people but their Government are bad people.

The American elected and re-elected their leaders. You can't absolve the individuals from the actions of the group.

You'd have to say the same of the British people then if you are going to look at it like that.
High turnout and over half the electorate voted for parties in support of the Iraq war.
You can absolve most individuals tbh.
It wouldnt surprise me if the percentage of eligible voters that turned out in the last US election was way less than the percentage that turned out in Iraq.

The point I'm making is, that if you count naders votes,half the U.S electorate were very opposed to the Bush agenda and now its over 60%

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

It just seems so automatic and visceral,

I agree with you ... it is a number of factors

These are generalisations of course, they are stereotypes, I am just explaining how Irish view Americans, not justifying it cause it is nonsense.

1 - Americans are arrogant. Irish people, and other Europeans, often find Americans arrogant when dealing with social situations, and often ignorant of different cultures. Americans often seem to think they are in a theme park when in Ireland, as if the country exists to entertain them on holiday. The often tend to think that we should all be in awe of the fact that they are American, and as such come from the "best f**king country in the world!"

2 - Americans are uncool If you see someone clapping in a cinema, or over the time laughing at something that wasn't that fun, or saying loudly "that awesome", they are probably American. Irish people are obsessed with not associating themselves with something that is embarrassing to other Irish people. It wouldn't be surprising to see Irish people slowly backing away and shaking their heads as American tourist splitting his sit laughing at the dancing leprechauns on Grafton St.

3- Americans stand out like a sore thumb The general rule in fashion is that middle America is 5 years behind fashion trends in New York/UK/Ireland. And that is only the young people. Middle ages Americans could be picked out of a crowded street a mile away. And this goes back to Irish people not like being embarrassed or being associated with something they feel is embarrassing. I remember in college being in a line for a club with an American guy who was wearing completely different fashion than the rest of us. Some drunk lads behind us started slagging his clothes, and once in the club most of the Irish people we were with make a bee-line for the far side of the club.

4 - Americans are stupid They ask stupid questions about stuff, seem unable to place Australia on the map, or understand the concept of irony. Plus they ask ridiculous questions like "Did you lose a lot of family in the Irish famine"

Really a lot of the uncomfortableness that Irish people feel around Americans is due to our own issues with how to act in social situations. Behaviour that might seem perfectly fine in American is considered embarrasing in Ireland, because we as a culture are obsessed with not embarrasing ourselfs.

In reality American is just like any other country, it has some idiots assh*les and nice friendly people.

Memnoch

the problem with using elections to gauge public opinion is that people are voting on more than just one issue.

Saying that because a majority of brits voted Labour in or voted for Labour /conservative meant they support the iraq war is ludicrous. The sad truth is that the Iraq war isn't even an issue for large portions of the electorate, that are more concerned with local issues, NHS funding, university fees etc etc etc. Just as in america many voters care more about gay marriage (???) and other such "moral" issues.

To say that re-election is tantamount to support for the war is basically saying that endorsement = apathy/ignorance. WHo knows.. maybe it does?

The Church is a great example of the above. The Pope himself spoke out against the iraq war and all violence in general, yet still backed Bush as a champion of god. That's the thing with wedge issues. What issue is most important varies from individual to individual.

A lot of Brits would vote labour because at least they aren't the conservatives.

bonkey

lazydaisy wrote:

Does anyone else feel the anti-Americanism in Ireland is hysteria or at least partially so?

Yes, but no more so than the declarations of Anti-Americanism.

There's people on all sides who get carried away. The mistake - on either side - is to fail to distinguish between these and the remainder who are more considered in their opinions.

It just seems so automatic and visceral,

Again, no more so than the "You're criticising / opposed to these actions taken by the American Administration, ergo you're anti-American" school.

and that there is an unspoken censorship of defending the US or Ireland's assistance whether it be financial or through the use of ports and intelligence.

Funnily, I see this "unspoken censorship" being more of a mix of the media needing to report something other than same-old, same-old, coupled with the government deciding that "out of sight, out of mind" is a far better tactic with an election coming up than actually trying to convince the voters that they were right all along and are still right. If the supporters of the war are being censored, its only in that they fear the democratic reprecussions that could result from reminding those who might otherwise vote for them of an issue which had their blood boiling only 12 months ago.

Personally, I was opposed to the war...principally becaused I didn't believe the US post-war effort would be up to the job, up to and including them pulling out - one way or another - leaving the nation in a worse state with worse prospects for the future.

Now that the war is over, I'm totally opposed to the US pulling out in a situation which will prove my initial fears correct. Unfortunately, however, their current actions don't entirely convince me that they they're heading in a direction that will avoid that eventuality.

So does that make me anti-American? That I want to see them get it right, but fear that they won't, and am critical of whatever I see that to me is heading down the wrong road.

As to the people, I judge Americans like every other people I meet - individually. They have a different culture and educational background to me, but so do most people where I live, so its not something I have a major problem dealing with.

Consider also that 12 months ago, this board was almost exclusively discussing American politics, or international politics in which the US was centre-stage. Today, with the Administration potentially on the brink of facing indictments, with Iraq and Afghanistan far from out of the woods, with new allegations of atrocities by US soldiers (burning of Al Qaeda bodies), with the aftermath of Katrina still unfolding, with the latest allegations against Sudan and all of the rest of it.....the board is almost enitrely focussed on such burning isses as whether or not we'll see a United Ireland in our lifetimes, and other such minutiae of Irish politics.

If this is censorship, then surely it is as much on the side of the critics of the US as with the supporters.

jc

bonkey

Memnoch wrote:

the problem with using elections to gauge public opinion is that people are voting on more than just one issue.

True, but it can happen that a single issue becomes paramount in an election.

It is possible that a government get re-elected or kicked out because of their position on something like a war, but in the majority of cases, it will be more of a mix of domestic issues which sways the day as you say.

The important thing to note is that means saying "the government could be voted out because of the war" does not necessarily lead to "if the government is re-elected, it must therefore also be because of the war". (Same if you reverse the positions, of course).

netwhizkid

I am in favour of full Irish Neutrality and we should have absolutely no involvement with any war or the corrupt Bush administration. I am anti-bush and anti-capitalist. I think american people show the same amount of intellect as your average caged mouse. I am looking forward to when Petroleum runs out as it will bring the downfall of stupid american values and their ultra-right wing religious zealot attitude of we are the greatest and we can steal any countries wealth either through forcing privatisation and globalism or when they can't crack the government of said country, just simply invading it and stealing it like the case of the Iraqi oil. I have pity for the american people as they are basically brainwashed and i am sure many of them would embrace European values, and European intellect rather than American throw away society of McDonald's and 5MPG guzzler SUV for a person weighing 9stone. American views will take decades to repair after what damage Dubya have done to the view of America. And to think i actually felt sorry for the USA on 9/11 and i amongst other thought that bush was doing a good job. Ah well only another 3 years to go and 18mths before their PDs and FF puppets are kicked out here.

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote:

Saying that because a majority of brits voted Labour in or voted for Labour /conservative meant they support the iraq war is ludicrous.

Indeed but I was only commenting on Hagars generalisation and not suggesting that.
Clearly I said if one was to condemn US voters for bringing back a war mongering regime then logic says you apply the same logic to the Brits aswell.
OK they didnt give labour a majority of the votes, but they gave pro Iraq war parties a majority of the votes.

I was talking to a nurse from the states last year who was working in a Dublin Hospital.She said she voted for Bush for several reasons, the war wasnt chief amongst them.

lazydaisy

Hagar you said:

Dev sucessfully defended our neutrality and ports against pressure from the British during WWII now some muppet will sell them out for a few jobs in a factory that will close as soon as they can get cheaper labour elsewhere.

That's not exactly true. Ireland was officially neutral but unofficially helped the allies a lot. One of the many ways they helped was by letting the US use its ports. Part of this was due to a well founded fear that Ireland would have been used by Germany as a flanking nation to invade England and also because Ireland didn't have the resources to defend itself against German occupation. Ireland was more a non belligerant than neutral nation. It was a big part of Dev's foreign policy to make Ireland the bridge between America and Europe.

Hobbes - How are the links misplaced? They seem entirely relevant. How did you not hear about Katrina? I didn't "drag it up". The Irish Voice is a very prominant and widely read paper in the Irish immigrant community in the US. You didn't hear the Vincent Brown show and other media getting on their high horse about the million euro and what a crappy country America is?

And of course criticising the Bush administration or opposition to the war does not equate with anti-Americanism, but the bigotry and prejudices aimed at US citizens does. Just look at Wicknight's list of stereotypes, which are only the tip of the iceberg, as evidenced by some of the perceptions on this thread.

Bonkey - that is unfortunately very true. People do get carried away and don't hear the more considered opinions. They tend to hear the loudest and most repetitive voices. There are a lot of them around however. The I feel sorry for Americans comments are even more ridiculous, superiority complexes disguised as compassion.

Netwhizkid - could you elaborate? What exactly are European values and European intellect?

Hagar

lazydaisy wrote:

One of the many ways they helped was by letting the US use its ports.

I wasn't aware of this. I would be very interested in any details you might have.

netwhizkid

netwhizkid wrote:

I think american people show the same amount of intellect as your average caged mouse.

And you have based this extremely simplified observation and over-generalisation on what study? 'European values and European intellect' have seen Europe plunge the world into war twice in a century when the Europeans have looked to the US to bail it out, while European powers have historically tried to colonise the world. Now while I'm not saying Europe owes the US anything, but let's not get too smug and self satisifed over some supposed intellectual advantage over the Americans.

bonkey

lazydaisy wrote:

Just look at Wicknight's list of stereotypes,

But are they stereotypes, or simply - as he pointed out - cultural differences which the Irish, as a culture, are uncomfortable with?

<edit>
And lets not forget that I am generalising and stereotyping the Irish as much as the Americans here...
</edit>

For example, there does appear to be a relative difference in the knowledge the average US citizen has about the world outside his/her nation and that of the average European. Of course, if we compare more equivalent land-mass sizes, one could ask how much the average European knows of the world outside Europe, and I'm guessing that gap would rapidly close, if indeed it does exist.

If this relative difference does exist, is it inherently wrong to be affected by it? To point it out? Sure, some people will mock Americans because of it, but Americans are no different in having plenty of citizens willing to mock or belittle others for being inferior to some superior Americanness in a similar manner.

which are only the tip of the iceberg, as evidenced by some of the perceptions on this thread.

That, to me, is a statement which risks missing the point at which considered opinion becomes more fanatical or fundamental in nature.

To suggest that there are no strong cultural differences which exist would seem to be unsupportable to me.

To reference these differences and how they effect you doesn't seem unreasonable, as long as one makes it clear they are generalisations (which hopefully means that not only does the poster realise it doesn't apply to all Americans, but doesn't pre-judge Americans on the assumption they will have this trait).

To make comments like "I think american people show the same amount of intellect as your average caged mouse.", on the other hand.......well, its the type of position I couldn't even be bothered dignifying by discussing it in any further detail than to dismiss it.

jc

Hobbes

lazydaisy wrote:

Hobbes - How are the links misplaced? They seem entirely relevant. How did you not hear about Katrina? I didn't "drag it up". The Irish Voice is a very prominant and widely read paper in the Irish immigrant community in the US. You didn't hear the Vincent Brown show and other media getting on their high horse about the million euro and what a crappy country America is?

Well lets examine each one.

You have a news report from 2001. TBH the feeling in Ireland was certainly was to mourn the loss of all that life and Ireland (and the rest of the world) was certainly behind the US up until the "With us, or against us" speech. Even check back through boards around the time.

Irish Eagle is about as intresting and relevant as Ann Coulter. Some how linking Bush = US therefore = Anti-American.

You have another story going on about a single news reporter saying we shouldn't give money to the US (when in fact we sent a lot more then money). One opinion of a news reporter is hardly the opinion of Ireland.

You have another story claiming that the drop in student numbers in the US is due to Anti-Americanism. Actually while that may be part of the factor the major factor is that you have give fingerprints/personal information and queue for hours for an interview to give in depth details of where they will be in the country while there. Add to that if you are arrested you have no rights whatsoever (I'd say Terrorists only, but there have been a number of cases where this has been applied to non-terrorists/students).

Also this Anti-American crap is generally spouted by those who can't actually argue the position and is about as reflective as Bill O'Reilly boycotting the French.

Netwhizkid - could you elaborate? What exactly are European values and European intellect?

Please don't get him started.

dahamsta

Hobbes wrote:

Irish Eagle is about as intresting and relevant as Ann Coulter. Some how linking Bush = US therefore = Anti-American.

I laughed out loud when I read:

I'm not anti-American, but I'm anti-Bush.

As far as I'm concerned, this view is anti-American.

It could actually have been written by Coulter, the hateful bitch. It was certainly written by someone that's either: a) thick; b) a troublemaker; or c) both.

adam

TomF

An interesting thread. It seems the anti-Americanism of some is reciprocated by the anti-Europeanism of others. Here's a snippet from an essay by an American, James K. Glassman, who by no means of measurement could be called stupid, and may be cool and well-dressed as well! Ireland, as a country on the fringe of Europe (maybe Ireland isn't really European at all) gets a free pass from Glassman in his essay.

"Europe, or at least the parts I go to, is a wonderful place to live and to visit. It's beautiful; the food is great; the people are generally warm and relaxed. If there is a greater pleasure than eating a plate of Insalata Caprese (tomatoes, mozzarella, basil and cold-pressed extra-virgin olive oil) on a sunny terrace on the Amalfi Coast with the islands where the Sirens lured Ulysses in the distance, then I haven't found it yet.

But, when it comes to public policy, Europe has taken a wrong turn. Its welfare state has sapped initiative and driven jobs abroad; its treatment of immigrants is shameful; unemployment is in the double digits; health policy is making people sicker; and foreign policy is based on isolationism and moral posturing.

The results are predictable: The countries that use the euro will grow 1.2 percent this year, according to The Economist; the U.S. will grow 3.5 percent. Similar disparity has prevailed for a decade, and Americans today have a living standard about one-third higher. The notion that Europe will be able to compete with resurgent China and India in the next 30 years is laughable.

Certainly, however, there isn't just a single Europe. The countries on the outer edges -- Britain, Poland, Ireland, Portugal, Estonia, and so on -- remain fairly aspirational, leaning in the direction of American liberalism (in the best sense of that word -- a tendency to place freedom, economic and personal, number-one on a list of values). They haven't given in to the smug complacency of France, Germany, Belgium and (I'm sad to say) Spain. Italy, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries are somewhere in between.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/102105E.html

bonkey

But, when it comes to public policy, Europe has taken a wrong turn. Its welfare state has sapped initiative and driven jobs abroad;

Unlike America, where jobs have been driven abroad by the simple fact that people in developing economies simply do more for less.

its treatment of immigrants is shameful;

Unlike America, where the grey economy treats illegal immigrants like kings, right?

unemployment is in the double digits;

As a matter of interest, does anyone know what level unemployment in the US would be at if long-term unemployed weren't dropped off the figures after enough time has elapsed?

Also, is the author referring to average unemployment across all of Europe, the EU, Western Europe, or what?

health policy is making people sicker;

We should clearly follow the US ideal of healing the wealthy and letting everyone else either owe everything they'll ever earn to hospitals or simply refuse them treatment.

and foreign policy is based on isolationism and moral posturing.

Again, coming from an American, criticism of anyone's foreign policy is somethign I'd take with a grain of salt.....after I figured out exactly what he means by foreign policy in relation to a continent. Again, is he talking about the EU, Western Europe, some average of European nations, or what?

The notion that Europe will be able to compete with resurgent China and India in the next 30 years is laughable.

The idea that the US will be able to compete with them is equally laughable, but one that the author (at least in this excerpt) avoids mentioning.

Certainly, however, there isn't just a single Europe. The countries on the outer edges -- Britain, Poland, Ireland, Portugal, Estonia, and so on -- remain fairly aspirational,

If we remove the "edge" nations, Germany is about all thats left. Well, germany and some of the newer members in the East.

So it would seem that when the author is attacking Europe, he's attacking Germany. He's probably also attacking France, and probably Italy (ooh - reading further, I'm bang on, except he included the Belgians too), but doesn't seem to realise that they too are "edge" nations.

leaning in the direction of American liberalism (in the best sense of that word -- a tendency to place freedom, economic and personal, number-one on a list of values).

It always cracks me up. The good nations in Europe are the ones most closely matching "American liberalism". So basically, the more American we are, the better we are. Funny an American should think that.

Its even funnier that he should be giving these nations credit for matching American liberal ideals when one of Bush's main tactics in the last election to discredit Kerry was to label him as a liberal.

Apparently then, liberal Americanism is what non-American nations should strive for, but is the path to ruin for America.

They haven't given in to the smug complacency of France, Germany, Belgium and (I'm sad to say) Spain. Italy, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries are somewhere in between.

So basically, all of the criticism of Europe is because of 4 nations.

FFS. If I tried to criticise America because of the actions of just the bible-bashing states, I'd be ridiculed for trying to portray all Americans as fundemantalist Christian nuts. TomF's chosen author, however, sees no problem doing a similar - arguably greater - disservice to Europe.

To be honest, the more I consider the snippet TomF posted, the more and mroe I'm inclined to disagree with the assertion that the author by no means of measurement could be called stupid. In terms of his demonstrated knowledge of Europe, I think that label could most certainly be applicable.

jc

lazydaisy

Bonkey,

When you refer to the average person from Europe who do you mean? When you refer to the average American who do you mean? How do you measure who knows more about what is outside of their nation? Are you saying that this is what Irish people like to mock Americans for? A gap which may not even exist? I found your post a little confusing.

Are you also saying generalisations are ok when the person who is saying them makes it clear to the listener/reader that it applies to most, some, many but not all of the people being described and hopes for the best that the listener/reader understands that, despite possibly being one of those people being described?

You will question someone's stance on foreign policy just because they are American? You said "Again, coming from an American, criticism of anyone's foreign policy is somethign I'd take with a grain of salt....." You don't think that's racist? Substitute the word American with Brit, Nigerian, Traveller, woman, homosexual, or whatever and see what it looks like.

Hobbes - discrediting the witness doesn;t exactly help an argument. Those are a few of many articles available on the web. You can google Irish Anti-Americanism and see for yourself. There are plenty more examples of other people observing its existence.

What, other than money did Ireland give to Katrina victims?

When you refer to mourning the loss of all that life, I assume you are referring to Sept 11th? You didn't say. But I recall the feeling after Sept 11th because I was still living in Dublin, and yes the sympathy was there, but it was coupled with sanctimony even then.

J1 visa visitors are down because of the fingerprinting and long questionaiires? Most VISAs which allow you to work in a foreign country have those kinds of questions. If Ireland or other EU nations had these kinds of programmes for US or other non-national students to work there, more people would be aware of that. But the EU generally does not make it easy for non-citizens to work or live in Europe. In fact, it's nearly impossible.There are no such things as J1 visas, greencards, etc.... And in Ireland -even birth in the country doesn't entitle you to citizenship and that's probably part of why the author cited below thinks Europe is not great for immigrants aside from a million other reasons.

Do you have any links to the reports of Irish students being arrested? I'd be interested in reading them.

fly_agaric

lazydaisy wrote:

I realise that these could be under two different threads. But I suspect they are linked. Maybe I'm wrong.

Does anyone else feel the anti-Americanism in Ireland is hysteria or at least partially so? It just seems so automatic and visceral, and that there is an unspoken censorship of defending the US or Ireland's assistance whether it be financial or through the use of ports and intelligence.

I suppose there was always that element of "America - the evil empire:eek: " with the left in Ireland - indeed with the far left in the US too perhaps.
What has changed after years of Bush Jr's craziness is that more ordinary people have also become quite cynical about the US.

I don't see much love for "Europe" flowing across the atlantic either these days - and last I heard we were part of Europe.

Anyway, what does it matter really?:)

To listen to the conservatives in the US, no true blue American patriot would pay any heed to the hystericals of a bunch of damn dirty for'ners - esp'shally not to a pansy europussy coward-nation of quislinglickspittlesurrendermonkeys who will be first in line to kiss the Caliph's ass when Ahl-Kaidah have their "Islamic empire" (as de prez'nent called it in a speech recently). Dey have no nukular weapons either ffs! Who on God's green earth takes a nation without the A-bomb seriously anyway?

That techcentral article is a typical example of the smug condescension the American media (especially the right-wing bits) always shows Europe. They are always so sure that they have found the truth, the perfect way a democratic and free nation should be governed. Your "axis-of-evilness-quotient" is predetermined by how close your country matches up in terms of laws, government etc to that beacon of hope for us benighted for'ners - the US of A.

Hobbes

lazydaisy wrote:

Hobbes - discrediting the witness doesn;t exactly help an argument. Those are a few of many articles available on the web. You can google Irish Anti-Americanism and see for yourself.

Sorry, when the witness is bogus to begin with (and wtf witness?) why should we take the story as the norm?

I can certainly google, however the amount of "Anti-Americanism" spouted tends to be spouted by the right wing conservitive sites. Prehaps if you can point me to actual blatant anti-americanism as opposed to those who claim to be reporting it.

My relatives are from America and currently enjoying Ireland at the moment. They haven't had any hassle at all. The friends with them are the sterotypical right-wing ulta religous conservatives (which was fun debating with them ). While we disagreed on everything the discussion never went down to "bloody americans/liberals" arguments that I see spouted when questioned on issues. Of course they are not reflective of all Americans, but they never mentioned anything out of the ordinary that you have mentioned (except maybe people trying to rip them off).

There are plenty more examples of other people observing its existence.

Less observations, more actual incidents would be better. Can you dig them up?

What, other than money did Ireland give to Katrina victims?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0905/katrinaaid.html

Not to mention we opened up our oil reserves to the US (as part of EU agreed)

When you refer to mourning the loss of all that life, I assume you are referring to Sept 11th? You didn't say. But I recall the feeling after Sept 11th because I was still living in Dublin, and yes the sympathy was there, but it was coupled with sanctimony even then.

You posted a news report from 9/11 claiming that Anti-Americanism was rampant. It wasn't at that time. Even France said "We are all Americans now".

J1 visa visitors are down because of the fingerprinting and long questionaiires? Most VISAs which allow you to work in a foreign country have those kinds of questions.

Actually they don't. You have to list in detail where you will be in the US for your stay there. The only time I have seen something similar is the anti-terrorist form that all the lucky Irish got to fill out when going to England.

But this has been discussed to death before on boards.ie. Shame the search isn't active.

Do you have any links to the reports of Irish students being arrested? I'd be interested in reading them.

I'll dig out what I can when I get back from my hols. Off the top of my head two Russian students were detained for months without charge in the US. The crime? Cycling into a police station to ask for directions.

bonkey

lazydaisy wrote:

Are you also saying generalisations are ok when the person who is saying them makes it clear to the listener/reader that it applies to most, some, many but not all of the people being described and hopes for the best that the listener/reader understands that, despite possibly being one of those people being described?

You will question someone's stance on foreign policy just because they are American?
...
You don't think that's racist?

Yes I will, and no I don't.

I think its a reflection of my opinion of American foreign policy, coupled with a belief in the notion of "before removing the mote in thy neighbour's eye...", backed up by my distaste of someone pointing at the flaws of one side to conclude that the other is superior somehow, without addressing equally the flaws on the supposedly superior side.

I will criticise America, but not in order to conclude that because American deserves criticism, Europe is clearly superior. Europe has its own flaws, and if I were to discuss - on any point - which I believe is better, I would at least have the intellectual honest to weigh up the pros and cons of both sides, rather than taking TomF's chosen author's approach of "I don't like this aspect of Europe, so clearly America is better in this regard".

I will also draw your attention to the ironical fact that you began this thread asking about the "hysteria" of anti-Americanism, and yet suggest as your first response that a comment I make is racist in origin, despite the fact that I've already tried to make clear that I make an effort to be considered in my criticism.

You disregarded my claims of consideration, and immediately went for the "isn't that racist" come-back. Considering how multicultural America is only further highlights how carefully considered that response was.

A remarkable stance for someone asking if other people's criticism is somewhat based in hysteria, I must say.

Again, I'm reminded of the notion of "before removing the mote in thy neighbour's eye..."

jc

lazydaisy

Bonkey,

Thank you for clearing that up. As I said, I was confused by your post so I wanted to ask if I understood you correctly. Clearly I didn't. If you notice, I did put question marks at the end of the sentences, thus implying a question, not a statement. Taking someone's opinion with a grain of salt because of their nationality, I think is a somewhat racist, but we don't have to agree on that. We don't have to agree on what is racist and what isn't. There are people [not me though] who would argue that quoting the Bible at me when you don't know what my faith is is Eurocentric, arrogant, preachy and biblethumping. In case you care, I do not take offense at it. I know you're just trying to tell me I'm a hypocrite and not trying to impose your Judeo-Christian values on me.

Hobbes,

I didn't notice that those were right wing conservative sites. The Irish Voice is defintely not right wing conservative. Is Irish Eagle and The Sunday Business Post right wing conservative? [I genuinely do not know - please tell me]. If I find leftwing- liberal examples would that be better? If left wing liberals say it it has credibilty? [The Irish Voice has traditionally been left wing leaning but you dismissed that too].I would- but I have the feeling you have already decided I am wrong and no matter what I show you you will discredit the author. Also - are people claiming it's the norm? It just seemed to me that they were saying it existed and is/was growing in popularity?

The link you supplied regarding aid to Katrina said what Ireland may offer in addition to money and not what it did offer I don't disbelieve you though. I'm sure Ireland did offer more than financial assistance.

Hagar

lazydaisy wrote:

What, other than money did Ireland give to Katrina victims?

Well I tried to put a ham sandwich, two buckets, a saxophone and a canoe in the Red Cross Box but they wouldn't fit.

Imagine the gall of a country our size merely sending money as aid. I'm ashamed of us. :rolleyes:

dahamsta

Hagar wrote:

Well I tried to put a ham sandwich, two buckets, a saxophone and a canoe in the Red Cross Box but they wouldn't fit.

LOL. I get the buckets, the saxaphone and the canoe, but wouldn't something fish-related be more appropriate than a hang sandwich?

lazydaisy

Hagar wrote:

Well I tried to put a ham sandwich, two buckets, a saxophone and a canoe in the Red Cross Box but they wouldn't fit.

Imagine the gall of a country our size merely sending money as aid. I'm ashamed of us. :rolleyes:

I will remind you I was asking a question not making a comment. It was said by a poster [Hobbes] that Ireland gave more than money but the poster didn't elaborate and I wasn't aware of what s/he meant. He or she later answered the question. It was certainly not inteded as a criticism, but as an inquiry.

Despite being a small country, isn't Ireland the richest or second richest in the EU? Again - a question - not a comment.

Hagar

lazydaisy wrote:

Despite being a small country, isn't Ireland the richest or second richest in the EU? Again - a question - not a comment.

And California is the 5th largest economy in the world....
And you have a movie star running it. Good choice.:rolleyes:

What do you want from us?
Call back your armies from all your occupied lands and help your own people. I can't do it all on my own you know.

fly_agaric

lazydaisy wrote:

Despite being a small country, isn't Ireland the richest or second richest in the EU? Again - a question - not a comment.

Measured as GDP per capita, yes. The population is small so the total size of the economy as a whole is not that impressive, maybe ~ 1/100 the size of the US economy. Alot of the GDP is also due to exports of large (US) multinational companies that make things here and sell them on - really American wealth channelled through the Irish economy as far as I understand it (which is probably not very far). Ireland has a very large number of such companies' European operations based here, far out of proportaion to its size.

Also the country has not been wealthy for too long, and is now undergoing a rapid increase in population. If you live here you must realise how under stress the infrastructure of all types in Ireland is. I don't think we would be able to help ourselves God forbid we really had a serious disaster on our hands. I don't see how much good we could have done for the US beyond giving money.

bonkey

lazydaisy wrote:

Taking someone's opinion with a grain of salt because of their nationality, I think is a somewhat racist,

This will now be the second time I'll point out that America is a nation, not a race, despite you not bothering to address the point the first time I raised it.

I also didn't discount the author's opinion because he is American. I discounted his opinion because he's an American trying to suggest that America is superior because Europe has its flaws, which basically boild down to "its not enough like us". He didn't engage in a fair or balanced comparison, rather suggested that because Europe has its flaws, America is better. He ignored entirely the flaws that America has which should also be taken into consideration.

As I pointed out already, my issue is with the author and the argument he made. If you want to abstract this into me being racist (Again, America isn't a race. I have no idea what race the author is, in fact) you go right ahead. If you want to construe it as anti-American because the author is American, you're entirely free to do that too.

I can only clarify so many times what it is I objected to. If you want to repeatedly decide that I have some ulterior agenda/motive, and that my stated reasons are not, in fact, the reasons I really have, then you go right ahead.

There are people [not me though] who would argue that quoting the Bible at me when you don't know what my faith is is Eurocentric, arrogant, preachy and biblethumping.

I'm sure there are. If you look hard enough, you'll find people who will argue pretty much anything. It doesn't make it a particularly intelligent or considered point though...especially because it would involve making as many assumptions about my faith, nationality and my reasoning for using the quote as its suggesting I've made about yours.

I'm not really sure why you brought this up if you don't agree with it though. Are you trying to offer additional illustration of the type of hysterical arguments (like the Anti-Americanism you started the thread about)? If so, I agree fully - its a good example of a hysterical reaction based on nothing but assumption and generalisation.

If you've another reason for bringing it up, though, I'm at a loss to see it. Maybe you could clarify that for me? Why did you mention an argument you don't agree with and that isn't relevant to the thread?

I know you're just trying to tell me I'm a hypocrite

I'd never suggest anything of the sort, that being a personal attack.

I may find your your argument somewhat hypocritical in nature but only because I believe you are engaging in a different but equivalent branding of people who's stances you disagree with.

Mostly though, I find it ironic. Which is what I said. As I mentioned above, however, if you want to disregard what I say and decide that I meant something else....you go right ahead.

jc

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

And you have based this extremely simplified observation and over-generalisation on what study? 'European values and European intellect' have seen Europe plunge the world into war twice in a century when the Europeans have looked to the US to bail it out, while European powers have historically tried to colonise the world. Now while I'm not saying Europe owes the US anything, but let's not get too smug and self satisifed over some supposed intellectual advantage over the Americans.

And you're buying into one of the reasons why america gets criticised so much. The idea that the Europe has constantly looked to the US for help. WW1 the US declared war only when its own shipping was attacked. If it was so interested in our wellbeing wouldn't it have joined in 1914? WW2, the US only joined the European war when Hitler declared war when becoming allied to Japan.

This is the sort of reasons why I get annoyed with the whole american mentality. Americans often refer to how they saved our asses. Sure they helped. But for their own reasons, and mostly because they were forced into it. Hell, even the cold war support was out of their own fear of communist influence.

Europe owes the US squat. Only as much as the US owes Europe for being allied to them & allowing US bases on their soil for the last 50+ years.

Mr.Nice Guy

Deleted User wrote:

And you're buying into one of the reasons why america gets criticised so much. The idea that the Europe has constantly looked to the US for help. WW1 the US declared war only when its own shipping was attacked. If it was so interested in our wellbeing wouldn't it have joined in 1914? WW2, the US only joined the European war when Hitler declared war when becoming allied to Japan.

America had a history of staying out of European conflicts prior to 1914. You overlook the aid that America gave to Britain despite being neutral in both wars.

Deleted User wrote:

This is the sort of reasons why I get annoyed with the whole american mentality. Americans often refer to how they saved our asses. Sure they helped. But for their own reasons, and mostly because they were forced into it.

And we stayed neutral for our own reasons. America's contribution to the war effort was greater than ours so we are hardly in a position to judge them.

Deleted User wrote:

Europe owes the US squat.

Well I won't speak for 'Europe' but I will speak for Ireland and say that we owe them plenty. They are responsible for many jobs here in Ireland.

solas

laizydaisy wrote:

There are people [not me though] who would argue that quoting the Bible at me when you don't know what my faith is is Eurocentric, arrogant, preachy and biblethumping. In case you care, I do not take offense at it. I know you're just trying to tell me I'm a hypocrite and not trying to impose your Judeo-Christian values on me.

surely this is the true grit of your argument?
This really isnt about Ireland and it's neutrality at all is it?
Sounds more like the undercurrent of your average angry American democrat at the moment.

*goes off to dust me beloved images of JFK and the Pope which hang lovingly over me mantle.

egan007

Ray777 wrote:

The phrase 'Anti-Americanism' is basically nothing more than a slur, used (in the absence of any kind of intellectual debate) against people who despise the actions of a warmongering, power-hungry administration that shows nothing but pure contempt for international law.

Seconded

America had a history of staying out of European conflicts prior to 1914. You overlook the aid that America gave to Britain despite being neutral in both wars.

Actually I'm not, but I'll refer to it now.
WW1 - What Aid beyond what was purchased from the US?

WW2 - Lend Lease? A commercial agreement that cost Britain quite alot. I read this book a while back that mentioned that Britain gave up the majority of its gold reserves to America for the aid it received during WW2. That would be quite a bit considering the size of its Empire at that time.

And we stayed neutral for our own reasons. America's contribution to the war effort was greater than ours so we are hardly in a position to judge them.

You serious? I'll judge when praise is given where its not due. If people said that Ireland saved Europe for its aid during WW2 i'd criticse them.

America's contribution was far greater once they joined the war. Prior to that they were just another neutral nation unwilling to commit itself. But you're right Ireland did very little, and I'm not denying that.

Also its not so easy to compare contributions when you consider the size difference. Perhaps compare us to a country of comparable size, and population?

Well I won't speak for 'Europe' but I will speak for Ireland and say that we owe them plenty. They are responsible for many jobs here in Ireland.

You speak for Ireland? When did I vote YOU into office?

You can speak for yourself, just I speak for myself. Offer your own opinions.

The US (commercial business rather than the actual US government) is responsible for jobs in Ireland for which they received tax cuts and grants for. They were more than suitably rewarded for any employment they provided, and in most cases they packed up and left once those grants were removed.

Businesses move to where they get the best deals, which is why a fair number have gone to Northern Ireland, and Scotland in the last few years as opposed to Ireland. We don't offer enough incentives anymore.

dahamsta

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Well I won't speak for 'Europe' but I will speak for Ireland and say that we owe them plenty. They are responsible for many jobs here in Ireland.

Another myth. "They" are not in Ireland for the good of our health and "they" are not doing us a favour. American corporations are here for the well-educated workforce and the low corporation tax, period.

I know America is ruled to a certain degree by corporations but still: corporations != america. Just like Bush != America.

adam

Mr.Nice Guy

Deleted User wrote:

Actually I'm not, but I'll refer to it now.
WW1 - What Aid beyond what was purchased from the US?

Moral support.

Deleted User wrote:

WW2 - Lend Lease? A commercial agreement that cost Britain quite alot. I read this book a while back that mentioned that Britain gave up the majority of its gold reserves to America for the aid it received during WW2.

I've read books that have said it saved lives.

Deleted User wrote:

You serious? I'll judge when praise is given where its not due.

Not due? What about the thousands of American men who gave their lives in the fight against Nazism? Not to mention the fighting in the Far East. Such ignorance...

Deleted User wrote:

If people said that Ireland saved Europe for its aid during WW2 i'd criticse them.

Why wouldn't you? That would be a ridiculous claim.

Deleted User wrote:

America's contribution was far greater once they joined the war. Prior to that they were just another neutral nation unwilling to commit itself. But you're right Ireland did very little, and I'm not denying that.

Isn't it the principle behind most neutral countries to be neutral until attacked?

Deleted User wrote:

You speak for Ireland? When did I vote YOU into office?

Presumably around the time I voted YOU into office in Brussels:

Deleted User wrote:

Europe owes the US squat.

:rolleyes:

Deleted User wrote:

You can speak for yourself, just I speak for myself.

Don't forget how you speak for an entire continent...

Deleted User wrote:

Offer your own opinions.

LOL.

Deleted User wrote:

The US (commercial business rather than the actual US government) is responsible for jobs in Ireland for which they received tax cuts and grants for. They were more than suitably rewarded for any employment they provided, and in most cases they packed up and left once those grants were removed.

Businesses move to where they get the best deals, which is why a fair number have gone to Northern Ireland, and Scotland in the last few years as opposed to Ireland. We don't offer enough incentives anymore.

So when you said that Europe owed the US squat you were merely referring to the US government? Oh I see...

Ken Shabby wrote:

Another myth. "They" are not in Ireland for the good of our health and "they" are not doing us a favour. American corporations are here for the well-educated workforce and the low corporation tax, period.

They are still of enormous benefit to this country which is why our government has done alot to entice them here.

Ken Shabby wrote:

corporations != america. Just like Bush != America.

Bush = America? I was under the impression America was a democracy rather than a Totalitarian State. I was unaware Dubya was the embodiment of an entire nation. Does Ahern = Ireland too?

Moral support.

Oh Joy. Anything else?

I've read books that have said it saved lives.

Aye at what cost? Europe gave most of its Gold reserves to the US for the aid it received. While Europe was being fought over, America was building up its economy and industrial might on european monies paid for lend lease. Sure it saved lives, but it wasn't done without the US receiving a major amount of capital.

Not due? What about the thousands of American men who gave their lives in the fight against Nazism? Not to mention the fighting in the Far East. Such ignorance...

Ignorance? For what? Do Americans thank Europe for the British, French, Russian etc dead soldiers that protected them from Nazism? It works the same way.

As for the Far East, thats your opinion. I don't see why they're there in the first place.

Why wouldn't you? That would be a ridiculous claim.

No more ridiculous that America saved Europe out of the goodness of its heart. In just about every conflict that America has joined Europe it had its own motives for doing so. Its just that America has a much better propaganda machine.

Don't get wrong. American influence has helped in the past, and their contribution in the various wars was great. But you're being naive when you seem to indicate that they did so without any gains, or their own motives for doing so.

Isn't it the principle behind most neutral countries to be neutral until attacked?

Or until they declare war. Like Britain & France did during WW2, to help their ally Poland.

But you've been making out that the US joined the war to help Europe. They did so only in part. The rest consists of their own reasons. The US only really joined when they could get nothing more from Europe, and knew they'd be much better fighting Nazi Germany on European soil, rather than their own. Countries look to their own benefits.

Presumably around the time I voted YOU into office in Brussels:

Where did I take your opinion, or say I spoke for the Ireland?

Don't forget how you speak for an entire continent...

Again, where did I?

So when you said that Europe owed the US squat you were merely referring to the US government? Oh I see...

Do you really? You seem to be so grateful to America. We should be grateful for their help throughout the last 60 years, and the employment they created here in Ireland. And yet, in each case what did they receive to come to our aid, or to create businesses here?

But do you really want to examine your beliefs, regardless of what has influenced them?

This ties in directly with being called anti-american. if you challenge the beliefs that have been long held about America on just about any level, you can be labeled anti-american. Just as I don't believe we can lay all of Irelands troubles prior to our independence on the British. So would call me pro-British. I'm not either, but it is my right to believe otehrwise to the common beliefs.

dahamsta

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

They are still of enormous benefit to this country

They are, but they're doing it for their benefit, not ours. I don't have a problem with them being here in general, but I don't owe them anything, as the parent was suggesting.

Bush = America?

"Bush != America", which is programmer for "not equal". I should have just said that, sorry.

adam

Mr.Nice Guy

Deleted User wrote:

Oh Joy. Anything else?

What would you have preferred them to have done?

Deleted User wrote:

Aye at what cost? Europe gave most of its Gold reserves to the US for the aid it received. While Europe was being fought over, America was building up its economy and industrial might on european monies paid for lend lease. Sure it saved lives, but it wasn't done without the US receiving a major amount of capital.

Clearly America benefitted from the war from an economic standpoint but does that really matter?

Deleted User wrote:

Ignorance? For what? Do Americans thank Europe for the British, French, Russian etc dead soldiers that protected them from Nazism?

Yes they do. If you listen to the words of US officials at Remembrance celebrations you can see that they are appreciative. There might be a few who take the view that they "saved our asses" but that doesn't necessarily reflect American opinion as a whole just like an Irish person calling for "Brits out" doesn't reflect Irish opinion as a whole.

Deleted User wrote:

As for the Far East, thats your opinion. I don't see why they're there in the first place.

I was referring to the fighting with the Japanese.

Deleted User wrote:

Don't get wrong. American influence has helped in the past, and their contribution in the various wars was great. But you're being naive when you seem to indicate that they did so without any gains, or their own motives for doing so.

I'm not being naive. I never stated they went to war out of the goodness of their heart.

Deleted User wrote:

But you've been making out that the US joined the war to help Europe. They did so only in part. The rest consists of their own reasons. The US only really joined when they could get nothing more from Europe, and knew they'd be much better fighting Nazi Germany on European soil, rather than their own. Countries look to their own benefits.

I don't believe the US joined purely to help Europe. I do believe they would have joined anyway regardless of Pearl Harbour and that seems to have been Hitler's view as well.

Deleted User wrote:

Where did I take your opinion, or say I spoke for the Ireland?

Again, where did I?

You said: "Europe owes the US squat." You tried to be smart telling me not to speak for Ireland yet forgot the fact that you yourself had spoken for all of Europe. Poor form.

Deleted User wrote:

Do you really? You seem to be so grateful to America. We should be grateful for their help throughout the last 60 years, and the employment they created here in Ireland. And yet, in each case what did they receive to come to our aid, or to create businesses here?

I am appreciative of their efforts. I see nothing wrong in holding that view.

Deleted User wrote:

This ties in directly with being called anti-american. if you challenge the beliefs that have been long held about America on just about any level, you can be labeled anti-american. Just as I don't believe we can lay all of Irelands troubles prior to our independence on the British. So would call me pro-British. I'm not either, but it is my right to believe otehrwise to the common beliefs.

There's nothing wrong with challenging beliefs but it was only a short time ago that everything was all sunshine and roses with regards to the Irish-American relationship. Clinton was in power, the US were helping the effort which culminated in the GFA. Now here we are in 2005 with Bush in power and it seems to me that the anti-Bush hysteria has developed into anti-American attitudes. Clearly I'm not alone in that view.

What would you have preferred them to have done?

No the question is what did you think they had done that we should be grateful for? Really, I mean, moral support? come on. Am I being too extreme on this? You've made it out like they did something wonderful to help europe.... Sorry, Europe looked to the US to bail us out twice...

learly America benefitted from the war from an economic standpoint but does that really matter?

Of course it does, when you take the standpoint that Europe should be grateful to the US for saving their freedoms. Europe almost bankrupted itself, buying help from the US and fighting a war against germany, and the US only joined when Europe no longer had much to give. Thats my perspective, from the number of books I've read, and I stand by it. Why should we be grateful, and be constantly reminded about it, when the US did it totally for its own interests.

If it was the Aid that they gave to the Asian relief fund, then I'd agree with you and be grateful, but the US had their own aims for helping in Europe.

Yes they do. If you listen to the words of US officials at Remembrance celebrations you can see that they are appreciative. There might be a few who take the view that they "saved our asses" but that doesn't necessarily reflect American opinion as a whole just like an Irish person calling for "Brits out" doesn't reflect Irish opinion as a whole.

A few? lol. Really? I can't tell you the number of times I've heard from Americans who talk about America saving us from the Nazi's. About America's huge sacrifice. etc.

I was referring to the fighting with the Japanese.

The Japanese? Ahh but I thought you were oriuginally saying that we should be grateful for them saving us. I'm not sure Ireland is located anywhere near Pacific. Regardless, the US went to war in the Pacific because they were attacked. No choice whatsoever.

I'm not being naive. I never stated they went to war out of the goodness of their heart.

Fair enough. In hindsight I realise I saw differently. My mistake.

I don't believe the US joined purely to help Europe. I do believe they would have joined anyway regardless of Pearl Harbour and that seems to have been Hitler's view as well.

How long would they have waited, I wonder?

You said: "Europe owes the US squat." You tried to be smart telling me not to speak for Ireland yet forgot the fact that you yourself had spoken for all of Europe. Poor form.

Fair enough. Sorry about that. Are you sorry for doing the same?

There's nothing wrong with challenging beliefs but it was only a short time ago that everything was all sunshine and roses with regards to the Irish-American relationship. Clinton was in power, the US were helping the effort which culminated in the GFA. Now here we are in 2005 with Bush in power and it seems to me that the anti-Bush hysteria has developed into anti-American attitudes. Clearly I'm not alone in that view.

And you're entitled to your viewpoint. However I don't want to be labeled anti-american because I disagree with your & many americans viewpoints? Know what I mean? Anti-american is a phrase thats used to lower the value of opinion against someone. Its a spin word. I'm not accusing you of using it, but many people that approve of recent US actions use it quite a bit.

lazydaisy

It annoys me to no end when I hear Americans go on and on about saving the world in WW2 but there are also plenty of Americans on both sides of the political fence who wish they'd shut up about it. Many Americans forget that they were able to secure contracts through the Marshall plan, just as many Irish forget they received 133 million from it, or indeed that is was an American computer company (I wont name here in case it's illegal for me to do so) was assisting the Nazis. We all know the Brits pretty much did most of the fighting there and the US came in at the last minute under FDRs directive and against the popular sentiment of the American people at the time. Part of what ushered them in was pressure from the Jewish lobby, just as pressure from the Irish American lobby sent the US to help with the peace process and the GFA. WW2 was so exceptional and terrifying it's hard to get sanctimonious about anyone's actions or inactions, but I am certainly becoming more understanding of how hysteria spreads.

American corporations are in Ireland for purely profit related reasons. But they are corporations, not development agencies, so who would expect anything else? Quite frankly, IMHO i think Hearney should have done something to secure more investment and less transient contracts and hopefully Martin is doing that now. Or as minister for enterprise, do more to encourage entrepreneurship and small business development for the Irish so they wouldn't be as dependent on foreign trade and employment.

Can someone remind me what the sentiment was when Clinton sent troops into Iraq and bombed Palestine? I don't recall it being how it is now.

Mr.Nice Guy

Deleted User wrote:

No the question is what did you think they had done that we should be grateful for? Really, I mean, moral support? come on. Am I being too extreme on this? You've made it out like they did something wonderful to help europe.... Sorry, Europe looked to the US to bail us out twice...

I don't blame the US position prior to the sinking of the Lusitania. I think it was understandable. I also think they had a significant role in WW1 that deserves respect.

Deleted User wrote:

Of course it does, when you take the standpoint that Europe should be grateful to the US for saving their freedoms. Europe almost bankrupted itself, buying help from the US and fighting a war against germany, and the US only joined when Europe no longer had much to give. Thats my perspective, from the number of books I've read, and I stand by it. Why should we be grateful, and be constantly reminded about it, when the US did it totally for its own interests.

Well I disagree with you. I think they paid a price through the blood of their citizens. The US might have joined the war out of its own interest but most countries act out of their own interest. For example, did Britain declare war on Germany because it was concerned about Poland or because it was concerned about its position in the face of German expansion? In fairness to the US, they're damned if they do, and they're damned if they don't. If Ireland were attacked tomorrow and America chose to do nothing, they'd be criticised.

Deleted User wrote:

A few? lol. Really? I can't tell you the number of times I've heard from Americans who talk about America saving us from the Nazi's. About America's huge sacrifice. etc.

Well, I have to say my own experiences with Americans have been positive.

Deleted User wrote:

The Japanese? Ahh but I thought you were oriuginally saying that we should be grateful for them saving us. I'm not sure Ireland is located anywhere near Pacific. Regardless, the US went to war in the Pacific because they were attacked. No choice whatsoever.

The point is though that whilst Europe was celebrating the fall of Nazism, they were still embroiled with an enemy which refused to surrender. Until the A-Bomb came along of course...

Deleted User wrote:

How long would they have waited, I wonder?

I think it would have depended on public opinion.

Deleted User wrote:

Fair enough. Sorry about that. Are you sorry for doing the same?

Alright, fine.;)

Deleted User wrote:

And you're entitled to your viewpoint. However I don't want to be labeled anti-american because I disagree with your & many americans viewpoints? Know what I mean? Anti-american is a phrase thats used to lower the value of opinion against someone. Its a spin word. I'm not accusing you of using it, but many people that approve of recent US actions use it quite a bit.

People just find it irksome that hostility towards Bush leads to hostility towards America. I guess it can be compared to Irish attitudes toward Britain while Thatcher was in power. I think is a shame to see people bash the US as I personally happen to admire the country so I do have a probem with these ignorant anti-American types but you do not strike me as being anti-American so I wouldn't label you that.

mcgarnicle

lazydaisy wrote:

It annoys me to no end when I hear Americans go on and on about saving the world in WW2 but there are also plenty of Americans on both sides of the political fence who wish they'd shut up about it. Many Americans forget that they were able to secure contracts through the Marshall plan, just as many Irish forget they received 133 million from it, or indeed that is was an American computer company (I wont name here in case it's illegal for me to do so) was assisting the Nazis. We all know the Brits pretty much did most of the fighting there and the US came in at the last minute under FDRs directive and against the popular sentiment of the American people at the time. Part of what ushered them in was pressure from the Jewish lobby, just as pressure from the Irish American lobby sent the US to help with the peace process and the GFA. WW2 was so exceptional and terrifying it's hard to get sanctimonious about anyone's actions or inactions, but I am certainly becoming more understanding of how hysteria spreads.

American corporations are in Ireland for purely profit related reasons. But they are corporations, not development agencies, so who would expect anything else? Quite frankly, IMHO i think Hearney should have done something to secure more investment and less transient contracts and hopefully Martin is doing that now. Or as minister for enterprise, do more to encourage entrepreneurship and small business development for the Irish so they wouldn't be as dependent on foreign trade and employment.

Can someone remind me what the sentiment was when Clinton sent troops into Iraq and bombed Palestine? I don't recall it being how it is now.

The US didn't come in in the last minute, most of the fighting on the western front was still to come when they joined. The British were an important part but it is clear that it was the Russians who did most of the fighting and in fact they would have beaten the Nazis without any US help. The Jewish lobby caused the US to join the war, not Hitler's declaration of war? While it is true that public opinion at the time was not fully in favour of war, the post pearl harbour atmosphere meant that Hitler's decaration was enough for FDR to gain a large measure of public support for his war strategy of europe first. This Jewish lobby rubbish is thrown around too often if that was the case then why didnt the US Air Force put the concentration camps out of use before the end of the war, it is clear they knew about them.

Maybe I'm stupid but i don't remember Clinton ever invading Iraq (bombing yes, when was this invasion?) nor can i remember the US bombing Palestine, again maybe I'm wrong. Please enlighten me.

lazydaisy

The Jewish lobby had been pressuring them beforehand and was one of the participating factors in it. Pearl Harbor forced the decision. They definitely knew about the concentration camps. They didn't do anything because the US was very isolationist at the time.

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I had always thought they came in at the last minute and that the Brits did most of the fighting. I was also under the impression that the war would have been lost without US intervention but you're saying that Russia could have beaten the Nazis on its own? Interesting.

Sorry - I meant to say Clinton sent a missile to Pakistan, not Palestine. I was thinking Pakistan and typed Palestine. Apologies.:o Didn't he also bomb Serbia? Though there was not a formal occupation/invasion of Iraq I believe reserves were sent in. I could be wrong but I was told this by a couple of Marines.

mcgarnicle

lazydaisy wrote:

The Jewish lobby had been pressuring them beforehand and was one of the participating factors in it. Pearl Harbor forced the decision. They definitely knew about the concentration camps. They didn't do anything because the US was very isolationist at the time.

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I had always thought they came in at the last minute and that the Brits did most of the fighting. I was also under the impression that the war would have been lost without US intervention but you're saying that Russia could have beaten the Nazis on its own? Interesting.

Sorry - I meant to say Clinton sent a missile to Pakistan, not Palestine. I was thinking Pakistan and typed Palestine. Apologies.:o Didn't he also bomb Serbia? Though there was not a formal occupation/invasion of Iraq I believe reserves were sent in. I could be wrong but I was told this by a couple of Marines.

I've read a few books on WW2 and never once heard mention of a Jewish lobby playing a role in the US entering the war. There was no decission it was Hitler who declared war on america, not the other way around. I dont understand what you mean about the us not destroying the camps because they were isolationist. You are suggesting that america went to war because of pressure from a Jewish lobby, if this was the case then surely once at war (and i dont think the US remained isolationist during the war) they would have made it a primary goal to deal with the camps, we know that they were well aware of the existence of the camps.

Im not suggesting in the least that the US did not play a vital role in the war and I do believe that western europe owes them. Not for saving us from the Nazis but from the Soviets, had the Americans not entered the war the Russians would probably have marched through europe and taken france and i doubt they would have stopped there.