I've been reading "Bush at War" by Bob Woodward. Amazing book. People would be surprised at some of the things they think they know but don't. I have been.

ice, we tried hard to get bin Laden. He kept escaping, barely. We did not sell weapons to bin Laden to fight the Soviets. We provided aid to Afghanistan. Big difference.

We also supported the Shah of Iran during the same time, to block the Soviets. That didn't work out very well, either. Nor did withdrawing our support.

Where is the substantiation, Beavis? Good grief.

The fact that I critisise US foreign policies does not mean that I defend European, or Swedish policies. Europes history is far darker than the US.

England has probably exterminated more ethnic groups than any other nation.

Frances actions in Algeria in modern history is appaling, and their nuclear testings in the pacific agains the UN's wishes just a decade ago showed contempt for world opinion.

Spains and (Portugals) colonization of south America and Francos fascist regime more recently doesn't really cast a positive light on Spain.

Sweden recently extradited two Egyptians for torture (and have been critisised by the UN for it). During the WWII we helped the nazis by selling them resources and accepting payment in stolen jewish gold. Up until the 60's we had a race biological institute and sterilised retarded people as well as certain ethnic groups (mainly gypsies).

Trying to paint me as a US basher doesn't work, I bash all countries equally. It just so happens that during the last 50 years, US has been the most prolific of the rouge states.


I think the difference is that I don't live with rosy shades on that makes me think that big powerful nations do things for altruistic reasons. I'm also not a "patriot", meaning I don't have an irrational need to defend any nations actions in the face of evidence. I put patriot between quotes because if you're American I actually think it is unpatriotic NOT to be critical of your own government, no matter which faction is controlling it.

Do you think that the US polices the world in the worlds best interest? You think the US tax payer money is spend to increase the safety of people in Bungholistan? US does what most nation does, try to further their own interests. The problem is that as a power nation they're currently unopposed and that there is a lack of understanding of the effects of the actions. I think Europe learned its lesson from WWII, mainly because it was fought here. Millions and millions of people were killed, here. Their homes and works destroyed, here. The US has since its civil war fought all its wars abroad, and as such has a much different view on war. In Europe war is considered the evil of evils, something to be avoided at all costs, in US it is still somewhat glorified and considered a viable solution.

Critisising the government, free speech and active democracy used to be the backbone of the US. Something they exported to the rest of the worl at great benefit to all nations affected. Today they export war and use their power and influence to further their own interest and undermine anything (read: the UN) that could create a more balanced and just world. It doesn't really matter if it is a republican or democratic government. Clinton did the same thing. He supported Suharto (who's a genocidal maniac), bombed Kosovo, a pharmaceutical plant and thought it was "worth it" that half a million babies died because of the Iraq sanctions.

I don't blame you for not seeing this. I follow the US media and quite frankly, without the luxery of being able to see all this from the outside it must be pretty damn hard to realise what is going on and how (and why) US is percieved in the world.

Great, quote the Daily Mail at us as though it's the Voice of Reason.

[NB The Daily Mail vociferously supported Hitler in the 1930's]

are you saying they made that story up?



BTW what are the gospel quote marks.

This was just one story i found on BBC bias, so I posted it.