ModerateHere

I personally don't care whether Uncle Sam ever posts here again or not, under his own rubric or a new one. I've sided with him in the past and I might side with him in the future. He does know his Republican politics and sticks by them, and for that I give him credit even if I don't agree with all of his views - and I don't. But he is intelligent, far more so than some of you liberal apologists. I do have a great deal of disdain for his SUV leanings - need a rhino-hunting vehicle to hit the local 7-11 Sam? WHY? And he isn't all THAT well traveled, though when he travels he seems to do so with some suavity. But what really turned me off was his comment about how much he paid for his house. That was just crass, US. There are plenty of us on this forum who have paid that kind of money for houses, in far less ritzy venues than Texas. And we don't talk about it - would never THINK about talking about it on a public forum, because that's just, um, gross, and our parents would be blushing, even if our parents didn't have two nickels to rub together. You lost a lot of credibility on that one, US - kind of like how Trent Lott took a nosedive on one completely unthinking comment that turned out to reveal an enormous chasm of ignorance in your Republican Party that even Charles Krauthammer, that brilliant but still conservative thinker, riveted on immediately - and ultimately caused old Trent's demise.<BR><BR>As for the original poster - he hasn't been to Europe since the 1970s but is projecting what problems there might be with respect to American tourists nowadays? - suggestion, Darryl: Hop a plane and find out. It was probably your problem all along and it will probably be your problem now.

uncle sam

Moderatehere,<BR><BR>You are absolutely correct and I was in fact out of line on that one. I actually regretted it the minute after I hit the post button. It was entirely my fault and no excuses are offered.<BR><BR>Thank you for the kind comments although I will disagree with one point. I do not know your definition of &quot;well traveled&quot; but, no joke, I have been to 19 countries and have been to Europe around 20 or so times.<BR><BR>US

Catriona

Regardless of the original intention of this post, it seems that some people are concerned about being treated rudely/disrespectfully in Europe simply because they're American. If you feel this way, please bear in mind that if people treat you in a way that you consider inappropriate, there may be any number of reasons. I'm British, and I've sporadically encountered behaviour I could consider 'rude' all over the world, including in my own country and in the USA. Unless someone makes some anti-British remark, I never assume my nationality is the reason for the rancour. Perhaps the person I'm dealing with has had a bad day, or doesn't like people in general, or hates his job, or has some prejudice against women or blondes or foreigners or out-of-towners. Perhaps I remind him of someone he dislikes. Or possibly he just has entirely different standards of acceptable/polite behaviour than I do. Even if I did encounter a clear-cut case of anti-British prejudice - why not treat it as a learning experience, assuming the other party has something intelligent to say on the subject? <BR><BR>Usually, though, if someone is rude to you, you can watch that person and see him or her treat others the same way. If you've been polite and respectful yourself, you do not have a problem. So please don't take such things personally, should they happen - it's all a part of travelling and meeting a diverse group of people/experiencing new things. If a small slight does you no real harm, shrug it off and try to enjoy great cities like Paris, Berlin, London and Rome, and to savour the companionship and hospitality of those who do like to meet travellers from around the world and learn firsthand about their interests and passions and views.

thanks

Well done Catriona!<BR>Perhaps you have hit on a way to reply to trolls, an intelligent, good humoured response.<BR>Of course that's the way one should respond to rudeness too. If you are polite and dignified, then you show in a good light and the rude person in a bad one.

Dan

This appeared on a similar thread months ago...it impressed me enough to save it because it will always come in handy...my thanks to the author.<BR><BR>It is reassuring for many Europeans and ultra-liberal Americans to believe, or rather to pretend to believe, the mantra that Bush is “stupid.” This is, in part, because of the intrinsic belief, prevalent in their own lives, that anyone who disagrees with their liberal bent must somehow be mentally inferior.<BR><BR>Since people like G.W.B. eat this type for breakfast, it provides solace for the “anti’s” to believe that all he’s achieved, including ultimately becoming the most powerful man in the world, is in spite of the fact that he’s “stupid.” Or it is only because his family is rich, because he somehow “cheated” in the election, or whatever excuse that they can come up with to rationalize the fact that he’s accomplished, at a relatively young age, more than they will in their entire lifetime. Against all logic they will deny that the man has any positive attributes. After all, if his agenda does not fit within their own, he MUST be stupid, quid pro quo. <BR><BR>They must somehow neutralize his success against their own (relative) failure, much as children do on a playground, by name calling. If polls show massive support for the president’s policies then the polls are “wrong,” or “inaccurate,” or are manipulated somehow by the Republican Party. Or, finally, the polls show the opinion(s) of “stupid” people.<BR><BR>(Many Europeans, historically lacking the ability to stand up against or to take part within their own governments tend to react the same way to a larger than life leader whose philosophy does not compliment their own. Regan was a “cowboy,” Margaret Thatcher was an “iron maiden,” etc.) <BR><BR>When Bush uses a colloquialism such as “crawfish,” a phrase immanently accessible to people from the South, Midwest, or the West, the anti-Bush faction will resort to a type of elitist snobbism to ridicule him. (Actually, a pithier version of the phrase, meaning when someone goes backwards, is “to crawdad,” referring to the manner in which a crayfish escapes potential predators.) It is important for the “Anti’s” to condescend to this sort of plain speech and to again attribute it to “stupidity,” or at least to being uncouth. <BR><BR>As has been pointed out before, it often an unfortunate mistake to confuse someone who is inarticulate with someone who is stupid. (Americans have made this misjudgment many times in the past. Other plain spoken leaders include (but are certainly not exclusive to) Harry Truman, Andrew Jackson, LBJ, Ulysses Grant, and even Lincoln, who though capable of very moving and eloquent speeches was generally held up to ridicule by the press of his day.)<BR><BR>It is all rather sad, I suppose, but is still most certainly within the realm of common human behavior. <BR>

Mary

Ah, Danny-Boy, well said, lad!<BR>I respectfully submit that Europeans not preach to America about wars. We’ve lost too many of our best and brightest in what were, at least initially, European conflicts. Speaking for myself, I lost my father and a grandfather, one in England and one on France's blood-soaked soil.<BR><BR>That and the fact that every time we see a situation arise such as Bosnia and Kosovo we’re called upon yet again. (Funny, in those instances were rarely regarded as “war mongers.” )<BR><BR>I didn’t vote for Bush the Younger, but I’ll tell you what, my so-wise friends, I doubt that there’s one among you who could ever learn to pilot an F-16 fighter jet. These things make a space shuttle look like a tricycle. “Bush is dumb” is your little catchphrase, so be it, that buzz-line will be around as long as he is. I’m sure it makes you feel better to believe that the man is stupid, though any thought about what he’s achieved (such as being twice elected governor of a state with an economy that dwarfs that of all but very few of Earth’s countries) and becoming President of the United States precludes that assumption. I’m afraid that you’re confusing being inarticulate with being ignorant. That’s your mistake.<BR>

tony

Well, seeing that US and many others seem to believe that the UK, France and<BR>most of the rest of the world owe an eternal/permanent &quot;on the knees&quot; gratitude to the US for saving their butts in WW1 and WW2 , (questionable even in its concept..) perhaps its time to remind these same people that, (God forbid) the US owes France a far larger level of gratitude - that of the US's very existence ! If it had not been for the French the US would still be an English colony... or (if they had been extra good ) a Dominion like Canada or Australia .<BR><BR>Comin to think about it, the rest of us in the world have NOTHING to thank the French for . If they had not intervened, &quot;English Amercia (like Canada) would be a lot more pleasant country to visit - less crass, less vulgar, less violent, more cousteous and yes, even more &quot;civlized&quot;. Oh well.<BR>The debts of History are indeed difficult to endure !<BR><BR>++=

American

Good God, the French didn't commit their navy until it looked like we were going to win the war.<BR><BR>I don't know the exact numbers but I bet the American's and British lost more troops fighting in France then the French lost in American, if any.<BR><BR>Did you know the French surrendered about 1.8 million troops to the Germans without a fight? I guess they had to harvest the grapes or something.

Jim

<BR>Although Tony sounds like a raving lunatic, and his point about US' help in WWII being &quot;questionable&quot; is completely preposterous -- no single historian in the world argues Britain and France could have held on against the Nazi tide -- he does make one good point. Namely, if you reach back into history there are all sorts of debts and credits to go around, and at what point are they written off. <BR><BR>I think when Americans raise the issue of our big role in WWII it's often because they are surprised at how our former allies are now so rabidly anti-American -- and no one reading these posts can dispute that. <BR><BR>IMO, instead of wasting one's time trying to figure out the European pysche, I suggest America spend its resources (diplomatic, invest dollars, tourism, etc.) on more suitable allies.<BR><BR>One other thing: this generally doesn't apply to those from Eastern Europe. I've met a lot of Poles and Russians in the past few years who see America much differently. <BR>

Xpat

May I address the original question?<BR><BR>Darryl, your question indicates that you have not been to Europe since before the 70's. You &quot;HEAR&quot; that Europeans don't...<BR><BR>I suggest you ignore the hearsay and enjoy a trip to Europe. Don't be paranoid or else you will self fufill the prophesy. <BR><BR>

xxx

Adding to a previous point, historians would concur with the notion that the British and French alone could not have won, but they would also agree that the Soviet Union could have beaten the nazis. That being said, naturally the democracies would much prefer the US being involved so as Stalin would not have conquered all of western Europe. This does not mean that the US should get high on its horses. Also, I'm sorry but I must say it, Bush is a moron. This is not a reflection on his ability to spin facts or to manipulate the American public. Let me repeat myself, the man is a moron. &quot;Is our children learning,&quot; &quot;I know how to run a business, I used to be one.&quot; Come on! I am not saying this because I do not agree with many of his policies, I am a Republican. But, the Republican party needs to get out of the Reagan-Bush jr. days when simple headlines and simplistic notions on foreign and domestic policy rule the world. We need a Kissinger in there, who would be appaled by the way Bush has labelled an &quot;axis of evil.&quot; I do not doubt that Bush has great advisors, all of whom have a much superior intellect than he, but really all this man should be doing is running the Texas Rangers, nothing more. Many Bush defenders on this site find a connection between Bush's successes as a politician and his intelligence which is at best, very stupid. We need a Rudy Giuliani or a John McCain as president.

tony

To: American<BR>Yep, like the US in WW1 and WW2, the French may have been late getting into the act - but they were there at Yorktown (and elsewhere) and that was decisive in winning your Revolutionary War.<BR><BR>By the way, when a country surrenders its normal that all their troops surrender - all 1,8 million of them .<BR>And in retropect they were right. If you have no hope of winning, why sacrifice needlessly more and more Lives ? They did that in WW1 when over 3 million French were killed/missing - and eventually almost led to total mutiny.<BR><BR>Unlike the US in Vietnam , (over 50.000 needlessly dead - what did it change?) one has to know when to surrender. And now for Iraq !<BR><BR>++=

pietro

xxx says &quot;Londoners will not forget the way brave America stood aside and did nothing while their city was bombed mercilessly.&quot;<BR><BR>You're a real sweatheart. And what would you say to the American soldiers who did fight in WW2? You can't find any gratitude for them?

xxx

This posting by &quot;Osama&quot; just goes to show how brainwashed many Americans have become. Why is it that if someone opposes the Bush administration's handling of world events, a supporter of terrorism? Isn't the essense of democracy the fact that we can and are obligated to question our leaders? BTW, Osama is still out there. Bush hasn't found him and they aren't even looking to hard now because they are gung-ho in a war against Iraq.

xxx

Tony makes a very good and important point, albeit a very unpopular one. It is easy for Americans to criticize the French for giving up Paris and the rest of the country because the US could not understand the extent of the German power in those days because of their beneficial geographic location. They now use this notion in order to reaffirm the point that France should kiss the heals of every American. It is true that the French were outnumbered and vulnerable and were faced with a tough situation: either be killed and have the historical monuments destroyed or live under a repressive regime. Both are difficult decisions but naturally they chose to live. Americans really need to get their act together, take a good look at history beyond the eyes of the ugly American and make judgements based on facts, not on passion.

pietro

xxx, i dont think what you're saying makes any sense. Because an american disagrees with you they are ugly? Could it not be that some americans truly believe in the face of all you described that the french should not have surrendered?? The state motto for new hampshire is &quot;Live Free or Die.&quot; That should tell you a little bit about the american &quot;passion&quot; you think is so ugly.

xxx

You are giving Uncle Sam too much credit. Just go onto foxnews.com and then you can find all the information that Uncle Sam will be spewing out because as you must know, his views are not his own. He has no views or insight on any matter. It is nothing more than platitudes spoken by the right. Also, the labelling of &quot;euro weenies&quot; is priceless. That's whats wrong with the current American mantra. Disagree with Bush, you are a weeny, case closed. What kind of rationale is this?

xxx

You people will not be able to understand because you refuse to put yourselves in the shoes of the French in that period of time. You invoke &quot;live free or die,&quot; this is fine for the New Hampshire and perhaps American mentality, but perhaps this is not what the French had in mind. Criticize them all you want for not keeping &quot;American values&quot; sacred, but it is beyond question that they were outnumbered and had the entire German army against them. After having seen what Germany did to the rest of Europe, can you honestly tell me that the French would have been in err for not thinking that this could have happened to them? You may find it funny that I remarked about the maintaining historical monuments because I realize that America and Americans has no value for much culture, but these were monuments of national importance that existed for more than 1000 years. You people must start looking at history from the perspective of those who were directly involved, not those who were watching from the sidelines.

SA

I always thought respect was something you earned, not expected.

xxx

The problem is that you call realists, cowards. If the French were cowards, then so be it. But would you have any more respect for the French if they decided to fight off Hitler, lose and have scores of their citizens murdered in the process?