Forum

Sorry, but this statement is too easy.
About 48 hours ago a reputed Iranian citizen made explode a bomb in Bangkok.
Why should Iran have any interest to make trouble in Thailand? Trouble which is furthermore less or more announced by the US embassy. The relationship between Iran and Thailand are not bad, at all.
There is another theory which we should keep in mind. The theory of a planned defamation of an opponent.
It is proved that ("terrorist") groups in Iran which fight the ruling regime there are more and more active outside the country of Iran. Cutting a long story short internal Iranian terrorists make trouble in foreign countries with the inentation to defame Iran.
So it is not a surprise at all that one of the persons which was arrested in Bangkok, meanwhile, holds an Israeli passport. Of course, there is no offense against Israel intented.

We should learn from history and not blindly forward "US official" informations as facts.
In 1998 there was the massacre of Racak which was used to justify the interference in Yugoslavia. Meanwhile we know that there was no massacre.
Then there was the country of Iraq, reputed having a nuclear, chemical and biological program and being in cooperation with Al Qaeda. Meanwhile we know that all these points have been lies.

Now again, the bad country of Iran. It is said, the first victim of war is truth. I think truth dies before, else war would not be possible.

Why do you US guys so blindly believe what your officials tell you?

Listen up...

Can you forward some more informations about backgrounds, etc?
Thanks

World War 2: America is self glorifying?

I would rarely consider this a point of hatred, but it is enough to cause many Europeans to verbally attack USA over its own opinion on its activities during World War 2. People curse, shout and argue at great lengths with seemingly unmovable Americans, and complain bitterly that America's late arrival in the war is not something they should boast about.

It continues, for example, in the film Saving Private Ryan (based on a true story of a British expedition to rescue British prisoners), where an all-American ground force takes on Germany; whereas America sent very few soldiers into war. America only began to send men into the war against Japan after Pearl Harbour, and the numbers and aid that America put into the world are pale in comparison to the massive war efforts conducted by Russia (who crushed Germany with 20 millions of ground troops), France (for its bitter, endless and determined self defence) and the UK. The UK's air force and special forces were consistently very brave and effective (even though some of ground invasions of Germen held territory were ludicrously ill fated).

America did supply vast amounts of material goods, but it did not throw itself, or its soldiers, into combat wholeheartedly. America's most consistent aid was against the Japanese, and not until Japan attacked America directly, and even then America eventually resorted to the massively indiscriminate nuclear bombs rather than "waste" men on resolute Japan.

The USA appears to be very self-glorifying, and there are multiple generations in the UK, France and Europe who upset and angry at America's rewriting of history. Russia's men, France's entire population, and UK's air force, were the principal opponents of Germany, aided by American equipment (which for example was loaned and leased to the USSR, not merely given), for which the allies were grateful, but not tricked that the USA did not have its own interests at heart, like all countries in the ideologically-charged political atmosphere of the time. USAs entry to the war was forced, not chosen, their motives were self-defence not world-wide good such as was the case with UK, and their effort was slow and half-hearted, public opinion only turned in favour of the war at a very late date.

“In his war memoirs Churchill boasted that only in July 1944 did the British Empire yield to the United States in the number of divisions engaging the enemy. [...]The British and the American effort was dwarfed by the Soviets, who were then engaging about 70 per cent of all German divisions, something Churchill neglected entirely to mention.”

Alex Danchev (1994) in the "Oxford History of the British Army (1994)

There is an element of misunderstanding here, as Europeans consider World War 2 to be principally France, Europe, UK (with late American aid), Russia versus Germany, mostly forgetting about Japan. Whereas many American's will rightly remember Pearl Harbour and the Japanese more prominently, and probably give the combat in the Indonesian islands and the Pacific more importance than Europeans do.

“The Soviet economy had suffered enormous devastation. [...] The death of an estimated 20 million [Soviets] is an index of the enormous costs of the war to the Soviets. Although the United States had suffered some 300,000 casualties, the ratio of Soviet to American war deaths was about seventy to one.”

"American Foreign Policy" by Kegley & Wittkopf (1987)
The Final Truth is that without any of the allies, the war would have been lost. without material aid from the USA, Russia and the UK would have taken many more years to finally defeat Germany - if at all. USA bombers and UK fighters (Battle of Britain) were the only serious returns we made on Germany other than Russian ground forces. The much repeated phrase that "USA saved Europe" is very much untrue, and completely dismissive of the intense war that actually occurred far from the USA and for years without USA involvement. Russia saved Europe, so did the UK, so did France and the other allies... for any country to claim that it is more of a benefactor than the others is untrue and shows an emotionally disturbing lack of empathy. I would reckon that historically only the poor, suppressed Russian civilians and soldiers could claim to have saved anyone.
Read more...

Foreign Aid: USA is Stingiest of the 22 Most Developed Countries

The USA claims to be, in absolute terms, the world's biggest giver and this is true. However, as a proportion of its wealth the USA gives least when compared to all 22 of the worlds' most developed countries.

“[Americans] are regularly told by politicians and the media, that America is the world's most generous nation. This is one of the most conventional pieces of 'knowledgeable ignorance'. [...For example Japan gives more even in absolute terms...]

Absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%. The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share."

"Why do people hate America?" by Sardar & Davies (2002)27

Not only that, but according to one source cited by Sarder & Davies, 80% of that aid itself actually goes to American companies in those foreign countries.

Full details: "United States of America: Foreign Aid" by Vexen Crabtree (2003)

Interesting thesis or even more a theory, but much too unexact.

Who can be a real alternative to Obama? Hating him is not enough. I personally even do not like him. But give me a name, please.