Many seem to think that at the time, Germans were given the option of whether they wanted to be a part of the Nazi war machine or not.

Read the book "Hitler's Willing Executioners" about many, many German's attitude at the time, it is an eye opener.

Yeah, I don't accept the suggestion that the majority of Germans opposed WW2.

There were a few that gave their lives opposing the Hitler regime but the rest appeared quite happy to be part of a Third Reich.

Germans really have no business talking <deleted> about other countries - considering.

You hold modern Germans accountable for the Holocaust and WWII? That is like a black man holding you accountable for the American slave trade, which I am sure you will claim you had nothing to do with, right? Or are you that old, UG?

There are probably millions of Germans alive today that were Hitler Youth age and zero people anywhere on the planet who were involved in the US slave trade.

Any Germans alive today who were in the Hitler Youth would now be at least 75 years old. I don't think there are millions of 75+ years old Germans even though they are a pretty hardy bunch. Membership in the Hitler Youth was compulsory after 1936.

Well, about 20% of the population, or around 17 million, are 65+. So it could be at least 2 million are over 75. They have great health care, remember?

PeaceBlondie has spit out nothing but anti American hate and vitriol for several days - but nothing negative about anyone besides America and Israel (even Japan and Germany) - and he is the ONLY one who had to spew typical radical rhetoric and hatred on a thread that was supposed to be for listing positive things about America. Everyone else had something nice to say.

I do not think that I am out of line in the least.

You seem to almost always express a very one-sided, ultra-patriotic opinion in favor of justifying American violence. Violent rhetoric. But you do take care of temple animals well. My original comments in this thread show positive examples of Americans repenting their evil ways. I oppose violence.

Sorry PB but when you say that the US stole from Mexico and then allowed Mexicans to come to the country to clean toilets i do take that as a flame. fyi my father was a mexican who came to the US and recieved his citizenship because he was willing to fight in WWll. I can safely say that he was never asked to clean toilets. He did manage to raise a large family, build a business and insure that all of his 5 children recieve good educations. btw to the best of my knowledge he never lost the love of his country and he was a proud american. America is, was and hopefully always will be the land of opportunity.

PB would probably agree, as I would, that the violent war in Vietnam was a mistake. Apart from the violence, a strategic mistake.

But the USA used Hmomg in that war against the communists.

Now that the Hmongs are being persecuted, should not the USA step in diplomatically and stop the violence currently being perpetrated. The USA has powerful clout in Thailand. Why is it not used.

caf

PB would probably agree, as I would, that the violent war in Vietnam was a mistake. Apart from the violence, a strategic mistake.

But the USA used Hmomg in that war against the communists.

Now that the Hmongs are being persecuted, should not the USA step in diplomatically and stop the violence currently being perpetrated. The USA has powerful clout in Thailand. Why is it not used.

caf

Because the Hmong are no longer useful to them.

But the USA used Hmomg in that war against the communists.

Now that the Hmongs are being persecuted, should not the USA step in diplomatically and stop the violence currently being perpetrated. The USA has powerful clout in Thailand. Why is it not used.

caf

I like Americans because they know how to google news reports...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/us-calls-for-thailands-hmong-deportation-to-stop/story-e6frf7k6-1225814186076

THAILAND has started forcibly deporting Hmong refugees back to Laos, prompting the US to call for a stop to the "serious violation" of human rights.

The US State Department expressed its deep "regret" over Thailand's decision to begin deporting Hmong refugees to Laos and called for the Thai government to stop.

"We deeply regret this serious violation of the international humanitarian principles that Thailand has long been known for championing," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said.

"The United States strongly urges Thai authorities to suspend this operation."

I guess the next step would be to invade Thailand giving the usual suspects something more to whine about.

Let's carpet bomb Bangkok.

I checked the UK, Australian and New Zealand Embassy websites for Thailand and they make mention of royal visits, art exhibits, gem scams and the full moon party but nothing about the Hmong.

I like Americans 'cos it allows us Canadians t feel better about ourselves.

Americans are nice, friendly and earnest people. We should differntiate between the people and the govt policies.

Great Food and the idea/belief that you can be whatever you want t be through honest hard work.

PB would probably agree, as I would, that the violent war in Vietnam was a mistake. Apart from the violence, a strategic mistake.

But the USA used Hmomg in that war against the communists.

Now that the Hmongs are being persecuted, should not the USA step in diplomatically and stop the violence currently being perpetrated. The USA has powerful clout in Thailand. Why is it not used.

caf

Because the Hmong are no longer useful to them.

Both these posts reek of ignorance about the US/Hmong--Pathet Lao/Vietnamese conflict. The US and the Hmong shared a common enemy in the PL and PAVN. It was a marriage of convenience by both parties, one of which was being systematically exterminated and the other that was prosecuting a wider war.

ALL Hmong granted registered refugee status by the UNHCR and who wished to leave and their families (sometimes multi wives and generations) have been emigrated. The holdup remains with the UN as none of those remaining are documented refugees by their definitions.

I like Americans 'cos it allows us Canadians t feel better about ourselves.

OK, that elicited a chuckle from me.  

PB would probably agree, as I would, that the violent war in Vietnam was a mistake. Apart from the violence, a strategic mistake.

But the USA used Hmomg in that war against the communists.

Now that the Hmongs are being persecuted, should not the USA step in diplomatically and stop the violence currently being perpetrated. The USA has powerful clout in Thailand. Why is it not used.

caf

Because the Hmong are no longer useful to them.

Both these posts reek of ignorance about the US/Hmong--Pathet Lao/Vietnamese conflict. The US and the Hmong shared a common enemy in the PL and PAVN. It was a marriage of convenience by both parties, one of which was being systematically exterminated and the other that was prosecuting a wider war.

ALL Hmong granted registered refugee status by the UNHCR and who wished to leave and their families (sometimes multi wives and generations) have been emigrated. The holdup remains with the UN as none of those remaining are documented refugees by their definitions.

Obviously I do not agree that I am ignorant of the facts. Harcourt I am sure can defend his position.

I agree that the USA have taken many refugees. What they have not done is use their rather special position in Thailand to stop this current violence. Yes they have "strongly urged" the Thai government - but that is diplomatic speak. I am more interested in America doing something rather than saying something.

(And by doing I am not agreeing with other posters about invading or carpet bombing)

The americans needed, and were grateful at the time, for the hmong in vietnam, whatever the hmong's position was, they should not now desert them.

caf

If we interfere in other countries politics we are condemned. If we don't interfere we are criticized.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

PB would probably agree, as I would, that the violent war in Vietnam was a mistake. Apart from the violence, a strategic mistake.

But the USA used Hmomg in that war against the communists.

Now that the Hmongs are being persecuted, should not the USA step in diplomatically and stop the violence currently being perpetrated. The USA has powerful clout in Thailand. Why is it not used.

caf

Because the Hmong are no longer useful to them.

Both these posts reek of ignorance about the US/Hmong--Pathet Lao/Vietnamese conflict. The US and the Hmong shared a common enemy in the PL and PAVN. It was a marriage of convenience by both parties, one of which was being systematically exterminated and the other that was prosecuting a wider war.

ALL Hmong granted registered refugee status by the UNHCR and who wished to leave and their families (sometimes multi wives and generations) have been emigrated. The holdup remains with the UN as none of those remaining are documented refugees by their definitions.

Obviously I do not agree that I am ignorant of the facts. Harcourt I am sure can defend his position.

I agree that the USA have taken many refugees. What they have not done is use their rather special position in Thailand to stop this current violence. Yes they have "strongly urged" the Thai government - but that is diplomatic speak. I am more interested in America doing something rather than saying something.

(And by doing I am not agreeing with other posters about invading or carpet bombing)

The americans needed, and were grateful at the time, for the hmong in vietnam, whatever the hmong's position was, they should not now desert them.

caf

The relevant organizations are the Thai government and the UNHCR. The first does what is politically feasible and the latter is largely inept and top heavy with administrators. The US government has put pressure on both these organizations and is prepared to take yet more refugees, but there is a long standing protocol for that which is not being followed.

From wiki:

Many Hmong and Mong refugees resettled in the United States after the Vietnam War. Beginning in December 1975, the first Hmong and Mong refugees arrived in the U.S., mainly from refugee camps in Thailand; however, only 3,466 were granted asylum at that time under the Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975. In May 1976, another 11,000 were allowed to enter the United States, and by 1978 some 30,000 Hmong and Mong people had immigrated. This first wave was made up predominantly of men directly associated with General Vang Pao's secret army. It was not until the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980 that families were able to enter the U.S., becoming the second wave of Hmong and Mong immigrants. Today, approximately 270,000 Hmong and Mong people reside in the United States, the plurality of whom live in California (65,095 according to the 2000 U.S. census), Minnesota (41,800), and Wisconsin (33,791). Chico, Fresno, Eureka, Banning, Stockton, and Sacramento, California; Detroit, Michigan; Minneapolis–Saint Paul, Minnesota; Lowell, Massachusetts; and Madison, Milwaukee, Wausau, and La Crosse Wisconsin have especially high concentrations of Hmong and Mong people.

There are smaller Hmong and Mong populations scattered across the country, including Anchorage, Alaska, Missoula, Montana; Northeastern Washington State (Spokane); western North Carolina (Charlotte, Hickory, and Morganton); northeastern Georgia (Auburn, Duluth, Monroe, Atlanta, and Winder); San Diego, California; Wisconsin (Eau Claire, Appleton, Green Bay, La Crosse, and Sheboygan), Winooski, Vermont; and Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, centered around the Pennsylvania towns of Ephrata and Denver. There is also a small community of several thousand Hmong who migrated to French Guiana in the late 1970s and early 1980s.^[60]

PB would probably agree, as I would, that the violent war in Vietnam was a mistake. Apart from the violence, a strategic mistake.

But the USA used Hmomg in that war against the communists.

Now that the Hmongs are being persecuted, should not the USA step in diplomatically and stop the violence currently being perpetrated. The USA has powerful clout in Thailand. Why is it not used.

caf

Because the Hmong are no longer useful to them.

Both these posts reek of ignorance about the US/Hmong--Pathet Lao/Vietnamese conflict. The US and the Hmong shared a common enemy in the PL and PAVN. It was a marriage of convenience by both parties, one of which was being systematically exterminated and the other that was prosecuting a wider war.

ALL Hmong granted registered refugee status by the UNHCR and who wished to leave and their families (sometimes multi wives and generations) have been emigrated. The holdup remains with the UN as none of those remaining are documented refugees by their definitions.

Obviously I do not agree that I am ignorant of the facts. Harcourt I am sure can defend his position.

I agree that the USA have taken many refugees. What they have not done is use their rather special position in Thailand to stop this current violence. Yes they have "strongly urged" the Thai government - but that is diplomatic speak. I am more interested in America doing something rather than saying something.

(And by doing I am not agreeing with other posters about invading or carpet bombing)

The americans needed, and were grateful at the time, for the hmong in vietnam, whatever the hmong's position was, they should not now desert them.

caf

Any suggestions on what the US should do? Sanctions of some sort? Cutting diplomatic ties? Sending the Thai Ambassador to the US packing back to BKK?

American foreign policy can be summed up as "damned if you do, damned if you don't". We're either criticised for sticking our nose in where it doesn't belong or we get it for not doing enough. At least the US is saying something about the issue. It seems the Brits, Aussies and others are quiet about it.

I like that Americans stick there nose in where it doesn't belong. It at least shows a willingness to help. It's not limited to countries with oil either. I've been in groups where more often than not, when we see someone in trouble, the Americans are "let's help" and the non-Americans are "why? it's none of our business".

If we interfere in other countries politics we are condemned. If we don't interfere we are criticized.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

Hey! That's my line!

Ulysses comment, although a well worn cliche, is not true.

I undertand long-standing protocols and the diplomatic speak.

But let's talk actions. During the coup America stopped the military aid. That was a tough decision which I applaud. They should talk the talk now at a high level to stop this violence against the Hmong. What they do is up to America but they should do something. They shouild not now be deserting the very people who helped them in Vietnam.

Incidentally, the comment about the Brits not raising objections is also wrong. Probably wrong in resect of the Aussies too.

But this is not a Brit or Aussie bashing thread. It is about America and I was responding to comments

Several Americans on here agree my comments. Sadly the usual culprits can't take any comment against America

caf

I thought that this was an "I like American's because" thread.

Several Americans on here agree my comments. Sadly the usual culprits can't take any comment against America

Although this is Outside the Box, that does not make this forum a free-for-all.  Calling people who don't agree with you "culprits" is inferring criminality and pushes this closer to an all-out flame-fest.

On all sides of this issue, and any other issue, let's try to debate the facts and stay away from the name calling.

While others have done this, too, in this case, the words "Sadly, the usual pro-US posters can't take ..." would have conveyed the exact same meaning without resorting to pejoratives.

Bonobo, I can see where you get your take on "culprits". The word does have negative connotations.

To be fair, I read it as I think it was intended.... there is a cliche that I am familair with, "The usual suspects", which I have also heard as "The usual culprits". In the context that this cliche is used, it does not connote actual criminality, more "those that we expected".

PB would probably agree, as I would, that the violent war in Vietnam was a mistake. Apart from the violence, a strategic mistake.

But the USA used Hmomg in that war against the communists.

Now that the Hmongs are being persecuted, should not the USA step in diplomatically and stop the violence currently being perpetrated. The USA has powerful clout in Thailand. Why is it not used.

caf

Because the Hmong are no longer useful to them.

Both these posts reek of ignorance about the US/Hmong--Pathet Lao/Vietnamese conflict. The US and the Hmong shared a common enemy in the PL and PAVN. It was a marriage of convenience by both parties, one of which was being systematically exterminated and the other that was prosecuting a wider war.

ALL Hmong granted registered refugee status by the UNHCR and who wished to leave and their families (sometimes multi wives and generations) have been emigrated. The holdup remains with the UN as none of those remaining are documented refugees by their definitions.

I'll confess my ignorance of the background and admit I was looking at the face value of the current situation.

Several Americans on here agree my comments. Sadly the usual culprits can't take any comment against America

Although this is Outside the Box, that does not make this forum a free-for-all. Calling people who don't agree with you "culprits" is inferring criminality and pushes this closer to an all-out flame-fest.

On all sides of this issue, and any other issue, let's try to debate the facts and stay away from the name calling.

While others have done this, too, in this case, the words "Sadly, the usual pro-US posters can't take ..." would have conveyed the exact same meaning without resorting to pejoratives.

"Culprits" is a particularly ironic term in that I moved to Thailand specifically to help Lao Hmong peoples emigrate to America.

Bonobo, I can see where you get your take on "culprits". The word does have negative connotations.

To be fair, I read it as I think it was intended.... there is a cliche that I am familair with, "The usual suspects", which I have also heard as "The usual culprits". In the context that this cliche is used, it does not connote actual criminality, more "those that we expected".

Granted, you may be right as for the intention in this case.  However, when emotions are running a little high, as they evidently have been in this thread, posters need to take extra care in word choice.  What could be meant without malice can easily be taken as a pejorative when people are emotional, and that can lead to a real flame aimed back, which leads to a now angry response, and so on.

"Culprits" is a particularly ironic term in that I moved to Thailand specifically to help Lao Hmong peoples emigrate to America.

My hat's off to you.

You should relate that part of your story in The Lost Boys thread.  I would find it rather interesting, I am sure.

Bonobo, I can see where you get your take on "culprits". The word does have negative connotations.

To be fair, I read it as I think it was intended.... there is a cliche that I am familair with, "The usual suspects", which I have also heard as "The usual culprits". In the context that this cliche is used, it does not connote actual criminality, more "those that we expected".

Granted, you may be right as for the intention in this case. However, when emotions are running a little high, as they evidently have been in this thread, posters need to take extra care in word choice. What could be meant without malice can easily be taken as a pejorative when people are emotional, and that can lead to a real flame aimed back, which leads to a now angry response, and so on.

True. I take your point.

"Culprits" is a particularly ironic term in that I moved to Thailand specifically to help Lao Hmong peoples emigrate to America.

My hat's off to you.

You should relate that part of your story in The Lost Boys thread. I would find it rather interesting, I am sure.

I 2nd that. Or a new thread.

PeaceBlondie has spit out nothing but anti American hate and vitriol for several days - but nothing negative about anyone besides America and Israel (even Japan and Germany) - and he is the ONLY one who had to spew typical radical rhetoric and hatred on a thread that was supposed to be for listing positive things about America. Everyone else had something nice to say.

I do not think that I am out of line in the least.

You seem to almost always express a very one-sided, ultra-patriotic opinion in favor of justifying American violence. Violent rhetoric. But you do take care of temple animals well. My original comments in this thread show positive examples of Americans repenting their evil ways. I oppose violence.

Sorry PB but when you say that the US stole from Mexico and then allowed Mexicans to come to the country to clean toilets i do take that as a flame. fyi my father was a mexican who came to the US and recieved his citizenship because he was willing to fight in WWll. I can safely say that he was never asked to clean toilets. He did manage to raise a large family, build a business and insure that all of his 5 children recieve good educations. btw to the best of my knowledge he never lost the love of his country and he was a proud american. America is, was and hopefully always will be the land of opportunity.

I did not mean to insult your father, and I apologize. I cleaned toilets in the military and as a civilian.

To rephrase it: After the USA stole a third of Mexico by illegal violent actions, they repented by allowing Mexicans to serve in its own wars, and employing millions of them in entry-level positions.

If it matters, two of my children married Mexican-Americans.

PeaceBlondie has spit out nothing but anti American hate and vitriol for several days - but nothing negative about anyone besides America and Israel (even Japan and Germany) - and he is the ONLY one who had to spew typical radical rhetoric and hatred on a thread that was supposed to be for listing positive things about America. Everyone else had something nice to say.

I do not think that I am out of line in the least.

You seem to almost always express a very one-sided, ultra-patriotic opinion in favor of justifying American violence. Violent rhetoric. But you do take care of temple animals well. My original comments in this thread show positive examples of Americans repenting their evil ways. I oppose violence.

Sorry PB but when you say that the US stole from Mexico and then allowed Mexicans to come to the country to clean toilets i do take that as a flame. fyi my father was a mexican who came to the US and recieved his citizenship because he was willing to fight in WWll. I can safely say that he was never asked to clean toilets. He did manage to raise a large family, build a business and insure that all of his 5 children recieve good educations. btw to the best of my knowledge he never lost the love of his country and he was a proud american. America is, was and hopefully always will be the land of opportunity.

I did not mean to insult your father, and I apologize. I cleaned toilets in the military and as a civilian.

To rephrase it: After the USA stole a third of Mexico by illegal violent actions, they repented by allowing Mexicans to serve in its own wars, and employing millions of them in entry-level positions.

If it matters, two of my children married Mexican-Americans.

thanks for that, and i am sure he cleaned his share of toilets while in the military. reagrding the mexican civilizations It may be worth noting that After 4,000 years, these civilizations were destroyed with the arrival of the Spaniards in 1519. For three centuries, Mexico was colonized by Spain, during which time the majority of its indigenous population died off. (from wikipedia) so the americans took land as the victors in a war but the spaniards and french did far worse.

Ulysses comment, although a well worn cliche, is not true.

Several Americans on here agree my comments. Sadly the usual culprits can't take any comment against America

You do not agree that America is attacked whether we get involved in other countries politics or we stay out of them, but your opinion is just that. I say that it is true. You say that it is not. It is up to the reader to decide.

By the way, just because a "few Americans" agree with you is neither here nor there. Some Americans think that America planned 9/11 on its own and pinned it on some innocent Muslims. America had its share of lunatics too.