Can anyone explain the anti-American sentiment to me?

[Bald Eagle]

Every american female I've met in los is a so called journalist and every guy a pretend .com millionaire.

I have moved tables before due to Americans sitting nearby so I can hear my companion talk.

They act as if they know everything and are 100% sure until their ideas are tested.

Not for me.

[JSixpack]

All I am saying, is that it was an Allied effort of many countries, and that some Americans claiming solo credit

for "bailing the entire world out" are arrogant and wrong.

A red herring, really.

Of course you can find an uneducated idiot in any country to claim anything. If you're too thin-skinned to accept the fact, then I suppose suicide is your only answer.

Now if a Brit remarks, "We won the war," he's speaking casually; if asked, he'd include the other Allies. Similarly any American w/ the slightest knowledge of history, who's even seen any of the classic movies, will acknowledge the critical roles of the other Allies and certainly will NOT claim that the USA alone won the war. And I've never in my life heard anyone not acknowledge the critical role of the Russians, even if that's followed with observations about the Iron Curtain.

The roles of the Allies are clearly acknowledged in all the classic WW II movies, e.g., The Longest Day, whose focus, after all, is on the American role, just as a Brit movie would focus on the Brit role. And the Allies' roles are in all the history books. So there's never been any American conspiracy to claim that 'Mercans single-handedly won WW II. Never. Get over it.

So I don't see this as a serious reason for anti-Americanism. If you hear such a nonsensical and usually casual statement, and if offends your thin skin, you may simply offer a reminder, have it acknowledged, and that's the end of it.

OTOH, and with typical hypocrisy, what you hear on this forum (re: WW II) as part of the anti-American drumbeat is the opposite arrogant nonsense: that Americans were pretty useless, Russians would have won anyway, Americans cheated the other Allies, blah, blah. Member thailiketoo has taken all the wind out of that sail.

Edited July 22, 2014 by JSixpack

[JSixpack]

I have moved tables before due to Americans sitting nearby so I can hear my companion talk.

They act as if they know everything and are 100% sure until their ideas are tested.

Not for me.

Thank you for moving tables. I know exactly what you mean. Do the same thing myself if any Brits, Ozzies, Indians, or Russians are nearby.

[Johnsy]

So a lot! This line of argument began when I facetiously said that Americans believe that world history started in 1776 and that WWII started in 1942.

But I will move beyond that to also point out that many Americans feel that they are responsible for winning WWII, not considering the sacrifice that Russia made bleeding the Nazis dry on the Eastern Front (there's a reason that German soldiers were fearful of being posted east) or the fact the Britain and the commonwealth had to withstand twin pressures from Japan and Germany years before the US actively joined in. By the time the US joined the cause with its fresh soldiers and equipment, the other belligerents had been much ground down by years of heavy fighting. This is not to take away from the American contribution, but the Americans should not act as if they were the saviours of the west either.

I'm one of them that thinks the USA is responsible for winning the war.

The USA sold ammunition to the allies (I'm trying to keep it simple) under a policy of cash and carry in 1939 and 1940.

Britain and Russia ran out of money in 1940. So in the 3rd month of 1941 the Lend Lease Act was signed into law. The bullets were free but the guns and tanks, food and stuff that weren't blown up or used were to be returned or paid for at the end of the war. The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until time for their return or destruction. Canada operated a similar program called Mutual Aid that sent a loan of $1 billion and $3.4 billion in supplies and services to Britain and other Allies.

So, you all would have run out of guns and ammunition and food in 1940 and lost the war if not for the Americans.

The Brits and the Russians were brave and all that but would have lost the war with no weapons or food in 1941 before America officially entered the war.

The Lend-Lease Act was passed by Congress on March 11, 1941. It provided that the president could ship weapons, food, or equipment to any country whose struggle against the Axis assisted U.S. defense.

By permitting the president to ship war equipment and supplies to a besieged Britain, without payback as stipulated by the 1939 Neutrality Act, Lend-Lease empowered the British to resist the German onslaught until Pearl Harbor spurred America into the conflict. In addition, it avoided the prickly issues of post-World War I war debts.

Lend-lease advanced the United States to the edge of war. Such Isolationists as Republican senator Robert Taft spoke against it. The bill would "...give the president power to carry on a kind of undeclared war all over the world, in which America would do everything except actually put soldiers in the frontline trenches where the fighting is," he correctly observed.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1600.html

So that's the truth and unless you can tell me how the Brits and Russians would have fought a war without food and bullets then the Americans were responsible for winning WWII along with the other allies.

Almost everything you say here is absolutely right, except for "Americans were responsible for winning WWII along with the other allies."

The fact is the Allies were responsible for winning WWII along with the Americans! And that is what gives the World the shits about the yanks, you think you won the war and this is perpetuated by almost every documentary that's been made, mostly with American archival footage. The way this is even referred to is offensive; "America and the allies" The Allies were a much larger fighting force, played a bigger role in more campaigns for longer and payed a far heavier price than America. I'm not taking anything away from the American contribution to WWII or anyone who fought in this epic catastrophe but please keep this in perspective because it's insulting and offensive to all the Allied Nations to here this constant rhetoric that America won WWII.

[thailiketoo]

lets face it your not liked any where in the world

1. Philippines (percentage with a favorable view of the United States: 85%)

2. Israel (83%)

3. Ghana (83%)

4. Senegal (81%)

5. Kenya (81%)

6. El Salvador (79%)

7. South Korea (78%)

8. Italy (76%)

9. Uganda (73%)

10. Brazil (73%)

Finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/10-countries-love-hate-america-most-163930019.html

[watso63]

It's a bit silly banging on about a war none of us took part in. The battle of Britain stopped Hitler in his tracks and the targetting of the transatlantic convoys by the U boats coupled with the attack on Pearl Harbour ultimately dragged America into the war. The free people of europe do owe a debt of gratitude, but America didn't do it for free. The debt was crippling for Britain. Anyway, most people make up their minds about someone after a little while of knowing them. Talking about me, me, me and how the good ol' US of A all the time in a very loud voice does tend to get one's hackles up a bit. Still, there are some really great septics out there. (But not Bush Dubbya, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Obama, and especially Hilary Clinton. In fact wh'appened to Condascending Rice, Cowlin Powell and the man who should've been Pres Gen Norman Blackhead)??? Yeah Stormin' Norman. Now he was a really good egg and gets my respect.

Sent from my GT-N5100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited July 22, 2014 by watso63

[duanebigsby]

All I am saying, is that it was an Allied effort of many countries, and that some Americans claiming solo credit

for "bailing the entire world out" are arrogant and wrong.

A red herring, really.

Of course you can find an uneducated idiot in any country to claim anything. If you're too thin-skinned to accept the fact, then I suppose suicide is your only answer.

Now if a Brit remarks, "We won the war," he's speaking casually; if asked, he'd include the other Allies. Similarly any American w/ the slightest knowledge of history, who's even seen any of the classic movies, will acknowledge the critical roles of the other Allies and certainly will NOT claim that the USA alone won the war. And I've never in my life heard anyone not acknowledge the critical role of the Russians, even if that's followed with observations about the Iron Curtain.

The roles of the Allies are clearly acknowledged in all the classic WW II movies, e.g., The Longest Day, whose focus, after all, is on the American role, just as a Brit movie would focus on the Brit role. And the Allies' roles are in all the history books. So there's never been any American conspiracy to claim that 'Mercans single-handedly won WW II. Never. Get over it.

So I don't see this as a serious reason for anti-Americanism. If you hear such a nonsensical and usually casual statement, and if offends your thin skin, you may simply offer a reminder, have it acknowledged, and that's the end of it.

OTOH, and with typical hypocrisy, what you hear on this forum (re: WW II) as part of the anti-American drumbeat is the opposite arrogant nonsense: that Americans were pretty useless, Russians would have won anyway, Americans cheated the other Allies, blah, blah. Member thailiketoo has taken all the wind out of that sail.

I'm not so thin skinned that I would consider killing myself over some obnoxious, loud mouth, in your face yank blathers on about "the greatest country on earth. what the hell has your country contributed? "

And it happens a lot. I simply tell them to <deleted> off and move tables.

Many of your countrymen are loud and obnoxious, telling us how great you are. Why aren't you like that when I travel through the States, only overseas?

[duanebigsby]

lets face it your not liked any where in the world

1. Philippines (percentage with a favorable view of the United States: 85%)

2. Israel (83%)

3. Ghana (83%)

4. Senegal (81%)

5. Kenya (81%)

6. El Salvador (79%)

7. South Korea (78%)

8. Italy (76%)

9. Uganda (73%)

10. Brazil (73%)

Finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/10-countries-love-hate-america-most-163930019.html

One half of the coin from countries receiving US aid. What was on the flip side?

[thailiketoo]

So a lot! This line of argument began when I facetiously said that Americans believe that world history started in 1776 and that WWII started in 1942.

But I will move beyond that to also point out that many Americans feel that they are responsible for winning WWII, not considering the sacrifice that Russia made bleeding the Nazis dry on the Eastern Front (there's a reason that German soldiers were fearful of being posted east) or the fact the Britain and the commonwealth had to withstand twin pressures from Japan and Germany years before the US actively joined in. By the time the US joined the cause with its fresh soldiers and equipment, the other belligerents had been much ground down by years of heavy fighting. This is not to take away from the American contribution, but the Americans should not act as if they were the saviours of the west either.

I'm one of them that thinks the USA is responsible for winning the war.

The USA sold ammunition to the allies (I'm trying to keep it simple) under a policy of cash and carry in 1939 and 1940.

Britain and Russia ran out of money in 1940. So in the 3rd month of 1941 the Lend Lease Act was signed into law. The bullets were free but the guns and tanks, food and stuff that weren't blown up or used were to be returned or paid for at the end of the war. The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until time for their return or destruction. Canada operated a similar program called Mutual Aid that sent a loan of $1 billion and $3.4 billion in supplies and services to Britain and other Allies.

So, you all would have run out of guns and ammunition and food in 1940 and lost the war if not for the Americans.

The Brits and the Russians were brave and all that but would have lost the war with no weapons or food in 1941 before America officially entered the war.

The Lend-Lease Act was passed by Congress on March 11, 1941. It provided that the president could ship weapons, food, or equipment to any country whose struggle against the Axis assisted U.S. defense.

By permitting the president to ship war equipment and supplies to a besieged Britain, without payback as stipulated by the 1939 Neutrality Act, Lend-Lease empowered the British to resist the German onslaught until Pearl Harbor spurred America into the conflict. In addition, it avoided the prickly issues of post-World War I war debts.

Lend-lease advanced the United States to the edge of war. Such Isolationists as Republican senator Robert Taft spoke against it. The bill would "...give the president power to carry on a kind of undeclared war all over the world, in which America would do everything except actually put soldiers in the frontline trenches where the fighting is," he correctly observed.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1600.html

So that's the truth and unless you can tell me how the Brits and Russians would have fought a war without food and bullets then the Americans were responsible for winning WWII along with the other allies.

Almost everything you say here is absolutely right, except for "Americans were responsible for winning WWII along with the other allies."

The fact is the Allies were responsible for winning WWII along with the Americans! And that is what gives the World the shits about the yanks, you think you won the war and this is perpetuated by almost every documentary that's been made, mostly with American archival footage. The way this is even referred to is offensive; "America and the allies" The Allies were a much larger fighting force, played a bigger role in more campaigns for longer and payed a far heavier price than America. I'm not taking anything away from the American contribution to WWII or anyone who fought in this epic catastrophe but please keep this in perspective because it's insulting and offensive to all the Allied Nations to here this constant rhetoric that America won WWII.

Could have America defeated Germany alone? If the Brits and Russians had fallen could America have won alone?

Atomic Bomb. Probably.

Who paid the most for WWII? Cash money. Who paid for the war? Could Russia or the UK have afforded to fight the war after the first two years (1941)? No.

When were the terms set for the repayment of the Lend Lease debts and why did it take the Brits so long to pay the debt? The Battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World Order. You want to know about paying war debt? You want to know why the power shifted from the US to the UK after Bretton Woods. You want to know about the Atlantic Charter? There were two wars going on. One was between Britain, France and the US to open up markets after WWII. That war the US won all alone.

The French and the British realized that they could no longer compete with U.S. industries in an open marketplace. During the 1930s, the British created their own economic bloc to shut out U.S. goods.

A devastated Britain had little choice. Two world wars had destroyed the country's principal industries that paid for the importation of half of the nation's food and nearly all its raw materials except coal. The British had no choice but to ask for aid. Not until the United States signed an agreement on 6 December 1945 to grant Britain aid of $4.4 billion did the British Parliament ratify the Bretton Woods Agreements (which occurred later in December 1945. France asked for a Billion dollar loan too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system

It was the foreign aid loan in 1945 that took so long to pay off not the Lend Lease payments. Get your facts straight.

"Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is this payment part of the lend-lease scheme under which the United States supplied munitions, vehicles and many other requirements including food and other provisions that were needed badly by us in the last part of the war?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I referred to lend-lease in the context of the generosity of the United States throughout that period. However, the debt that we are talking about now is separate; it was negotiated in December 1945.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan

I'm not taking anything away from the Allied contribution to WWII or anyone who fought in this epic catastrophe but please keep this in perspective because it's insulting and offensive to America to here this constant rhetoric that about who won WWII.

[thailiketoo]

lets face it your not liked any where in the world

1. Philippines (percentage with a favorable view of the United States: 85%)

2. Israel (83%)

3. Ghana (83%)

4. Senegal (81%)

5. Kenya (81%)

6. El Salvador (79%)

7. South Korea (78%)

8. Italy (76%)

9. Uganda (73%)

10. Brazil (73%)

Finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/10-countries-love-hate-america-most-163930019.html

One half of the coin from countries receiving US aid. What was on the flip side?

One of the largest recipients of Foreign Aid after WWII was Britain. Anglo-American Loan Agreement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan

The loan was made primarily to support British overseas expenditure in the immediate post-war years and not to implement the Labour government's welfare reforms. British treasury officials believed they could implement the Labour government's domestic reforms without the loan if Britain withdrew from all major overseas commitments. Additionally, Britain's lend-lease balance was written off for $650 million

Edited July 22, 2014 by thailiketoo

[heybuz]

if the US never entered into WW2 never supplied the allies,who was going to supply Germany both sides without outside help were scraping the barrel,the allies at least had Canada,Australia and some other commonwealth nations that could help,as far as I know the Germans had to strip the countries they invaded,so as far as who would have won without whoevers help is a non starter,most probably end up like Ww1..

[JSixpack]

All I am saying, is that it was an Allied effort of many countries, and that some Americans claiming solo credit

for "bailing the entire world out" are arrogant and wrong.

A red herring, really.

Of course you can find an uneducated idiot in any country to claim anything. If you're too thin-skinned to accept the fact, then I suppose suicide is your only answer.

Now if a Brit remarks, "We won the war," he's speaking casually; if asked, he'd include the other Allies. Similarly any American w/ the slightest knowledge of history, who's even seen any of the classic movies, will acknowledge the critical roles of the other Allies and certainly will NOT claim that the USA alone won the war. And I've never in my life heard anyone not acknowledge the critical role of the Russians, even if that's followed with observations about the Iron Curtain.

The roles of the Allies are clearly acknowledged in all the classic WW II movies, e.g., The Longest Day, whose focus, after all, is on the American role, just as a Brit movie would focus on the Brit role. And the Allies' roles are in all the history books. So there's never been any American conspiracy to claim that 'Mercans single-handedly won WW II. Never. Get over it.

So I don't see this as a serious reason for anti-Americanism. If you hear such a nonsensical and usually casual statement, and if offends your thin skin, you may simply offer a reminder, have it acknowledged, and that's the end of it.

OTOH, and with typical hypocrisy, what you hear on this forum (re: WW II) as part of the anti-American drumbeat is the opposite arrogant nonsense: that Americans were pretty useless, Russians would have won anyway, Americans cheated the other Allies, blah, blah. Member thailiketoo has taken all the wind out of that sail.

I'm not so thin skinned that I would consider killing myself over some obnoxious, loud mouth, in your face yank blathers on about "the greatest country on earth. what the hell has your country contributed? <deleted>"

And it happens a lot. I simply tell them to <deleted> off and move tables.

Many of your countrymen are loud and obnoxious, telling us how great you are. Why aren't you like that when I travel through the States, only overseas?

Even worse than blathering on with a red herring, which you've now had to abandon, is resorting to mere lying. Such desperation.

Next time () maybe you can think of something your country has contributed and inform the inquiring minds?

Next!

Edited July 23, 2014 by metisdead

[AYJAYDEE]

So a lot! This line of argument began when I facetiously said that Americans believe that world history started in 1776 and that WWII started in 1942.

But I will move beyond that to also point out that many Americans feel that they are responsible for winning WWII, not considering the sacrifice that Russia made bleeding the Nazis dry on the Eastern Front (there's a reason that German soldiers were fearful of being posted east) or the fact the Britain and the commonwealth had to withstand twin pressures from Japan and Germany years before the US actively joined in. By the time the US joined the cause with its fresh soldiers and equipment, the other belligerents had been much ground down by years of heavy fighting. This is not to take away from the American contribution, but the Americans should not act as if they were the saviours of the west either.

I'm one of them that thinks the USA is responsible for winning the war.

The USA sold ammunition to the allies (I'm trying to keep it simple) under a policy of cash and carry in 1939 and 1940.

Britain and Russia ran out of money in 1940. So in the 3rd month of 1941 the Lend Lease Act was signed into law. The bullets were free but the guns and tanks, food and stuff that weren't blown up or used were to be returned or paid for at the end of the war. The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until time for their return or destruction. Canada operated a similar program called Mutual Aid that sent a loan of $1 billion and $3.4 billion in supplies and services to Britain and other Allies.

So, you all would have run out of guns and ammunition and food in 1940 and lost the war if not for the Americans.

The Brits and the Russians were brave and all that but would have lost the war with no weapons or food in 1941 before America officially entered the war.

The Lend-Lease Act was passed by Congress on March 11, 1941. It provided that the president could ship weapons, food, or equipment to any country whose struggle against the Axis assisted U.S. defense.

By permitting the president to ship war equipment and supplies to a besieged Britain, without payback as stipulated by the 1939 Neutrality Act, Lend-Lease empowered the British to resist the German onslaught until Pearl Harbor spurred America into the conflict. In addition, it avoided the prickly issues of post-World War I war debts.

Lend-lease advanced the United States to the edge of war. Such Isolationists as Republican senator Robert Taft spoke against it. The bill would "...give the president power to carry on a kind of undeclared war all over the world, in which America would do everything except actually put soldiers in the frontline trenches where the fighting is," he correctly observed.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1600.html

So that's the truth and unless you can tell me how the Brits and Russians would have fought a war without food and bullets then the Americans were responsible for winning WWII along with the other allies.

Almost everything you say here is absolutely right, except for "Americans were responsible for winning WWII along with the other allies."

The fact is the Allies were responsible for winning WWII along with the Americans! And that is what gives the World the shits about the yanks, you think you won the war and this is perpetuated by almost every documentary that's been made, mostly with American archival footage. The way this is even referred to is offensive; "America and the allies" The Allies were a much larger fighting force, played a bigger role in more campaigns for longer and payed a far heavier price than America. I'm not taking anything away from the American contribution to WWII or anyone who fought in this epic catastrophe but please keep this in perspective because it's insulting and offensive to all the Allied Nations to here this constant rhetoric that America won WWII.

Could have America defeated Germany alone? If the Brits and Russians had fallen could America have won alone?

Atomic Bomb. Probably.

Who paid the most for WWII? Cash money. Who paid for the war? Could Russia or the UK have afforded to fight the war after the first two years (1941)? No.

When were the terms set for the repayment of the Lend Lease debts and why did it take the Brits so long to pay the debt? The Battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World Order. You want to know about paying war debt? You want to know why the power shifted from the US to the UK after Bretton Woods. You want to know about the Atlantic Charter? There were two wars going on. One was between Britain, France and the US to open up markets after WWII. That war the US won all alone.

The French and the British realized that they could no longer compete with U.S. industries in an open marketplace. During the 1930s, the British created their own economic bloc to shut out U.S. goods.

A devastated Britain had little choice. Two world wars had destroyed the country's principal industries that paid for the importation of half of the nation's food and nearly all its raw materials except coal. The British had no choice but to ask for aid. Not until the United States signed an agreement on 6 December 1945 to grant Britain aid of $4.4 billion did the British Parliament ratify the Bretton Woods Agreements (which occurred later in December 1945. France asked for a Billion dollar loan too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system

It was the foreign aid loan in 1945 that took so long to pay off not the Lend Lease payments. Get your facts straight.

"Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is this payment part of the lend-lease scheme under which the United States supplied munitions, vehicles and many other requirements including food and other provisions that were needed badly by us in the last part of the war?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I referred to lend-lease in the context of the generosity of the United States throughout that period. However, the debt that we are talking about now is separate; it was negotiated in December 1945.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan

I'm not taking anything away from the Allied contribution to WWII or anyone who fought in this epic catastrophe but please keep this in perspective because it's insulting and offensive to America to here this constant rhetoric that about who won WWII.

so now you know how the rest of the world feels when americans go on about how they always save the world

[AYJAYDEE]

All I am saying, is that it was an Allied effort of many countries, and that some Americans claiming solo credit

for "bailing the entire world out" are arrogant and wrong.

A red herring, really.

Of course you can find an uneducated idiot in any country to claim anything. If you're too thin-skinned to accept the fact, then I suppose suicide is your only answer.

Now if a Brit remarks, "We won the war," he's speaking casually; if asked, he'd include the other Allies. Similarly any American w/ the slightest knowledge of history, who's even seen any of the classic movies, will acknowledge the critical roles of the other Allies and certainly will NOT claim that the USA alone won the war. And I've never in my life heard anyone not acknowledge the critical role of the Russians, even if that's followed with observations about the Iron Curtain.

The roles of the Allies are clearly acknowledged in all the classic WW II movies, e.g., The Longest Day, whose focus, after all, is on the American role, just as a Brit movie would focus on the Brit role. And the Allies' roles are in all the history books. So there's never been any American conspiracy to claim that 'Mercans single-handedly won WW II. Never. Get over it.

So I don't see this as a serious reason for anti-Americanism. If you hear such a nonsensical and usually casual statement, and if offends your thin skin, you may simply offer a reminder, have it acknowledged, and that's the end of it.

OTOH, and with typical hypocrisy, what you hear on this forum (re: WW II) as part of the anti-American drumbeat is the opposite arrogant nonsense: that Americans were pretty useless, Russians would have won anyway, Americans cheated the other Allies, blah, blah. Member thailiketoo has taken all the wind out of that sail.

you may not see it as a serious reason but others do. and that was the point of the OP

[AYJAYDEE]

I love how the OP asks for an explanation for anti-american sentiment and when folks do so , and rather than listen to the reasons (whether they agree with them or not) all the americans want to argue about it!! THAT is exactly the point folks! For once in your lives shut up and LISTEN and you might learn why so many in the world harbour anti-american sentiments. The way youre carrying on simply produces more of those same sentiments.

[Jingthing]

I have a question.

As I've said I've personally experienced explicit and irrational anti-American feelings expressed to my face from people who don't know me.

Some of the reasons have been expressed here.

Some of it is about foreign policy and also objections to internal things in the U.S. like gun mania.

Some of it is about behavior judged to be unpleasant.

So here's my question.

Right now there's a lot negative in the news about RUSSIAN foreign policy (and also internal policy).

Specifically their land grab in Crimea and propping up the airplane shooters in rebel areas of Ukraine.

Their dictator Putin enjoys 85 percent support so chances are if you meet a random Russian, they do like Putin and his hyper-nationalist policies.

Their disgustingly repressive anti-gay laws also enjoy overwhelming popularity so if you meet a random Russian, most likely they support these horrible laws.

Certainly many Russians also display unpleasant behavior while abroad that might be equally or more objectionable to the complaints about Americans.

Such as pushing, shoving, not smiling, not mixing with non-Russians, territorial piggishness at buffets transport and beaches, etc.

YET, I have never observed a Russian person being confronted with rude expressions of anti-Russian feeling as I have experienced as an American.

WHY IS THAT?

Are people afraid of Russians?

If it's OK to be so rude to Americans based on perceived negative stereotypes, why not to Russians?

I don't know so unless someone can explain it me, my theory is people are afraid of Russians in a way they just aren't afraid of Americans.

We smile!

Edited July 22, 2014 by Jingthing

[kevozman1]

I'm Scottish, i absolutely despise 99% of Scottish people and i hate Scotland as a country. We have a huge chip on our shoulder, we seem to think "everyone loves us" yet we are ignorant, unhealthy, violent vermin.

We like to tell everyone how nice we are before stabbing them, we tell everyone we invented everything when in fact we didn't, other did before us, we just lie.

Good rant, but not as good as this one:

[AYJAYDEE]

I have a question.

As I've said I've personally experienced explicit and irrational anti-American feelings expressed to my face from people who don't know me.

Some of the reasons have been expressed here.

Some of it is about foreign policy and also objections to internal things in the U.S. like gun mania.

Some of it is about behavior judged to be unpleasant.

So here's my question.

Right now there's a lot negative in the news about RUSSIAN foreign policy (and also internal policy).

Specifically their land grab in Crimea and propping up the airplane shooters in rebel areas of Ukraine.

Their dictator Putin enjoys 85 percent support so chances are if you meet a random Russian, they do like Putin and his hyper-nationalist policies.

Their disgustingly repressive anti-gay laws also enjoy overwhelming popularity so if you meet a random Russian, most likely they support these horrible laws.

Certainly many Russians also display unpleasant behavior while abroad that might be equally or more objectionable to the complaints about Americans.

Such as pushing, shoving, not smiling, not mixing with non-Russians, territorial piggishness at buffets transport and beaches, etc.

YET, I have never observed a Russian person being confronted with rude expressions of anti-Russian feeling as I have experienced as an American.

WHY IS THAT?

Are people afraid of Russians?

If it's OK to be so rude to Americans based on perceived negative stereotypes, why not to Russians?

I don't know so unless someone can explain it me, my theory is people are afraid of Russians in a way they just aren't afraid of Americans.

We smile!

because people are not disappointed in russian behaviour, we expect it! americans on the other hand spend so much time telling everyone how GOOD they are and when one sees the hypocrisy of their pose, it generates disappointment and anger. no one likes a hypocrite.

[kevozman1]

Actually I think the reasons for this anti-Americanism are dated now. Americans in general are waking up to the fact that it is NOT number one in most things, except for things like obesity, incarceration rates, and gun mania.

Most of the actual hate will mostly only come form middle eastern countries. Other places around the world people will be more along the lines of jealousy with their feeling towards the USA. If I could do it all again I probably would made a move in early age from Europe to the states tbh. What a country.

[fasteddie]

So a lot! This line of argument began when I facetiously said that Americans believe that world history started in 1776 and that WWII started in 1942.

But I will move beyond that to also point out that many Americans feel that they are responsible for winning WWII, not considering the sacrifice that Russia made bleeding the Nazis dry on the Eastern Front (there's a reason that German soldiers were fearful of being posted east) or the fact the Britain and the commonwealth had to withstand twin pressures from Japan and Germany years before the US actively joined in. By the time the US joined the cause with its fresh soldiers and equipment, the other belligerents had been much ground down by years of heavy fighting. This is not to take away from the American contribution, but the Americans should not act as if they were the saviours of the west either.

I'm one of them that thinks the USA is responsible for winning the war.

The USA sold ammunition to the allies (I'm trying to keep it simple) under a policy of cash and carry in 1939 and 1940.

Britain and Russia ran out of money in 1940. So in the 3rd month of 1941 the Lend Lease Act was signed into law. The bullets were free but the guns and tanks, food and stuff that weren't blown up or used were to be returned or paid for at the end of the war. The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until time for their return or destruction. Canada operated a similar program called Mutual Aid that sent a loan of $1 billion and $3.4 billion in supplies and services to Britain and other Allies.

So, you all would have run out of guns and ammunition and food in 1940 and lost the war if not for the Americans.

The Brits and the Russians were brave and all that but would have lost the war with no weapons or food in 1941 before America officially entered the war.

The Lend-Lease Act was passed by Congress on March 11, 1941. It provided that the president could ship weapons, food, or equipment to any country whose struggle against the Axis assisted U.S. defense.

By permitting the president to ship war equipment and supplies to a besieged Britain, without payback as stipulated by the 1939 Neutrality Act, Lend-Lease empowered the British to resist the German onslaught until Pearl Harbor spurred America into the conflict. In addition, it avoided the prickly issues of post-World War I war debts.

Lend-lease advanced the United States to the edge of war. Such Isolationists as Republican senator Robert Taft spoke against it. The bill would "...give the president power to carry on a kind of undeclared war all over the world, in which America would do everything except actually put soldiers in the frontline trenches where the fighting is," he correctly observed.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1600.html

So that's the truth and unless you can tell me how the Brits and Russians would have fought a war without food and bullets then the Americans were responsible for winning WWII along with the other allies.

the battle of stalingrad demonstrates that the nazis never would have defeated the russians. they would have fought them tooth and nail all the way to kamchatka. and the point was that many americans claim they WON THE WAR! period.

Don't worry. You guys can take the credit for winning the next world war.

Well starting it at least.

[sustento]

Americans lost as many soldiers killed as the UK and provided the supplies to win the war.

Out of a population three times as large. We lost 5 times as many civilians as you did. You were never attacked on your home soil.

The US lost about 0.3% of its population during WWII. The Soviet Union lost around 14%.

Per capita losses are available in the last column of these tables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

UK war dead 450,900. US war dead 420,000. The dead don't care about per capita.

Those who live and who are forced to listen to American blowhards do though.

[AYJAYDEE]

So a lot! This line of argument began when I facetiously said that Americans believe that world history started in 1776 and that WWII started in 1942.

But I will move beyond that to also point out that many Americans feel that they are responsible for winning WWII, not considering the sacrifice that Russia made bleeding the Nazis dry on the Eastern Front (there's a reason that German soldiers were fearful of being posted east) or the fact the Britain and the commonwealth had to withstand twin pressures from Japan and Germany years before the US actively joined in. By the time the US joined the cause with its fresh soldiers and equipment, the other belligerents had been much ground down by years of heavy fighting. This is not to take away from the American contribution, but the Americans should not act as if they were the saviours of the west either.

I'm one of them that thinks the USA is responsible for winning the war.

The USA sold ammunition to the allies (I'm trying to keep it simple) under a policy of cash and carry in 1939 and 1940.

Britain and Russia ran out of money in 1940. So in the 3rd month of 1941 the Lend Lease Act was signed into law. The bullets were free but the guns and tanks, food and stuff that weren't blown up or used were to be returned or paid for at the end of the war. The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until time for their return or destruction. Canada operated a similar program called Mutual Aid that sent a loan of $1 billion and $3.4 billion in supplies and services to Britain and other Allies.

So, you all would have run out of guns and ammunition and food in 1940 and lost the war if not for the Americans.

The Brits and the Russians were brave and all that but would have lost the war with no weapons or food in 1941 before America officially entered the war.

The Lend-Lease Act was passed by Congress on March 11, 1941. It provided that the president could ship weapons, food, or equipment to any country whose struggle against the Axis assisted U.S. defense.

By permitting the president to ship war equipment and supplies to a besieged Britain, without payback as stipulated by the 1939 Neutrality Act, Lend-Lease empowered the British to resist the German onslaught until Pearl Harbor spurred America into the conflict. In addition, it avoided the prickly issues of post-World War I war debts.

Lend-lease advanced the United States to the edge of war. Such Isolationists as Republican senator Robert Taft spoke against it. The bill would "...give the president power to carry on a kind of undeclared war all over the world, in which America would do everything except actually put soldiers in the frontline trenches where the fighting is," he correctly observed.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1600.html

So that's the truth and unless you can tell me how the Brits and Russians would have fought a war without food and bullets then the Americans were responsible for winning WWII along with the other allies.

the battle of stalingrad demonstrates that the nazis never would have defeated the russians. they would have fought them tooth and nail all the way to kamchatka. and the point was that many americans claim they WON THE WAR! period.

Don't worry. You guys can take the credit for winning the next world war.

and invite the contempt you guys get? lol

[spidermike007]

Actually I think the reasons for this anti-Americanism are dated now. Americans in general are waking up to the fact that it is NOT number one in most things, except for things like obesity, incarceration rates, and gun mania.

Most of the actual hate will mostly only come form middle eastern countries. Other places around the world people will be more along the lines of jealousy with their feeling towards the USA. If I could do it all again I probably would made a move in early age from Europe to the states tbh. What a country.

That attitude could have carried some weight 20 years ago. Today, America is a pale shadow of its former self. The economy has been absolutely decimated in that time. Yes, the numbers look ok. But, to a large extent this administration is just making those numbers up as they go along. The unemployment rate is a good example. It is pure fiction. But, the reality on the ground, is that the majority of the population is in shell shock. They have been stripped of a lot of their security, they have lost a lot of their savings, the values of their homes have not remained constant, and the confidence of these people toward the future is bleak. I know a lot of these people. I have a business in the US. Only the very wealthy continue to spend money. The average American has his head tucked in the sand, as if the end of the world is approaching. First Tiny George II, and now Blundering Barry Obama have both absolutely shattered their ability to believe in the future. Nearly all their dreams, and illusions they have been fed while growing up have proven to be false (the greatest land, the strongest economy, everybody listens to us, we have a lot of influence throughout the world, we are the worlds most important country, etc, etc.) and the result is a land with a lot of disappointed, unfulfilled, and bitter people. I spend time there. I see it first hand. I talk to friends and family, and look at my client base, and see how decimated the place is. America is quite simply not the land it used to be. It is not the paradise it thinks it is. It is a difficult place, with a shattered economy, a beaten down population, that is losing hope in its future. All this is just my opinion of course. Bit, it is the way I see it.

Spidermike

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[sustento]

I have a question.

As I've said I've personally experienced explicit and irrational anti-American feelings expressed to my face from people who don't know me.

Some of the reasons have been expressed here.

Some of it is about foreign policy and also objections to internal things in the U.S. like gun mania.

Some of it is about behavior judged to be unpleasant.

So here's my question.

Right now there's a lot negative in the news about RUSSIAN foreign policy (and also internal policy).

Specifically their land grab in Crimea and propping up the airplane shooters in rebel areas of Ukraine.

Their dictator Putin enjoys 85 percent support so chances are if you meet a random Russian, they do like Putin and his hyper-nationalist policies.

Their disgustingly repressive anti-gay laws also enjoy overwhelming popularity so if you meet a random Russian, most likely they support these horrible laws.

Certainly many Russians also display unpleasant behavior while abroad that might be equally or more objectionable to the complaints about Americans.

Such as pushing, shoving, not smiling, not mixing with non-Russians, territorial piggishness at buffets transport and beaches, etc.

YET, I have never observed a Russian person being confronted with rude expressions of anti-Russian feeling as I have experienced as an American.

WHY IS THAT?

Are people afraid of Russians?

If it's OK to be so rude to Americans based on perceived negative stereotypes, why not to Russians?

I don't know so unless someone can explain it me, my theory is people are afraid of Russians in a way they just aren't afraid of Americans.

We smile!

The Russians don't go round telling everyone how wonderful they are. The Americans never miss an opportunity to tell we poor second raters that the sun shines out of their collective ar ses

[rijb]

Actually I think the reasons for this anti-Americanism are dated now. Americans in general are waking up to the fact that it is NOT number one in most things, except for things like obesity, incarceration rates, and gun mania.

Most of the actual hate will mostly only come form middle eastern countries. Other places around the world people will be more along the lines of jealousy with their feeling towards the USA. If I could do it all again I probably would made a move in early age from Europe to the states tbh. What a country.

That attitude could have carried some weight 20 years ago. Today, America is a pale shadow of its former self. The economy has been absolutely decimated in that time. Yes, the numbers look ok. But, to a large extent this administration is just making those numbers up as they go along. The unemployment rate is a good example. It is pure fiction. But, the reality on the ground, is that the majority of the population is in shell shock. They have been stripped of a lot of their security, they have lost a lot of their savings, the values of their homes have not remained constant, and the confidence of these people toward the future is bleak. I know a lot of these people. I have a business in the US. Only the very wealthy continue to spend money. The average American has his head tucked in the sand, as if the end of the world is approaching. First Tiny George II, and now Blundering Barry Obama have both absolutely shattered their ability to believe in the future. Nearly all their dreams, and illusions they have been fed while growing up have proven to be false (the greatest land, the strongest economy, everybody listens to us, we have a lot of influence throughout the world, we are the worlds most important country, etc, etc.) and the result is a land with a lot of disappointed, unfulfilled, and bitter people. I spend time there. I see it first hand. I talk to friends and family, and look at my client base, and see how decimated the place is. America is quite simply not the land it used to be. It is not the paradise it thinks it is. It is a difficult place, with a shattered economy, a beaten down population, that is losing hope in its future. All this is just my opinion of course. Bit, it is the way I see it.

Spidermike

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Don't throw the towel in yet. http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-21st-century-may-be-even-more-of-an-american-century-than-the-20th-century-ever-was-2014-7

[rijb]

I have a question.

As I've said I've personally experienced explicit and irrational anti-American feelings expressed to my face from people who don't know me.

Some of the reasons have been expressed here.

Some of it is about foreign policy and also objections to internal things in the U.S. like gun mania.

Some of it is about behavior judged to be unpleasant.

So here's my question.

Right now there's a lot negative in the news about RUSSIAN foreign policy (and also internal policy).

Specifically their land grab in Crimea and propping up the airplane shooters in rebel areas of Ukraine.

Their dictator Putin enjoys 85 percent support so chances are if you meet a random Russian, they do like Putin and his hyper-nationalist policies.

Their disgustingly repressive anti-gay laws also enjoy overwhelming popularity so if you meet a random Russian, most likely they support these horrible laws.

Certainly many Russians also display unpleasant behavior while abroad that might be equally or more objectionable to the complaints about Americans.

Such as pushing, shoving, not smiling, not mixing with non-Russians, territorial piggishness at buffets transport and beaches, etc.

YET, I have never observed a Russian person being confronted with rude expressions of anti-Russian feeling as I have experienced as an American.

WHY IS THAT?

Are people afraid of Russians?

If it's OK to be so rude to Americans based on perceived negative stereotypes, why not to Russians?

I don't know so unless someone can explain it me, my theory is people are afraid of Russians in a way they just aren't afraid of Americans.

We smile!

The Russians don't go round telling everyone how wonderful they are. The Americans never miss an opportunity to tell we poor second raters that the sun shines out of their collective ar ses

Do you speak Russian?

Putin's pretty cocky.

Edited July 23, 2014 by rijb

[fasteddie]

I have a question.

As I've said I've personally experienced explicit and irrational anti-American feelings expressed to my face from people who don't know me.

Some of the reasons have been expressed here.

Some of it is about foreign policy and also objections to internal things in the U.S. like gun mania.

Some of it is about behavior judged to be unpleasant.

So here's my question.

Right now there's a lot negative in the news about RUSSIAN foreign policy (and also internal policy).

Specifically their land grab in Crimea and propping up the airplane shooters in rebel areas of Ukraine.

Their dictator Putin enjoys 85 percent support so chances are if you meet a random Russian, they do like Putin and his hyper-nationalist policies.

Their disgustingly repressive anti-gay laws also enjoy overwhelming popularity so if you meet a random Russian, most likely they support these horrible laws.

Certainly many Russians also display unpleasant behavior while abroad that might be equally or more objectionable to the complaints about Americans.

Such as pushing, shoving, not smiling, not mixing with non-Russians, territorial piggishness at buffets transport and beaches, etc.

YET, I have never observed a Russian person being confronted with rude expressions of anti-Russian feeling as I have experienced as an American.

WHY IS THAT?

Are people afraid of Russians?

If it's OK to be so rude to Americans based on perceived negative stereotypes, why not to Russians?

I don't know so unless someone can explain it me, my theory is people are afraid of Russians in a way they just aren't afraid of Americans.

We smile!

"the airplane shooters in rebel areas of Ukraine"

Once again Americans know it all! show us the proof American. The Russians have shown satellite images and radar plots, they've shown theirs now you show yours.

And incidentally, Ukraine had a democratically elected government, until the Americans in a fit of pique because Ukraine wouldn't kiss uncle Sam's butt, spent 5 billion dollars financing a violent fascist led coup to topple democracy then whined and stamped their feat when the vast majority of Crimeans freely and democratically voted to reject fascism and join the Russian federation.

Another example of American foreign policy that explains anti American sentiment.

[thailiketoo]

I have a question.

As I've said I've personally experienced explicit and irrational anti-American feelings expressed to my face from people who don't know me.

Some of the reasons have been expressed here.

Some of it is about foreign policy and also objections to internal things in the U.S. like gun mania.

Some of it is about behavior judged to be unpleasant.

So here's my question.

Right now there's a lot negative in the news about RUSSIAN foreign policy (and also internal policy).

Specifically their land grab in Crimea and propping up the airplane shooters in rebel areas of Ukraine.

Their dictator Putin enjoys 85 percent support so chances are if you meet a random Russian, they do like Putin and his hyper-nationalist policies.

Their disgustingly repressive anti-gay laws also enjoy overwhelming popularity so if you meet a random Russian, most likely they support these horrible laws.

Certainly many Russians also display unpleasant behavior while abroad that might be equally or more objectionable to the complaints about Americans.

Such as pushing, shoving, not smiling, not mixing with non-Russians, territorial piggishness at buffets transport and beaches, etc.

YET, I have never observed a Russian person being confronted with rude expressions of anti-Russian feeling as I have experienced as an American.

WHY IS THAT?

Are people afraid of Russians?

If it's OK to be so rude to Americans based on perceived negative stereotypes, why not to Russians?

I don't know so unless someone can explain it me, my theory is people are afraid of Russians in a way they just aren't afraid of Americans.

We smile!

"the airplane shooters in rebel areas of Ukraine"

Once again Americans know it all! show us the proof American. The Russians have shown satellite images and radar plots, they've shown theirs now you show yours.

And incidentally, Ukraine had a democratically elected government, until the Americans in a fit of pique because Ukraine wouldn't kiss uncle Sam's butt, spent 5 billion dollars financing a violent fascist led coup to topple democracy then whined and stamped their feat when the vast majority of Crimeans freely and democratically voted to reject fascism and join the Russian federation.

Another example of American foreign policy that explains anti American sentiment.

In 2013 Russia was ranked 148th out of 179 countries, six places below the previous year, mainly due to the return of Vladimir Putin. Freedom House compiles a similar ranking and placed Russia at number 176 out of 197 countries for press freedom for 2013, putting it level with Sudan and Ethiopia. The Committee to Protect Journalists states that Russia was the country with the 10th largest number of journalists killed since 1992, 26 of them since the beginning of 2000, including four from Novaya Gazeta. It also placed Russia at number 9 in the world for numbers of journalists killed with complete impunity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Russia

Anyone who takes Russian media seriously has to have a screw loose or an agenda to push.

Edited July 23, 2014 by thailiketoo

[AYJAYDEE]

I have a question.

As I've said I've personally experienced explicit and irrational anti-American feelings expressed to my face from people who don't know me.

Some of the reasons have been expressed here.

Some of it is about foreign policy and also objections to internal things in the U.S. like gun mania.

Some of it is about behavior judged to be unpleasant.

So here's my question.

Right now there's a lot negative in the news about RUSSIAN foreign policy (and also internal policy).

Specifically their land grab in Crimea and propping up the airplane shooters in rebel areas of Ukraine.

Their dictator Putin enjoys 85 percent support so chances are if you meet a random Russian, they do like Putin and his hyper-nationalist policies.

Their disgustingly repressive anti-gay laws also enjoy overwhelming popularity so if you meet a random Russian, most likely they support these horrible laws.

Certainly many Russians also display unpleasant behavior while abroad that might be equally or more objectionable to the complaints about Americans.

Such as pushing, shoving, not smiling, not mixing with non-Russians, territorial piggishness at buffets transport and beaches, etc.

YET, I have never observed a Russian person being confronted with rude expressions of anti-Russian feeling as I have experienced as an American.

WHY IS THAT?

Are people afraid of Russians?

If it's OK to be so rude to Americans based on perceived negative stereotypes, why not to Russians?

I don't know so unless someone can explain it me, my theory is people are afraid of Russians in a way they just aren't afraid of Americans.

We smile!

"the airplane shooters in rebel areas of Ukraine"

Once again Americans know it all! show us the proof American. The Russians have shown satellite images and radar plots, they've shown theirs now you show yours.

And incidentally, Ukraine had a democratically elected government, until the Americans in a fit of pique because Ukraine wouldn't kiss uncle Sam's butt, spent 5 billion dollars financing a violent fascist led coup to topple democracy then whined and stamped their feat when the vast majority of Crimeans freely and democratically voted to reject fascism and join the Russian federation.

Another example of American foreign policy that explains anti American sentiment.

In 2013 Russia was ranked 148th out of 179 countries, six places below the previous year, mainly due to the return of Vladimir Putin. Freedom House compiles a similar ranking and placed Russia at number 176 out of 197 countries for press freedom for 2013, putting it level with Sudan and Ethiopia. The Committee to Protect Journalists states that Russia was the country with the 10th largest number of journalists killed since 1992, 26 of them since the beginning of 2000, including four from Novaya Gazeta. It also placed Russia at number 9 in the world for numbers of journalists killed with complete impunity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Russia

Anyone who takes Russian media seriously has to have a screw loose or an agenda to push.

the censorship by the corporate owners of american media has done just as good a job. nobody takes the american media seriously.

[Shurup]

I'm Scottish, i absolutely despise 99% of Scottish people and i hate Scotland as a country. We have a huge chip on our shoulder, we seem to think "everyone loves us" yet we are ignorant, unhealthy, violent vermin.

We like to tell everyone how nice we are before stabbing them, we tell everyone we invented everything when in fact we didn't, other did before us, we just lie.

Nah, Scottish are fine folks with good sense of humour (that if you can understand them, hahaha).

Violent??? Only when drunk... which is almost always.

Sent from one of my mobiles, whatever mobile it is.