Who Loathes the Other More: Brits or Americans?

[Bloodshot Scott]

Give him a break, he writes all this on a phone somehow :eek:

You can get Internet on your phone now. My boy has it on his Blackberry.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

Give him a break, he writes all this on a phone somehow :eek:

Yeah, sure. He writes all this on a phone... while sexting with the UK!

:crying:

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

I swear to God I knew you were gonna say somethin! I'm laughing so hard I got tears. I'm just sayin its been a lot longer and also take into consideration how it all started.

You know no American loves Canada more than I do.

OMG. I feel like I just got caught cheating.

Vlad,

Canada=America lite. They just act like they aren't part of our country.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

Vlad,

Canada=America lite. They just act like they aren't part of our country.

None of the power?

So says the country we beat up in two wars. :tongue:

 

[Ulysses31]

Good points. I just look at everything from a slightly distorted point of view being a former marine. I'm being sincere when I say that. It's difficult not to think that way after the reprogramming. But ya have to admit getting Saddam was a good thing. He would have caused more problems.

Although Saddam was a brutal vicious tyrant (one of many around the world) I think he was all talk and no threat to the US or UK (maybe just Israel but he had no navy, airforce, missiles as well as outdated weapons). I'll even go as far as to say the crazy fucker was actually holding Iraq together as since he was displaced the amount of nuts that have come out committing murders, rapes, beheadings, ethnic clensing and suicide bombing in public markets full of women and children is staggering, none of this ever happened when he was in charge. In an ideal world people like him would not exist but when you have a melting pot of a country like Iraq sometimes a brutal tyrant at the top is the only thing to stop complete anarchy and chaos. I respect you as an ex-serviceman as well as all our soldiers (both UK and US oh and Canadians) but I fear the politicians are letting the soldiers down by sending them to war under false pretenses.

 

[Ulysses31]

You can get Internet on your phone now. My boy has it on his Blackberry.

We don't have that in the UK yet, we've got dial-up up to 56k now so things are looking up :thumbsup:

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Give him a break, he writes all this on a phone somehow :eek:

I'm glad someone noticed. It takes me as long to make one post as it does everybody else to make three.

Yeah, sure. He writes all this on a phone... while sexting with the UK!

:crying:

Your never gonna let me live that down are ya. Throw it up in my face everytime we have a fight.

Vlad,

Canada=America lite. They just act like they aren't part of our country.

That's priceless. Don't tell Canada I said that though.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Although Saddam was a brutal vicious tyrant (one of many around the world) I think he was all talk and no threat to the US or UK (maybe just Israel but he had no navy, airforce, missiles as well as outdated weapons). I'll even go as far as to say the crazy fucker was actually holding Iraq together as since he was displaced the amount of nuts that have come out committing murders, rapes, beheadings, ethnic clensing and suicide bombing in public markets full of women and children is staggering, none of this ever happened when he was in charge. In an ideal world people like him would not exist but when you have a melting pot of a country like Iraq sometimes a brutal tyrant at the top is the only thing to stop complete anarchy and chaos. I respect you as an ex-serviceman as well as all our soldiers (both UK and US oh and Canadians) but I fear the politicians are letting the soldiers down by sending them to war under false pretenses.

More good points. Hadn't thought of it that way. And this whole thing does have the stench of Vietnam to it.

 

[Ulysses31]

Nooooooo! I Promise I won't ever do it again!:iloveyou:

You're being honoured in the members only section as we speak :bowdown:

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

None of the power?

So says the country we beat up in two wars. :tongue:

Ehh, you can always bask in your former glory. Sorta like us when we kicked your ass in the '60 olympics. :yesyes:

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

Ehh, you can always bask in your former glory. Sorta like us when we kicked your ass in the '60 olympics. :yesyes:

Why did you pick an Olympics from 50 years ago?

...

Oh, is it because we beat you a few months ago?

Yeah, that must be it.

 

[Bearded_Menace]

Although Saddam was a brutal vicious tyrant (one of many around the world) I think he was all talk and no threat to the US or UK (maybe just Israel but he had no navy, airforce, missiles as well as outdated weapons). I'll even go as far as to say the crazy fucker was actually holding Iraq together as since he was displaced the amount of nuts that have come out committing murders, rapes, beheadings, ethnic clensing and suicide bombing in public markets full of women and children is staggering, none of this ever happened when he was in charge. In an ideal world people like him would not exist but when you have a melting pot of a country like Iraq sometimes a brutal tyrant at the top is the only thing to stop complete anarchy and chaos. I respect you as an ex-serviceman as well as all our soldiers (both UK and US oh and Canadians) but I fear the politicians are letting the soldiers down by sending them to war under false pretenses.

Good points. It is hard to play devil's advocate at times. I remember my uncle saying the exact same thing when the whole Iraq thing started. There is more than one way to run a country. While our way in the west does provide a way to get the most out of life, it isn't always the right way for every situation or for every group of people on the planet. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but ruling through fear and intimidation was probably the best way he could run that country given its history.

 

[Ulysses31]

Good points. It is hard to play devil's advocate at times. I remember my uncle saying the exact same thing when the whole Iraq thing started. There is more than one way to run a country. While our way in the west does provide a way to get the most out of life, it isn't always the right way for every situation or for every group of people on the planet. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but ruling through fear and intimidation was probably the best way he could run that country given its history.

Another important note is that Saddam hated islamic extremism and worked hard (by which I mean brutally) to keep Iraq secular where even Christians were well integrated into society (Tariq Aziz was Christian). With him gone the extremists have poured into the the vacuum left behind and they are the ones who can so easily slit other mens throats and blow up women and children along with themselves due to being driven by fanatical religious beliefs.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Another important note is that Saddam hated islamic extremism and worked hard (by which I mean brutally) to keep Iraq secular where even Christians were well integrated into society (Tariq Aziz was Christian). With him gone the extremists have poured into the the vacuum left behind and they are the ones who can so easily slit other mens throats and blow up women and children along with themselves due to being driven by fanatical religious beliefs.

I did not know this. I believe our being there in the first place was very much a personal vendetta on Bush's part now we've made it worse. But worse yet would be to leave the place in chaos again. What do ya think?

 

[Ulysses31]

I did not know this. I believe our being there in the first place was very much a personal vendetta on Bush's part now we've made it worse. But worse yet would be to leave the place in chaos again. What do ya think?

I suppose the best thing is to stick it out until the government is strong enough to lay down law and order although part of me thinks this will never happen as people in the middle east will never (or not for many years) adhere to our western model of democracy, they often elect a new leader by simply killing or ousting the old one. Similarly in Afghanistan where democracy and voting are simply not compatable with the tribal system that is currently in place there and changes like this in the west developed over centuries and not overnight. With this in mind I honestly can't see a viable solution which is quite depressing in a way, bear in mind I'm not the only one as I'm sure both the Cameron and Obama admistrations have no idea either, better planning was needed concerning post Saddam Iraq, they needed to know what to do with the country once he was gone, it's simple project management like we all do in our everyday lives when making plans and decisions.

 

[LaLiLuLeLohan]

And when I ask, I mean in a competitive sort of way and regarding culture. I happen to think - and believe, with the state of the WC now - that the Brits (even the Europeans as a whole) hate Americans. In all fun of course (I think).

You have to wonder...

I can't speak for the Brits, but if anything, us Yanks seem to have a recent and desperate fascination with our pasty Anglo counterparts. It seems that every reality or contest show has to have a Brit host or co-host and the easiest way to sell a Yank some useless shit we don't need is to have a Limey hawk it.

"Folks, it slices and dices!"

Justified or not, I think Bush left us feeling, well, a bit poorly represented on the global stage. And as a resort, I think we collectively reached out and tried to embrace some palatable UKisms that give off an air or gravitas and generic intellectualism. But only in the realm of entertainment and a pseudo-aesthetic nature.

But yeah, I don't think us Yanks have any ill regard to the Brits whatsoever. Even our most blatant stereotypes are an admitted nod to frivolity and hacky cliché.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

I can't speak for the Brits, but if anything, us Yanks seem to have a recent and desperate fascination with our pasty Anglo counterparts. It seems that every reality or contest show has to have a Brit host or co-host and the easiest way to sell a Yank some useless shit we don't need is to have a Limey hawk it.

"Folks, it slices and dices!"

Justified or not, I think Bush left us feeling, well, a bit poorly represented on the global stage. And as a resort, I think we collectively reached out and tried to embrace some palatable UKisms that give off an air or gravitas and generic intellectualism. But only in the realm of entertainment and a pseudo-aesthetic nature.

But yeah, I don't think us Yanks have any ill regard to the Brits whatsoever. Even our most blatant stereotypes are an admitted nod to frivolity and hacky cliché.

What's wrong with "pasty Anglos"? :dunno: The majority of us Americans are "pasty Anglos."

 

[LaLiLuLeLohan]

What's wrong with "pasty Anglos"? :dunno: The majority of us Americans are "pasty Anglos."

I think we may be defining "Anglos" a bit too broadly here, but to answer your question; absolutely nothing. It was poetic license in order to keep from sounding repetitive.

Are Americans mostly Anglo? I'm asking seriously, I really don't know. I'm a WOP-Slav mutt (and extremely pasty) and I obviously don't call myself an Anglo. And the majority of Smiths, Johnsons And Jacksons I've met have been mostly Black dudes or White mutts like me. But in fairness, I never lived in Connecticut.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

I think we may be defining "Anglos" a bit too broadly here, but to answer your question; absolutely nothing. It was poetic license in order to keep from sounding repetitive.

Are Americans mostly Anglo? I'm asking seriously, I really don't know. I'm a WOP-Slav mutt (and extremely pasty) and I obviously don't call myself an Anglo. And the majority of Smiths, Johnsons And Jacksons I've met have been mostly Black dudes or White mutts like me. But in fairness, I never lived in Connecticut.

Anglo, like WASP, is a term that can be used loosely. In America in general anyone of wholly European ancestry is "Anglo," I am pretty sure about this.
See here for a brief overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-America#Anglo-American_ethnic_group

Some it seems a little wishy washy (such as an Asian seen as an Anglo, blurs it a bit), but it's Wiki, so....,but this site defines it further:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anglo

An·glo   /ˈæŋgloʊ/ Show Spelled [ang-gloh] Show IPA noun, plural -glos, adjective
–noun
1. a white American of non-Hispanic descent, as distinguished esp. from an American of Mexican or spanish descent.
2. ( sometimes lowercase ) an English-speaking person in a place where English is not the language of the majority.

and:

Usage Note : In contemporary American usage, Anglo is used primarily in direct contrast to Hispanic or Latino. In this context it is not limited to persons of English or even British descent, but can be generally applied to any non-Hispanic white person. Thus in parts of the United States with large Hispanic populations, an American of Polish, Irish, or German heritage might be termed an Anglo just as readily as a person of English descent. However, in parts of the country where the Hispanic community is smaller or nonexistent, or in areas where ethnic distinctions among European groups remain strong, Anglo has little currency as a catch-all term for non-Hispanic whites. · Anglo is also used in non-Hispanic contexts. In Canada, where its usage dates at least to 1800, the distinction is between persons of English and French descent. And in American historical contexts Anglo is apt to be used more strictly to refer to persons of English heritage, as in this passage describing the politics of nation-building in pre-Revolutionary America: "The 'unity' of the American people derived ... from the ability and willingness of an Anglo elite to stamp its image on other peoples coming to this country" (Benjamin Schwarz).

So pretty much English speaking people of European ancestry in America are "Anglos."

 

[LaLiLuLeLohan]

Anglo, like WASP, is a term that can be used loosely. In America in general anyone of wholly European ancestry is "Anglo," I am pretty sure about this.
See here for a brief overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-America#Anglo-American_ethnic_group

Some it seems a little wishy washy (such as an Asian seen as an Anglo, blurs it a bit), but it's Wiki, so....,but this site defines it further:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anglo




and:



So pretty much English speaking people of European ancestry in America are "Anglos."

Eh, I take from that that White people are Anglos according to "Hispanics".

But I'm a non-Hispanic White and, just like Europeans, I consider Anglos to be a pretty specific ethnicity. How could Greeks, Sicilians, Brits and Swedes all be Anglos?

So pretty much English speaking people of European ancestry in America are "Anglos."

Robert Rodriguez and Geraldo Rivera are Anglos??