Most Hated Nation

[dsteele]

I think FOG sneezed.

 

Unc.

[Fat Old Guy]

No sneeze there but I'm beginning to smell enemy action. (once is happenstance, twice is co-incidence, thrice is enemy action)

[Proud Eagle]

Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan--Red

 

That was the post WWI/pre WWII plan for war with the United Kingdom. Since the US and UK were the two greatest naval powers of the time and one was a rising global power while the other was receding, it was not illogical, especially given differing political goals, that a scenario could occur that would lead to war between the US and UK.

 

As part of that larger plan, War Plan Crimson called for the invasion of Canada. (Red being the UK, Crimson being Canada, Orange being Japan, and other colors assigned to other possible threats.) This was thought to be the easiest way for the US to do damage to the UK, particularly on land.

 

Crimson was never really developed into a complete operational plan. It was really more of an outline, since other threats were given higher priority.

 

Really the only one of the color plans to be fully developed was War Plan Orange, which received a great deal of attention, particularly from naval planner, for the entire 20s and 30s, except for a few years in the late 20s/early 30s putting together the basic components of Red. Red was maintained well after it became both politically and militarily obsolete because it contained essentially the only plans for fighting a naval war in the Atlantic. As such it was thought it would make a good basis for any future such naval conflict.

 

Interestingly enough, War Plan Black (Germany) was far underdeveloped do to domestic political pressure. Had war been more likely prior to 1939 it would certainly have received more attention for practical reasons. Had it seemed more remote of a possibility, the politics would have allowed it to be developed more fully while still maintaining the cover of a purely academic exercise.

 

Other war plans:

White - domestic uprising

Green - Mexico

Gray - any Caribbean nation

Purple - Central America

Gold - France

also combined Red/Gold and Red/Orange plans existed at various times

 

Eventually in 1939 five new plans named Rainbow were developed for the possibility of fighting enemies on both oceans at once. It was Rainbow Five that was eventually used, more or less.

 

Also, there were older plans for war an invasion of Canada. It wouldn't surprise me if US and Canadian officers now do US-Canada war games just for the practice.

 

Do a search in any major search engine for any of the war plans and you will find some interesting stuff.

 

 

 

On a largely unrelated note, Canada is not a true socialist nation. It incorporates far more of the elements of socialism than the US does (which is already more socialist than I care for). However, it does not incorporate all of them. I find any long term move away from liberal/socialist policies to be unlikely in Canada. The conservative political forces are far too divided in Canada.

 

As for the US being fascist, I think we can quite easily refute that claim. About the most the US has in common with fascism are a hand full of essentially socialist policies, since after all fascism, like its cousins communism, Nazism, and democratic-socialism, are all variations on the basic socialist concept. In fact, I would say that both Canada and the UK, as well as most of the rest of the major western nations, have more in common with fascism than the US does, due to their closer ties with socialism, and in some cases legal traditions (partially rooted in the old monarchies) that favor control by the central goverment over either local or individual control.

[Achilleez]

Could you please explain to me how giving free health care to poor people is facist.

 

And who exactly was under the impressiong (aside from FOG) that Canada was ever socialist to begin with? We are still right of centre, unless you don't count the fact that we have a market economy and we are democratic. (actually we are supposed to be a monarch, with the queen running our country, but British control of Canada ended right after WWI.)

[Herms]

You people out there who think that America is "hated" around the world need to stop watching the twisted news! I have traveled the world (over 3 times), been to 30 different countries and recently just got back from South Korea (were by the way the love Americans). Everywhere I have went both; East and West, people of other countries respect the U.S.

 

Of course there is nah-sayers in other countries (just like in this one!) that bad-mouth America (and get the most press), but overall I've met a lot of great people around the world.

 

Take England for example. Recently, you've seen all this demonstrating on TV against the U.S. and their involvement in Iraq, however, I living there during the First Gulf War, when similar demonstrations were going on, and you could walk into a pub just about anywhere in the country and people were ready to buy you a pint.

 

I was in Washington DC one time, when all over the news back home, it was talking about a group that was demonstrating (for who can remember what!) outside of the White House. There were MAYBE a hundred people there, and yet the press made it seem like it was some huge demonstration.

 

Many countries have groups which PAY people to go out and demonstrate! From my own personal experiences I now take all that junk I see on TV with a grain of salt.

 

[caddmommy]

A musically history lessen!

 

I love this thread!

[Rooster7]

Herms,

 

Those are encouraging words. Thanks.

 

Speaking of the "twisted" press, I remember when Hubble was launched and it was discovered shortly afterwards that the mirror was made incorrectly causing some blurring of distant objects. The press made it sound as if the telescope was a complete failure. At that time, even if Hubble was never repaired, it was at least 10 times better than anything we had on the ground or in space. Yet, the press never reported that fact. They preferred the sensational headline (i.e., NASA blunder Costs Taxpayers Billions). Theyre all vying for the next Pulitzer by sensationalizing every wrongdoing and creating exposs even when none really exists.

 

The sad fact of the matter is, it seems most reporters and/or their editors prefer stories that inspires outrage and sensationalism, then those stories that communicate the simple truth. I guess, for the reporter and his newspaper, theres no glory in reporting the heroics of our servicemen. After all, in a story like that, all of the focus is on a true hero, like the marine who saves his buddy or takes out 10 of the enemy by himself. In a story like the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, the reporter and the so-called whistle blowers are called out and honored. Im not suggesting that stories of abuse should be kept from the public, but Id like to see a little more balance, even if those other stories dont give reporters any leverage to inflate their own egos.

 

[FScouter]

For real news without the fluff and shock value, try the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour, or National Public Radio, or the Nighly Business Report.

[Fat Old Guy]

NPR? Every time I listen to NPR they sound as left as Algore.

[Rooster7]

I'm with FOG on NPR. I like the British accents (they seem to have a preference for English broadcasters...probably because it adds to their snootiness), but there's definitely a slant to left in their presentations.

 

I prefer FOX News, but undoubtedly there are quite a few people on this forum that think those guys lean to the right. I can accept that analysis, but I have a hard time swallowing that assertion without comment when the same folks refuse to recognize the left leanings of the big three (ABC, NBC, and CBS). I know scores of folks who have no idea what I'm talking about when I point to Brokaw, Jennings, and Rather, as closet supporters of the Dems. I find their lack of discernment and/or their lack of intellectual honesty to be very disturbing. Although, I don't know why I'm so shocked...this nation did elect Clinton - TWICE!

 

Sadly, because so many people watch these guys and trust them like their favorite uncle (including my own mother), they dont look for bias. They accept what they hear as the unblemished truth. Its a little bit scary. All of this explains why so many people think we are the most hated nation. FunnyI dont recall this notion being put forth when a Dem was in office. Hmmmoh yeah, the evil Republican administration is responsible. Yeah, right.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[firstpusk]

FScouter is correct about NPR. Their news coverage is not liberal, it is objective. FOX is a bad joke and not journalism on any level. If you want accurate in-depth news coverage, listen to NPR. If you want mean-spirited right-wing editorial, watch FOX.

[buffalo2]

Rooster - must agree with your thoughts on the media and their choice of news items. Have we forgotten that they're there to sell commercial air time?

 

And while I listen to NPR a lot, suddenly wondering if an evident bias lies in their selection of programming rather than within the individual pieces? Is anyone noticing the difference between the coverage on John Kerry's campaign and the things that 'Mister' Bush is doing? That is until this prisoner mistreatment scandal came along...

 

NPR seems to have lost much over the last few years as their Federal funding dries up; some things obvious and others less so

[scoutingagain]

While I have not travelled extensively for several years, I did travel overseas a moderate amount 5 - 10 years ago. My experience was similar to Herms. I have always been welcomed and treated warmly as an American where ever I went, including Saudia Arabia, Bahrain, and Mainland China. I am not convinced the world hates us.

 

I do believe a majority of the world may disagree with some of our current administration's foreign policy actions. I would not be suprised if even a majority of Americans disagreed with some of our actions around the world.(Recall our current President did not get a majority of the votes last time around.)

 

As far as the media is concerned, I take everything with a grain of salt these days regardless of the source. While I have no reason to believe NPR puts out information that is not true, I do sense a certain slant in the topics they choose to cover. While they do not take advertising dollars, I believe they slant their coverage towards their audience just as the major networks and FOX do. I wonder how many donations they would get if they did a special on all the different positions John Kerry has taken in his career. However FOX is so over the top in my opinion, I believe they make no pretense in being objective. Their coverage sounds like it was written by Republican National Committee.

 

In general I find the print media to be a little less sensationalistic than the broadcast media, but not that much better. I try and hear or read about the same story from a number of different sources and come to some internal consensus.

 

SA

 

 

[Rooster7]

Firstpusk,

 

Interestingly, your bitter condemnation of FOX News does not provoke me to debate. People of the liberal mindset, often categorically deny the most evident truths, especially when they contradict their worldview. In short, I find your charges against FOX News to be predictable if not somewhat amusing. However, your defense of NPR approaches near Zombie-like behavior in that its a futile denial of the obvious. Please NPR is OBJECTIVE? Take another look and try it with your eyes open next time.

 

[firstpusk]

You could start writing for FOX yourself -

 

"bitter condemnation...the liberal mindset, often categorically deny the most evident truths, especially when they contradict their worldview...your defense of NPR approaches near Zombie-like behavior in that its a futile denial of the obvious. Please NPR is OBJECTIVE? Take another look and try it with your eyes open next time."

 

Only the dialog from a recent "Daily Show" can sum up your post.

 

Corddry: How does one report the facts in an unbiased way when the facts themselves are biased?

 

Stewart: I'm sorry, Rob, did you say the facts are biased?

 

Corddry: That's right Jon. From the names of our fallen soldiers to the gradual withdrawal of our allies to the growing insurgency, it's become all too clear that facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda.