Is the United States Becoming Too Dominant in the World?

Two of your examples are more than FIFTY years old. The third is THIRTY years old. The world was a different place. How are those examples relevant to the foreign policy the US is currently practicing? At one time we committed genocide against so-called Native Americans. Does that mean we are likely to commit genocide now? I don't think so. In the interim we've seen examples of US intervention in the last TEN years that has been the opposite of your examples. Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo. Each a place where there is no inherent US interest. Each a crisis of terrible proportions. Those would seem to be MORE relevant to deliberations on how to characterize US foreign policy than Guatemala, Iran, Cambodia, or the Spanish-freakin-American War.

 

First will you put a link. I'd like to check that out. Second, its likely that has something to do with (a) the military expenditures we incur as the lead in so many of these UN operations, or (b) in forward deployment to maintain international stability in East Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and on the open seas. And the total foreign aid from the US dwarfs that from NZ and if you included privately raised aid and investment the proportion would reflect a much different picture.

Usually as a reaction to a vigorously anti-American UN. Reagan in particular cited this. RECENTLY, as the patsies were weaned of the Soviet tit, the UN has become less so, and US involvement with UN operations has increased significantly.

That's an objective assessment if I ever saw one ...

 

Guess again. Before US - no democracy. After US intervention - democracy. Google search - Noreiga and democratic leader

http://www.worldrover.com/history/panama_history.html

From 1903 until 1968, Panama was a constitutional democracy dominated by a commercially oriented oligarchy. During the 1950s, the Panamanian military began to challenge the oligarchy's political hegemony. In October 1968, Dr. Arnulfo Arias Madrid, twice elected president and twice ousted by the Panamanian military, was again ousted as president by the National Guard after only 10 days in office. A military junta government was established, and the commander of the national guard, Brigadier General Omar Torrijos, emerged as the principal power in Panamanian political life. Torrijos' regime was harsh and corrupt, but he was a charismatic leader whose populist domestic programs and nationalist foreign policy appealed to the rural and urban constituencies largely ignored by the oligarchy.

Torrijos' death in 1981 altered the tone but not the direction of Panama's political evolution. Despite 1983 constitutional amendments which appeared to proscribe a political role for the military, the Panama Defense Force (PDF), as they were then known, continued to dominate Panamanian political life behind a facade of civilian government. The PDF's hand-picked candidate won the presidential election in 1984. Pro-government parties also won a majority of Legislative Assembly seats, in races tainted by charges of corruption. By this time, General Manuel Noriega was firmly in control of both the PDF and the civilian government.

The rivalry between civilian elites and the Panamanian military, a recurring theme in Panamanian political life since the 1950s, developed into a grave crisis in the 1980s. Prompted by government restrictions on media and civil liberties, in the summer of 1987 more than 100 business, civic, and religious groups formed a loose coalition that organized widespread anti-government demonstrations.

Panama's developing domestic crisis was paralleled by rising tensions between the Panamanian Government and the United States. The United States froze economic and military assistance to Panama in the summer of 1987 in response to the political crisis and an attack on the U.S. embassy. The Government of Panama countered by ousting the U.S. Agency for International Development in December 1987; before the end of the year, the U.S. Congress cut off all assistance to Panama. General Noriega's February 1988 indictment in U.S. courts on drug trafficking charges sharpened tensions; in April 1988, President Reagan invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, freezing Panamanian Government assets in U.S. banks and prohibiting payments by American agencies, firms, and individuals to the Noriega regime.

When national elections were held in May 1989, Panamanians voted for the anti-Noriega candidates by a margin of over three-to-one. Although the size of the opposition victory and the presence of international observers thwarted regime efforts to control the outcome of the vote, the Noreiga regime promptly annulled the election and embarked on a new round of repression.

By the fall of 1989, the regime was barely clinging to power. An unsuccessful PDF coup attempt in October produced bloody reprisals. Deserted by all but a small number of cronies, and distrustful of a shaken and demoralized PDF, Noriega began increasingly to rely on irregular paramilitary units called Dignity Battalions. In December 1989, the regime's paranoia made daily existence unsafe for U.S. forces and other U.S. citizens.

On December 20, President Bush ordered the U.S. military into Panama to protect U.S. lives and property, to fulfill U.S. treaty responsibilities to operate and defend the Canal, to assist the Panamanian people in restoring democracy, and to bring Noriega to justice. The U.S. troops involved in Operation Just Cause achieved their primary objectives quickly, and troop withdrawal began on December 27. Noreiga eventually surrendered to U.S. authorities voluntarily. He is now serving a 40-year sentence in Florida for drug trafficking.

Rebuilding Democracy

Panamanians moved quickly to rebuild their civilian constitutional government. On December 27, 1989, Panama's Electoral Tribunal invalidated the Noreiga regime's annulment of the May 1989 election and confirmed the victory of opposition candidates under the leadership of President Guillermo Endara, and Vice Presidents Guillermo Ford and Ricardo Arias Calderon.

President Endara took office as the head of a four-party minority government, pledging to foster Panama's economic recovery, transform the Panamanian military into a political force under civilian control, and strengthen democratic institutions. During its five-year term, the Endara Government struggled to meet the public's high expectations. Its new police force proved to be a major improvement in outlook and behavior over its thuggish predecessor, but was not fully able to deter crime. Its overall record was not enough to convince a skeptical public that it deserved re-election in 1994.

 

There were American medical students in Grenada whose lives were endangered by the civil conflict there.

If you find this country and its policies abhorrent to the point you fear "assimilation", I'm curious as to why you chose to come here to study.

 

Hayes St.:

You do understand that the state of Panama, itself, was created in 1903 by revolution supported by the US when Columbia did not agree to our negotiation terms over the creation of the Panama Canal? (Again, democracy and self-determination in action, eh?) The repressive regime you mentioned that "was before democracy" in Panama was *created and supported by the US government!*
And, my, don't you want to have it both ways in the argument! Evidence that goes against your theory that the US acts out of benevolence , or that the US is a uniformly positive influence is dismissed as being irrelevant and out dated - unless you find evidence that supports your arguments. That is weak. In Latin America, the US has more often than not supported dictatorships at the expense of freedom and democracy. There is no google search you can do to dispute that.
You want to know why these historical examples of US intervention in Iran and Latin America and the Phillipenes are relevant today? Because the people over there are still angry about these incidents! National memories are a reality that diplomacy has to bear in mind. You may not care, or even know about US abuses, but the people who experienced it certainly do. Have you noticed that many of the terrorists who are willing to kill themselves to attack the US are from the areas in which the US intervened the most? Do you think that so many people hate us in the world merely because they are brainwashed, or "crazy?" Do you concede the possibility that US interests may not always be in the best interest of everybody?
One of the reasons much of the world, including our closest allies, haven't automatically fallen in line with the Axis of Evil rhetoric is because the US has too often not acted upon its stated ideals. The lofty rhetoric about freedom and democracy rings hallow when you understand that the US has historically acted mostly in accord with its own needs.
Remember: the US did not exert any superpower leadership in alleviating the mass killings in the Sudan, East Timor, Rawanda, Cambodia and the first years of the Blakans crisis. This is in the recent past, Hayes St. The UN and the Europeans were there. Also, the Europeans and Australians and New Zealanders will do most of the work once the war is over. Our allies will be called in to provide peacekeeping troops and rebuild Afghanistan and the next targets of the War on Terrorism. The US will not commit troops to do that. Is it any wonder why people are hesitant to expand the perimeters of engagement?
I want to make clear that I understand that US has often played a positive role in world affairs. I also understand the US policy has not been uniform...some administrations, like FDR's, for example, have had a more benevolent foreign policy than others. Still, US involvement in essentially a civil war in Indochina totally destablized that entire region for generations. Our recent history, notwithstanding, wars can often have effects that are unforeseen. The Middle East and central Asia is a powder keg right now, so the prospect of US intervention there without allied support is not a ridiculous concern.

Brian Kagy:
I am Dimsie's husband. I will be presumptious and speak on her behalf. I am surprised you didn't tell her to "calm down" and stop being so emotional - that is the common response of many on this board when a woman whips their ass in one of these debates. You went to the "go back to where you came from if you don't like us" card to shut her up. Creative.
As to your question, Dimsie's father is American and she has family in Louisiana. She also loves and knows a lot about American culture and history. You know, it is actually possible to support and disagree with different aspects of a country. It's called thinking. Just to let you in on a secret: I am an American, born and bred in Texas, and I have found that I can still love my country and disagree with some of its behavior. Larger question, Brian: does the whole world have to be like America and agree with her policy at all times? Do all Americans have to agree with American policy at all times to still be a good citizen?

(By the way, your Grenada argument is so stupid! We fight the good fight for a few American medical students and not entire countries undergoing genocide- ala Cambodia, or E. Timor? Why didn't we invade El Salvador when the American nums were raped and murdered by the state police in the early '80's? (Oh, yeah...they were our allies..whoops!) Recall that Grenada happended right after the terrorist bombing in Lebanon that killed 300 marines. Wag the dog, Brian. That's why we were there.)

 

Ha! I just previewed and there's my husband. Synchronicity.

BrianKagy:

If you find this country and its policies abhorrent to the point you fear "assimilation", I'm curious as to why you chose to come here to study.

I could have predicted *that* one word for word.

I find your country's foreign policy to be *hypocritical*. I find the inability of most media and citizens to *question* aspects of your foreign policy to be both puzzling and frightening. I find the rhetoric used to describe your country's actions to be false and self-serving. I find your kneejerk response to my criticisms frustrating.

However, if you read my previous posts, you would have noted that I also said, several times, that the USA has done good or great things in the world. For example, my area of concentrated study is United States popular culture. I love a lot of your music and literature. I love a lot of your movies. (Yesterday, between posts, I watched Double Indemnity and Deconstructing Harry - both great films.) I think *some* of your national philosophies are very moving and beautiful. Your graduate programmes are challenging and interesting. I could be here all day talking about the things I love about America. I *married* an American!

But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about whether or not the United States is too dominant and whether or not it is generally benevolent. And it's perfectly obvious to me that a) it *is* too dominant and b) it is *arguable* whether it's benevolent (and I'm being relatively charitable here).

I *love* New Zealand. But I'm also able to question and criticise its actions without anyone implying that I'm some kind of traitor who lacks credibility. What I've noticed here is that people who question and criticise US foreign policy (or domestic policy, for that matter), are treated as though they are 'anti-American' or 'un-American'. Surely precisely the opposite is true? Or am I misunderstanding your national ideology?

HayesStreet: you misunderstand my point (and you also adopted part of my post meant for Princess). I'm using those examples as *reasons why* people around the world are hesitant to fall in line behind the US. History matters. Memory matters. Thirty years isn't a long time, nor is fifty. The US is not consistent. It is hypocritical. That's mostly what I'm trying to prove.

Princess: I'd believe you if you could give me more than *ten* specific examples of US benevolence. Because I gave you more than ten specific examples of US aggressive intervention, if you look at the links. Let's just do this by the numbers, if that's the way you want it. Then someone can add it all up at the end, and - while ignoring all rules of evidence and logic - you'll tell me I'm wrong again. Shrug.

To various other folks: New Zealand *does* give more foreign aid than the US per head of population. Just because we're small there's no need to belittle our contribution. Additionally, we do *not* turn a blind eye to genocide. We're in East Timor with the UN, remember. Plus: we have a *mutual* defence treaty with you. If *you're* invaded we are also obligated to come to your defence (not that we'd do much good. ) Again, just because we're small there's no need to belittle us. But go ahead if it makes you feel good.

 

Yes I did know that. Thanks. And so....again my point is proven. Yes, the US has made some mistakes....uh huh.....and even acted to correct them. Like in THIS one! Viva Panama!

Uh, yeah. Who doesn't?

Your arguments are weak. The US has more often than not supported democratic regimes during the last decade + (not including the Carter years which were radically in favor of democratic process and human rights). The have acted to ameliorate past bad decisions (Chile, Panama, Nicaragua). And none of that touches on the ridiculous impression you give of some utopia you think existed before in creation of Panama, Nicaragua etc. Reminds of Neil Young's 'Cortez the Killer' when he talks about central america and say 'war was never known.' What a joke.

The people are still angry??? What does that have to do with a debate about whether or not America IS CURRENTLY using its power in a benevolent fashion? It ISN'T!

If it was relevant to the discussion, which it isn't...I find the picture you paint to be just plain wrong. Why are US troops going to the Philippines if they HATE us like you say? Iran? They've been saying nothing but how much they want to be moderates, not how much they hate us, unless you believe they ARE all radicals. Latin America really hates us. That's why they want to expand NAFTA and become one big free trade zone.

I know just as much if not more about our history than you do, bub.

Where would you expect them to come from, space? Antarctica? Which countries colonized the Middle East? The US? Nope, try France and Britain. Which country supported Nasser's right to nationalize the Suez over the protests of Great Britain and France? Which country has been leading a process for peace in the Middle East since the seventies? Which country brought about the first reapproachment between Israel and the Arab world? Which country put peacekeepers in Lebanon (under UN auspices no less) only to have them killed in masse? Which country voted to censure Israel for their invasion of Lebanon? Which country stopped one Middle Eastern country from taking another by force in 1991? Which country had a peace agreement the would have resulted in land for Palestinians in 1993, only to be rejected?

If you'd like to talk about what the US has been doing lately, then its relevant. Why don't you acknowledge the trend? All your examples OLD. Why can't you come up with something more recent? Simple, because you are WRONG. US power has been used benevolently for a long time.

And how is it that most of these guys are middle or upper class, and somehow you've gotten the impression they've been caught under the US boot? NONE of those guys were anything but spoiled punks looking for something to do with thier miserable lives. These were not desperate Palestinians with no homes being run over by Israeli tanks. These were rich kids, led by a rich kid, and some of them, you may remember, didn't KNOW they were going to die. Osama forgot to tell 'em.

Well I wouldn't rule it out. Personally I think we're pretty cool! The US could certainly handle some situations differently. Is there anything LATELY I think I'd change wholesale? Only stopping when we did in '91.

Sometimes the world is a zero sum game. Does that suck, yes. Do you concede that the US acts in some cases where it has no interest, merely with good intentions?

Blah Blah Blah. If that were true than NO country could believe ANY other country. EVERY country acts in their own self interest at LEAST most of the time. You're tired calls of 'hypocrites!' should be shouted at ALL the countries involved, and no merely used to scapegoat the US.

Oh, I'm sorry, did the UN stop genocide in East Timor (NO), Rwanda (NO), or the Sudan (NO). Cambodia they have done an ok job, but i'm sure you'll conceed that US intervention there would probably touch on some old wounds? And this is the damned if you do, damned if you don't point I made with Dimsie. You argue the US is bad because we intervene everywhere, and then mention the places we DIDN'T intervene and say how bad we are because we DIDN'T. Talk about trying to have it both ways! And the Balkans??? Are you JOKING! You know NOTHING about the crisis in the former Yugoslavia if you think the UN did SQUAT before the US pushed for action.

That's because we're doing most of the work up front, chum. When Australia puts their aircraft carriers and sends their heavy bombers in at the beginning to take care of business, then maybe we can reallocate some people for the backend. Besides, in case you didn't know, countries like Germany and Japan offered to handle that end of it, not the initial action.

Sure, and I understand the US has made mistakes. MOST, if not all of the instances where we acted outright to subvert democratic governments happened a long time ago.

This is such crap. What is the relevance? Christ, we've normalized with Vietnam! There aren't a lot of Vietnamese terrorist groups blowing **** up! Although the 'domino theory' that our containment policy was based on was incorrect because we didn't understand the differences between Mao and Ho Chi Mihn, it wasn't Sacramento we were protecting there, slick. It was Australia, and NZ, and free and open shipping in the South Pacific.

And one more thing while we're on the subject, because you and dimsie have really pissed me off on this one. Was it the US that PUT the Khmer Rouge in power, and supported them, and gave them weapons and training, and protected them by threatening the Vietnamese with conflict if they intervened? Big N Big O. It was China. So while you can argue we didn't help the stability in Cambodia, there was a large regional power, some would say world power, running the show and it wasn't the US. Please get at least some of your facts straight before you lay every tragedy known to man, including our eviction from the Garden of Eden, at our doorstep.

No, it is not ridiculous. However, the TREND of US actions suggests that we (a) are capable of acting without having self interest in the situation, (b) are capable of acting in concert with other nations, or (c) alone.

 

Ok, sorry about that. Please disregard the overly silly hostile tone in my last post to Elvis. Hell, I love Elvis (the King mind you)...and i saw Elvis somebody say something about women posters not being treated well...I don't agree with a lot you say, but I appreciate that you CAN make a logical argument. Glad to have you on the board.

Yes, I do agree, there are reasons people are skeptical of US motives. But I feel its important to (a) note that US action is much different now than during the Cold War, and (b) that we separate out who you are talking about.

If you are talking to joe on the street in Iran, sure there is resentment and distrust because of the Shah. In the West Bank, sure cause of our support for Israel. OK, the Filipines (don't think so but), ok. In Europe? C'mon. It has nothing to do with US hypocracy. None of those countries can say squat since most of them are the ones that drew the lines in the first place, and since our record is supremely better than their in terms of acting benevolently. Its pure politics. China? Gimme a break. And a lot of it even in the Middle East is scapegoating by the governments there.

 

HayesStreet,

I'm not trying to lump myself with you, but I totally agree with your last two posts. Everything I was thinking when reading Elvis' and dimsie's posts were already written for me!

Anyway, just wanted to say good job.

Dimsie-Like HayesStreet said, everything you are talking about happened decades ago (sorry for using your post Hayes). In more recent history, the US has been more benevolent than not.

Counting numbers won't really work. It's not necessarily a fair fight if you have 50 years or more to work with when I only have about 10.

And there's not one country in the world that is not hypocritical. And probably not even one person. I don't see what your point is here. So the US has been inconsistant. First, who hasn't? Second, we're trying to fix it. We've done more for most countries than anyone else has, IMO.

 

OK, just one more thing about this whole hypocrisy angle:

Both HayesStreet and his little groupie Princess are saying that *every* country is hypocritical. But I think you're missing something. Most countries can be hypocritical, yes, but the United States *spends a lot of time telling all of us, worldwide, through thousands upon thousands of media channels and outlets, what a beacon of freedom and democracy it is*. Can you not see how that would be *infuriating* for nearly everyone?

 

Elvis: thank you for calling my Grenada argument "stupid". I find it so refreshing when people address me in that tone, especially when they are guests on a free Internet BBS of which I am an administrator.

It is not stupid. There were American interests-- American medical students in that country whose lives were in danger. I'm sorry you find it stupid for me to consider that a valid reason for American intervention. Luckily our country is typically run by people who support such actions when American lives were at stake. Your "wag the dog" remark is indicative as to how much time you've spent studying the Grenada incident.

You know, some of us are trying to debate the issue, not "whip" people's "asses". Most of the posters in this thread don't equate an Internet BBS debate with proof of their manhood, as you evidently do.

And you called one of my remarks stupid. Go back and read my post again instead of trying to force it to fit your preconceived notions. Given your wife's statements in this thread I asked out of curiosity why she chose to study here. I didn't insult her, imply she should leave, or ask her to "shut up".

The fact that you chose to respond in such a bizarre, tangental way to my question leads me to believe you might be better off not following your wife around the BBS trying to make sure no one disagrees with her posts.

Oh, so only your side of this issue is actually thinking. The rest of us are just flipping a coin or tuning in Rush Limbaugh to find out what to think?

That is the most condescending, insulting thing anyone's ever said to me on this BBS. If that's the attitude you actually take towards people you disagree with, I am at a loss to understand how you can turn around and ask "Do all Americans have to agree with American policy at all times to still be a good citizen?"

Gee, Elvis, does every American have to agree with you in order to be considered a 'thinker'"?

WTF??? You don't think our foreign policy is questioned enough by the media or citizens? Aside from the Gulf War-- which was hotly debated in Congress prior to the approval of military force-- and the war on terrorism, every foreign military initiative since I've followed politics (1984) has been vociferously opposed by the party that's out of power in the Executive Branch.

I could remark here that "I could have predicted *that* one word for word", but I'm trying to actually discuss the issue with you and show your position some intellectual respect even if I don't agree with it.

My position is not "kneejerk", thank you very much. I have followed global and national politics since I was ten years old, and I was a history major (with an emphasis on American foreign policy) at the University of Texas at Austin. I formed my opinion on the subject at hand by reading about it, writing about it, and studying it. That took considerably more effort than a "knee jerk".

STOP. Just STOP, right there. You have 29 posts on this BBS. I have never read any of your posts other than those in this thread. You can't expect people to be so familiar with your background and political personality that you're automatically given the benefit of the doubt.

There was nothing in this thread that answered my question. That's why it was posed.

Why do you think that might be? I operate from the belief that American foreign policy generally operates in its own self-interest (and that as a happy coincidence, that interest benefits our allies as well). See? It's good for America.

Criticism and opposition, then, means you're against something that's good for America.

Do you see now how maybe I might consider that anti-American?

 

If you're 'just curious' about my motivations, why do you sound so peeved?

By the way, playing the 'don't call my argument stupid because I'm an administrator' card is *really* lame.

 

We are the biggest, brightest beacon of freedom and democracy there is. No one else could even claim this and no one can really dispute it. You can give example upon example where we overthrew a democracy, but it doesn't make the statement untrue. No one else has established as many democracies as we have. No one has fought for democracy the way we have. We overthrew England, which was supposed to be democratic and the world leader, but they weren't democratic when it came to the US. We DO stand for democracy. And we DO try to spread it around the world because we feel it is the best, although it can't always work for every situation. Hypocracy does NOT make us less democratic.

And don't call me a groupie. I just happen to hold similar views.

 

<B>I operate from the belief that American foreign policy generally operates in its own self-interest (and that as a happy coincidence, that interest benefits our allies as well). See? It's good for America.

Criticism and opposition, then, means you're against something that's good for America.

Do you see now how maybe I might consider that anti-American?</B>

The problem here is not always the foreign policy. It's that the foreign policy is presented somehow as always being in the best interests of the world (fighting for democracy, freedom, etc). At times it is, at times it isn't -- as you said, it's designed to be in OUR best interests (nothing wrong with that), not the rest of the world's. However, when we say we are doing these things "for the good of the world" or whatnot, other countries and many people have every reason to NOT believe us and NOT trust us, because our history shows that it's not always true.

Similarly, many Americans want our foreign policy to consider the values of non-citizens and be something *better* that just our own interests. It bothers many people that we are more than willing to ignore some of our ideals (human rights, democracy, etc) in foreign lands when it suits our interests. I don't think believing those ideals are more important than short-term American interests is really anti-American at all.

 

Uh, groupies are cool.

We are a beacon of freedom and democracy. Doesn't mean we're perfect, but we're the closest thing to it. When the student were gathering in Tianamen Square what were the symbols they contructed. 'Lady Liberty' perhaps? Sure, it was paper mache, but it makes the point. When people are in trouble, across the globe, who do they turn to for help first? Its the US more often than its the UN. We're like the freakin ghostbusters. The point I think you're missing is an important one: people across the world WANT to be like Americans. They wear Levis, and drink Coke, and smoke Marlboro's because they want their lives to be a little bit like they imagine our's to be. And I think its important to remember that other people's and other countries ASK for our help and for our influence and for our protection. Unless you REALLY believe MNCs run the world in which case blaming the US government is kinda silly since its just a sham like all other governments with no real power to do anything one way or the other.

As for other countries...

We live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Costello? We have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Iraq and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: That Saddam's death, while tragic, probably will save lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want us on that wall. You want us there. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a person who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom we provide, then questions the manner in which we provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you're frustrated by.

 

Hayes-I didn't mean that I didn't want to be a groupie necessarily (you tend to get mad when grouped with me though). I overall agree with everything you have to say on this thread, and you usually beat me to it! It was more her attitude about it that I was addressing. I've had enough of her comments like "little groupie" and "missy." So, speaking of...

Some people are just curious sometimes. This is another clear example of you reading WAY too much into what people say. You cannot always tell tone on this board, except in your case because you insist on making every other sentence a sarcastic comment.

And this board is free and is a service. They don't have to have it and they don't have to let you post on it. I think you and Elvis both need to learn a little respect.

You have not "whipped everyone's ass" on this board as your "loving husband" asserts that you do. Can you not fight your own battles or is he always going to follow you around and argue for you. I have a boyfriend on this board too and before he left, he did not always step in and fight for me. In fact, sometimes he flat out refused to. Does it mean he loves me less? No. It means that I am a strong independent woman who is capable of thinking and fighting on her own. There are plenty of people on here who do not like me and that's fine. That's not what I'm looking for. But there are others who do. And it has nothing to do with the fact that I'm Lynus' girl and they like him.

If I sound a little pissed, it's because I am. I have gone out of my way to not only be decent, but nice to you. Why? Who knows. Maybe a momentary lapse in thinking. But you have done nothing but be rude to me and anyone else on here who does not agree with you. While you have the right to, I don't think you should judge Kagy or anyone else on here.

 

Meant to be Elvis, not me.