NationStates Jolt Archive

US is fine apart from it's government policies, corporate policies, death penalty - especially the executing of children. Countries act in their own interests, I dislike that and Biff the US is not the all saving grace of the world, I seem to remember the US government calling for peace talks in 1982 at a time when a little support wouldn't of gone a miss.
I also seem to remember private companies operating in Britain for quite some time so to declare Britain's economy in the 70s & 80s as being public owned in its entirity.... puzzling, I also note that thanks to privatisation we've got staggeringly different qualities of water, electric, gas and telecommunications across the country and surprisingly it's a negative difference.
I note you're all for wiping out the Palestinians yet frequently bring up the Holocaust, glad to see that two-fold approach to all topics taken by far to many people is doing just fine.

I'm keenly aware of my nations past, keenly aware that we displaced the populace of Diego Garcia so the US could establish bases on the island, keenly aware that we've been a staging ground for US operations a number of times, keenly aware that in the Korean War British forces played an important part which to push to the sidelines and declare the war was won by America single-handed would be ignorant, to say the least. However, I seem to remember way back in this thread you or someone else asking about what the rest of the world was doing when "..half the world was taken over by Communism?" which lead me to think about what America was doing to safeguard Democracy for the world, needless to say it was not impressive or any cause to rant about what everyone else was doing at the time.

Drop the anti-semite line, it's quickly losing any value as it's obvious you're quite happy to view any alternative views on Israel as being in the vein of an attack against all Jews and thus the beginnings of a new Holocaust, did I mentioned you've being using that a little to much as well?

In summary, you Biff are the reason America is disliked. You just seem to embody most everything that is particularly offensive and unpleasent, hopefully you'll avoid entering in to political discussion in public where people can see your face and chase you home.

. Now, I'm sure some of you will know this, but there are some of you who have been blinded by Hollywood, so this may come as a shock. I do hope you're sitting down. America did not capture the Enigma machine. British sailors did. I know nothing will happen, but I really think that Hollywood (which most people think IS America, which it actually isn't (duh)), needs to buck up its act and start telling history how it is.

Well mate most of the Enigma machines where captured by the Royal Navy but the yanks captured at least one and I think the Canadians captured one as well. Most of decryption work was British and continental allied powers exile work.

(Want to talk about unsung heroes 4 Million Indian VOLUNTEERS fought for the British in WW2...in Italy and Africa as well as Asia don't here about them often enough.)

Er...not my experience - the only large Jewish centers in the UK are Manchester, Leeds and London. I did an international relations course in Leeds and their where a lot of British (mainly North London) Jews on that course.

The question of 'what's your nationality' was one of the first things we where asked in a tutorial..I was 'Scouse British' but there where a very mixed bag of answers from the jews which included secular, liberal and orthodox, zionist and anti-zionist etc; Answers varied from 'English', 'English Jewish', 'Jewish', 'British Jewish', 'European', 'Israeli with a British passport(!)' even 'Welsh Jewish' (Gareths never lived in Wales but his Lithuanian Grandad ended up living in Wales after fighting in the Free Czech Army after WW2 - so he supports their Rugby team...)

It's complicated being British anyway with the 'four nations in one nation concept' (well at least four if you start including Cathoic Northern Irish or new entrant hybrid nationalisities it gets even more complicated,) if you add a further race/religous identity on top of that there a thousand and one answer.

I know plenty of UK Jews who have gone to live in Israel and plenty more who are glad it's there in case they ever need safe haven.

Please as remeber theres plenty of (Orthodox) Jews who object to Israel on relgious grounds. Though for practical reasons they may be glad it's there.

Yeah a friend who when I first met him. I told him i was english, and he answered he was jewish. So I told him i was asking him where he was from and not his religion. I was weird he seemed.... abashed. But except for him, my other friends who happen to be jewish, say their nationality not their religion.
By blood I am half spanish (catalan/andaluce) quarter welsh, 1/8 english, 1/8 irish. So? I'm english. born and raised in london. not there now though.

US is fine apart from it's government policies, corporate policies, death penalty - especially the executing of children. Countries act in their own interests, I dislike that and Biff the US is not the all saving grace of the world, I seem to remember the US government calling for peace talks in 1982 at a time when a little support wouldn't of gone a miss.


Much as I hate to be fair to Reagan presidency they did give us satelite imaging, logistical support and offer supply us a full carrier and strike group if either of our 'through deck crusiers' got sank - once a peaceful resolution appeared impossible.

:mad:

I thought this was a question meant for NON-Americans to explain why there might be so many "hate" feelings towards Americans, and I hoped to see response on that.

Now look at how many Americans do not respond on all these reasons non-Americans gave but just feel the need to make their own points and explain their own views and start a bunch of side-discussions :mad:

I took the effort to write down a bunch of reasons...noone even looked at them. Yes, I feel neglected!

1) North Korea: the North Koreans invaded South Korea to unitfy the 2 countries under the Stalinist regime of Kim Il-Sung. The UN decided to launch a counteroffensive to preserve the South's independence and America (as always) was the backbone of the operation. We won the war (South Korea still exists independently), but lost thousands of casualties. The North Koreans lost more. There were some in the American government at the time who also wanted to invade North Korea during the Korean War, but did not because Kim Il-Sung had China's protection.

Today: I would rather the U.S. had gone to war with Kim Jong-Il's North Korea instead of Iraq, but you're right, most politicians are too afraid. For the past 50 years the U.S. and South Korea have been planning for a possible future war with the North, we could win it in 30 to 40 days. There are still some Americans who still want to disarm and "liberate" the North militarily: http://www.studentsforwar.org/

2) Vietnam: Sort of won. The War ended with and agreement on both sides with a treaty saying that the North Vietnamese were not to interefere with the South. After we pulled out, the cowardly Viet Cong invaded the South anyway while our backs were turned. The U.S. did not retaliate for several reasons.

3) China: The Chinese want to invade Taiwan in 2020. The former Chinese president recently admitted that China's military would be ready to invade Taiwan in 2012 (I think). As a response the U.S. is already sending seven Navy aircraft carrier battle groups to the China sea between China and Taiwan this month. China thinks they can handle 2 carrier groups, but not seven. We also have five others if neccesary. So the Chinese are already on notice.

Japan and the EU are not threats to the U.S.A.

Hi.

I think as a Chinese (from Hong Kong), I should have a say in such a discussion too.

Tho, I stress that I'm not all anti-American, there are some things about America that I dislike. I wouldn't say hate; it's such a strong word. But then, us Chinese and Americans are different people, so are Chinese and Japanese; Russians and British, Arabs and the French, etc. We all have different cultures and there are sure to be conflicts of interests.
I don't agree on hating a nation because we are different. It's like hating your next door neighbour because they sleep earlier than you.

But I'm sure many would agree on the arrogance + ignorance issue. I have to agree that, indeed, the US is a powerful, large and highly developed nation. Yet, that doesn't give them the power to push other nations around because other nations don't agree with the way of doing things the US is accustomed to.

I would like to take China's democracy problem and the China-Taiwan problem as examples.

Of course, I do not agree with China's way of doing things when it comes to human rights. Yet, with such a large population and your country is still developing, there are some things that you simply cannot tolerate. I would like to ask how would the American react when millions of students barge into the area around the White House one day, wrecking havoc, because they are against the Bush government? Well, true, crushing them with tanks wouldn't be the best solution and I can bet my life on it that many of you will say that you wouldn't opt for violence; but that's because we've learnt from history already. Are there many peaceful solutions when you have literally an army out on your yard? Sometimes, you can't just tell them to "go away, we'll deal with it".

As for the China-Taiwan problem; I'd like to ask Capitalizt War Party to support their post. Please, don't take that I'm saying that the post is wrong, but I would like to see some support, because everyone can miss some bit of the news.

I do know that the Chinese government is prepared for war with Taiwan, but only if Taiwan refuses to cooperate in the discussion. Mr Chan over there in Taiwan hasn't been very cooperative (but he's in a mess himself now, having screwed the election...). But the Chinese will not just "invade Taiwan", because that will only show that the Chinese agree that Taiwan is an independent nation and not part of China. China is just protecting its own land and its own interest, just like any other nation would.

I don't see America as fit to step into this discussion aside from listening as a third party, and definately totally against the US sending troops to our territory. Right, so the US is just trying to stop war, but how does sending the navy over help? But again, I'd like to ask, how would the government react when suddenly... say, the state of California, declares that it is an independent nation? I don't think Mr. President will be very happy. But how would Americans feel if China poked their heads in and told the President that China doesn't support the independence, yet are selling arms to California?

I apologize to California for using the state as an example.

Summing up, I just want to say that every country is different and we all have things we don't like about a certain nation; even our own. I'm not pleased with some of China's domestic policies but I'm not all too happy with some of the US' foreign policies. I do not agree that the US should be able to poke around any country's domestic policies just because the US is a big and powerful nation. The US does not own the world. Govenments of other nations have a choice as to how they want their nations to be run. Allow me to sound a bit like a kid, but sometimes "we never asked for your opinion, did we?!"

Give us developing nations a break, yeah? You guys are all on track, but we're still builing our roads. The US wasn't in the best shape when the first colonists arrived and after the war of Independence either.

And one's size does not directly reflect one's power. Just look at the 9/11 incident. I hope we can all learn from it.

I don't think Britain hates France and Germany in the same way as the USA.

We hate America because of its ideals and government and arrogance, and the fact that its bigger and thinks it's better than us. .
Well: the US has taken over the position of the Empire - though even much stronger then that was. Might be a reason. Though British politics has chosen to go into a special relationship with the US and to become junior partner of the US. After all: you have (kind of) the same language and culturally many things in common (if you like: the US has copied from Britain).

We hate France because it's tradition, we hate them and they hate us.
Old rivalry after all: just think back of the hundred year war or on the French attempt to invade Britain through building a tunnel - no, not the Euro tunnel of course. Napoleon tried it through a tunnel as well.
Britain and France were both great colonial power. So the rivalry was natural.

I don't know why we hate Germany, I don't..
Come on: just think back 60 years.
After all: since Germany was unified in 1871 it also rivaled for colonies and the other stuff.

MAybe it's just those wierd UKIP people and people that hate th EU that don't like the continent.

I don´t know: Hate is indeed a strong word. Lets say dislike. And that are certainly more than the number of voters for that party.

They did not steal the recipe. And the Best beers in the world are Guiness and Red Stripe, get that right first.

im 18 and a pretty big partier for a little background. but guiness is like drinking sludge, horrible taste. but gets you drunk fast :)

[QUOTE=Simianonia]I dont hate America, a lot of my favourite things come from there: Futurama, Dodge Vipers, Warmachine, hellboy.
QUOTE]
if you like futurama check out Family Guy and Aqua Teen Hunger Force. VERY Funny cartoons. might be a little hard to find because they are not "mainstream"

As for the China-Taiwan problem; I'd like to ask Capitalizt War Party to support their post. Please, don't take that I'm saying that the post is wrong, but I would like to see some support, because everyone can miss some bit of the news.

Not sure I know what you meant but I will respond to your post.

Personally, I don't care that much about China's domestic policy, just don't mess with Taiwan. America's chief rival in Asia (aside from China) is North Korea, China's buffer regime. And China's chief rival in Asia is Taiwan, America's buffer regime. The Cold War may technically be over, but Communism and Capitalism (and democracy) are still very much at odds with one another.

You seem to think that America's involvement in the China-Taiwan dispute is somehow unfair and that we should respect the "One China" policy, but considering that Taiwan does not want to live under a Communist "One China" and any attempt on the part of Beijing to bring Taiwan under their Communist rule would be done by imposing a form of government on an unwilling nation, isn't China being a tad bit unfair themselves?

If California ever declared itself and independent nation the rest of the U.S. would just laugh at it. You would have had a better chance of comparing Hawaii to Taiwan. The U.S. doesn't have to worry about supressing millions of students "wreaking havoc" around the White House because unlike China, America isn't a militant One Party State and people can choose their own leaders by voting in free elections. America is a democratic republic where citizens can already protest the government outside the White House if they choose to do so.

The systems of government and way of life in America and China are extremely different, therefore I don't think you can really compare the 2. Americans are raised learning a history that teaches belief that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our history is what makes us believe that people should have the right to choose their own form of government as opposed to having one imposed on them by a stronger foe. By test firing missles and performing a simulated invasion on and replica island of Taiwan, China has shown a history of aggression towards a much smaller country unable to defend itself alone. That is why America supports the Taiwanese right to self government and freedom from intimidation.

Not sure I know what you meant but I will respond to your post.

Personally, I don't care that much about China's domestic policy, just don't mess with Taiwan. America's chief rival in Asia (aside from China) is North Korea, China's buffer regime. And China's chief rival in Asia is Taiwan, America's buffer regime. The Cold War may technically be over, but Communism and Capitalism (and democracy) are still very much at odds with one another.

You seem to think that America's involvement in the China-Taiwan dispute is somehow unfair and that we should respect the "One China" policy, but considering that Taiwan does not want to live under a Communist "One China" and any attempt on the part of Beijing to bring Taiwan under their Communist rule would be done by imposing a form of government on an unwilling nation, isn't China being a tad bit unfair themselves?

If California ever declared itself and independent nation the rest of the U.S. would just laugh at it. You would have had a better chance of comparing Hawaii to Taiwan. The U.S. doesn't have to worry about supressing millions of students "wreaking havoc" around the White House because unlike China, America isn't a militant One Party State and people can choose their own leaders by voting in free elections. America is a democratic republic where citizens can already protest the government outside the White House if they choose to do so.

The systems of government and way of life in America and China are extremely different, therefore I don't think you can really compare the 2. Americans are raised learning a history that teaches belief that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our history is what makes us believe that people should have the right to choose their own form of government as opposed to having one imposed on them by a stronger foe. By test firing missles and performing a simulated invasion on and replica island of Taiwan, China has shown a history of aggression towards a much smaller country unable to defend itself alone. That is why America supports the Taiwanese right to self government and freedom from intimidation.

I see we have different stand points here, but I suppose this is what leads to a good discussion. :)

I myself am not an expert at politics, but I there are a few things that I would like to point out:

Taiwan is not officially an independent country. But then, not everyone believes that it belongs completely to China either. There's a lot of grey areas, just like the tiny island off its coast, between Taiwan and Japan. Taiwanese, Chinese and Japanese people have claimed that the island belong to their respective countries, but no one managed show official proofs as to who actually owns that tiny island.

Anyway, back to Taiwan. The Chinese did not state that Taiwan has to be under Communist rule. In fact, just like Hong Kong and even more recently, Macau, it could just be run under a more capitalist system; the "One Country Two Systems" rule. It's proved to be working quite well in HK, and Taiwan could give it a try. If its government, especially Mr Chan, would stop declaring Taiwan as an independent nation. In my opinion, the one who really is trying to start a war here isn't China, nor Taiwan itself, but Mr. Chan.

For that, I think the American government does have a right to support Taiwan to self-government, but doesn't it seem odd to you that while it says Taiwan should be part of China, but it still insists on selling firearms to Taiwan. I wonder for what purpose?

Please do not think the Chinese as a war-hungry nation. It wouldn't just blast the small island because they don't listen, because that would mean China is killing its fellow Chinese. Would China blast Hong Kong because we have 50 million people on the streets every July 1 because we don't want the Chinese Gov't imposing their "total rule" over us? I can say no.

However, with the Americans selling firearms to Taiwan in a way to "help Taiwan", it sounds a little provoking, doesn't it, and seems to conflict America's stand?

I know this is a little off-topic, I apologize to the writer of the original post.

I see we have different stand points here, but I suppose this is what leads to a good discussion. :)

I myself am not an expert at politics, but I there are a few things that I would like to point out:

Taiwan is not officially an independent country. But then, not everyone believes that it belongs completely to China either. There's a lot of grey areas, just like the tiny island off its coast, between Taiwan and Japan. Taiwanese, Chinese and Japanese people have claimed that the island belong to their respective countries, but no one managed show official proofs as to who actually owns that tiny island.

Anyway, back to Taiwan. The Chinese did not state that Taiwan has to be under Communist rule. In fact, just like Hong Kong and even more recently, Macau, it could just be run under a more capitalist system; the "One Country Two Systems" rule. It's proved to be working quite well in HK, and Taiwan could give it a try. If its government, especially Mr Chan, would stop declaring Taiwan as an independent nation. In my opinion, the one who really is trying to start a war here isn't China, nor Taiwan itself, but Mr. Chan.

For that, I think the American government does have a right to support Taiwan to self-government, but doesn't it seem odd to you that while it says Taiwan should be part of China, but it still insists on selling firearms to Taiwan. I wonder for what purpose?

Please do not think the Chinese as a war-hungry nation. It wouldn't just blast the small island because they don't listen, because that would mean China is killing its fellow Chinese. Would China blast Hong Kong because we have 50 million people on the streets every July 1 because we don't want the Chinese Gov't imposing their "total rule" over us? I can say no.

However, with the Americans selling firearms to Taiwan in a way to "help Taiwan", it sounds a little provoking, doesn't it, and seems to conflict America's stand?

I know this is a little off-topic, I apologize to the writer of the original post.

Having recently studied this very region recently in great detail, perhaps I can shed some light on the situation.

The most important factor in the China-Taiwan-US relationship is undoubtedly economic. It could well be argued that this reason alone has prevented a war thus far.

China, first of all, cannot be considered communist in anything but name now. The CCP has, in th last 20 years or so, gone to considerable lengths to encourage foreign investment in the country, in order to increase it's own economic strength. One could reasonably say that this is currently their most significant motivation for their policies. Ironically, the country whose companies invest the most in China at the moment are Taiwans (roughly $36 Billion USD).

Taiwan is in a similar position- it is a very, very wealthy country considering it's size, and it too relies considerably on internal foreign investment to sustain it's economy. However, if China was to re-unite with Taiwan (intact) and set up a system you described before as per the Hong Kong situation, the economic rewards for the PRC would be vast. If this were to happen though, there would be some losers economically, and many Taiwanese are sceptical of life under Chinese rule (Authoritarian)

The US- well it's take in all this is that US companies are VERY interested in investing in both China and Taiwan, for reasons such as cheaper production costs etc.

Thus, all three have vested economic interests in maintaining stable relationships with each other. China does not want to jeopardize the Taiwanese and US investment in it's country, Taiwan does not want to lose it's own in-country foreign investment (that could be scared away during a war with China) and the US wants to trade with both.

A war would screw all of that.

So what positions are taken. China, while remaining adamant that Taiwan is nto a seperate country and threatening military reprisals if Taiwan makes too many moves towards declaring independance, basically is unlikely to invade for three main reasons.

1) Taiwanese investment in mainland China would evapourate if the companies homeland was desolated by war
2) It is likely that the US may intervene in the war, which would be catastrophic for the PLA (and the US military as well)
3) Currently it is debatable whether the PLA could actually take Taiwan intact. While the firepower of the PLA (with it's navy and AF divisions as well) is mroe than enough to flatten Taiwan, this would be an expensive and pointless effort on the PRC's part.

Taiwan, is basically trying to make some minor moves towards independence under the DPP currently in power, but overall it seems to desire nothing more than the perpetuation of the status quo

US policy is what is really interesting though.
The US has maintained a policy of 'strategic ambiguity'. It has stressed that it want's to see a re-unification of China and Taiwan overall, but it must be done peacefully. The 'One China' policy is somewhat risky in that it doesn't specifically state which China (PRC or ROC- Taiwan) it actually supports. The US may or may not intervene in a China-Taiwan conflict (on the side of Taiwan), but the result of this is that it 1) Makes China think twice about going to war (if that were ever to happen- again, unlikely) and 2), Makes Taiwan think twice about whether it is willing to risk a war against the PRC without US support as a result of it's calls for independence. This strategic ambiguity is good at maintaining the status quo, but it does mean that the PRC has the temptation to declare war (assuming the situation called for it), and gamble that the US would not interevene.

So basically, everyone wants something they can't get through war, so seem to be more-or-less simply stabilizing the situation and gradually working towards their goals.

I don't hate America at all. I like The United States and the American people (many of whom I have been fortunate enough to chat with through NationStates.)

I hate what the Bush administration has done to the US and to the reputation of the country world wide. You all deserve better.

I don't hate America at all. I like The United States and the American people (many of whom I have been fortunate enough to chat with through NationStates.)

I hate what the Bush administration has done to the US and to the reputation of the country world wide. You all deserve better.


Yes we do.

Wich is why, if Kerry isnt any better, he will be slapped by beaver tails until he is dead.

Biff Christ stop using the sources from your Zionist media. They are not leaving in droves, in fact in the last 3 years migration to Israel has FELL by 50 %. This is from their own statistics, not some out of context crap taken from a pro-Israel media outlet. This new apparent spat of mass migration is just propoganda by the pro-israeli media into making the jews of the world leave there own country. They rely on these migrators to keep their economy running smooth (even though the US will bail them out if the fuck it up.) because of the money they are bringing into the economy.
Judaism is a religion, not a race am i correct. So why does Israel belong to the Jews? Thats bullshit. England belongs to the English. America belongs to the Americans. Palestine belongs to the Palestinians. Its simple logic. You said before how can Israel not be a recognised nation but be in the UN. If i'm not mistaken North Korea has a seat in the UN. And only China recognise them as a country.
Anyway if America want to win the world over all you have to do is defeat Terrorism. Just bring true democracy to Saudi Arabia and Palestine. Then all of us Jonny Foreigners (maybe not the French, they don't like anyone.) will like you.
Also i like how u gave into one of Osama Bin Laden's demands by pulling your troops out of Saudi Arabia (i think they are pulling out, i'm sure some are still there.) Who said they didn't negotiate with terrorists???


Ok, I see...because you do not like what the story said it is automatically from some "Zionist" media. Enough said there...

US is fine apart from it's government policies, corporate policies, death penalty - especially the executing of children. Countries act in their own interests, I dislike that and Biff the US is not the all saving grace of the world, I seem to remember the US government calling for peace talks in 1982 at a time when a little support wouldn't of gone a miss.

First of all I have NEVER stated that the US is the "all saving grace of the world" as you imply." Secondly....the death penalty is a STATE function and each state decides whether they will have it. Many states don't so your knowledge there is lacking. In 1982 there were many conflicts going on are you referring to the Iseraeli-PLO fighting or the Falklands War? Which was fought over some sheep.

I also seem to remember private companies operating in Britain for quite some time so to declare Britain's economy in the 70s & 80s as being public owned in its entirity.... puzzling, I also note that thanks to privatisation we've got staggeringly different qualities of water, electric, gas and telecommunications across the country and surprisingly it's a negative difference.

Yes there were private industries operating, but the heavy industries were nationalized. Privatization does sometimes lead to better or worse conditions, the difference is that with private industries, they will go out of business if they falter.

I note you're all for wiping out the Palestinians yet frequently bring up the Holocaust, glad to see that two-fold approach to all topics taken by far to many people is doing just fine.

I am not FOR the wiping out of the Palestinians, I am just surprised that Israel has not done so yet, they certainly have the power too. That they haven't is a testament to their wanting to co-exist with the Palestinians.

I'm keenly aware of my nations past, keenly aware that we displaced the populace of Diego Garcia so the US could establish bases on the island, keenly aware that we've been a staging ground for US operations a number of times, keenly aware that in the Korean War British forces played an important part which to push to the sidelines and declare the war was won by America single-handed would be ignorant, to say the least. However, I seem to remember way back in this thread you or someone else asking about what the rest of the world was doing when "..half the world was taken over by Communism?" which lead me to think about what America was doing to safeguard Democracy for the world, needless to say it was not impressive or any cause to rant about what everyone else was doing at the time.

Actually the UK used Diego Garcia as a base for themselves. The US now leases the island from the UK. So the base was there, the UK had it in surplus and the US leases it. The US did not build it, nor was it built FOR the US, it just happens that the US is using it now.

When have I stated that ANY world conflict was won or lost by the US alone? Nor have I stated that the US was alone in fighting communism in Europe or anywhere else for that matter.

Drop the anti-semite line, it's quickly losing any value as it's obvious you're quite happy to view any alternative views on Israel as being in the vein of an attack against all Jews and thus the beginnings of a new Holocaust, did I mentioned you've being using that a little to much as well?

I did not bring it up originally, but I do agree that the discussion has become too verbose.

In summary, you Biff are the reason America is disliked. You just seem to embody most everything that is particularly offensive and unpleasent, hopefully you'll avoid entering in to political discussion in public where people can see your face and chase you home.

I as an individual am why the US is disliked...wow, I am quite the gy then huh? No, the US is disliked because it IS the US. The French do not like us because they see American culture as a threat to theirs. They do like those American movies though. Even Canada will not allow US TV networks to broadcast there unless they show a certain percentage of Canadian content. We here in the US do not put limits on foreign TV broadcasters as we welcome all cultures and their views. Afterall, thats how we came to be. No, I am not why people dislike the US, I am but one of 280 million individuals who refuse to change my thinking because people in another country or countries do not like the way I think.

Not the only one misinformed Diego Garcia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/835963.stm)

If private industries simply go out of business if they're not successful how come they seem to receive an awful lot of public money to keep them a float? Airline industries bailout in the US & Europe, not to mention similar actions for other industries at other points in time.

You've stated a few times now that Israel should wipe out the Palestinians, if that isn't supporting the idea then you've ovbiously got this selective notion of supporting an idea.

A few sheep....

True enough...and if they sent the tanks in EVERY time there was a bus blown up, the Palistinians would be history...in time they will be. The Israelis will eventually push them into the river Jordan and be done with them.

Maybe not so anti-Palestinain on it's own.

I have a better idea....arm Israel to the teeth and give them a free hand to defend themselves as needed. Block all European attempts to stifle them and sit back and enjoy. ;)

But when followed up by this. You have said in these two posts that the Isrealis will wipe out the Palestinians, then the support for them doing so in the second post.

I come from Europe but I don't actually hate the USA. I'm grateful for your help during WWII. But the feeling I have upon you is that everywhere you go, everything you do, it's your way or nothing. It's a feeling. I was in Spain for study, well after three months everyone from abroad was talking Spanish, from UK, from Poland, even Norwegian. All of them talked Spanish. They were clumsy but at least they made a try. The American people were the only ones to speak English from the beginning to the end. Not because they can't, they all were able to. Probably it's because you think that you're free to be yourself and blah blah blah, but look, it really bothers other people. For many reasons I think USA is still an 'immature' country. You should stop to consider yourselves different from the rest of the world, if not the center.

I AGREE.

And now, just a question about the antisemitism...I thought that American people also hated the jews before the WW II...or at least they dislike them. I've read somewhere that it was after the war when American started to tolerate jews as any other ethnic group...(if you ever have tolerated any ethnic group, of course). And what about all that stuff that the jews control the diamond market? Is that true?

One more thing: Do you American believe that the jews control your media? (I ask because I don't really know, I've never seen American TV beyond satellite Fox News just to practice English, lol...)

...TERRORISM ALARM: LOW, it has always been low, even in countries like Spain where we are very familiarized with it.

(Have you seen that we are talking about jews when we we were talking about American people? I'm sorry for start talking about the support of USA to Israel...maybe it's worth an other thread, don't you think?)

Not the only one misinformed Diego Garcia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/835963.stm)

If private industries simply go out of business if they're not successful how come they seem to receive an awful lot of public money to keep them a float? Airline industries bailout in the US & Europe, not to mention similar actions for other industries at other points in time.

As is SAID, the UK built the base and leases it to the US. It is not the US thats being taken to court.

Why, because they employ hundreds of thousands of people and having them go under is not an option due ONLY because of the numbers. However, of the big 6 airlines here....one WILL be gone soon, my money is on United.

You've stated a few times now that Israel should wipe out the Palestinians, if that isn't supporting the idea then you've ovbiously got this selective notion of supporting an idea.

A few sheep....

Yeah, I just try to counter the anti-Israel stance of our European friends. For some reason they cannot comprehend that Israel is only there because of European treatment of the Jews. Afterall, thats where the majority of the settlers to Israel came from.

I AGREE.

And now, just a question about the antisemitism...I thought that American people also hated the jews before the WW II...or at least they dislike them. I've read somewhere that it was after the war when American started to tolerate jews as any other ethnic group...(if you ever have tolerated any ethnic group, of course). And what about all that stuff that the jews control the diamond market? Is that true?

Anti-Semitism can be found everywhere.....even in the US. However, I have NEVER heard of, nor has anyone found an incident where a group of people has fled the US because of ill treatment. The US was created by people who fled Europe because of intolerance. We have a collective knowledge of what it is to be persecuted.

One more thing: Do you American believe that the jews control your media? (I ask because I don't really know, I've never seen American TV beyond satellite Fox News just to practice English, lol...)

No, I do NOT believe that.

One thing i do like about America is this comedy channel of there's that my satellite dish picks up. Fox News is the funniest shit ever. Full of moronic right wing bastards who call everyone who disagrees with them a Liberal or Commie. Classic.

I couldn't agree more, it's truly hilarious. Apparently in the USA, this passes as a serious news channel!
Explains a lot!

I think it is funny how the rest of the world seems to thing the US should be so concerned about how they feel, yet they could give a shit about the US.

Seeing them cry like babies is simple assurance that Bush is doing the right thing.

I think it is funny how the rest of the world seems to thing the US should be so concerned about how they feel, yet they could give a shit about the US.

Seeing them cry like babies is simple assurance that Bush is doing the right thing.

I see attitudes like this resonate through US foreign policy, and yet see the Americans go into shock and disgust when many in the world dislike them

Irony is a wonderous thing

I see attitudes like this resonate through US foreign policy, and yet see the Americans go into shock and disgust when many in the world dislike them

Irony is a wonderous thing

Thats an over-simplification. Noone can MAKE anyone like anyone else. As for me "personally" I don't care much if other countries like the US today. They did yesterday...then don't, then do...it is the normal turn of events and there is nothing I can do about it. Now...as a side note, if there is so much dislike for the US out there, then the number of tourists coming here should be dropping. This is not the case. Here in Orlando we are seeing MORE foreign tourists than in the last few years. So while people SAY they don't like the US...as individuals, they are coming here in droves.

Thats an over-simplification. Noone can MAKE anyone like anyone else. As for me "personally" I don't care much if other countries like the US today. They did yesterday...then don't, then do...it is the normal turn of events and there is nothing I can do about it. Now...as a side note, if there is so much dislike for the US out there, then the number of tourists coming here should be dropping. This is not the case. Here in Orlando we are seeing MORE foreign tourists than in the last few years. So while people SAY they don't like the US...as individuals, they are coming here in droves.

You missed my point. I was not saying that there is an increase of people don't like America, as in the country/culture/people as you alluded to with your tourism example, my statement was to highlight the drastic change in world opinion of the US government (hence foreign policy), as a result of things such as it's current seemingly-infinate arrogance ("the soldiers in Iraq will be hailed as liberators [by the Iraqis]"- Rumsfeld), but then many in the US (government, media and general society) react with shock when those outside of the US view them with growing contempt

You missed my point. I was not saying that there is an increase of people don't like America, as in the country/culture/people as you alluded to with your tourism example, my statement was to highlight the drastic change in world opinion of the US government (hence foreign policy), as a result of things such as it's current seemingly-infinate arrogance ("the soldiers in Iraq will be hailed as liberators [by the Iraqis]"- Rumsfeld), but then many in the US (government, media and general society) react with shock when those outside of the US view them with growing contempt

I see. However....many Iraqi's DID just as Rumsfeld said they would and in recent polls, when asked if they want the US forces to leave they resoundingly say no.

Now, as for arrogance...ALL countries are arrogant. France? As arrogant as they come. Germany? Did you see what happened in their last election? There are examples of EVERY country being arrogant. However, the US has long been the target of derision. This will never change regardless of our foreign policy.

Further...I would never go to a country that I could not support...afterall, by doing so I propogate what I dislike.

I hate the states because it is a pillar of capitalism and the american people belive that the states is the best most powerful country in the world
However I do like the people and enjoy there company


Doesnt nearly every country feel that there country is the greatest? whats wrong with that???

Now...as a side note, if there is so much dislike for the US out there, then the number of tourists coming here should be dropping. This is not the case. Here in Orlando we are seeing MORE foreign tourists than in the last few years. So while people SAY they don't like the US...as individuals, they are coming here in droves.

I hate people who say that they love the American people but hate the government. Who can you blame for the government if not the people, and what good comes out of hating a non-tangible thing like a "government".

On the topic, though, I hate all the cars in the US, especially the big ones. The temperature is nice the way it is. I'm sweating even now. I guess in a few years I'll be hating all the Chinese too. Anyway, USA is such a big and important country that it provokes lots of reactions because it does big and important things. Whereas, say my home country Finland, is small and unimportant, so nobody really cares about it (although most people say tey have a favourable attitude to Finland, but I think they're just saying it to be nice). People hate Microsoft too, and still go on using Windows, but lots of it is due to Microsoft's size.

Now... as a side note, the exchange rate of USD has been pretty low compared to quite a few other currencies for some time now, which I think goes quite some way toward explaining all the new tourists.

(I asked ealrier in the thread but got no asnwer) For a country that believes in equality, etc.... I find it interesting that all you leaders have been white/male/christian.
That's why i like being english, we might be eccentric, but at least we allows for leaders that are not only white/male/christian.
I might be wrong, but has the US ever had a jewish president? as an example?

I see. However....many Iraqi's DID just as Rumsfeld said they would and in recent polls, when asked if they want the US forces to leave they resoundingly say no.

Now, as for arrogance...ALL countries are arrogant. France? As arrogant as they come. Germany? Did you see what happened in their last election? There are examples of EVERY country being arrogant. However, the US has long been the target of derision. This will never change regardless of our foreign policy.

Further...I would never go to a country that I could not support...afterall, by doing so I propogate what I dislike.

My reading (and 900+ US dead troops) may disagree with that. There was indeed some initial jubilation with the overthrow of Saddam, but as with Vietnam, there are a significant amount who consider the americans to be 'imperialist'. Could you please state some sources (btw, just as general thing does anyone else get irritated with people link a news source which says "60% of people say this!" but then fail to mention how many people they actually asked?- It seems to happen alot on the "Gay Marriage" threads)

All countries are arrogant, but the degree to which is what gets to people. Since a lack of WMD's, the US govt has recently 1) completely sidelined the UN, 2) decided that Saddam was a bad-guy, so we should get rid of him: thus effectively declaring themselves the international police force of sorts. France and Germany (in recently times) have not done this. I can't think of any other examples for the moment (tired), but jsut read over this thread to get an idea.

I don't know what to say about yoru last point, 'fair enough' is as good as I can think of...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_overv.htm

is there a thread for americans who hate america? we need one.

(I asked ealrier in the thread but got no asnwer) For a country that believes in equality, etc.... I find it interesting that all you leaders have been white/male/christian.
That's why i like being english, we might be eccentric, but at least we allows for leaders that are not only white/male/christian.
I might be wrong, but has the US ever had a jewish president? as an example?

We have elections...we vote for who we think will do the best job. I would have voted for Lieberman had he been nominated. He is far better than Kerry ever could HOPE to be...he is Jewish, but so what, he is an American and that comes first. Kennedy was a catholic and the first elected as president. it was thought that he would be influenced by the Pope but he was not. So in short...if a woman or anyone else is deemed to be the best person for the job and is running, then yes, they would be elected.

My reading (and 900+ US dead troops) may disagree with that. There was indeed some initial jubilation with the overthrow of Saddam, but as with Vietnam, there are a significant amount who consider the americans to be 'imperialist'. Could you please state some sources (btw, just as general thing does anyone else get irritated with people link a news source which says "60% of people say this!" but then fail to mention how many people they actually asked?- It seems to happen alot on the "Gay Marriage" threads)

All countries are arrogant, but the degree to which is what gets to people. Since a lack of WMD's, the US govt has recently 1) completely sidelined the UN, 2) decided that Saddam was a bad-guy, so we should get rid of him: thus effectively declaring themselves the international police force of sorts. France and Germany (in recently times) have not done this. I can't think of any other examples for the moment (tired), but jsut read over this thread to get an idea.

I don't know what to say about yoru last point, 'fair enough' is as good as I can think of...

Fair enough. I did find this Zogby poll.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991

I will admit that as time goes on, the Iraqi's will tire of the US presence, but they will tire of the insurgents even faster, as they are killing far more Iraqi's than Americans.

Arrogance ALWAYS gets to people. The recent German elections caused quite a stir here. But like most things, we let it go pretty quickly. However, it sometimes seems to us that our European friends never let things go. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think they will come around on Iraq for many years...if ever.

We have elections...we vote for who we think will do the best job. I would have voted for Lieberman had he been nominated. He is far better than Kerry ever could HOPE to be...he is Jewish, but so what, he is an American and that comes first. Kennedy was a catholic and the first elected as president. it was thought that he would be influenced by the Pope but he was not. So in short...if a woman or anyone else is deemed to be the best person for the job and is running, then yes, they would be elected.

Really. You think so? Sorry it just seems strange to me that in all these years the best person for the party has always been white christian male. Of course american is american as english is english. it is just that the american leadership always seem to come from the same group. Never seems to be a working class man, or such. I could be wrong though. If so please correct.

But my point was also refering to tolerance. Talking about jews being persecuted and such. At least they've had a leadership role in europe.

Really. You think so? Sorry it just seems strange to me that in all these years the best person for the party has always been white christian male. Of course american is american as english is english. it is just that the american leadership always seem to come from the same group. Never seems to be a working class man, or such. I could be wrong though. If so please correct.

But my point was also refering to tolerance. Talking about jews being persecuted and such. At least they've had a leadership role in europe.

Well, politics is like that. I do not have any more say on who is or should be president than anyone else. I will admit that there are better people than the ones we choose sometimes. I was a HUGE McCain supporter and I also supported Lieberman too...as did many others, but sadly, not enough of us did.

Had there been enough of us...who knows what might be today. 9-11 would have still happened, but iraq? Maybe not.

fair enough

fair enough

Yeah, its a funny world and every 4 years the whole world seems to go crazy over the US election. More people OUTSIDE the US get involved than do INSIDE. Only about 35% of the eligible voters bother to vote at all.

Yeah, its a funny world and every 4 years the whole world seems to go crazy over the US election. More people OUTSIDE the US get involved than do INSIDE. Only about 35% of the eligible voters bother to vote at all.Comes with being the last remaining superpower I'm afraid. The American presidental election affects me far more then an election in Finland would.

I also supported Lieberman tooIsn't he the one that wanted to censor rock music?

Comes with being the last remaining superpower I'm afraid. The American presidental election affects me far more then an election in Finland would.

Isn't he the one that wanted to censor rock music?

I will have to take your word for the first statement, but I hardly see how your day to day life could be affected.

No, that was Gore's wife Tipper that wanted to do that. Dodged a bullet there didn't we? LOL

I will have to take your word for the first statement, but I hardly see how your day to day life could be affected.Fair point. I'm not talking so much about day to day life but the US economic and foreign policy does have far reaching implications for elsewhere. (I personally also take an interest in US domestic politics because I've got relatives over there).

No, that was Gore's wife Tipper that wanted to do that. Dodged a bullet there didn't we? LOLTipper Rocks. :D A less apt slogan would be harder to find. It's my understanding that Lieberman was a great ally of the Gores in that election and also attacked rock music. Do you see why they're called Republicrats? ;)

Fair point. I'm not talking so much about day to day life but the US economic and foreign policy does have far reaching implications for elsewhere. (I personally also take an interest in US domestic politics because I've got relatives over there).

When people say that the US election effects their lives, and they live in another country I just wonder HOW their lives are directly affected. Hell, MY life is little affected by it and I live here. LOL


Tipper Rocks. :D A less apt slogan would be harder to find. It's my understanding that Lieberman was a great ally of the Gores in that election and also attacked rock music. Do you see why they're called Republicrats? ;)

I would not say that Tipper is anything more than a reactionary. She actually pointed to the music of Queen as an example of what music should be. LOL We REALLY dodged a bullet not getting that limp noodle in office. Since losing the election, his behaviour has become quite erratic. In short...the man is a nut.

yeah i would like to hear what countries all of you people are from and lets talk about that country. ya know you people are always saying that america is a bad country and it was wrong to go into iraq and stuff. the fact of the matter is-is that we freed over 17 million people. you also say we are ignorant-well i say you are ignorant becuase every country in this world owes america a thank you or they would be speaking German or Japanese or Italian. so i say you are ignorant

yeah i would like to hear what countries all of you people are from and lets talk about that country. ya know you people are always saying that america is a bad country and it was wrong to go into iraq and stuff. the fact of the matter is-is that we freed over 17 million people. you also say we are ignorant-well i say you are ignorant becuase every country in this world owes america a thank you or they would be speaking German or Japanese or Italian. so i say you are ignorant

Thats not helping.....

then what is supposed to make this better. all of these foreigners and i dont know if you are but...........-they all say that we are ignorant and that we are doing the world more harm than good. i would like to know what there country is doing for the world that makes them so much better than america and also what they are doing for the war on terror. but i am admitting that there are indefinatly problams with america but there is more in other countries than our. ALOT OF COUNTRIES

For crying out loud, in every single forum I visit there's one of these weeping 'why do you hate us?' threads... grow up already! Most people don't hate you, you just think we do! Enough of these threads might make that change... :headbang:

I hate Americans who constantly annoy me with the question: "Why do you hate America(ns)?".

I hear that!

I'm glad to hear that we're not totally hated. Americans aren't much more ignorant than the general population of most of the world...including countries where people are purposely kept ignorant to keep certain regimes in power. While I typically don't agree with the government's use of the military, it is far from being the worst example of military abuse. Capitalism works for America....socialism and communism, while extremely pretty ideas on paper, rarely pan out in developed, industrialised countries. It's unfortunate, but true.

Americans may be uninformed, slightly misguided and subject to fits of conservative Christianity...but as a whole, it's not such a bad place to be. I can certainly think of much worse...

Amen.

For crying out loud, in every single forum I visit there's one of these weeping 'why do you hate us?' threads... grow up already! Most people don't hate you, you just think we do! Enough of these threads might make that change... :headbang:



I hear that!




yeah well part of the reason that we think that we think this is because all media froma round the world is upssesed with showing people protesting against america or doing somthing antiamerican so it is not our fault.

They are protesting against the GOVERNMENT, not the PEOPLE. Americans of all people should be aware of such a democratic right. Sometimes, we even protest against our own governments. Does that mean we hate our own countries? No... so why should it mean we hate America if we don't like the decisions of your government?

Yes. After re-reading this thread, I noticed the people the initial question was directed to were pretty unanimous: "We don't particularly hate the America(ns)".

From that somebody drew this conclusion:
Who cares why they hate us? they always have and they always will. I think it goes back to the days when the colonists revolted against their sovereign. Afterall, the King was chosen by god himself!! How dare those ruffians revolt like that. Oh, and also because we are just so damn lucky too.

...after that it has pretty much been the average shiteslinging you see in these forums.

When people say that the US election effects their lives, and they live in another country I just wonder HOW their lives are directly affected. Hell, MY life is little affected by it and I live here. LOL

Alright, true story: Some time ago, the US administration imposed 39% tariff on softwood lumber from Canada. The price of lumber went up because of this and many US manifacturers stopped buying from Canadians exporters as the price of lumber was raised by the tariff. The exportations dwindled, so the Canadians companies made massive layoff. My uncle was one of those employees who lost his job when his factory closed.

See how the US decision affected some workers from Canada? Another example: Bush reduces environmentals restrictions on the US factories. These factories pollute more and the air currents sends us more Acid rain. The decision of*the Us government affects more his neighbours that you might think.

Another example, one you can relate to: The Americans on military bases on foreign soils spend quite a lot of dough on local goods and services. The US military is helping the local economy with this american money. If you close a base in, say, Germany the Germans find themselves with a revenue of a couples thousand dollars less.

Indeed. Any change in policy in the largest (unified) economy on the planet will affect everyone who has dealings with them.

Okay i'll put this simply so all your liberty lovers can understand. WE do not hate u. We do not hate your country, or your companies, or your regime. WE HATE BUSH! We liked Clinton, clinton was cool (especially the whole BJ incident.) But having a complete and utter moron being the most powerful man in the world (other than the Pope.) brings shivvers to our spines. I mean that idiot can't even read an autocue properly ffs.

It's because he doesn't read autocues. Thats the difference between Bush and most other public speakers. He writes his own speeches and memorizes them. So anyone who speaks publicly to the US, as well as many other parts of the world, is liable to make some mistakes while speaking.

I am sorry but as an American I have to respond to all of these posts that clearly show anti-americanism, and misinformed anti-americanism at that. I have seen several comments detailing the wrongs in America's basic economic and political struture. All of these posts show true ignorance of America. Bush is not, I repeat not a right wing bigot. Instead Bush is much more of a moderate, he has much more, as they say European leanings. He does not impose his views upon American citizens or persons of the world. He can only do only so much, since the power of presidency does not grant him dictatorial power. Bush is merely the figurehead of America in the world. So when a non-citizen of America mentions that he does not hate America he just hates Bush, they are indirectly voicing an anti-Americanism, because if it isn't Bush it is would be someone else. As for hatred towards the American economic system, once again ignorance is shown. Capitalism, unlike the chic belief, is not evil. Capitalism is the greatest system that was created. The only true grievance that I can find with American capitalism is that at times it is not capitalism. Specifically when it imposes farm subsidies and steel tariffs, two imperfections that should be addressed and fixed. As for certain internatinal agreements, the Kyoto Treaty and the landmines, these two deals are unfair in principle. If the United States were to remove its landmines then the evil, tyrannical government of North Korea would eb able to storm and oppress the peoples of South Korea. Those landmines are South Koreas main form of protection. The Kyoto Treaty also is nonsensical in that it would cost trillions of dollars for a theory that is not known to be true. As for the belief that Americans have an uncanny agnorance, I believe this is another unfounded belief. Americans are not allowed to show national pride, while other countires are applauded for sticking up to their natinal beliefs. This is just hypocritical and once again is used to take another potshot at America. If I am incorrect in any of my assesment, please inform me in a specific manner.

Alright, true story: Some time ago, the US administration imposed 39% tariff on softwood lumber from Canada. The price of lumber went up because of this and many US manifacturers stopped buying from Canadians exporters as the price of lumber was raised by the tariff. The exportations dwindled, so the Canadians companies made massive layoff. My uncle was one of those employees who lost his job when his factory closed.

See how the US decision affected some workers from Canada? Another example: Bush reduces environmentals restrictions on the US factories. These factories pollute more and the air currents sends us more Acid rain. The decision of*the Us government affects more his neighbours that you might think.

Another example, one you can relate to: The Americans on military bases on foreign soils spend quite a lot of dough on local goods and services. The US military is helping the local economy with this american money. If you close a base in, say, Germany the Germans find themselves with a revenue of a couples thousand dollars less.

Since CONGRESS has to approve any such moves, the PRESIDENT is not directly responsible. Therefore your dislike of the PRESIDENT is unfounded. He is NOT a dictator and only holds 1/3 of the power. He has to answer both to Congress and the Supreme Court in all matters and also to the American people.

Since CONGRESS has to approve any such moves, the PRESIDENT is not directly responsible. Therefore your dislike of the PRESIDENT is unfounded. He is NOT a dictator and only holds 1/3 of the power. He has to answer both to Congress and the Supreme Court in all matters and also to the American people.
True and that's why I always try to criticize the US administration and not just the president. And if you elect another president, the whole cabinet is changing and this new administration will push for their view and try to pass bills according to their values. That's why I'm criticizing the current administration.
And since the president has VETO power, he's ultimately responsible for the legislative branch of your government.

True and that's why I always try to criticize the US administration and not just the president. And if you elect another president, the whole cabinet is changing and this new administration will push for their view and try to pass bills according to their values. That's why I'm criticizing the current administration.
And since the president has VETO power, he's ultimately responsible for the legislative branch of your government.

Yes, the mighty veto.....but even that can, and has been, overriden. So that the president cannot be the all-powerful omnipotent being that a LOT of people think he is. The checks and bounds keep him in line. Pretty smart of those men 200+ years ago I think.

Yes, the mighty veto.....but even that can, and has been, overriden. So that the president cannot be the all-powerful omnipotent being that a LOT of people think he is. The checks and bounds keep him in line. Pretty smart of those men 200+ years ago I think.
Yes, the US system of checks and balance is one of the great things in the US system.

Going back to my original reason of posting, you can see how people from foreign countries can be influenced by your government's actions. Even on a personnal level. That is why we're so vocal on our opinion on the upcoming elections.

...He does not impose his views upon American citizens or persons of the world. He can only do only so much, since the power of presidency does not grant him dictatorial power. Bush is merely the figurehead of America in the world. So when a non-citizen of America mentions that he does not hate America he just hates Bush, they are indirectly voicing an anti-Americanism, because if it isn't Bush it is would be someone else...

Somebody might argue he does impose his views upon persons of the world. Not me though. I can see through that "You're either with us or against us" crap. In times of war (well I guess you can call 'war on terror' that, I'm naïve that way) rhetoric like that is common.

What I don't understand is that a foreigner can't state he hates (!) Bush, not the Americans... If my country had a figurehead so widely disliked home and abroad as they say Bush is, I'd do my utmost to vote her/him off. You (and I use the word loosely here) said you 'hated' Saddam, but apparently loved the Iraqis enough to set them free of him. Is that anti-Iraqism?

So this whole thread was clever trap? "What is it you non-americans hate about USA" - no matter what they answer, You interpret it to mean they HATE the whole concept of USA?

My personal guess would be that this obsessing over whether the whole population (!) of the world hates or loves you is due to your domestic politics. Your political system is strongly polarized (especially this close to the elections), either you're a rebublican or democrat with strict belief to party dogma. Maybe this reflects to your view of the world too; either you love us or hate us. Sorry to dissappoint you, I'm quite indifferent.

(WAIT! no I'm not! I want 4 more years... when he has free hands and doesn't need to think about re-election, i bet his speeches get even wilder. I enjoy them so much...)

Yes, the US system of checks and balance is one of the great things in the US system.

Going back to my original reason of posting, you can see how people from foreign countries can be influenced by your government's actions. Even on a personnal level. That is why we're so vocal on our opinion on the upcoming elections.

Yeah I guess so, however, most of the vitriol is really over the top. The prime Minister of Canada can easily influence things in the US as well, but who is elected is none of our business because we have no say in who is elected there. Unless you believe the US has some influence on foreign elections as well.

Somebody might argue he does impose his views upon persons of the world. Not me though. I can see through that "You're either with us or against us" crap. In times of war (well I guess you can call 'war on terror' that, I'm naïve that way) rhetoric like that is common.

What I don't understand is that a foreigner can't state he hates (!) Bush, not the Americans... If my country had a figurehead so widely disliked home and abroad as they say Bush is, I'd do my utmost to vote her/him off. You (and I use the word loosely here) said you 'hated' Saddam, but apparently loved the Iraqis enough to set them free of him. Is that anti-Iraqism?

So this whole thread was clever trap? "What is it you non-americans hate about USA" - no matter what they answer, You interpret it to mean they HATE the whole concept of USA?

My personal guess would be that this obsessing over whether the whole population (!) of the world hates or loves you is due to your domestic politics. Your political system is strongly polarized (especially this close to the elections), either you're a rebublican or democrat with strict belief to party dogma. Maybe this reflects to your view of the world too; either you love us or hate us. Sorry to dissappoint you, I'm quite indifferent.

(WAIT! no I'm not! I want 4 more years... when he has free hands and doesn't need to think about re-election, i bet his speeches get even wilder. I enjoy them so much...)

Ahhhhhh...but we Americans are a stubborn lot. We have this ingrained dislike of being told what to do by others. It is just the way we are, even among ourselves. That someone says they dislike Bush.....I have no problem with that. That they say we should vote for Kerry BECAUSE they don't like Bush and WE should get rid of him makes a lot of us want to dig in our heels. Outside influences are not something we like. Notice that Kerry had said that foreign leaders had assured him of cooperation if he was elected...but then he refused to name those leaders. If it got out that a foreign leader was having ANY influence on Kerry, he would be toast.

Since CONGRESS has to approve any such moves, the PRESIDENT is not directly responsible. Therefore your dislike of the PRESIDENT is unfounded.

Incorrect; tariffs are set by the executive branch and not by Congress. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa032202a.htm

Also, if you think the US government doesn't try to influence foreign elections, you should pay a little bit more attention to latin and south america (and even Australia). Heck, the US was even trying to influence the last Canadian election to avoid a minority government...

Yeah I guess so, however, most of the vitriol is really over the top. The prime Minister of Canada can easily influence things in the US as well, but who is elected is none of our business because we have no say in who is elected there. Unless you believe the US has some influence on foreign elections as well.
I believe they have it in some countries. I read a post about Australian politics this weekend stating that the US were voicing their interest and criticizing the opposition. But I don't believe you influence really Canadian elections.

However, I encourage you to voice your opinion. Maybee you see something we don't, like strict laws on something that is hurting the US. I want to know. Most Canadians I know will not tell you to F*** off if you wanted to say your opinion on Canadian politics. I know i'd be listening.

That's my mentality and I assumed you'd have the same. If you think I should stop meddling in US politics, tell me. But you better have a good reason, 'cause I feel that I'm having no say in something that can very well affect me.

Incorrect; tariffs are set by the executive branch and not by Congress. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa032202a.htm

Also, if you think the US government doesn't try to influence foreign elections, you should pay a little bit more attention to latin and south america (and even Australia). Heck, the US was even trying to influence the last Canadian election to avoid a minority government...

Where Tariffs Come From
U.S. tariffs on all imported goods are established in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), an independent, nonpartisan, quasi-judicial federal agency, determines whether U.S. industries are injured by imports that benefit from pricing at less than fair value or from subsidization and advises the president accordingly. The USITC was originally established by Congress in 1916 and given broad investigative powers on matters of trade.

Congress can override tarriffs, but seldom do because they are usually needed. The US is the worlds largest consumer nation, and "dumping" of steel and lumber has been a problem in the past. Especially from other nations where labor is incredibly cheap.

Where Tariffs Come From
The USITC was originally established by Congress in 1916 and given broad investigative powers on matters of trade.

I was wondering if you were that dumb; thanks for clearing that up. (So because Congress set up the DoD, Bush isn't responsible for illegally diverting money budgeted for Afghanistan to prepare for the Iraq war?)

Let's try another tack - Bush is responsible for the actions his administration takes. (Remember when a good president said "the buck stops here"?) Congress is responsible for not overriding tariffs, but since they are of the same political party as the president, the responsibility accrues to the leader of that party. I.e, the President.

If you think I should stop meddling in US politics, tell me. But you better have a good reason, 'cause I feel that I'm having no say in something that can very well affect me.

I really have no say in Canadian politics. I cannot vote there and that really is the only way to have ones vioce heard. This election will come and go and nothing will really change. On a funny note, Kerry has been hammering Bush on the terrorism alerts lately....until he FINALLY took a classified CIA briefing and heard the evidence supporting them...now he has shut up about them and is distancing himself from Dean. The guy SHOULD have been getting these briefings all along but did not. He would really be a disaster as a president.

As for the US trying to influence elections....well, the voters will speak and their voices are louder than any foreign governments.

I was wondering if you were that dumb; thanks for clearing that up. (So because Congress set up the DoD, Bush isn't responsible for illegally diverting money budgeted for Afghanistan to prepare for the Iraq war?)

Let's try another tack - Bush is responsible for the actions his administration takes. (Remember when a good president said "the buck stops here"?) Congress is responsible for not overriding tariffs, but since they are of the same political party as the president, the responsibility accrues to the leader of that party. I.e, the President.

Thats right...the president...whoever he is cannot just throw a tariff up if he wants to. He has to have some backing to do so. He cannot act unilaterally.

hi guys, im english, dont worry, just cos most of the world hate you, you've got nothing to worry about, if anything happens, you can just nuke 'em..... but anyway, if you didn't want the world to hate you, stop treating it like shit, i hate you personally because of your attitudes, your arrogance, your predjudices, your laws, the way you treat people, and most of all the effect you have on other countrys. but anyway, i'm gonna shutup now.

p.s. i hate you
p.p.s. not all of you, just the patriotic bastards who can't see what your country is becoming
p.p.p.s. incase you don't no...its becoming the newest empire (roman empire, british empire etc) cept i would compare it more to hitlers vision of an empire than the roman empire or the british empire.... but this time, it might actually happen..... be afraid, be very afraid

I really have no say in Canadian politics.

The subject under discussion was whether the US government was involved in foreign elections. The US Ambassador made many statements regarding the last election. You are not the american government. Try to keep up.

I cannot vote there and that really is the only way to have ones vioce heard.

That is appallingly naive, at best. Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of "political advertising"? It appears that "opposition research" and "push-polls" are far beyond your political savvy.

(edit- fixed quote tag)

hi guys, im english, dont worry, just cos most of the world hate you, you've got nothing to worry about, if anything happens, you can just nuke 'em..... but anyway, if you didn't want the world to hate you, stop treating it like shit, i hate you personally because of your attitudes, your arrogance, your predjudices, your laws, the way you treat people, and most of all the effect you have on other countrys. but anyway, i'm gonna shutup now.

p.s. i hate you
p.p.s. not all of you, just the patriotic bastards who can't see what your country is becoming
p.p.p.s. incase you don't no...its becoming the newest empire (roman empire, british empire etc) cept i would compare it more to hitlers vision of an empire than the roman empire or the british empire.... but this time, it might actually happen..... be afraid, be very afraid


I think the British Empire was the worst of all. It was the largest by far and a LOT of todays problems are a direct result from it. Every country in the middle east, except Israel which they fought to prevent, was created by the British. So as a result of their "empire building" the British managed to do far more damage than Hitler ever dreamed of.

The subject under discussion was whether the US government was involved in foreign elections. The US Ambassador made many statements regarding the last election. You are not the american government. Try to keep up.



That is appallingly naive, at best. Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of "political advertising"? It appears that "opposition research" and "push-polls" are far beyond your political savvy.

(edit- fixed quote tag)

Advertizing does not win elections....it all comes down to the voting booth and how the people vote.

I really have no say in Canadian politics. I cannot vote there and that really is the only way to have ones vioce heard. This election will come and go and nothing will really change. On a funny note, Kerry has been hammering Bush on the terrorism alerts lately....until he FINALLY took a classified CIA briefing and heard the evidence supporting them...now he has shut up about them and is distancing himself from Dean. The guy SHOULD have been getting these briefings all along but did not. He would really be a disaster as a president.
Well, there lies the problem, no? You have no elective power, so your only chance to influence the election process is to write to the voters to make then understand your concern and try to make them see your position. You're taking the chance that your argument will influence the undecided just like any other ads out there. If I was a US voter, I would probably wouldn't be so vocal. I would have made up my mind.

As for the US trying to influence elections....well, the voters will speak and their voices are louder than any foreign governments.
Do unto others... It is hypocritical to influence the politcal process of other countries and scream bloody murder when you recieve the same treatment. (Not meaning you, Biff, but you the american readers in general)

Well, there lies the problem, no? You have no elective power, so your only chance to influence the election process is to write to the voters to make then understand your concern and try to make them see your position. You're taking the chance that your argument will influence the undecided just like any other ads out there. If I was a US voter, I would probably wouldn't be so vocal. I would have made up my mind.


Do unto others... It is hypocritical to influence the politcal process of other countries and scream bloody murder when you recieve the same treatment. (Not meaning you, Biff, but you the american readers in general)

To the contrary....I have a LOT of elective power. I have a vote. Every candidate wants my vote. Plus I have friends and family that also have votes. You add those up and after awhile you are talking some serious voting power.

How does the US government actually try to influence a foreign election?

Advertizing does not win elections....it all comes down to the voting booth and how the people vote.

Um, wow. Okay. You do realize that political advertising is intended to influence how people vote, right?

If you do, why do you vote for people dumb enough to spend hundreds of millions of dollars doing something that doesn't matter?

The scary thing is that even if political advertising doesn't influence elections (*cough* McCain in South Carolina *cough*), you're still wrong. It also matters who registers to vote, who shows up to vote, and - under certain circumstances - how votes are cast and who counts them.

If you want to read about how the US tries to influence foreign elections, read about Venezula and Hugo Chavez.

To the contrary....I have a LOT of elective power. I have a vote. Every candidate wants my vote. Plus I have friends and family that also have votes. You add those up and after awhile you are talking some serious voting power.

How does the US government actually try to influence a foreign election?
You didn't understand that I was talking from the point of vue of a foreigner. Read my previous statement while thinking of you facing a Canadian election.

The US gov. tries to influence a foreign election with statements by his ambassador (Canada), by doing smear campaign on one of the candidate (Australia), by backing coup d'etat after the election has been done (many occurences) and generally sending money to the coffers of their favorite candidate.

the government is a red-taped bureaucracy mess, o and by the way you may have more weapons than the rest of us but you have no culture, none whatsoever, what proper things do you celebrate, you killed anything on what you considered your land and for ages you killed Indians and are now all lovey dovey to them and one more thing http://www.maketradefair.com/en/index.php?file=05032002111332.htm&cat=2&subcat=2&select=6, most of the barriers there are put up by the US

I wouldn't say that there's an actual problem with Americans as individuals, but Americans as a group. I believe that they need to tighten gun restrictions and try to lower crime. As well, America tends to think as a whole and even throughout other countries; their thoughts are basically controlled by the Media, which is either constantly censored and edited by the government or willing to make nonsense up just to get more viewers.

Above all, though, none of them can learn English.

the government is a red-taped bureaucracy mess,

What First World country isn't steeped in red tape?

o and by the way you may have more weapons than the rest of us but you have no culture, none whatsoever, what proper things do you celebrate,

4th of July, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, Armistice/Veterans Day, Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, those are some American holidays, plus the normal round of other holidays, mostly Christian. How people can say our culture is a danger to the world then say we have none, read the accounts of British who met American soldiers while they were massing in Britain for Overlord, this is a meeting between two different but still close cultures, and will throw into stark light that there is American culture.

you killed anything on what you considered your land and for ages you killed Indians and are now all lovey dovey to them and one more thing

Wow, Europe has been killing each other and strangers for far longer then America can claim, France and Germany hated each other to the full extent two countries can, today they are all lovey-dovey, as is most of Europe. Relationships change over time.

As a Canadian I don't speak for all Canadians but as far as i'm conered we don't HATE the US. Just dislike to a far exstent. Over all there forienge policies are hated as is there mostly lacking or incorect knowegle of the world.
good explaims can be found on the 22 minutes speical called "talking to Americians", good explaims of the former are the current tarrifs of Canadian soft wood lumber and wheat.

Although offical we love them cuz we currently export 87% of everything ,we export,to them.

I'm an American, so the best I can contribute is this:

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/canguide_4_aaa.php
the small deloug form "Talking to Americans" was wrong it was with clinton before he was elected. unless the was a second "Talking to Americans " I havn't seen yet.

Um, wow. Okay. You do realize that political advertising is intended to influence how people vote, right?

If you do, why do you vote for people dumb enough to spend hundreds of millions of dollars doing something that doesn't matter?

The scary thing is that even if political advertising doesn't influence elections (*cough* McCain in South Carolina *cough*), you're still wrong. It also matters who registers to vote, who shows up to vote, and - under certain circumstances - how votes are cast and who counts them.

If you want to read about how the US tries to influence foreign elections, read about Venezula and Hugo Chavez.

yep...and studies have shown that advertising does not work. It really doesn't. You can run ads for anything, but your sales will not appreciably rise because of it. Political ads are even worse. The majority of voters have already made their minds up. Those who have not will do so by talking to their friends and families, not from some spinmaster advertising.

yep...and studies have shown that advertising does not work. It really doesn't. You can run ads for anything, but your sales will not appreciably rise because of it. Political ads are even worse. The majority of voters have already made their minds up. Those who have not will do so by talking to their friends and families, not from some spinmaster advertising.
as far as i can tell the main usefulness of ads is to get the word out.

What First World country isn't steeped in red tape?



4th of July, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, Armistice/Veterans Day, Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, those are some American holidays, plus the normal round of other holidays, mostly Christian. How people can say our culture is a danger to the world then say we have none, read the accounts of British who met American soldiers while they were massing in Britain for Overlord, this is a meeting between two different but still close cultures, and will throw into stark light that there is American culture.



Wow, Europe has been killing each other and strangers for far longer then America can claim, France and Germany hated each other to the full extent two countries can, today they are all lovey-dovey, as is most of Europe. Relationships change over time.
I think what he means is that in having no culture, you are spreading it to others, effectively destroying all culture. I do not consider simple holidays culture, but rather a way of looking at things, certain traditions and things like that. You may have holidays, but most of them are just an excuse to take the day off. Consider Alberta of Canada; everyone likes hockey, they all say "eh" and various other stereotypical things; contrary to popular belief, the rest of Canada and a good portion of Albertans (although not all of them) are not like that. But believe it, stereotypes DO exist, and they're a result of cultural items.

On a side note, the British killed a lot of Indians too and completely changed their culture.

And while Europe may appear to be all "lovey-dovey" now, they all secretly hate each other. Especially the French. NO one likes the French (but in the same way as the Americans).

Did you know that Canada recently converted to the 24-hour clock?

I think what he means is that in having no culture, you are spreading it to others, effectively destroying all culture. I do not consider simple holidays culture, but rather a way of looking at things, certain traditions and things like that. You may have holidays, but most of them are just an excuse to take the day off. Consider Alberta of Canada; everyone likes hockey, they all say "eh" and various other stereotypical things; contrary to popular belief, the rest of Canada and a good portion of Albertans (although not all of them) are not like that. But believe it, stereotypes DO exist, and they're a result of cultural items.

On a side note, the British killed a lot of Indians too and completely changed their culture.

And while Europe may appear to be all "lovey-dovey" now, they all secretly hate each other. Especially the French. NO one likes the French (but in the same way as the Americans).

Did you know that Canada recently converted to the 24-hour clock?


I did not know that.....

Everyone hates the French.....LOL

yep...and studies have shown that advertising does not work. It really doesn't. You can run ads for anything, but your sales will not appreciably rise because of it. Political ads are even worse. The majority of voters have already made their minds up. Those who have not will do so by talking to their friends and families, not from some spinmaster advertising.

You're so close, but not quite there. I am impressed at your absolute certainty, though, particularly about the things you're wrong about.

Okay, you believe that the leaders of the free world (and their supporters) are idiotic enough to burn hundreds of millions of dollars for absolutely no effect. What's your alternate explanation for why John McCain was leading the early republican polls in 2000, and then eventually was defeated by George Bush? Was there anything other than voting that affected the election in South Carolina?

You also seem to have missed the point that voting requires showing up, and the US has an appalling voting rate compared to other industrialized democracies.

And while Europe may appear to be all "lovey-dovey" now, they all secretly hate each other. Especially the French. NO one likes the French (but in the same way as the Americans).



I once hear a wise man say (on the cbc) that france is as arrogate as the Us but don't have the power to get away with it.

I once hear a wise man say (on the cbc) that france is as arrogate as the Us but don't have the power to get away with it.
Well, the French government is full of cowards. They offered to support Iraq in the hopes that they'd get oil in return. I can't back this up right now, but they have a reputation of switching to whichever side is looking the best in a war.

Well, the French government is full of cowards. They offered to support Iraq in the hopes that they'd get oil in return. I can't back this up right now, but they have a reputation of switching to whichever side is looking the best in a war.
well that would explain why the US seems to hate them more the other nations who said they would vito the iraq war thing in the UN.

Well, the French government is full of cowards. They offered to support Iraq in the hopes that they'd get oil in return. I can't back this up right now, but they have a reputation of switching to whichever side is looking the best in a war.
Not quite. French companies had contract with the Iraqi government for large deposit of oil. But then the embargo happened and their contract could not be exploited.
But now, those contracts are null and void (the provisionnal government made sure of that) and they can't even try to get them back because of partisan policies that states that only countries involved in the war can get contracts.
That is mostly why France wasn'T in support of the war. That and the no-WMD thing.

Well, the French government is full of cowards. They offered to support Iraq in the hopes that they'd get oil in return. I can't back this up right now, but they have a reputation of switching to whichever side is looking the best in a war.

If cowardice is the policy of the French government, wouldn't it be best not to anger the worlds only superpower?

You're so close, but not quite there. I am impressed at your absolute certainty, though, particularly about the things you're wrong about.

Okay, you believe that the leaders of the free world (and their supporters) are idiotic enough to burn hundreds of millions of dollars for absolutely no effect. What's your alternate explanation for why John McCain was leading the early republican polls in 2000, and then eventually was defeated by George Bush? Was there anything other than voting that affected the election in South Carolina?

You also seem to have missed the point that voting requires showing up, and the US has an appalling voting rate compared to other industrialized democracies.

Thats true...we do have an abysmal record of non-voters. I blame that on the elections always being held on a Tuesday, a work day. Why not on a weekend when more people are not working?

Advertising just does not sway the masses...it might sway a few peoples opinions, but not the numbers you seem to think it does.

And while Europe may appear to be all "lovey-dovey" now, they all secretly hate each other. Especially the French. NO one likes the French (but in the same way as the Americans).
Naah. Just during football.
Disliking Americans is a fulltime job.

Thats true...we do have an abysmal record of non-voters. I blame that on the elections always being held on a Tuesday, a work day. Why not on a weekend when more people are not working?

Well, we agree on that - I'm actually in favor of election day being a federal holiday. The problem is that the status quo, by definition, favors the people currently in office.

Advertising just does not sway the masses...it might sway a few peoples opinions, but not the numbers you seem to think it does.

There's a lot more to influencing elections than just paid advertising - positive or negative. Ninety-eight percent of incumbents in the House of Representatives were re-elected in 2002. Incumbents have a massive advantage in fund-raising and name recognition, which translates into a huge advantage in the election. http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/incumbs.asp?cycle=2004

If voting is the only way to influence elections, how does this happen?

The effects of the British Empire reach far further than the Middle East, the price of coffee remains low today because of the actions imposed by Britain upon colonies where it was grown, these persist today and are unlikely to change without significant action from the WTO, an action by the WTO for the benefit of all not foreign investors.

"He sings of the islands of Peros Banhos and Salomon, part of the Chagos archipelago, which was leased to the US to allow for the development of the huge Diego Garcia military base." In 1965, when Mauritius was negotiating its independence from Britain, the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson made it clear there would be no deal without the Chagos islands being separated from Mauritius, and retained by Britain.

The islands were of great strategic significance - situated right in the middle of the Indian Ocean - they were in the heart of an area prized by the then Soviet Union and China.

What Mauritius did not know was that Britain had already done a deal with the United States - they would lease the largest island, Diego Garcia, for use as an air base and ship refuelling station.

But the Americans did not want a "population problem", as they put it.

My point wasn't really about America it was just to point out I'm aware of my own nations actions, afterall what better place to begin with questions and criticism than ones own nation?
However as far as I know America is the only Western nation in recent years to select a single ethnicity for legal reasons, I'm talking about every male of Middle Eastern descent being legally required to report to their nearest FBI headquarters for finger printing, questioning and general recording associated with someone who's been arrested.

To my second biggest concern about America as a whole, the death penalty. I see no justification for the death penalty and it a sad relic of a clouded time, anyone who claims it prevents crime by deterring people are disturbingly warped - deterrance would mean that by now it wouldn't even be used, the fear being so great. 4,578 cases of those facing the death penalty in the period 1973-1995 and it was concluded that the courts found serious, reverislb errors in nearly 7 out of every 10 capital sentence cases. It also found that 2 out of every 3 death penalty sentences were being overturned at appeal. Since 1973 95 death row inmates have been fully exonerated by the courts. In half of the years studied, including the most recent, the erros rate was over 60%. Rates across the country are higher, no specifics I'm afraid, as in 85% of cases the error rates are 60% or higher.
Now for all the inmates who cases were in the study and had their death sentences overturned, 82% received a sentence other than death whilst 7% were found innocent upon retrial.

Now considering you're going to be executing someone the accuracy and strength of having some killed should, in a logical world were killing is a good thing, be of the highest order. The number of errors should be so low as to not warrant concern by anyone! Also of concern is that some states still execute children, that's individuals under the age of 18, the US being the only industrialised nation in the world to openly admit to this practise.

Eighteen states have allowed juvenile offenders as young as sixteen, at the time the crime was committed or their actual age, to be executed despite a contradictory US Supreme Court ruling that 16 year olds do not have "the maturity or judgement" to sign contracts, these contracts are waivers to the right to appeal and are typically accommpanied by a guilty plea as advised by their PDs. Care to know what others countries openly execute juveniles? Iran, Nigria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. From a legal standpoint even China prohibits the execution of under 18s, of course I don't believe that counts for much considering its other human rights abuses.

Feel pride for your nation now, feel pride for the lack of actions by yourselves where applicable and for those older than you. This was an attack on America in case you wern't clear, though I doubt that.

Well, we agree on that - I'm actually in favor of election day being a federal holiday. The problem is that the status quo, by definition, favors the people currently in office.



There's a lot more to influencing elections than just paid advertising - positive or negative. Ninety-eight percent of incumbents in the House of Representatives were re-elected in 2002. Incumbents have a massive advantage in fund-raising and name recognition, which translates into a huge advantage in the election. http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/incumbs.asp?cycle=2004

If voting is the only way to influence elections, how does this happen?

Oh I agree, they have TOO much of an advantage. How many people has Kennedy got to kill to be defeated? Evidently more than one....:rolleyes:

The effects of the British Empire reach far further than the Middle East, the price of coffee remains low today because of the actions imposed by Britain upon colonies where it was grown, these persist today and are unlikely to change without significant action from the WTO, an action by the WTO for the benefit of all not foreign investors.



My point wasn't really about America it was just to point out I'm aware of my own nations actions, afterall what better place to begin with questions and criticism than ones own nation?
However as far as I know America is the only Western nation in recent years to select a single ethnicity for legal reasons, I'm talking about every male of Middle Eastern descent being legally required to report to their nearest FBI headquarters for finger printing, questioning and general recording associated with someone who's been arrested.

To my second biggest concern about America as a whole, the death penalty. I see no justification for the death penalty and it a sad relic of a clouded time, anyone who claims it prevents crime by deterring people are disturbingly warped - deterrance would mean that by now it wouldn't even be used, the fear being so great. 4,578 cases of those facing the death penalty in the period 1973-1995 and it was concluded that the courts found serious, reverislb errors in nearly 7 out of every 10 capital sentence cases. It also found that 2 out of every 3 death penalty sentences were being overturned at appeal. Since 1973 95 death row inmates have been fully exonerated by the courts. In half of the years studied, including the most recent, the erros rate was over 60%. Rates across the country are higher, no specifics I'm afraid, as in 85% of cases the error rates are 60% or higher.
Now for all the inmates who cases were in the study and had their death sentences overturned, 82% received a sentence other than death whilst 7% were found innocent upon retrial.

Now considering you're going to be executing someone the accuracy and strength of having some killed should, in a logical world were killing is a good thing, be of the highest order. The number of errors should be so low as to not warrant concern by anyone! Also of concern is that some states still execute children, that's individuals under the age of 18, the US being the only industrialised nation in the world to openly admit to this practise.

Eighteen states have allowed juvenile offenders as young as sixteen, at the time the crime was committed or their actual age, to be executed despite a contradictory US Supreme Court ruling that 16 year olds do not have "the maturity or judgement" to sign contracts, these contracts are waivers to the right to appeal and are typically accommpanied by a guilty plea as advised by their PDs. Care to know what others countries openly execute juveniles? Iran, Nigria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. From a legal standpoint even China prohibits the execution of under 18s, of course I don't believe that counts for much considering its other human rights abuses.

Feel pride for your nation now, feel pride for the lack of actions by yourselves where applicable and for those older than you. This was an attack on America in case you wern't clear, though I doubt that.

Well....if you don't commit a crime, you have nothing to worry about. Not every state has the death penalty. Those that do have it for their own reasons. To say that a 16 year old does not have the mental capacity to understand the concept of a contract....but can commit an adult crime is ridiculous.

Do I worry about the death penalty? No. This past weekend near my home...four men, 3 aged 18 invaded a house and killed 6 people with baseball bats as they slept. Why? Because one of them felt that one of the victims had stolen an X-Box game from him. So these morons kill 6 people...and a dog over a video game. They will certainly be sentenced to death and rightly so. They have become feral.

Well....if you don't commit a crime, you have nothing to worry about.

ha ha ha.

Well....if you don't commit a crime, you have nothing to worry about.

Ahem. Perhaps you missed the part of Mr. Joad's post where he talked about the number of death row inmates that have been completely exonerated? The Innocence Project has helped with this. http://www.innocenceproject.org/

It's fairly likely that completely innocent people have been convicted and executed, particularly in Texas. There's no funding to perform DNA testing to validate or invalidate any crimes with an executed defendant.

That being said, I can't really disagree with you about the baseball bat crew. (Assuming the story we've heard is accurate - remember the central park jogger and the band of kids that attacked her? They were innocent.)

Lets knock it out point by point.

American support for Terrorism. You make reference to the United State supporting the Irish Republican Army. I'd like to see the facts that you have that show a direct link between the United State government and the IRA, PIRA, RIRA, or CIRA. However, I think what you might be making reference to might be the bars and pubs in New York and Boston that put out a cup that says something akin to "Donations for the family of those killed in the fight for Irish Independence". People put money into them thinking they're supporting the families of dead IRA soldiers, they're drunk and generally don't put two and two together and realize that the money is likely going to buy more M-4's for the Óglaigh na hÉireann rather than diapers for one their kids.

However, I would also like to point out that lovely old Britain has slaughtered hundreds of thousands, if not millions of the Irish throughout history, for little or no reason. Think about that.

Now for American support of the government of Israel. You claim that Israel is the first to break cease-fires. Are you sure? Are you positive? Are you sure that its not usually Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad or the Al Ahksa(sp?) Brigade doing this? I think you should probably consider looking a bit closer and seeing that Israeli attacks are generally in retaliation for attacks against their civillians.

And don't give me that line of shit about the Arabs caring about Palestine, if they truly cared about the Palestinians then they could've helped find homes for the displaced Palestinians. Don't even try to tell me I'm wrong on this. NO ARAB STATE HAS EVER HELPED PALESTINE.

Well thats not true, Jordan did help Palestine and then Palestine tried to laucnh and war from Jordan, rather then help Jordan threw them out.

You're pretty quick to condemn Israel for taking a firm hand with Arab Terrorists, but I bet you think its wonderful when the SAS takes down a suspected IRA agent in Belfast. I bet you think its perfectly reasonable.

You're a hypocrite, and not even a particularly well studied one at that.



In regards to hating the US. I honestly don't give a damn about what any other country thinks about America.

Why?

Because in the long run it doesn't matter. No country can really afford not to trade with the US and her allies. We're an intrisnic part of the global economy, the cold war made sure of that. No amount of regional unions can replace the tremendous influx of funds and goods that come from trading with the US. We ARE number one where it counts economic power and military might. Its true. Deal with it.

Yell-o snow from canada

the word is we love americans like brothers who have different values, but even we get pissed when said values rape our environment and piss on our national economy. Then later, those responsible for implementing those values get cranky when we wont back them up in a fictional war waged to do the same to another less represented country.

love the people
hate the politics

learn lo love and live to learn

In regards to hating the US. I honestly don't give a damn about what any other country thinks about America.

If you don't, why did you reply?

"Because in the long run it doesn't matter. No country can really afford not to trade with the US and her allies. We're an intrisnic part of the global economy, the cold war made sure of that. No amount of regional unions can replace the tremendous influx of funds and goods that come from trading with the US. We ARE number one where it counts economic power and military might. Its true. Deal with it."

wow, who is it that is in need of mre education, better take a look at how your values land at the end of each day, its sad that it takes so long to realize that what really matters is not power from a capitalist society, but the family and friends that you can have in any society and the love you can share no matter how rich, poor, famous, strong or weak you might be.

First of all, I seriously doubt European sentiment about the US will change in the near future, regardless of whether or not John Kerry is elected President. European politicians tend to consider him a kind of social democrat, a political alignment that is relatively strongly represented in the European houses of parliaments. We seem to have ignored the fact that Kerry's policies on a number of issues quite resemble those of the current President, George W. Bush. For instance, it would seem that Kerry voted in favor of intervening in Iraq, and that he voted against the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Two points that are seldom heard of in European media, which seem all too eager in aiding European politicians demonizing Bush.

We [Europeans] cannot seriously expect Kerry to be anymore lenient towards terrorism than Bush. After 9/11, no presidential candidate can hope to be elected with a weak stance on the issue of terrorism. Thus, it would seem that an American-lead military intervention against, for instance, a rogue state, is no less likely to happen with Kerry as President. Even Clinton, who recently gave a speech endorsing Kerry, was quick to retaliate following the embassy bombings in Africa. One of the US strikes hit plant, which turned out to be producing pharmaceuticals, not terror bombs or rocket parts. But Europeans seem to have forgotten this. Democratic presidents can fail too.

In my opinion, the European "anti-Americanism" is more closely tied to the position of the US as the world's only remaining super power. "This is old news", one might argue. True, no other nation has been in a position to rival the US in terms of military, financial and cultural power since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Only now, more people seem to have realized just what the term "super power" means, as the current administration in the eyes of many Europeans wields its power in a most disturbing manner. Europe desires bilateral agreements and actions, because this system favors the weaker 'player' in the game of world politics. When the US was in its infancy, it too favored 'bilateralism'. But now it has demonstrated that it is essentially powerful enough to act on its own. From an American perspective, bilateralism, and hence the UN, restrict the US capability to conduct an effective foreign policy. Had the roles been reversed, we would no doubt have witnessed a frenzied American effort to force the European 'warmongers' to comply with international law and the UN.

Prior to the intervention in Iraq, heated debates took place in the UNSC during the American attempt to get international support for the actions to come. It has been argued that these discussions were really pointless. The US had already decided to go to war, and whilst trying to get the UN stamp of approval, were determined to proceed no matter the outcome. This may be true or not, but it is a bit beside the point. The fact is that the US did not HAVE TO seek international support, but the American administration chose to attempt to acquire it nevertheless, which seems to indicate that international opinion mattered, even to the world's only super power. As such, one can choose to perceive the American-lead intervention in Iraq not as much a demonstration of American power, but instead as a demonstration of the European Union's lack of unity.

Proponents of the European Union see its future role as that of a counterweight to US influence in world politics, thereby seeking to establish a kind of balance of power. Whether or not this will happen I obviously cannot tell, but to achieve the kind of unity needed will not be easy. Britain needs to be so confident in the power of the European Union, that it will side with it. This will only happen if Europe can turn out to be a more powerful allied than than the US, in terms of military forces. Furthermore, Europe's population will have to be much more supportive regarding the notion of an actual European federation. Otherwise, we will most likely continue to be talking of British, French, German or Dutch (etc.) foreign policy, instead of 'European' foreign policy, which will prevent a true balance of power to be established between the US and Europe. 'True' as in not essentially the result of American 'generosity'.
Right now, Europe is busy arguing with itself, while the US acts.
Europe complains that the US has been acting "like a bully", neatly ignoring the fact that 1) this is only possible because Europe is currently 'weak', and 2) had the roles been reversed, we would have acted in just the same way.

Americans are not that special. Europeans are equally dumb, stupid, ignorant, selfish and so on.
Americans, we don't hate you. We just hate the fact that you have power, and we don't.

Just my 2-Euro-cents, so to speak...

I see attitudes like this resonate through US foreign policy, and yet see the Americans go into shock and disgust when many in the world dislike them

Irony is a wonderous thing
Actually, only the weak-knee pussy wish-they-were-european Americans really care what the rest of the world thinks. They are like high-school kids who are so obsessed about being liked they forget their own principals and values.

Thankfully, most Americans have considerably more intestinal fortitude than their european counterparts and really don't care about much more than sticking to our principals. It is a trait probably handed down by our ancestors who had the good sense to leave that continent. (and also likely why we've been there to bail out europe on several occasions)

The shock and discust isn't over why some nations don't like us, it is just shock and disgust at those nations.

Actually, only the weak-knee pussy wish-they-were-european Americans really care what the rest of the world thinks. They are like high-school kids who are so obsessed about being liked they forget their own principals and values.

Thankfully, most Americans have considerably more intestinal fortitude than their european counterparts and really don't care about much more than sticking to our principals. It is a trait probably handed down by our ancestors who had the good sense to leave that continent. (and also likely why we've been there to bail out europe on several occasions)

The shock and discust isn't over why some nations don't like us, it is just shock and disgust at those nations.
Princip-le-s
Dis-g-ust

Had a good sense to leave "that continent"? You retard, it was a mission of colonisation. MANY countries wanted to colonise the New World. Many colonies were created around where Canada and the US are today. However, some people did not agree with the British kingdom and so they rebelled, creating the United States of America. It's a highly simplified version, but it's correct.

And what the hell do you mean by Shock and Disgust at other nations? Can you back this up? I thought the topic was about why OTHER countries had Shock and Disgust toward the US.

It's been nearly two hours or more of reading to get here... but I can finally post on this, YAY!

I'm an american (No I don't care that the thread asked for non-americans, consider that my bit of ignorance for the day :) )

... I'm so exausted after reading this thing, I can't think of what to say...

Personally I've tryed to become a US poster boy, not in the media sense, but in a constitional sense. I try to respect all religions, cultures, nations ETC.

But this does not mean that I have to like your people, as I don't expect you to like mine (heck I barely do)

For all of you that like to slander all americans as ignorant (the few), I try to learn about as many religions and nations as I can, so I don't make stupid trivial mistakes, and I decided to learn Japanese over spanish because I thought learning Spanish would be a waste (longer story behind that)

I know my people, I know that alot of us have our heads up you-know-where, but it suprised me how many people on this thread coming from other nations, reared a head uglier than ours when trying to talk about how rude americans are.

a far while back someone complained about rude american negros... being one of those "american negros" I was pretty shocked, in a funny way. I was going to say more on that, but like I said... I can't think of anything.

As for the different governments, I apologize. I recognize the US as the drunkin frat boy of world politics, we change what we want often, but always go after it whole heartedly.

and as for the patriotism, Even though I know all the wrong we cause, I have never sat out the pledge of allegiance. and the words, "indivisible, under god" they are a tradition for those without religion, they are swallowed as a statement that we will not falter in our ways and will never collapse into chaos.

YAY! I got to post! now go ahead and ignore me... I dare you! :mad: (watch out, i have the backing of the US government in my post)

2 things that have always REALLY pissed me of about the US.

1. I don't see how they have contributed to the world culturally or scientifically.

2. In a country that believes in equality and such. When was there ever a president that was not white/male/christian? You would think that by now at least a women? or maybe half-cast?

1) Maybe you forget the cultural medium you are using right now...

2) last I checked 'White' was not a race. English, German, Italian, Irash, Spanish are all races. Are you too much of a bigot to notice that? Then you would never notice the diversity of American presidents. You also would have to ignore the diversity of American Governors, Senators, Judges and Representatives.

Good reasons to dislike the USA

* The every-man-for-himself/survival-of-the-fittest mentality is prevalent both in the mass media and amongst people in general. This is the same as egoism.

All of the following are direct results of the above:

* Many live in [material] excess while others live in poverty. This is true on the national level as well as the international.
* Gun laws
* Prison system and the death penalty
* Consumerism (a high rate of consumption) and wastefulness
* Harsh capitalism - money control the media and the state, directly and indirectly.
* Patriotism - what's the point?
* Ignorance - "America won the war" (about WWII)
* Isolationism - "we don't need nobody" (except, perheps, iraq and its oil)
* Hypocrisy - especially amongst "Christians;" in America "thy neighbour" means the person living next door, at best.

and so forth.. I can't believe I'm spending time writing this..

Of course, many of these apply also to most other western countries (and no, I don't like them either, even though I live in one).

Other, less serious points:

* Hollywood movies (unlike American music American films always sucked; yeah, even Citizen Kane suck!)
* Fast food (puts most decent cheap restaurants out of business)
* Microsoft
* Intellectual property laws (see Harsh capitalism)
* That Bush character (but he's sorta funny you gotta admit)
* Michael Moore

As someone else said, I don't hate Americans but I dislike stupid people. And most people are stupid, regardless of where they live.

Good reasons to like the USA

* The Internet! You gave us the Internet! Hooray! :D
* Yeah, I'm sure there are other, less important inventions too.

Right Bozzy. But I think you are holding back there. Shouldn't there be a thread where Americans could voice out how much they hate EU(ropeans)? Cos afterall, we know how creepy bunch of pussies all the Euros are, no matter from which of the 25 country they come from. In this thread - let's boldly name it "To Americans" - one could treat the whole continent as it was one big France. In a thread like that one's intestinal fortitude would really shine through.

Well thought out and balanced post there Gorka. So much so it's hard to believe you're not an American spy in disguise (hehe). I agree in most parts. The relationship between the old and the new continent truly is like that of two retarded brothers. The younger brother somehow grew bigger and the older one is (in his retarded way) a bit afraid of his newfound power. Both of them are potential threats to their surroundings though.

last I checked 'White' was not a race.

When did you "check"? http://www.fact-index.com/r/ra/race__us_census_.html

White refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicated their race or races as "White" or wrote in entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.

listen, lets get real here.

Family and friends have nothing to do with global political power. Two things are key in having global power:

Economic Power
Military Might and Reach

Prove me wong?

Actually, only the weak-knee pussy wish-they-were-european Americans really care what the rest of the world thinks. They are like high-school kids who are so obsessed about being liked they forget their own principals and values.

Thankfully, most Americans have considerably more intestinal fortitude than their european counterparts and really don't care about much more than sticking to our principals. It is a trait probably handed down by our ancestors who had the good sense to leave that continent. (and also likely why we've been there to bail out europe on several occasions)

The shock and discust isn't over why some nations don't like us, it is just shock and disgust at those nations.


wow, stupid - un-informed - ignorant - selfish and caloused all in one statement, really have to hand it to you there bozo.

That's awesome, so white is an official race now. I'm going to have to use that against my friend who likes to go on a division speal.

"I'm 1/2 german, 1/4 irish, 1/4 ..." YOU'RE WHITE DANGIT!

I take it you've never been poor.

I have. I never will be again. Being poor meant being stepped on, and taken advantage of.

Friends are commodities, you're friends with them because you have a use for them and they for you. You've got close friends for different reasons. But its never for a huggy lovey-dovey feeling.

My friends and I are all successfull, all in our own ways. But I think almost all of us would take power and money over almost anything else.

Family is something completly different and has no place in this conversation.

QUOTE:

In US ther's too much different cultures, i hate the exessive christianism. i hate the hypocrise of the politicans and the fucking oppressive democratic system. I hate when americans say they saved italy from Mussolini, because they brought us Mafia, corruption and perversion. (Mussolini was better)
I hate when american governament say to be the protector of the peace in the world. I hate we must have US military bases in our nation, i hate US controls our economy.

GIVE US OUR FREEDOM

By an italian fascist



So, what your saying is, you hate the US because we aren't racial, because the majority of us are going to heaven, we are a democracy, because we kicked Mussolilini's butt, because we love peace, and because we rule the economy.

Well here's something I have to tell you you fascist.

SUCK IT UP!
The US will always be here, and get used to us having bases, because without us, Hitler would have whipped your butt and you guys would all be speaking German, and we will have that base in Italy until we say no. Gosh, you and the French are all the same, you have nothing to do but complain about the US because without us you guys WOULD SUCK, and your economy would plumit, making you third world countries. Just give it a rest and go and drink your fancy wine and wave your white flag (yes, surrender flag). Now can we get on with our lives, or would the Europeans like to again wine and moan.

And, by the way, all of you who hated the US, I can probably
bet you are either Asia, Middle Eastern, or from Europe.

Good reasons to dislike the USA

* The every-man-for-himself/survival-of-the-fittest mentality is prevalent both in the mass media and amongst people in general. This is the same as egoism.[/b]

I think a fundamental fact to tack onto this point (and it's a decent one) is that Americans themselves don't realize how often their own government protects them. A lot of times, in trade negotiations and what have you, Americans get their way, not because they're any better at business or trade, but because the American government flexes its muscle.


* Many live in [material] excess while others live in poverty. This is true on the national level as well as the international.

There is no problem with having, acquiring and wanting material wealth. Those who claim otherwise are either jealous of what others have, or are amish.


* Gun laws
* Prison system and the death penalty

If you're not American, these have absolutely nothing to do with you, so they should be not be reasons to dislike Americans. Their politics and their crime is their own business. You may disagree with it, but it's certainly not affecting you any.

* Patriotism - what's the point?

In my opinion, the "best" reason to dislike America is the blind patriotism of its populace. The "America Can Do No Wrong" attitude is aggravating. :P


* Ignorance - "America won the war" (about WWII)

This is a two sided thing. Non-Americans really get steamed when Americans start spouting off about "saving them in WWII". But... no one can deny American involvement in the conflict either. Tens of thousands of Americans are buried across Europe, fighting against Hitler's reign.

Thousands more are drowned beneath the waves of the Atlantic where their supply ships sank from German uboat attacks. To claim that America did not play a major role in WWII is to discredit the memory of those people who fell for Europe's freedom.

However, the US's claim that they single-handedly won the war is ignorant at best. Ignorant and narcissistic at worse.

i guess youve never had a friend then, what youve had were associations buddy - raised by the streets, not ashamed of having been laid off or standing in line to get food. yes ive been poor - and i dont use it for an excuse. what i was making reference to was the "where it really counts" BS I cant stand that all-consuming tendency towards greed that these capitalist values have bred into all of us (and americans are not unique in this by any means), the fact that i have seen people happy just to have family and friends when they have nothing else, and that i can say in all honesty that these people shared a happiness that most of the people corrupted by excess will never feel proves my point once and for all. Its not a personal attack, nor an attack on americans in general. However, i would be remiss not to mention that my southern neighbors seem to have been poisoned at this point more-so by this green death than in other nations i can mention. True happiness is being happy with nothing more than what matters, and thats where other countries have power "where it really counts", perhaps not in the eyes of other equally corrupted nations, but certainly in the eyes of those who have experienced it. ;)

Fair enough.

I've been told by enough people that I'm inhuman to wonder if maybe they're right. But I can't seem to understand your problems. The way I live my life has no effect on yours.

I'm just saying there's really no good reason to hate America. Its all jealousy. We've got what everyone else wants.

and on this ridiculous topic of war, perhaps it is worth mentioning that during the first world war the american politicians decided it was best to let other countires fight for the duration of the war, essentially beating down the threat, then only to sweep in and take the glory (not to mention spoils) of war at the outset. Its not written that way in your history books, so you might want to travel and get stories other that those the censural commitee known as the US government would like to have you read. The worst part is, that if not for the un-abashadley biased media power in the states, we would not likely be having this conversation right now. Education will set you free.

I don't see why people can't get on with life and quit being jealous.




And here's a little something for the French.

A French Poem
>
> Eleven thousand soldiers
> lay beneath the dirt and stone,
> all buried on a distant land
> so far away from home.
> For just a strip of dismal beach
> they paid a hero's price,
> to save a foreign nation
> they all made the sacrifice.
> And now the shores of Normandy
> are lined with blocks of white:
>Americans who didn't turn
> from someone else's plight.
> Eleven thousand reasons
> for the French to take our side,
> but in the moment of our need,
> they chose to run and hide.
> Chirac said every war means loss,
> perhaps for France that's true,
> for they've lost every battle
> since the days of Waterloo.
> Without a soldier worth a damn
> to be found within the region,
> the French became the only land
> to need a Foreign Legion.
> You French all say we're arrogant.
> Well hell, we've earned the right--
> We saved your sorry nation
> when you lacked the guts to fight.
> But now you've made a big mistake,
> and one that you'll regret;
> you took sides with our enemies,
> and that we won't forget.
> It wasn't just our citizens
> you spit on when you turned,
> but every one of yours
> who fell the day the towers burned.
> You spit upon our soldiers,
> on our pilots and Marines,
> and now you'll get a little sense
> of just what payback means.
> So keep your Paris fashions
> and your wine and your champagne,
> and find some other market
> that will buy your aeroplanes.
> And try to find somebody else
> to wear your French cologne,
> for you're about to find out
> what it means to stand alone.
> You see, you need us far more
> than we ever needed you.
>America has better friends
> who know how to be true.
> I'd rather stand with warriors
> who have the will and might,
> than huddle in the dark
> with those whose only flag is white.
> I'll take the Brits, the Aussies,
> the Israelis and the rest,
> for when it comes to valor
> we have seen that they're the best.
> We'll count on one another
> as we face a moment dire,
> while you sit on the sideline
> with a sign, "friendship for hire."
> We'll win this war without you
> and we'll total up the cost,
>and take it from your foreign aid,
>and then you'll feel the loss.
> And when your nation starts to fall,
> well Frenchie, you can spare us,
> just call the Germans for a hand,
> they know the way to Paris.






FRENCH INFANTRY PACK:
1)Wine
2)Cheese
3)White Flag

was there a good reason for America to get inovlved in war caused by a retarded and stupid series of political alliances?

We got inovlved when the war started to concern us, and the populace wanted the country to be involved. Until then we were content to let Europe deal with its mistakes, until ther mistakes started to effect us.

Princip-le-s
Dis-g-ust

Had a good sense to leave "that continent"? You retard, it was a mission of colonisation. MANY countries wanted to colonise the New World. Many colonies were created around where Canada and the US are today. However, some people did not agree with the British kingdom and so they rebelled, creating the United States of America. It's a highly simplified version, but it's correct.

And what the hell do you mean by Shock and Disgust at other nations? Can you back this up? I thought the topic was about why OTHER countries had Shock and Disgust toward the US.

Had THE good sense to leave the continent.
colonization
colonize
"Many colonies were created around where Canada and the US are today" Yes and today most are called states.
"it was a mission of colonisation." I don't think the pilgrims were on a mission from the king - nor were their colons. Most people do not subject themselves to substantial hardships to leave a perfectly good place. Until the mid 1800s crossing the Atlantic consisted of substantial risks. But hey, it was a mission for the King! Riiiight...

"Shock and Disgust at other nations? Can you back this up?"
Here is a sample if you're too lazy to do it yourself:
Shock and Disgust (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=boycott+france&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab=)

I leave you with your own quote:
"You retard"

Most US people are in a serious and dangerous situation, most too fat, unsound living including being a slave to societies demands with no way out before this trap we are living snaps. Could be this decade, if not, the next at last.

And so are eurolanders, other westernized elites. All powerbased orginasations, religions, etc have not been able to conquer our enemy the last 10 millennia as I understand, they have all drowned for having petty feelings, more, more, me, me, our old demon self importance, root of all evil.
same data same system.

Africans are stronger than we, there you need to , lived there for a while and noticed how weak we have become, underchallenged as we always more has become our motto and reality.

But then US is top in indulging, crime rates, ignorence and debt.

This means panic like ehhh....Titannic.

Most of you humans keep buying the all is well confortable story of neverending wealth, fresh water, forest, fish, oil and pensionplan.

You will never have time to adjust to our present hold up:

- time of plenty is gone, pay coming up:
- weather freaking, warming, droughts, waves, natural unrest, virusses, military spending and debt into Trillions, you name it.

Oregon might put your life in jail being opposed to the government dictatorship lead by elite families who formed two parties with the same goal, keep power where it is and crumbles to the peasants when shortage on stuff.

So now everywhere people are hassling over who is to pay for our fuckups, the superSUVlimo-elite over the elite who drive cars over the rest to the last who really get the crumbles living in our poisened, dehydrated, greedbarren wastelands we have created. The cityprisons where we work long hours to choose model make and colour of our vehicle and other items for consuming. That we call freedom.

So to me it is clear that most of humanity has no future at all, this ship is way too heavy to be steered away from doom the coming years so we best buckle up and keep being the suicidal maniacs we are until disaster strikes.

Did you really bought the freedom-democracy-capital selling story?
Our "winning" way we walk talk do is a pepfantasy based on unlimited surplus and leads to elite persons owning billions which is a criminal act towards your environment. What could be your excuse? You were hungry and thought that you needed to pile up for the future? Fear/greed wich is a form of self importance and leads to insanities.
Who do you think we are competing against? Check out the sheer number of millionares in Senate, congress and other dominant positions.

If they were true leaders they would show us ways to learn to do with less.
Some parts worldlywise no more children for a few generations.
Arrange watershed, local economy and responsability.

Since our internal talk is the same in all cultures and social strata, we have a common enemy and goal to work for, spiritual liberty.
It's almost too easy......

Soon and people will be shouting at our leaders, then maybe some shooting, then part will choose work together for liberty, others will keep being oppressed, enslaved until thier end.

But it has always been us, we as in I that were my enemy all along same song. Through pain death and suffering we will learn responsibility for ourselves and our worlds.

*snip*


And then you people wonder why Americans are hated universally.

Fair enough.

I've been told by enough people that I'm inhuman to wonder if maybe they're right. But I can't seem to understand your problems. The way I live my life has no effect on yours.

I'm just saying there's really no good reason to hate America. Its all jealousy. We've got what everyone else wants.


like i said before, its not america, nor americans that i hate, hate in itself is an ugly and easily despised word. what i hate are the values the the political leaders of said nation and other nations like it (even my own to a lesser but still very prevalent extent) try to instill within the people, and worse yet the methods used to do so. The political leaders of the states tend to act to much like schoolyard bullies - now that they have the power they are not afraid to show it, and most certainly they are not against using it. The people of the states are only guilty of the same attrocity as the germans under hitler (not to make a comparison of events mind you), you follow with blind faith and ignoble patriotism rather than ever question your leaders or the media that they so obviously control. And on the issue of greed, and what you mentioned of what you called "friends" - isnt that how the present (and past) administrations have treated the american public? as a means to their own greed and subsequently as access to more power and money?

Fair enough.
I'm just saying there's really no good reason to hate America. Its all jealousy. We've got what everyone else wants.

The more you think it's just jealousy, the more you give people reason to dislike America AND Americans.

It is not just jealousy. There is a lot of basis in other reasons as well. Although, I freely agree with you, that for most of the poorer nations, it is jealousy. But I suppose it's hard not to be jealous when our nations throw away more food than we can consume and their nations can't feed their populace with all the food they produce in a year.

I'm not justifying it, mind you. I'm just noting the reason. :P

When did you "check"? http://www.fact-index.com/r/ra/race__us_census_.html
Well, since you read it then it must be true.

Now for you to explain to everyone in the middle east that they are white...

Well, since you read it then it must be true.

Oh great and powerful Bozzy, what is the source more authoritative than the US Census department? Since we are talking about race in the US, that is.

Your butt?

because the majority of us are going to heaven, we are a democracy, because we love peace.
ROFLMAO Your quit the comedian. :D

good god man

do you blindly believe everything not reported by the mainstream media?

"The people of the states are only guilty of the same attrocity as the germans under hitler (not to make a comparison of events mind you), you follow with blind faith and ignoble patriotism rather than ever question your leaders or the media that they so obviously control."

Listen dude, the US government does not control the media. If you don't believe me read the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Christian Science Monitor and The National Review, then tell me the government controls the media.

Nutters like you seem to love thinking that all Americans are ignorant and lead about blindly by the nose, well we're not. Hate to disapoint you, we've got the same precentage of idiots as any other country, unfortunately as our population is larger so is the relative percentage of idiots.

And in this country anyone can say just about anything they want. Thats why you hear the idiots. Thats why we have Ann Coulter's and Micheal Moore's, Randi Rhodes and Rush Limbaugh's because in American anyone can say anything. None of these people deserve the air they breathe, but people listen to them and some even respect/believe them.

The media in America is open and liberal. You just need to know where to look. Shit ain't easy and America doesn't spoonfeed the masses. The biggest news channels and papers have their own agendas.

If you don't like it read something else.


And if ANYONE owns the media in America its Rupert Murdoch.

If you think Americans don't question their leaders you may well be the biggest dumbass I have ever come across. Thats just completely out there and completely wrong.

good god man

do you blindly believe everything not reported by the mainstream media?

"The people of the states are only guilty of the same attrocity as the germans under hitler (not to make a comparison of events mind you), you follow with blind faith and ignoble patriotism rather than ever question your leaders or the media that they so obviously control."

Listen dude, the US government does not control the media. If you don't believe me read the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Christian Science Monitor and The National Review, then tell me the government controls the media.

Nutters like you seem to love thinking that all Americans are ignorant and lead about blindly by the nose, well we're not. Hate to disapoint you, we've got the same precentage of idiots as any other country, unfortunately as our population is larger so is the relative percentage of idiots.

And in this country anyone can say just about anything they want. Thats why you hear the idiots. Thats why we have Ann Coulter's and Micheal Moore's, Randi Rhodes and Rush Limbaugh's because in American anyone can say anything. None of these people deserve the air they breathe, but people listen to them and some even respect/believe them.

The media in America is open and liberal. You just need to know where to look. Shit ain't easy and America doesn't spoonfeed the masses. The biggest news channels and papers have their own agendas.

If you don't like it read something else.


And if ANYONE owns the media in America its Rupert Murdoch.
Have you ever heard of a little thing called Censorship?

It allows the government to control the media to avoid producing anything scandalous. Of course, it's easily corrupted.

Free speech exists, but it's limited; not in that you can't say anything, but that you can't say anything in certain situations.

Oh great and powerful Bozzy, what is the source more authoritative than the US Census department? Since we are talking about race in the US, that is.

Your butt?

I'm not great and powerful, I'm just smarter than you. I only wish that were something worth braging about, but it is not.

If you think that the US census is the final authority on race, then I suspect you will fail miserably to ever understand the difference between an Irishman an Arab and a Jew. (...walk into a bar... oh, wait, I was distracted) and until you can that pretty much ends this discussion and any appearance of you being rational.

Re: My butt - it's the only part of me you may have a chance at keeping up with (even though I did have chili for dinner)

A Photo of Bozzy rebooting Upright Monkeys Brain (http://www.top20fun.com/funny_jokes/960.html)

question and continue
question and continue

floridian elections

halliburton oil

dick cheney

colin powell

GWB

the list continues

and as ive said is not unique in any way to americans or americanism

"nutters" like me do not believe that the media is all powerful, nor that all americans are incompentent and blind - we "nutters" do however believe in questioning the facts that are presented to us, perhaps there would have been a bigger uprising against the foreign invasions after the empire strikes first - had in this instance more americans the conviction to stand behind their morals and not the hatred that the media tried (and was sucessful) in promoting. no they were not entirly successful, not with all americans. Not all germans believed in hitler either, it just happens that most followed anyway, at least until they woke up from that bad dream.

Canadians are guilty too, there were a lot of lunatic canucks up here who momentarily believed the BS that was being served up hot courtesy of the american news networks (all of whom by the way were on the same page as far as condemnation) In canada our media news mogul is Conrad Black, we have one too. As far as your insultations remarks towrds those opinionated few who stood against the bush admin. , good for them as biased as they admittedly are or were, they stood up for what they believed in, and in some cases exposed awful truths that although taken out of context, still poke at some alarming issues surrounding this present state of affairs. the fact that this has been going on since the industrial revouloution stands as testament to that fact. So once again, the americans are in no way unique to this end, just a shining example of how badly things go when it happens at that scale.

so dont get so hot headed and lose your cool bud, im not condemning you or your country. We do, i can tell have different values, and i would suspect different opinions about the benefits of war, but opions are best left at that, opinions.

Bozzy - You still haven't posted your master list of races yet! I'm looking forward to it. I see a lot of ducking and weaving, but no answering, and no acknowledgement that a significant US bureacracy considers 'white' a race. Farting of the mouth, as it were.

Wait - are you actually claiming that arabs and jews are genetically different, and that's the key to understanding them? Or did you make up a new definition for races when you made up your races? Of course, you're no Linneaus.... http://scienceweek.com/2004/sa040806-4.htm

(Edit - added boggle at stupidity)

* Patriotism - what's the point?


there nothing wrong with Patriotism(loving ones nation, willing to died for it, thinking it's the best etc.). But the US is more nationalist (ones nation, willing to died for it, thinking it's the best in every single way (more or less) and bugging people form other nations about how it better). it's also know as a major cause of ww1.

There is no problem with having, acquiring and wanting material wealth.

If you have, acquire or want material wealth at the expense of others, especially at the expense of the lives of others, then I do have a big fat problem with that, yes.

Those who claim otherwise are either jealous of what others have, or are amish.

I'm not amish, but in some areas I do have similar ideas.

If you're not American, these have absolutely nothing to do with you, so they should be not be reasons to dislike Americans. Their politics and their crime is their own business. You may disagree with it, but it's certainly not affecting you any.

I'm not american. But you see I happen to care for people, even if they happen to be american. I'm not against the death penalty 'cause I'm afraid of getting caught myself you know ;) Thus this issue has got everything to do with me.

This is a two sided thing. Non-Americans really get steamed when Americans start spouting off about "saving them in WWII". But... no one can deny American involvement in the conflict either. Tens of thousands of Americans are buried across Europe, fighting against Hitler's reign. Thousands more are drowned beneath the waves of the Atlantic where their supply ships sank from German uboat attacks. To claim that America did not play a major role in WWII is to discredit the memory of those people who fell for Europe's freedom.

This is a complex issue indeed. If I were a sane person I might agree with you. I am however an anarcho-pacifistic lunatic who'd label every soldier a murderer (courageous, honest and well-intending as they may be; though most of them are just desperately afraid I'm sure). Now, as much as I respect the american WWII soldiers as human beings, I don't respect their actions of killing germans in order to save me (even though, obviously, the US didn't enter the war to save Europeans). Let's just say I don't believe in the lesser evil (why? because it still is evil). I have loads of philosophical/spiritual arguments supporting my inept position, but nobody would listen so...

You still haven't posted your master list of races yet! I'm looking forward to it. I see a lot of ducking and weaving, but no answering, and no acknowledgement that a significant US bureacracy considers 'white' a race. Farting of the mouth, as it were.
Race and Ethnic Classes Used in Census 2000 and Beyond (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/racefactcb.html)

Though I am inclined not to, I am finding your ignorance fun, and trampling you entertaining.

"...four racial categories were established: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, and White."

Category is not the same as race or ethnicity.

Now, go back to the kids table and eat your supper.

BTW - Farting of the face - that was funny, I liked it.

Wait - are you actually claiming that arabs and jews are genetically different, and that's the key to understanding them? Or did you make up a new definition for races when you made up your races? Of course, you're no Linneaus.... http://scienceweek.com/2004/sa040806-4.htm

(Edit - added boggle at stupidity)

Races are not genitically dissimilar enough to be noteworthy, unless you are a Nazi or some eugenics fiend you cannot dispute that.

censorship is not government control of the media. believe me, the only thing truly being censored currently is sexuality.

Every liberal and conservative manner of slander is still out there.

I promise.


LM:

I think we're just gonna keep butting heads on this. I'm right, you're left. Thats that, I'm gonna agree to disagree with you.

Races are not genitically dissimilar enough to be noteworthy, unless you are a Nazi or some eugenics fiend you cannot dispute that.

It depends what you mean my "noteworthy" - I've noted that people with European ancestry seem to be kinda paler than those with more recent African ancestry. Is that eugenics to notice that? It's not an important distinction, reall, but it is genetic.

Of course, there's more genetic diversity in one tribe of bonobos than the whole human race. Race is a meaningless construct, except as it relates to culture, which is an entirely different thing.

It's because it means so little that there are so many different ways of slicing the pie - from the low-level (Scots and English as different races?) to the high level (three or four races). You're slicing the distinction between 'races' and 'racial classes' mighty fine - less work than admitting you were wrong, I'm sure.

censorship is not government control of the media. believe me, the only thing truly being censored currently is sexuality.

Every liberal and conservative manner of slander is still out there.

I promise.


LM:

I think we're just gonna keep butting heads on this. I'm right, you're left. Thats that, I'm gonna agree to disagree with you.
Eh, have you ever seen the Daily Show with John Stewart?

A LOT of political items are about how everyone "mysteriously" says the same thing in the media.

"He's well off the mainstream."
"We're turning around the corner."

That's just a couple, I can't remember any more.

Yes, I watch the daily show. Yes I find it amusing.

Actually the news media very often says different things. However, to attempt to get a balanced news brief from network news is not a great idea.

Read the AP, the Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times, The Gaurdian, Der Spiegel, Monday Morning News, The National Review, The Atlantic, The Boston Globe or perhaps even the Wall Street Journal.

Stop limiting yourself to the TV NEWS. People that get all their news from television are idiots.

I promise if you read a couple of those you'll see some very very different opinions.

Consider reading a paper instead of watching the news.

You might learn something.

Well, ya forget, I'm Canadian. The only sources I HAVE are the occasional Globe and Mail international articles and Network Television.

Otherwise, I'm fresh out of luck.

Still, my point is, Media censorship IS around, just only in some places. That's what I said earlier.

no, i believe your point was that the US media was being controlled by the government via censorship.

Good day.

no, i believe your point was that the US media was being controlled by the government via censorship.

Good day.

That was, but one of the points I also made was free speech only exists in certain places.

I'm an American, and I love America. I also love Canada and its people (especially one of them :fluffle: ). To use the all-too-true paradox to describe most every viewpoint expressed here (though I've not read them all since I have not the time, nor the energy, nor the will to debate it):
All generalizations are false.

there nothing wrong with Patriotism(loving ones nation, willing to died for it, thinking it's the best etc.). But the US is more nationalist (ones nation, willing to died for it, thinking it's the best in every single way (more or less) and bugging people form other nations about how it better). it's also know as a major cause of ww1.


I would like to see some examples cited to back up the notion that the US is more nationalistic. I think we are more unified than usual and that makes it seem nationalistic.

You ever get the feeling most of Europe has little man syndrome? You wanna know why non-Americans hate America? It's easy really....power. We are the only nation in the world that truely as the ability to act unilaterally, and most everybody else is either afraid of that or jealous of that. You want to call us prideful? Your right, we are, we live in the greatest nation on this earth. Why shouldn't we take pride in that?

You ever get the feeling most of Europe has little man syndrome? You wanna know why non-Americans hate America? It's easy really....power. We are the only nation in the world that truely as the ability to act unilaterally, and most everybody else is either afraid of that or jealous of that. You want to call us prideful? Your right, we are, we live in the greatest nation on this earth. Why shouldn't we take pride in that?

I might agree that France is like that....

Militarily they have been successful twice. Once when led by a woman and once when led by a Sardinian, both were short in stature. Never have they been successful militarily being led by a French ruler.

You want to call us prideful?
The word you are looking for is arrogant.

"Hating America"....that is such a vague phrase...as a non-american, i'd just like to say this:
Sure, you can loath the American government as much as you want, but think about the american people too. They didnt even vote for this president! Many of them don't even agree on his policies right now. Americans are just like you and I, they're humans, they make mistakes. It is just ignorant to think that all americans behave like Bush and his clan of hawks. So before you say that you hate Americans, stop and think about what you really mean. Do you hate its foreign policies? Its unsatiable appetite for junk food? Find out what it is that you actually hate...then we can find out the reason why.

The word you are looking for is arrogant.

Well, they CAN be synominous, but I don't think that is the case here. But I am on this side of the pond.

Well, they CAN be synominous, but I don't think that is the case here. But I am on this side of the pond.
In the case of Americans they do often overlap one another.

The word you are looking for is arrogant.

Hehe, I believe the word you are looking for is envious.

Hehe, I believe the word you are looking for is envious.
Just keep telling that to yourself.

Just keep telling that to yourself.

Hehe, some things are self evident... ;)

Hehe, some things are self evident... ;)
Uhuh... :rolleyes: Some things realy are.

What? Why is everyone talking about how the rest of the world is jealous? What are we jealous of? Sure, you may have plenty of weapons, but you also have poor culture, ignorance, the death penalty, gun nuts, multiple places that have Canada's current death total in a day... Are we jealous of THAT? What, have we stooped so low to want to be like that? I agree, it's not everyone, but hey, we're DEFINITELY not jealous.

"Hating America"....that is such a vague phrase...as a non-american, i'd just like to say this:
Sure, you can loath the American government as much as you want, but think about the american people too. They didnt even vote for this president! Many of them don't even agree on his policies right now. Americans are just like you and I, they're humans, they make mistakes. It is just ignorant to think that all americans behave like Bush and his clan of hawks. So before you say that you hate Americans, stop and think about what you really mean. Do you hate its foreign policies? Its unsatiable appetite for junk food? Find out what it is that you actually hate...then we can find out the reason why.
Some of us hate Bush, but some of us actually hate real things about America.

Some of us hate Bush, but some of us actually hate real things about America.
Word.

I hate the states because it is a pillar of capitalism and the american people belive that the states is the best most powerful country in the world
However I do like the people and enjoy there company

Wait... you mean we're NOT the best? Damn. There goes my whole world view... Then why do you buy my Nikes, man? :) Seriously, I mean, we have Disneyland, Republicans, and Texans. And fundamentalists (don't forget those loonies!). What could be funnier than that? Bottom line, this is the most exciting place in the WORLD to live in. I'm just waiting until my fellow liberals give up on gun regulations and just start arming themselves. That's when the REAL fun will start!

"Pillar of capitalism"... By which I assume you mean corporatism, in which you would be correct. I don't think we can really lay claim to capitalism any longer. It's sort of a "mercantilist when it suits us" sort of economy. Besides, what are you, a Communist? <GASP> You're not... FRENCH, are you?

What? Why is everyone talking about how the rest of the world is jealous? What are we jealous of? Sure, you may have plenty of weapons, but you also have poor culture, ignorance, the death penalty, gun nuts, multiple places that have Canada's current death total in a day... Are we jealous of THAT? What, have we stooped so low to want to be like that? I agree, it's not everyone, but hey, we're DEFINITELY not jealous.


Hmmm...thats too bad. Yes, we have our share of problems, but we have some really wonderfuly things here too. People risk their lives to get here every day, so it is far from being such a terrible place.

Death penalty? State issue.

Gun ownership? Constitutional right.

No need to be jealous. Every country has its good and bad points. I have travelled and lived in 31 so far so i have seen vast differences in many.

I'm going to skip straight ahead and ignore everything but the last post I read which really annoyed me in a way that nothing else can, you start bitching about how your country sacrificed more people in a war than someone else. What a stupid thing to try and beat someone at, what a retarded thing to even think to throw back in someones face.
Firstly, America has never been invaded, never truly lived in a state of war where the entire nation was under constant fear of death falling from the skies - the limited experiences of Cold War scenarios hardly qualifies as the standard of living was never affected negatively - so to then move on and say how selfless you've been for sending troops to get involved in a war that, according to you, had nothing to do with America is just inspired! You need to learn a little European history, sorry if that involves taxing your capabilities but come on you're a smart individual afterall you're part of the elite in a nation of elites.

World War One
Russia : 1,700,000
France : 1,357,800
British Empire : 908,371
Italy : 650,000
United States : 126,000 - Doesn't quite compare does it?
Japan : 300
Romania : 335,706
Serbia : 45,000
Belgium : 13,716
Greece : 5,000
Portugal : 7,222
Montenegro : 50,000
Germany : 1,773,700
Austria-Hungary : 1,200,000
Turkey : 325,000
Bulgaria : 87,500

World War Two
Total Deaths : 61 Million
Soviet Union : 25,568,000
China : 11,324,000
Germany : 7,060,000
Poland : 6,850,000
Japan : 1,806,000
Yugoslavia : 1,700,000
Rumania : 985,000
France : 810,000
Hungary : 750,000
Austria : 525,000
Greece : 520,000
Italy : 410,000
Czechoslovakia : 400,000
Great Britain : 388,000
USA : 295,000 - So come on you rampant idiot, tell me how big your sacrifice was! You really want to compare suffering? Is that how you judge your world? I hope this satifies you Justinopian Kingdom, I hope you can read this and feel all better for knowing this. By the way though the Italians wouldn't of ended up speaking German, they were allies you fool. Classic retarded statements of "You'd be speaking <insert language> if it wasn't for us" only cause resentment from the people they're being aimed at and such resentment leads to severe cases of these people being miffed.
Holland : 250,000
Belgium : 85,000
Finland : 79,000
Canada : 42,000
India : 36,000
Australia : 29,000
Spain : 22,000
Bulgaria : 21,000
New Zealand : 12,000
South Africa : 9,000
Norway : 5,000
Denmark : 4,000

[/rant]

Biff, killing people who are guilty of nothing, I'm hoping, concerns you. That you think killing people actually works and is a useful solution is concerning to say on its own. Perhaps tackling causes of crime would be a sensible idea, then again I'm a bleeding heart European who lacks intestinal fortitude to ever bite the bullet and do something courageous, course that might involve halting the killings or to put it in a nicer way, executions. I should think that killing anyone was a terrible thing, especially for those of you who're of the religious persuasion though I must admit 'eye for an eye' and 'thow shall not kill' are a little.... puzzling. Also Bush involved the federal government in several state execution cases, the courts were going to go with alternative sentences but the Federal government used its right to intervene and forced death sentences.

Bozzy, your comments only cause you to be even less respected. Perhaps you and other demented 'tards can push off somewhere else, play your little game of forming an opinion then feel better about your intestinal fortitude. In the mean time the rest of us can do this thing called debating, its where we put forward an opinion in something close to a reasonable manner and then respond to the views of another person. Not rant in an unintelligble manner about valid topics in a sadly flawed manner.

I leave you all with something to consider:

"Facts are mere accessories to the truth, and we do not invite to our hearth the guest who can only remind us that on such a day we suffered calamity. Still less welcome is he who would make a Roman holiday of our misfortunes. Exaggeration of what was monstrous is quickly recognised as a sign of egotism, and that contrarious symptom of the same disease which pretends that what is accepted as monstrous was really little more than normal is equally unwelcome."

Biff, killing people who are guilty of nothing, I'm hoping, concerns you. That you think killing people actually works and is a useful solution is concerning to say on its own. Perhaps tackling causes of crime would be a sensible idea, then again I'm a bleeding heart European who lacks intestinal fortitude to ever bite the bullet and do something courageous, course that might involve halting the killings or to put it in a nicer way, executions. I should think that killing anyone was a terrible thing, especially for those of you who're of the religious persuasion though I must admit 'eye for an eye' and 'thow shall not kill' are a little.... puzzling. Also Bush involved the federal government in several state execution cases, the courts were going to go with alternative sentences but the Federal government used its right to intervene and forced death sentences.

The death penalty is a state issue...except in matters of federal offenses. I would like to see WHERE Bush intervened if you can show me a link. State governments jump up and down if the federals try to muscle in on their turf, so I would like to see where this happened.

As for detering crime? Who knows? I don't. I did not embark on a life of crime so I am not worried too much about it. However...some individuals who do deserve the death penalty are these guys. they have no regard for human life, thus theirs should be forfeit.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654478/

USA : 295,000 - So come on you rampant idiot, tell me how big your sacrifice was! You really want to compare suffering? Is that how you judge your world? I hope this satifies you Justinopian Kingdom, I hope you can read this and feel all better for knowing this. By the way though the Italians wouldn't of ended up speaking German, they were allies you fool. Classic retarded statements of "You'd be speaking <insert language> if it wasn't for us" only cause resentment from the people they're being aimed at and such resentment leads to severe cases of these people

Those were 300,000 Americans dead defending their homes...oh wait, it wasn't their homes they were defending.

You cant hate the people for what the government does.
I dont agree with israel but i cannot stop it, so you cant hate me for what my government does.
furthermore i have no issue with europeans whatsoever, in fact i believe they have one of the most liberal societies ever.
I understand why certain europeans hate america so much, were an evil capitalist nation. I understand, but the truth is your country will soon enough be the same.
so maybe alot of europeans hate america because were the face of things to come? ( arrogance )
But its not like europeans arent arrogant, when they keep calling us arrogant.
atleast were brave enough to admit we can be arrogant.
In the end were all the same.

World War One
Russia : 1,700,000
France : 1,357,800
British Empire : 908,371
Italy : 650,000
United States : 126,000 - Doesn't quite compare does it?
Japan : 300
Romania : 335,706
Serbia : 45,000
Belgium : 13,716
Greece : 5,000
Portugal : 7,222
Montenegro : 50,000
Germany : 1,773,700
Austria-Hungary : 1,200,000
Turkey : 325,000
Bulgaria : 87,500

World War Two
Total Deaths : 61 Million
Soviet Union : 25,568,000
China : 11,324,000
Germany : 7,060,000
Poland : 6,850,000
Japan : 1,806,000
Yugoslavia : 1,700,000
Rumania : 985,000
France : 810,000
Hungary : 750,000
Austria : 525,000
Greece : 520,000
Italy : 410,000
Czechoslovakia : 400,000
Great Britain : 388,000
USA : 295,000 - So come on you rampant idiot, tell me how big your sacrifice was! You really want to compare suffering? Is that how you judge your world? I hope this satifies you Justinopian Kingdom, I hope you can read this and feel all better for knowing this. By the way though the Italians wouldn't of ended up speaking German, they were allies you fool. Classic retarded statements of "You'd be speaking <insert language> if it wasn't for us" only cause resentment from the people they're being aimed at and such resentment leads to severe cases of these people being miffed.
Holland : 250,000
Belgium : 85,000
Finland : 79,000
Canada : 42,000
India : 36,000
Australia : 29,000
Spain : 22,000
Bulgaria : 21,000
New Zealand : 12,000
South Africa : 9,000
Norway : 5,000
Denmark : 4,000



Wait, your comparing impact on a war using death tolls, I really hate when people do that. How many deaths somebody has suffered in war does NOT indicate how much that nation contributed to the war, by this reasoning Greece was the more important combatant in the Second World War. This is a ludicrous argument, no matter how many partisan operations may have been in Greece, they don't compare to the contribution of New Zealand forces, Canadian forces, or American forces (and especially equipment). China would also be more integral to victory than almost every other nation, but all China did was sit back during most of the war, until the Japanese forced them to show their hand during the Ichi-Go offensive.

Wait, your comparing impact on a war using death tolls, I really hate when people do that. How many deaths somebody has suffered in war does NOT indicate how much that nation contributed to the war, by this reasoning Greece was the more important combatant in the Second World War. This is a ludicrous argument, no matter how many partisan operations may have been in Greece, they don't compare to the contribution of New Zealand forces, Canadian forces, or American forces (and especially equipment). China would also be more integral to victory than almost every other nation, but all China did was sit back during most of the war, until the Japanese forced them to show their hand during the Ichi-Go offensive.

wow thats a great p[oint ,death tolls dont dictate constribution, they just dictate DEATH.

I might agree that France is like that....

Militarily they have been successful twice. Once when led by a woman and once when led by a Sardinian, both were short in stature. Never have they been successful militarily being led by a French ruler.

How does being a women suddenly make her less then a great military leader? Do men hold some kind of monopoly on this?

And Napoleon was educated in French military schools, he learned how to make war in France, and his brilliant Marshals were all French, as were his soldiers. And he was Corsican not Sardinian.

As for other French victories, they became the dominant European power under Lious XIV and a force to be reckoned with under Richelieu. The French also led themselves to victory under the Supreme Allied Commander of the Western Front (Marshal Foch). They also gave a thrashing to the Austrians during their war helping out the Sardinians.

Treaties Tariffs and War are proposed by the Executive Branch, but 2/3 of Congress must approve, then the Judicial Branch must declare it legal.

How does being a women suddenly make her less then a great military leader? Do men hold some kind of monopoly on this?

And Napoleon was educated in French military schools, he learned how to make war in France, and his brilliant Marshals were all French, as were his soldiers. And he was Corsican not Sardinian.

As for other French victories, they became the dominant European power under Lious XIV and a force to be reckoned with under Richelieu. The French also led themselves to victory under the Supreme Allied Commander of the Western Front (Marshal Foch). They also gave a thrashing to the Austrians during their war helping out the Sardinians.

Nothing made Joan of Arc less a military leader....except being burned by her own people.

You are correct, Napoleon was a Corsican, why I missed that one is a mystery to me. My father would give me a thrashing if he knew I did.

French successes OUTSIDE their own borders would have been more correct.

Treaties Tariffs and War are proposed by the Executive Branch, but 2/3 of Congress must approve, then the Judicial Branch must declare it legal.

Thats true....the president can propose them, but he lacks the power to unilaterally enact them.

So, what your saying is, you hate the US because we aren't racial, because the majority of us are going to heaven, we are a democracy, because we kicked Mussolilini's butt, because we love peace, and because we rule the economy.

Mussolini (not lilininy) kicked his own butt. The Royal Navy (Not US Navy) destroyed the Regia Marina, and held Malta against all odds. They also thrashed the Italian Army in North Africa. And who landed on Sicily and Italy with the Americans, the British, Commonwealth, and Free Forces. By August '44 the majority of American troops had been pulled away for Dragoon.


SUCK IT UP!
The US will always be here, and get used to us having bases, because without us,

As long as the base is useful anyway.

Hitler would have whipped your butt

....Italy was on the Axis side until '43, at which point it split between the Italy under the King, and the Italian Socialist Republic (which stayed Axis). Hitler never itnended to "whip their butt".

and you guys would all be speaking German

We don't speak Chinese, and we were on their side in WW2.

and we will have that base in Italy until we say no. Gosh, you and the French are all the same, you have nothing to do but complain about the US because without us you guys WOULD SUCK, and your economy would plumit, making you third world countries.

Have you ever thought about what would happen to the US if trade stopped?

Just give it a rest and go and drink your fancy wine and wave your white flag (yes, surrender flag).

Tell that to anyone in the British Eigth Army who had to fight the Ariete Division. Or the soldiers of the Italian Army in World War I, horribly inept leadership combined with equally horrid terrain, but they still kept fighting.

Now can we get on with our lives, or would the Europeans like to again wine and moan.

And, by the way, all of you who hated the US, I can probably
bet you are either Asia, Middle Eastern, or from Europe.

Do you think Africa and South America (or the rest of North for that matter) love us?

Nothing made Joan of Arc less a military leader....except being burned by her own people.

You are correct, Napoleon was a Corsican, why I missed that one is a mystery to me. My father would give me a thrashing if he knew I did.

French successes OUTSIDE their own borders would have been more correct.

The war against Austria was inside Italy. Almost all of Napoleons victories after 1802, and before 1814, were outside his own borders. Their entire French Empire was won outside French borders. In 1918, technically Alsace-Lorraine was part of the German Reich, unless your going to side with the French that it was French, and they won several victories against the Germans here.

The French at Bar el Hakheim also won many laurels for their stout (though they lost) defense. Or the French at Monte Cassino, and Leclerc's Armoured Division.

and how does their being short change anything? american presidents range from 5.4 to 6.4, and that certainly hasn't changed their success at governing the country. height isn't a measure of intelligence, ingenuity, creativeness, military skill or common sense. if the american people are electing their leaders baed on height, they should seriously rethink their decisions.

I Dont hate america, i',m only back from seattle. the americains are brillient people with good culture(bassball,basketball).


BUT

I do hate the following which is not america but the nasty part of it that we see

captlism
stupid right wing war monger of goverment
cia
WTO and all other organisation controled by the americain to protect interest of the fat cats
there goverment power ova the world
there illegal invasion of iraq
there funding of latin facist

i should sstop now

so

like america

hate usa goverment

I actually quite like America, Americans and the current America administration (I'm British btw).

Sure there are some things that annoy me, the revisionist history that is constantly streaming out of Hollywood for example, and the American funding of the IRA during the 1970s, 80s and 90s, but otherwise I reckon America is pretty good overall.

So Bush was in the ANG during Vietnam. So what? His Dad got him the posting. Again, so what? Just because he wasn't on the line in 'Nam doesn't mean he wasn't defending his country. The United States still needed to defend itself against the perceived threat of the USSR. He still served his term of service, and full-time for the first two years, even though technically he was only a part-time airman.

Also, what the hell is so wrong with capitalism? If it weren't for capitalism, all the people on here who whinge about it wouldn't be able to because guess what, the internet, the home computer, almost everything that you guys take for granted in the world today is available to us as a result of capitalism.

If we were to live under a communist system, or any other system of utopian anti-capitalist government where the state takes care of our needs, I guarantee you that you would not have these things that you take for granted such as a home PC, the internet, TV or anything else like that. Since they are not necessary for your survival, you do not need them and therefore the state will not provide them. Also, under communism, private enterprise is illegal, so you would have no opportunity to get these things that you desire yourself if the state refused to provide them. Given the choice, I think I'll stick to capitalism.

People say Americans are ignorant and stupid. I only have to read some of the posts on these forums from people around the world to see that ignorance is not limited solely to the population of the USA. Quite a lot of people here in Britain are ignorant fools. The same goes for every other country in the world. Everywhere there are stupid people, and in the same light there are also incredibly intelligent people everywhere, including in the USA.

As for the US defending itself by invading countries that technically do not pose a threat to them, all I have to say is this. The countries do not pose a threat to the US, but the terrorists harboured by the regimes in those countries do, and as a result the US is quite justified in removing that threat to the security of their people.

A lot of people I speak to about this who state the usual anti-America rhetoric, reply when asked how they know this "its in Michael Moore's book" or "Michael Moore says so". I have just one question. What makes that fat, hippocritical, moronic, stupid man the authority on US politics/history/capitalism? Someone please tell me. Does he have insider access to the White House? Does he listen in on the conversations of the Bush family and other US Government officials?

I think a lot of the hatred of the United States boils down to simple jealousy. The United States is the richest, most powerful nation on earth, and will be for some considerable time to come. Other people see this, and get jealous. They go on and on about how evil the United States is, when deep down all they want is to be able to have the things that Americans can have (again the virtues of capitalism coming out here).

This is just my own opinions, that I've formed as both a visitor to the United States, and from studying American politics and history as part of my course at university.

and how does their being short change anything? american presidents range from 5.4 to 6.4, and that certainly hasn't changed their success at governing the country. height isn't a measure of intelligence, ingenuity, creativeness, military skill or common sense. if the american people are electing their leaders baed on height, they should seriously rethink their decisions.

LOL You TOTALLY missed the point of that post....

I Dont hate america, i',m only back from seattle. the americains are brillient people with good culture(bassball,basketball).


BUT

I do hate the following which is not america but the nasty part of it that we see

captlism
stupid right wing war monger of goverment
cia
WTO and all other organisation controled by the americain to protect interest of the fat cats
there goverment power ova the world
there illegal invasion of iraq
there funding of latin facist

i should sstop now

so

like america

hate usa goverment


Hmmmm....lets see. Unless you live in a communist country, you live in a capitalist country.

War mongur government? Well, we did not start the conflict...so this is inaccurate.

CIA? MI5, KGB, Mossad (sp) as well as every other countries similar service.

WTO? Yeah....like the US is the ONLY member.

Government power over the world? You are kidding right?

Illegal invasion of Iraq? How many resolutions calling for military action have to pass before something is actually done?

Funding of Latin Faschists? That may be the ONLY thing you listed that has some merit. ;)

As for the US defending itself by invading countries that technically do not pose a threat to them, all I have to say is this. The countries do not pose a threat to the US, but the terrorists harboured by the regimes in those countries do, and as a result the US is quite justified in removing that threat to the security of their people.

Reports says that Iraq had no connexion whatsoever with terrorist groups targetting the US. I'm sorry but i haven't heard any justification for this war who didn't fail to pass the "truth test" (you know, being actually true).

The thing about Americans is that they're so fake, self centered, and image oriented. One embodiment of America is Hollywood, and as stereotypical as it may seem, many Americans buy into that lie. Americans live in their own little world, and they see the rest of the world the way Hollywood presents it. Its true that the American people are overwhelmingly ignorant. Now, im not saying stupid , people all around the world are dumbasses, but the american people are ignorant to the way life is in the rest of the world.

Americans are sheltered. They've never known real war- (americans see war a a succession of military actions, not a way of life) Metaphorically speaking, they are much like little children. And its annoying when self-absorbed brats, even well-meaning ones, act like they know whats best for everyone.

What bugs me more than anything is Hypocracy. For all your 'free speech' jargon and noble sentiments, i have never met a more hypocrytical people, as a whole. You teach your children to love this country, which is the greatest nation under God, and you fiercly and patriotically scream at the top of your lungs that this is a nation "of the people, for the people, and by the people"- and yet when something happens that you don't like you refuse to take responsibility. What makes me incredibly mad is people saying stuff like "Bush... that &#^*, he's not my president". YES, he is! and YOU are responsible for him and what he does, because, as a whole, YOU elected him.

Look, i don't hate America or Americans. I have lived here for 8 years now, i love my friends and neighbors, and i have even felt, strange as it was, that i love this nation. But, as a whole, as an entity, the idea (and reality) of America (with a capital A) is just irritating and frustrating. Its not completely your fault, but all too often you come off as the rich kid in a ghetto slums school who never had anything but the best bottled wated and digital cable and who is now telling all the rest of us how to live our lives. You know on Mauri, when all the girls always shout "YOU DON'T KNOW ME! YOU DON'T KNOW ME!" it kinda true, when it comes to America and the real Rest of the World.

I disagree. Yes, a lot of resolutions were passed calling for military action in Iraq but this is not the point. George W Bush said that Iraq had WMD and biological weapons that had a direct threat to the US. THIS was a LIE. Now America have admitted the weapons may not be found but still George W Bush is set to win the next election. How so? But is it a big coincidence that Iraq is one of the most oil rich nations in the world and it is now under the control of the US (5% of the world's population) which uses 60% of the world's oil? I don't think so

I disagree. Yes, a lot of resolutions were passed calling for military action in Iraq but this is not the point. George W Bush said that Iraq had WMD and biological weapons that had a direct threat to the US. THIS was a LIE. Now America have admitted the weapons may not be found but still George W Bush is set to win the next election. How so? But is it a big coincidence that Iraq is one of the most oil rich nations in the world and it is now under the control of the US (5% of the world's population) which uses 60% of the world's oil? I don't think so

Not the point? They authorized the action Bush took! So by taking action that was authorized by the UN, who ALSO believed the WMD's were there, Bush was wrong how?

absolutely right, i re-read it, and now i just look even stupider.

Not the point? They authorized the action Bush took! So by taking action that was authorized by the UN, who ALSO believed the WMD's were there, Bush was wrong how?
Which resolution are you referring to???
Resolution 660 of 1991 authorized "all means" (that includes the use of force) to free Kuwait.
Whether resolution 1441 (2002) authorises it is a disputed question. IT DOESN`T INCLUDE THE WORDING "ALL MEANS" which is traditionally the only wording that authorizes the use of force.
Me, personally, don´t care so much about the UN. After all, Nato took action against Jugoslavia in 1999 without an UN mandate as well.
The real question is: Were there good arguments for going to war. In 1999 they were - a current campaign of ethnic cleansing and a limmitted strategy. In 2003 the argument in the international debate was the thread of Iraq due to its WMD. And that argument didn´t turn out to be that strong, though. And that has indeed damaged the credibilty of the US.
And that is not good. The world needs a strong US in my view. But when the US loses credibilty it is bad for it, is allies and the west as a whole.

Which resolution are you referring to???
Resolution 660 of 1991 authorized "all means" (that includes the use of force) to free Kuwait.
Whether resolution 1441 (2002) authorises it is a disputed question. IT DOESN`T INCLUDE THE WORDING "ALL MEANS" which is traditionally the only wording that authorizes the use of force.
Me, personally, don´t care so much about the UN. After all, Nato took action against Jugoslavia in 1999 without an UN mandate as well.
The real question is: Were there good arguments for going to war. In 1999 they were - a current campaign of ethnic cleansing and a limmitted strategy. In 2003 the argument in the international debate was the thread of Iraq due to its WMD. And that argument didn´t turn out to be that strong, though. And that has indeed damaged the credibilty of the US.
And that is not good. The world needs a strong US in my view. But when the US loses credibilty it is bad for it, is allies and the west as a whole.
The US is bad for the west. Period.

absolutely right, i re-read it, and now i just look even stupider.

Thats ok, I have a habit of making myself look stupid too....;) Many times on purpose to get a reaction that makes people think....

I think that most people see the US as an ignorant country because the ignorant people are in the spotlight. If more of the government officials and politicians were more tolerant and open minded, the US would gain a better reputation. Most people dislike the US because of it's public appearance and public actions in the past, not because of the average person.

And yeah, the US is powerful and rich. So? That doesn't mean it's great, and it doesn't mean it's shite either. Balance riches and power against a hated government that disregards the wishes of the people, and a horrible public image. What do you get? You get pretty much every other country. Some of it blows, some of it's great, some people hate you, some people don't. All you can do is own up to the mistakes you make, try not to do it again, and try to get george dubya the hell out of the White House.


biff; thanx, now i don't feel as stupid (not)

Which resolution are you referring to???
Resolution 660 of 1991 authorized "all means" (that includes the use of force) to free Kuwait.
Whether resolution 1441 (2002) authorises it is a disputed question. IT DOESN`T INCLUDE THE WORDING "ALL MEANS" which is traditionally the only wording that authorizes the use of force.
Me, personally, don´t care so much about the UN. After all, Nato took action against Jugoslavia in 1999 without an UN mandate as well.
The real question is: Were there good arguments for going to war. In 1999 they were - a current campaign of ethnic cleansing and a limmitted strategy. In 2003 the argument in the international debate was the thread of Iraq due to its WMD. And that argument didn´t turn out to be that strong, though. And that has indeed damaged the credibilty of the US.
And that is not good. The world needs a strong US in my view. But when the US loses credibilty it is bad for it, is allies and the west as a whole.

I would say that 1441 authorized action, but the argument can also be made that 12 years of cease fire violations also justified action. Either way, Saddam needed to go for a multitude of reasons. Now he is and worrying about why is a moot point.

Credibility? it won't be the first time the US has had that problem....and it won't be the last. The same is true of all countries at one time or other.

Thats ok, I have a habit of making myself look stupid too....;) Many times on purpose to get a reaction that makes people think....

You have succeeded many times
dunno if people have reacted though... ;)

The US is bad for the west. Period.
NO, NO, NO. Without the US the world would be a much more dangerous and evil place. The world needs the US and the US needs the world.

I think that most people see the US as an ignorant country because the ignorant people are in the spotlight. If more of the government officials and politicians were more tolerant and open minded, the US would gain a better reputation. Most people dislike the US because of it's public appearance and public actions in the past, not because of the average person.

And yeah, the US is powerful and rich. So? That doesn't mean it's great, and it doesn't mean it's shite either. Balance riches and power against a hated government that disregards the wishes of the people, and a horrible public image. What do you get? You get pretty much every other country. Some of it blows, some of it's great, some people hate you, some people don't. All you can do is own up to the mistakes you make, try not to do it again, and try to get george dubya the hell out of the White House.


biff; thanx, now i don't feel as stupid (not)


Well, if the democrats would choose a good guy to go against Bush, they might win....Kerry? That guy scares the hell out of me. He has no position other than his purple hearts...WTF? He is running on his service in Vietnam alone...what did he do in 19 years in the Senate? Nothing really....nothing at all. He would be a disaster for the US.

You have succeeded many times
dunno if people have reacted though... ;)

Oh, they react....they are quick to pounce around here. ;)

I would say that 1441 authorized action.
Under what legal interpretation. Most experts of international law say no. Not that I care: Law is law and politics is politics. However you can´t claim that. You have to make a case with argument


, but the argument can also be made that 12 years of cease fire violations also justified action..
So, India would be justified to invade Pakistan for seasfire violations? Well, you make a precendent here which might be used by others.
Or do you say: Well we are the greatest so we should have a "lex americana".


Either way, Saddam needed to go for a multitude of reasons. Now he is and worrying about why is a moot point...
What reasons? And as a matter of fact those were not presented in the international discussion.
However today the coalition indeed has to worry about the situation in Iraq. That is true. But for the history books it would be nice to know what considerations were decisive for the decision.


Credibility? it won't be the first time the US has had that problem....and it won't be the last. The same is true of all countries at one time or other.
I think you underestimate that. After all the claim was that Iraq had an arsenal full of WMD. This was pretty damaging. After all your congress found it necessary to install a commission on faulty intelligence on this issue.
And that is going future incidents and conflicts more difficult for the US since its claims will even more be questioned, even though they may be true at that time (for example in the case of Iran).

NO, NO, NO. Without the US the world would be a much more dangerous and evil place. The world needs the US and the US needs the world.

This is possibly the kind of answer that makes American look so fool to the rest of the world. It's possibly true that USA needs the world, as Spain or France need the EU (an strictly economical matter), but stop thinking that someone needs the USA to make the world better. There are a lot of rogue countries (and not so "rogue") that would be perfect democracies nowadays if USA hadn't put a foot on them after the WW II. Think in Chile whom people suffered a bruthal dictatorship, and a lot of South and Central American countries and so. A lot of those countries maybe needed US help, but never US control.

ONE MORE AND VERY IMPORTANT THING: in Spain we're still waiting for the USA help to defeat Franco's forces, as we're still waiting for the USA help during the afterwar. Remember that the war against the fascism started in 1936 in Granada (Andalucía)...the same manner that Argentina can't ever forgive USA their help to UK during the Malvinas (Falkland Islands) war.

NO, NO, NO. Without the US the world would be a much more dangerous and evil place. The world needs the US and the US needs the world.
Sometimes you make me wonder about your sanity Kyber. Then again you seem to be sane when you go after Schröder. Do you have multiple-personality disorder?

Sometimes you make me wonder about your sanity Kyber. Then again you seem to be sane when you go after Schröder. Do you have multiple-personality disorder?
No, not at all. I just don´t have the same opinion as you. I´m a bit astounished that you see people with another opinion as having a personality disorder. That rather makes me concerned about your sanity.

No, not at all. I just don´t have the same opinion as you. I´m a bit astounished that you see people with another opinion as having a personality disorder. That rather makes me concerned about your sanity.
I didn't sat they do. I was just asking.
Ich wunder mich nur wie man so pro-Amerikanisch sein kann. So wie du es gebracht hast.

ONE MORE AND VERY IMPORTANT THING: in Spain we're still waiting for the USA help to defeat Franco's forces, as we're still waiting for the USA help during the afterwar. Remember that the war against the fascism started in 1936 in Granada (Andalucía)...
Well, you did that yourself after all. And that is always better that someone liberates itself than being liberated (because being liberated means also to be occupied). I don´t say the US are angles. They are not. They also do mistakes. And I also can get annoyed by continued statements like "we are the best, we are the greatest, we are superior", " we are gods own country" e.g.
Those statements after all imply that all others are the opposite (like the worst, inferior, and devils country or so).
But none the less the US is a great country with after all good people. And the US did many good things for the world and is still doing so. So, the world needs the US.

.the same manner that Argentina can't ever forgive USA their help to UK during the Malvinas (Falkland Islands) war.
I disagree with you here. Argentina started a war of agression by occupying the Falklands against the will of the Falkland people. Britain had the right to defend itself against this agression of the military dictatorship of Argentina. By the way: after the defeat the dictatorship collapsed - and Argentina became a democracy.

Under what legal interpretation. Most experts of international law say no. Not that I care: Law is law and politics is politics. However you can´t claim that. You have to make a case with argument

Did 1441 NOT say that if Saddam failed to disarm, and the inspectors were always reporting equipment not being shown to them, then action could be taken?


So, India would be justified to invade Pakistan for seasfire violations? Well, you make a precendent here which might be used by others.
Or do you say: Well we are the greatest so we should have a "lex americana".

When two warring sides sign a cease fire agreement...but NOT a peace agreement, if one violates it, hostilities certainly can resume. North and South Korea only signed a cease fire, so technically they are still at war. The North Koreans have violated the agreement several times, but the south did not retaliate.

What reasons? And as a matter of fact those were not presented in the international discussion.
However today the coalition indeed has to worry about the situation in Iraq. That is true. But for the history books it would be nice to know what considerations were decisive for the decision.

I have no idea what they used to base the decision on, I merely point out that there were other options besides 1441.

I think you underestimate that. After all the claim was that Iraq had an arsenal full of WMD. This was pretty damaging. After all your congress found it necessary to install a commission on faulty intelligence on this issue.
And that is going future incidents and conflicts more difficult for the US since its claims will even more be questioned, even though they may be true at that time (for example in the case of Iran).

Iran is known by many nations to be trying to build nuclear weapons, this is not in dispute by anyone. Plus they have made it easy by telling the world thats what they intend to do.

I didn't sat they do. I was just asking.
Ich wunder mich nur wie man so pro-Amerikanisch sein kann. So wie du es gebracht hast.
Naja: die Welt braucht Amerika und Amerika braucht die Welt ist ja doch eine ziemlich ausgewogene Formulierung. Des weiteren halte ich die strategische Partnerschaft mit den USA für sehr wichtig. Derartige Nebensächlichkeiten wie Irak sollten hier doch keine Hindernisse darstellen.
Zumal es ja durchaus Argumente für die Intervention gab, z.B. durch eine Politik der Stärke Diktatoren der Region abzuhalten weiter nach Massenvernichtungswaffen zu streben (siehe Lybien, fraglich im Falle Irans), Länder von Terrorismus abzuschrecken (Syrien, Libanon), die Abhängigkeit von Saudi-Arabien zu reduzieren (bis lang noch nicht erreicht) und durch eine Politik der Stärke auch Druck auf die Palestinenser auszuüben, insbesondere die Unterstützung für deren Terror zu entziehen und somit die Wahrscheinlichkeit einer Einigung zu erhöhen (durch eine Politik der Stärke vergleichbar Reagans gegenüber der UdSSR).

Naja: die Welt braucht Amerika und Amerika braucht die Welt ist ja doch eine ziemlich ausgewogene Formulierung. Des weiteren halte ich die strategische Partnerschaft mit den USA für sehr wichtig. Derartige Nebensächlichkeiten wie Irak sollten hier doch keine Hindernisse darstellen.
Zumal es ja durchaus Argumente für die Intervention gab, z.B. durch eine Politik der Stärke Diktatoren der Region abzuhalten weiter nach Massenvernichtungswaffen zu streben (siehe Lybien, fraglich im Falle Irans), Länder von Terrorismus abzuschrecken (Syrien, Libanon), die Abhängigkeit von Saudi-Arabien zu reduzieren (bis lang noch nicht erreicht) und durch eine Politik der Stärke auch Druck auf die Palestinenser auszuüben, insbesondere die Unterstützung für deren Terror zu entziehen und somit die Wahrscheinlichkeit einer Einigung zu erhöhen (durch eine Politik der Stärke vergleichbar Reagans gegenüber der UdSSR).

Libya was already on it's way to what it did long before Iraq, the US cannot connect Libya's actions to the war in Iraq. It was simply the good thing for Libya to do for itself to survive and become stronger, not becuase they were afraid. Countries supporting terrorists also may not be detered, since Iraq wasn't. And Reagan's dealing with the Soviet Union didn't really affect it that much, he may have shortened it's life by a week at the most, it was collapsing all by itself, so comparing the two is not really a good comparison.

Thats one thing about you Europeans...you run the best and brightest off and are left with what you have now. Fractured societies made up of the genetic material left over after two world wars destroyed the cream of European society.

Yes, you're absolutely correct, if only we could have an intelligent leader like George Bush Jnr. :rolleyes:

2 things that have always REALLY pissed me of about the US.

1. I don't see how they have contributed to the world culturally or scientifically.

2. In a country that believes in equality and such. When was there ever a president that was not white/male/christian? You would think that by now at least a women? or maybe half-cast?


If you have ever received plasma than you have benefitted from America. It was a black american who invented the process. Dr. Charles Richard Drew (1904-1950)

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/drew.htm

Did 1441 NOT say that if Saddam failed to disarm, and the inspectors were always reporting equipment not being shown to them, then action could be taken?.
Well: lets not go back in all the details. However the reports at the end became more positive and Blix spoke about a more active cooperation of Iraq.
The resolution didn´t say action should be taken. It warned Iraq to face serious consequences if it fails to comply. However the question is who should judge whether the compliance of Iraq is enough or not.
The resolution also states that the council should remain seized on the matter.
Most experts of international law don´t see any authorisation for the use of force in that resolution. That includes also most of those experts in Britain. Tony Blair didn´t take over this position but he tried to get one for that reason.


When two warring sides sign a cease fire agreement...but NOT a peace agreement, if one violates it, hostilities certainly can resume. North and South Korea only signed a cease fire, so technically they are still at war. The North Koreans have violated the agreement several times, but the south did not retaliate.
Not every incident can justify to resume hostilities. That is at least the dominant legall opinion since after world war II. Well, but we can of course return back to the rules of the time before that.


I have no idea what they used to base the decision on, I merely point out that there were other options besides 1441..
Quite frankly spoken I don´t care so much about the legal argumentation. As mentioned the legal basis for going to war in Jugoslavia in 1999 was even smaller (no UN resolution at all). I´m more interested in the political reasons behind it.



Iran is known by many nations to be trying to build nuclear weapons, this is not in dispute by anyone. Plus they have made it easy by telling the world thats what they intend to do.
Well, the Iranian government publicly says that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Though there are iranian politicans who say Iran should do otherwise. After all the US is present on the east and western borders of the country. Given this strategic situation the regime in Teheran has to be concerned. On the other hand: they have allies in Iraq. So there is a lot of conflict potential.
If the US and Iran don´t come to some kind of arrangement I think that an US-Iranian war in the medium term may be inevitable.

Naja: die Welt braucht Amerika und Amerika braucht die Welt ist ja doch eine ziemlich ausgewogene Formulierung. Des weiteren halte ich die strategische Partnerschaft mit den USA für sehr wichtig. Derartige Nebensächlichkeiten wie Irak sollten hier doch keine Hindernisse darstellen.
Zumal es ja durchaus Argumente für die Intervention gab, z.B. durch eine Politik der Stärke Diktatoren der Region abzuhalten weiter nach Massenvernichtungswaffen zu streben (siehe Lybien, fraglich im Falle Irans), Länder von Terrorismus abzuschrecken (Syrien, Libanon), die Abhängigkeit von Saudi-Arabien zu reduzieren (bis lang noch nicht erreicht) und durch eine Politik der Stärke auch Druck auf die Palestinenser auszuüben, insbesondere die Unterstützung für deren Terror zu entziehen und somit die Wahrscheinlichkeit einer Einigung zu erhöhen (durch eine Politik der Stärke vergleichbar Reagans gegenüber der UdSSR).
Das klinkt schon fast vernünftig. Nur das die USA sich dabei wie die axt im walde benimmt. Auf niemanden hört. Ne ganze region destabilisiert. Und andere länder (Spanien zb) mit reinreisst. Und während sie einen diktator, den sie selbst einst installiert haben, absetzen stützen sie gleichzeitig andere. Und wenn es massenvernichtungswaffen anbelangt. Sollten sie sich auch nicht scheuen länder wie Israel aufzufordern ihr arsenal abzuschafen. Ganz zu schweigen von ihren assimilations plänen wie sie von PNAC verfolgt werden. Und bevor du rufst dass das bloss ein harmloser debatierclub ist lies erst einmal wer alles mitglied ist.

Hmm....it couldn't be anti-American sentiments doesn't stem from the fact that we worship not God, but another diety that brings instant gratification to all who come to know and appreciate it...the...Almighty Dollar, perhaps?

Well: lets not go back in all the details. However the reports at the end became more positive and Blix spoke about a more active cooperation of Iraq. The resolution didn´t say action should be taken. It warned Iraq to face serious consequences if it fails to comply. However the question is who should judge whether the compliance of Iraq is enough or not.
The resolution also states that the council should remain seized on the matter. Most experts of international law don´t see any authorisation for the use of force in that resolution. That includes also most of those experts in Britain. Tony Blair didn´t take over this position but he tried to get one for that reason.

I guess being overthrown was a serious consequence. LOL


Not every incident can justify to resume hostilities. That is at least the dominant legall opinion since after world war II. Well, but we can of course return back to the rules of the time before that.

No, not EVERY incident...but we have a 12 year history of incidents. Every shell and missle fired at US aircraft was a violation. Millions of them over 12 years.

Quite frankly spoken I don´t care so much about the legal argumentation. As mentioned the legal basis for going to war in Jugoslavia in 1999 was even smaller (no UN resolution at all). I´m more interested in the political reasons behind it.

Politically, Saddam had worn out his usefulness. He was at first seen as a bulwark against the spread of radical Islam from Iran, but he turned bad and refused to play his part.

Well, the Iranian government publicly says that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Though there are iranian politicans who say Iran should do otherwise. After all the US is present on the east and western borders of the country. Given this strategic situation the regime in Teheran has to be concerned. On the other hand: they have allies in Iraq. So there is a lot of conflict potential. If the US and Iran don´t come to some kind of arrangement I think that an US-Iranian war in the medium term may be inevitable.

Well, they refuse to allow the IAE in to inspect, so that says something. The UN is "concerned."

Hmm....it couldn't be anti-American sentiments doesn't stem from the fact that we worship not God, but another diety that brings instant gratification to all who come to know and appreciate it...the...Almighty Dollar, perhaps?

I don't worship the dollar....or God...but I see your point.

Libya was already on it's way to what it did long before Iraq, the US cannot connect Libya's actions to the war in Iraq. It was simply the good thing for Libya to do for itself to survive and become stronger, not becuase they were afraid. Countries supporting terrorists also may not be detered, since Iraq wasn't. And Reagan's dealing with the Soviet Union didn't really affect it that much, he may have shortened it's life by a week at the most, it was collapsing all by itself, so comparing the two is not really a good comparison.
Well, the USSR was forced to spent more on defense. They economy suffered more and more and at the end they had to give up the arms race.
And not to forget the support for the rebells in Afghanistan. This defeat was very damaging for the Soviet leadership. Though the soviet union would have collapsed some time anyway since it had no solid basis (except the failed communists ideology it was the left over of imperialist Russia and their de facto "colonies" in Asia) it fastened that development for years at least I think.
Regarding Libya: it did that step after the Iraq war.
Thats a fact. And Syria closed some terrorists offices in Damaskus. I think the Syrian leadership is going to think more carefully about their actions, especially in respect to supporting Hizbullah against Israel.
Well: and after all: Saddam supported palestinian suicide bombers. The removal of him may make it easier for Israel to negotiate with the palestinians from a position of strength.
That was at least the strategy in the 1980s against the Soviet Union and it worked at that time.

If you have ever received plasma than you have benefitted from America. It was a black american who invented the process. Dr. Charles Richard Drew (1904-1950)

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/drew.htm
Umm...no. Not quit right.
History of Bloodtransfusion (http://www.bloodbook.com/trans-history.html)
History of bloodbanking (http://www.bloodbook.com/banking.html)
He did however invent a process for long term preservation of plasma.

I guess being overthrown was a serious consequence. LOL
Shure. And being hangend is the next one. Anyway, legally "all means" means "all means" (also the use of force). Serious consequences is just a compromise wording. Could be more sanctions, could be anything actually. Well: but there are arguments which speak against this authorising the US of force. The British UN ambassador said before the passing of 1441 to his colleague of the the Arab Republic of Syria: "1441 contains NO HIDDEN TRIGGER for the use of force".
After this statement Syria voted for 1441. After all it is arbitarly to interpret a resolution in a way that is not only against the majority opinion but against statements and assurances given by the authors of this resolution.


Politically, Saddam had worn out his usefulness. He was at first seen as a bulwark against the spread of radical Islam from Iran, but he turned bad and refused to play his part.

Well, he prevented the spread of radical Islam. He created other problems however. Now of course there is the thread of the rise of radical Islam, especially of pro-Iranian shiite mullahs in Iraq.
That would of course be pretty shity.

Shure. And being hangend is the next one. Anyway, legally "all means" means "all means" (also the use of force). Serious consequences is just a compromise wording. Could be more sanctions, could be anything actually. Well: but there are arguments which speak against this authorising the US of force. The British UN ambassador said before the passing of 1441 to his colleague of the the Arab Republic of Syria: "1441 contains NO HIDDEN TRIGGER for the use of force".
After this statement Syria voted for 1441. After all it is arbitarly to interpret a resolution in a way that is not only against the majority opinion but against statements and assurances given by the authors of this resolution.


Well, he prevented the spread of radical Islam. He created other problems however. Now of course there is the thread of the rise of radical Islam, especially of pro-Iranian shiite mullahs in Iraq.
That would of course be pretty shity.

I don't think that will happen...the Iraqi's have been secular for quite a long time. So thrusting religious dogma on them will in all likelyhood backfire. Plus the US will be there for many years to come. It looks like the populace is not backing the insurgents much and in many instances has started to turn on them. I think we are about to turn a corner there.

Umm...no. Not quit right.
History of Bloodtransfusion (http://www.bloodbook.com/trans-history.html)
History of bloodbanking (http://www.bloodbook.com/banking.html)
He did however invent a process for long term preservation of plasma.


My sincere apologizes. I meant to say he invented the long term preservation that enabled blood to be stored for a longer period of time.

I don't think that will happen...the Iraqi's have been secular for quite a long time. So thrusting religious dogma on them will in all likelyhood backfire. Plus the US will be there for many years to come. It looks like the populace is not backing the insurgents much and in many instances has started to turn on them. I think we are about to turn a corner there.


Well from what my brother has told me and he is on the ground there it isn't very pretty at all. Little children run up to you and spit and you and say all sorts of bad things. I don't know about turning the corner. I hope we do.

Das klinkt schon fast vernünftig. Nur das die USA sich dabei wie die axt im walde benimmt. Auf niemanden hört. Ne ganze region destabilisiert. Und andere länder (Spanien zb) mit reinreisst. Und während sie einen diktator, den sie selbst einst installiert haben, absetzen stützen sie gleichzeitig andere.
Naja: also es war doch die "Stabilität" die im Nahen Osten und Afghanistan (und anderen Ländern) den Terrorismus hervorgebracht hat. Diese "Stabilität", die doch ganz offensichtlich eine Scheinstabilität ist muß verändert werden.
Aber die Welt ist nun mal nicht schwarz und weiß. Man muß auch mit moderaten Staatschefs zusammenarbeiten. Ansonsten kann man ja praktisch mit keinem Land in der Region Kontakt haben. Also auf Musharraf ist man schon angewiesen, ebenso auf Mubarak oder König Abdallah. Aber man kann natürlich auch (diplomatisch) Druck auf sie ausüben, zumal sie westliche Hilfe ja auch benötigen.
Was Israel anbelangt: Israel würde diese Waffen doch nur im Notfall einsetzen. Die Islamisten wollen doch den Staat Israel auslöschen. Und solange dem so ist, braucht Israel schon ein nukleares Abschreckungspotential.
Ich hätte im übrigen auch nichts gegen eine "Pax Americana", vergleichbar mit einer "Pax Romana". Wir könnten uns dem problemlos anpassen.
Ich bezweifle aber, dass die US wirklich die Fähigkeit haben dies durchzusetzen. Es fehlt hier doch an einer realistischen Strategie. Und die amerikanische Ressourcen sind auch begrenzt. Von daher dürfte sich das mangels realisierbarkeit de facto von selbst erledigen.

Well from what my brother has told me and he is on the ground there it isn't very pretty at all. Little children run up to you and spit and you and say all sorts of bad things. I don't know about turning the corner. I hope we do.

Thats ok, I had people do that to me when I was stationed in the UK in the 1980's.

Well, the populace is no longer gathering up the dead insurgents and pulling them into their homes...for the first time that has started. Thats how we know that 360 have been killed in the past few days....they were hiding the bodies so we would not know how many were killed. That is the first sign that the populace is no longer willing to help the insurgents.

So I guess a big reason America gets resented is because in international affairs, the US is a hypocritical bully who wont play fair.[/QUOTE]

the only reason america seems like a bully is because we are much more powerful than most, maybe all of the world, and that makes people afraid. i believe if america wanted to they could take over the entire world but not easily. china probably would be the biggest threat because they have millions of more people than america. would you have liked it if some terrorist decided to kill thousands of people in your country. you would want to retaliate, teach them not to mess with you. america did not start the war on terrorism.

i think most of the world at least the people who are being mistreated by their government would rather live in the u.s. mexicans sure do like america. alot of mexicans need american tourists to survive, some mexicans cross the border just to get money so they can feed themselves.

i believe the major reason why some people hate america(ns) is because of religion. muslims sworn enemy has been christians and the alot of christians live in the united states.

Thats ok, I had people do that to me when I was stationed in the UK in the 1980's.

Well, the populace is no longer gathering up the dead insurgents and pulling them into their homes...for the first time that has started. Thats how we know that 360 have been killed in the past few days....they were hiding the bodies so we would not know how many were killed. That is the first sign that the populace is no longer willing to help the insurgents.


Yes Najaf. Bloody mess that place is.

I don't think that will happen...the Iraqi's have been secular for quite a long time. So thrusting religious dogma on them will in all likelyhood backfire. Plus the US will be there for many years to come. It looks like the populace is not backing the insurgents much and in many instances has started to turn on them. I think we are about to turn a corner there.
You forget one thing. The country was ruled by the sunni for centuries although there was a shiite majority. So this majority may tries to take over. And the religious leaders are still the most accepted authorities.
And regarding secularism. Iraq was never completly secular. And in recent years Islamism is one the rise. That is a political tendency. Even Turkey has today a - probably - moderate islamist government.
And Turkey is a divided nation in that respect. Arab countries are even more lacking behind in that respect.
The insurgents comes from different groups. The most active were former Baathist and sunni extremists (al-Zarqawi). Fortunatelly the shitte clerik Sadr seems to be isolated among the shiite clergy. They however of course hope for elections were they would of course have a great chance that their candidates would win a majority - at least if the principal one man one vote is applied.
So: it is clear that they are currently rather quiet.
Whether that remains that way remains to be seen, since the important question about the power sharing in future Iraq has not been decided yet.

Naja: also es war doch die "Stabilität" die im Nahen Osten und Afghanistan (und anderen Ländern) den Terrorismus hervorgebracht hat.
Doch wohl eher die macht spielchen der USA. Und teilweise der UdSSR.


Aber die Welt ist nun mal nicht schwarz und weiß. Man muß auch mit moderaten Staatschefs zusammenarbeiten. Ansonsten kann man ja praktisch mit keinem Land in der Region Kontakt haben. Also auf Musharraf ist man schon angewiesen, ebenso auf Mubarak
Es gibt ja auch noch andere verbündete wie zb die warlords der früheren nord allianz. Die man jetzt auch wieder am liebsten loswerden würde.

König Abdallah.
König Abdallah ist doch kein diktator.


Ich hätte im übrigen auch nichts gegen eine "Pax Americana", vergleichbar mit einer "Pax Romana". Wir könnten uns dem problemlos anpassen.
Ich bezweifle aber, dass die US wirklich die Fähigkeit haben dies durchzusetzen. Es fehlt hier doch an einer realistischen Strategie. Und die amerikanische Ressourcen sind auch begrenzt. Von daher dürfte sich das mangels realisierbarkeit de facto von selbst erledigen.
Ich seh schon. Du würdest am liebsten das wir alle uns den USA unterwerfen und uns assimilieren lassen.
Das kann ich nicht begreifen. Sicher, von den Ami's.

Doch wohl eher die macht spielchen der USA. Und teilweise der UdSSR. .
Also, die Konflikte zwischen islamischen Staaten und Europa in der Geschichte haben wirklich nichts mit den USA zu tun.
Und der Kolonialismus in der Region war mehr eine frazösisch-britisch-russische Angelegenheit.
Aber der Islamismus wird ja wohl eher von Iran (schiitisch) und Saudi-Arabien (die sunnitische Richtung) gefördert. Und insbesondere die Saudis sind nun mal sehr mächtig. Sie sitzen nun mal auf den größten Ölreserven. Ohne Saudi-Arabien kann die Weltwirtschaft einpacken - auch wir. Der Preis richtet sich nach Angebot und Nachfrage und wenn der Preis steigt nutzen auch Lieferverträge nicht, denn die werden dann gebrochen (siehe Stahlsektor) und es wird derjenige beliefert der am meisten zahlt.

Es gibt ja auch noch andere verbündete wie zb die warlords der früheren nord allianz. Die man jetzt auch wieder am liebsten loswerden würde..
Naja, wenn gibt es denn sonst in Afghanistan. Man muß ja mit irgend jemanden zusammenarbeiten, auch wenn es häufig eine Wahl zwischen Pest und Cholera ist.


König Abdallah ist doch kein diktator...
Er ist ein autoritär regierender König.



Ich seh schon. Du würdest am liebsten das wir alle uns den USA unterwerfen und uns assimilieren lassen.
Das kann ich nicht begreifen. Sicher, von den Ami's.
Also, die Amerikaner haben uns nie angegriffen. Tendenziell sind sie sogar sehr deutschfreundlich. Also: wir haben von ihnen nichts zu befürchten. Auf die Franzosen sind sie allerdings wirklich sauer - das hat aber eine lange Tradition. Also, ich sehe mich vom islamistischen Terrorismus, auch von islamistischen Tendenzen in Deutschland bedroht. Aber nicht von den USA.

Also, die Konflikte zwischen islamischen Staaten und Europa in der Geschichte haben wirklich nichts mit den USA zu tun.
Und der Kolonialismus in der Region war mehr eine frazösisch-britisch-russische Angelegenheit.
Von welchen konflikt zwischen Islamischen staaten und Europa redest du?
Der moderne terrorismus den wir kennen hat nichts mit irgendeiner kolonial politik seitens Europa's zu tun.

Aber der Islamismus wird ja wohl eher von Iran (schiitisch) und Saudi-Arabien (die sunnitische Richtung) gefördert. Und insbesondere die Saudis sind nun mal sehr mächtig. Sie sitzen nun mal auf den größten Ölreserven. Ohne Saudi-Arabien kann die Weltwirtschaft einpacken - auch wir.
Hmm ja. Und wen hat man im Iran abgesetzt? Eine US marionette. Und was sind die Saudi's? US marionetten. Obwohl sie den islamismus fördern.

Naja, wen gibt es denn sonst in Afghanistan. Man muß ja mit irgend jemanden zusammenarbeiten, auch wenn es häufig eine Wahl zwischen Pest und Cholera ist.
Dieses der feind meines feindes ist mein freund geseihere hat der welt Osama beschert.


Er ist ein autoritär regierender König.
Aber ein ziemlich liberaler was man so hört.



Also, die Amerikaner haben uns nie angegriffen. Tendenziell sind sie sogar sehr deutschfreundlich. Also: wir haben von ihnen nichts zu befürchten. Auf die Franzosen sind sie allerdings wirklich sauer - das hat aber eine lange Tradition. Also, ich sehe mich vom islamistischen Terrorismus, auch von islamistischen Tendenzen in Deutschland bedroht. Aber nicht von den USA.
Ich sehe mich von beiden bedroht. Nur das das Amerikanische gift leiser und schleichender ist. Sieh dich mal um. Wie die jugend sich heute kleidet. Wie man redet. Schiessereien an schulen? Und mal abgesehen vom letzeren ist das doch der PNAC plan. Die welt zu Amerikanisieren Und das findest du keine bedrohung?

Von welchen konflikt zwischen Islamischen staaten und Europa redest du?
Der moderne terrorismus den wir kennen hat nichts mit irgendeiner kolonial politik seitens Europa's zu tun.

Hmm ja. Und wen hat man im Iran abgesetzt? Eine US marionette. Und was sind die Saudi's? US marionetten. Obwohl sie den islamismus fördern.


Dieses der feind meines feindes ist mein freund geseihere hat der welt Osama beschert.



Aber ein ziemlich liberaler was man so hört.



Ich sehe mich von beiden bedroht. Nur das das Amerikanische gift leiser und schleichender ist. Sieh dich mal um. Wie die jugend sich heute kleidet. Wie man redet. Schiessereien an schulen? Und mal abgesehen vom letzeren ist das doch der PNAC plan. Die welt zu Amerikanisieren Und das findest du keine bedrohung?

I knew I should have done German at AS-level.

Oh, it's German? I just thought I'd drunk too much. Right, good, I can keep drinking til I start to understand it, then I'll know I should stop.

To answer the first question: I hate Americans who are so arrogant in the superiority of their country that they actually believe other ppl care enough to hate them for it.

You forget one thing. The country was ruled by the sunni for centuries although there was a shiite majority. So this majority may tries to take over. And the religious leaders are still the most accepted authorities.
And regarding secularism. Iraq was never completly secular. And in recent years Islamism is one the rise. That is a political tendency. Even Turkey has today a - probably - moderate islamist government. And Turkey is a divided nation in that respect. Arab countries are even more lacking behind in that respect. The insurgents comes from different groups. The most active were former Baathist and sunni extremists (al-Zarqawi). Fortunatelly the shitte clerik Sadr seems to be isolated among the shiite clergy. They however of course hope for elections were they would of course have a great chance that their candidates would win a majority - at least if the principal one man one vote is applied. So: it is clear that they are currently rather quiet.
Whether that remains that way remains to be seen, since the important question about the power sharing in future Iraq has not been decided yet.

Yes, the Shiites are the majority in Iraq, but a few other points...

1. Iraq, as a nation has only existed since 1928 when the British created it....along with ALL the countries in the middle east.

2. Saddams government was indeed secular. Thats the cornerstone of the Ba'ath party. The same is true in Syria.

3. Turkey has no "national" religion. Kamal Attaturk, who founded the modern Turkish state in 1923 INSISTED that there be freedom of religion. Yes, 90% of the country is Muslim, but there are many catholic churches in Turkey. I have visited many of them, especially in Adana and Antioch.

4. Sadr will be gone in the coming days or weeks. He has pushed the new government too far and the recognized religious leaders are NOT calling for the US to stop the fighting with him. Almost 400 of his fighters have been killed in the past few days. As a force, he is finished now.

In time things will settle down in Iraq and then stability will become the norm. IF we can keep Iran out of there. If not, then they should be next in line to be removed.

Reports says that Iraq had no connexion whatsoever with terrorist groups targetting the US. I'm sorry but i haven't heard any justification for this war who didn't fail to pass the "truth test" (you know, being actually true).

There was a report in The Guardian newspaper (funnily enough, one of the most vehemently anti-Iraq war newspapers here in Britain) a couple of years back that stated that there was credible intelligence to show that Saddam Hussein had opened up a dialogue with Osama Bin Laden regarding the supply of components for Chemical Weapons.

While we're on the subject, for all those people who say there are absolutely no WMD in Iraq, what the hell was that Sarin shell that exploded in a road-side bomb a couple of months back then? Sarin is officially (under the Chemical Weapons Convention) a Weapon of Mass Destruction, and therefore somewhere in Iraq there is a hidden stockpile of chemical weapons. Logic would indicate this for several reasons:

Firstly, even if they didn't know it was a Sarin shell, the people who planted it have access to more of them. You don't just have a single Chemical shell in a stockpile of regular artillery shells

Secondly, if they knew it was a Sarin shell, then they DO have more, because if they didn't they would have fired it straight into Coalition HQ in Baghdad and gassed the people there.

Also, 1441 which was signed by the entire UN security council called for the disarming of Iraq (and I quote) "BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY". This can be (and quite rightly IMO has been) interpreted as justification for the war.

But why has this discussion about the United States been turned into a for/against Iraq debate?

There was a report in The Guardian newspaper (funnily enough, one of the most vehemently anti-Iraq war newspapers here in Britain) a couple of years back that stated that there was credible intelligence to show that Saddam Hussein had opened up a dialogue with Osama Bin Laden regarding the supply of components for Chemical Weapons.

While we're on the subject, for all those people who say there are absolutely no WMD in Iraq, what the hell was that Sarin shell that exploded in a road-side bomb a couple of months back then? Sarin is officially (under the Chemical Weapons Convention) a Weapon of Mass Destruction, and therefore somewhere in Iraq there is a hidden stockpile of chemical weapons. Logic would indicate this for several reasons:

Firstly, even if they didn't know it was a Sarin shell, the people who planted it have access to more of them. You don't just have a single Chemical shell in a stockpile of regular artillery shells

Secondly, if they knew it was a Sarin shell, then they DO have more, because if they didn't they would have fired it straight into Coalition HQ in Baghdad and gassed the people there.

Also, 1441 which was signed by the entire UN security council called for the disarming of Iraq (and I quote) "BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY". This can be (and quite rightly IMO has been) interpreted as justification for the war.

But why has this discussion about the United States been turned into a for/against Iraq debate?


Thats what is so funny, EVERYONE thought the WMD's were there....and that goes back way before Bush was in office. Then when they were not found, now they never were there!! How does anyone know? They may yet be found. There certainly are SOME chemical shells there and where there is smoke....

There was a report in The Guardian newspaper (funnily enough, one of the most vehemently anti-Iraq war newspapers here in Britain) a couple of years back that stated that there was credible intelligence to show that Saddam Hussein had opened up a dialogue with Osama Bin Laden regarding the supply of components for Chemical Weapons.


And what I read here in Canadian newspaper is that those dialogue didn't get very far. Last I heard, Al-qaeda wanted to put training camps in Iraq and Hussein didn't want to. Also, various intellingence says that Al-qaeda reproached Iraq not to be an islamist regime like the taliban. Not what I would call the closest friends.

Yes, the Shiites are the majority in Iraq, but a few other points...

1. Iraq, as a nation has only existed since 1928 when the British created it....along with ALL the countries in the middle east..
Right: before 1918 it was however part of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey). That was the dominating power in that region at that time and there were sunni. Iraq was at time divided in three provinces (Mosul, Bagdad, Basra) and governed by sunni governors of the sultan. The sunni dominance is much older than the existence of the state of Iraq. And the British took this principal over when they installed a sunni arab king.

2. Saddams government was indeed secular. Thats the cornerstone of the Ba'ath party. The same is true in Syria...
They first Baath party was - as I think - founded by a syrian christian actually. They are nationalistic and socialists (however not communists).
The cornerstone of their ideology actually was the idea of pan-arabism. But that concept had failed. Thus lead to a ideologic vacuum which islamism tries to fill.

3. Turkey has no "national" religion. Kamal Attaturk, who founded the modern Turkish state in 1923 INSISTED that there be freedom of religion. Yes, 90% of the country is Muslim, but there are many catholic churches in Turkey. I have visited many of them, especially in Adana and Antioch....
Turkey is 99% muslim, actually. And I don´t have any disagreement with Atatürks concept: It is on the conterary a good modell. But that should not lead you to turn a blind eye to the turkish history. For example the prime minister from 1950-60 tried to undermine this differentiation in Turkey. It was ONLY the military which prevented that end of Attatürks ideas, which took over and hanged this guy.
And in 1982 they took over again in order to enshure that the extreme left didn´t take over. And in the 1990s the pushed an islamists led government (Erbakan) out of power and pushed for a ban of this party before the supreme court. Mr. Erdogan was a member of his party and his party is a - probably a bit more moderate - refoundation of this party.
And he won the election with this party and that background. And that is an islamic background and not a secular one.

4. Sadr will be gone in the coming days or weeks. He has pushed the new government too far and the recognized religious leaders are NOT calling for the US to stop the fighting with him. Almost 400 of his fighters have been killed in the past few days. As a force, he is finished now.....
I agree with you actually in that point. Al-Sadr is actually quite isolated among his own group. He acted like a mad man. His donwfall is inevitable. But that doesn`t solve the principle question about the division of powers between the groups in Iraq.
In time things will settle down in Iraq and then stability will become the norm. IF we can keep Iran out of there. If not, then they should be next in line to be removed.
You actually hit a point. Iran of course is having its interests in Iraq. By establishing a pro-Iranian government in Iraq Iran would dominate the region between Mediterranean and Hindukusch. Iran after all has close relations with Syria, which actually controlls Lebanon. And after all: 40% of Lebanese are shiite (and their percentage of the population is increasing). Hizbullah is supported by Iran.
Given that fact the question is whether a war between the US and Iran is avoidable or not.
And that of course would increase the burden for the US. After all, neither Iran or Afghanistan are stable and Iran would of course also have many problems after the regime would be overthrown.

Right: before 1918 it was however part of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey). That was the dominating power in that region at that time and there were sunni. Iraq was at time divided in three provinces (Mosul, Bagdad, Basra) and governed by sunni governors of the sultan. The sunni dominance is much older than the existence of the state of Iraq. And the British took this principal over when they installed a sunni arab king.

They first Baath party was - as I think - founded by a syrian christian actually. They are nationalistic and socialists (however not communists).
The cornerstone of their ideology actually was the idea of pan-arabism. But that concept had failed. Thus lead to a ideologic vacuum which islamism tries to fill.

Turkey is 99% muslim, actually. And I don´t have any disagreement with Atatürks concept: It is on the conterary a good modell. But that should not lead you to turn a blind eye to the turkish history. For example the prime minister from 1950-60 tried to undermine this differentiation in Turkey. It was ONLY the military which prevented that end of Attatürks ideas, which took over and hanged this guy.
And in 1982 they took over again in order to enshure that the extreme left didn´t take over. And in the 1990s the pushed an islamists led government (Erbakan) out of power and pushed for a ban of this party before the supreme court. Mr. Erdogan was a member of his party and his party is a - probably a bit more moderate - refoundation of this party.
And he won the election with this party and that background. And that is an islamic background and not a secular one.

I agree with you actually in that point. Al-Sadr is actually quite isolated among his own group. He acted like a mad man. His donwfall is inevitable. But that doesn`t solve the principle question about the division of powers between the groups in Iraq.

You actually hit a point. Iran of course is having its interests in Iraq. By establishing a pro-Iranian government in Iraq Iran would dominate the region between Mediterranean and Hindukusch. Iran after all has close relations with Syria, which actually controlls Lebanon. And after all: 40% of Lebanese are shiite (and their percentage of the population is increasing). Hizbullah is supported by Iran.
Given that fact the question is whether a war between the US and Iran is avoidable or not.
And that of course would increase the burden for the US. After all, neither Iran or Afghanistan are stable and Iran would of course also have many problems after the regime would be overthrown.

My first trip to Turkey was in 1985. There were few paved roads and fewer cars. I saw mostly busses and horse carts. Soldiers were on every street corner. I returned 14 years later and found a vast difference. Paved roads, too many cars and busses and only one horse cart.

As for Iran, we will be fighting them one day. We should have in 1979 since they committed an act of war against us then by invading our embassy and taking our diplomats hostage.

My first trip to Turkey was in 1985. There were few paved roads and fewer cars. I saw mostly busses and horse carts. Soldiers were on every street corner. I returned 14 years later and found a vast difference. Paved roads, too many cars and busses and only one horse cart.
.But still Turkey is a developing country. It is an emerging market. They are developing. But they are still very distant away from Western or North European standards. On average even more distant than the new EU members.


As for Iran, we will be fighting them one day. We should have in 1979 since they committed an act of war against us then by invading our embassy and taking our diplomats hostage.
Well, there was something like an Iraq-Iranian war (1980-88). And a soviet invasion in Afghanistan (1979-89), which were taken out of concern of the spread of shiite islamism (from the Iraqi side) and out of fear of the spread of islamism in the muslim soviet republics (from the soviet side).
Iran is a very big country. Though there is no doubt that militarily the US would quickly win (although it would take longer than with Iraq since Iran is a much bigger country and has a more advanced military than Iraq had) the question remains whether it is capable to stabilize the region between Hindukusch and Mediteranean.
The Iraq mission has been proven as very costly. And Iran would even cost more. Iran doesn´t seem to be very concerned at the moment. Their provocations towards Britain at the Shatt-el-Arab seem to indicate that they are not much concerned at the moment since neither Iraq or Afghanistan are stable and can be used as a secure basis for a possible operation against Iran.

But still Turkey is a developing country. It is an emerging market. They are developing. But they are still very distant away from Western or North European standards. On average even more distant than the new EU members.


Well, there was something like an Iraq-Iranian war (1980-88). And a soviet invasion in Afghanistan (1979-89), which were taken out of concern of the spread of shiite islamism (from the Iraqi side) and out of fear of the spread of islamism in the muslim soviet republics (from the soviet side).
Iran is a very big country. Though there is no doubt that militarily the US would quickly win (although it would take longer than with Iraq since Iran is a much bigger country and has a more advanced military than Iraq had) the question remains whether it is capable to stabilize the region between Hindukusch and Mediteranean.
The Iraq mission has been proven as very costly. And Iran would even cost more. Iran doesn´t seem to be very concerned at the moment. Their provocations towards Britain at the Shatt-el-Arab seem to indicate that they are not much concerned at the moment since neither Iraq or Afghanistan are stable and can be used as a secure basis for a possible operation against Iran.

Yes, Turkey is developing, I want to return there again someday.

Iraq and Afganistan will be stable in time....THEN the Iranians had better be concerned. My brother-in-law is Iranian and he cannot return home because he is on a death list. Nice people there for sure.

Yes, Turkey is developing, I want to return there again someday.

Iraq and Afganistan will be stable in time....THEN the Iranians had better be concerned.
If that happends the regime would need to be concerned indeed - IF.
Then it would of course be interesting whether Iran would reform itself (there are after all such tendencies in Iran) and would make concessions and refoms (Iran today is different to the Khomeini period) or whether Iranian hardliners would dominate and go on for a confrontation with the US.

If that happends the regime would need to be concerned indeed - IF.
Then it would of course be interesting whether Iran would reform itself (there are after all such tendencies in Iran) and would make concessions and refoms (Iran today is different to the Khomeini period) or whether Iranian hardliners would dominate and go on for a confrontation with the US.

The hardliners are still pulling the strings there. They are intlerant religious zealots who need a good kick in the pants. The Iranian youth are not pleased by the restrictions placed on them. Time will change them certainly, but their nuclear program is a serious issue.

The hardliners are still pulling the strings there. They are intlerant religious zealots who need a good kick in the pants. The Iranian youth are not pleased by the restrictions placed on them. Time will change them certainly, but their nuclear program is a serious issue.
That is indeed a difference between Iran and other countries in the region. There is a movement within the country for change. So, in the long-run there are going to be changes from within the country. So there would not be a need for an intervention. On the other hand the weapons program is of course a serious issue and also the conflicts in Iraq.
So Iran is certainly becoming a central issue - either way.

That is indeed a difference between Iran and other countries in the region. There is a movement within the country for change. So, in the long-run there are going to be changes from within the country. So there would not be a need for an intervention. On the other hand the weapons program is of course a serious issue and also the conflicts in Iraq.
So Iran is certainly becoming a central issue - either way.

Those crazies get their hands on nuclear weapons, they will use them. Israel has them and would probably strike first though. Theocracies are just scary.

I don't see why people can't get on with life and quit being jealous.




And here's a little something for the French.

A French Poem
>
> Eleven thousand soldiers
> lay beneath the dirt and stone,
> all buried on a distant land
> so far away from home.
> For just a strip of dismal beach
> they paid a hero's price,
> to save a foreign nation
> they all made the sacrifice.
> And now the shores of Normandy
> are lined with blocks of white:
>Americans who didn't turn
> from someone else's plight.
> Eleven thousand reasons
> for the French to take our side,
> but in the moment of our need,
> they chose to run and hide.
> Chirac said every war means loss,
> perhaps for France that's true,
> for they've lost every battle
> since the days of Waterloo.
> Without a soldier worth a damn
> to be found within the region,
> the French became the only land
> to need a Foreign Legion.
> You French all say we're arrogant.
> Well hell, we've earned the right--
> We saved your sorry nation
> when you lacked the guts to fight.
> But now you've made a big mistake,
> and one that you'll regret;
> you took sides with our enemies,
> and that we won't forget.
> It wasn't just our citizens
> you spit on when you turned,
> but every one of yours
> who fell the day the towers burned.
> You spit upon our soldiers,
> on our pilots and Marines,
> and now you'll get a little sense
> of just what payback means.
> So keep your Paris fashions
> and your wine and your champagne,
> and find some other market
> that will buy your aeroplanes.
> And try to find somebody else
> to wear your French cologne,
> for you're about to find out
> what it means to stand alone.
> You see, you need us far more
> than we ever needed you.
>America has better friends
> who know how to be true.
> I'd rather stand with warriors
> who have the will and might,
> than huddle in the dark
> with those whose only flag is white.
> I'll take the Brits, the Aussies,
> the Israelis and the rest,
> for when it comes to valor
> we have seen that they're the best.
> We'll count on one another
> as we face a moment dire,
> while you sit on the sideline
> with a sign, "friendship for hire."
> We'll win this war without you
> and we'll total up the cost,
>and take it from your foreign aid,
>and then you'll feel the loss.
> And when your nation starts to fall,
> well Frenchie, you can spare us,
> just call the Germans for a hand,
> they know the way to Paris.






FRENCH INFANTRY PACK:
1)Wine
2)Cheese
3)White Flag

That is why I posted those figures, I didn't post them to try and say that anyone nation can claim to of done more for a cause by simply having lost more manpower. Try reading what was written, try understanding that I was attacking Justinopian Kingdom for supporting such a stupid poem.

There's nothing wrong with American people or the actual country. However, there is something about American culture (litigation mentality, firearms etc) that worries me, and I think that if Bush gets another term, he will take the USA and the rest of the world down the pan.

There's nothing wrong with American people or the actual country. However, there is something about American culture (litigation mentality, firearms etc) that worries me, and I think that if Bush gets another term, he will take the USA and the rest of the world down the pan.

Firearms worry you? In all my life I have NEVER seen or heard a firearm being used in an improper place. Not once. There are no running gun battles in the streets.

America is hated in the world for "Either you are with us, or against us" mentality.

America is hated in the world for considering itself above the international community (re: International Court and countless UN resolutions US has vetoed).

America is hated in the world for its hypocrisy (only nation to have used a nuclear weapon considers others to be threats).

America is hated in the world for imposing itself and its belief on others (just because democracy works well with you doesn't mean it will work well with a country where literacy is 20%).

America is hated in the world because it is self-centered -- I live in Canada and I remember the story of this professor from University of Illinois (UC) who was coming to give a lecture at University of Toronto. He found out at the border that Toronto is not in US.

America is hated because it puts idiots like Bush in power.

America is hated because its a melting pot that refuses to understand other cultures and expect everyone to be a white christian flag waving person.

America is hated because it refuses to let its citizens know the truth about what is going on around the world (CNN after 911 refused to air anything that goes againt national interests -- and that meant not reporting thousands of American deaths in Afghanistan).

America is hated because it is the only nation in the world that can bomb a wedding from the air killing innocent men, women and children and get away with it.

America is hated for many more reasons and any intelligent American can pick them apart. As for you dumb ones, you will always wonder why.

The death penalties a state issue, is that all you can respond with? Other than proving some news story apparently not?
The fact that US States are executing innocent people obviously doesn't seem to concern you in the slightest yet you obviously need to be safe in the knowledge that Israel can bulldoze as many homes as it likes and kill as many people for being in the wrong place as it feels it needs too. I find it repulsive to execute people, especially mentally handicapped people and children - there's a reason you have to be a certain age to vote, its because children are incapable of making reasoned decisions of great magnitude, like refusing the right to a trial by jury and the right to appeal.

Lemurya, all the US did in the Malvinas War was suggest that Britain talk things over, in a rare moment they lacked the nerve to back an ally and sat on the sidelines on a clear cut, un-biased issue It could of course had something to do with the US setting up most of the government in Latin America by any means necessary. Least Thatcher got one thing right and took some action.

Unless the US manages to calvinise the popular opinion of the world they're never going to be able to popularly invade Iran, difficulties are being caused in Iraq because of issues back home. We're all keenly aware that public opinion, or rather what the media portrays to us, affects how wars are waged, why else the desire for minimum loss of life? It isn't out of concern for members of the armed forces, its because dead soldiers cause people to ask difficult questions and generally get in the way of all the other bits of running a country.
Course if they manage a popular front against Iran then you're sorted, assuming you manage it of course, what with the odds all lined up waiting to kick your doors down and drag you off screaming to be indoctrinated as Communists, Muslims and hippies. That valuable right to own a firearm is sacred, you never do know when some wack-job with a.... bad example. ;)

America is hated in the world for "Either you are with us, or against us" mentality.

America is hated in the world for considering itself above the international community (re: International Court and countless UN resolutions US has vetoed).

America is hated in the world for its hypocrisy (only nation to have used a nuclear weapon considers others to be threats).

America is hated in the world for imposing itself and its belief on others (just because democracy works well with you doesn't mean it will work well with a country where literacy is 20%).

America is hated in the world because it is self-centered -- I live in Canada and I remember the story of this professor from University of Illinois (UC) who was coming to give a lecture at University of Toronto. He found out at the border that Toronto is not in US.

America is hated because it puts idiots like Bush in power.

America is hated because its a melting pot that refuses to understand other cultures and expect everyone to be a white christian flag waving person.

America is hated because it refuses to let its citizens know the truth about what is going on around the world (CNN after 911 refused to air anything that goes againt national interests -- and that meant not reporting thousands of American deaths in Afghanistan).

America is hated because it is the only nation in the world that can bomb a wedding from the air killing innocent men, women and children and get away with it.

America is hated for many more reasons and any intelligent American can pick them apart. As for you dumb ones, you will always wonder why.

I could name a few countries also responsible of such actions, especially although in a different manner, the killing of innocents and feigning ignorance. Still I think the massacres commited in the Korean War against refugees are far worse than anything to of occured to date in Iraq.

That bit of cease-fires being broken yet war not being declared a couple of pages back is quite right, on all points made by everyone involved, yet it failed to mention that it isn't always right to go to war. The Soviet Union didn't declare war when Gary Powers or plenty of other aircraft were caught spying. The US didn't declare war in either World Wars when their shipping was sunk by German U-Boats, hundreds of US sailors lost their lives before the US ever declared war. Simply because it wasn't the right moment to do so.

Why do you think the knowledge that Soviet troops were fighting in Korea was kept a secret from the public? The public would of demanded the US invade, as well as everyone else, declare war on the Soviets. Oddly enough that would of been a bad move to make, this was realised and the knowledge was kept hidden.

Lets also not forget that in terms of value UK arms exports are the largest in the world, we may not ship the largest amounts although we're in the top 15 but they're all high end and high value products. These arms find themselves in plenty of countries with appaling conditions for the majority, course that fact isn't dwelled on by most.

America is hated in the world for "Either you are with us, or against us" mentality.

Well...are you or aren't you;)

America is hated in the world for considering itself above the international community (re: International Court and countless UN resolutions US has vetoed).

International court? Show me ONE country that will allow it's sovereignty to be negated by such a court. France has also vetoes resolutions, as has Russia, so lets hate them AND the other countries with veto power.

America is hated in the world for its hypocrisy (only nation to have used a nuclear weapon considers others to be threats).

Yeah, lets give them to that paradigm of propriety Iran and that bastion of human rights North Korea.

America is hated in the world for imposing itself and its belief on others (just because democracy works well with you doesn't mean it will work well with a country where literacy is 20%).

Allowing people to choose their own government is preferrable to having one forced on them.

America is hated in the world because it is self-centered -- I live in Canada and I remember the story of this professor from University of Illinois (UC) who was coming to give a lecture at University of Toronto. He found out at the border that Toronto is not in US.

No idiots in Canada? Yeah, I see them all the time here in Florida. The US is not the only residence of morons.

America is hated because it puts idiots like Bush in power.

Yeah, we like our idiots so much we give them good jobs!! ;)

America is hated because its a melting pot that refuses to understand other cultures and expect everyone to be a white christian flag waving person.

Unlike Canada that is so touchy feel good that there is no such thing as a "Canadian" anymore.

America is hated because it refuses to let its citizens know the truth about what is going on around the world (CNN after 911 refused to air anything that goes againt national interests -- and that meant not reporting thousands of American deaths in Afghanistan).

There have not been THOUSANDS of American deaths in Afganistan. Maybe the CBC has reported that the Taliban has those darn Americans on the run again. :rolleyes:

America is hated because it is the only nation in the world that can bomb a wedding from the air killing innocent men, women and children and get away with it.

Really? The Soviet Union shot down airliners and got away with it. Israel bombed a nuclear power plant in Iraq AND other targets in Algiers. Just because Canada has problems with their Sopwith camels is no reason to get mad. ;)

America is hated for many more reasons and any intelligent American can pick them apart. As for you dumb ones, you will always wonder why.

Actually we don't care really, we are too dumb to even worry about it. Maybe I will ask one of these incredibly smart snowbirds we get down here when they return in the fall.

Well...are you or aren't you;)



International court? Show me ONE country that will allow it's sovereignty to be negated by such a court. France has also vetoes resolutions, as has Russia, so lets hate them AND the other countries with veto power.



Yeah, lets give them to that paradigm of propriety Iran and that bastion of human rights North Korea.



Allowing people to choose their own government is preferrable to having one forced on them.



No idiots in Canada? Yeah, I see them all the time here in Florida. The US is not the only residence of morons.



Yeah, we like our idiots so much we give them good jobs!! ;)



Unlike Canada that is so touchy feel good that there is no such thing as a "Canadian" anymore.



There have not been THOUSANDS of American deaths in Afganistan. Maybe the CBC has reported that the Taliban has those darn Americans on the run again. :rolleyes:



Really? The Soviet Union shot down airliners and got away with it. Israel bombed a nuclear power plant in Iraq AND other targets in Algiers. Just because Canada has problems with their Sopwith camels is no reason to get mad. ;)



Actually we don't care really, we are too dumb to even worry about it. Maybe I will ask one of these incredibly smart snowbirds we get down here when they return in the fall.

Here here! I'm British, but I still whole-heartedly agree.

America is hated in the world for "Either you are with us, or against us" mentality.

America is hated in the world for considering itself above the international community (re: International Court and countless UN resolutions US has vetoed).

America is hated in the world for its hypocrisy (only nation to have used a nuclear weapon considers others to be threats).

America is hated in the world for imposing itself and its belief on others (just because democracy works well with you doesn't mean it will work well with a country where literacy is 20%).

America is hated in the world because it is self-centered -- I live in Canada and I remember the story of this professor from University of Illinois (UC) who was coming to give a lecture at University of Toronto. He found out at the border that Toronto is not in US.

America is hated because it puts idiots like Bush in power.

America is hated because its a melting pot that refuses to understand other cultures and expect everyone to be a white christian flag waving person.

America is hated because it refuses to let its citizens know the truth about what is going on around the world (CNN after 911 refused to air anything that goes againt national interests -- and that meant not reporting thousands of American deaths in Afghanistan).

America is hated because it is the only nation in the world that can bomb a wedding from the air killing innocent men, women and children and get away with it.

America is hated for many more reasons and any intelligent American can pick them apart. As for you dumb ones, you will always wonder why.
I'm ALSO Canadian, but I still have to say, you're retarded.

The US is bad for the west. Period.

The US is the west. Period.