NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a link to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, a worldwide sampling poll intended to determine the attitudes of people in various countries toward, among other things, the US: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247

As best I can determine, one of the primary reasons for the "falling popularity of the US" are the miniscule number of US personnel "abusing" detainees. These problems are being delt with. Numerous military personnel have been disciplined, some of them most severely. Commanders having responsibility for those personnel have been given career-ending letters of reprimand, and in some cases have been relieved of duty. I was under the impression that "innocent until proven guilty" applied even to us military swine.

I lived through a time when American servicemen and servicewomen were reviled as "Nazis," "War criminals," and far worse. In the wonderful, liberal town of San Francisco, I myself was called "baby-killer" and spat upon.

This is how it all begins. Some Senator or Congressman, trying to make a political career over the dead bodies of American soldiers, makes the sort of wild, libelous accusations that Senator Dick Durbin made; the media, being the media, pick it up and repeat it, often magnifying it; our opponents abroad pick it up, deliberately magnifiy it and pass it on; those at home who either hate the military ( for whatever reason ), or who have some sort of ax to grind, expand the original accusations to cover all military personnel; eventually, some unrestrained idiot burns a flag, or spits on a soldier, or self-immolates in "protest."

Hegelian Dialectics, in brief, is a technique for moving people closer to your position by degrees, usually by taking an extreme position in the ( not unrealistic ) expectation that some will move a bit further toward your position simply because they figure your position must have some truth to it, else why would you be so extreme. The dialectic was used by the anti-war people during Vietnam to great effect.

I see things like people on NS General, or Senator Durbin, or any of a dozen others I could name, using the dialectic today, whether consciously or unconsciously is largely irrelevant.

If a particular American serviceman or servicewoman has transgressed, then try them for it and punish them accordingly. But I refuse to allow things like the Durbin allegations to stand without doing my best to point out exactly what they are: an attempt to use the Hegelian Dialectic to alter perceptions in favor of their own anti-American-military agenda.

The sort of statements being made by many on the left, both here and abroad, cannot help but give aid and comfort to those determined to kill as many American servicemen and servicewomen as possible, else why would the terrorist media be so quick to jump on statements like those made by Senator Durbin? ( example: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/796AA4AC-531C-4E6F-B855-7FBC52506824.htm )

If you repeatedly toss about wildly inaccurate and marginally defamatory accusations concerning what the US does in Iraq and at Guantanamo, it makes me wonder as to your motivation. The detainees at Guantanamo are not being mistreated. If anything, they are being mollycoddled in an effort to avoid further specious allegations about military personnel, largely by leftists with an ax to grind.

During WWII there was a saying: "Loose lips sink ships." For today's world it could be: "Repeat the lies, an American dies."

The bottom line for me is, if people in another country don't like the US, that's their business. Sure, it would be nice to be loved by other countries, but almost all nations ultimately act in their own self-interest. They could love the hell out of the US and smile broadly while they slip the knife in.

At a personal level, I couldn't care less what you think about me. If you don't like me then you don't have to hang around with me. Somehow, I still seem to have lots of friends. The same holds true at a national level. If a particular country doesn't "like" the US, they don't have to have civil dealings with us.

Thus speaks the self appointed centerist! :eek:

I have some news for you Eutrusca. The majority of the world dislike the USA for reasons that are far more profound than a few servicemen committing torture.

The USA is disliked for its arrogance more than anything. The attitude that was dispolayed by Oprah in respect of being denied entry into a private function in Paris is a good example of this. As were some of the comments made in respect of that, including your own.

The idea that an election that does not produce a pro USA government can not have been fair or just, is also ridiculous.

The belief that the whole world wants to be like the USA is a problem.

The 'holier than thou' attitude that disparages the values and ideals of any other culture makes you disliked.

No Eutrusca, a few misbehaving soldiers are a problem, but they are not the reason for this poll result.

Interesting. I didn't see any Latin American countries listed. Or does that come under America?

But I guess they don't count. If they did, I'm sure you would see a very consistent contempt for USian foreign policy. A natural reaction to the violations of sovereignty, the prolonging of civil conflicts, the exibition of a double standard of justice and other attrocities committed by the U.S. government over the past one hundred years.

This is not a new development. After September 11th, we squandered our good will internationally by pushing as hard as we did for the war. Foreign relations were nearly at an all time high until we just threw away diplomacy in favor of a rush to war. Just because I think the war was justified doesn't mean I can't decry the way we went about doing it. The torture just amplified this.

Further, the torture of detainees is fucking bad. And what Durbin said wasn't even that bad. The generalizing statement that torture better belongs in a totalitarian regime than the "arsenal of democracy" is probably true. If we're defending freedom and ethical treatment of those under the state's power, we should practice what we preach. It's tough to say we're fighting evil when we're doing the same thing they are - holding mostly innocent people in prison, subjecting them to horrible conditions, and refusing to give them chances to exonerate themselves. For the same reasons, an America where uncovering government abuses is illegal would cease to be America. The terrorists would have won.

*Side philosophical note: Hegel's dialectic is not something that's used. It's a theory of history: Every movement (thesis) breeds its opposite (antithesis), whose opposition constructs a combination of the two (synthesis). In terms of this discussion, the current war and prisoner abuse will breed its opponents who will in turn come to a compromise position. A strict Hegelian would say the sort of thing you're talking about is inevitable and natural.

No Eutrusca, a few misbehaving soldiers are a problem, but they are not the reason for this poll result.
I have to agree with this, Eut. I myself developed a profound antipathy towards the US at a very tender age, and it had nothing to do (directly) with your military personnel. Rather, it had to do with US-trained Contra soldiers in Nicaragua who gang raped my godmother (who was a Libertarian Theologist nun, sympathetic towards the Sandinistas). It had to do with my research into US foreign policy in Latin America (which I presented in a very poorly-received paper in grade 5:)). It had to do with the slow shift from Canadian content to Americanization of our media. It had to do with being neighbours to a nation whose citizens (in general) remain completely ignorant about us, and seem to be constantly wagging their fingers at our 'socialist' ways.

Your soldiers have never truly been a target for my anger. Vietnam, though before my time, is a symbol in my mind of the abuse of soldiers. Not by anti-war protestors, but by the US government. You mentioned once that soldiers returning from Vietnam swore, "Never Again", but you linked that to the idea that they would never again allow themselves to be maligned by protesters. I took it to mean (as I have heard from those few vets I've met) that Never Again means they would never again support a government who would send them to fight in that kind of situation again.

So yes, some 'bad apples' are popping up in your military. But that, added with the issue of cultural imperialism, economic imperialism, and aggressive foreign policy is what is swaying global opinion. Not the soldiers themselves.

Thus speaks the self appointed centerist! :eek:

I have some news for you Eutrusca. The majority of the world dislike the USA for reasons that are far more profound than a few servicemen committing torture.

The USA is disliked for its arrogance more than anything. The attitude that was dispolayed by Oprah in respect of being denied entry into a private function in Paris is a good example of this. As were some of the comments made in respect of that, including your own.

The idea that an election that does not produce a pro USA government can not have been fair or just, is also ridiculous.

The belief that the whole world wants to be like the USA is a problem.

The 'holier than thou' attitude that disparages the values and ideals of any other culture makes you disliked.

No Eutrusca, a few misbehaving soldiers are a problem, but they are not the reason for this poll result.
Interesting assertions, but the chart on that site doesn't bear them out. Either the poll is valid, in which case it indicates a significant portion of the problem is due to both intervention in Iraq and the overblown "abuses" of detainees, or the poll is invalid, in which case just toss it overboard.

IF people in the US have a "holier than thou attitude," it's due in part to the same nationalistic myopia demostrated repeatedly by countries like France and Germany. It's probably also due, in part, to the perception among many Americans that nations are going to do what's in their own best interest, regardless of whether they "like" the US or not. It matters not a whit whether other countries "like" us or not, they're still going to do what they think is best for them.

IF people in the US have a "holier than thou attitude," it's due in part to the same nationalistic myopia demostrated repeatedly by countries like France and Germany.
Every country has a bit of that 'holier than thou attitude', no doubt about it. But not every country has the power to culturally and militarily PROJECT that attitutde the way the US can.


It's probably also due, in part, to the perception among many Americans that nations are going to do what's in their own best interest, regardless of whether they "like" the US or not. It matters not a whit whether other countries "like" us or not, they're still going to do what they think is best for them.Do you really think the majority of people in the US believe that? Why then would the US be so aggressively pushing their agenda internationally? Clearly you believe that 'by reason or by force', other nations will begin to follow your example. The global economy as well is so intricately connected that no nation can truly only act in its own best interests in isolation. For many nations, the ultimate bad move would be to alienate the US...so appeasing the US suddenly becomes an action that is their best interests. Do not pretend that US citizens are completely oblivious to this.

I have to agree with this, Eut. I myself developed a profound antipathy towards the US at a very tender age, and it had nothing to do (directly) with your military personnel. Rather, it had to do with US-trained Contra soldiers in Nicaragua who gang raped my godmother (who was a Libertarian Theologist nun, sympathetic towards the Sandinistas). It had to do with my research into US foreign policy in Latin America (which I presented in a very poorly-received paper in grade 5:)). It had to do with the slow shift from Canadian content to Americanization of our media. It had to do with being neighbours to a nation whose citizens (in general) remain completely ignorant about us, and seem to be constantly wagging their fingers at our 'socialist' ways.

Your soldiers have never truly been a target for my anger. Vietnam, though before my time, is a symbol in my mind of the abuse of soldiers. Not by anti-war protestors, but by the US government. You mentioned once that soldiers returning from Vietnam swore, "Never Again", but you linked that to the idea that they would never again allow themselves to be maligned by protesters. I took it to mean (as I have heard from those few vets I've met) that Never Again means they would never again support a government who would send them to fight in that kind of situation again.

So yes, some 'bad apples' are popping up in your military. But that, added with the issue of cultural imperialism, economic imperialism, and aggressive foreign policy is what is swaying global opinion. Not the soldiers themselves.
A rather fine distinction to draw, since it's often the soldiers who draw the fire ( whether verbal or tactical ) of those who have decided to blame the US every time something happens that they don't like. I'm very sorry that your Godmother was raped, but blaming the US for it doesn't seem very rational to me.

Interesting. I didn't see any Latin American countries listed. Or does that come under America?

But I guess they don't count. If they did, I'm sure you would see a very consistent contempt for USian foreign policy. A natural reaction to the violations of sovereignty, the prolonging of civil conflicts, the exibition of a double standard of justice and other attrocities committed by the U.S. government over the past one hundred years.
When you decide to stop using a derogatory and sarcastic name for the US, I'll start responding to your posts.

Interesting assertions, but the chart on that site doesn't bear them out. Either the poll is valid, in which case it indicates a significant portion of the problem is due to both intervention in Iraq and the overblown "abuses" of detainees, or the poll is invalid, in which case just toss it overboard.


I see nothing in the polls presented that would support your assertation. There are a wide range of issues tackled, including perceptions of US honesty and violence...nothing specifically indicates that this is due to Iraq and prisoner abuse alone.

1. Every country has a bit of that 'holier than thou attitude', no doubt about it. But not every country has the power to culturally and militarily PROJECT that attitutde the way the US can.

Do you really think the majority of people in the US believe that? Why then would the US be so aggressively pushing their agenda internationally? Clearly you believe that 'by reason or by force', other nations will begin to follow your example. The global economy as well is so intricately connected that no nation can truly only act in its own best interests in isolation. For many nations, the ultimate bad move would be to alienate the US...so appeasing the US suddenly becomes an action that is their best interests. Do not pretend that US citizens are completely oblivious to this.
1. So it's not that we're a bit ethnocentric, it's that we have power? Is that what you mean?

2. The US wants to spread democracy ( or, as you put it, "follow our example ) because a world with more democracies is a safer world. Historically, democracies do not attack each other.

When you decide to stop using a derogatory and sarcastic name for the US, I'll start responding to your posts.
Are you referring to the term USian? Surely we don't need to go into this again? If you notice, I myself avoid saying, "American" wherever possible. I'll say, "US citizen"..."citizen of the US"..."US public"...etc, because for me, as with many posters with links to Latin America, "AMERICAN" does not refer to US citizens alone, and is very hot topic of contention. So, we avoid it. USian, while not a great word to use in everyday speech, is quicker than 'citizen of the US" in this written format. It is neither derogatory or sarcastic...and I think you are quite aware that there exist many other terms for people of the US that WOULD be.

Funny, the polls show the numbers dropping after we invaded Iraq, the torture is just icing on the cake. And I will continue to state allogations of such because our beloved military has a history of sweaping such things under the rug and claiming that it never happened till forced to admit it.

The reason I care about world opinion is that we do live with the rest of the world and without the rest of the world, the US wouldn't be able to function. They play nicer when they like us. Also, as an ex-pat, I get first hand experiance as to what world opinion is like when you ID yourself as an American. Since the more they don't like us, the more they will target us, I really am concerned about it. Try stepping outside the borders sometime.

Oh, this also applies to military personel overseas. They do leave the bases, I'd rather they are liked and not shot at.

Are you referring to the term USian? Surely we don't need to go into this again? If you notice, I myself avoid saying, "American" wherever possible. I'll say, "US citizen"..."citizen of the US"..."US public"...etc, because for me, as with many posters with links to Latin America, "AMERICAN" does not refer to US citizens alone, and is very hot topic of contention. So, we avoid it. USian, while not a great word to use in everyday speech, is quicker than 'citizen of the US" in this written format. It is neither derogatory or sarcastic...and I think you are quite aware that there exist many other terms for people of the US that WOULD be.
At least the "other terms" are honest. If I began to refer to Canadians as "Canucks," would you be less inclined or more inclined to have a rational discussion with me?

Try stepping outside the borders sometime.
Oh brother! :rolleyes:

A rather fine distinction to draw, since it's often the soldiers who draw the fire ( whether verbal or tactical ) of those who have decided to blame the US every time something happens that they don't like. I'm very sorry that your Godmother was raped, but blaming the US for it doesn't seem very rational to me.
I think you are bit sensitive to the issue, and see magnitude where magnitude may not particularly exist.

Yes, individual soldiers can be blamed for individual abuses...but few people are narrow sighted enough to blame soldiers for the bigger picture. A soldier is not responsible for the war he or she fights in. The US public is not the same as the US government. Most people who dislike the US make a very clear distinction of what that means. Not necessarily a dislike for the land, or its people, but for its government and its foreign policy.

As for my Godmother...blaming the US is only part of it, and a very valid part. Need I go into the history of US intervention in Nicaragua to explain why? I can not blame every US citizen for her rape. I can not blame your populace as a whole even. I can not blame single, specific government representatives of the time, but I can, and I will attach a modicum of blame to the US system and the US foreign policy in those years. They most certainly had a strong influence, both direct (in training and military support) and indirect in the abuses that happened.

At least the "other terms" are honest. If I began to refer to Canadians as "Canucks," would you be less inclined or more inclined to have a rational discussion with me?

More, because I would know you had a sence of humour and shows me that it will be a funny-while-educational debate. Now if you started using Canucks as a racist or ill meaning term, then I would be less inclined to discuss with you.

IF people in the US have a "holier than thou attitude," it's due in part to the same nationalistic myopia demostrated repeatedly by countries like France and Germany. It's probably also due, in part, to the perception among many Americans that nations are going to do what's in their own best interest, regardless of whether they "like" the US or not. It matters not a whit whether other countries "like" us or not, they're still going to do what they think is best for them.
In a purely practical sense, we kinda have to have good relations with other countries that this poll would indicate we've alienated:
1. Trade and economic reasons - the more comfortable we are with other countries, the more cooperative they'll be with us on economic issues. That means gains for both countries.
2. Terrorism - the US can't be everywhere at every time. We need a high degree of coordination with other countries in order to effectively find terrorist cells. The more we piss off other countries, the less likely they are to help us out in finding terrorists.
3. The UN - If we ever want to reform that institution, we need international support.
4. Other superpowers - at the rate the Chinese and Indian economies are growing, they could become seriously powerful at one point relatively soon. We're going to want most of the world on our side if other countries rise to challenge US supremacy.

That's the short, easy list.

1. So it's not that we're a bit ethnocentric, it's that we have power? Is that what you mean?
Nope. You are very ethnocentric. More than some nations, not as much as others. AND you have the power to project your ethnocentrism.

2. The US wants to spread democracy ( or, as you put it, "follow our example ) because a world with more democracies is a safer world. Historically, democracies do not attack each other.
Mm-hmmm...and a few decades ago, the US wanted to spread dictatorships, because they are more economically stable and make good trading partners, as long as the puppet in power moves to the US tune. Your sudden shift to 'altruism' is suspect, and rightfully so.

I'm going to use a quote by Whispering Legs I've been saving, because I think he says this as perfectly as it needs to be said:

Whatever works.

As an aside, the obvious fact that what works in one country doesn't always work in another is evidence to me that:

a) not everyone needs or wants the same kind of government
b) not everyone needs or wants the same kinds of laws
c) not everyone needs or wants the same political philosophy

I don't believe for a minute that democracy or socialism or any other -ism is a universal antidote for poverty, war, crime, etc., in all countries.
Democracy is a wonderful thing...but US style democracy is not the ONLY possible democracy.

At least the "other terms" are honest. If I began to refer to Canadians as "Canucks," would you be less inclined or more inclined to have a rational discussion with me?
Not a great example...it's neither sarcastic nor derogatory in my mind, unless you made it very clear that you meant it that way...

...you may not like the term USian, but it is no more inherently sarcastic or derogatory that the term "American" would be in the mouth of someone who was being sarcastic and derogatory:)

And frankly, I'll have a rational discussion despite what is being said to me, even if that discussion ends up 'rationally' one sided. Simply ignoring what someone has said because you disagree with the terms they use is not rational.

Oh brother! :rolleyes:
Oh? You have lived abroad as of late (late being since the start of the current war)? No, US military service does not count, they tend to bring America with them and isolate themselves from the local population (a good idea of course).

Nope. You are very ethnocentric. More than some nations, not as much as others. AND you have the power to project your ethnocentrism.

Just wait. It will only be a matter of time before Chinese ethnocentrism overwhelms the world.

We'll all be eating rice and speaking Chinese before long.

Just wait. It will only be a matter of time before Chinese ethnocentrism overwhelms the world.

We'll all be eating rice and speaking Chinese before long.

Ah, the Yellow Peril again, eh?

An oldie but a goodie, to be sure.

Just wait. It will only be a matter of time before Chinese ethnocentrism overwhelms the world.

We'll all be eating rice and speaking Chinese before long.
Thus why we need to have good relations with other countries. To make sure China doesn't come to dominate the other world.

I lived through a time when American servicemen and servicewomen were reviled as "Nazis," "War criminals," and far worse.

I was born in 1966. I lived through a time when all Germans were reviled as "Nazis", and far worse. So what?



Hegelian Dialectics, in brief, is a technique for moving people closer to your position by degrees, usually by taking an extreme position in the ( not unrealistic ) expectation that some will move a bit further toward your position simply because they figure your position must have some truth to it, else why would you be so extreme. The dialectic was used by the anti-war people during Vietnam to great effect.

Works the other way round too. But it seems to me, that unfair means of propaganda, questionable malpractice of pseudo-logics and the like only applies to "the others".
The huge differrence is, that some go to war, bomb or kill people based on stupid propaganda - mostly their own - this applies to many parties, imo, islamist terrorists and those who claim to "defend" themselves against terrorism by taking the war to their place.
And some don't. Simply rallying protest against political decisions can hardly do as much harm as bombs do.


The bottom line for me is, if people in another country don't like the US, that's their business. Sure, it would be nice to be loved by other countries, but almost all nations ultimately act in their own self-interest. They could love the hell out of the US and smile broadly while they slip the knife in.


The bottom line for me is, if the US doesn't like other countries or the way, people live in different societies, that's their business.
Do they allow others to handle their affairs their own way? Before you just yell "yes!", think about it for a moment.
Some influental powers in the US and some posters in NS general like to put their laaaaaaaaaarge Texan hat over everybodys head and if it doesn't quite fit, it's that "unfitting" persons fault.
Not, that I want to defend cases of genozide, e. g. in the Sudan, former Yugoslavia and the like. But it's also a matter of fact, that western governments, including the German, support all kinds of evil dictators and their crimes against their own people and others, and in other cases, they claim to intervene on the basis of preventing exactly the crimes they vigorously supported in the first case. If you insist, I can give details. You should be able to give them yourself, as a politically well-informed person.
All in all, US influence is still very strong in europe, if we like it or not. But I have the impression, that blindly pro-Americanism is not trustworthy. I know Germany owes the US much, but not as much as many Americans think.
Love and respect is a matter of give *and* take.
Believe it or not, you can consider it a sign of good will, that I elaborate so long over a topic I discussed a million times before to no avail.

Ah, the Yellow Peril again, eh?

An oldie but a goodie, to be sure.

No, not the Yellow Peril.

Just from the point of view of numbers, we already know that the Chinese and Indian economies are growing at an explosive rate. It isn't going to be long before their economies overshadow those of the US and the EU.

And then, who will the 600-pound gorilla be?

It's already considered a good idea here to learn Chinese in college, especially if you plan on getting your MBA.

This is a link to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, a worldwide sampling poll intended to determine the attitudes of people in various countries toward, among other things, the US: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247

As best I can determine, one of the primary reasons for the "falling popularity of the US" are the miniscule number of US personnel "abusing" detainees. These problems are being delt with. Numerous military personnel have been disciplined, some of them most severely. Commanders having responsibility for those personnel have been given career-ending letters of reprimand, and in some cases have been relieved of duty. I was under the impression that "innocent until proven guilty" applied even to us military swine.
My best guess is that you did not read the article that you linked to this thread, either that, or you misread the whole article?

In an earlier thread, you mentioned people having a "secret agenda" and I suggest that that is exactly what you are putting forth here.

Nowhere in that article did it mention the abuse of prisoners, so your suggestion that "one of the primary reasons for the "falling popularity of the US" are the miniscule number of US personnel "abusing" detainees", is patently false.

Perhaps you should read the whole article, look at the numbers, and then perhaps you will have a better understanding as to how and why the world feels the way they do about the US. The biggest thing that stood out for me, was the attitude of the world on the re-election of George Bush:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/247-4.gif

IMHO, this thread otherwise is a poor attempt at grandstanding, has no basis in any kind of fact, and is ill conceived.

Just wait. It will only be a matter of time before Chinese ethnocentrism overwhelms the world.

We'll all be eating rice and speaking Chinese before long.
Ah...always the one for 'scary scenarios'...:) Yesterday you said we'd all be in burkhas and speaking Arabic?

Any nation that gains power the way the US has, will, as have all powerful nations, try to extend their influence, culturally, militarily, whateverly...no one, I believe, is saying that the US is alone in this. Nor will they be the last to do it. But they are the present powerhouse. And if they can not limit their ambition, it is up to other nations to do it for them, by resisting the extension of their influence.

As it may one day be necessary to resist the Chinese. Or the North Koreans. Or the Cree Indians of Canada. MUAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!

No, not the Yellow Peril.
Just from the point of view of numbers, we already know that the Chinese and Indian economies are growing at an explosive rate. It isn't going to be long before their economies overshadow those of the US and the EU.
.

It will take 100+ years of 9% GDP growth for the Chinese economy to overtake the US, and by then labor costs and other economic factors will have made their economy at best equal to the US, assuming no wars result in serious devastation or economic collapse.

Believe it or not, you can consider it a sign of good will, that I elaborate so long over a topic I discussed a million times before to no avail.
Ditto. And only because it's you, Eut :fluffle:

It will take 100+ years of 9% GDP growth for the Chinese economy to overtake the US, and by then labor costs and other economic factors will have made their economy at best equal to the US, assuming no wars result in serious devastation or economic collapse.

I don't believe they'll be at 9%. And I don't believe our economy will continue to grow.

It will be nice to sit back, and be like the Europeans, and talk crap about the next superpower.

1. Nope. You are very ethnocentric. More than some nations, not as much as others. AND you have the power to project your ethnocentrism.

2. Mm-hmmm...and a few decades ago, the US wanted to spread dictatorships, because they are more economically stable and make good trading partners, as long as the puppet in power moves to the US tune. Your sudden shift to 'altruism' is suspect, and rightfully so.

3. Democracy is a wonderful thing...but US style democracy is not the ONLY possible democracy.
1. So it's the combination of ethnocentrism with power? And it's the power which makes the difference? Is that not what I was saying?

2. I can't deny that, but the fear of USSR-style communism drove most of the policy decisions in those years under "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach to international relations. This has come back to haunt us and for that I am decidedly apologetic. Had our policy-makers possessed sufficient insight to oppose communism by helping build democracies, I would have been much happier.

3. I have never indicated that "US style democracy" was either the "only possible democracy," or even the best democracy. My only point was that spreading democratic forms of government will decrease the level of aggression in the world.

I don't believe they'll be at 9%. And I don't believe our economy will continue to grow.

It will be nice to sit back, and be like the Europeans, and talk crap about the next superpower.

Well, the US still has technological supremacy, and tons of natural resources/nuclear weapons. Our economy doesn't have the overburden of taxation and regulation that Europe has, so our economy will grow as long as we don't screw something up.

Plus, with such a great military, we'll be able to take on China.

So Pew says America has image problems abroad. It seems Eutrusca, having taken that onboard, is going with the "we're-not-the-problem, you're-the-ones-with-problems" tack, to the complete lack of anyone's surprise.

No, there's nothing wrong with anything. Those polls are no doubt biased towards leftists, or communists, or some kinda garden-variety malcontents with the suffix 'ist' slapped onto the end of their name. Eh?

Eh?

It will be nice to sit back, and be like the Europeans, and talk crap about the next superpower.
Better get a nice armchair now...it could be sooner than you think!:)

You might not believe it WL and Eut, but the world will have no trouble shifting the focus of their attention if a situation arises that merits it. In some ways, we have since 911. How many people could even find Afghanistan on a map before then...or if they could, why would they have bothered? People were screaming about the Taliban for years, but the world's attention never quite settle on them. The Middle East used to mean Israel and Palestine...now it means much more than that.

If another nation becomes as culturally and economically influential as the US, or overshadows you, we will not miss it in our 'overweening zeal to pillory the US'. We won't let you off the hook for the things you've done either...but once you no longer become the LONE 600 pound gorrilla, you will cease to be the lone target.

Perhaps you should read the whole article, look at the numbers, and then perhaps you will have a better understanding as to how and why the world feels the way they do about the US. The biggest thing that stood out for me, was the attitude of the world on the re-election of George Bush:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/247-4.gif

IMHO, this thread otherwise is a poor attempt at grandstanding, has no basis in any kind of fact, and is ill conceived.

...so, in summation:

When the US helps others in the world, the world is happy with us.
When the US looks after it's own best interest, the world is less happy with us.

Gee, nothing new under the sun here, eh?

More, because I would know you had a sence of humour and shows me that it will be a funny-while-educational debate. Now if you started using Canucks as a racist or ill meaning term, then I would be less inclined to discuss with you.
Please allow me to quote from another poster who actually knows what I'm like ( emphasis added ):

You are really with it, hip, friendly, helpful, an AMAZING source of unbiased opinion, you are always happy to share your life stories and experiences with people, you can take a joke, you are pretty open-minded, you aren't some oversexed, internet addicted weirdo trying to hit on young chicks, and most of all....you are really, really funny.

This is a link to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, a worldwide sampling poll intended to determine the attitudes of people in various countries toward, among other things, the US: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247

As best I can determine, one of the primary reasons for the "falling popularity of the US" are the miniscule number of US personnel "abusing" detainees. These problems are being delt with. Numerous military personnel have been disciplined, some of them most severely. Commanders having responsibility for those personnel have been given career-ending letters of reprimand, and in some cases have been relieved of duty. I was under the impression that "innocent until proven guilty" applied even to us military swine.

I lived through a time when American servicemen and servicewomen were reviled as "Nazis," "War criminals," and far worse. In the wonderful, liberal town of San Francisco, I myself was called "baby-killer" and spat upon.

This is how it all begins. Some Senator or Congressman, trying to make a political career over the dead bodies of American soldiers, makes the sort of wild, libelous accusations that Senator Dick Durbin made; the media, being the media, pick it up and repeat it, often magnifying it; our opponents abroad pick it up, deliberately magnifiy it and pass it on; those at home who either hate the military ( for whatever reason ), or who have some sort of ax to grind, expand the original accusations to cover all military personnel; eventually, some unrestrained idiot burns a flag, or spits on a soldier, or self-immolates in "protest."

Hegelian Dialectics, in brief, is a technique for moving people closer to your position by degrees, usually by taking an extreme position in the ( not unrealistic ) expectation that some will move a bit further toward your position simply because they figure your position must have some truth to it, else why would you be so extreme. The dialectic was used by the anti-war people during Vietnam to great effect.

I see things like people on NS General, or Senator Durbin, or any of a dozen others I could name, using the dialectic today, whether consciously or unconsciously is largely irrelevant.

If a particular American serviceman or servicewoman has transgressed, then try them for it and punish them accordingly. But I refuse to allow things like the Durbin allegations to stand without doing my best to point out exactly what they are: an attempt to use the Hegelian Dialectic to alter perceptions in favor of their own anti-American-military agenda.

The sort of statements being made by many on the left, both here and abroad, cannot help but give aid and comfort to those determined to kill as many American servicemen and servicewomen as possible, else why would the terrorist media be so quick to jump on statements like those made by Senator Durbin? ( example: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/796AA4AC-531C-4E6F-B855-7FBC52506824.htm )

If you repeatedly toss about wildly inaccurate and marginally defamatory accusations concerning what the US does in Iraq and at Guantanamo, it makes me wonder as to your motivation. The detainees at Guantanamo are not being mistreated. If anything, they are being mollycoddled in an effort to avoid further specious allegations about military personnel, largely by leftists with an ax to grind.

During WWII there was a saying: "Loose lips sink ships." For today's world it could be: "Repeat the lies, an American dies."

The bottom line for me is, if people in another country don't like the US, that's their business. Sure, it would be nice to be loved by other countries, but almost all nations ultimately act in their own self-interest. They could love the hell out of the US and smile broadly while they slip the knife in.

At a personal level, I couldn't care less what you think about me. If you don't like me then you don't have to hang around with me. Somehow, I still seem to have lots of friends. The same holds true at a national level. If a particular country doesn't "like" the US, they don't have to have civil dealings with us.


I can fully agree with you and since i have friends that are in the service and are being called these things. I hate it. He comes home from service thinking that close minded people seem to inhabit this entire country. But in truth i really agree with the idea that if people don't like americans or Amercia in general don't deal with us. I think that we can do just fine without these people looking down on us.
Me

Please allow me to quote from another poster who actually knows what I'm like ( emphasis added ):

So true.:D

Ah...always the one for 'scary scenarios'...:) Yesterday you said we'd all be in burkhas and speaking Arabic?
Politics au jour? Perhaps in the end, we will have more than one choices? :)

Well, the US still has technological supremacy, and tons of natural resources/nuclear weapons. Our economy doesn't have the overburden of taxation and regulation that Europe has, so our economy will grow as long as we don't screw something up.

Plus, with such a great military, we'll be able to take on China.

As programmers around the world have noticed, as well as electronics manufacturers and chip plants, the Chinese and Indians can do high tech just as well for less money than anyone in the West. The technological supremacy you foresee implies that you believe that somehow, non-US and non-EU people can't learn how to do those things.

They absolutely can do those things - they are doing them now.

Additionally, any technologically advanced nation can make nuclear weapons.

But it's not with nuclear weapons that the US will be defeated. I foresee a long twilight, rather like the decline of the UK's worldwide influence, as India and China dominate the world economy.

By comparison, the stable or shrinking populations of the EU and US will have no chance at all in competing against the massive populations of China and India.

...so, in summation:

When the US helps others in the world, the world is happy with us.
When the US looks after it's own best interest, the world is less happy with us.

Gee, nothing new under the sun here, eh?

More accurately.

When you help people, people like you.
When you elect a man widely percieved as any combination of, imbecilic, power-mad, redneck, untrustworthy, 300 miles right-of-centre, accident-prone, hypocritical and overaggressive, we get worried and somewhat displeased.

So Pew says America has image problems abroad. It seems Eutrusca, having taken that onboard, is going with the "we're-not-the-problem, you're-the-ones-with-problems" tack, to the complete lack of anyone's surprise.

No, there's nothing wrong with anything. Those polls are no doubt biased towards leftists, or communists, or some kinda garden-variety malcontents with the suffix 'ist' slapped onto the end of their name. Eh?

Eh?
Have you ever noticed this tendency of yours to put words in the mouths of others and then attack the straw man you've created? It's quite noticeable to some of the rest of us. :rolleyes:

3. I have never indicated that "US style democracy" was either the "only possible democracy," or even the best democracy. My only point was that spreading democratic forms of government will decrease the level of aggression in the world.
Democracy promotion is a nice theory, but in practice, it won't pan out. Why? Let's take the Middle East as an example. The Revolution against the Shah was a popular one. His fall was celebrated. What was put in place? Perhaps the worst theocratic state in the modern world. Polls consistently show that elections in the Middle East would put some more mullahs into power, particularly in Pakistan. I probably don't need to explain why that would be bad.

Eutrusca, answer my original post.

...so, in summation:

When the US helps others in the world, the world is happy with us.
When the US looks after it's own best interest, the world is less happy with us.

Gee, nothing new under the sun here, eh?

Wait a minute, are you saying that re-electing George Bush was in our best interest?

As programmers around the world have noticed, as well as electronics manufacturers and chip plants, the Chinese and Indians can do high tech just as well for less money than anyone in the West. The technological supremacy you foresee implies that you believe that somehow, non-US and non-EU people can't learn how to do those things.

By comparison, the stable or shrinking populations of the EU and US will have no chance at all in competing against the massive populations of China and India.

The outsourcing to India is falling for a simple reason: Labor costs are rising. These countries aren't a bottomless pit, and so the cost of hiring programmers goes up because supply is not unlimited. In fact, India is outsourcing to the US and China. China is the new target for outsourcing, but once its costs go up, companies will move on.

Interesting assertions, but the chart on that site doesn't bear them out. Either the poll is valid, in which case it indicates a significant portion of the problem is due to both intervention in Iraq and the overblown "abuses" of detainees, or the poll is invalid, in which case just toss it overboard.

IF people in the US have a "holier than thou attitude," it's due in part to the same nationalistic myopia demostrated repeatedly by countries like France and Germany. It's probably also due, in part, to the perception among many Americans that nations are going to do what's in their own best interest, regardless of whether they "like" the US or not. It matters not a whit whether other countries "like" us or not, they're still going to do what they think is best for them.

Nothing in that report indicates that the abuses of detainees is a major factor. Yes the war in Iraq is, but I was wanting to draw attention to some more long term factors. Those that were present before the current conflict, those that led to events like 9/11 and the USS Cole (How that has been forgotten). It is allt oo easy to attribute the dislike (hate in some cases) of the USA to the current events, and many people will, when asked, cite the Iraq war the prisoner abuse as reasons, because they are at the 'top of their mind' at the moment. The root causes though are much deeper as I started by saying.

The 'holier than thou' attitude is not as widely demonstrated, here at least, by other nationalities as it is by USians like yourself (Your reaction to this term USian being a case in point.) Yes a government will defend its own interests. One only has to look at the EU situation to see this, but other nations seem to recognise that goodwill is an important factor in commerce and in protecting their interests. The USA does not seem to care what other nations think. It has the image of the schoolyard bully, it comes over as "we are right, and we don't care if you disagree, as we know we are right". This is what I meant by 'holier than thou'.

Self interest, in the USA seems to be defined as being material, monetary benefit. This is a culture that not everyone accepts, and the pushing of the almighty dollar has caused considerable resentment.

The political hypocrisy of suypporting military dictatorships in Latin America, Asia and Africa whilst proclaiming that the world should be democratic has bankrupted the political opinion of the US government in the eyes of many. Thus people laugh, or groan with despair, when Bush criticises the elections in Iran. The one thing they do not do is take his criticism seriously. If there had been severe criticism issuing from Europe, Canada, Japan even, then this would have had some impact. But from Bush, it was comically predictable.

As programmers around the world have noticed, as well as electronics manufacturers and chip plants, the Chinese and Indians can do high tech just as well for less money than anyone in the West. The technological supremacy you foresee implies that you believe that somehow, non-US and non-EU people can't learn how to do those things.

They absolutely can do those things - they are doing them now.

Additionally, any technologically advanced nation can make nuclear weapons.

But it's not with nuclear weapons that the US will be defeated. I foresee a long twilight, rather like the decline of the UK's worldwide influence, as India and China dominate the world economy.

By comparison, the stable or shrinking populations of the EU and US will have no chance at all in competing against the massive populations of China and India.

I completely agree. And it makes me sad. :(

When you decide to stop using a derogatory and sarcastic name for the US, I'll start responding to your posts.
i musta missed the memo...

just WHEN did USian become a derogatory and sarcastic name for the us?

Have you ever noticed this tendency of yours to put words in the mouths of others and then attack the straw man you've created? It's quite noticeable to some of the rest of us. :rolleyes:
Pot kettle black. You tried to build a straw man with this thread, based on a link that doesn't support your theory in the least. :eek:

i musta missed the memo...

just WHEN did USian become a derogatory and sarcastic name for the us?

When Eutrusca decided his plumage was ruffled. Which is most of the time, actually - near as I can make it.

I completely agree. And it makes me sad. :(

Eventually, it will end, because outsourcing is becoming less economically viable, and their choices are of lower quality (complaints about call centers have skyrocketed, and companies are running out of options). So, in the end they will find that the US was the best choice after all.

By comparison, the stable or shrinking populations of the EU and US will have no chance at all in competing against the massive populations of China and India.

Overly large populations are not the solution to problems. Overpopulation is or will very soon become the problem. In my opinion of course, even though I know that polution of the environment and overfishing of the oceans are just bolshevik propaganda. Or is it arabic terrorist propaganda? Or chinese economical propaganda? Or old European decadent propaganda? Sorry, I get so confused by my many secret agendas. ;)

As programmers around the world have noticed, as well as electronics manufacturers and chip plants, the Chinese and Indians can do high tech just as well for less money than anyone in the West. The technological supremacy you foresee implies that you believe that somehow, non-US and non-EU people can't learn how to do those things.

They absolutely can do those things - they are doing them now.

Additionally, any technologically advanced nation can make nuclear weapons.

But it's not with nuclear weapons that the US will be defeated. I foresee a long twilight, rather like the decline of the UK's worldwide influence, as India and China dominate the world economy.

By comparison, the stable or shrinking populations of the EU and US will have no chance at all in competing against the massive populations of China and India.
in a free world economy without anyone being held back by bad government....

china wins

in 200 years we will all be "chinese". good thing the food is tastey.

Meh, how about we go into isolaitonism? See how much the world likes us then.....

just WHEN did USian become a derogatory and sarcastic name for the us?
It's the "Politically Correct" term (USian = United Statesperson or some BS like that). Nucking PC advocates.... :mad:

When Eutrusca decided his plumage was ruffled. Which is most of the time, actually - near as I can make it.

I've called us USians.

I fail to see how it is derogatory.

I've called us USians.

I fail to see how it is derogatory.

I don't care what we are called as long as it isn't obviously derogatory. USians is fine with me.

Eventually, it will end, because outsourcing is becoming less economically viable, and their choices are of lower quality (complaints about call centers have skyrocketed, and companies are running out of options). So, in the end they will find that the US was the best choice after all.

no, as those people become more affluent themselves, demand will increase, and the countries with the greatest ability to produce and the greatest ability to demand will be in charge.

If everyone's skill sets reach parity, then winning goes to the country with the most workers. Because they will produce more and demand more. More economic power means more political clout.

1. So it's the combination of ethnocentrism with power? And it's the power which makes the difference? Is that not what I was saying?
Not from what I read in this quote:



IF people in the US have a "holier than thou attitude," it's due in part to the same nationalistic myopia demostrated repeatedly by countries like France and Germany. It's probably also due, in part, to the perception among many Americans that nations are going to do what's in their own best interest, regardless of whether they "like" the US or not. It matters not a whit whether other countries "like" us or not, they're still going to do what they think is best for them.

I took that to mean IF you were ethnocentric, it is for reasons of nationalism, as can be found in other nations, and it is due to the feeling that nations are going to follow their own agenda regardless of the US. I disagreed that this was the case, as it denies the real influence the US has over what is in the 'best interests' of other nations.

2. I can't deny that, but the fear of USSR-style communism drove most of the policy decisions in those years under "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach to international relations. This has come back to haunt us and for that I am decidedly apologetic. Had our policy-makers possessed sufficient insight to oppose communism by helping build democracies, I would have been much happier.
Granted, the US style of dictatorship-supporting was in response to global issues of the time. Not a great response, but whatever. The current trend of supporting US-style democracy is also in response to current trends...trends which reject the old-style dictatorships in favour or more subtle, but just as powerful economic influence. US-style democracy means US-style economic policies, which are more profitable to you right now that dictatorships would be. Changing times means changing tactics. We know you are acting in your own interests, despite claims to the contrary by your politicians. Even YOU know you are acting in your own interests. So...how far should the rest of us trust the implementation of US global policy, when their ultimate goal is NOT the 'betterment of humanity" but rather, the betterment of the US? You can, and will, and have argued that despite the underlying philosophy behind democratization (US-style) things will become better for others. Forgive us if we still don't fall over ourselves in our haste to try it out...we too have learned from history.

3. I have never indicated that "US style democracy" was either the "only possible democracy," or even the best democracy. My only point was that spreading democratic forms of government will decrease the level of aggression in the world.
You have not said it is the only way...but your government seems to think it is. If I use "YOU", I may be referring directly to you as an individual, to the US people as a whole, to your government...it's a limited word, and I apologise if ever my use of it is unclear:)

However, you say that spreading democratic forms of government will decrease the level of aggression in the world? I have a number of problems with this:

1) Current policy indicates that the US intends to 'spread' democracy through military intervention. In fact, 'imposing through violence' a system of government that has been most successful in nations who did it themselves.

2) Regardless of your assertations that US-style democracy is not the only way, that is what is going to be spread by your government. Not Chilean-style, not Canadian-style, not Australian-style...and many nations are rightfully tired and wary of US intervention, and right or not, will violently oppose the aggressive imposition of this style of government.

3) Democracies 'imposed' from the outside will not be felt to be legitimate...and even people who support democracy will likely wish a democracy of their 'own'. This will mean resistance and civil conflict as people within a nation battle over the future of their country. Democratization has NEVER been a peaceful process. Why do you think it would be now?

4)You may argue..."but in the long run, aggression will be diminished". You make the assumption that democracies are inherently peaceful. Why?

I'll have a rational discussion despite what is being said to me, even if that discussion ends up 'rationally' one sided. Simply ignoring what someone has said because you disagree with the terms they use is not rational.
You are to be commended. As you should know by now, on most subjects I try to be as rational as I can be. However as you should also know, terminology plays a major role in any communication process. If I knowingly use terms which trigger negative responses in others, I should be prepared to be corrected or ignored.

When Eutrusca decided his plumage was ruffled. Which is most of the time, actually - near as I can make it.

Very observant and succinct by such a new member. You get a cookie!

IMHO, this thread otherwise is a poor attempt at grandstanding, has no basis in any kind of fact, and is ill conceived.

Very observant and succinct by such a seasoned member (it is, after all, another article thread by Eutrusca). You get a cookie!

Eh?
Your Canadian-ISM is showing... :D

My only point was that spreading democratic forms of government will decrease the level of aggression in the world.

Invading other countries and settling down for a long term military occupation will stop wars? I'm sorry, I have to say it...

"War is peace."

(I think there needs to be an equivalent of Godwin's Law about invoking 1984 - or is there already?)

...so, in summation:

When the US helps others in the world, the world is happy with us.
When the US looks after it's own best interest, the world is less happy with us.

Gee, nothing new under the sun here, eh?


Wait a minute, are you saying that re-electing George Bush was in our best interest?
Pretty sad thought eh?

I'll rewrite it to be funny:
When the US helps others in the world, the world is happy with us.
When the US votes republican, the world is less happy with us.

Just joking Repubs, though it may follow a trend :P

...so, in summation:

1)When the US helps others in the world, the world is happy with us.
2)When the US looks after it's own best interest, the world is less happy with us.

Gee, nothing new under the sun here, eh?
Hmmm...you might enjoy putting things in such black and white terms, but life doesn't necessarily work that way.

1)Whom are you 'helping', and at who's expense? For example...you support Israel, so you are helping 'other's, yet you can not deny that this is at the expense of Palestine AND just so happens to be in your own best interests.

2) It can be argued that the US (as with most nations) does NOTHING that is not, at least in part, in its own interests. To what extent those interests clash with the interests of others is the bone of contention.

no, as those people become more affluent themselves, demand will increase, and the countries with the greatest ability to produce and the greatest ability to demand will be in charge.

If everyone's skill sets reach parity, then winning goes to the country with the most workers. Because they will produce more and demand more. More economic power means more political clout.

They will not reach that level of parity unless the US economy collapses. The areas most in danger are Japan and Europe. The country with the most workers will not win unless their workers are the best value economically. China and India will not reach parity unless their economies outstrip the US for a long time, and even then US workers will hopefully be the best quality becuae of the size of our skilled labor pool. Even though they have more people, only a very small percentage are skilled enough to compete internationally.

Pot kettle black. You tried to build a straw man with this thread, based on a link that doesn't support your theory in the least. :eek:
( shrug ) You're entitled to your opinions, just as I am to mine.

Have you ever noticed this tendency of yours to put words in the mouths of others and then attack the straw man you've created? It's quite noticeable to some of the rest of us. :rolleyes:
Na...she's just used to the kinds of arguments that creep into these debates. And if you'll notice Eut, that second part wasn't directed at you, but more widely. Why is it that people love to jump down Dobb's throat all the time?

Wait a minute, are you saying that re-electing George Bush was in our best interest?

It depends on your point of view if it's a good or bad thing. But *every* US election is in our own best interest.

Very observant and succinct by such a new member. You get a cookie!

Very observant and succinct by such a seasoned member (it is, after all, another article thread by Eutrusca). You get a cookie!
Very funny, Fass. I see you've been able to maintain your disdain for anything remotely resembling fairness and objectivity. Congrats. :rolleyes:

Very observant and succinct by such a new member. You get a cookie!

Dobbs Town's been around for a while. He's been hating Eutrusca since the beginning. :D

Na...she's just used to the kinds of arguments that creep into these debates. And if you'll notice Eut, that second part wasn't directed at you, but more widely. Why is it that people love to jump down Dobb's throat all the time?

On the Palestinian thing you brought up, Sinuhue.

The Jews were there long before the Palestinians. Just as the Native Americans were here before the European settlers.

Think about that one for a minute. The US is supporting the group with the oldest written claim to the land.

More accurately.

When you help people, people like you.
When you elect a man widely percieved as any combination of, imbecilic, power-mad, redneck, untrustworthy, 300 miles right-of-centre, accident-prone, hypocritical and overaggressive, we get worried and somewhat displeased.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion.
The only difference being that unless you're an American, it doesn't matter. :D

Before that generates 42 pieces of flame: Our President does not need foreign approval. You're free to dislike him (or her, should that come to pass). But the point is, we elected someone in our own best interest, as we do in every election. If they're your kind of guy or not is not the point.

Very funny, Fass. I see you've been able to maintain your disdain for anything remotely resembling fairness and objectivity. Congrats. :rolleyes:

Well, your Oprah thread proves me correct... anyhow, you're just jealous you didn't get a cookie.

When Eutrusca decided his plumage was ruffled. Which is most of the time, actually - near as I can make it.
Personal comments are fun...but tend to make people stop reading your posts:( Which is why I try to delete them before they make it into mine. Be nice Dobbs...you have a lot of good things to say, and you make it too easy for people to hysterically dimiss you when you make comments like this. "Walk lightly and carry a big stick".........

On the Palestinian thing you brought up, Sinuhue.

The Jews were there long before the Palestinians. Just as the Native Americans were here before the European settlers.

Think about that one for a minute. The US is supporting the group with the oldest written claim to the land.

Sorry, WL, but prior claim is not considered a valid argument in the World Court.

(Imagine my surprise!)

When Eutrusca decided his plumage was ruffled. Which is most of the time, actually - near as I can make it.
Your acute perception and incisive commentary are, as always, missing in action. :p

4)You may argue..."but in the long run, aggression will be diminished". You make the assumption that democracies are inherently peaceful. Why?
Every bit of empirical research done ever. I don't agree with democracy promotion as a theory, but no two functioning democracies have ever gone to war with each other. There's a book written by a Professor Rummel in 1997 (forget his first name) that explains this in great depth. It's one of those generally accepted postulates in political theory.

It's the "Politically Correct" term (USian = United Statesperson or some BS like that). Nucking PC advocates.... :mad:
No SuperPower, it's not the "PC term". It's a term some people who have legitimate issues with the term "American" meaning only those from the USA have chosen (mostly in written, not spoken conversation). It's a rough translation from Spanish to English, and the term itself is as old as your nation.

Your acute perception and incisive commentary are, as always, missing in action. :p

Still flaming away, I see. Three day forumban didn't teach you much, did it?

No SuperPower, it's not the "PC term". It's a term some people who have legitimate issues with the term "American" meaning only those from the USA have chosen (mostly in written, not spoken conversation). It's a rough translation from Spanish to English, and the term itself is as old as your nation.

We've been called Americans since the King owned the place.

Dobbs Town's been around for a while.

"Join Date: May 2005"

I can't be expected to keep track of everyone's incarnations. Bah!

He's been hating Eutrusca since the beginning. :D

Oh, one shouldn't waste sentiment on Eutrusca. Or anyone here, for that matter.

No SuperPower, it's not the "PC term". It's a term some people who have legitimate issues with the term "American" meaning only those from the USA have chosen (mostly in written, not spoken conversation). It's a rough translation from Spanish to English, and the term itself is as old as your nation.

The problem is that it does not refer to us by our nation's name, but by our nation's political title. It's irritating that no other nation is referred to in such a fashion.

Sorry, WL, but prior claim is not considered a valid argument in the World Court.

(Imagine my surprise!)

I know that - I'm just pointing out the irony for Sinuhue.

You are to be commended. As you should know by now, on most subjects I try to be as rational as I can be. However as you should also know, terminology plays a major role in any communication process. If I knowingly use terms which trigger negative responses in others, I should be prepared to be corrected or ignored.
Hmmm...well as far as I can see, you are the only one here offended by the term USian, and unless you can somehow show us why it is derogatory, I see no need for others to stop using it. I might be offended by your sarcastic use of the word 'rational'...wait, you didn't mean to be sarcastic? But I read it that way...so I'm going to ignore you unless you say "using reason" instead:).

The problem is that it does not refer to us by our nation's name, but by our nation's political title. It's irritating that no other nation is referred to in such a fashion.

That would be like me calling Germans "Federal Republicans" or Mexicans
"United Mexicans", or Chinese "People's Republicans"

Very observant and succinct by such a new member. You get a cookie! Are you kidding? Dobbs is as old as the hills....

The problem is that it does not refer to us by our nation's name, but by our nation's political title. It's irritating that no other nation is referred to in such a fashion.

[Labels self a 'Kingdomite'] Right, problem solved. Moving on...

The biggest thing that stood out for me, was the attitude of the world on the re-election of George Bush:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/247-4.gif

IMHO, this thread otherwise is a poor attempt at grandstanding, has no basis in any kind of fact, and is ill conceived.
Quite frankly, for me the fact that the world doesn't particularly like who we elect to be President tends to validate our choice.

What you think or don't think about what I have to say is a matter of almost total indifference to me. For someone who thinks my posts are "grandstanding" or "ill concieved," or have no basis in fact, you sure do have a lot to say about them. if you don't like me or my posts, then avoid responding to them. Simple, but probably beyond your abilities of comprehension.

Sorry, WL, but prior claim is not considered a valid argument in the World Court.

(Imagine my surprise!)

Well if it were we'd see a lot of ex-US citizens over here. And ex-canadians and ex bolivians...

Are you kidding? Dobbs is as old as the hills....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9126853&postcount=82

Do keep up, Sinuhue! Do keep up.

I know that - I'm just pointing out the irony for Sinuhue.

Ah, sorry then. :)

Quite frankly, for me the fact that the world doesn't particularly like who we elect to be President tends to validate our choice.

Er... what?

If I'm reading that right - and feel free to correct me if I'm not - you're saying that it's in the best interests of the US that the rest of the world dislikes its leadership. If this is the case, could you elaborate? And if it isn't, what did you mean?

Still flaming away, I see. Three day forumban didn't teach you much, did it?
Apparently not. I'm just giving back as good as I get. Got a problem with that, young dweeb? :D

The problem is that it does not refer to us by our nation's name, but by our nation's political title. It's irritating that no other nation is referred to in such a fashion.
it IS a particularily ugly term. worse when you say it outloud. but there are times when there is a need to make the distinction between citizens of the united states and those of all other countries in north and south america. then its useful in a forum like this where shorter is better.

Er... what?

If I'm reading that right - and feel free to correct me if I'm not - you're saying that it's in the best interests of the US that the rest of the world dislikes its leadership. If this is the case, could you elaborate? And if it isn't, what did you mean?
1. The rest of the world is going to act in their own self-interest.

2. America is going to act in its own self-interest.

3. If the rest of the world likes our leadership, chances are it's because said leadership is acting, at least in part, in the best interests of "the rest of the world."

4. If American leadership is acting in the best interests of "the rest of the world," chances are said leadership is not acting in the best interests of America.

5. If American leadership is not acting in the best interests of America, they are not the best leadership for America.

6. Conversely, if the rest of the world dislikes American leadership, it's an indication that said leadership is doing it's job.

1. The rest of the world is going to act in their own self-interest.

2. America is going to act in its own self-interest.

3. If the rest of the world likes our leadership, chances are it's because said leadership is acting, at least in part, in the best interests of "the rest of the world."

4. If American leadership is acting in the best interests of "the rest of the world," chances are said leadership is not acting in the best interests of America.

5. If American leadership is not acting in the best interests of America, they are not the best leadership for America.

6. Conversely, if the rest of the world dislikes American leadership, it's an indication that said leadership is doing it's job.

So you believe it is sound policy to do whatever we want without any care for other nations?

So you believe it is sound policy to do whatever we want without any care for other nations?

Seems that way, but we all know he doesn't mean anything of the sort :rolleyes:.

6. Conversely, if the rest of the world dislikes American leadership, it's an indication that said leadership is doing it's job.

It's not that you're acting in your own self-interest that annoys people. It's that you pretend that you aren't.

So you believe it is sound policy to do whatever we want without any care for other nations?
Sigh. Saderiji, where did I say that? Jeeze. :(

it IS a particularily ugly term. worse when you say it outloud. but there are times when there is a need to make the distinction between citizens of the united states and those of all other countries in north and south america. then its useful in a forum like this where shorter is better.
AND FURTHERMORE....

as i was trying to remember what the political designation of canada is...

dominion? should y'all be called dominionites??

anyway

i then remembered that its the UNITED STATES OF MEXICO too. (estados unidos de mexico) so really they could ALSO be called USians.

NOW what to do, what to do??

It's not that you're acting in your own self-interest that annoys people. It's that you pretend that you aren't.

*hands you a cookie*

Exactly.

1. The rest of the world is going to act in their own self-interest.
Check

2. America is going to act in its own self-interest.
Check

3. If the rest of the world likes our leadership, chances are it's because said leadership is acting, at least in part, in the best interests of "the rest of the world."
Quack quack Oops.

4. If American leadership is acting in the best interests of "the rest of the world," chances are said leadership is not acting in the best interests of America.
Quack quack Oops

5. If American leadership is not acting in the best interests of America, they are not the best leadership for America.
Check

6. Conversely, if the rest of the world dislikes American leadership, it's an indication that said leadership is doing it's job.
Quack quack Oops.

Acting in the best interest of a nation includes not alienating other nations. If other nations like your nation it does not signify that your leadership is acting in the interests of the others and not in yours. Interests are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Things like being trustworthy, keeping your word, not lying excessively, not trying to tell others how to run their own business are all significant and in the interests of all. It is not a zero sum game.

Seems that way, but we all know he doesn't mean anything of the sort :rolleyes:.

Yes, because Eutrusca is a self-proclaimed centrist! *snicker*

It's not that you're acting in your own self-interest that annoys people. It's that you pretend that you aren't.

Well, it's not necessarily wrong to act in your own interests, but when it actively harms others, then it becomes wrong. We shouldn't pretend but rather say it outright when it's true.

1. The rest of the world is going to act in their own self-interest.

2. America is going to act in its own self-interest.

3. If the rest of the world likes our leadership, chances are it's because said leadership is acting, at least in part, in the best interests of "the rest of the world."

4. If American leadership is acting in the best interests of "the rest of the world," chances are said leadership is not acting in the best interests of America.

5. If American leadership is not acting in the best interests of America, they are not the best leadership for America.

6. Conversely, if the rest of the world dislikes American leadership, it's an indication that said leadership is doing it's job.

So.

The best interests of the US are unlikely to coincide with the best interests of any other country in the world?

Interesting.

Or was that not what you were saying? Were you not, in fact, saying that the US is a country that is most likely to want things entirely different to what the other countries it shares a planet with want? Or were you?

Yes, because Eutrusca is a self-proclaimed centrist! *snicker*

Hahaha, I always found that funny :D.

Quite frankly, for me the fact that the world doesn't particularly like who we elect to be President tends to validate our choice.
This comment makes zero sense. An attitude such as this would make it difficult to establish the US as the focal point in the community of communities, with such rationale.

What you think or don't think about what I have to say is a matter of almost total indifference to me.
Yet you felt the compulsion to respond.....I am greatly honoured. :rolleyes:

For someone who thinks my posts are "grandstanding" or "ill concieved," or have no basis in fact, you sure do have a lot to say about them.
I was stating an opinion based on fact. Your intial premise:

"one of the primary reasons for the "falling popularity of the US" are the miniscule number of US personnel "abusing" detainees"

was totally subjective and had zero to do with the linked poll. You have an axe to grind but you are using the improper vehicle to convey your message.

if you don't like me or my posts, then avoid responding to them. Simple, but probably beyond your abilities of comprehension.
This rebuttal has nothing to do with your popularity, or my comprehension skills. It has everything to do with seeking out the truth, and I do believe that your intial post is a deviation from that noble goal.

Seems that way, but we all know he doesn't mean anything of the sort :rolleyes:.

Sigh. Saderiji, where did I say that? Jeeze. :(

You're psychic, Potaria.

I live in the US,but personally I do not believe an unlimited democracy is a good idea, just because a person can vote does not give that person one iota of common sense or wisdom, just because you can vote does not mean you are going to vote for an issue in the best way. Further if you do vote a politician in office that does not mean he is honest or capable. I was in favor of Mr. Bush, but his environmental "policies" have really angered me.
As far as how the rest of the world sees us, I could care less, if they could do something about their own problems why not just do it, and quit whining that we should be doing something? If you had a good government in your countries you would not be whining in the first place, you would be saying what a great place it is to live, instead, everyone wants to come to the United States.

You're psychic, Potaria.

Isn't it wonderful?

AND FURTHERMORE....

as i was trying to remember what the political designation of canada is...

dominion? should y'all be called dominionites??

No, Dominos!

You know they'd be the D of C or more generally, "DC" if they were a Dominion. They would never do that... or they'd do that, and then insist that they're the REAL "DC" instead of the District of Columbia. :D

Hahaha, I always found that funny :D.
Yes. It's hilarious. I find myself chuckling at it every day.

Somewhere on here is a link to a chart put together by a very thoughtful poster who compiled all the scores for those who took the "Poliltical Compass" survey. If you can bother to actually ... you know, check out the truth, you will discover my nation's name very, very close to the center of the chart ( actually a bit to the bottom left of it ). Or are you suggesting that I deliberately lied when I took the survey?

*hands you a cookie*
Exactly.

I'll donate my cookie to Eutrusca, if you don't mind, seeing as he was so miffed that he didn't get one earlier.

Yes. It's hilarious. I find myself chuckling at it every day.

Somewhere on here is a link to a chart put together by a very thoughtful poster who compiled all the scores for those who took the "Poliltical Compass" survey. If you can bother to actually ... you know, check out the truth, you will discover my nation's name very, very close to the center of the chart ( actually a bit to the bottom left of it ). Or are you suggesting that I deliberately lied when I took the survey?

You're actually trying to use an Internet quiz as proof? Oh, dear, now my snicker will have to become a laughter, too.

Yes. It's hilarious. I find myself chuckling at it every day.

Somewhere on here is a link to a chart put together by a very thoughtful poster who compiled all the scores for those who took the "Poliltical Compass" survey. If you can bother to actually ... you know, check out the truth, you will discover my nation's name very, very close to the center of the chart ( actually a bit to the bottom left of it ). Or are you suggesting that I deliberately lied when I took the survey?

Political surveys are one thing. Acting like your political "affiliation", so to speak, is another. I'll say this: You don't act as "left" as your compass says you are.

I'll donate my cookie to Eutrusca, if you don't mind, seeing as he was so miffed that he didn't get one earlier.

So be it. I'll just give you another one.

*hands you another cookie*

So be it. I'll just give you another one.

*hands you another cookie*

L'homme avec le chewing-gum et les biscuits, mon ami Americain! :)

L'homme avec le chewing-gum et les biscuits, mon ami Americain! :)

How odd. I'm chewing gum right now...

*shifts eyes*

So.

The best interests of the US are unlikely to coincide with the best interests of any other country in the world?

Interesting.

Or was that not what you were saying? Were you not, in fact, saying that the US is a country that is most likely to want things entirely different to what the other countries it shares a planet with want? Or were you?
I put several qualifiers and caveats in that post. As with any bare-bones description of a logical thought process, it precludes many aspects of what is a very complex issue. The original purpose of that post was to explain a previous post by breaking it down into its component parts.

As should be obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with international relations, things are much more complicated than could effectively be covered here. Obviously the interests of any country ( including America ) at times converge with the interests of other countries, and at other times diverge.

Political surveys are one thing. Acting like your political "affiliation", so to speak, is another. I'll say this: You don't act as "left" as your compass says you are.
Ever read anything I've posted on threads dealing with abortion, gay rights, taxation, etc? If so, you would realize that my stance on many social issues is decidedly to the left of "conservative."

How odd. I'm chewing gum right now...

*shifts eyes*

It is I who is psychic! *mwoahahaha!*

As should be obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with international relations, things are much more complicated than could effectively be covered here. Obviously the interests of any country ( including America ) at times converge with the interests of other countries, and at other times diverge.

All right, then. Are you saying that, at this point in time, the interests of the United States of America are divergant from the interests of the rest of the world, where 'rest of the world' in this case indicates any nations with a significant population that disagrees with the current US president? You are free to answer this in as simple or complex a manner as you like, or indeed, not to answer it at all if you so desire.

Ever read anything I've posted on threads dealing with abortion, gay rights, taxation, etc? If so, you would realize that my stance on many social issues is decidedly to the left of "conservative."

That may be, but threads like this (and the childish flaming/insulting, along with the eatshitanddie link) say otherwise.

All right, then. Are you saying that, at this point in time, the interests of the United States of America are divergant from the interests of the rest of the world, where 'rest of the world' in this case indicates any nations with a significant population that disagrees with the current US president? You are free to answer this in as simple or complex a manner as you like, or indeed, not to answer it at all if you so desire.
As our interests relate to Iraq, encouraging the spread of democratic forms of government, international terrorism, Iran, the UN, and several other issues, yes, the interests of America currently diverge from the apparent interests of many other nations.

How's that?

As our interests relate to Iraq, encouraging the spread of democratic forms of government, international terrorism, Iran, the UN, and several other issues, yes, the interests of America currently diverge from the apparent interests of many other nations.

How's that?

A good answer, and one that I cannot disagree with.

The question of whether that's a good thing is, of course, one that we'll never agree on, so I won't bring it up.

That may be, but threads like this (and the childish flaming/insulting, along with the eatshitanddie link) say otherwise.
You are free to draw whatever conclusions you prefer.

A good answer, and one that I cannot disagree with.

The question of whether that's a good thing is, of course, one that we'll never agree on, so I won't bring it up.
Oh, please do! You wouldn't want to be left out of the NS General equivalent of "piling on," would you? :D

It is I who is psychic! *mwoahahaha!*
Quick! Tell me what I'm thinking right now! :D

You are free to draw whatever conclusions you prefer.

Don't feel like arguing right now? Oh well.

*walks off*

Oh, please do! You wouldn't want to be left out of the NS General equivalent of "piling on," would you? :D

Been there, done that, accidentally got someone forumbanned for two weeks by always stating my replies calmly. You'd be /amazed/ how much that irritates some people.

Or maybe you wouldn't be.

1. The rest of the world is going to act in their own self-interest.

OK

2. America is going to act in its own self-interest.

OK

3. If the rest of the world likes our leadership, chances are it's because said leadership is acting, at least in part, in the best interests of "the rest of the world."

OK

4. If American leadership is acting in the best interests of "the rest of the world," chances are said leadership is not acting in the best interests of America.

TRIP

5. If American leadership is not acting in the best interests of America, they are not the best leadership for America.

OK

6. Conversely, if the rest of the world dislikes American leadership, it's an indication that said leadership is doing it's job.

Crash and burn.


Bolding mine.

Quick! Tell me what I'm thinking right now! :D

You naughty old geezer! *slaps you on face*

On the Palestinian thing you brought up, Sinuhue.

The Jews were there long before the Palestinians. Just as the Native Americans were here before the European settlers.

Think about that one for a minute. The US is supporting the group with the oldest written claim to the land.
Yes...and it was in their best interests to do so. It gave them a sphere of influence in the Middle East. The same can not be said for us:). They're not about to support those with the 'oldest claim to the land' unless it benefits them directly.

Every bit of empirical research done ever. I don't agree with democracy promotion as a theory, but no two functioning democracies have ever gone to war with each other. There's a book written by a Professor Rummel in 1997 (forget his first name) that explains this in great depth. It's one of those generally accepted postulates in political theory.
Ah....the key word being FUNCTIONING democracy. Which is something that is not guaranteed by the active 'spreading of democracy'. There is no guarantee any democracy 'spread' by the US will function as it should.

The problem is that it does not refer to us by our nation's name, but by our nation's political title. It's irritating that no other nation is referred to in such a fashion.
Well, when it's the only option other than "American", it's the one we go for. Sorry, but it's not going to stop.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9126853&postcount=82

Do keep up, Sinuhue! Do keep up.
I chose to ignore your post as it did not further the conversation, but since you are so keen on getting my attention...

...do you think Drunk Commies is new too?

Been there, done that, accidentally got someone forumbanned for two weeks by always stating my replies calmly. You'd be /amazed/ how much that irritates some people.

Or maybe you wouldn't be.
Heh! :D

Bolding mine.
Congratulations! :D

You naughty old geezer! *slaps you on face*
[ rubs face ] Thank you, sir. May I have another? :D

Well, when it's the only option other than "American", it's the one we go for. Sorry, but it's not going to stop.
And just when I was starting to like you too! Tsk! :rolleyes:

No, Dominos!

You know they'd be the D of C or more generally, "DC" if they were a Dominion. They would never do that... or they'd do that, and then insist that they're the REAL "DC" instead of the District of Columbia. :D
As funny as this is, it would only be an issue if Canadian meant anyone else but people living in Canada, or someone with Canadian citizenship. Not the case. American, however, DOES fit that criteria. Are you over it yet? USian=citizen of the United States, yet American !=citizen of the United States.

Wow...this thread really degenerated while I was away...

...well I'm off again for an hour, how low can you people go in that time? I guess I'll see when I get back...*predicts this thread, which actually interested me at one point, is going to be locked*

I chose to ignore your post as it did not further the conversation

It adressed your point before you even failed to make it. Methinks it was unwise of you to ignore it.

but since you are so keen on getting my attention...

The lady flatters herself in seeing a direct responce as being any keener than normal at getting her attention, but, I guess, you should be granted this delusion.

...do you think Drunk Commies is new too?

Relevance? Especially as this was dealt with in my post about not being able to keep track of every incarnation. Yes, again has your decision to not read proved unwise...

as i was trying to remember what the political designation of canada is...

dominion? should y'all be called dominionites??

Constitutional Monarchy. Call us queens. I'd love it.

Constitutional Monarchy. Call us queens. I'd love it.

Obviously, you've never BEEN to Queens. :D

(Shoutout to all NYC'ers from 43rd & Madison!!)

A rather fine distinction to draw, since it's often the soldiers who draw the fire ( whether verbal or tactical ) of those who have decided to blame the US every time something happens that they don't like. I'm very sorry that your Godmother was raped, but blaming the US for it doesn't seem very rational to me.


I dont like to hear a story like that either, but I doubt the US soldiers taught or encouraged the criminals to rape.
Maybe I missed something?

Constitutional Monarchy. Call us queens. I'd love it.
hahahahhaha me too!

no no i mean as in the "united states" of america or mexico, the "uncertain states" of ashmoria.

y'all have dominion day, you arent the dominion of canada?

I dont like to hear a story like that either, but I doubt the US soldiers taught or encouraged the criminals to rape.
Maybe I missed something?
No, although in keeping with the current tendency to blame America or the President or the American government for everything, it's not surprising.

*irritating post*
Fass. Must you be so unrelentingly pedantic about issues that have 1) nothing to do with the thread and 2) issues that are so trivial, they really do not warrant a debate? Because I'm getting royally tired of it, and it's undoing all the decent posts you are capable of.

I dont like to hear a story like that either, but I doubt the US soldiers taught or encouraged the criminals to rape.
Maybe I missed something?
I hope you are being sarcastic...

...leaders of the Contras, individuals fighting for the Contras, were trained in the School of the Americas, or in country by CIA in the 'arts' of interrogation, (including torture, and rape a means of extracting confessions). Did they TEACH them HOW to rape? It's a fairly simple process. Did they encourage, suggest, SANCTION the use of rape? Undeniably.

Are all soldiers in the US responsible for this? Of course not. Did the US play a part in the rape of my godmother? Indirectly (as I have stated before), yes. Very much so.

dont waste your breath

... all the decent posts you are capable of.
Fass? "Decent posts?" Where? When? :D

Paramilitary bands, aided by the CIA front organisation American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD), began armed attacks in the north, singling out volunteers in the health and literacy programmes to murder. In January 1981 Ronald Reagan took office under a Republican platform which asserted that "it deplores the Marxist Sandinista take-over of Nicaragua" and he greatly expanded the CIA's guerrilla warfare and sabotage campaigns. In November 1981 Reagan authorised a covert plan for $19 million to help the Argentina dictatorship train a guerrilla force operating from camps in Honduras to attack Nicaragua.

Former members of Somoza's National Guards (who had fled to Honduras when the Somozan regime was toppled) and other war criminals formed the basis of this force, which became known as the Contras. By the autumn of 1983, 12,000 to 16,000 Contra troops of the so-called FDN (Nicaraguan Democratic Force) were operating along the Honduran border. Smaller Contra forces operated from bases in Costa Rica. They staged hit and run raids against rural towns and co-operatives in Nicaragua, before returning to their bases across the border. The CIA had no illusions about the contras' ability to overthrow the FSLN; in two years of operations, they failed to take and hold even a small village. The aim of the Contras was to use terrorist tactics to stop Nicaraguan development projects in all areas: economic, education, health services and political organisations.

The Contras blew up bridges, civilian power plants and schools, they burned fields of crops and attacked hospitals. Their tactics included rape, kidnappings of peasants and civilians, ambushes and massacres against small rural communities, farms, co-operatives, schools and health clinics. Contra raids caused extensive damage to crop fields, grain silos, irrigation projects, farm houses and machinery. Numerous state farms and co-operatives were incapacitated; other farms still intact were abandoned because of the danger.

Witness For Peace, an American Protestant watchdog body, collected a list of Contra atrocities in one year, which included murder, the rape of two girls in their homes, torture of men, maiming of children, cutting off arms, cutting out tongues, gouging out eyes, castration, bayoneting pregnant women in the stomach, amputating the genitals of people of both sexes, gouging out eyes, scraping the skin off the face, pouring acid on the face, breaking the toes and fingers of an 18 year old boy, and summary executions. These were the people Ronald Reagan called "freedom fighters" and "the moral equal of our founding fathers."

Did the US train these soldiers? They helped train them, yes. Did they give them support? Absolutely. Did they TEACH them to rape...probably not. Does that mean the hands of the US government at this time were clean? Never.

hahahahhaha me too!

no no i mean as in the "united states" of america or mexico, the "uncertain states" of ashmoria.

y'all have dominion day, you arent the dominion of canada?

Actually, we haven't had "Dominion Day" since 1982. The name was changed after the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution. July 1st is now known as "Canada Day", and most importantly, it's a national holiday.

To be honest, I'm not altogether sure whether we're still a "Dominion" or not. I think... I think that status might have changed in '82. I couldn't find much about Canada's official "political title" to be honest.

I think we're just the nation of Canada now, even if we did retain Queen Liz as our absentee Head of State.

dont waste your breath
Who? About what? PLEASE QUOTE SO WE KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!! :eek:

I hope you are being sarcastic...

...leaders of the Contras, individuals fighting for the Contras, were trained in the School of the Americas, or in country by CIA in the 'arts' of interrogation, (including torture, and rape a means of extracting confessions). Did they TEACH them HOW to rape? It's a fairly simple process. Did they encourage, suggest, SANCTION the use of rape? Undeniably.

Are all soldiers in the US responsible for this? Of course not. Did the US play a part in the rape of my godmother? Indirectly (as I have stated before), yes. Very much so.
were the men prosecuted for it? did the US government put any pressure on the contras to bring the men to justice?

Fass? "Decent posts?" Where? When? :D
They do exist...you just have to hunt for them.

Did the US train these soldiers? They helped train them, yes. Did they give them support? Absolutely. Did they TEACH them to rape...probably not. Does that mean the hands of the US government at this time were clean? Never.


You arent really making sense. Can the hands of any government be considered "clean"?
I can see you not loving our government and how we do things, I can even understand your declaration that you will never set foot on US soil. maybe this is because you dont like us and we happen to be a country of wealth and strength.

I miss the times you agressively pursue the others with hands that may not be clean.
Surely, someone else threatens and offends you?

were the men prosecuted for it? did the US government put any pressure on the contras to bring the men to justice?
Of course not! These soldiers were following orders. This was standard operating procedure for the Contras. If they were going to do something about this case, they would have had to do something about all the other cases. As well, despite heavily funding the Contras, the US washed their hands of them on paper...so legally, there is no responsibility there. Morally...yes...but one can not win a trial on morals alone.

It took international pressure and outrage for these atrocities to stop...and that includes people within the US who brought attention to, and criticized the actions of their own government.

But it didn't un-rape my godmother. And she lived, where many more did not.

Fass. Must you be so unrelentingly pedantic about issues that have 1) nothing to do with the thread and 2) issues that are so trivial, they really do not warrant a debate? Because I'm getting royally tired of it, and it's undoing all the decent posts you are capable of.

I don't know, must you post nitpicking posts containing points already mentioned and addressed previously, and then bitch and moan when you are referred to the relevant post?

You started this, not I, seeing as I had already dealt with it before you even decided to nitpick. And now you have the gall of accusing me of it when it is the only suitable reaction to your own behaviour? "Puh-lease!"

Did the US train these soldiers? They helped train them, yes. Did they give them support? Absolutely. Did they TEACH them to rape...probably not. Does that mean the hands of the US government at this time were clean? Never.

Lots of blood on Canadian hands, too...

http://dingo.care-mail.com/c2p/ifaw/harp_seal_small3.jpg

Nearly 1 million baby seals will be clubbed or shot to death in Canada in just three years. Shockingly, the hunt is subsidized by the Canadian government!

Every winter, Northwest Atlantic harp seals migrate to Eastern Canada to give birth and mate. Following their birth in late winter, mothers leave in search of mates, while the pups remain helpless and vulnerable on the ice until they can swim and catch their own food. It’s during this time when they are most vulnerable that they are mercilessly slaughtered for their pelts!

and...

Canadian Government Murders Patients
By John Galt

So last week the supreme court of Canada ruled that a Quebec law preventing insurance companies from insuring Quebec residences against things that were already covered by Canadian Medicare was unconstitutional under Section 2 of our Constitution. In their ruling they were very careful in what they said but the newspapers and TV News all got the message and have (rightly, as I’ve read the first 20 or so pages of this monster decision) reported that the supreme court said that because of the horrendous wait times in Canadian hospitals people are actually dying waiting for treatment because they can’t go anywhere else as a result of state enforced Medicare. As a result, the Supreme Court said, the law was unconstitutional.

1. So if Medicare wasn’t killing people, it would be ok to violate section 2 of our constitution?
2. People are dying on waiting lists and that limitation of freedom is being enforced by the government of Canada. (this is what the supreme court said, so there is no question of fact here) Translation: The government of Canada (and its provinces) are wilfully murdering people in the name of a socialist value called free health care for all.

Yes, I said MURDER. “Wilfully acting to cause the death of another.”

(Sorry for this, but I'm really tired of Canadians throwing stones... :p )

You arent really making sense. Can the hands of any government be considered "clean"?
I can see you not loving our government and how we do things, I can even understand your declaration that you will never set foot on US soil. maybe this is because you dont like us and we happen to be a country of wealth and strength.

I miss the times you agressively pursue the others with hands that may not be clean.
Surely, someone else threatens and offends you?

I'm not sure what you want from me here, CL...or what you want to hear. I am saying, and I thought quite clearly this:

1) The US is directly responsible for its foreign policy in Latin America.
2) It is both directly, and indirectly responsible for atrocities committed during these times.
3) The responsibility of the US in these atrocities in no way negates the responsibilities of the governments or individuals who themselves committed these atrocities.
4) I do not blame citizens of the US, or soldiers of the US for the rape of my godmother...but as I hold the perpetrators directly responsible, I also hold the US government and its foreign policy indirectly responsible for creating a climate in which this sort of tactic was approved.

Sure, I'll go after other nations, including my own, but not when the thread is ABOUT the US!?

Edit: 6) Ah, and to bring things back on track...I brought this particular instance up to explain part of how I started disliking (and looking into) US foreign policy, and why I have very strong feelings about the US government...in an attempt to show Eut that many people have OTHER reasons (other than the abuse of prisoners) to dislike the US. Same point Alien Born et al were making...

Of course not! These soldiers were following orders. This was standard operating procedure for the Contras. If they were going to do something about this case, they would have had to do something about all the other cases. As well, despite heavily funding the Contras, the US washed their hands of them on paper...so legally, there is no responsibility there. Morally...yes...but one can not win a trial on morals alone.

It took international pressure and outrage for these atrocities to stop...and that includes people within the US who brought attention to, and criticized the actions of their own government.

But it didn't un-rape my godmother. And she lived, where many more did not.
and THAT is why the us is responsible. not because they MADE some soldier rape your godmother but because of their blind support of thugs and murderers. all to overthrow a democratically elected government in nicaragua.

I don't know, must you post nitpicking posts containing points already mentioned and addressed previously, and then bitch and moan when you are referred to the relevant post?

You started this, not I, seeing as I had already dealt with it before you even decided to nitpick. And now you have the gall of accusing me of it when it is the only suitable reaction to your own behaviour? "Puh-lease!"
You have the unique honour of being among only two posters on NS that I will no longer bother replying to. Felicitaciones.

"Canadian Government Murders Patients
By John Galt"



By John Who?

Keep up the stone-throwing, and maybe you'll get within ten feet of one of our glass igloos. Maybe. More likely not.

John Who?

*hijack*
What, exactly is your point? That other nations are 'bad' too? That's all fine and dandy. Pursue that in your threads about these particular issues. Check out the Zimbabwe thread...it's good too. But both you, and CL seem to fail to realise, this thread was begun by someone from the US, about the poor image of the US, who then went on to say the poor image was because of *x*, and the rest of use are trying to point out that in fact, it is because of *a,b,c,d....z*. You can deal with THAT issue here...and NOT hijack...but it's up to you I guess.

*And believe me...I would LOVE to discuss the shit that happens in my country...start a thread and I'm there...but it has no relevance on this conversation unless you'd like to try and argue that we supported the Contras as well?*

You have the unique honour of being among only two posters on NS that I will no longer bother replying to. Felicitaciones.

Gracias. Perhaps now I will finally be spared your hypocrisy, the kind of which you've so shamefully given proof of here.

and THAT is why the us is responsible. not because they MADE some soldier rape your godmother but because of their blind support of thugs and murderers. all to overthrow a democratically elected government in nicaragua.
Well yes...I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I couldn't very much say...THE US RAPED MY GODMOTHER... :p

John Who?
No, it's Dr. Who:).

Well yes...I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I couldn't very much say...THE US RAPED MY GODMOTHER... :p
oh the THAT was not for you, but for those who have forgotten the US's shameful history in central america

I'm not sure what you want from me here, CL...or what you want to hear. I am saying, and I thought quite clearly this:

1) The US is directly responsible for its foreign policy in Latin America.
2) It is both directly, and indirectly responsible for atrocities committed during these times.
3) The responsibility of the US in these atrocities in no way negates the responsibilities of the governments or individuals who themselves committed these atrocities.
4) I do not blame citizens of the US, or soldiers of the US for the rape of my godmother...but as I hold the perpetrators directly responsible, I also hold the US government and its foreign policy indirectly responsible for creating a climate in which this sort of tactic was approved.

Sure, I'll go after other nations, including my own, but not when the thread is ABOUT the US!?


I dont really want anything from you, Sinuhue.

I guess its a friday thing-another tough week of trying to digest reams of bullshit from the legions of smug anti-US, anti-conservative, anti-this and anti-that.
It never ends.

I dont really want anything from you, Sinuhue.

I guess its a friday thing-another tough week of trying to digest reams of bullshit from the legions of smug anti-US, anti-conservative, anti-this and anti-that.
It never ends.
Well, I certainly hope that you can see past that (though I myself am getting into a bad mood with all the 'I'm so fucking morally superior to you as evidenced by my pointless ranting' that some people are tossing around here) and realise that I am in no way making any sort of statement of national superiority (far from it!) but am simply trying to discuss the original topic, and let Eut know why I PERSONALLY think the 'bad feelings' towards the US are not a sudden reaction to prisoner abuse scandals.


*I get to blame PMS...don't you wish you could too? :D

What, exactly is your point? That other nations are 'bad' too? That's all fine and dandy. Pursue that in your threads about these particular issues. Check out the Zimbabwe thread...it's good too. But both you, and CL seem to fail to realise, this thread was begun by someone from the US, about the poor image of the US, who then went on to say the poor image was because of *x*, and the rest of use are trying to point out that in fact, it is because of *a,b,c,d....z*. You can deal with THAT issue here...and NOT hijack...but it's up to you I guess.

*And believe me...I would LOVE to discuss the shit that happens in my country...start a thread and I'm there...but it has no relevance on this conversation unless you'd like to try and argue that we supported the Contras as well?*


More wasted breath... But I'm not criticizing you. You can say whatever you want in here. Its just sad that you, and so many others seem to be on some crusade against the US in here.
I'm sure I could google Canada and the host of other coutries and start listing the volumes of terrible acts and policies they are guilty of. But I'm not interested in that-because I have nothing in particular against any of your countries in the first place.
Maybe if something bad happened to me while traveling abroad, or something to one of my relatives, thats all I would be able to talk about too- is how bad, how wrong and how stupid they are. Because there is enough eveidence to prove this point about anyone. But I dont have that burning urgency to make someone else look bad. Maybe I've lived too well-maybe this is why the world supposedly hates us. We live well. Maybe if I didnt enjoy a good life, I could find someone else to blame it on and yap about them constantly. in here.
No-I would actually do something about it.

*I get to blame PMS...don't you wish you could too? :D

*giggles*

Well if biology hadn't thrown me the mother of all curveballs...

*I get to blame PMS...don't you wish you could too? :D


Never- I never look to blame something for my shortcomings. I dont see blaming something as a luxury. What I have is because of my efforts and what I dont have is too.

More wasted breath... But I'm not criticizing you. You can say whatever you want in here. Its just sad that you, and so many others seem to be on some crusade against the US in here.
AY, CL...this thread is ABOUT THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE US! Do you want people to come in here and discuss, I don't know...lasagna recipies?

I don't debate US foreign policy or US issues any more than I debate any other topic. In fact, I tend to avoid them...and I'm reminded now why. Crusade against the US? That you would say that about me...ah, forget it. I'm done. With all of this shit. You and your fucking US can remain a topic I refuse to touch with a ten foot pole.


Good job CL...I said yesterday I didn't think you could do it, but you did.

By John Who?

Keep up the stone-throwing, and maybe you'll get within ten feet of one of our glass igloos. Maybe. More likely not.

John Who?

One thing I love about you, Dobbsy: You're cool with anyone having an opinion, as long as it's yours. :p

Never- I never look to blame something for my shortcomings. I dont see blaming something as a luxury. What I have is because of my efforts and what I dont have is too.
:rolleyes:
I see humour is absent. I will make myself thus. Have a great fucking weekend.

More accurately.

When you help people, people like you.
When you elect a man widely percieved as any combination of, imbecilic, power-mad, redneck, untrustworthy, 300 miles right-of-centre, accident-prone, hypocritical and overaggressive, we get worried and somewhat displeased.

Which is your right..Though our right was to elect our President not yours..And it was our right not to change the type of president back to the kind that throws one tomahawk at Bin Ladin and say oh we missed..and try to forget about it.

They do exist...you just have to hunt for them.
Oh. Heh! And the motivation for me to hunt for "decent posts" by Fass would be??? :D

*I get to blame PMS...don't you wish you could too? Never- I never look to blame something for my shortcomings. I dont see blaming something as a luxury. What I have is because of my efforts and what I dont have is too.
Funny stuff this. :D

You have the unique honour of being among only two posters on NS that I will no longer bother replying to. Felicitaciones.
ROFL! Who's the other one?

What, exactly is your point? That other nations are 'bad' too?

Ayep.

That's all fine and dandy. Pursue that in your threads about these particular issues.

I know, but since "Americabashing" knows no boundries, I figure a little "Canadadashing" wouldn't be out of bounds. :)

Check out the Zimbabwe thread...it's good too. But both you, and CL seem to fail to realise, this thread was begun by someone from the US, about the poor image of the US, who then went on to say the poor image was because of *x*, and the rest of use are trying to point out that in fact, it is because of *a,b,c,d....z*. You can deal with THAT issue here...and NOT hijack...but it's up to you I guess.

It's all the same thing, really. It comes down to this for me: the US is the big kid on the block, of COURSE the rest of the planet is going to throw stones. But even if I started a "Canada xyz" thread, it's kind of pointless, since by post #3 (at most!) the EVIL US would be compared to.


*And believe me...I would LOVE to discuss the shit that happens in my country...start a thread and I'm there...but it has no relevance on this conversation unless you'd like to try and argue that we supported the Contras as well?*

I'd think killing your own people with a bad medical policy is *worse* than anything the School of the Americas supposedly did/does.
As for the seals, I really don't care... it's more a "double dig" at the PETA freaks who seem to think that humans and animals are on the same playing field... ;)

No, it's Dr. Who:).

Oh, if only! :)

Which is your right..Though our right was to elect our President not yours..And it was our right not to change the type of president back to the kind that throws one tomahawk at Bin Ladin and say oh we missed..and try to forget about it.
nooooo we had to elect a president who would try for a while then when he didnt get binladen, go beat up someone else for a while.

MUCH better

Funny stuff this. :D


you arent mocking me, are you?

One thing I love about you, Dobbsy: You're cool with anyone having an opinion, as long as it's yours. :p

What, much like reknowned American Industrialist and overall unimportant cog in the wheel of the emergent Consumerite society of the 20th century, Henry Ford, who once stated that his customers could have any colour car they wanted, provided it was black?

Nahh...

I relish other people's opinions. I'm just widely known for taking the piss out of some of the more mealy-mouthed Bush apologists that resolutely refuse to budge the bridge of their noses out of Dick Cheney's personal catbox.

But enough about me.

you arent mocking me, are you?
Not at all, matey! Just laughing at your post. Was it intended as humour? Funny (to me) though.

What, much like reknowned American Industrialist and overall unimportant cog in the wheel of the emergent Consumerite society of the 20th century, Henry Ford, who once stated that his customers could have any colour car they wanted, provided it was black?

But enough about me.


He invented the charcoal briquette too.

Funny stuff this. :D
I don't know about you, but I find almost all things posted on NS hilarious. :D

What, much like reknowned American Industrialist and overall unimportant cog in the wheel of the emergent Consumerite society of the 20th century, Henry Ford, who once stated that his customers could have any colour car they wanted, provided it was black?

Nahh...

I relish other people's opinions. I'm just widely known for taking the piss out of some of the more mealy-mouthed Bush apologists that resolutely refuse to budge the bridge of their noses out of Dick Cheney's personal catbox.

But enough about me.

Er... wow. That's not the Dobbs Channel I get. :D

(PS: I'm *not* a Bush apologist of any kind. And I'd *think* that that would be known by now. Yet, somehow, because I don't hate Bush the way I hate Mrs. Gore or David Duke...)

I don't know about you, but I find almost all things posted on NS hilarious. :D
Well, I know. I'm slow to react because I DO laugh out loaud so much.

Not at all, matey! Just laughing at your post. Was it intended as humour? Funny (to me) though.

I know-I just didnt want anyone to mistake it. It was intended to be a little funny, but only a little. I do try to make a joke even when I'm trying to make a point. Sometimes a bad habit.
I'm glad you got a chuckle. I know most wont appreciate it.

I don't know about you, but I find almost all things posted on NS hilarious. :D


wait a minute-are you mocking me too?

you arent mocking me, are you?

Vinny Gambini: I bought a suit. You seen it. Now it's covered in mud. This town doesn't have a one hour cleaner so I had to buy a new suit, except the only store you could buy a new suit in has got the flu. Got that? The whole store got the flu so I had to get this in a second hand store. So it's either wear the leather jacket which I know you hate, or this. So I wore this ridiculous thing for you.

wait a minute-are you mocking me too?
Um ... noooo, at least I don't think so. Hmm. Subconscious mocking? Is that a Freudian thing?

Vinny Gambini: I bought a suit. You seen it. Now it's covered in mud. This town doesn't have a one hour cleaner so I had to buy a new suit, except the only store you could buy a new suit in has got the flu. Got that? The whole store got the flu so I had to get this in a second hand store. So it's either wear the leather jacket which I know you hate, or this. So I wore this ridiculous thing for you.


*L* Thanks!!

Um ... noooo, at least I don't think so. Hmm. Subconscious mocking? Is that a Freudian thing?


In jest, I was making the thread about me.

In jest, I was making the thread about me.
Tsk! How many times I gotta tell ya ... don't make the thread about you! Tsk!

I think that all of the US's probs in the global scale is due to Canada causein probs for us in the EU.

[QUOTE=Eutrusca]le grand snipQUOTE]

First and before all, don't you start on self-immolation. That is a tactic used by pacifist buddhist monks to protest injustice. The act is one of the bravest things I have ever heard of someone doing to stand up for their beliefs. I consider them as brave or braver than someone in the military. So you can put your arrogant quoting of the word protest in a dark and uncomforatble place.

On to other things -

1. By what right or evidence do you label Al Jazeera as a terrorist news network. Because they are Arab based and operated? Because they are anti-American? Hell, if I ran a news organisation, and say China started attacking nations I am based in and "accidentally" hitting my offices, I might just be Anti-Chinese. Or because they broadcast excecutions? How many families home in America would still be agonizing over the fate of their sons had Al Jazeera not told the world this had happpened? Al Jazzerra takes flack from the US, and from Muslim Extremists. That to me is proof that they are at least providing reasonably unbiased testimony, as BOTH sides of the conflict claim they are distorting the facts and not fairly representing side X. I trust neither side explicitly, so the middle guy who they both hate probably has a balanced account. Just because it may not be glowing to the US, doesn't make it immediatly "terrorist."

2. I am tired of the crap about Senator Durbin. Really. He shouldn't have wimped out under the weight of republican Bullshit. No apology was due. He did not insult the troops, he did not defame anyone. The only people who could be offended by that are the PEOPLE WHO COMMITTED OR ORDERED THE ACTS IN THE REPORT DURBIN READ! Just because we give them Korans and meals doesn't mean the other crap that happens is A-Okay. If Hitler had given the Jews Torahs and meals with 2 types of fruit, would he have been scot free? Bad example, but still. The information that is slowly leaking out of places like Gitmo is unacceptable behaviour for a nation that calls itself civilized, much less one that claims or wants the moral high ground.

3. Lets try something - The US army is made up of demons in human form. Bush is a chimpanzee. Saddam Hussein was an innocent man. Lies, right? No one died. There is no way that lying about anything can kill American soldiers, unless the lie is, "hey don't worry, there's no cliff there at all." Even if, and a freaking stress IFFFF, everything that came out of Abu Gharib, out of Gitmo is 100% false, there is no way that my repeating it is killing anyone. The terrorists would be saying it anyway, so it's not getting them more followers - that only happens when it's proven TRUE. Foreign nations already dislike us, so that's not changing. So what then? It might motivate a peace movement, but that would SAVE lives, as if there is peace, there aren't soldiers dying.

4. Lastly, your last two paragraphs adequatly sum up why the world dislikes the US. One word - Arrogance. Having reasonable relations with other nations is not an option. Without reasonable international relations, the US would find a "coalition of the willing" bombing Washington sooner than you think.

But, we are never going to agree on this. I probably shouldn't have bothered, but after so many threads of this same crap, I need the venting.

I think that all of the US's probs in the global scale is due to Canada causein probs for us in the EU.
now THAT is funny!!

I think that all of the US's probs in the global scale is due to Canada causein probs for us in the EU.

Oh yeah. We love makin' trouble. Nothing like undermining American authority throughout the EU (and the world, even) by causing knuckle-walking mouthbreathers to re-elect Bush to work up an appetite.

Of course, by mid-afternoon there's work to be done bringing done the remaining monarchs of Europe, not to mention recatalyzing the socialist worker's movement - wit, that'll have to wait 'til after dinner. We're having Fidel Castro over for aperitifs, so the two ought to dovetail nicely.

All in a day's work.

[QUOTE=Eutrusca]le grand snipQUOTE]

First and before all, don't you start on self-immolation. That is a tactic used by pacifist buddhist monks to protest injustice. The act is one of the bravest things I have ever heard of someone doing to stand up for their beliefs. I consider them as brave or braver than someone in the military. So you can put your arrogant quoting of the word protest in a dark and uncomforatble place.

But, we are never going to agree on this. I probably shouldn't have bothered, but after so many threads of this same crap, I need the venting.
Self-immolation by anyone is the moral equivalent of being a Jihadist suicide-bomber, only with all of the result directed toward yourself and the media.

"I need the venting." Feel better now? :)

Oh yeah. We love makin' trouble. Nothing like undermining American authority throughout the EU (and the world, even) by causing knuckle-walking mouthbreathers to re-elect Bush to work up an appetite.

Of course, by mid-afternoon there's work to be done bringing done the remaining monarchs of Europe, not to mention recatalyzing the socialist worker's movement - wit, that'll have to wait 'til after dinner. We're having Fidel Castro over for aperitifs, so the two ought to dovetail nicely.

All in a day's work.
So now I'm a "knucklewalking mouthbreather," eh? Kewl. I love you too. :)

My major concern is the illeagel immegrints commin from hawaii. How can we stay respectable if we keep that up.

BTW I think that Mr. Dean would be the best pres evah I know I gonna vot for him!

Self-immolation by anyone is the moral equivalent of being a Jihadist suicide-bomber, only with all of the result directed toward yourself and the media.

Feel better now?

Way to render an ultimate act of defiance into a tawdry side-show attraction. Makes D-Day look like the freak Olympics, though.

So now I'm a "knucklewalking mouthbreather," eh? Kewl. I love you too. :)

What's love got to do with it?

Remember, kids: the only way to really get at those troublesome nits is to preen your neighbour...

Self-immolation by anyone is the moral equivalent of being a Jihadist suicide-bomber, only with all of the result directed toward yourself and the media.

How so? A suicide bomber kills many innocents, someone lighting themselves on fire harms no one but themself (unless of course they then run around ignighting everything in sight with their flaming bodys, but the monks being discussed did not).

My major concern is the illeagel immegrints commin from hawaii. How can we stay respectable if we keep that up.

BTW I think that Mr. Dean would be the best pres evah I know I gonna vot for him!
Well, that just destroyed what little credibility you had with me. Howard Dean is a raving lunatic.

Well, that just destroyed what little credibility you had with me. Howard Dean is a raving lunatic.

Not exactly putting your best foot forward. Dean would be one of the worst presidents ever.

Oh yeah. We love makin' trouble. Nothing like undermining American authority throughout the EU (and the world, even) by causing knuckle-walking mouthbreathers to re-elect Bush to work up an appetite.

Of course, by mid-afternoon there's work to be done bringing done the remaining monarchs of Europe, not to mention recatalyzing the socialist worker's movement - wit, that'll have to wait 'til after dinner. We're having Fidel Castro over for aperitifs, so the two ought to dovetail nicely.

All in a day's work.

Yet Youppi is falling down drunk, and still unemployed!! I hope you're all happy with yourselves!!

http://sportsmed.starwave.com/i/magazine/new/youppi.jpg

;)

Well, that just destroyed what little credibility you had with me. Howard Dean is a raving lunatic.

Oh come Eutrusca. Be fair, now. No-one has credibility with you unless they sing hosannahs about the glory of killing people whilst parading about in military uniforms, now do they?

Not exactly putting your best foot forward. Dean would be one of the worst presidents ever.

He wasn't even a very good guest on The Daily Show this week. :(

He wasn't even a very good guest on The Daily Show this week. :(

I feel bad for Jon, to say the least. :(

Oh come Eutrusca. Be fair, now. No-one has credibility with you unless they sing hosannahs about the glory of killing people whilst parading about in military uniforms, now do they?


You wont be able to make a more idiotic statement today if you try.

You wont be able to make a more idiotic statement today if you try.

Oh? Seems pretty accurate to me. Of all the veterans I've known, only this dude Eutrusca ever speaks in glowing terms about the whole war-time experience.

Every other veteran I've ever known has, at one point or another, done the sleeve-clutching bit coupled with the intensely grave look as he tells me how soul-crushingly important it is that young people never again have to go die in a ditch halfway round the world because of what some bunch of impotent old men think is important.

Except Eutrusca.

Oh? Seems pretty accurate to me. Of all the veterans I've known, only this dude Eutrusca ever speaks in glowing terms about the whole war-time experience.

Except Eutrusca.

Eutrusca was proud for serving in the military, and he takes pride in seeing them respected. There isn't anything wrong in taking pride in what you feel is right.

Oh? Seems pretty accurate to me. Of all the veterans I've known, only this dude Eutrusca ever speaks in glowing terms about the whole war-time experience.

Every other veteran I've ever known has, at one point or another, done the sleeve-clutching bit coupled with the intensely grave look as he tells me how soul-crushingly important it is that young people never again have to go die in a ditch halfway round the world because of what some bunch of impotent old men think is important.

Except Eutrusca.


And within moments, you prove me wrong.

Eutrusca was proud for serving in the military, and he takes pride in seeing them respected. There isn't anything wrong in taking pride in what you feel is right.

There is something wrong with glossing over the downside of state-sanctioned mass murder in order to further the aims of old men in offices in the here and now.

Something majorly wrong.

There is something wrong with glossing over the downside of state-sanctioned mass murder in order to further the aims of old men in offices in the here and now.

Something majorly wrong.

Not every war is mass murder, and I doubt Eutrusca was personally involved in such activities.

There is something wrong with glossing over the downside of state-sanctioned mass murder in order to further the aims of old men in offices in the here and now.

Something majorly wrong.


state sanctioned mass murder....furthering the aims of old men...

Something is majorly wrong, but thank God, its only you. I was worried it was going to be something we'd have to concern ourselves with.
Besides steering a thread against an individual.

And within moments, you prove me wrong.

Well, there you have it. I'd sooner be a principled idiot who wags fingers at warhawks than some fawning sycophant who says nothing when the rampant BS-o-meter rings off the hook.

Eutrusca knows what I think of him. He'll either choose to respond or he won't. He certainly doesn't need his usual entourage to leap to his defense, however. Isn't that right, Eutrusca?

Eutrusca knows what I think of him. He'll either choose to respond or he won't. He certainly doesn't need his usual entourage to leap to his defense, however. Isn't that right, Eutrusca?


I'm certainly not part of any one's entourage. If he and I agree on a subject-or I disagree with your characterization of him, it doesnt make me part of an entourage.

Its now clear you have some other more personal agenda with him that I dont care to be a part of.

Well, I never said you were part of his entourage.


I implied that Eutrusca is big enough of a boy to handle criticisms levelled at him, without need for third-party interventions. It's personal only insofar as Eutrusca has, on many an occasion, tried to make murder in uniform out to be some higher calling.

And as an avowed advocate of nonviolence, I take some pretty serious umbrage with any attempt to either glamourize or "folk-ify" state-sanctioned violence, murder, and predation. And he knows that.

And as an avowed advocate of nonviolence, I take some pretty serious umbrage with any attempt to either glamourize or "folk-ify" state-sanctioned violence, murder, and predation. And he knows that.

you know I must of course ask; how could you solve a situation like the holocaust or the stalinist regime without violence?

I was under the impression that "innocent until proven guilty" applied even to us military swine.

Your shitting me right? You DO realize the military is an autocrisy correct? The results of the punishments upon commanders, officers, and enlisted men is because the policy makers at the top are trying to keep the fire from consuming the people responsible at the top.

The "innocent until proven guilty" cases are in response to murders within the military units in which the nature of the person's innocence and guilt must be proven to be sure they aren't pinning the wrong guy with a murder.

For the Iraqi prisoner scandle however the results of that incident basicly go to the top commanders. In order to save THEIR careers, they boned the guys at the bottom because they are not "professional soldiers" in many people's eyes which is funny because they are professional enough to do as ordered. In order to prevent their careers from being boned over, they need to know the system enough beforehand so that they can follow orders and have proof that they dissented to be presented to the tribunal.

Lots of blood on Canadian hands, too...

Nearly 1 million baby seals will be clubbed or shot to death in Canada in just three years. Shockingly, the hunt is subsidized by the Canadian government!

Every winter, Northwest Atlantic harp seals migrate to Eastern Canada to give birth and mate. Following their birth in late winter, mothers leave in search of mates, while the pups remain helpless and vulnerable on the ice until they can swim and catch their own food. It’s during this time when they are most vulnerable that they are mercilessly slaughtered for their pelts!

and...

Canadian Government Murders Patients
By John Galt

So last week the supreme court of Canada ruled that a Quebec law preventing insurance companies from insuring Quebec residences against things that were already covered by Canadian Medicare was unconstitutional under Section 2 of our Constitution. In their ruling they were very careful in what they said but the newspapers and TV News all got the message and have (rightly, as I’ve read the first 20 or so pages of this monster decision) reported that the supreme court said that because of the horrendous wait times in Canadian hospitals people are actually dying waiting for treatment because they can’t go anywhere else as a result of state enforced Medicare. As a result, the Supreme Court said, the law was unconstitutional.

1. So if Medicare wasn’t killing people, it would be ok to violate section 2 of our constitution?
2. People are dying on waiting lists and that limitation of freedom is being enforced by the government of Canada. (this is what the supreme court said, so there is no question of fact here) Translation: The government of Canada (and its provinces) are wilfully murdering people in the name of a socialist value called free health care for all.

Yes, I said MURDER. “Wilfully acting to cause the death of another.”

(Sorry for this, but I'm really tired of Canadians throwing stones... :p )
We interrupt this thread for an important annoucement:

I don't know who John Galt is but he is a tad off base, suggesting that the government is "wilfully" murdering people.

The fact remains that any Canadian can go to a hospital and be treated, and there will be no bill. 45 Million Americans do not even have that coverage, so if you take John Galt's slant on this then.... if Canada's government is murdering her citizens, then the US government is guilty of genocide?

We now return you to the thread that makes the following incredulous opening statement:


"As best I can determine, one of the primary reasons for the "falling popularity of the US" are the miniscule number of US personnel "abusing" detainees."

Which, as they say in England, is poppycock.

We interrupt this thread for an important annoucement:

I don't know who John Galt is but he is a tad off base, suggesting that the government is "wilfully" murdering people.

He can have his opinion as well as you can have yours. I'm *hoping* you understand (esp. given the enjoinder at the bottom of that post) that I'm just railing against Canadians throwing stones here, but this IS an issue in your country, along with your brain drain of doctors that flee to the US for higher compensation. :)

The fact remains that any Canadian can go to a hospital and be treated, and there will be no bill. 45 Million Americans do not even have that coverage, so if you take John Galt's slant on this then.... if Canada's government is murdering her citizens, then the US government is guilty of genocide?


You can do that in the US, too. US hospitals cannot refuse you if you have no insurance in an emergency. :rolleyes:

However, for scheduled surgery, what takes two days to a week in the US takes MONTHS to get scheduled in Canada.

No, and here's why: for at least some/most of them, that's a CHOICE.
For example, my ex is a singer/actress/musician. She's in good health, and rarely sees a doctor. She prefers to pay out of pocket, as it's CHEAPER than having health insurance. I know *lots* of people that do this.

PS- Nice of you to admit the Canadian government tacitly endorses the clubbing of baby seals. :D

Well, that just destroyed what little credibility you had with me. Howard Dean is a raving lunatic.

))) Toss (((
Here you go, E.

http://www.charfac.umn.edu/MMS/ProjectMicro/Images/oreo/image3.JPG

You can do that in the US, too. US hospitals cannot refuse you if you have no insurance in an emergency. :rolleyes:

However, for scheduled surgery, what takes two days to a week in the US takes MONTHS to get scheduled in Canada.

This is something that interests me. I know next to nothing about the medicare in the USA, and about the same about Canadian medicare (i suppose it's close to the Nordic model in Europe though).

So, you say people can't be refused of emergency aid in the US, even if they have no insurance. Sounds fair. Then you say it takes months to get a scheduled surgery in Canada... How much time does it take - approximately - for an uninsured patient to get scheduled surgery in the USA then? 2 days to a week?

This is something that interests me. I know next to nothing about the medicare in the USA, and about the same about Canadian medicare (i suppose it's close to the Nordic model in Europe though).

So, you say people can't be refused of emergency aid in the US, even if they have no insurance. Sounds fair. Then you say it takes months to get a scheduled surgery in Canada... How much time does it take - approximately - for an uninsured patient to get scheduled surgery in the USA then? 2 days to a week?

I can't speak for scheduled surgery if you're uninsured; I've been employed (thankfully!) with a Fortune 5 company since 1998, so I've always been insured. But I would imagine that it's not much different than if you are insured: so long as you have a residence/are not destitute, it shouldn't be a problem.

Anybody know about this?

I think it depends on the surgery, the hospital, the availability of the right type of surgeon - my mother's care in Montreal was timely and beyond reproach. My brother recently had some very bad trouble with a hernia, and also received timely care.

Neither of them had to wait for more than a few days. Now it may be a different story in a small town; I couldn't tell you. I do know that doctors are free to choose where to practice, and that most choose not to practice in small towns or rural areas. In fact this has been described as a problem in health services - how to entice doctors to come settle in outlying regions.

The easiest thing to do, of course is to move to a locale that offers the right level of health services for you, and I think most people probably do this anyway, consciously or not.

Certain services certainly seem lacking - MRI seems to be in a state of perpetually extraordinary demand, which can't possibly be met, not without some extra funding. There are gaps, the system isn't perfect by any means.

But people aren't being killed by medicare. That's just asinine.

He can have his opinion as well as you can have yours.
Oh, he can have his opinion, however misguided and incorrect that it may be.

Did you read his whole rant (http://johngalt.joeuser.com/)? It starts out like this:

"So last week the supreme court of Canada ruled that a Quebec law preventing insurance companies from insuring Quebec residences against things that were already covered by Canadian Medicare was unconstitutional under Section 2 of our Constitution."

After changing topics and subjects entirely, such as this:

"Someday the Muslims will rule the world and it won’t just be Jews that are oppressed."

Then he ends up with this conclusion:

" Maybe by teaching Iraqis this very important lesson, you’ll be able to re-teach Americans the very same thing before it’s too late."

And this has what to do with the Canadian health system?

Anyways, during this guys rant, (I take him with a grain of salt) he discusses the war in Iraq, which brings us full circle to the point of this thread. I think that the diminishing worldview of the US is based on the re-election of George Bush and his failed foreign policies. And no it doesn't help that US soldiers are torturing prisoners, but it is not the "primary reason for the "falling popularity of the US".

[QUOTE=Kroisistan]
Self-immolation by anyone is the moral equivalent of being a Jihadist suicide-bomber, only with all of the result directed toward yourself and the media.

"I need the venting." Feel better now? :)

No. Self Immolation is the equivalent of lighting oneself on fire. The fact that you would count people who are willing to die to shine light on injustice among the same ranks as those that would get on a bus full of children and blow themselves up.... that is frankly a lot of nerve.

Self Immolation is the ultimate act of nonviolent protest. It is the culmination of the very honorable and moral belief that, as Gandhi said -

"I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill."
Mohandas Gandhi

If you think that morally parallels in any way with this, the words of the father of a suicide bomber who killed a little Israeli girl in Gaza -

"Our religion says we are proud of him until the day of resurrection," Abu Hilail said. "This is a challenge to the Zionist enemies."

Then we really have nothing more to talk about. If a Self-Immolation shocks the media, it should. That is why it is used. First the media will, more or less, go Wow!, and put such an act on the evening news. If a car chase gets viewers, someone willingly and calmly setting themselves on fire would draw a freaking audience. Afterwords, the question will be inevitably posed - Why? Why would someone do that? Then, the injustice being protested is covered by the media, made all the more significant because someone was willing to die to tell the world. The effect may be the same as a suicide bombing, but the difference is that one leaves in it's wake a single, willing victim, the other the charred and bloodied remains of innocent civilians, often children, women and the elderly. It is impossible to draw a moral parallel between the two.

Your comments personally hit home with me because I myself am a pacifist, and consider Gandhi and many Buddhist monks to be role models. Though I am unsure if I would be able to Self-Immolate, I have the utmost respect for those that do.

The article submitted, interestingly enough, shows that the Invasion of Iraq had a huge negative impact on the world's view of the US. The world opinion plummets in 2003, and then steadily increases from there.

The basis behind an unpopular opinion of America - even before Iraq's invasion, was that we assert ourselves far more than any other nation on the world scene. As I stated in the original "World views of America" thread I stated that, in Europe, this rift between us and the EU began shortly after the Cold War, when the major need for solidary abated with the collapse of the USSR and communism in the East Bloc countries.

In areas such as the Middle East, animosity has been goin on for much longer - since the 60 and 70's in certain countries. Our support of Israel is one major cause but not the only one. The Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the subsequent overthrow of the Shah of Iran is one reason why Iranians do not favor us. The Invasion of Iraq certianly didn't boost our image - as wasn't expected.

All of these reasons spawn from the same thing. Our foreign policy, when it conflicts with the interest of another nation, has lead to a lowered opinion. I have already stated why a strong unilateral approach by both Europe and currently China has been impossible. Europe is too interconnected. Every country is vastly more dependent on its neighbors than America is. Any sort of policy the French adopt cannot offend the Germans or the British. Their economic stability depends on it. The same for virtually any European country. That is why, since WW II, Europe has opted for a much more cooperative approach - which it has become accustomed to.

America's foreign policy is a stark difference. If we have to put a lot of economic pressure on a few European countries to vote down a bill or proposal that is not beneficial to us, it is seen as "America throwing its weight around." We have certain economic and military leverage and we use it for our own benefit - anything else would be somewhat dumb from an American POV. Why should America support an action for the sake of multilateralism to the detriment of the American people and economy? The Kyoto Treaty is a prime example, whos rejection by Bush garnered a lot of unpleasant feelings towards the U.S.

Not the Europe doesn't do the same thing - it does, but because of how closely the countries are tied together, usually one benefit for one us a benefit for another. Also, Europe doesn't quite have the unity to employ its economic power quite the same way the U.S. does.

Other nations, if they could do what the US does, most certainly would. It will be interesting what people say about China's foreign policy 10-20 years from now, when they have increased in power - economically and militarily.

South America, for the same reasons doesn't favor the U.S. True, we have interfered much over the past 100 years, and we are seeing the result in people's antipathy.

I am not condemning nor am I excusing anything America has done. I am simply trying to put things into context and perhaps answer why some people feel the way they do - at least from my limited perspective. All in all, I think it comes down to a sense of justice on an international level. Many nations feel that "aggressive" foreign policy isn't right. This view is fine when someone is at the disadvantage and is also perfectly understandable. A side effect of this is that it places unrealistic expectations on America. We are expected to "be good" and help the needy whenever possible, consuming our resources in the process (remember how much people berated America when it did not rush in to Sierra Leon's aid?) yet when we turn around and use those resources for the betterment of America we feel the same harsh sting of critique.

Not a good situation to be in.

I hate the US. Those bastards have me trapped here due to their stupidity and now the rest of the world hates me.

Oh, he can have his opinion, however misguided and incorrect that it may be.

Did you read his whole rant (http://johngalt.joeuser.com/)? It starts out like this:

"So last week the supreme court of Canada ruled that a Quebec law preventing insurance companies from insuring Quebec residences against things that were already covered by Canadian Medicare was unconstitutional under Section 2 of our Constitution."

After changing topics and subjects entirely, such as this:

"Someday the Muslims will rule the world and it won’t just be Jews that are oppressed."

Then he ends up with this conclusion:

" Maybe by teaching Iraqis this very important lesson, you’ll be able to re-teach Americans the very same thing before it’s too late."

And this has what to do with the Canadian health system?

Anyways, during this guys rant, (I take him with a grain of salt) he discusses the war in Iraq, which brings us full circle to the point of this thread. I think that the diminishing worldview of the US is based on the re-election of George Bush and his failed foreign policies. And no it doesn't help that US soldiers are torturing prisoners, but it is not the "primary reason for the "falling popularity of the US".

I never said he was sane. I didn't say I agreed with him, either.
But I really had to dig to find something objectionable, since Canada doesn't do very much. I mean, you're always there in a UN deployment or something, but it's not like you see Canada going off to take unilateral action in Darfur or something... All you guys do is club baby seals to death and let the Expos fold and leave for DC. Basically, that means you have poor choices in your pastimes, but it hardly makes for good forum-fodder, no (oops... I mean, "eh"?) ;)

I hate the US. Those bastards have me trapped here due to their stupidity and now the rest of the world hates me.

You're far from trapped. Let's take a trip to the border. Then my boot can "liberate" your backside from my country.

I hate the US. Those bastards have me trapped here due to their stupidity and now the rest of the world hates me.
Poor baby. Perhaps you should tell your momma. :D

I hate the US. Those bastards have me trapped here due to their stupidity and now the rest of the world hates me.

Your not trapped here. You can leave whenever you want too. No one is keeping you here.

All you guys do is club baby seals to death
Actually, only a small percentage are engaged in that occupation, which I have no problem with, especially when doing nothing affects the cod fisheries.

and let the Expos fold and leave for DC.
I guess the people of Montreal don't appreciate major league baseball, or they are jealous of the fact that the Blue Jays won two world series before they could win one?

Basically, that means you have poor choices in your pastimes, but it hardly makes for good forum-fodder, no (oops... I mean, "eh"?) ;)
The simple answer would be NO. The long answer is that it would be difficult for you to comment on our pastimes, when you don't know what they are eh?

Poor baby. Perhaps you should tell your momma. :D

That was mean Eutrusca. Funny but mean none-the-less!

[QUOTE=Eutrusca]

No. Self Immolation is the equivalent of lighting oneself on fire. The fact that you would count people who are willing to die to shine light on injustice among the same ranks as those that would get on a bus full of children and blow themselves up.... that is frankly a lot of nerve.

Self Immolation is the ultimate act of nonviolent protest. It is the culmination of the very honorable and moral belief that, as Gandhi said -

"I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill."
Mohandas Gandhi

If you think that morally parallels in any way with this, the words of the father of a suicide bomber who killed a little Israeli girl in Gaza -

"Our religion says we are proud of him until the day of resurrection," Abu Hilail said. "This is a challenge to the Zionist enemies."

Then we really have nothing more to talk about. If a Self-Immolation shocks the media, it should. That is why it is used. First the media will, more or less, go Wow!, and put such an act on the evening news. If a car chase gets viewers, someone willingly and calmly setting themselves on fire would draw a freaking audience. Afterwords, the question will be inevitably posed - Why? Why would someone do that? Then, the injustice being protested is covered by the media, made all the more significant because someone was willing to die to tell the world. The effect may be the same as a suicide bombing, but the difference is that one leaves in it's wake a single, willing victim, the other the charred and bloodied remains of innocent civilians, often children, women and the elderly. It is impossible to draw a moral parallel between the two.

Your comments personally hit home with me because I myself am a pacifist, and consider Gandhi and many Buddhist monks to be role models. Though I am unsure if I would be able to Self-Immolate, I have the utmost respect for those that do.
Sorry if that offended you, but I view self-immolation as an act of violence ( albiet against one's self ) with the intended purpose of attracting attention to one's cause, whatever that may be. This description perfectly fits the methods and purpose of suicide bombers.

That was mean Eutrusca. Funny but mean none-the-less!
Well, perhaps I'm just a mean person. Ever consider that? :)

Well, perhaps I'm just a mean person. Ever consider that? :)

Hell yes! :D

Comeon. No one is trapped here. If they feel trapped is because its all in their minds that they are trapped.

Your shitting me right? You DO realize the military is an autocrisy correct? The results of the punishments upon commanders, officers, and enlisted men is because the policy makers at the top are trying to keep the fire from consuming the people responsible at the top.

The "innocent until proven guilty" cases are in response to murders within the military units in which the nature of the person's innocence and guilt must be proven to be sure they aren't pinning the wrong guy with a murder.

For the Iraqi prisoner scandle however the results of that incident basicly go to the top commanders. In order to save THEIR careers, they boned the guys at the bottom because they are not "professional soldiers" in many people's eyes which is funny because they are professional enough to do as ordered. In order to prevent their careers from being boned over, they need to know the system enough beforehand so that they can follow orders and have proof that they dissented to be presented to the tribunal.
I was affiliated with the United States Army in one form or another for over 30 years, much of that time as an officer. Please do not presume to lecture me on how the US military functions.

Hell yes! :D

Comeon. No one is trapped here. If they feel trapped is because its all in their minds that they are trapped.
LOL! Thanks ... um ... I think. :)

You are absolutely correct, which is the main reason I was a bit sarcastic in my response.

I'm having one of my "I don't really give a shit" days, so much of what I post just now can safely be ignored. :D

Actually, only a small percentage are engaged in that occupation, which I have no problem with, especially when doing nothing affects the cod fisheries.

I guess the people of Montreal don't appreciate major league baseball, or they are jealous of the fact that the Blue Jays won two world series before they could win one?

Judging by your steady replies, I see my post pissed you off, at least a little. And that was the whole point of the exercise. :)

The simple answer would be NO. The long answer is that it would be difficult for you to comment on our pastimes, when you don't know what they are eh?

What? I don't know as much about Canada as you know about the US?? :eek:
Oh, my!! What? You mean that you're not just a stereotype... of Americans, but blander?!?

...Now you know EXACTLY how I feel reading some posts on here some days. :D

LOL! Thanks ... um ... I think. :)

You are absolutely correct, which is the main reason I was a bit sarcastic in my response.

I'm having one of my "I don't really give a shit" days, so much of what I post just now can safely be ignored. :D

LOL!

In that case, your ignored through the rest of the night and through tomorrow too :D

Keep it Eutrusca. :)