NationStates Jolt Archive

(Warning;a Rant/Debate Thread.If Pro-American,please come and debate.If Anti-American,come and debate but vulgarities out.If Neutral,just debate for the sheer hell of it)

I am a person frankly tired of what the Americans are doing in this world.They are a great country,yet they waste themselves in unjustified wars backed up by no hard evidence and with an incompetent intelligence agency.(e.g. The Invasion of Iraq,on false claims Saddam had WMD.While Iraq did possess WMD at one point as shown by the gassing of Kurds,they certainly did not have it when America invaded it)

While they are trying to do good in the world at some points,they are very ignorant of other cultures,given their lack of financial support for foreign languages in their schools and seem to be insular;in the sense that the majority do not understand sentiments of the world.

As far as my experience is concerned,American people are generally positive,but their government foreign policies and their political support for Bush as well as their ignorance of the world certainly does not endear them worldwide.

An example would be Bush's reduction of funding for contraceptives for developing countries and instead a promotion of abstinence,a total denial of the reality on the ground.People are going to have sex whether you like it or not,it is how most of us were made in the first place,and it is not going to stop.Many would see this as policy influenced by the Christian right of America.

Similarly,another sticking point is Israel.Enough has been said about that particular issue,with regard to America and its Jewish lobby.

I couldn't debate that poorly written op ed if I tried without using vulgarity and just plain meanness. Your lack of knowledge of the U.S. is as bad as you claim America's is of the world.

Inddeed, the US see themselves als some kind of "world order police", so if they see any country not behaving the way they want it to, they invade it to bring it forcefull on what they regard as the only right course (making up as much retarded excuses for the invasion as they need).
They're totally ignorant of other cultures and obviously don't give the slightest damn about it, which is probably caused by their big arrogance, thinking they're better than anyone else (ok, this isn't true for all Americans, but certainly for a vast amount of them).

Inddeed, the US see themselves als some kind of "world order police", so if they see any country not behaving the way they want it to, they invade it to bring it forcefull on what they regard as the only right course (making up as much retarded excuses for the invasion as they need).
They're totally ignorant of other cultures and obviously don't give the slightest damn about it, which is probably caused by their big arrogance, thinking they're better than anyone else (ok, this isn't true for all Americans, but certainly for a vast amount of them).

Don't forget that video where most of the enterviewed people wanted to conquer Europe, the fact that 1/3 of USA citizens still like a war criminal as president, and the creedence about a false connection between Saddam and September 11.

If "the thing" that makes the USA to run were more observer of the surrounding world and "it" thought more in the interests of Mankind than in power lobbies and economy, I can say many more people would like the USA.

I would like the USA. :rolleyes:

(e.g. The Invasion of Iraq,on false claims Saddam had WMD.While Iraq did possess WMD at one point as shown by the gassing of Kurds,they certainly did not have it when America invaded it)


WMD was ONE reason. There was many more.


While they are trying to do good in the world at some points,they are very ignorant of other cultures,given their lack of financial support for foreign languages in their schools and seem to be insular;


Why the hell should convert to every language in the world? Are you one of those type of people that would sue the government for not having signs or governement papers in Chinese or Arabic? When you come to another country, you better damn know their tongue. Unless the rest of the world learns to speak english, America does not have to cater to other languages.


Many would see this as policy influenced by the Christian right of America.


While I totally disagree about this policy, the thing is, they voted for the guy in and a good chunk of Americans are christians.


Similarly,another sticking point is Israel.Enough has been said about that particular issue,with regard to America and its Jewish lobby.


THOSE EVIL JEWS

Inddeed, the US see themselves als some kind of "world order police", so if they see any country not behaving the way they want it to, they invade it to bring it forcefull on what they regard as the only right course (making up as much retarded excuses for the invasion as they need).
They're totally ignorant of other cultures and obviously don't give the slightest damn about it, which is probably caused by their big arrogance, thinking they're better than anyone else (ok, this isn't true for all Americans, but certainly for a vast amount of them).

I guess you're ok with the French thinking of themselves as the "African police" and invading with the Foreign Legion whenever they feel like it without UN permission.

And you certainly feel that Europe is the only place in the world that has moral authority to criticize other nations. And we know that you do such a good job with multiculturalism - after all, preaching assimilation is what you do best.

And you sound like you've never been to the US. I'm an American, and I've been to most of the countries in the world, including some non-countries like Antarctica.

I guess you're ok with the French thinking of themselves as the "African police" and invading with the Foreign Legion whenever they feel like it without UN permission.

I criticize both.

And you certainly feel that Europe is the only place in the world that has moral authority to criticize other nations. And we know that you do such a good job with multiculturalism - after all, preaching assimilation is what you do best.

Europe has no moral auothority to criticize any nation. Nor the USA. And, about multiculturalism... Europe is at this time 25 different traditions. And they all are united toghether.

Also I invite you to visit Andalucía. One of the most religious places in the world, with continuous Christian festivities... and Mosques everywhere. And race problems at level-zero.

And you sound like you've never been to the US. I'm an American, and I've been to most of the countries in the world, including some non-countries like Antarctica.

I have not been in the USA. But it is because I don't wanna be mistreated as hispanic, and because I don't want to see my neighbours keeping guns. What about if one of them is crazy? I don't wanna die nor stain my hands with blood...

disclaimer: although i would certainly agree that the us interfering in other countries business is a bit rediculouse, and i am against all statist policies, i cannot agree with the creater of this thread on some issues, because i what i would feel is just poor information.

I am a person frankly tired of what the Americans are doing in this world.They are a great country,yet they waste themselves in unjustified wars backed up by no hard evidence and with an incompetent intelligence agency.(e.g. The Invasion of Iraq,on false claims Saddam had WMD.While Iraq did possess WMD at one point as shown by the gassing of Kurds,they certainly did not have it when America invaded it).

if gas is a WMD (debatable), they actually did find hundreds of tons of mustrad gas buried around iraq (most likely used for/made for their war with iran a few yrs back)

While they are trying to do good in the world at some points,they are very ignorant of other cultures,given their lack of financial support for foreign languages in their schools and seem to be insular;in the sense that the majority do not understand sentiments of the world.
actually they have good support for foreign languages even in public schools, although i am canadian and live in canada, i attended high school in california for a total of 3 yrs (1 in catholic, 2 in public), and i had the option of learning french japanise spanish manderine german italien (thats all...i think), which is at the very least far superior to canadian schools.

As far as my experience is concerned,American people are generally positive,but their government foreign policies and their political support for Bush as well as their ignorance of the world certainly does not endear them worldwide. .
great powers have never been endeared worldwide, and theres not a single country in the world that i would say is not 'ignorant' about other cultures etc.


An example would be Bush's reduction of funding for contraceptives for developing countries and instead a promotion of abstinence,a total denial of the reality on the ground.People are going to have sex whether you like it or not,it is how most of us were made in the first place,and it is not going to stop.Many would see this as policy influenced by the Christian right of America..
well first off i dont see why the USA should fund developing countries for contraceptives, and from a factual point of view abstenance is safer (both stds and pregnancy). i will agree with you however it does somewhat ignore whats actually going on in these place, again however, you cant claim that the contraceptive policies were good ones (there pretty 'ignorant' of foreign cultures), and still claim that Americas foreign policy is overall negative. remember that 40% of world aid and charty (combined), come from the US government and US citizens (i would love to provide a source for this, but that would take a lot of digging, if you really want one let me know).

Similarly,another sticking point is Israel.Enough has been said about that particular issue,with regard to America and its Jewish lobby.
i think is a misunderstanding of american foreign policy period. although i would agree that over the last 85 yrs, america has taken a policy stance towards isreal and zionism that i wouldnt agree with (even from the versailles talks, where americas stance was quite influenced by zionists in the whitehouse, although it didnt really amount to anything in the end) their current stance on isreal is based on their coldwar stance, where they were trying to curbe soviet influence (remember the wars with egypt where soviet weapons were used), the fact is this policy just hasnt been looked at for serious revision

again id just like to stress, that i agree, world policing, statism, and federalism, are all awful things that follow in the tradition of poor mathmatics, and general ignorance of keynesian economics, and social democracies. i just wish this had been addressed with a little more of the philosophy of why its wrong, as opposed to just assuming it was, because without these axioms your arguments are completly worthless

I'm not so much an isolationist, rather that I'd prefer to leave countries to their own devices. Perhaps democracy just wont work with certain cultures.

I couldn't debate that poorly written op ed if I tried without using vulgarity and just plain meanness. Your lack of knowledge of the U.S. is as bad as you claim America's is of the world.
My sentiments exactly! :headbang:

I always find it hilarious when someone beigns with "America is a great country" but then proceeds on some half-baked rant about how Americans are ignorant assholes who more often than not have a government controlled by us EVIL JEWS. Before telling me how I'm completely ignorant of other countries and languages bacuase I'm an American, despite the fact that I go to an international school, take Spanish and Arabic and can locate most countries on a map of the world, why not examine your own faults in understanding the US.

I always find it hilarious when someone beigns with "America is a great country" but then proceeds on some half-baked rant about how Americans are ignorant assholes who more often than not have a government controlled by us EVIL JEWS. Before telling me how I'm completely ignorant of other countries and languages bacuase I'm an American, despite the fact that I go to an international school, take Spanish and Arabic and can locate most countries on a map of the world, why not stop throwing around tired stereotypes about the US and examine more closely the country you claim to have a deep knowledge of?

I always find it hilarious when someone beigns with "America is a great country" but then proceeds on some half-baked rant about how Americans are ignorant assholes who more often than not have a government controlled by us EVIL JEWS. Before telling me how I'm completely ignorant of other countries and languages bacuase I'm an American, despite the fact that I go to an international school, take Spanish and Arabic and can locate most countries on a map of the world, why not stop throwing around tired stereotypes about the US and examine more closely the country you claim to have a deep knowledge of?

Had the "Jewish Lobby" bit been in the first sentance, I would have stopped reading. Unfortunately, I wasted a few minutes of my life reading the whole thing.

Some cultures still stone "immoral" women to death. Some cultures execute homosexuals. Some cultures still prevent their people from expressing certain religious beliefs. Those cultures need to be nudged toward civilization by using the US' economic and media might. When and if those cultures respond violently they need to be corrected by the US' military might.

again id just like to stress, that i agree, world policing, statism, and federalism, are all awful things


What exactly is so awful about federalism?

Some cultures still stone "immoral" women to death. Some cultures execute homosexuals. Some cultures still prevent their people from expressing certain religious beliefs. Those cultures need to be nudged toward civilization by using the US' economic and media might. When and if those cultures respond violently they need to be corrected by the US' military might.

Absolutely. Sometimes, we have to involve ourselves in other cultures to correct their backward and repressive ideas and to ensure their people can partake in the world as equals. Democracy, liberalism, and tolerance need to be fostered everwhere.

Absolutely. Sometimes, we have to involve ourselves in other cultures to correct their backward and repressive ideas and to ensure their people can partake in the world as equals. Democracy, liberalism, and tolerance need to be fostered everwhere.
I hope you mean "classical" liberalism and not the current idiocy which masquerades under the term.

Some cultures still stone "immoral" women to death. Some cultures execute homosexuals. Some cultures still prevent their people from expressing certain religious beliefs. Those cultures need to be nudged toward civilization by using the US' economic and media might. When and if those cultures respond violently they need to be corrected by the US' military might.
Some cultures still execute the mentally ill, some cultures still enact state-sponsored murder, some cultures still ban homosexuals from marriage, some cultures still monitor religious sites of a minority religion, some cultures break international law, some cultures are responsible for over 25% of the world's pollution... Perhaps these cultures also need to be nudged towards civilisation? Just a thought.

I hope you mean "classical" liberalism and not the current idiocy which masquerades under the term.

There's only one liberalism, and it's definitely not the one we've got now.

Some cultures still execute the mentally ill, some cultures still enact state-sponsored murder, some cultures still ban homosexuals from marriage, some cultures still monitor religious sites of a minority religion, some cultures break international law, some cultures are responsible for over 25% of the world's pollution... Perhaps these cultures also need to be nudged towards civilisation? Just a thought.
Absolutely. I'm against the death penalty, in favor of gay rights, and I realize the US needs to make more progress. Just because we're not perfect doesn't, however, absolve us from our responsibility to help others improve.

Oh, 25% of the world's total pollution? You must be kidding.

Absolutely. I'm against the death penalty, in favor of gay rights, and I realize the US needs to make more progress. Just because we're not perfect doesn't, however, absolve us from our responsibility to help others improve.

Oh, 25% of the world's total pollution? You must be kidding.

Ok... I confess, it's actually 24,2% (of carbon dioxide emissions). EU countries are responsbile for for 15,3% (although it should be noted that the EU has a significantly higher population).

Ok... I confess, it's actually 24,2% (of carbon dioxide emissions). EU countries are responsbile for for 15,3% (although it should be noted that the EU has a significantly higher population).
OT

How's that Kyoto deal working out for you guys? Are any of you actually on track to meeting your targets under Kyoto?

Some cultures still execute the mentally ill, some cultures still enact state-sponsored murder, some cultures still ban homosexuals from marriage, some cultures still monitor religious sites of a minority religion, some cultures break international law, some cultures are responsible for over 25% of the world's pollution... Perhaps these cultures also need to be nudged towards civilisation? Just a thought.

We need to liberalize ourselves more, that is entirely true. But at the same time, the US cannot even be remotely compared to the nations we want to bring those values to; at least in the US you can worship as you please without being burned or tortured and homosexuals can live their lives and enjoy most of the priveliges accorded to straight couples (although we're still stuck in the Dark Ages on gay marriage).

We do produce at least 20% of the world's pollution (25% is a little high), but at the same time our economy is equal to 21% of the world's entire GDP.

There's only one liberalism, and it's definitely not the one we've got now.
Kewl. Icanlivewiththat. :D

Ok... I confess, it's actually 24,2% (of carbon dioxide emissions). EU countries are responsbile for for 15,3% (although it should be noted that the EU has a significantly higher population).

Actually, if the EU had the same GDP proportionate to the US (with $40,400 per capita instead of 26,900), it's economy would produce 22.8% of the world's emissions.

At the same time, however, it would have less pollution per capita. This is undoubtedly due to the higher population density, which means more efficent utilization of energy and pollution management.

OT

How's that Kyoto deal working out for you guys? Are any of you actually on track to meeting your targets under Kyoto?
Only Sweden and the United Kingdom are on target at present. Several other countries are behind schedule, but could do it if they raise their game. Several other EU memberstates won't make it. It's not good enough at all. However, at least efforts are being made and our governments aren't pretending there's no problem. That said, I reemphasise, it is not good enough. European countries need to do more.

We need to liberalize ourselves more, that is entirely true. But at the same time, the US cannot even be remotely compared to the nations we want to bring those values to; at least in the US you can worship as you please without being burned or tortured and homosexuals can live their lives and enjoy most of the priveliges accorded to straight couples (although we're still stuck in the Dark Ages on gay marriage).

We do produce at least 20% of the world's pollution (25% is a little high), but at the same time our economy is equal to 21% of the world's entire GDP.
I made no comparison; neither was I suggesting whether or not such a comparison should be made. It was just some thoughts...

WMD was ONE reason. There was many more.

Yes, though they same to be far more prominent now that its been discovered there isnt even a hint of WMD, than they were before the war.

if gas is a WMD (debatable), they actually did find hundreds of tons of mustrad gas buried around iraq (most likely used for/made for their war with iran a few yrs back)

Due to deficient seals in the CW shells, storage was a major problem and therefore Gas was produced on a needed basis, rather than stockpiled. These were probably produced for some campaign against Iran but were never needed and had to be disposed of. Iraq lacked the hardware to deliver these in significant quantities at sufficient ranges to pose a "WMD" threat, nor were there factories producing it or on standby.

and still claim that Americas foreign policy is overall negative. remember that 40% of world aid and charty (combined), come from the US government and US citizens

If you subtract the amounts from that that used to buy allies (eg Pakistan, Togo etc) I'd imagine it would be far less. Per capita and as a percentage of GNP America is among the least generous of the developed nations, a fact that the sheer wealth of the american economy serves to hide, as one percent of one hundred billion is greater than 2% of 1 Billion. Feel free to look it up.

Those cultures need to be nudged toward civilization by using the US' economic and media might. When and if those cultures respond violently they need to be corrected by the US' military might.

Often its a reaction to that "nudging" that helped create those kind of places in the first place (the support of the Shah in Iran led to the Iranian revolution and the current suspcion of America in that country). Likewise the unilateral support for the Israeli occupation has few if any admirers and has aided the idea of America as a force for wrong in that region.

Absolutely. Sometimes, we have to involve ourselves in other cultures to correct their backward and repressive ideas and to ensure their people can partake in the world as equals. Democracy, liberalism, and tolerance need to be fostered everwhere.

One might ask if that was the reasoning behind the Coup that put Pinochet into power, or backed Pol Pot in the UN and gave satellite intel to Saddam, or currently is backing anti-democratic elements within Venezuela.

(Warning;a Rant/Debate Thread.If Pro-American,please come and debate.If Anti-American,come and debate but vulgarities out.If Neutral,just debate for the sheer hell of it)

I am a person frankly tired of what the Americans are doing in this world.They are a great country,yet they waste themselves in unjustified wars backed up by no hard evidence and with an incompetent intelligence agency.(e.g. The Invasion of Iraq,on false claims Saddam had WMD.While Iraq did possess WMD at one point as shown by the gassing of Kurds,they certainly did not have it when America invaded it)

While they are trying to do good in the world at some points,they are very ignorant of other cultures,given their lack of financial support for foreign languages in their schools and seem to be insular;in the sense that the majority do not understand sentiments of the world.

As far as my experience is concerned,American people are generally positive,but their government foreign policies and their political support for Bush as well as their ignorance of the world certainly does not endear them worldwide.

An example would be Bush's reduction of funding for contraceptives for developing countries and instead a promotion of abstinence,a total denial of the reality on the ground.People are going to have sex whether you like it or not,it is how most of us were made in the first place,and it is not going to stop.Many would see this as policy influenced by the Christian right of America.

Similarly,another sticking point is Israel.Enough has been said about that particular issue,with regard to America and its Jewish lobby.

The US needs to stop imposing its will across the planet, definitely.

What precisely do you mean by the "Jewish lobby"? Are you aware of how many different lobbies aiming at separate, sometimes contradictory, causes have Jews in them?

We need to liberalize ourselves more, that is entirely true. But at the same time, the US cannot even be remotely compared to the nations we want to bring those values to; at least in the US you can worship as you please without being burned or tortured and homosexuals can live their lives and enjoy most of the priveliges accorded to straight couples (although we're still stuck in the Dark Ages on gay marriage).

Yes, there is a degree of liberalism in the US towards citizens within it.

Two questions must be asked, however. Firstly, is that the whole picture? Considering current US foreign policy and historical US policy even towards large sections of its inhabitants, no, it is most definitely not.

Secondly, will imperial intervention help or hurt the expansion of such values? The lessons learned from, say, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, the US intervention in Iraq, and the US support for the Shah in Iran indicate otherwise.

What exactly is so awful about federalism?
federalism is a result of nationalities trying to achieve autarky. without nationalism federalism would not exist as there would be no use for it, now if your believe nationalism is a good thing, thats another debate....(canadians arent different from americans who arent different from ethiopians who arent different from french...unless you believe they are different then nationality is irrelavent, if nationality is irrelevant, then why would there need to be governments which exploit certain regions for the benefit of others)

Europe has no moral auothority to criticize any nation. Nor the USA. And, about multiculturalism... Europe is at this time 25 different traditions. And they all are united toghether....

Oh please please don't say that I almost laughed myself into a comma, oh wow are you in denial. I am not going to get into the whole Evil vs Europe thing but when almost every major country in Europe shot down the constitution and with even GB not accepting the Euro I find it ver hard to belive that statement.



(although we're still stuck in the Dark Ages on gay marriage).

You mean that we burn them and castrat them? I didn't know that. (Get your facts straight dude).


Yes, though they same to be far more prominent now that its been discovered there isnt even a hint of WMD, than they were before the war.

For the sake of this discussion I am guessing same is seem? Anyhow WMD is/was very prominent but most people (including Mr.President) got to wrapped up in it.


Due to deficient seals in the CW shells, storage was a major problem and therefore Gas was produced on a needed basis, rather than stockpiled. These were probably produced for some campaign against Iran but were never needed and had to be disposed of. Iraq lacked the hardware to deliver these in significant quantities at sufficient ranges to pose a "WMD" threat, nor were there factories producing it or on standby.

So you are saying that since it can only kill about....what? A 100,000 at the most? Who cares? Hitler killed more! Who cares about some people dying as long as I get my oil. What idoit would think "food for oil" actually gave Iraqi's food?


If you subtract the amounts from that that used to buy allies (eg Pakistan, Togo etc) I'd imagine it would be far less. Per capita and as a percentage of GNP America is among the least generous of the developed nations, a fact that the sheer wealth of the american economy serves to hide, as one percent of one hundred billion is greater than 2% of 1 Billion. Feel free to look it up.
Get to the real world! Look outside your bubble! It happens all the time everywhere! From the Catholic Church, US, France, everywhere on almost all levels! Don't discredit some of the money because it "bought some one" if we were all afraid of doing that then why would anyone have helped the Katrina victims or the Tsunami ones?


Likewise the unilateral support for the Israeli occupation has few if any admirers and has aided the idea of America as a force for wrong in that region.
Once again, look at the news (it is just so hard these days when it come to true facts), Isreal and evicted all of the settlers peacefully and the now PM has gotten a more pro-peace party together. Look and listen.


One might ask if that was the reasoning behind the Coup that put Pinochet into power, or backed Pol Pot in the UN and gave satellite intel to Saddam, or currently is backing anti-democratic elements within Venezuela.

I agree.

Also, Free funky name, please spell some what correctly.

Canada City']Why the hell should convert to every language in the world? Are you one of those type of people that would sue the government for not having signs or governement papers in Chinese or Arabic? When you come to another country, you better damn know their tongue. Unless the rest of the world learns to speak english, America does not have to cater to other languages.
Americans expect the world to listen to them and cater for their ideas but refuse to do the same for the rest of the world. Some Americans believe that they have a lot to teach the world, but refuse to believe that the world could have anything worth teaching them. For example, many of the people who opposed outlawing juvenile executions due to world legal standards are the same people who support "civilizing" the world by exporting American values and culture.

My sentiments exactly!
Of course you would refuse to answer any of the original points. No doubt because you couldn't restrain yourself from flaming.

Some cultures still stone "immoral" women to death. Some cultures execute homosexuals. Some cultures still prevent their people from expressing certain religious beliefs. Those cultures need to be nudged toward civilization by using the US' economic and media might. When and if those cultures respond violently they need to be corrected by the US' military might.
I agree totally!

Some cultures still execute the mentally ill, some cultures still enact state-sponsored murder, some cultures still ban homosexuals from marriage, some cultures still monitor religious sites of a minority religion, some cultures break international law, some cultures are responsible for over 25% of the world's pollution... Perhaps these cultures also need to be nudged towards civilisation? Just a thought.
I love how people always assume that Drunk Commies is a conservative when he says things like that to which you responded.

Absolutely. Sometimes, we have to involve ourselves in other cultures to correct their backward and repressive ideas and to ensure their people can partake in the world as equals. Democracy, liberalism, and tolerance need to be fostered everwhere.

One might ask if that was the reasoning behind the Coup that put Pinochet into power, or backed Pol Pot in the UN and gave satellite intel to Saddam, or currently is backing anti-democratic elements within Venezuela.
No. The motivation behind those actions was "oh noes save us from teh evil commies!!11!"

federalism is a result of nationalities trying to achieve autarky. without nationalism federalism would not exist as there would be no use for it, now if your believe nationalism is a good thing, thats another debate....(canadians arent different from americans who arent different from ethiopians who arent different from french...unless you believe they are different then nationality is irrelavent, if nationality is irrelevant, then why would there need to be governments which exploit certain regions for the benefit of others)

Ah, I think we were operating under different definitions of the word. I think you're saying that nations forming into some over large superstate is a bad thing, in which case I would agree with you. I'm not so much of a nationalist, but I believe that different cultures call for different laws, and as such I don't believe in huge superstates with one size fits all type laws.

I love how people always assume that Drunk Commies is a conservative when he says things like that to which you responded.

I love how some people assume that because one responds to someone's post they are making some sort of declaration about the political persuasion of the poster they are responding to. ;)

I love how some people assume that because one responds to someone's post they are making some sort of declaration about the political persuasion of the poster they are responding to. ;)
I love lamp.

Absolutely. Sometimes, we have to involve ourselves in other cultures to correct their backward and repressive ideas and to ensure their people can partake in the world as equals. Democracy, liberalism, and tolerance need to be fostered everwhere.
And who gets to decide what's 'backward'?

(Warning;a Rant/Debate Thread.If Pro-American,please come and debate.If Anti-American,come and debate but vulgarities out.If Neutral,just debate for the sheer hell of it)

I am a person frankly tired of what the Americans are doing in this world.They are a great country,yet they waste themselves in unjustified wars backed up by no hard evidence and with an incompetent intelligence agency.(e.g. The Invasion of Iraq,on false claims Saddam had WMD.While Iraq did possess WMD at one point as shown by the gassing of Kurds,they certainly did not have it when America invaded it)

While they are trying to do good in the world at some points,they are very ignorant of other cultures,given their lack of financial support for foreign languages in their schools and seem to be insular;in the sense that the majority do not understand sentiments of the world.

As far as my experience is concerned,American people are generally positive,but their government foreign policies and their political support for Bush as well as their ignorance of the world certainly does not endear them worldwide.

An example would be Bush's reduction of funding for contraceptives for developing countries and instead a promotion of abstinence,a total denial of the reality on the ground.People are going to have sex whether you like it or not,it is how most of us were made in the first place,and it is not going to stop.Many would see this as policy influenced by the Christian right of America.

Similarly,another sticking point is Israel.Enough has been said about that particular issue,with regard to America and its Jewish lobby.

I believe a thread comes up about this several times a day. It is nothing we have not heard before. So why are you repeating it here? Find an old thread and post there.

And who gets to decide what's 'backward'?

The fact that modern democratic nations provide the best and freest life in physical, emotional, social, and economic terms, have the most stable governments, have the best living standards, and lead in cultural, technological and social/philosophical developments are more than proof of our culture being the model for civilization.

Cultures that retain ideas like the murder of minority religions, the banning and destruction of literature, the oppression and murder of homosexuals and women, the suppression of political dissent and the government sponsored fostering of racial, religious or social hatred need to have our ways imposed on them because, frankly, those ways are unequivocably wrong and backward.

The fact that modern democratic nations provide the best and freest life in physical, emotional, social, and economic terms, have the most stable governments, have the best living standards, and lead in cultural, technological and social/philosophical developments are more than proof of our culture being the model for civilization.

Cultures that retain ideas like the murder of minority religions, the banning and destruction of literature, the oppression and murder of homosexuals and women, the suppression of political dissent and the government sponsored fostering of racial, religious or social hatred need to have our ways imposed on them because, frankly, those ways are unequivocably wrong and backward.
Of course our societies present the 'best and freest life' in what we consider to be good and free, but in other cultures other values count... cultural bias and ethnocentrism are delicate subjects...

The fact that modern democratic nations provide the best and freest life in physical, emotional, social, and economic terms, have the most stable governments, have the best living standards, and lead in cultural, technological and social/philosophical developments are more than proof of our culture being the model for civilization.

Cultures that retain ideas like the murder of minority religions, the banning and destruction of literature, the oppression and murder of homosexuals and women, the suppression of political dissent and the government sponsored fostering of racial, religious or social hatred need to have our ways imposed on them because, frankly, those ways are unequivocably wrong and backward.
I wholeheartedly agree with you.

However, you must understand, that the USA is not the best example to lead such a thing. The USA is one of the world's leading nations still employing execution. Until recently it was still possible to be executed for a crime committed during childhood. As far as I can see, the USA still does execute the mentally ill. Then we have Guananamo Bay and the illegal kidnappings and 'rendition' policies used by the US government. These factors make it hard for the US to claim with any credibility that it strongly believes in human rights.

One can also argue that religious dissent is not tolerated in parts of the USA, e.g. those areas of the country that forbid the teaching of evolution in science lessons.

In terms of social development, for many Europeans (particularly northern Europeans), it is also hard to understand how a country that allows so many of its citizens go without basic services such as healthcare can truly claim to show leadership on social development matters.

So, you see, whilst I agree with you, I also can see what may have driven the original poster to make this thread. Although, I do think that the original post is extreme (as well as hard to fully understand).

For the sake of this discussion I am guessing same is seem? Anyhow WMD is/was very prominent but most people (including Mr.President) got to wrapped up in it.

What I was referring to there was the way that "other reasons" have now assumed prominence only because of the complete, total and utter lack of WMD. At the time the "other reason" being touted was the Al Qaeda link, and thats off with the WMD in never-never land as I type.


So you are saying that since it can only kill about....what? A 100,000 at the most? W

No, I'm saying much the same thing as the Iraq Arms Survey group, which is that there were no WMD, no WMD production facilities, nada.

Get to the real world! Look outside your bubble! It happens all the time everywhere! From the Catholic Church, US, France, everywhere on almost all levels! Don't discredit some of the money because it "bought some one" if we were all afraid of doing that then why would anyone have helped the Katrina victims or the Tsunami ones?

I'm sure others do use it to their advantage, however none do it so often and refuse to recognise the fact more than the US.

Once again, look at the news (it is just so hard these days when it come to true facts), Isreal and evicted all of the settlers peacefully and the now PM has gotten a more pro-peace party together. Look and listen.

Yes, Sharon removed the 8,000 settlers that took 30,000 plus troops to defend from Gaza, primarily to focus all resources on securing as much of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem as possible.

What does this have to do with unquestioning US support for the occupation over what is now nearly four decades? Afterall, Syria was forced by threat of UN sanctions (being pushed by America) from Lebanon yet the same sauce does not seem suitable for Israel.

No. The motivation behind those actions was "oh noes save us from teh evil commies!!11!"

With Pinochet perhaps, though it must be said that Allende and Chavez are/were both democratically elected. However it would seem to me that its a matter of securing a more pliable Venezuealan government than real fear of ideology in the latters case.

Cultures that retain ideas like the murder of minority religions, the banning and destruction of literature, the oppression and murder of homosexuals and women, the suppression of political dissent and the government sponsored fostering of racial, religious or social hatred need to have our ways imposed on them because, frankly, those ways are unequivocably wrong and backward

You seem to be under the impression that America actually gives a crap about the state of the various peoples of the world. However its far truer to say that America cares only for the intentions of their Governments. If it deems a government agreeable to its interests, then it will be treated with as an ally, covertly or overtly. If not it won't. Its nature or behaviour towards its own people have little or nothing to do with it. Examples that spring to mind are Guatamala, Israel, the Shahs Iran, Indonesia - even Apartheid South Africa, at one stage.

-snip-
psst... there are pretty little 'quote' tags you can wrap around the quoted text. just a little fyi.

psst... there are pretty little 'quote' tags you can wrap around the quoted text. just a little fyi

Why so there are...my thanks. I'm more used to the bare bones of MSN boards.

Absolutely. Sometimes, we have to involve ourselves in other cultures to correct their backward and repressive ideas and to ensure their people can partake in the world as equals. Democracy, liberalism, and tolerance need to be fostered everwhere.
Ah, what noble sentiments. So similar to those that motivated the people who attempted to eradicate native americans...and failing that, assimilate them completely...LET EVERYTHING THAT IS INDIAN WITHIN YOU DIE. The governments of the US and Canada believed that we had backward and repressive ideas as well. Yet they didn't totally wipe us out. How incredibly tolerant.

Canada City']Why the hell should convert to every language in the world? Are you one of those type of people that would sue the government for not having signs or governement papers in Chinese or Arabic? When you come to another country, you better damn know their tongue. Unless the rest of the world learns to speak english, America does not have to cater to other languages.
i think they were meaning the opposite here, in americans going to other countries

American country music killed Australian bush music. thats my bitch with america interfering in our culture. i just find it interesting how american music awards seem to deal mainly with rap/hip hop (an artist being nominated for the same song in 5 different catagories, from rap to dance... whatsupwithdat?), where as aussie rock still dominates here.

Ah, what noble sentiments. So similar to those that motivated the people who attempted to eradicate native americans...and failing that, assimilate them completely...LET EVERYTHING THAT IS INDIAN WITHIN YOU DIE. The governments of the US and Canada believed that we had backward and repressive ideas as well. Yet they didn't totally wipe us out. How incredibly tolerant.
So because something horrible was done to your people we should abandon the idea of helping out the oppressed elsewhere by helping to reform their cultures? There's a difference between destroying a culture because they have a different religion and modernizing a culture because they stone women and gays to death.

So because something horrible was done to your people we should abandon the idea of helping out the oppressed elsewhere by helping to reform their cultures? There's a difference between destroying a culture because they have a different religion and modernizing a culture because they stone women and gays to death.
Is there? I'm not so certain...forgive me if I do not trust. 'Modernizing a culture' was exactly the driving force behind Residential Schools. There is a difference between wanting people to respect human rights...and violating them in order to 'modernise' a people. And I'm not just talking about natives in that last sentence.

Is there? I'm not so certain...forgive me if I do not trust. 'Modernizing a culture' was exactly the driving force behind Residential Schools. There is a difference between wanting people to respect human rights...and violating them in order to 'modernise' a people. And I'm not just talking about natives in that last sentence.
Well, it's not like we've even got the ability to force all their kids to go to special schools where they will be taught how not to follow in Osama's footsteps. All we can do is flood them with American media and use our economy as a tool to reward nations that stamp out barbaric practices and a weapon to cause widespread famine and suffering (ok, maybe going a little overboard there) in nations that don't take action to stamp out barbarism. Military force should only come into play if one of those nations sponsors terrorists who attack us or if one of those nations attacks us directly.

To be clearer...it's not just the US I object to in terms of invading in order to modernise...I would object to Canada, or any other nation wishing to do the same. Because invasion = deaths...and soldiers dying in a war is one thing, but civilians being killed in the crossfire is another. If they wanted to risk their lives in order to be free, so be it...but their lives should not be risked by outsiders, deciding for them.

Well, it's not like we've even got the ability to force all their kids to go to special schools where they will be taught how not to follow in Osama's footsteps. All we can do is flood them with American media and use our economy as a tool to reward nations that stamp out barbaric practices and a weapon to cause widespread famine and suffering (ok, maybe going a little overboard there) in nations that don't take action to stamp out barbarism. Military force should only come into play if one of those nations sponsors terrorists who attack us or if one of those nations attacks us directly.
That last sentece makes it sound a little more reasonable. But I still do not support cultural imperialism...in large part because not just the 'good' ideals get exported, but also the bad. I don't really think that the totality of US culture is what the world needs...especially the aspects of it that reinforce rabid consumerism and overconsumption. (Edit: which are actually Western attitudes, not exclusive to the US...but it's the US we're talking about, so...)

That last sentece makes it sound a little more reasonable. But I still do not support cultural imperialism...in large part because not just the 'good' ideals get exported, but also the bad. I don't really think that the totality of US culture is what the world needs...especially the aspects of it that reinforce rabid consumerism and overconsumption.
Well they don't need to embrace the whole thing. I'd be satisfied if they just stop killing folks for their religious or sexual choices. If they decide to max out their credit cards on American movie DVDs that's just icing on the cake.

Well they don't need to embrace the whole thing. I'd be satisfied if they just stop killing folks for their religious or sexual choices. If they decide to max out their credit cards on American movie DVDs that's just icing on the cake.
Hahahaha! You know, we don't really disagree on the ultimate goal...which is a deeper, and broader respect for human rights on a global level. It's hard though, to know how to deal with these things abroad when your own country (I'm talking about Canada, I'll let you deal with the US) is up to shady business under the noses of the people who have the power to vote them out...I can't imagine what kind of further corruption would proliferate under the guise of 'helping' other nations 'modernise'...further away from said noses. In short (too late) I don't trust the 'good intentions' of politicians. I think that phrase is an oxymoron.

Well they don't need to embrace the whole thing. I'd be satisfied if they just stop killing folks for their religious or sexual choices. If they decide to max out their credit cards on American movie DVDs that's just icing on the cake.

American "mondernization" dictates that you DO embrace the whole thing. Or at least it makes it very hard for you not to. (Media,billboards etc.). And, does anyone seriously think America is exporting its culture to "stop the repression" of certain ethnic/homosexual groups? :/

American "mondernization" dictates that you DO embrace the whole thing. Or at least it makes it very hard for you not to. (Media,billboards etc.). And, does anyone seriously think America is exporting its culture to "stop the repression" of certain ethnic/homosexual groups? :/
Um, no. America is actually not doing much at all to stop the scumbags from violating human rights. I'm saying that we should. I'm advocating a slightly different foreign policy.

Um, no. America is actually not doing much at all to stop the scumbags from violating human rights. I'm saying that we should. I'm advocating a slightly different foreign policy.

Ah...for some reason I thought you were advocating the export of American culture to curb human rights violations, something I'm against. Then I saw you were advocating armed forces to aid in human rights violations. My bad >.<.

Anyways, I agree with you on that. America does need to get more involved in the world and curbing human rights abuse. Military intimidation would be worth the price of better human rights for all in my opinion.

The problem is though, the United States will probably never use human rights in wartime as anything but a mask to hide deeper motivations.

Ah...for some reason I thought you were advocating the export of American culture to curb human rights violations, something I'm against. Then I saw you were advocating armed forces to aid in human rights violations. My bad >.<.

Anyways, I agree with you on that. America does need to get more involved in the world and curbing human rights abuse. Military intimidation would be worth the price of better human rights for all in my opinion.

The problem is though, the United States will probably never use human rights in wartime as anything but a mask to hide deeper motivations.
I was advocating that. Perhaps not all of American culture, but the good parts. Stuff like equal protection under the law, freedom of speech and religion, and prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

I'm only advocating the use of armed forces if the countries targeted by such a cultural imperialism campaign decide to resort to violence against us.

I was advocating that. Perhaps not all of American culture, but the good parts. Stuff like equal protection under the law, freedom of speech and religion, and prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

I'm only advocating the use of armed forces if the countries targeted by such a cultural imperialism campaign decide to resort to violence against us.
Hmmm....so if Canadians got tired of being bombarded by US media, and began defacing said media in Canada...holding protests, burning effigies and so on...would that be seen as an attack? Or do we actually have to cross the border before you invade? Just wondering...because I have this effigy you see...

Hmmm....so if Canadians got tired of being bombarded by US media, and began defacing said media in Canada...holding protests, burning effigies and so on...would that be seen as an attack? Or do we actually have to cross the border before you invade? Just wondering...because I have this effigy you see...
No, I mean only if you guys decide to blow something of ours up or something. Then you guys get bombed all to hell and invaded. We might even throw in a regime change! It's our style of tough love.

Ah, what noble sentiments. So similar to those that motivated the people who attempted to eradicate native americans...and failing that, assimilate them completely...LET EVERYTHING THAT IS INDIAN WITHIN YOU DIE. The governments of the US and Canada believed that we had backward and repressive ideas as well. Yet they didn't totally wipe us out. How incredibly tolerant.

It would only curb the abuses and violations of the culture. There's a big difference between stopping murder, fanaticism, and repression and destroying an entire culture. If anything, these values should be introduced so as to preserve the culture while removing the elements that cause repression.

The US and Canadian governments wanted land and resources; "civilization" was just a propaganda term for the politicians.

No, I mean only if you guys decide to blow something of ours up or something. Then you guys get bombed all to hell and invaded. We might even throw in a regime change! It's our style of tough love.
Good. *lights match*
Wait a minute...at what point during our resistance and rejection of your exported culture will you decide that your 'soft measures' aren't enough, and a full-out invasion is necessary, despite the fact that we haven't attacked you? *blows out match and waits...just in case*

Good. *lights match*
Wait a minute...at what point during our resistance and rejection of your exported culture will you decide that your 'soft measures' aren't enough, and a full-out invasion is necessary, despite the fact that we haven't attacked you? *blows out match and waits...just in case*
Aw, come on! The surprise is half the fun!

It would only curb the abuses and violations of the culture. There's a big difference between stopping murder, fanaticism, and repression and destroying an entire culture. If anything, these values should be introduced so as to preserve the culture while removing the elements that cause repression.

The US and Canadian governments wanted land and resources; "civilization" was just a propaganda term for the politicians. But how do you do it? It's not like there isn't a single person within these nations and cultures arguing for the very same ideas of tolerance, and so on...these are not completely foreign ideas. What is going to make these ideas introduced externally any more effective than internally? And how exactly do you export an idea WITHOUT force?

Aw, come on! The surprise is half the fun!
You're right. *lights another match* The effigy is of Tom Sizemore, which is as close as you've ever got to describing what you look like...:D

But how do you do it? It's not like there isn't a single person within these nations and cultures arguing for the very same ideas of tolerance, and so on...these are not completely foreign ideas. What is going to make these ideas introduced externally any more effective than internally? And how exactly do you export an idea WITHOUT force?

You work with the people on the inside to get the change started and then provide the final push towards democratization through some kind of economic or political pressure; ideally, the goal is for the reformist element within the culture to do the actual removal of the oppressive government with external forces just providing the support.

Of course, it's possible that the people would revolt and use force to overthrow the government as a result, but that would not be preferable to a peaceful change.

does anyone here think that oil isn't a perfectly justifiable reason for the US to go to war? The US economy - the most powerful economy in the world, and the reason that the US is so very powerful- depends more on oil than any other resource in the word. The Persian Gulf is where a huge chunk of the world's oil supply is. More than anything right now the US wants to keep the only resource that could sink the whole boat in its control. The best way to do that (while avoiding actually making Iraq the 51st state) is to reform Iraq into a western-style democracy which trades freely with the it. I think that as far as going to war, the US had probably one of the most justifiable reasons to do so, whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (whatever those are exactly) is entirely inconsequencial; US citizens however don't like to think that the soldiers are dying for such an unromantic reason, one which will, besides keeping the US economy going, also happens to make many rich guys richer.

I was advocating that. Perhaps not all of American culture, but the good parts. Stuff like equal protection under the law, freedom of speech and religion, and prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

I'm only advocating the use of armed forces if the countries targeted by such a cultural imperialism campaign decide to resort to violence against us.

>.<

The problem is, what you're describing are the judical traditions of America and not the culture. It would be more accurate to say you're exporting America's judical system. While it is full of holes, it is the best one out there; however this is only because of America's wealth and position in the world. Equal protection under the law is hard to enforce when police officers will sell thier honor and dignity for a dollar.

You work with the people on the inside to get the change started and then provide the final push towards democratization through some kind of economic or political pressure; ideally, the goal is for the reformist element within the culture to do the actual removal of the oppressive government with external forces just providing the support. Aren't we already doing this? Via NGOs etc? I'm not really sure what further pressure you're thinking of...unless you mean official support of certain groups, which could be very dangerous politically...especially as has been the case in the past, if a certain group you support turns around and goes mad and commits abuses itself.

Of course, it's possible that the people would revolt and use force to overthrow the government as a result, but that would not be preferable to a peaceful change.
I would consider both preferable to change from the outside however...which would be somewhat disempowering.

I only need to read the first post in this thread to know where this is going. The intelligence agenices of several countries thought Saddam had WMD. He either didn't or else got them exported in the 5 weeks the US warned of an invasion if he didn't comply with 17 UN resolutions. Get over it. Although the WMD were not found, mass graves, gross human rights violations, rape rooms, torture on a massive and daily scale, and a people brutalized and intimidated by a despot ruler and his minions was found. In less than 3 years the US and the other countires of conscience have helped the Iraqi people clean out the trash, made a psychopathic dicator face his peers to answer for his crimes, and helped establish a fair, democratic government representing the majority of the Iraqi people. Some claim that the US doesn't understand or respect other cultures, but those same people turn around and bitch because Iraq is setting up a government that reflects Iraqi culture and not their concept of what Iraqi culture should be (theirs). Over 70% of the Iraqi people eligible to vote, voted in the last election. Sounds to me like the vast majority of them are willing to put their lives at risk to have a voice. That's the same voice the US is criticized for allowing to be heard. The US who realizes that for every US citizen who is killed in Iraq that countless Iraqis will live and have control of their lives. In a ideologically perfect world, high ideals, inspiring speeches, and public disapproval would bring freedom to the whole world. But, this isn't a perfect world. That's why the world is blessed with a rough, tough, don't give me any crap crountry like the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

>.<

The problem is, what you're describing are the judical traditions of America and not the culture. It would be more accurate to say you're exporting America's judical system. While it is full of holes, it is the best one out there; however this is only because of America's wealth and position in the world. Equal protection under the law is hard to enforce when police officers will sell thier honor and dignity for a dollar.
Sorry...just have to question that statement. The best out there? I don't think so. Better than others, fine. But please don't use the superlative...it's a rather subjective view.

I only need to read the first post in this thread to know where this is going.
And I only have to read this first sentence to know that you really should've read more than the first post.

That's why the world is blessed with a rough, tough, don't give me any crap crountry like the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Used to be, my friend. America is dead, all that is left is an animated corpse with too many guns.

You work with the people on the inside to get the change started and then provide the final push towards democratization through some kind of economic or political pressure; ideally, the goal is for the reformist element within the culture to do the actual removal of the oppressive government with external forces just providing the support.

Of course, it's possible that the people would revolt and use force to overthrow the government as a result, but that would not be preferable to a peaceful change.

Better than that, Trade with the country enough that the corrupt regime relies on the US to continue its economy going. as a byproduct of this a lot of US culture rubs off on the country until the government becomes more and more westernized. That's how the US deals with most third world countries, and even some second-world ones like China and Vietnam (Now instead of killing our soldiers, they make our shoes!) If it wern't for the US adament support for Israel giving them a bad name in the middle east, the US'd have a stunning reputation in the Middle east, and there'd probably be a lot more movements towards democracy.

I only need to read the first post in this thread to know where this is going. The intelligence agenices of several countries thought Saddam had WMD. He either didn't or else got them exported in the 5 weeks the US warned of an invasion if he didn't comply with 17 UN resolutions. Get over it. Although the WMD were not found, mass graves, gross human rights violations, rape rooms, torture on a massive and daily scale, and a people brutalized and intimidated by a despot ruler and his minions was found. In less than 3 years the US and the other countires of conscience have helped the Iraqi people clean out the trash, made a psychopathic dicator face his peers to answer for his crimes, and helped establish a fair, democratic government representing the majority of the Iraqi people. Some claim that the US doesn't understand or respect other cultures, but those same people turn around and bitch because Iraq is setting up a government that reflects Iraqi culture and not their concept of what Iraqi culture should be (theirs). Over 70% of the Iraqi people eligible to vote, voted in the last election. Sounds to me like the vast majority of them are willing to put their lives at risk to have a voice. That's the same voice the US is criticized for allowing to be heard. The US who realizes that for every US citizen who is killed in Iraq that countless Iraqis will live and have control of their lives. In a ideologically perfect world, high ideals, inspiring speeches, and public disapproval would bring freedom to the whole world. But, this isn't a perfect world. That's why the world is blessed with a rough, tough, don't give me any crap crountry like the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

As others have pointed out, your superpatriotic rant looks out of place at best and retarded at worst.

Sorry...just have to question that statement. The best out there? I don't think so. Better than others, fine. But please don't use the superlative...it's a rather subjective view.

Eh...better then most then. :/ Was oversimplyfying to get the point across.

Used to be, my friend. America is dead, all that is left is an animated corpse with too many guns.

You can never have too many guns, my friend. haven't you ever watched a horror movie and said to yourself "Dammit! why doesn't anyone have a gun?!" Not a problem in real life. Actually, hardly anyone in the US has a gun unless you live in a rural area, where they're mostly for hunting. Yes the US has a vast rural area, it takes up most of the country, and most everyone has a safe full of guns used once a year to kill gamebirds and deer.

Aren't we already doing this? Via NGOs etc? I'm not really sure what further pressure you're thinking of...unless you mean official support of certain groups, which could be very dangerous politically...especially as has been the case in the past, if a certain group you support turns around and goes mad and commits abuses itself.

Kind of...but the process isn't very efficient. Unfortunately, the problem is as you mentioned; if we support groups directly, they can turn in to abusers. However, the reason for this might have more to do with our Cold War perogative that placed anti-communism above commitment to democracy, with the result being our endorsement of groups that claimed democracy but were little more than another dictatorship in the making.


I would consider both preferable to change from the outside however...which would be somewhat disempowering.

As we know, change solely from the outside without change from within easily backfires if the people decide that they would rather have a dictator from their own culture than an occupier from another.

Used to be, my friend. America is dead, all that is left is an animated corpse with too many guns.

No, the US is very much alive. Alive enough to make the sacrifices and do what it has to do to make this world livable for future generations. The corpses are the people who sit in their warm cozy homes, well-fed, and insulate from any nastiness, and feel qualified to criticize others who actually get off their butts to DO something besides judge others.

You can never have too many guns, my friend...
I meant more serious guns, namely the US military.

What I mean is that the premise, the ideals and what some might call "the soul" of America has long since been disregarded (some would say by the "New Deal", others might say it was Vietnam, and again others would look towards the "War on Terror"), and all that is left is that which had been built with this dream in mind, and which is now misused by cynical people with their own sick agendas.

You can never have too many guns, my friend. haven't you ever watched a horror movie and said to yourself "Dammit! why doesn't anyone have a gun?!" Not a problem in real life. Actually, hardly anyone in the US has a gun unless you live in a rural area, where they're mostly for hunting. Yes the US has a vast rural area, it takes up most of the country, and most everyone has a safe full of guns used once a year to kill gamebirds and deer.
...or fellow rappers....

Kind of...but the process isn't very efficient. Unfortunately, the problem is as you mentioned; if we support groups directly, they can turn in to abusers. However, the reason for this might have more to do with our Cold War perogative that placed anti-communism above commitment to democracy, with the result being our endorsement of groups that claimed democracy but were little more than another dictatorship in the making. True...but even if we supported groups that were fundamentally centered around human rights...that doesn't mean that they wouldn't go apeshit once they got power. And then we'd get the blame (and somewhat rightfully so...we being the west, not just the US). It would be nice if the UN weren't so bloody corrupt and we had some REAL internationalism...*wanders off to dream in a corner*

As others have pointed out, your superpatriotic rant looks out of place at best and retarded at worst.


Because I think the US is taking steps and making sacrifices for the betterment of the future world while enduring the armchair quarterbacking of less "involved" countries I am superpatriotic and retarded? Tell me, if 25 years from now most if not all of the mideast has replaced their religious fanatics and despot dictators with governments elected and representing the majority of the people and you're still whining "But there wasn't any WMD", who is going to look retarded?

No, the US is very much alive. Alive enough to make the sacrifices and do what it has to do to make this world livable for future generations.
I'm assuming you mean only future generations of USians...or westerners...because our level of consumerism and consumption is hardly sustainable on a global level, and we require access to the resources of the rest of the world in order to continue consuming at the levels we do. That's not really making the world livable for everyone...just a few.

Because I think the US is taking steps and making sacrifices for the betterment of the future world while enduring the armchair quarterbacking of less "involved" countries I am superpatriotic and retarded?
Actually, it's because you assumed the thread was about Iraq, when in fact, that's only been discussed in passing.

I meant more serious guns, namely the US military.

What I mean is that the premise, the ideals and what some might call "the soul" of America has long since been disregarded (some would say by the "New Deal", others might say it was Vietnam, and again others would look towards the "War on Terror"), and all that is left is that which had been built with this dream in mind, and which is now misused by cynical people with their own sick agendas.

I usually like to think of the US as the modern incarnation of the Roman Empire, which just makes me think its kinda cool. Those wars really just make it seem to fit the role better. Anyways, seeing as the neoimperialistic tendencies of the US haven't really negitively affected my life thusfar, I find it amusing to think of it in that manner. I'm also vastly into Roman history.

In my opinion the whole US changed as a result of the Cold War. That's when the US was scared to death, betrayed its values, We installed dictators in third world countries, fought on the wrong side of a few wars, and armed ourselves to the teeth.

I'm assuming you mean only future generations of USians...or westerners...because our level of consumerism and consumption is hardly sustainable on a global level, and we require access to the resources of the rest of the world in order to continue consuming at the levels we do. That's not really making the world livable for everyone...just a few.

I assume you are referring to oil when you say resources. Check the oil consumption figures for the last few years. India and China are both about to surpass the US in "resource" consumption. Our other consumer demands fuel the economy of several countries.

But what I was actually referring to but which you skillfully overlooked to hijack my post, the US is making the ultimate sacrifice to support a fledgling democratic government (just as we did in Afghanistan). And in case you haven't noticed, democracy and the demand by the people for democracy is spreading.

Actually, it's because you assumed the thread was about Iraq, when in fact, that's only been discussed in passing.

Oh, excuse me. I was posting in response to the first post of this thread. You know, the one that said:

I am a person frankly tired of what the Americans are doing in this world.They are a great country,yet they waste themselves in unjustified wars backed up by no hard evidence and with an incompetent intelligence agency.(e.g. The Invasion of Iraq,on false claims Saddam had WMD.While Iraq did possess WMD at one point as shown by the gassing of Kurds,they certainly did not have it when America invaded it)

I thought that was what you were supposed to strive to do on NS. I didn't know you were supposed to follow the direction of whichever thread hijack is prevalent at the moment. My mistake. I'll just bow out and leave it to those of you who know so much more than the likes of retarded me.

my thougts on this,


Well America has proven very effective at policing Countries(such as Iraq) but failed in others(such as Vietnam)


Iraq invaded Kuwait(hello? wasn't there a Dictator in power in Iraq at that time?) second: We warned US intervention if they didn't pull out(did they take it seriously? nope!) and they had WMD's(3 reasons to invade)


I do not like the Arabs at all(excluding the Jewish) if they are truly God's "Chosen people" then they will not invade anyone, but if they invade someone my Hatred of Arabic and Islamic people's will also include them.


Hitler was that EVIL person(he needed to be removed from power)

and if if were my choice we would already have conquered the Middle East and turned into a part of our Country(after all Islams and Arabs were eliminated of course) Europe? a pushover, China and all them in the East? Stronger then Europe.



War is a part of life! we all will fight oneanother(until that fateful day comes) the day a hostile Alien Race hears us(finally, what took them 400 years? a guess) as in, they won't respond to the noise we make for sometime.


my Arguement is done, goodbye.

Just in case any of you really give a shit about the Iraqi people more than hammering away at your own beliefs and ideologies check out this site

www.theotheriraq.com

my thougts on this,


Well America has proven very effective at policing Countries(such as Iraq) but failed in others(such as Vietnam)


Iraq invaded Kuwait(hello? wasn't there a Dictator in power in Iraq at that time?) second: We warned US intervention if they didn't pull out(did they take it seriously? nope!) and they had WMD's(3 reasons to invade)


I do not like the Arabs at all(excluding the Jewish) if they are truly God's "Chosen people" then they will not invade anyone, but if they invade someone my Hatred of Arabic and Islamic people's will also include them.


Hitler was that EVIL person(he needed to be removed from power)

and if if were my choice we would already have conquered the Middle East and turned into a part of our Country(after all Islams and Arabs were eliminated of course) Europe? a pushover, China and all them in the East? Stronger then Europe.



War is a part of life! we all will fight oneanother(until that fateful day comes) the day a hostile Alien Race hears us(finally, what took them 400 years? a guess) as in, they won't respond to the noise we make for sometime.


my Arguement is done, goodbye.

my thougts on this,


Well America has proven very effective at policing Countries(such as Iraq) but failed in others(such as Vietnam)


Iraq invaded Kuwait(hello? wasn't there a Dictator in power in Iraq at that time?) second: We warned US intervention if they didn't pull out(did they take it seriously? nope!) and they had WMD's(3 reasons to invade)


I do not like the Arabs at all(excluding the Jewish) if they are truly God's "Chosen people" then they will not invade anyone, but if they invade someone my Hatred of Arabic and Islamic people's will also include them.


Hitler was that EVIL person(he needed to be removed from power)

and if if were my choice we would already have conquered the Middle East and turned into a part of our Country(after all Islams and Arabs were eliminated of course) Europe? a pushover, China and all them in the East? Stronger then Europe.



War is a part of life! we all will fight oneanother(until that fateful day comes) the day a hostile Alien Race hears us(finally, what took them 400 years? a guess) as in, they won't respond to the noise we make for sometime.


my Arguement is done, goodbye.

I assume you are referring to oil when you say resources. Check the oil consumption figures for the last few years. India and China are both about to surpass the US in "resource" consumption. Our other consumer demands fuel the economy of several countries. Actually no, I'm not just talking about oil. Though Canada has the dubious 'honour' of producing more waste per capita than USians, we're not that far ahead of you. Between us, we consume, and waste, an obscene amount of everything...all resources, including one more important and precious than oil...fresh water.

But what I was actually referring to but which you skillfully overlooked to hijack my post, the US is making the ultimate sacrifice to support a fledgling democratic government (just as we did in Afghanistan). And in case you haven't noticed, democracy and the demand by the people for democracy is spreading.Actually, I wasn't 'hijacking' your post, but redirecting your thread jack...because as it's been pointed out, Iraq is really not the focus of this discussion. You assumed it was, as stated in your first post. Which is why your post seemed so completely out of place.

I assume you are referring to oil when you say resources. Check the oil consumption figures for the last few years. India and China are both about to surpass the US in "resource" consumption. Our other consumer demands fuel the economy of several countries.

But what I was actually referring to but which you skillfully overlooked to hijack my post, the US is making the ultimate sacrifice to support a fledgling democratic government (just as we did in Afghanistan). And in case you haven't noticed, democracy and the demand by the people for democracy is spreading.

I really, really, really want to believe this - I'm not funning you, I'm serious, I've tried to defend the US numerous times; living in the UK, this is _far_ from easy!

Actually, living anywhere in the world at the moment, this is far from easy :(

Anyway, my point is, I think it's naive to believe what you suggest. The US acts as it does in its own interest, not out of humanitarian (let alone democratic) concerns. Of course, this is true of all countries, but you have to hide this, make people think otherwise. America has had particularly difficult cases to make lately, and particularly poor PR merchants trying to covince people that what they're doing is right. At the moment, it suits the US to foster democracy in the middle east. In decades past it suited it to support dictatorships.

Who knows what it'll suit your lot to support in the future?

Oh, excuse me. I was posting in response to the first post of this thread. You know, the one that said: No, you were posting on the premise that you 'knew where this thread [was] going' based on the first post alone...the assumption being that the thread was going to focus on Iraq instead of the stated topic of US interference in foreign cultures. Plural. Not just Iraq.

No, the US is very much alive.
The country is - but the values aren't, the concept isn't.

Alive enough to make the sacrifices and do what it has to do to make this world livable for future generations.
Like not accepting that global warming is happening? Refusing to trade on proper terms with the poorest people in the world?
Wasting trillions for a war against phantoms, while letting hundreds of millions die of malnurishment and easily curable diseases?

No, my friend. The only thing the US is making sacrifices for these days is even more power and money in the future.

The corpses are the people who sit in their warm cozy homes, well-fed, and insulate from any nastiness, and feel qualified to criticize others who actually get off their butts to DO something besides judge others.
I haven't said that other countries are perfect...but there was a part of me once that thought that the US was somehow different. It had worthwhile values before any other nation did.
But that's over now. The US is just as bad as other countries, and sometimes worse (other civilised nations don't kidnap people and send them into totalitarian states for "interrogation") - plus, it is the most powerful nation (or wreck thereof) around.

Elgesh']

Anyway, my point is, I think it's naive to believe what you suggest. The US acts as it does in its own interest, not out of humanitarian (let alone democratic) concerns. Of course, this is true of all countries, but you have to hide this, make people think otherwise. America has had particularly difficult cases to make lately, and particularly poor PR merchants trying to covince people that what they're doing is right. At the moment, it suits the US to foster democracy in the middle east. In decades past it suited it to support dictatorships.

Who knows what it'll suit your lot to support in the future?
Ah, the joy of 'enlightened self interest'. And people wonder why we are suspicious. Come on now...are our suspicions that out to lunch? History, had it a voice, would say no.

Well America has proven very effective at policing Countries(such as Iraq) but failed in others(such as Vietnam)
I wouldn't example call US security provision in Iraq "effective".

Iraq invaded Kuwait(hello? wasn't there a Dictator in power in Iraq at that time?)
Yes. Just like in Kuwait.

second: We warned US intervention if they didn't pull out(did they take it seriously? nope!) and they had WMD's(3 reasons to invade)
Actually, they asked your representative whether you'd have a problem if Iraq invaded Kuwait, and she said "No".

Hitler was that EVIL person(he needed to be removed from power)
We won against "teh evil Hitler", therefore we can do whatever we like?

my Arguement is done, goodbye.
It was done before you started it.

Ah, the joy of 'enlightened self interest'. And people wonder why we are suspicious. Come on now...are our suspicions that out to lunch? History, had it a voice, would say no.

I've certainly never heard of an empire that didn't act to the net benefit of the motherland :)

No, you were posting on the premise that you 'knew where this thread [was] going' based on the first post alone...the assumption being that the thread was going to focus on Iraq instead of the stated topic of US interference in foreign cultures. Plural. Not just Iraq.

You know, I'd say something but Sinuhue's got it down pretty damn good.

The rant doesn't belong in this thread. Period. You could repost it in a new thread, but in that case, I'm going to attack its content rather then its relevancy.

Just in case any of you really give a shit about the Iraqi people more than hammering away at your own beliefs and ideologies check out this site

www.theotheriraq.com
You're aware that most Kurds would want to break Iraq apart if they only could?
And are you aware that the Kurds in Turkey run a terror organisation, even recognised by the US as such?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers_Party/States_Listed_as_Terrorist

Elgesh']I've certainly never heard of an empire that didn't act to the net benefit of the motherland :)
It would be wrong for them to do otherwise. And while currently, some nations may be aligned with the US cause, there is nothing to say that that alignment will be anything other than temporary...and easily done away with if any of the parties involved feels that their self-interest is being threatened. It's not just the US...it's all nations who act in this way. Which is why I am particularly suspicious of a nation claiming to have the best interests of the world at heart.

It would be wrong for them to do otherwise. And while currently, some nations may be aligned with the US cause, there is nothing to say that that alignment will be anything other than temporary...and easily done away with if any of the parties involved feels that their self-interest is being threatened. It's not just the US...it's all nations who act in this way. Which is why I am particularly suspicious of a nation claiming to have the best interests of the world at heart.

Spot-on!

I don't know if I'm 'suspicious' that the US claims (does it?) to have everyone's best interests at heart; just recognise it's not true! Everyone's got to have a line, a cover story - that's theirs, is all! :D

Well, I would say the USA and its USA not US, is no more wrong or right then any other nation out there.

The USA is made up of 50 independent states that have a fully functional central government. The USA is not a democracy, its a republic.

Recently, President Bush has said bad "intel" indicated Iraq had WMD's (many banned weapons were found and some WERE WMD's). The UN voted to invade Iraq but didn't have the spine to do so. The USA set up a small coalition of some 50+ countries that invaded (we didn't invade alone).

The USA as a whole is not made up of bigots, racists, or any other form of hatred group. Do we have some here... yes. Do you have some in your country... yes.

Are we the "big boy" on the block... yes. Do we throw our weight around at times.. yes. Do we try and learn from our mistakes... I hope so, but then again nobody or country is perfect.

Do we have some questionable politics and politicians.. yes. But, I bet you do too.

The problem is many here judge a people by its Flag and what it sees in THIER local/National news/politics. We do the same. maybe if people stopped judging and started educating we all could make the world a better place.

Remember when you point a finger at somebody three are pointing back at you.

I do not think the US is dead. In a coma maybe, could go either way. If we get a President that is not a dick head and a redneck with beliefs so screwed up, then the US will change. With talks of impeachment we may see it sooner rather than later.

We need a president that will change the American government. A president not pushed around (or part of) big business. One that will work with our allies and the world. Though no nation can claim to be perfect. None is the model of what a perfect nation should be. Not the EU, not the US, no nation. It will take change not just for the US but the world for things to improve. The world wont change by the ultruistic motives of a few.

(Warning;a Rant/Debate Thread.If Pro-American,please come and debate.If Anti-American,come and debate but vulgarities out.If Neutral,just debate for the sheer hell of it)

I am a person frankly tired of what the Americans are doing in this world.They are a great country,yet they waste themselves in unjustified wars backed up by no hard evidence and with an incompetent intelligence agency.(e.g. The Invasion of Iraq,on false claims Saddam had WMD.While Iraq did possess WMD at one point as shown by the gassing of Kurds,they certainly did not have it when America invaded it)

While they are trying to do good in the world at some points,they are very ignorant of other cultures,given their lack of financial support for foreign languages in their schools and seem to be insular;in the sense that the majority do not understand sentiments of the world.

As far as my experience is concerned,American people are generally positive,but their government foreign policies and their political support for Bush as well as their ignorance of the world certainly does not endear them worldwide.

An example would be Bush's reduction of funding for contraceptives for developing countries and instead a promotion of abstinence,a total denial of the reality on the ground.People are going to have sex whether you like it or not,it is how most of us were made in the first place,and it is not going to stop.Many would see this as policy influenced by the Christian right of America.

Similarly,another sticking point is Israel.Enough has been said about that particular issue,with regard to America and its Jewish lobby.

1. Aren't you glad that we now know that there are no WMDs rather than wondering whether Saddam has them or not? Besides, he probably had them, and destroyed them when the invasion began. Plus, waiting for the UN would have been worthless. The UN is nothing but a beaurocratic cesspool that does nothing to benefit the world. (Where was the UN while the genocide in Darfur started? Why aren't they there now?) Screw The Hague.

2. The Marxist, psuedo-intellectual left destroys the country just as much as the religious right.

3. They don't teach English and "Christianity 101" in Saudi Arabia, now do they? In fact, isn't owning any religious text other than a Q'uran illegal? If they don't harp our culture over there, why should America harp thiers in America?

4. Is that anti-semitism I detect? (/sarcasm) Hiel Shicklgruber!(/sarcasm)
Isreal has made great advances in the Middle East. Would you rather the Hamas be running the show?

(PS. I am not a rural southener. I am an urban Canadian)

2. The Marxist, psuedo-intellectual left destroys the country just as much as the religious right.
Not half as much as the reactionary pseudo-intellectual right does. Not to quibble, but face facts: the left can't hope to command the same sort of financial backing... and in this culture, financial backing is the keystone of influence.

Not half as much as the reactionary pseudo-intellectual right does. Not to quibble, but face facts: the left can't hope to command the same sort of financial backing... and in this culture, financial backing is the keystone of influence.

Yes, but the left holds a grip on young, impressionable minds spoonfed by college professors, and soothsayers, such as Michael Moore, who state if Bush is impoeached, all the problems of the world will magically evaporate.

...impressionable minds spoonfed by college professors...
Nothing like a bit of healthy anti-intellectualism...we all know that all the most successful societies use that one.

Nothing like a bit of healthy anti-intellectualism...we all know that all the most successful societies use that one.
Lol. I always find it so strange that people can be so for education, and yet so against it at the same time. Pinochet used to rant about communism running rampant in the schools…probably why they murdered university professors and students first.

Lol. I always find it so strange that people can be so for education, and yet so against it at the same time. Pinochet used to rant about communism running rampant in the schools…probably why they murdered university professors and students first.

I am not anti-intellectual, nor do I advocate the mass excecution of educators. I am wholeheartedly against partisan politics in any educational setting. If it was massive conservative bias showing itself in the classroom, I would be just as incensed.

I am not anti-intellectual, nor do I advocate the mass excecution of educators. I am wholeheartedly against partisan politics in any educational setting. If it was massive conservative bias showing itself in the classroom, I would be just as incensed.
Don't worry...I'm not actually comparing you to Pinochet. Just ruminating on the fact that education is often seen as both desirable, and dangerous.

As for there being a 'massive liberal bias showing itself in the classroom', I would just have to say: Prove it. What a crock. Every couple years or so this is claimed. Now, instead of calling them pinko commies, we're using the term 'liberal'. But the charge is the same. People in post-secondary institutions are being 'brainwashed' into becoming left, by left-leaning teachers. Oddly enough, plenty of people make it out with their conservative ideals intact. And plenty of conservatives maintain their tenure as profs.

So because something horrible was done to your people we should abandon the idea of helping out the oppressed elsewhere by helping to reform their cultures?

That would presume a wisdom on the part of the western world that does not, in fact, if not in fiction, exist. Not even in Canada, apparently.

does anyone here think that oil isn't a perfectly justifiable reason for the US to go to war? .

Yes, as the world is not the oyster of the US. Secondly, trying to impose a democratic system, or as is more likely a semi democratic puppet, on Iraq is bound to set back the actual development of that kind of ideal in the region, as its now associated with imperialism and the "great satan" etc.

He either didn't or else got them exported in the 5 weeks the US warned of an invasion if he didn't comply with 17 UN resolutions.

Really? Very strange that you say that, because a few million dollars, over a years intensive searching and a good few slightly embarrassed Americans say otherwise in the Iraq Arms Survey groups final report. If you do choose to reveal this new and previously unknown information that you must have here on this forum, I'm sure we'll all be delighted to read it.

Although the WMD were not found, mass graves, gross human rights violations, rape rooms, torture on a massive and daily scale, and a people brutalized and intimidated by a despot ruler and his minions was found.

Wow, that sound like he was a really bad man. When Henry Kissinger agreed to stop funding Kurdish rebels in 1975 and close the Turkish Border to same (thus trapping them for Saddam) or the US was providing him with arms, intercepts, and sattellite intel against Iran, do you think they thought that maybe he was just "misunderstood" when he was doing what you described?

And if "human rights violations" are a problem, why wasnt it a problem funding regimes in South America and training their death squad leaders in Fort Benning? Are south Americans not as lovable as Iraqis?

helped establish a fair, democratic government representing the majority of the Iraqi people.

That remains to be seen.

That's why the world is blessed with a rough, tough, don't give me any crap crountry like the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA..

*sniff*....Gawd bless 'mericaw...mom.....apple pie!... *sniff*.....

Actually you're confusing vast wealth and the power it brings with "rough,tough" there...but don't let that stop a good flag wave....

Alive enough to make the sacrifices and do what it has to do to make this world livable for future generations. ..

Hence non-compliance with international law yet criticising others for same, failing to sign up to Kyoto, and war mongering. No doubt future generations in the war mongering trade will now and again cease their mongers and salute the stars and stripes.

Well America has proven very effective at policing Countries(such as Iraq)..

Ye wha?

my Arguement is done, goodbye...

And goodbye and good luck with the rest of the treatments to you too.

Recently, President Bush has said bad "intel" indicated Iraq had WMD's (many banned weapons were found and some WERE WMD's). ...

No, none were. If you want to find real WMDs in the mid-east look up "Mordechai Vannunu".

The UN voted to invade Iraq but didn't have the spine to do so. ...

No, they did not vote to do so. Hence the statement that the US acted "outside the charter", which means outside the law. As I referenced earlier, many of those countries did so for entirely mercenary reasons. Neither the states of Togo nor Uzbekistan have too many democratic ideals.

1. Aren't you glad that we now know that there are no WMDs rather than wondering whether Saddam has them or not? Besides, he probably had them, and destroyed them when the invasion began. ...

More new evidence! Post it here before you ring the pentagon, because I'm dying to read it.

Isreal has made great advances in the Middle East...

If you call ethnically cleansing Arabs, demolishing homes and shooting schoolgirls and flouting whats supposed to be international law an "Advance"......By the way, if somebody happens to point out that there is a very strong pro-Israeli/extreme zionist lobby in the US, it isnt "anti-semitism".