NationStates Jolt Archive

Canadian book points out hypocrisies of anti-american whining.

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1178944256928&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112188062620

So what do you all think? Canadian anti-Americanism a load of envious crap?
What would you say was the cause of such strong anti-American sentiments in Canada?

Always easy to pick on the big guy?

Dunno, to be perfectly honest, I stopped caring what other nations thought about me once I realized it was a no-win situation.

Relics from the old days when people were worried that the US would drown out our culture by its huge size.

I loved the part at the end-

"They're better at creating wealth - which they spend on feeding the world, defending human rights (Gitmo, anyone?) and so on." (Paraphrased, obviously.)

I read through that article and thought "crock of shit," to be honest. America itself may not be such a bad place, and the people that I know of (including the one's on this board) seem to be very nice, but let's face it. Anti-American whining does have some credit.

Canadian book points out hypocrisies of anti-american whining.

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1178944256928&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112188062620

So what do you all think? Canadian anti-Americanism a load of envious crap?
What would you say was the cause of such strong anti-American sentiments in Canada?


US foriegn policy is all the reason anyone needs, I would have thought....

Its cool to be anti-american.

yeah fuck America's trade raping and lack of any support in its own borders alone, everyone does it because it secretly gets us off

yeah this thread is sort of asking for it

I'm tired of people saying others hate America because they're jealous. It's retarded. Anti-Americanism is retarded bullshit too, but it's not due to envy.

Canadian book points out hypocrisies of anti-american whining.

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1178944256928&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112188062620

So what do you all think? Canadian anti-Americanism a load of envious crap?
What would you say was the cause of such strong anti-American sentiments in Canada?

I have a feeling I see a pattern in our world...a circular one

I loved the part at the end-

"They're better at creating wealth - which they spend on feeding the world, defending human rights (Gitmo, anyone?) and so on." (Paraphrased, obviously.)

I read through that article and thought "crock of shit," to be honest. America itself may not be such a bad place, and the people that I know of (including the one's on this board) seem to be very nice, but let's face it. Anti-American whining does have some credit.

I love America. Hate the government.

I love America. Hate the government.

oh please I've yet to see whats so special, what is there some sort of secret candy land underground and the America the world sees is in fact made of cardboard?

Some Canadians are strongly anti-American because we don't want to be associated/likened with Americans just because we're on the same side of the planet and speak the same language. We tend to resent being treated the same as Americans and being painted with the same tar brush.

Meh.

I live in the US, but I do believe that we should worry about what is going on in our own boarders and stay out of international politics for a while. I mean, we didn't have to go invading Iraq for thousands of people dying when here in the States, thousands upon thousands of people die every day from disease, murder and other unnatural things.

But....politicians can't see the cold hard facts....most of them are idiots...

I live in the US, but I do believe that we should worry about what is going on in our own boarders and stay out of international politics for a while.

*nods* though looking at what the America does right now when its not focused purely on itself I'd be very scared with Bush paying attention

course it would be a good idea to follow a new Marshall Plan in the former Soviet states but hey I'm not looking for magic

Anti-Americanism is a load of envious crap. Anti-Americans are the worst kind of people, because they blame so much on America. I'm leaving this craphole of England and moving to the U.S., by the way. I want to see how really "different" America is to other countries.

Anti-Americanism is a load of envious crap. Anti-Americans are the worst kind of people, because they blame so much on America. I'm leaving this craphole of England and moving to the U.S., by the way. I want to see how really "different" America is to other countries.

Why is it a load of envious crap? What is actually so brilliant about the US? I'm sure it has some very nice places, and some very good points about it, but so does England. And every other nation on Earth, for that matter. So am I jealous of the US? No.

*nods* though looking at what the America does right now when its not focused purely on itself I'd be very scared with Bush paying attention

course it would be a good idea to follow a new Marshall Plan in the former Soviet states but hey I'm not looking for magic

I wouldn't trust G.W. Bush with domestic policies as far as I can throw him. Although wait...he's scrony and I can pick up my ex's brother who's 230....scratch that one. I just don't plain trust the guy.

I still don't understand why no one will impeach him....he lied about WMD's for god sakes. They tried to impeach Clinton and all he did was get head under the desk.....

oh please I've yet to see whats so special, what is there some sort of secret candy land underground and the America the world sees is in fact made of cardboard?

...Well shit.
Sorry Call, looks like you have to die now. Its for the Greater Good.
You'll be missed.

Anti-Americans are the worst kind of people, because they blame so much on America.

yeah its not like America pursues economic imperialism with its "free trade" treaties or anything for example :rolleyes:

I'm leaving this craphole of England and moving to the U.S., by the way. I want to see how really "different" America is to other countries.

pfft silly you Britain is already America 2.0 we just don' have CHAV's with guns

Why is it a load of envious crap? What is actually so brilliant about the US? I'm sure it has some very nice places, and some very good points about it, but so does England. And every other nation on Earth, for that matter. So am I jealous of the US? No.

For many it is. The U.S. has the best economy, best military, most diversed, great government (Constitution and civil rights), best food, maker of many modern day inventions, most high tech nation, helps other countries, etc.

For many it is. The U.S. has the best economy, best military, most diversed, great government (Constitution and civil rights), best food, maker of many modern day inventions, most high tech nation, helps other countries, etc.

Youre either a rather poor troll or in need of some serious Lurk Moar.
Here. Have some asbestos. If you eat it there might be something left over to bury once the fires have died down.

For many it is. The U.S. has the best economy, best military, most diversed, great government (Constitution and civil rights), best food, maker of many modern day inventions, most high tech nation, helps other countries, etc.

Ummm...

Actually, many inventions that people say the US invented were invented elsewhere in the world. It's not really popular in history classes but it is true.

I just don't plain trust the guy.

but he understands how hard it is to put food on your children! :P

...Well shit.
Sorry Call, looks like you have to die now. Its for the Greater Good.
You'll be missed.

*tells the Mexicans*

For many it is. The U.S. has the best economy, best military, most diversed, great government (Constitution and civil rights), best food, maker of many modern day inventions, most high tech nation, helps other countries, etc.

you' know I started by highlighting all the things wrong and now I realize its all LOL value!

*tells the Mexicans*

Oh boy, now youre in trouble.
The Party Van is on its way to your house. Enjoy your time with Mr. Bubba. He gets lonely, you know.

Also, in order to accelerate the demise of this thread...GODWIN POWERS...ACTIVATE!
GEORGE BUSH IS HITLER.

To each his own, I must say.

For many it is. The U.S. has the best economy,

Actually, it's on the decline.

best military,

Because it's doing so well in Iraq.

great government (Constitution and civil rights)

Great government? Ahahaha. Civil rights? Not heard of Guantanamo Bay?

best food,

Like what? The great American cuisine? Sure, Britain's ain't brilliant, but you need to visit some Mediterranean countries (like Cyprus...tasty fish :D) before you claim the US has the best food.

helps other countries, etc.
How, exactly?

No, I'm not jealous of the US. I don't dislike the US as a whole, but I'm certainly not envious, and I have no desire to move there.

It really bother me when people whine about 'anti-americans'.

Anyone whos something against america is anti-american:rolleyes:

By that logic most people are anti-chinese/french/UK/etc..

So americans get over it. All people everywhere have to deal with this to some degree

EDIT: this refers only to the people that whine about anti-americanism.

I still don't understand why no one will impeach him....he lied about WMD's for god sakes. They tried to impeach Clinton and all he did was get head under the desk.....

Well, for several reasons.

First, there's no true evidence that he lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction with malicious intent, rather, he made poor use of intelligence and came to the wrong conclusions from what was available.

Second, Clinton was impeached for Perjury, not for the affair. Rather, he was in trouble because it was alleged he lied under oath to a grand jury about the affair.

Anti-Americanism, ptffff. It's easy to label all criticism as anti-American instead of doing something about the actual problems.

Anti-Americanism, ptffff. It's easy to label all criticism as anti-American instead of doing something about the actual problems.

commie... :)

Hypocracy is where the doctors control the government, right?

I loved the part at the end-

"They're better at creating wealth - which they spend on feeding the world, defending human rights (Gitmo, anyone?) and so on." (Paraphrased, obviously.)


To be fair, the USA probably spends more on these sorts of things then any other western country.

To be fair, the USA probably spends more on these sorts of things then any other western country.

no the US is terrible at this: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html

no the US is terrible at this: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html

It still spends more overall. But it's not just about spending, it probably does the most overseas operations to improve the third world countries. Sections of the US army do a lot, but this is counted as spending in the millitary budget.

It still spends more overall. But it's not just about spending, it probably does the most overseas operations to improve the third world countries. Sections of the US army do a lot, but this is counted as spending in the millitary budget.

well:

1) the role of US companies (funny how UPS tried to get money off of Canada because it has a state postal service:p)

2) India give more in terms of troops etc to UN missions

3) its a tad silly calling the US military any source of aid beyond maybe if you don't like the look of your map

4) France, Germany and Britain when combined put more money to aid so even without percentages its a tad iffy

2) India give more in terms of troops etc to UN missions

Of course, they have more people to spare.


3) its a tad silly calling the US military any source of aid beyond maybe if you don't like the look of your map

Then again, the UN and the British government is hardly a source of aid either. We have them to blame for, among other things, the creation of Israel (UN), and that ingenius shoving of three ethnic groups who hate each other together, Iraq (British)

I wish someone would tell me already what this word "hypocracy" means. :)

Of course, they have more people to spare.

a nation that borders 2 nuclear powers who it isn't toasty with doesn't have more to spare, Indians put allot of faith in peacekeeping missions and U.N work

Then again, the UN and the British government is hardly a source of aid either. We have them to blame for, among other things, the creation of Israel (UN), and that ingenius shoving of three ethnic groups who hate each other together, Iraq (British)

*watches as everything is made alright by this statement*...*then laughs at "the UN is hardly a source of aid either"*

I wish someone would tell me already what this word "hypocracy" means. :)

I think its a band

http://www.davidmetraux.com/images/news/cartoon_protests/cartoon_protests_montreal_metraux_16.jpg

The friendliest city I've ever walked in -- and I've visited scores on five continents -- is New York. The most pristine beach I've ever stood on is in Florida. The best food I've ever eaten -- sorry Italy, France! -- is in California's Sonoma Valley.
Personal opinion, which many people can contradict.
We call ourselves peacemakers and Americans warmongers -- but do the math on peacekeeping assignments and the United States comes out ahead. It picks up 26 per cent of the annual $5 billion budget for UN Peacekeeping, and despite the fact it's slightly distracted by the war in Iraq, it currently has twice as many UN peacekeepers in the field as Canada.
But the US also has more than 10 times the population of Canada.
"Rebuking the Americans on Kyoto -- fully aware that Canada's record was even worse than America's -- was trafficking in hyperbole and hypocrisy," Cohen notes. So why do it? Anti-Americanism wins votes.
Really? Last time I checked, the US is still producing WAY more carbon dioxide emissions than Canada is.
A 2005 Ipsos-Reid poll reported: "When asked whether people from diverse backgrounds would be better off if they became more like the majority, 44 per cent of Canadians said yes in contrast to 38 per cent of Americans."
Ipsos-Reid = right wing bias.
While myth bashing quickly gets the point across, Cohen's chapter on the American Canadian (the others he analyzes are the Hybrid, Observed, Unconscious, Casual, Capital, Chameleon and Future Canadians) also makes a strong analytical case that suggests our values are converging with those of Americans.
Another reason why we need to be critical of America. With American media taking over every aspect of an average Canadian's life, a lack of resistance would completely rid Canada of its national identity and make Canada into Northern US.
Oh yeah, they're better at creating wealth -- which they use to feed the world, promote democracy and human rights, and defend the free world -- than we are. Now there's a difference we can be proud of.
I'm not even going to get into this one.

Canadians may be hypocritical when it comes to anti-Americanism, but find me one country that's not a hypocrite in some manner or fashion. This guy just has way too much time on his hands.

Actually, it's on the decline.



Because it's doing so well in Iraq.



Great government? Ahahaha. Civil rights? Not heard of Guantanamo Bay?



Like what? The great American cuisine? Sure, Britain's ain't brilliant, but you need to visit some Mediterranean countries (like Cyprus...tasty fish :D) before you claim the US has the best food.


How, exactly?

No, I'm not jealous of the US. I don't dislike the US as a whole, but I'm certainly not envious, and I have no desire to move there.


US GDP is increasing at the rate of 3.3%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28real%29_growth_rate

The problem in Iraq is because of the corrupt iraqi politcians and failing Policy, not because of the military.

Great government as our constitution still provides a stable country even after 230 years. Gitmo is for non-US citizens and therefor they arnt protected by the US bill of rights. However the problems there are being FAR overblown.


US food is often other country's food perhaps changed a bit. I had a great Italian dinner last week, couple weeks before that some tasty Mexican. I can get any food i want in the US. (Including fish from the Mediterranean)

US GDP is increasing at the rate of 3.3%

unfortunately thats no good enough is it now

The problem in Iraq is because of the corrupt iraqi politcians and failing Policy, not because of the military.

yeah the idea of going in and just shooting has done you so well in the past :rolleyes:

Great government as our constitution still provides a stable country even after 230 years.

oooh how impressive :rolleyes: (also you have had a civil war)

Gitmo is for non-US citizens and therefor they arnt protected by the US bill of rights. However the problems there are being FAR overblown.

LOL! (you 'know there are US citizens in there right?)

I can get any food i want in the US. (Including fish from the Mediterranean)

and I can get any food I want anywhere its called the 21st century and I have cash!

I moved to the UK from the US in 1983 aged 15. Best decision I made.

I've never been a fan of our knee-jerk anti-americanism. It's ingrained into our culture though. Our first massive influx of citizens were United Empire Loyalists who didn't want to live in the US (or were forced out.) Our early years were spent convincing the British crown to lend aid and defense in the event that one day the US may invade.

Historical roots notwithstanding, we find ourselves in a constant need to define ourselves. We reflexively do so by comparing ourselves to the US. We have univeral medicare - the US doesn't, we have a consitutional monarchy - the US doesn't, we really really like hockey - the US prefers football... the list of superficialities goes on and on.

In the end, we are all North Americans. We have a shared history, and we get defensive if any of the negative connotations of the US touches us. We are New Zealand to Australia. We just don't want the outside world to confuse us... even if we have a hard time trying to define just what that difference is.

We get upset, or laugh if Americans have little knowledge of our country. Ask what the average Canadian knows about Mexico. They've probably heard of Cancun... and Corona, and not much else.

It's completely justifiable to be anti-administration as far as American politics are concerned... and thusly the voting population to some extent. We get sick of the jingoism that spills out of some of their movies, but we still watch them over our made-in-Canada stuff. (And after sitting through 'Bon Cop, Bad Cop', I'm reminded why.)

Bottom line, there are differences, but no more than there are differences between a Texan and a New Yorker, or an Albertan and a Quebecois.

I've never been a fan of our knee-jerk anti-americanism. It's ingrained into our culture though. Our first massive influx of citizens were United Empire Loyalists who didn't want to live in the US (or were forced out.) Our early years were spent convincing the British crown to lend aid and defense in the event that one day the US may invade.

Historical roots notwithstanding, we find ourselves in a constant need to define ourselves. We reflexively do so by comparing ourselves to the US. We have univeral medicare - the US doesn't, we have a consitutional monarchy - the US doesn't, we really really like hockey - the US prefers football... the list of superficialities goes on and on.

In the end, we are all North Americans. We have a shared history, and we get defensive if any of the negative connotations of the US touches us. We are New Zealand to Australia. We just don't want the outside world to confuse us... even if we have a hard time trying to define just what that difference is.

We get upset, or laugh if Americans have little knowledge of our country. Ask what the average Canadian knows about Mexico. They've probably heard of Cancun... and Corona, and not much else.

It's completely justifiable to be anti-administration as far as American politics are concerned... and thusly the voting population to some extent. We get sick of the jingoism that spills out of some of their movies, but we still watch them over our made-in-Canada stuff. (And after sitting through 'Bon Cop, Bad Cop', I'm reminded why.)

Bottom line, there are differences, but no more than there are differences between a Texan and a New Yorker, or an Albertan and a Quebecois.
BEST. MOVIE. EVER.

Oh, PS. don't forget how many times the Yankees have screwed us over. Alaska boundary dispute, softwood lumber, border passport, etc.

BEST. MOVIE. EVER.

Oh, PS. don't forget how many times the Yankees have screwed us over. Alaska boundary dispute, softwood lumber, border passport, etc.

Okay, I laughed at the scene with the mascot 'sneaking up' on them. I'm trying to think of other nice things to say about it.....

.....

.... I'll let ya know.

And naturally, since they are larger than we are, they will gain advantages over us. I'm rather proud of the fact that we do as well as we do in spite of that fact. (Well, as proud as one can be about something as silly as national pride.) I'm also convinced that our way of doing things are much, much better.

:sniper: And again, the only problem here is our box-fixed mind. We put Americans in the little box "Americans" and then all the politicians can go like: whoo Americans are evul!! :mad: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:
And then there are a bunch of people who go and call all the not-American's "anti-Americans". And everybody goes and accuses everybody of all things which are really not to blame on just one group of people...

Hmm story reminds me of the second world war:

before the war: you are a jew, you are evul!!! :sniper: :upyours:
after the war: you hated jews, now we will kill you! :sniper: :mad: :upyours:

Think outside the box people!

:sniper: And again, the only problem here is our box-fixed mind. We put Americans in the little box "Americans" and then all the politicians can go like: whoo Americans are evul!! :mad: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:
And then there are a bunch of people who go and call all the not-American's "anti-Americans". And everybody goes and accuses everybody of all things which are really not to blame on just one group of people...

Hmm story reminds me of the second world war:

before the war: you are a jew, you are evul!!! :sniper: :upyours:
after the war: you hated jews, now we will kill you! :sniper: :mad: :upyours:

Think outside the box people!

You make a decent enough point, then ruin it with the smilies. It's first ten posts only for them, so enjoy while you can. Then join the other side and laugh at people who continue using them.

:upyours: :sniper: :mp5: :mad: :gundge: :gundge: :upyours: :mad: :sniper:

http://gallery.bobtfish.net/albums/tara/sensors_indicate_noob.jpg

And now that I've qualified my distaste for knee-jerk anti-americanism, I'd like to qaulify my distaste for portions of the article;

We sniff that our medical system is superior to theirs, then sneak down to their world-class clinics when we fall sick.

We sure do. Our system isn't perfect, and most of us want it fixed. Doesn't mean we'd prefer the american version.

We call ourselves peacemakers and Americans warmongers -- but do the math on peacekeeping assignments and the United States comes out ahead. It picks up 26 per cent of the annual $5 billion budget for UN Peacekeeping, and despite the fact it's slightly distracted by the war in Iraq, it currently has twice as many UN peacekeepers in the field as Canada.

Uhm... welcome to the world of percentage of population folks.

Meanwhile, we sniff our disdain for Hollywood movies, though we attend them in droves (as we should, they make some of the best) -- while completely ignoring our own.

Totally on board with that, although I don't know who's sniffing disdain.

Consider former Prime Minister Paul Martin's 2005 election campaign "chiding" of the US over its commitment to the Kyoto accord.

That was deserved, although Paul Martin also deserves chiding.

"The United States lacked 'a global conscience' for reneging on its obligations under Kyoto," he said, though America's emissions have risen 13 per cent since 1990 while ours are up 24 per cent.

Again, both the US and Paul Martin deserve such chiding.

How about our snobbery that we're multiculturalists and bilingual ("Quoi?" dit le Quebec!) -- and they're not. Consider, Cohen asks, that of the 41 million Hispanics in the United States, 31 million speak Spanish at home, and that automatic tellers in major cities provide instructions in Spanish and English, as ours do in English and French. Or that "in 1973, 78 per cent of students in public schools were white, and 22 per cent were minorities while in 2004, 57 per cent were white and 43 per cent were minorities." Or how about this: A 2005 Ipsos-Reid poll reported: "When asked whether people from diverse backgrounds would be better off if they became more like the majority, 44 per cent of Canadians said yes in contrast to 38 per cent of Americans."

This is more Canada's approach to multi-culturalism, than the fact that both nations are host to multiple cultures. But melting pot or mosaic... whatever. As long as people can hold on to their cultural traditions if they so choose, than we're fine.

In the end, the American-Canadian "watches American movies and television, wears American jeans, listens to American music, reads American books and magazines.

"He drinks coffee at Starbucks, eats hamburgers at McDonald's and ice cream at Ben and Jerry's," Cohen notes. "He aspires to the American Dream, whether it is represented by minivan or an SUV, and the greatest obstacle to achieving it isn't desire but money."

This is true to some extent. We watch a lot of the same movies, and listen to a lot of the same music. However, a very large number of the most successful talent in American entertainment are Canadian (comedians in particular). That's where the money is.

And we pray to the altar of Tim Hortons, not that Starbucks shit. And I've never been to a Ben and Jerry's in my life. McDonalds of course, is everywhere on the planet. And I wouldn't qualify owning a mini-van as the 'American Dream'. We have our own version of success, and it has nothing to do with the notion that you can come from overseas with nothing and transform yourself into a gazillionaire.

Oh yeah, they're better at creating wealth -- which they use to feed the world, promote democracy and human rights, and defend the free world -- than we are. Now there's a difference we can be proud of.

They create more wealth, because they are a larger nation. They also happen to be one of the wealthiest nations, and yet have an enormous amount of poor people living in it. We aren't much better in that regard, but we are better. Saying that the US has more money to do so only makes sense, when they have something like ten times our population.

there's no true evidence that (the War Party) lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction with malicious intent, rather, (they) made poor use of intelligence and came to the wrong conclusions from what was available. there's no true evidence that OJ lied about killing his wife with malicious intent, rather, the LAPD made poor use of ADN and came to the wrong conclusions from what was available.

unfortunately thats no good enough is it now

Take an econ class. 3.3% happens to be very good

yeah the idea of going in and just shooting has done you so well in the past :rolleyes:

sorry to spoil your fun, but as a matter of fact, it has.

oooh how impressive :rolleyes: (also you have had a civil war)

...And so has every other major democracy in the world, but we won that war and put to rest any ideas of breaking apart. Mission: Accomplished.

and I can get any food I want anywhere its called the 21st century and I have cash!

...That's not what he meant.

Take an econ class. 3.3% happens to be very good

not when everyone else is doing good and better

sorry to spoil your fun, but as a matter of fact, it has.

Vietnam etc

...And so has every other major democracy in the world, but we won that war and put to rest any ideas of breaking apart. Mission: Accomplished.

no democracy's don't tend to have civil wars

...That's not what he meant.

so what did he mean?

Canada is the better America.

oh please I've yet to see whats so special, what is there some sort of secret candy land underground and the America the world sees is in fact made of cardboard?

HOLY SHIT THEY'RE ONTO US!!!!!! :eek:

not when everyone else is doing good and better

No, they're not "doing better." Like I said, take an econ. class. There, they'll teach you all about diminishing returns, and you'll find yourself rebuked very quickly.

See, I know that there are a few countries that are growing faster than the US right now, but the US still has the largest GDP, and there aren't very many that are close to it right now.

Well-developed countries don't want a high GDP growth rate, anyway. A high growth rate creates instability and very severe depressions (i.e. the 1930's).

Vietnam etc

I'll concede Vietnam, but it's worked every other time.

no democracy's don't tend to have civil wars

Bull. England has had at least one (that I can think of off the top of my head, I think there were two), France had a particularly bloody one, Germany had one in the 20's, and Russia's having a very quiet one now.

so what did he mean?

He meant that America has a more diverse food selection than many countries.

maker of many modern day inventions

Doesn't China do that now?

the US still has the largest GDP, and there aren't very many that are close to it right now.

and yet the European union (this includes Eastern Europe) manages a larger GDP whilst Luxembourg has the world largest GDP per capita

Well-developed countries don't want a high GDP growth rate, anyway. A high growth rate creates instability and very severe depressions (i.e. the 1930's).

yeah there more interested in the well being of there population, whoops!

I'll concede Vietnam, but it's worked every other time.

and what does Iraq have in common with Vietnam?

Bull. England has had at least one (that I can think of off the top of my head, I think there were two) France had a particularly bloody one, Germany had one in the 20's,

all those cases involved toppling tyrants (and for a little history the war of the roses wasn't fought in my opinion during a time of democracy)

Russia's having a very quiet one now.

:rolleyes:

He meant that America has a more diverse food selection than many countries.

and I pointed out that every country has a diverse food selection now

No, they're not "doing better." Like I said, take an econ. class. There, they'll teach you all about diminishing returns, and you'll find yourself rebuked very quickly.

See, I know that there are a few countries that are growing faster than the US right now, but the US still has the largest GDP, and there aren't very many that are close to it right now.

Well-developed countries don't want a high GDP growth rate, anyway. A high growth rate creates instability and very severe depressions (i.e. the 1930's).

But not per capita (if I remember correctly, which is doubtful, if I'm not then ignore)


I'll concede Vietnam, but it's worked every other time.

Iraq is "working" is it?


Bull. England has had at least one (that I can think of off the top of my head, I think there were two), France had a particularly bloody one, Germany had one in the 20's, and Russia's having a very quiet one now.

Not when they were democracies though.


He meant that America has a more diverse food selection than many countries.
If he did then I'm very skeptical of the idea.

Okay, I laughed at the scene with the mascot 'sneaking up' on them. I'm trying to think of other nice things to say about it.....

.....

.... I'll let ya know.

And naturally, since they are larger than we are, they will gain advantages over us. I'm rather proud of the fact that we do as well as we do in spite of that fact. (Well, as proud as one can be about something as silly as national pride.) I'm also convinced that our way of doing things are much, much better.
I should rewatch that movie again. Though, I liked that part when the girl was having sex with the Quebec guy, and the guy taught her how to say "Vivre le quebec libre." It was classic. :p

Of course. We're inherently better. :p
http://gallery.bobtfish.net/albums/tara/sensors_indicate_noob.jpg
Hilarious. :D
And we pray to the altar of Tim Hortons, not that Starbucks shit. And I've never been to a Ben and Jerry's in my life. McDonalds of course, is everywhere on the planet. And I wouldn't qualify owning a mini-van as the 'American Dream'. We have our own version of success, and it has nothing to do with the notion that you can come from overseas with nothing and transform yourself into a gazillionaire.
And our version of success includes being able to make love in a canoe without the canoe tipping over. :p :D
...And so has every other major democracy in the world, but we won that war and put to rest any ideas of breaking apart. Mission: Accomplished.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! May I remind you of the fact that it was a civil war, which means either way, you'll win?
Canada is the better America.
Ouch. Never has a comment been so complimentary and offensive at the same time. :eek:

And our version of success includes being able to make love in a canoe without the canoe tipping over. :p :D


A canoe! Of course! I knew there was a reason I am not yet a resounding success.

HOLY SHIT THEY'RE ONTO US!!!!!! :eek:

Quick get the children to the lifeboats! :eek:

I loved the part at the end-

"They're better at creating wealth - which they spend on feeding the world, defending human rights (Gitmo, anyone?) and so on." (Paraphrased, obviously.)

I read through that article and thought "crock of shit," to be honest. America itself may not be such a bad place, and the people that I know of (including the one's on this board) seem to be very nice, but let's face it. Anti-American whining does have some credit.

"Whining", in any form, deserves no credit. Criticism and evaluation, such as you made in pointing out Gitmo, do deserve some credit.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! May I remind you of the fact that it was a civil war, which means either way, you'll win?


...No. See, the American Civil War was fought between the United States and the Confederate States. The United States won; had the Confederate won, I would have said "they" won because they would have been their own country. You follow me? Thus, we won.

...No. See, the American Civil War was fought between the United States and the Confederate States. The United States won; had the Confederate won, I would have said "they" won because they would have been their own country. You follow me? Thus, we won.
No, if the Confederates won, you would be indoctrinated with their ideas, where the South would be the good guys and the North would be in the wrong. Therefore, your "we" would win again. :rolleyes:

Canadian book points out hypocrisies of anti-american whining.

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1178944256928&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112188062620

So what do you all think? Canadian anti-Americanism a load of envious crap?
What would you say was the cause of such strong anti-American sentiments in Canada?

If a golden throne is perched atop a geyser of shit, the best place to sit is in the throne. The worst place to be is right next to it. It doesn't mean that you're a hypocrite for thinking that geysers of shit are unpleasant.

No, if the Confederates won, you would be indoctrinated with their ideas, where the South would be the good guys and the North would be in the wrong. Therefore, your "we" would win again. :rolleyes:

No, the Confederate states were rebels against the United States of America, which was the legitimate government of the territory that the seceding states rebelled against. They wanted independence, not to take over the north.

oh please I've yet to see whats so special, what is there some sort of secret candy land underground and the America the world sees is in fact made of cardboard?

Duh! Of course. :D

No, the Confederate states were rebels against the United States of America, which was the legitimate government of the territory that the seceding states rebelled against. They wanted independence, not to take over the north.
But to the winner goes the spoil. If the South seceded, then wouldn't that mean all the people living in the South "won" the war? So I'm kind of half right...:S

*fails at American history*

So what do you all think? Canadian anti-Americanism a load of envious crap?
Oh I'm sure that they're jealous. Those Canadians wish that they had the sort of income inequality, lack of health coverage, racism, militarism, lack of workers' rights, suppression of civil liberties, high crime rate and general misery that we do down here. Luckily for them, they're heading in that direction too:)

I loved the part at the end-

"They're better at creating wealth - which they spend on feeding the world, defending human rights (Gitmo, anyone?) .

Oh please :rolleyes:

Anti-Americanism is a load of envious crap. Anti-Americans are the worst kind of people, because they blame so much on America. I'm leaving this craphole of England and moving to the U.S., by the way. I want to see how really "different" America is to other countries.

I agree; I for one am sick and tired of people running down America as if it were hell on earth or something. You anti-Americans out there, answer me THIS:
If America is so bad, why are people immigrating here?


I love America. Hate the government.

Ditto here. :D

No, if the Confederates won, you would be indoctrinated with their ideas, where the South would be the good guys and the North would be in the wrong. Therefore, your "we" would win again. :rolleyes:

A very good point. History is always told from the point of view that those who won the wars were right, which is NOT always the case.

IMHO The South was wrong about slavery, but right about states' rights.

A very good point. History is always told from the point of view that those who won the wars were right, which is NOT always the case.

IMHO The South was wrong about slavery, but right about states' rights.IMHO states rights and slavery were inseparable issues in that context. If you support state rights to the extent that partisans of the Confederacy did, then how can you deny the states' rights to legislate on the subject of slavery as they see fit? Perhaps you have a different idea of states' rights- one closer to the idea held by some of the Confederacy's opponents.

Frankly, the North gets a free ride in the public schools. Much of the government's anti-slavery sentiment was fueled more by capitalists who feared potential competition from slave factories than noble freedom fighters like John Brown and Frederik Douglas.

Iraq isn't working for far more complex reasons then "haha US military is crappier now!", and the anti-American sentiments are about as silly as anti-French sentiments. It's another case of "Us vs Them".

I agree; I for one am sick and tired of people running down America as if it were hell on earth or something. You anti-Americans out there, answer me THIS:
If America is so bad, why are people immigrating here?


Because they want American money, which pays better than the country they're from.

If Mexico's economy was better than America's, America would collapse from the dearth of low level service industry.

Ummm...

Actually, many inventions that people say the US invented were invented elsewhere in the world. It's not really popular in history classes but it is true.

Like the lightbulb? Like the Ford? Like the Airplane? Like the photograph? Like the telegram? Like the Telephone? Like the audio recorder? http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/rolleyes.gif

Like the lightbulb?

Sir Humphry Davy, British, 1802

Like the Ford?

Ford, automobile. So....

Karl Benz, German, 1885

Like the Airplane?

Clément Ader, French, 1890.

Like the photograph?

Joseph Nicéphore Niépce, French, 1826.

Like the telegram?

Francisco de Salva, Spanish, 1775.

Like the Telephone?

Johann Philipp Reis (German), Antonio Santi Giuseppe Meucci (Italian), are considered to also have created the first telephone. Who really made the first one is in dispute.

Like the audio recorder?

The only one.

Most of America's technological achievements. Stealing other people's works and shouting that it's theirs.

Err, no. Not stealing them but merely finding the people that invented them and importing them into our country. It's like saying we stole the cotton gin and all of the Industrial Rev. machinery when, really, European statesmen and inventors travelled here and a whole new Industrial revolution began in America.

Sure, American's haven't exactly invented every important item on the globe. Our success, however, was implementing them on a broad scale. Ford Model T? Not invented, but the process of a massive automobile production line was started. The lightbulb? The telegraph? The phone? Sure, we didn't clearly coin all of them, but we were the first to implement them on a broad scale, linking America with other parts of America.

Sure, we haven't been the brainspawn of every clever invention in the last few centuries, but we have started the massive use of their capabilities.

If America is so bad, why are people immigrating here?

because South Americans can't have wild parties all there lives they have to get jobs :(

I wish I could just buy a stereo play it in a street and get a party going I really do!:mad:

Err, no. Not stealing them but merely finding the people that invented them and importing them into our country. It's like saying we stole the cotton gin and all of the Industrial Rev. machinery when, really, European statesmen and inventors travelled here and a whole new Industrial revolution began in America.

Sure, American's haven't exactly invented every important item on the globe. Our success, however, was implementing them on a broad scale. Ford Model T? Not invented, but the process of a massive automobile production line was started. The lightbulb? The telegraph? The phone? Sure, we didn't clearly coin all of them, but we were the first to implement them on a broad scale, linking America with other parts of America.

Sure, we haven't been the brainspawn of every clever invention in the last few centuries, but we have started the massive use of their capabilities.

It's one thing to say "We mass produced them". It's quite another to say "We invented them".

The former acknowledges that someone else invented them and gives due credit. The latter steals the credit.

Of which I note American history lessons tend to do the latter quite well.

I'm sure you'll also find some American's claiming credit for things like jet engines, computers and rockets.

It's one thing to say "We mass produced them". It's quite another to say "We invented them".

The former acknowledges that someone else invented them and gives due credit. The latter steals the credit.

Of which I note American history lessons tend to do the latter quite well.

Yup. Though I'd have to say that it would be the American history teachers not doing their job.

Anywho, I always find it better to be the first to practically use an invention rather than just invent something. Kind of like inventing rocket boosters for any kind of space craft you haven't invented yet - there's no practical use for it, yet it's there now.

This is enough to tell that this book is crap; it deliberately twists the facts to suits the author's own ends.


We call ourselves peacemakers and Americans warmongers -- but do the math on peacekeeping assignments and the United States comes out ahead. It picks up 26 per cent of the annual $5 billion budget for UN Peacekeeping, and despite the fact it's slightly distracted by the war in Iraq, it currently has twice as many UN peacekeepers in the field as Canada.


Ok. The US have twice the peacekeepers as Canada.
But:
population: US 300M, Canada 33M
GDP: US 1,29*10^13 US$. Canada 1,16*10^12 US$
labour force: US 151M, Canada 17M
military expense as % of own GDP: US 4,06%, Canada 1,10% .

Summarising: The US have about 10 times as the population of Canada, 10 times as the GDP of Canada, about 9 times as the labour force of Canada.
US military expense is about 5*10^11 US$.

This means that, proportionally, the effort that Canada puts into peacekeeping is far greater than the US effort.

This is enough to tell that this book is crap; it deliberately twists the facts to suits the author's own ends.



Ok. The US have twice the peacekeepers as Canada.
But:
population: US 300M, Canada 33M
GDP: US 1,29*10^13 US$. Canada 1,16*10^12 US$
labour force: US 151M, Canada 17M
military expense as % of own GDP: US 4,06%, Canada 1,10% .

Summarising: The US have about 10 times as the population of Canada, 10 times as the GDP of Canada, about 9 times as the labour force of Canada.
US military expense is about 5*10^11 US$.

This means that, proportionally, the effort that Canada puts into peacekeeping is far greater than the US effort.

uhh... is there a mention in here about how much money Canada contributes to the UN Peacekeeping Force or am I supposed to make assumptions?

SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.

ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.

CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.

HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.

IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.

HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.

CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.

NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.

CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War

KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.

PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.

NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.

CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.

PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos

CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.

PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.

GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.

MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.

NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.

SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.

NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.

IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.

OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.

PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914.

HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.

KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.

CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.

NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.

HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua

PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.

NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.

HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.

CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.

CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.

PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.

HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.

NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas

MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.

COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.

MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.

HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.

CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.

WORLD WAR I 1917-18 naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.

RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks

PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.

HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.

YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.

GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.

WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.

TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.

CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.

HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife.

PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.

CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.

EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.

WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.

WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war.

DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion.

IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.

YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.

URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.

GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.

GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.

CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.

PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.

PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.

KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.

IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.

VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.

GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.

EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.

LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Marine occupation against rebels.

IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.

CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.

PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.

VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.

LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.

CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.

GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.

CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.

PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.

INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.

DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.

UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.

CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.

OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.

LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.

SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.

MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.

CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.

CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.

ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.

IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.

LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.

EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.

NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.

LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.

GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.

HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.

IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.

LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.

BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.

IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.

LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.

VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.

PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.

PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.

LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.

SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.

IRAQ 1990-? Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.

KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.

LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.

SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.

YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.

BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.

HAITI 1994-? Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.

ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.

LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.

AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.

IRAQ 1998-? Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.

YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.

YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole bombed.

MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.

UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC

AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime. Forces also engaged in neighboring Pakistan.

YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.

PHILIPPINES 2002 Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Muslim Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into US combat missions in Sulu Archipelago next to Mindanao.

COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.

IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Second Gulf War launched for "regime change" in Baghdad. US, joined by UK and Australia, attacks from Kuwait, other Gulf states, and European and US bases.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! May I remind you of the fact that it was a civil war, which means either way, you'll win?

It could be argued that it wasn't a civil war. I see wars of independence as being quite different from civil wars.

Of which I note American history lessons tend to do the latter quite well.

It's largely because Americans want very desperately to believe that the US is not like every other country in the world. The bizarre notion of "American exceptionalism" and all that.

Like the lightbulb? Like the Ford? Like the Airplane? Like the photograph? Like the telegram? Like the Telephone? Like the audio recorder? http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/rolleyes.gif

Cars were invented in Germany. Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_automobile#Veteran_era)
The photograph was invented in France.Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nic%C3%A9phore_Ni%C3%A9pce)
Audio recording was invented in France.Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Scott)
Telegraphy was invented in Germany. Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegraphy#Electrical_telegraphs)
The telephone was invented in Italy Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Meucci)

I guess you just proved a point about ignorance there....

The only one.

Most of America's technological achievements. Stealing other people's works and shouting that it's theirs.

Not even that one ;)
It's originally French.

You have to note, though, that American companies were responsible for making those inventions economically viable and getting them to people; inventing the first of something is great, but it takes businessmen and engineers to make those products in to something useful, competitive, and affordable for the mass market. We do that well; Americans are good at marketing and developing new products for the market. That, of course, is what really matters and is why we've got the biggest and one of the strongest economies in the developed world.

In reality, who invents something first is completely meaningless until after the device is established in the market, and that of course is thanks to the engineers and companies that make it suitable for mass consumption. The original inventor of the telephone or car would be completely forgotten if there were no use for those inventions.

complex arguments however scientific advance - both inventions and the development of ideas is dependent on the education system and wealth of a country. It is suggested that nearly 35 % of scientific publications across the world are from the USA compared to 37 % from Europe (9.4% UK). Nearly 50% of world citations however refer to USA publications compared to 40 % to European (11% UK).

When however you compare this to the gross domestic product of nations you find that the northern European Nations (primarily the UK and Scandinavia) and Israel produce a much higher number of citations in relation to their GDP per person. IN fact the USA falls below the average. Source Sir David King (http://practicalactionconsulting.org/?id=publicgood_king)

In reality, who invents something first is completely meaningless until after the device is established in the market, and that of course is thanks to the engineers and companies that make it suitable for mass consumption. The original inventor of the telephone or car would be completely forgotten if there were no use for those inventions.

True but if the science that lead to that invention had not occurred then thre would be nothing to market. What you describe is a fairly parasitical relationship with the USA benefitting from the social, educational and scientific investment of other nations especially as it dioes not appear to be making a comparitively sized investment.

You have to note, though, that American companies were responsible for making those inventions economically viable and getting them to people; inventing the first of something is great, but it takes businessmen and engineers to make those products in to something useful, competitive, and affordable for the mass market. We do that well; Americans are good at marketing and developing new products for the market. That, of course, is what really matters and is why we've got the biggest and one of the strongest economies in the developed world.

In reality, who invents something first is completely meaningless until after the device is established in the market, and that of course is thanks to the engineers and companies that make it suitable for mass consumption. The original inventor of the telephone or car would be completely forgotten if there were no use for those inventions.


Oh, I don't argue that for one moment. ;) I do doubt if it's really that much of an achievement, but that's another debate.

The only thing the rubs me the wrong way is when people (and funnily enough, I get that mostly from USAmericans, but that might be because they're just the majority on these forums *shrugs*) claim that somebody else of their nationality did something which they in fact didn't do.
It's a bit like me going around shouting that Germans invented the book, and the whole world should bow down in awe because this invention changed the world so thouroughly etc, when in fact what happened was that a (as in one, 1, a single, not the whole country or anything) German invented book printing with movable letters. It still caused quite a revolution in information, but it's not quite the same, now, is it? ;)

You have to note, though, that American companies were responsible for making those inventions economically viable and getting them to people; inventing the first of something is great, but it takes businessmen and engineers to make those products in to something useful, competitive, and affordable for the mass market. We do that well; Americans are good at marketing and developing new products for the market. That, of course, is what really matters and is why we've got the biggest and one of the strongest economies in the developed world.


In other words, America got to where it was by stealing the ideas of others and selling them.

And they've got the cheek to complain about software piracy.

Oh, I don't argue that for one moment. ;) I do doubt if it's really that much of an achievement, but that's another debate.

The only thing the rubs me the wrong way is when people (and funnily enough, I get that mostly from USAmericans, but that might be because they're just the majority on these forums *shrugs*) claim that somebody else of their nationality did something which they in fact didn't do.
It's a bit like me going around shouting that Germans invented the book, and the whole world should bow down in awe because this invention changed the world so thouroughly etc, when in fact what happened was that a (as in one, 1, a single, not the whole country or anything) German invented book printing with movable letters. It still caused quite a revolution in information, but it's not quite the same, now, is it? ;)

Could not agree more knowledge is built on knowledge technology is based on previous technology and knowledge. None of us knows who first invented the wheel, who learned to harness fire but these are fundemental in the development of the car. In fact where we are (both good and bad) is perhaps a responsibility of us all and all those who preceded us. Interesting species Humans.

I loved the part at the end-

"They're better at creating wealth - which they spend on feeding the world, defending human rights (Gitmo, anyone?) and so on." (Paraphrased, obviously.)

I read through that article and thought "crock of shit," to be honest. America itself may not be such a bad place, and the people that I know of (including the one's on this board) seem to be very nice, but let's face it. Anti-American whining does have some credit.

heartily agreed! (and I'm an american...reluctantly)

I think the source of anti-americanism is pro-americanism itself. American arrogance is pretty obvious and obnoxious (eg : the article in the OP). Its not something that's seen in every american, but its so blatant in the media, international relations, historical and political POV, entertainment industry, etc... (Which is what every one else sees) that a negative response is the most natural thing.

It's a bit like physics : to every action, there's a completely opposite reaction.

P.S. that article was hilarious. the best food in the world ? blahahahahahaha *chokes on foie gras*

"Whining", in any form, deserves no credit. Criticism and evaluation, such as you made in pointing out Gitmo, do deserve some credit.
Well-said Bolol. I very much like the country and respect it, but ultimately know it can never replace my own. That said, what I don't like about America is simply their foreign policy (particularly the current government has done a much better job at destroying it's reputation). Then again, it's not easy being top of the world...

Then again, it's not easy being top of the world...

Because the only way to get there is to step atop the backs of those who aren't. And more frequently, the corpses of those aren't.

DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion.

DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.

I'm gonna call bullshit on the terminology here. Black rebellion? Hardly. It was as much a rebellion as the events in France in 2005 were, which is to say not at all. Also, not all of the people killed during the 12th street riot in 67 were black, and not even all of those 33 were killed by the military.

As for the other ones, I don't know, but I do know about these ones.

I'm gonna call bullshit on the terminology here. Black rebellion? Hardly. It was as much a rebellion as the events in France in 2005 were, which is to say not at all. Also, not all of the people killed during the 12th street riot in 67 were black, and not even all of those 33 were killed by the military.

As for the other ones, I don't know, but I do know about these ones.

true. 4 of the black people were not killed by the army or police.

And the government used the army and tanks...

I'm tired of people saying others hate America because they're jealous. It's retarded. Anti-Americanism is retarded bullshit too, but it's not due to envy.

No, its just so much fun! Lets face it, you watch any US programme on TV, films in the cinema and the yanks just stand there with a big target going "Shoot me! If you are gonna be imperialist with your culture, expect others to ridicule you!:p

I'm gonna call bullshit on the terminology here. Black rebellion? Hardly. It was as much a rebellion as the events in France in 2005 were, which is to say not at all. Also, not all of the people killed during the 12th street riot in 67 were black, and not even all of those 33 were killed by the military.

As for the other ones, I don't know, but I do know about these ones. This is known as "the Adolf Eichmann defence" When Eichmann was arrested by Israel and put on trial for being an architect of the Holocaust, his defence was that he may have got millions killed, but he personally saved a few so that was alright then!:rolleyes:

true. 4 of the black people were not killed by the army or police.

And the government used the army and tanks...

I will certainly admit that the state (under Governor Romney, the douchebag father of the douchbag Mitt Romney) and the Federal governments over reacted severely. I think Romney should never have sent armored units in and should never have asked President Johnson for assistance. Also, the rules of engagement were rather looser than they should have been. Note that I base many of my opinions on what I heard from my grandfather who was in the Guard in Detroit in 67, and he also happens to think it was a gigantic clusterfuck.

However, to call them a "rebellion" is spin doctoring. It was a large riot (and not unjustified) to be sure, but that's a long way from a "rebellion".

I think the source of anti-americanism is pro-americanism itself. American arrogance is pretty obvious and obnoxious (eg : the article in the OP). Its not something that's seen in every american, but its so blatant in the media, international relations, historical and political POV, entertainment industry, etc... (Which is what every one else sees) that a negative response is the most natural thing.

It's a bit like physics : to every action, there's a completely opposite reaction.

P.S. that article was hilarious. the best food in the world ? blahahahahahaha *chokes on foie gras*

I haven't found the average American any more obnoxious than the average Brit, Frenchman, Aussie, or Canadians. The most consistently in-your-face arrogant people I have encountered have been Brits. Granted all of this is based on my encounters with the Americans, Brits, Frenchmen and Aussies who have come here to Osaka.

I agree; I for one am sick and tired of people running down America as if it were hell on earth or something. You anti-Americans out there, answer me THIS:
If America is so bad, why are people immigrating here?




A better question is: why do you let them into your country?

I haven't found the average American any more obnoxious than the average Brit, Frenchman, Aussie, or Canadians. The most consistently in-your-face arrogant people I have encountered have been Brits. Granted all of this is based on my encounters with the Americans, Brits, Frenchmen and Aussies who have come here to Osaka.

Fascinating input... except that :

Its not something that's seen in every american, but its so blatant in the media, international relations, historical and political POV, entertainment industry, etc...

Yup you basically didn't read my post.

This is known as "the Adolf Eichmann defence" When Eichmann was arrested by Israel and put on trial for being an architect of the Holocaust, his defence was that he may have got millions killed, but he personally saved a few so that was alright then!:rolleyes:

I'm sorry, what exactly are you trying to say here? It sounds like you think I condone the deaths of those 67 people, but that would be silly.

A better question is: why do you let them into your country?

Sometimes we don't?

I luv Ah-mer-e-ka!

I will certainly admit that the state (under Governor Romney, the douchebag father of the douchbag Mitt Romney) and the Federal governments over reacted severely. I think Romney should never have sent armored units in and should never have asked President Johnson for assistance. Also, the rules of engagement were rather looser than they should have been. Note that I base many of my opinions on what I heard from my grandfather who was in the Guard in Detroit in 67, and he also happens to think it was a gigantic clusterfuck.

However, to call them a "rebellion" is spin doctoring. It was a large riot (and not unjustified) to be sure, but that's a long way from a "rebellion".

i do agree all in all. But the term rebellions means in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority. It may therefore be seen as encompassing a range of behaviours from civil disobedience to a violent organized attempt to destroy established authority. It is often used in reference to armed resistance against an established government, but can also refer to mass nonviolent resistance movements. Those who participate in rebellions are known as "rebels".[wiki]

shortlived either way. what did it last? 4 days?

uhh... is there a mention in here about how much money Canada contributes to the UN Peacekeeping Force or am I supposed to make assumptions?

The article quoted in the OP makes the assumption, quoted in my previous post, that "the US have twice the peacekeepers as Canada".
I checked some of the major socioeconomical figures for Canada and the US in the CIA Factbook, and reported them.

The only assumption you're supposed to do is to assume what's written in the article quoted in the OP as true, then follow plain logics and maths.

Johann Philipp Reis (German), Antonio Santi Giuseppe Meucci (Italian), are considered to also have created the first telephone. Who really made the first one is in dispute.

The US congress acknowledges Meucci as the inventor of the telephone - the only country still acknowledging A.G.Bell is... Canada :confused:

Oh I'm sure that they're jealous. Those Canadians wish that they had the sort of income inequality, lack of health coverage, racism, militarism, lack of workers' rights, suppression of civil liberties, high crime rate and general misery that we do down here. Luckily for them, they're heading in that direction too:)

:(

It could be argued that it wasn't a civil war. I see wars of independence as being quite different from civil wars.

That's fair. One could view the American Revolution as a civil war of sorts as well. Loyalists vs. Rebels, with the rebels winning and ejecting the loyalists. Terminology is often given to the victor.

The US congress acknowledges Meucci as the inventor of the telephone - the only country still acknowledging A.G.Bell is... Canada :confused:

Canada has its share of founding/early historical myths too, and Bell is one of them. Bell was Scottish, who emigrated to Canada, and then to the US, and then back to Canada. He also had the patent on the device, and was largely credited for it. It was only a decade or so ago when the company named after him (Bell) lost their monopoly on the telephone biz. Some myths are hard to let go, particularly the ones that attribute inventive genius to one's nationality.

The friendliest city I've ever walked in -- and I've visited scores on five continents -- is New York.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Dear God that is hilarious.