NationStates Jolt Archive

Much has been made of the loss of respect for the United States internationally, mostly during the last eight years.

So, if this is in fact the case, and I think it is, personally, I would like to pose a question to those forumites with a non-USA perspective on things.

What would it take for the United States to earn your respect?

Furthermore, would it necessarily be (a) specific policy(ies) or just a shift in the general way things go with the government? And do you see a chance of it happening soon?

Giving the land back to the natives and emigrating to the moon?

By respecting others.

Politically, do something about the environment. And stop invading countries, and dragging the UK along to help you, either do it on your own, or don't do it. (Unless of course we decided to do so, without our big American brothers breathing down our neck.)

Economy wise. Nationalise the damn banks already. The UK already has, pretty sure Germany has too. The credit crunch is largely (but not solely) down to you, so fix it please! Europes taking the lead with this at the moment.

Socially, Americans would be mocked a lot less if fewer of them were so blind to their own faults and limitations of the country and its history. The "We're American so we're the best and nothing we ever do can ever be wrong" syndrome makes Americans look childish and immature in the eyes of the rest of the world, and is highly annoying, because you aren't. This whole thing is a downright shame as the majority of Americans are smart people who do not have this arrogant streak in them. But these people are drowned out by other Americans who feel an irresistible impulse to proudly assert their own ignorance, stupidity and blind nationalism, thus giving their country a bad name.

Mind it's own business and quit pretending to be the world police. ;)

Much has been made of the loss of respect for the United States internationally, mostly during the last eight years.

So, if this is in fact the case, and I think it is, personally, I would like to pose a question to those forumites with a non-USA perspective on things.

What would it take for the United States to earn your respect?


Elect better leaders.

Mind it's own business and quit pretending to be the world police. ;)

To be fair though, it kind of is, whether it wants to be or not.

Pick less crap presidents, please.

Much has been made of the loss of respect for the United States internationally, mostly during the last eight years.

So, if this is in fact the case, and I think it is, personally, I would like to pose a question to those forumites with a non-USA perspective on things.

What would it take for the United States to earn your respect?

Furthermore, would it necessarily be (a) specific policy(ies) or just a shift in the general way things go with the government? And do you see a chance of it happening soon?

I am promoting a plan to airdrop cinnamon buns on major worldwide population centers. *nod*

to me, this is kind of like a collective self esteem trip, and the way you EARN self esteem, is by NOT screwing things up for everyone else.

so really, my own contempt for the government of the land, and especially the corporate economic interests that have usurped THAT, that has really usurped its true and inheirent diversity of soverignties, is EARNED.

i really believe, that if our only concern of forign policy, about how other nations treat their own population, were with the civil rights of those people, and protecting their nations environment, as our own domestic policy needs to be more focused on as well, instead of making war on anyone who dares to try to not let corporate economic intrests 'get away with wholesale bloody murder', THEN i think, we MIGHT have a country to be proud of. as it is, internally, america is still, in many ways a 'pretty darn good' country, but in no way even remotely 'god's kindom on earth', and absolutely possesed of NO inhierent right to impose a kind of world economic dictatorship, exclusively for its own agrandisement, or more accurately, the worship of symbolic value, which intern, could care less about its real effects on real people, places and things, whether they should happen to live in kathmandu nepal, or denver colorado.

To be fair though, it kind of is, whether it wants to be or not.

Oh, I know. But I don't think many countries like it when the US comes barging into their territory to "right" whatever it percieves to be wrong. Besides, I always say other countries need to stand on their own without the US's aid or expecting the US the act like big brother and tend to that scrape in the knee.:wink:

I am promoting a plan to airdrop cinnamon buns on major worldwide population centers. *nod*
Aye, that'd be pretty good. Maybe stealing Ron Paul's blimp and using it to distribute tasty cakes all over the world would help McCain's international levels of support.

Oh, I know. But I don't think many countries like it when the US comes barging into their territory to "right" whatever it percieves to be wrong. Besides, I always say other countries need to stand on their own without the US's aid or expecting the US the act like big brother and tend to that scrape in the knee.:wink:

Agreed.

By respecting others.

Politically, do something about the environment. And stop invading countries, and dragging the UK along to help you, either do it on your own, or don't do it. (Unless of course we decided to do so, without our big American brothers breathing down our neck.)

Economy wise. Nationalise the damn banks already. The UK already has, pretty sure Germany has too. The credit crunch is largely (but not solely) down to you, so fix it please! Europes taking the lead with this at the moment.

Socially, Americans would be mocked a lot less if fewer of them were so blind to their own faults and limitations of the country and its history. The "We're American so we're the best and nothing we ever do can ever be wrong" syndrome makes Americans look childish and immature in the eyes of the rest of the world, and is highly annoying, because you aren't. This whole thing is a downright shame as the majority of Americans are smart people who do not have this arrogant streak in them. But these people are drowned out by other Americans who feel an irresistible impulse to proudly assert their own ignorance, stupidity and blind nationalism, thus giving their country a bad name.

I think this is a very thoughtful, useful, pertinent observation.
I am an American with a lot of friends who are international students, and I have had discussions with them that end up in this same general point, and one with which I agree. It is too often the leadership and a small but extremely vocal segment of the USA that loses respect for the culture as a whole. Respect is a two way street--you really do have to give it in order to receive it (sort of like the way it is with love and friendship--and respect is a big part of those, too)

I would like to recommend a book by Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World. It is full of excellent insights relating to just this topic.

Buy me a cookie and give me free world travel. :)

Kidnapping and torturing people is not good, especially if you pretend you are not doing it simply by calling it something else like 'rendition' or 'vigorous interrogation' - the rest of the world is not stupid.

quit the unilateral action and start playing ball with the rest of us, in all kinds of areas. plus, don't have a man easily perceived as an idiot for president. and stop shoving the 'free market' down our throats like its the best thing ever because the rest of us like doing things our own way.

i'm generalising, but meh

I am promoting a plan to airdrop cinnamon buns on major worldwide population centers. *nod*

Good plan. I can't imagine anybody complaining about free cinnamon buns. Well, yeah I can, but it would be stupid cause... free cinnamon buns.

the rest of us like doing things our own way.


By us, do you mean other western countries? And by 'own way', do you mean 'a free market'?

Not that surprisingly, I agree with most of the responses. I think a lot of the loss of our international goodwill is basically due to us giving the finger to the international community in all kinds of ways. When you insult people, they tend not to like you. Thus it works also with nations. An example of the overall arrogant foreign policy approach we've taken in the last few years is that the president appointed a man who basically was against the UN's existence, as our ambassador to the UN. That's just rude. And while the tough guy image kept the republicans in power for 6/8 years, it really didn't do good things for us abroad.

I hope if Obama is elected, that all will start to change, but at the same time, I can't help feeling that it might be decades before we regain the respect we once had. It's a thing that's hard earned and easily lost.

w00t, I made a thread that got to a second page.

By us, do you mean other western countries? And by 'own way', do you mean 'a free market'?

yup. but by 'own way' i mean a more mixed market as opposed to laissez-faire.

and i suppose i also mean other non-western countries as well, why not. like Iraq or Afghanistan.

What would it take for the United States to earn your respect?

Furthermore, would it necessarily be (a) specific policy(ies) or just a shift in the general way things go with the government? And do you see a chance of it happening soon?

Ratify the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

Also, do something about fixing your environment.

I may not be one to talk on the last point given the government that got in, but I didn't vote for them and maybe you guys being whoring yourselves out to big oil less will help things here too.

Oh, and try actually holding up your end of trade agreements (i.e. NAFTA) instead of making another country chase you down through the courts for years and then settle for less than half of what you owe them. Also you know, not ignoring the UN and being douchebags.

yup. but by 'own way' i mean a more mixed market as opposed to laissez-faire.


Right, but the US is not really laissez-faire at all.

/pedantry

Buy me a cookie and give me free world travel. :)
how about C-rations and a free trip to cuba?

Right, but the US is not really laissez-faire at all.

/pedantry

moreso than us, i'd say. and yet more so than, say, France.

Go back to being the US of Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain rather than the US of Teddy Roosevelt and Donald Rumsfeld.

To be fair though, it kind of is, whether it wants to be or not.

I do not understand why anyone believes that the international arm of the US government is the world police.

They continually act out of pure self-interest and embody the idea of realpolitik.

I'd have a lot more respect if the United States declared an end to foreign intervention except in cases of genocide, and used the spare money from cuts in military spending to give a better standard of living to the poor.

Will it happen? Of course it won't. The military interests and ideas of America's "special role in spreading freedom and democracy" have far too much influence for this to occur. Any President who tried that wouldn't last five minutes.

I don't really feel strongly either way about America. I'm not really bothered about the wars America's involved in, I'm only bothered when we end up getting involved. So I'd have to say that there's nothing America could do to win my respect, but I'm not saying that in a particularly negative way, it's more indifference on my part.

I do not understand why anyone believes that the international arm of the US government is the world police.

Because even a President believed it so:

After the turn of the nineteenth century to the twentieth, the phrase Manifest Destiny declined in usage, as territorial expansion ceased to be promoted as being a part of America's "destiny." Under President Theodore Roosevelt, the role of the United States in the New World was defined, in the 1904 Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, as being an "international police power" to secure American interests in the Western Hemisphere. Roosevelt's corollary contained an explicit rejection of territorial expansion. In the past, Manifest Destiny had been seen as necessary to enforce the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere, but now expansionism had been replaced by interventionism as a means of upholding the doctrine.

President Woodrow Wilson continued the policy of interventionism in the Americas, and attempted to redefine both Manifest Destiny and America's "mission" on a broader, worldwide scale. Wilson led the United States into World War I with the argument that "The world must be made safe for democracy." In his 1920 message to Congress after the war, Wilson stated:

...I think we all realize that the day has come when Democracy is being put upon its final test. The Old World is just now suffering from a wanton rejection of the principle of democracy and a substitution of the principle of autocracy as asserted in the name, but without the authority and sanction, of the multitude. This is the time of all others when Democracy should prove its purity and its spiritual power to prevail. It is surely the manifest destiny of the United States to lead in the attempt to make this spirit prevail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny#Later_usage

Because even a President believed it so:

Him saying it doesn't necessarily mean he believed it.

A national apology for reelecting Bush would be cool.

Him saying it doesn't necessarily mean he believed it.

Regardless of wether Wilson believed it or not, the US has, willingly or unwillingly, according to the side one wishes to take, acted in innumerable ocassions as world police.

Signing up to the Rome Statute would be a plus in my eyes.

As an American:

I sometimes wonder if we ought to implement a few years of isolationism. I get the impression that American cowboy perception does more good than harm. Sure, it hurts our popularity around the world, but I'd rather be hated and deter aggression than be loved and let Taiwan and Isreal and CIS states be consumed and allow the genocide that would inevitably happen afterwards.

Naturally, I don't agree with many of the things that we've done, but I think that there is something to be said about having a reputation as being willing.. almost eager.. to back up your threats with action. I don't think isolation would help anyone, but i do think it would be a welcome reminder of just whats at stake in the real world. And who knows... if I'm wrong and nothing goes to pot, I certainly wouldn't complain.

Socially, Americans would be mocked a lot less if fewer of them were so blind to their own faults and limitations of the country and its history..


Americans are hardly the only ones with a colored history.

Americans are hardly the only ones with a colored history.But no one cares about Belgium.

Because even a President believed it so:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny#Later_usage

No. A POTUS claimed it was so. There is a difference between what people say they are going to do, and what they actually do. I judge them by their actions, not their excuses. The Monroe doctrine and manifest destiny were just rationalisations for actively intervening in the politics of sovereign states.

Regardless of wether Wilson believed it or not, the US has, willingly or unwillingly, according to the side one wishes to take, acted in innumerable ocassions as world police.

No. They haven't. They act in self-interest. See the entire history of US intervention in Latin America if you want evidence.

As an American:

I sometimes wonder if we ought to implement a few years of isolationism...

Please do.

Regardless of wether Wilson believed it or not, the US has, willingly or unwillingly, according to the side one wishes to take, acted in innumerable ocassions as world police.

True, but I think that in the vast majority of cases there were other, more pragmatic, things at stake. The whole "world policeman" thing is just a bonus to make us feel that we're doing something good in the world.

how about C-rations and a free trip to cuba?

I'll pass, thank you.

True, but I think that in the vast majority of cases there were other, more pragmatic, things at stake. The whole "world policeman" thing is just a bonus to make us feel that we're doing something good in the world.

Which time and time again has been evidenced that no, by acting like this, you're not doing something good. The rest of the world does not want Americans to just presume they know better how to rule other countries. As I told Hydesland, and in no way am I trying to insult Americans, perhaps what the world truly wants is the US to stop being (taking GoG's post into consideration) or trying to be Big Brother to the rest of us, protecting their interest in the rest of the world or whatever it is they want. It's not necessary. It's unwanted.

The US has it's own issues it should deal with, issues more pressing than invading Iraq or making sure wether or not Israel retains sovereignty of a region or not (as examples). Both Iraq and Israel are big boys, if you get my meaning. Capable of dealing with their own crap.

Granted, I get why the US invaded Iraq. The Saddam hoolabaloo and what not. But Saddam's dead so... what's the US waiting for with the troops? Bring those boys back to their home.:wink:

I'll pass, thank you.

C-rats aren't all that bad, but Cuba is a bit too warm for me.

Granted, I get why the US invaded Iraq. The Saddam hoolabaloo and what not. But Saddam's dead so... what's the US waiting for with the troops? Bring those boys back to their home.:wink:

Except that's not the real reason the US invaded Iraq, at least not to ensure a better life for the Iraqis. Sure, it was the stated reason but you don't just go around stating your actual geopolitical reasons for things these days, you've got to pretty them up.

In essence what I'm saying is that we may STATE that we're doing all these things for humanitarian or idealistic reasons but, as GoG so aptly stated, what we do is purely for reasons of realpolitik.

C-rats aren't all that bad, but Cuba is a bit too warm for me.

You no likey tropical weather? It's delicious!

Except that's not the real reason the US invaded Iraq, at least not to ensure a better life for the Iraqis. Sure, it was the stated reason but you don't just go around stating your actual geopolitical reasons for things these days, you've got to pretty them up.

In essence what I'm saying is that we may STATE that we're doing all these things for humanitarian or idealistic reasons but, as GoG so aptly stated, what we do is purely for reasons of realpolitik.

I guess the US is not the only guilty country of invading other nations, hiding true intentions. I mean, my own country did it with Morocco (which I think I terribly misspelled).

You no likey tropical weather? It's delicious!

I've always hated the heat, and having spent the last 8 months in Kuwait I long for a nice cold Michigan winter's day.

I guess the US is not the only guilty country of invading other nations, hiding true intentions. I mean, my own country did it with Morocco.

No, it's a fairly standard thing among countries with the capability to do it.

I've always hated the heat, and having spent the last 8 months in Kuwait I long for a nice cold Michigan winter's day.

Ah, Michigan. I lived in Lansing, MI for 2 years. I like cold weather, demo, MI winters are too much for me.

No, it's a fairly standard thing among countries with the capability to do it.

Yes, I know. I feel too, like A Secular Conservative posted, that perhaps the US should go through an isolationist period. It would be good for it. Heck, every country should go through periods like that.

Because even a President believed it so:

President Woodrow Wilson continued the policy of interventionism in the Americas, and attempted to redefine both Manifest Destiny and America's "mission" on a broader, worldwide scale. Wilson led the United States into World War I with the argument that "The world must be made safe for democracy." In his 1920 message to Congress after the war, Wilson stated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny#Later_usage

"The world must be made safe for democracy."

What gave him the right to decide that another countries way or ruling is wrong, and that democracy is right? Granted this kind of intervention can be a good thing for those who support it. But it's really not America's, nor anyone else's right to "intervene", whether its needed or not. Unless such a situation occurs where an outside influence is brought in by those already involved.

Interventionism, not the worst of wrongs, hardly right either.

No, it's a fairly standard thing among countries with the capability to do it.

I am not so sure about that. Canada is as strong as any other western democracy, yet it does not have the same legacy of colonialism as the USA, or even the UK and France. In fact, the USA seems to be the only nation that was previously a colony that is now engaged in colonialism of a sort.

I am not so sure about that. Canada is as strong as any other western democracy, yet it does not have the same legacy of colonialism as the USA, or even the UK and France. In fact, the USA seems to be the only nation that was previously a colony that is now engaged in colonialism of a sort.

America is not involved in colonialism. None of American military efforts have resulted in Americans moving to the region they occupy. Therefore it is not colonialism. What America is doing is something entirely different.

I suppose you could call Americans western expansion in the 19th century as colonialism, but not its modern day efforts.

"The world must be made safe for democracy."

What gave him the right to decide that another countries way or ruling is wrong, and that democracy is right? Granted this kind of intervention can be a good thing for those who support it. But it's really not America's, nor anyone else's right to "intervene", whether its needed or not. Unless such a situation occurs where an outside influence is brought in by those already involved.

Interventionism, not the worst of wrongs, hardly right either.

I'm not in favour of any country sticking it's nose in another country's business, be that out of altruistic intentions or to defend it's foreign interests. What gave Wilson the idea that the US had a right to intervene anywhere, beats me. What has given the rest of the Presidents of that country the notion that the United Stated of America has a right to intervene, anywhere, I'm clueless.

America is not involved in colonialism. None of American military efforts have resulted in Americans moving to the region they occupy. Therefore it is not colonialism. What America is doing is something entirely different.

May I point out that Puerto Rico is considered a colony of the US, regardless of what some people may say about the Island's political status. They moved, military, into the Island in 1898 and have been there ever since. If that isn't colonialism, I don't know what is.

Signing up to the Rome Statute would be a plus in my eyes.Congress passed the American Service-members' Protection Act of 2002 for a reason. :)

I'm not in favour of any country sticking it's nose in another country's business, be that out of altruistic intentions or to defend it's foreign interests. What gave Wilson the idea that the US had a right to intervene anywhere, beats me. What has given the rest of the Presidents of that country the notion that the United Stated of America has a right to intervene, anywhere, I'm clueless.

I have to disagree there. If another country is agressively expanding its own interests, unprovoked, at the costs of others there should be intervention.

I have to disagree there. If another country is agressively expanding its own interests at the costs of others there should be intervention.

I disagree with you there. If these expansions do not threaten the US directly, and by that I mean, they do not cross into the US's borders, I really think it should stay out of the conflict. Leave to world to itself.

America is not involved in colonialism. None of American military efforts have resulted in Americans moving to the region they occupy. Therefore it is not colonialism. What America is doing is something entirely different.

I suppose you could call Americans western expansion in the 19th century as colonialism, but not its modern day efforts.

Would you prefere the term imperialism, or perhaps suzerainty? How about enforced hegemony? I don't really care what word you use, as long as it still means trying to take economic and military control over an area.

Congress passed the American Service-members' Protection Act of 2002 for a reason. :)

I wouldn't be proud of that.

I wouldn't be proud of that.I am. Seeing as I'm going to be one of those soldiers protected by my own Congress. They actually did something right for once.
I know, I know, shock/horror. The world is not ending. :)

I am not so sure about that. Canada is as strong as any other western democracy, yet it does not have the same legacy of colonialism as the USA, or even the UK and France. In fact, the USA seems to be the only nation that was previously a colony that is now engaged in colonialism of a sort.

It's never really been in Canada's interests to do such things. Colonialism is usually done to strip the natives of their natural resources, which is something Canada isn't exactly lacking in, and Canada's ties to the UK meant that it benefited from the UK's colonial exploits, even if indirectly. Currently, colonialism is a difficult thing to accomplish, much less get away with. A country has to have the ability to project sufficient military power on its own which Canada (like much of NATO) currently doesn't have. Canada could, yes, but there really isn't much that Canada needs enough to justify the costs, economic and political, of engaging in such affairs.

Canada has the capability instead to get what it needs through application of soft power, which may not be as dramatic or perhaps get quite what application of hard power would get but it's much, much cheaper and easier.

Ah, Michigan. I lived in Lansing, MI for 2 years. I like cold weather, demo, MI winters are too much for me.

I'm from an hour north of Lansing, Mt. Pleasant if you've heard of it. Unfortunately it took me almost 3 years to really get used to Michigan weather again, so I'm going to freeze when I finally get home.

Yes, I know. I feel too, like A Secular Conservative posted, that perhaps the US should go through an isolationist period. It would be good for it. Heck, every country should go through periods like that.

I don't know that that's really the route the US should take either. Unfortunately, the US has squandered what credibility it did have on the international scene, but by acting in concert with the rest of the West it could accomplish many of its goals through diplomatic and economic action rather than just bombing people.

I disagree with you there. If these expansions do not threaten the US directly, and by that I mean, they do not cross into the US's borders, I really think it should stay out of the conflict. Leave to world to itself.

So you would disagree with American intervention in desert storm?

If that isn't colonialism, I don't know what is.
A "colony" is a place where your move into and settle. Whatever you call Puerto Rico, it is the exact opposite of a colony.

May I point out that Puerto Rico is considered a colony of the US, regardless of what some people may say about the Island's political status. They moved, military, into the Island in 1898 and have been there ever since. If that isn't colonialism, I don't know what is.

I pointed out what America did in the 19th century was colonialism. We did the same in Alsaska and hawaii in the 19th century. That was the 19th century as it stands now Puerto Rico could seperate from America if it so wished it doesn't.

So you would disagree with American intervention in desert storm?

I disagree with it's permanence in the Middle East even after Hussein's gone. I disagree with it's intervention in Afghanistan, chasing the ghost of Osama Bin Laden. How long has it been? Four, five, six years? Has the US government found him? And how many soldiers have died already? How many of your countrymen have perished in George W. Bush's hunt to emulate daddy? So what do you think, do I disagree or not?

I am. Seeing as I'm going to be one of those soldiers protected by my own Congress. They actually did something right for once.
I know, I know, shock/horror. The world is not ending. :)

If you commit no crimes, you would have nothing to fear from the ICC.

So you would disagree with American intervention in desert storm?

You mean UN intervention.

I pointed out what America did in the 19th century was colonialism we did the same in Alsaska and hawaii in the 19th century. That was the 19th As it stands now Puerto Rico could seperate from America if it so wished it doesn't.

There was a congress of nations in Panama recently, precisely addressing the status of Puerto Rico. The international community considers the Island a US colony, despite what your government may want to portray.

Also people do relise NATO only has the power that it has because of the U.S right? And they also must then know that if a ally is attacked or threaten then American should respond because their allies are threaten and that could in turn threaten the U.S. Besides I don't mind having U.S soldiers deid fighting a country hellbent on imposing some far right rule over a normal government. Saves me from deiding to do so.


And yes I know the U.S will only "save" the world when it benfits them but isn't that better then being overunned by the enemy? The U.S isn't going to jump in just because it the right thing to do so. Russia invasion of Gerogia proved that. Besides it can be aruged that a war anywhere would hurt the U.S as it would hurt their econmy and threaten Americans abroad. Which is the excause the Russiams used for Gerogia.

Nanatsu: Once again you are using words in a way that deprives them of all meaning.

If you commit no crimes, you would have nothing to fear from the ICC. Of course, because, you know, it's not like the transnational-progressivist hate us, or anything.

You mean UN intervention.

The point remains the same. Also the majority of military force was still brought to bear by America.

Nanatsu: Once again you are using words in a way that deprives them of all meaning.

How am I doing that? Pray tell.

Of course, because, you know, it's not like the transnational-progressivist hate us, or anything.

What has hate got to do with the law? If there's no grounds for a case against you, the court wouldn't hear it.

In other words, you should only be afraid of it if you actually committed a crime. The absence of certain countries from the Statute speaks volumes.

Also people do relise NATO only has the power that it has because of the U.S right?

Yes because the other NATO nations are pushovers. The UK, France, Germany, Most of the EU zone. Canada, and the Aussies, amongst others. Yes I can see NATO being nothing if it was just them.

This is exactly the type of ignorance that ticks off the rest of world so.

The point remains the same.
Not really. USA =/= Global approval.

Also the majority of military force was still brought to bear by America.
And? The Gulf War was UN sanctioned. Doesn't matter if the bulk was supplied by the US or Chinese, the fact no one objected to the action is my point - something markedly different to more recent actions.

It's never really been in Canada's interests to do such things. Colonialism is usually done to strip the natives of their natural resources, which is something Canada isn't exactly lacking in, and Canada's ties to the UK meant that it benefited from the UK's colonial exploits, even if indirectly. Currently, colonialism is a difficult thing to accomplish, much less get away with. A country has to have the ability to project sufficient military power on its own which Canada (like much of NATO) currently doesn't have. Canada could, yes, but there really isn't much that Canada needs enough to justify the costs, economic and political, of engaging in such affairs.

Canada has the capability instead to get what it needs through application of soft power, which may not be as dramatic or perhaps get quite what application of hard power would get but it's much, much cheaper and easier.


If you are implying that Canada would be militarily incapable of taking and holding a developing nation while the USA would, then you are simply wrong.

If you are under the impression that Canada is self-sufficient in terms of natural resources while the US is not, you are wrong.

But I don't think you are implying either of these things. I think you are saying that Canada can do it, has just as much reason to, but finds it can get what it wants through other channels. I agree with that.

But that doesn't change the fact that the US State department or whoever runs US foreign policy obviously feels that neo-colonialism is the way to go.

So you would disagree with American intervention in desert storm?

Yes.

What has hate got to do with the law? If there's no grounds for a case against you, the court wouldn't hear it.

In other words, you should only be afraid of it if you actually committed a crime. The absence of certain countries from the Statute speaks volumes.China, Russia, India, and the United States. Hm.
Edit: I was WRONG.
It was Clinton who said that he wouldn't submit it to the Senate.
Bush revoked it.

China, Russia, India, and the United States. Hm.
And this one can't even be blamed on the Republicans. :)
Clinton revoked our signatory status.

Clinton did sign it. He just advised against ratification.

Yes because the other NATO nations are pushovers. The UK, France, Germany, Most of the EU zone. Canada, and the Aussies, amongst others. Yes I can see NATO being nothing if it was just them.

This is exactly the type of ignorance that ticks off the rest of world so.

I Canadian and I hate the U.S governemnt for many things. But I not going to deny that the U.S military is a superpower and can most likely mobile quicker then most other countrys and rain that firepower upon a enemy nation quickly.

Clinton did sign it. He just advised against ratification.Yeah, I misread. Clinton signed, but refused to submit it to the Senate until the U.S. government had a chance to assess the functioning of the court.

Ah, before I'm accused of spreading anti-American sentiments on this thread, I'm going to clarify that I do not hate Americans or the US.

Ah, before I'm accused of spreading anti-American sentiments on this thread, I'm going to clarify that I do not hate Americans or the US.Yay, but I'm still too young. :(
Whatever.
I don't mind people disagreeing with the U.S.A. It happens all the time. We disagree wtih each other all the time, as well.

Ah, before I'm accused of spreading anti-American sentiments on this thread, I'm going to clarify that I do not hate Americans or the US.

You can't criticise the US if you don't hate them. Duh.

Ah, before I'm accused of spreading anti-American sentiments on this thread, I'm going to clarify that I do not hate Americans or the US.

Why do you think I wrote 'the international arm of the US government' instead of simply 'USA'?

As Pable Neruda once said, 'the North American enemies of my people are also the enemies of the North American people.'

Yay, but I'm still too young. :(
Whatever.

That's besides the point, darling.:wink:

I don't mind people disagreeing with the U.S.A. It happens all the time. We disagree wtih each other all the time, as well.

We agree to disagree.:)

I Canadian and I hate the U.S governemnt for many things. But I not going to deny that the U.S military is a superpower and can most likely mobile quicker then most other countrys and rain that firepower upon a enemy nation quickly.

The US isn't the fastest military to mobilise. Elements of the British and Belgian armies can mobilise and deploy anywhere in the world within 20 hours. These are just two examples.

The majority of the EU, and NATO, have first class armies. Obviously not of the same size as the US. But just as well, if not better equipped, and definitely better trained. (I.E UK, France and Germany.)

I'm not denying that the US is extremely powerful, and plays a vital role in the NATO organisation. But your statement is just completely wrong. NATO would still be a powerful force without the US, The armies of the main members, I.E the UK, France, Germany, are formidable still even stood alone.

(Psst, Canada is one of those armies in NATO that is A), Active, B) First class.)

You can't criticise the US if you don't hate them. Duh.

Babe, I can criticise without hating. It's possible. Besides, hate is such a strong term.

There was a congress of nations in Panama recently, precisely addressing the status of Puerto Rico. The international community considers the Island a US colony, despite what your government may want to portray.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0113949.html

What other nations believe is irelevant. What the Puerto Ricans vote for is far more important.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0113949.html

What other nations believe is irrelevant. What the Puerto Ricans vote for is far more important.

Gavin, I have been to Puerto Rico, I lived there on 2 occasions. My maternal grandparents have been living there for the past 30 years. I know, very well, what the sentiment is there about the political status.

If you are implying that Canada would be militarily incapable of taking and holding a developing nation while the USA would, then you are simply wrong.

No, Canada certainly could. WWII certainly showed what Canada is capable of, once they decide it's necessary.

If you are under the impression that Canada is self-sufficient in terms of natural resources while the US is not, you are wrong.

Certainly not self-sufficient (nobody is) but less dependent, I'd say.

But I don't think you are implying either of these things. I think you are saying that Canada can do it, has just as much reason to, but finds it can get what it wants through other channels. I agree with that.

I'm saying that it's far more convenient for Canada to get what it wants through other channels. They're certainly capable of it but Canada doesn't have the advantage of being the world's sole superpower and all the advantages implied therein to bully others into accepting or even going along with any neocolonial adventures. The reason more countries aren't engaged in such blatant neocolonialism is because they judge the economic and political costs to be too high. I know people would like to think it's because their governments are more morally responsible, but in the pursuit of their national interests governments are rarely anything but ruthless and calculating.

But that doesn't change the fact that the US State department or whoever runs US foreign policy obviously feels that neo-colonialism is the way to go.

Certainly not. In fact, we're seeing now, and will see even more drastically in coming years, that neocolonialism was not in fact the way to go and it's going to cost us far more than we'd have been willing to pay. The fact that the planners of the Iraq war thought the Iraqis would greet us as liberators shows how poorly they'd thought the whole thing out.

Gavin, I have been to Puerto Rico, I lived there on 2 occasions.
And how many settlers from the mainland did you encounter?

The US isn't the fastest military to mobilise. Elements of the British and Belgian armies can mobilise and deploy anywhere in the world within 20 hours. These are just two examples.

The majority of the EU, and NATO, have first class armies. Obviously not of the same size as the US. But just as well, if not better equipped, and definitely better trained. (I.E UK, France and Germany.)

I'm not denying that the US is extremely powerful, and plays a vital role in the NATO organisation. But your statement is just completely wrong. NATO would still be a powerful force without the US, The armies of the main members, I.E the UK, France, Germany, are formidable still even stood alone.

(Psst, Canada is one of those armies in NATO that is A), Active, B) First class.)


I doubt that. Sure their armies themselfs are powerful. But on land/sea/air and once it people are commited to war,stay in said war? Not to forget the U.S has a advanght with not being in Europe so it harder to invade them.
And can you see Britian or France going to war without having the U.S backing? And the Russians have over a million men,are poorly equipped and "averagly" trained. Somehow I don't see any EU country fighting Russia one on one. The U.S on the other hand...


(Psst,yes but I don't see them as a force that would attempt to take on a enemy nation by itself. It simply couldn't do it.)

But I going to addmit that I not the most knowledgable here and state that the impact of having the U.S at war with you really is something. Not to forget that Americans are more likely to support starting a war.(Ex. Iraq )

And how many settlers from the mainland did you encounter?

From PR? I have many friends there. People that have different ideas about what they want the country to be regarding the political status. The Island's very divided between those who want to continue the commonwealth and those who want the Island to become a state.

Puerto Rico, becoming a state, is far fetched. The people there have a national identity, different from that of the people of the US. The culture is also dissimilar. The language is also a factor because even when English is taught at school from an early age, not even half of the population is bilingual.

That the Island will remain a commonwealth, who knows. Apparently the US does not intend on perpetuing this for much longer.

That's besides the point, darling.:wink: I know, but I had to get in another jab. ;)



We agree to disagree.:)Yes.

From PR? I have many friends there. People that have different ideas about what they want the country to be regarding the political status. The Island's very divided between those who want to continue the commonwealth and those who want the Island to become a state.That's not the question. You were claiming that PR is a "colony", which is a place where a dominating country sends settlers to live. Is that what you observed there? A lot of settlers from the mainland of the United States?

That's not the question. You were claiming that PR is a "colony", which is a place where a dominating country sends settlers to live. Is that what you observed there? A lot of settlers from the mainland of the United States?

Well, yes. There's a large American population living there and vice versa. A lot of Puerto Ricans have settled in mainland US.

OK then. Was that so hard?

OK then. Was that so hard?

No, but I misunderstood your initial question.

OK then. Was that so hard?

No need to be so obtuse.

Gavin, I have been to Puerto Rico, I lived there on 2 occasions. My maternal grandparents have been living there for the past 30 years. I know, very well, what the sentiment is there about the political status.

Then how can you consider them a colony when they have been given oppurtunities for their independence. Interestingly enough another vote will be comming up shortly.

No, but I misunderstood your initial question.I thought you were deliberately avoiding it. Never mind.

Then how can you consider them a colony when they have been given oppurtunities for their independence. Interestingly enough another vote will be comming up shortly.

General elections for the governor on Nov. 4th.. Nothing about the political status will be touched, at least not following the elections.

I doubt that. Sure their armies themselfs are powerful. But on land/sea/air and once it people are commited to war,stay in said war? Not to forget the U.S has a advanght with not being in Europe so it harder to invade them.
And can you see Britian or France going to war without having the U.S backing? And the Russians have over a million men,are poorly equipped and "averagly" trained. Somehow I don't see any EU country fighting Russia one on one. The U.S on the other hand...


(Psst,yes but I don't see them as a force that would attempt to take on a enemy nation by itself. It simply couldn't do it.)

But I going to addmit that I not the most knowledgable here and state that the impact of having the U.S at war with you really is something. Not to forget that Americans are more likely to support starting a war.(Ex. Iraq )

Britain and France had the guts to invade Egypt in 1956. Without US backing. Was a very unpopular and rather pointless operation, but was done without US backing nonetheless. It is highly likely that the UK, France, or any other Major EU nation would go to war alone, and without the backing of the US is the circumstances allowed, as they have done numerous times in History. the 1982 Falklands conflict is another good example. At the time the Argentines weren't exactly inferior.

Trust me, the UK, France, Germany, amongst others, are fully capable of fighting a full scale war.

You underestimate European Strength, and overestimate Russian and American.

You are right to some extent. The American military is a force to be reckoned with. But you have to realise, that it is not the sole power of NATO, nor the world.

I thought you were deliberately avoiding it. Never mind.

No, I wasn't. But it's cool.

Britain and France had the guts to invade Egypt in 1956. Without US backing. Was a very unpopular and rather pointless operation, but was done without US backing nonetheless. It is highly likely that the UK, France, or any other Major EU nation would go to war alone, and without the backing of the US is the circumstances allowed, as they have done numerous times in History. the 1982 Falklands conflict is another good example. At the time the Argentines weren't exactly inferior.

Trust me, the UK, France, Germany, amongst others, are fully capable of fighting a full scale war.

You underestimate European Strength, and overestimate Russian and American.

You are right to some extent. The American military is a force to be reckoned with. But you have to realise, that it is not the sole power of NATO, nor the world.


You are right yes. But their is one thing I think is a huge plus in America favor. Geographic location. In WW2 Germany quickly invaded and destroy it neigbours. The only thing that saved Britian and Russia were their natural landscape. Brtian was an island and Russia harsh winter. Now a days they don't matter as much. Well getting and taking out the U.S quickly without WMD is alot more harder as a invading army would have so much ocean or land(Alaska route) to travel. Such it harder to attack them. While the U.S have long since master long range warfare and are quite good at it.Sure invading Europe wouldn't be easy at all. But it more then enough to make a rouge country stay in line.

You are right yes. But their is one thing I think is a huge plus in America favor. Geographic location. In WW2 Germany quickly invaded and destroy it neigbours. The only thing that saved Britian and Russia were their natural landscape. Brtian was an island and Russia harsh winter. Now a days they don't matter as much. Well getting and taking out the U.S quickly without WMD is alot more harder as a invading army would have so much ocean or land(Alaska route) to travel. Such it harder to attack them. While the U.S have long since master long range warfare and are quite good at it.Sure invading Europe wouldn't be easy at all. But it more then enough to make a rouge country stay in line.My eyes are bleeding. :headbang:
:(
The United States is designed on the whole concept of possible invasion. What do you think we have the Interstate highways (Designed by Dwight Eisenhower, a Five-Star General, mind.) for?

My eyes are bleeding. :headbang:
:(

You poor baby! Come here, let me wipe those blood tears away.:fluffle:

You poor baby! Come here, let me wipe those blood tears away.:fluffle:

Be careful - she'll use her tongue. :D

My eyes are bleeding. :headbang:
:(

Then don't look in the mirror?

Be careful - she'll use her tongue. :D

Let him be the one who finds objection to me using my viper tongue.:mad:

:D

Let him be the one who finds objection to me using my viper tongue.:mad:

:D

But of course. Hehehehe! :D

You are right yes. But their is one thing I think is a huge plus in America favor. Geographic location.

A nations geographic location can be a huge plus to its defensive capability's. It will make it harder to invade but not impossible. Remember, any natural barrier your enemies have to cross to get to you, you need to cross the same to get to them.

A nations geographic location can be a huge plus to its defensive capability's. It will make it harder to invade but not impossible. Remember, any natural barrier your enemies have to cross to get to you, you need to cross the same to get to them.

Which could be why come the U.S have become so good with carriers and submarines. After all they did kick Japan ass "almost"(hey assuies:P) by themselfs. Not forgot long range bombers and those kinds of things that the U.S have have for a long while now. The only country I think could oppose that in offensive operations is Britain or Russia(but the navy is falling apart no?). Defensive on the other hand their are countrys like Sweden or Norway and the likes that could stop a sea base invasion or at least cause the enemy huge losses. But that same enemy can hit them through their land boradors,so it doesn't matter as much.

Which could be why come the U.S have become so good with carriers and submarines. After all they did kick Japan ass "almost"(hey assuies:P) by themselfs. Not forgot long range bombers and those kinds of things that the U.S have have for a long while now. The only country I think could oppose that in offensive operations is Britain or Russia(but the navy is falling apart no?). Defensive on the other hand their are countrys like Sweden or Norway and the likes that could stop a sea base invasion or at least cause the enemy huge losses. But that same enemy can hit them through their land boradors,so it doesn't matter as much.

24 Carriers in the world, 3 are British, and 2 more are being built =D Submarines are common place nowadays.

Yes the US did kick arse in the pacific, just bear in mind the huge amounts of Aussie, British, Indian, and Dutch troops helping.

Long range bombers are obsolete nowadays as interceptors such as the Eurofighter, and your own F-22 can down them with ease. As well as SAM batteries. Even US Stealth Technology is semi obsolete, as the new British radars and Meteor missiles can track/kill them now.

The seaborne invasion of Iraq in 2003 was pretty much British. Once they were on shore, and linked up with land forces from Kuwait the Americans too over and overran the northern 2/3's of the country. leaving the British to take the south. A wise strategy in my opinion, which just shows the offensive capabilities of the UK. (I don't know the ins and outs of that to post details, and I may of overlapped the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars here.)

Sweden's defensive capabilities are famous, but not as famous as Finland's. And Norway has the added bonus of being protected by the UK. Same applies with Belgium. Scandinavia's sea based defence is pretty much geographic, and as explained earlier that can help and hinder.

As an American:

I sometimes wonder if we ought to implement a few years of isolationism. I get the impression that American cowboy perception does more good than harm. Sure, it hurts our popularity around the world, but I'd rather be hated and deter aggression than be loved and let Taiwan and Isreal and CIS states be consumed and allow the genocide that would inevitably happen afterwards.

Naturally, I don't agree with many of the things that we've done, but I think that there is something to be said about having a reputation as being willing.. almost eager.. to back up your threats with action. I don't think isolation would help anyone, but i do think it would be a welcome reminder of just whats at stake in the real world. And who knows... if I'm wrong and nothing goes to pot, I certainly wouldn't complain.

Israel would be fine if we stopped interfering. They have the best military in the region and nuclear weapons. They can take care of themselves.

Taiwan I think we should maintain our treaty obligations to. But I don't see China suddenly invading if we stopped screwing around in the middle east and Latin America.

Israel would be fine if we stopped interfering. They have the best military in the region and nuclear weapons. They can take care of themselves.

Taiwan I think we should maintain our treaty obligations to. But I don't see China suddenly invading if we stopped screwing around in the middle east and Latin America.

China? Invade? They'd need a navy for that and I'm not hearing good things about The PLAN

Which could be why come the U.S have become so good with carriers and submarines. After all they did kick Japan ass "almost"(hey assuies:P) by themselfs. Not forgot long range bombers and those kinds of things that the U.S have have for a long while now. The only country I think could oppose that in offensive operations is Britain or Russia(but the navy is falling apart no?). Defensive on the other hand their are countrys like Sweden or Norway and the likes that could stop a sea base invasion or at least cause the enemy huge losses. But that same enemy can hit them through their land boradors,so it doesn't matter as much.

This thread is supposed to be about how the USA can regain some respect.

A suggestion: stop playing the 'I'm bigger and stronger than you' game.

It's pathetic and childish, and results in the USA being thought of as a pathetic and childish bully.

Israel would be fine if we stopped interfering. They have the best military in the region and nuclear weapons. They can take care of themselves.

Taiwan I think we should maintain our treaty obligations to. But I don't see China suddenly invading if we stopped screwing around in the middle east and Latin America.

Not to mention, Israel would still have the support of Britain and France.

Taiwan, alot more complex.

Then don't look in the mirror?

Dude, stop trollin my thread. GTFO

China? Invade? They'd need a navy for that and I'm not hearing good things about The PLAN

And not just a blue water navy, they'd need sealift capability, which they most certainly don't have. If they ever wanted to invade even Taiwan they'd have to resort to comandeering civilian ferries and cargo ships. Trying to get forces all the way across the Pacific is completely out of the question and even if they were somehow able to get them to the US there's no way in hell they could supply them.

What has hate got to do with the law? If there's no grounds for a case against you, the court wouldn't hear it.

In other words, you should only be afraid of it if you actually committed a crime. The absence of certain countries from the Statute speaks volumes.

I am for the US joining the ICC. Not doing so just makes us look guilty and stubborn and generally assholish.

China? Invade? They'd need a navy for that and I'm not hearing good things about The PLAN

I'm talking about Taiwan. You don't need that bigass a navy to hop over that strait.

You no likey tropical weather? It's delicious!


No. No likey tropical weather at all. :(

I'm talking about Taiwan. You don't need that bigass a navy to hop over that strait.

Oh. Quite possible then.

So much to fix it'd be easier to start from scratch. Meh.


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/MULE.gif
25 years

This thread is supposed to be about how the USA can regain some respect.

A suggestion: stop playing the 'I'm bigger and stronger than you' game.

It's pathetic and childish, and results in the USA being thought of as a pathetic and childish bully.

Just so you know, Fighter4u is a Canuck.:tongue:

No. No likey tropical weather at all. :(

Awww, but it's delicious.

Just so you know, Fighter4u is a Canuck.:tongue:

Tá bom, mas mesmo que ele seja uma panaca total o ponto fica o mesmo.

Tá bom, mas mesmo que ele seja uma panaca total o ponto fica o mesmo.

Já fiz rir, mas tanto. Evidentemente, o fato de que o cara é candiense torna ainda mais ridícula. Mas estou certo de que o seu argumento não foi feito para magoar.:D

Awww, but it's delicious.

I just can't handle heat, or humidity.

I don't believe that the U.S. will ever 'regain' its former levels of respect.

The respect that the U.S. had enjoyed was a result of its status as superpower arising out of WWII and the cold war. Those days are gone and the current administrations attempts to create a new common world wide enemy in 'terrorism' has largely fallen flat.

You poor baby! Come here, let me wipe those blood tears away.:fluffle:...Fine. :(

Be careful - she'll use her tongue. :DI'm always careful. Not like it helps, any. ;)

Let him be the one who finds objection to me using my viper tongue.:mad:

:DI most certainly will not. :eek: I'm not that unintelligent.

...Fine. :(

*snip*

I most certainly will not. :eek: I'm not that unintelligent.


Your lose, bubby. I was going to use my tongue.:D

Your lose, bubby. I was going to use my tongue.:DJust what I was aiming for, lady. ;)

Just what I was aiming for, lady. ;)

*Laughs out loud*

You have no idea what you're in for, buddy. :p

Just what I was aiming for, lady. ;)

Self-righteous soldier in training.:eek:



;) I jest.

*Laughs out loud*

You have no idea what you're in for, buddy. :pThat's the whole idea. :)

Self-righteous soldier in training.:eek:But I'm not self-serving. ;)

;) I jest. Shh, I know. :wink:

But I'm not self-serving. ;)

Shh, I know. :wink:

Well, I am. I´m perhaps a hedonist. Fuck, I am a hedonist.


:wink:

NOTE TO SELF: Come to think about it, does this speaks badly of my country? Does me being a hedonist goes in detriment of Spain´s worldwide prestige?

Well, I am. I´m perhaps a hedonist. Fuck, I am a hedonist.


:wink:Excellent. :)

NOTE TO SELF: Come to think about it, does this speaks badly of my country? Does me being a hedonist goes in detriment of Spain´s worldwide prestige?I don't think so.

Look at this kid Yuki-Chan, you just wanna eat him up. :D

Look at this kid Yuki-Chan, you just wanna eat him up. :D

Oh yes, he´s edible. Especially with some of LG´s butterscotch pudding.

Oh yes, he´s edible. Especially with some of LG´s butterscotch pudding.

Ah, most fitting. :)

Look at this kid Yuki-Chan, you just wanna eat him up. :D
Oh yes, he´s edible. Especially with some of LG´s butterscotch pudding.
Ah, most fitting. :)No further input is required from me. :)

No further input is required from me. :)

:eek: Is he being naughty?

:eek: Is he being naughty? She hasn't sent me to the corner, at least. :wink:

She hasn't sent me to the corner, at least. :wink:

Do you want me to, soldier-boy? Cos I can, you know. Send you to the corner, no dessert for you and all that jazz.:wink:

Do you want me to, soldier-boy? Cos I can, you know. Send you to the corner, no dessert for you and all that jazz.:wink:No, don't, please. Don't make me beg. :(

No, don't please. Don't make me beg. :(

I like a man that knows how to beg. But I´ll be nice.

No, don't, please. Don't make me beg. :(

Big mistake. :D

I like a man that knows how to beg. But I´ll be nice.Alright. :)

Big mistake. :DOr was it? :eek: ;)

I'm talking about Taiwan. You don't need that bigass a navy to hop over that strait.

Why would they ever actually invade Taiwan?

Taiwan is a political problem for the PRC government, but in general, the PRC doesn't have to worry about Taiwan, because it's basically made itself into an economic superpower. That's the PRC's goal now. Not military conquest, but economic conquest.

Now, is there still a remote possibility of invasion? Sure, if they thought they could get away with it. They'd probably invade Siberia too while they were at it.

But they know they can't, so they're not going to, until either they can hold the world so completely by the short hairs that no one could do anything about it, or until it no longer matters.

24 Carriers in the world, 3 are British, and 2 more are being built =D Submarines are common place nowadays.

1.Yes the US did kick arse in the pacific, just bear in mind the huge amounts of Aussie, British, Indian, and Dutch troops helping.

2.Long range bombers are obsolete nowadays as interceptors such as the Eurofighter, and your own F-22 can down them with ease. As well as SAM batteries. Even US Stealth Technology is semi obsolete, as the new British radars and Meteor missiles can track/kill them now.

3.The seaborne invasion of Iraq in 2003 was pretty much British. Once they were on shore, and linked up with land forces from Kuwait the Americans too over and overran the northern 2/3's of the country. leaving the British to take the south. A wise strategy in my opinion, which just shows the offensive capabilities of the UK. (I don't know the ins and outs of that to post details, and I may of overlapped the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars here.)

4.Sweden's defensive capabilities are famous, but not as famous as Finland's. And Norway has the added bonus of being protected by the UK. Same applies with Belgium. Scandinavia's sea based defence is pretty much geographic, and as explained earlier that can help and hinder.

1.Which is why the Japan almost invaded Aussieland right? The U.S navy gave the Allies the firepower needed to turn back the tide. Japan was defeated mainly because of the Americans presense in the Pacfic. They gave the "Aussie, British, Indian, and Dutch troops" the foothold to fight back.

2.Yes,and then better weapons will be made to evade those radars and SAMs. Then better radars and SAMs will be made to counter that and on and on it will go.

3.Iraq wasn't really knowed for it Navy forces or anything that could seriously hinder a first world country naval force.

4.Excatly what I said. Those you never stated how ones geographic location can hinder a defending army, unless they counter-attacked but in this case the Scandinavia geographic location. This would help them once again by providing places to strike at and then hide from a invading force.


Dude, stop trollin my thread. GTFO

I was not trolling your thread. I was responding to Gauntleted Fist immature comments. I have no desire to troll or flame thank you very much. Try reading your own thread for once.




P.S (TO NTS)

Crazy hey? I a Canadian and I here I am defending those fascits pigs! :$

I was not trolling your thread. I was responding to Gauntleted Fist immature comments.By responding with an immature one of your own? Nice.

By responding with an immature one of your own? Nice.

Pretty much. After all, I never said I was more mature did I? Rather that I was defending myself,(by being just as childish.)Fun no?

Pretty much. After all, I never said I was more mature did I? Rather that I was defending myself,(by being just as childish.)Fun no?Always. :)

But no one cares about Belgium.

The Congo may. Can you say Leopold?

P.S (TO NTS)

Crazy hey? I a Canadian and I here I am defending those fascits pigs! :$

I hope to the gods, for your sake, that you´re not addressing this bit of Canuck nonsense to me. I am in no mood for shyte.

Public Education requires immediate attention. The rest will follow after the country stops being so stupid.

Public Education requires immediate attention. The rest will follow after the country stops being so stupid.Being part of that "public education system"... (As a student.) I think that you need to know that the kids in my class don't try. You can't force people to learn things they don't want to learn. They simply don't care about learning. It's not the lack of the effort on the system's part.

Pretty much. After all, I never said I was more mature did I? Rather that I was defending myself,(by being just as childish.)Fun no?

No. Not fun.

No. Not fun.

Yeah, it was more annoying than fun. And annoying ain´t fun at all.

Being part of that "public education system"... (As a student.) I think that you need to know that the kids in my class don't try. You can't force people to learn things they don't want to learn. They simply don't care about learning. It's not the lack of the effort on the system's part.

There seems to be quite a lot of the anti-intellectual attitude in the USA. I'm not sure why exactly. It doesn't make any sense to me.

There seems to be quite a lot of the anti-intellectual attitude in the USA. I'm not sure why exactly. It doesn't make any sense to me. It lets me sit comfortably in the top ten in my class (of 175). I, personally, am going to use the system designed to make me successful to the absolute fullest extent of my ability. I don't understand my class-mates' collective laziness, though. I'm not sure if anyone ever will. o_0

1.Which is why the Japan almost invaded Aussieland right? The U.S navy gave the Allies the firepower needed to turn back the tide. Japan was defeated mainly because of the Americans presense in the Pacfic. They gave the "Aussie, British, Indian, and Dutch troops" the foothold to fight back.

2.Yes,and then better weapons will be made to evade those radars and SAMs. Then better radars and SAMs will be made to counter that and on and on it will go.

3.Iraq wasn't really knowed for it Navy forces or anything that could seriously hinder a first world country naval force.

4.Excatly what I said. Those you never stated how ones geographic location can hinder a defending army, unless they counter-attacked but in this case the Scandinavia geographic location. This would help them once again by providing places to strike at and then hide from a invading force.
:$

Remember, the Japs had the Americans on the run until Midway. The British, after taking huge losses early on, held the Japanese in Burma with very very little US help. The Indians also fought in Burma. The Dutch fought on even after their nations surrender. The Aussies, I doubt the Japanese could of successfully taken Oz, The Japanese army at the time is not known for its mechanized capabilities. Something which would be vital in Oz due to the wide expanses of the outback.

Whether SAMS, radars and aircraft get more advanced or not. The fact remains, against any other 1st rate nation, with 1st rate defensive capabilities, the long range bomber, is obsolete. It is far better to use missiles, or small strike fighters.

You are correct, the seaborne invasion of Iraq in both Gulf wars is hardly spectacular. But it did exist. In the first Gulf war, the armoured spear head, contained large amounts of British and French troops as well as the US.

When you counter-attack. You do not want to strike and hide. This is a very defensive manoeuvre. Counter offensives are all about momentum. Lose that momentum and you fail. Leaving yourself open for attack. Geographic properties of the ground around you can work for both sides and is highly integral to any operation.

There seems to be quite a lot of the anti-intellectual attitude in the USA. I'm not sure why exactly. It doesn't make any sense to me.

It is not just limited to the USA - being a nerd is considered negative in many western countries. Physical prowess is much more valued, confirming we are still animals.

Get rid of all white power hungry men in Washington, install Obama for life with Bill Maher as VP (and what the hell, lets give him the powers Palin wants by expanding the VP's role to all kinds of things, thus giving Maher the opportunity to rid the country of all right-wing, Christain bible thumpers who want to live according to a fairy-tale doctrine composed thousands of years ago) and ban the country from pretending they give a shit about poor countries except for their resources. This is simply a start. Then we can start teaching our children that the U.S. is not necessarily the best and freest country in the world; that there are a lot of countries that have a higher standard of living, less crime, better benefits, less pollution and so on. Simply put, the US can actually learn something from observing other countries. It is, as well educated people know, not the only country where you can vote, openly complain and make a lot of money. Stop being the capitalistic equivalent of a manipulating Soviet Union

Much has been made of the loss of respect for the United States internationally, mostly during the last eight years.

So, if this is in fact the case, and I think it is, personally, I would like to pose a question to those forumites with a non-USA perspective on things.

What would it take for the United States to earn your respect?

Furthermore, would it necessarily be (a) specific policy(ies) or just a shift in the general way things go with the government? And do you see a chance of it happening soon?


Get rid of all white power hungry men in Washington, install Obama for life with Bill Maher as VP (and what the hell, lets give him the powers Palin wants by expanding the VP's role to all kinds of things, thus giving Maher the opportunity to rid the country of all right-wing, Christain bible thumpers who want to live according to a fairy-tale doctrine composed thousands of years ago) and ban the country from pretending they give a shit about poor countries except for their resources. This is simply a start. Then we can start teaching our children that the U.S. is not necessarily the best and freest country in the world; that there are a lot of countries that have a higher standard of living, less crime, better benefits, less pollution and so on. Simply put, the US can actually learn something from observing other countries. It is, as well educated people know, not the only country where you can vote, openly complain and make a lot of money. Stop being the capitalistic equivalent of a manipulating Soviet Union

Taiwan is a political problem for the PRC government, but in general, the PRC doesn't have to worry about Taiwan, because it's basically made itself into an economic superpower. That's the PRC's goal now. Not military conquest, but economic conquest.

Not quite. Economic power isn't the goal of the PRC, it's just something it decided it needed to achieve it's goals. (Basically complete hegemony over its hemisphere).

But it still wants "reunification" with Taiwan, by hook or by crook.

And I imagine the US will probably sell it to them.

I'm speaking purely from a European/Australian perspective here, but these are a few things I could think of:

1. Good progress on dealing with the global fall-out from the financial crisis.
2. Progress on international negotiations on climate change.
3. Ditto for world trade.
4. Israel. For crying out loud, get these people to sit down at the same table and just make a freaking deal.
5. Talk to Iran, set up a multi-party regional group similar to the talks with North Korea.

Those are kinda obvious. The tricky questions are things like "more engagement for political progress in Africa" or "sorting out the Caucasus" - because anything the US would do would likely be seen by many people around the world as more of the same imperialism, regardless of intentions or methods. That's where anti-Americanism comes in for real (as opposed to a comical accusation), where people are unlikely to actually think about issues far enough to notice that American policies and one's own interests or wishes basically match.

I think over time being more of a leader of multinational moves to achieve global goals would help a lot. There is a, usually justified, perception that the US stands up for Number One, and (more importantly) unashamedly so. Things like "we won't sign Kyoto because it hurts our industries" might be reasonable, or to be expected, and might not even particularly different from what other governments would do, but people in Europe in particular take great offense to that sort of thing.

As for the domestic things, there's little that can be done. The conditions of the poorest people in the US aren't really worse than those of the poorest people in Europe, but the latter are mainly immigrants and so there's a big difference image-wise. But there's nothing Americans can do about that.

Remember, the Japs had the Americans on the run until Midway. The British, after taking huge losses early on, held the Japanese in Burma with very very little US help. The Indians also fought in Burma. The Dutch fought on even after their nations surrender. The Aussies, I doubt the Japanese could of successfully taken Oz, The Japanese army at the time is not known for its mechanized capabilities. Something which would be vital in Oz due to the wide expanses of the outback.

Whether SAMS, radars and aircraft get more advanced or not. The fact remains, against any other 1st rate nation, with 1st rate defensive capabilities, the long range bomber, is obsolete. It is far better to use missiles, or small strike fighters.

You are correct, the seaborne invasion of Iraq in both Gulf wars is hardly spectacular. But it did exist. In the first Gulf war, the armoured spear head, contained large amounts of British and French troops as well as the US.

When you counter-attack. You do not want to strike and hide. This is a very defensive manoeuvre. Counter offensives are all about momentum. Lose that momentum and you fail. Leaving yourself open for attack. Geographic properties of the ground around you can work for both sides and is highly integral to any operation.

Mostly I agree, but um... "Jap" is a racist term...

Mostly I agree, but um... "Jap" is a racist term...

Its the same as calling the British Brits.

Its the same as calling the British Brits.

Not unless calling British "Brits" is highly offensive. I don't use the term "Brits" because I'm not sure if it is. Partly because it seems like "japs," which is.

Any Japanese or Japanese-American person could tell you that no, it's not fucking okay to call them "japs."

We refer to ourselves as Brits. It's not offensive. Its a shorthand variant.

I can see how the terms can be offensive, if used in the correct context. However I wasn't being derogatory. Plus I can't say I've had any problems with the Japanese exchange students at college, who also regularly refer to themselves as Japs. Abbreviations like this are commonplace.

But the context of a sentence can change the way the term comes across. I do see your viewpoint.

What would it take for the United States to earn your respect?

The United States has my respect, which is more than I can say for my country of citizenship.

What would it take for the United States to earn your respect?

It would have to become what it was intended: a safe haven for people who dare to be different. A country where freedom, critical thinking and openness are respected and treasured.

Not a place where a non-Christian does not stand a chance of being elected president. Where being stupid and ignorant are considered admirable traits and lying and deceiving are considered the highest form of art.

Not a place where a non-Christian does not stand a chance of being elected president. Where being stupid and ignorant are considered admirable traits and lying and deceiving are considered the highest form of art.

So you are saying we should shut down the Universities?

And religion was never that much of a deal until Carter and his born againism.

We refer to ourselves as Brits. It's not offensive. Its a shorthand variant.

I can see how the terms can be offensive, if used in the correct context. However I wasn't being derogatory. Plus I can't say I've had any problems with the Japanese exchange students at college, who also regularly refer to themselves as Japs. Abbreviations like this are commonplace.

But the context of a sentence can change the way the term comes across. I do see your viewpoint.

Perhaps it is different there then. In this area it is seen as a very derogatory term, somewhere between "I-tie" and "chink" in terms of offensiveness.

Perhaps it is different there then. In this area it is seen as a very derogatory term, somewhere between "I-tie" and "chink" in terms of offensiveness.

In the US it's considered a racist term because of the way it was used in anti-Japanese propaganda during WWII. I wonder if it has similar connotations in Oz?

It is not just limited to the USA - being a nerd is considered negative in many western countries. Physical prowess is much more valued, confirming we are still animals.

I am not sure about that. The USA is the only place I've heard of where people brag about never having read a book. That's right. Brag about it.

And religion was never that much of a deal until Carter and his born againism.

Every single POTUS before that was a Christian. And every one since. You might as well pretend that race or gender weren't important until Carter's administration either.

I am not sure about that. The USA is the only place I've heard of where people brag about never having read a book. That's right. Brag about it.

If I had to guess, I would say this has something to do with a newer prevailing value in the U.S., which is to achieve the greatest success (usually financial) while putting forth the least amount of effort or by simply exploiting raw talent. One look at who is revered in U.S. pop culture would seem to support this. The U.S. has gone from putting men on the moon to giving moon-man trophies to pop tartlets. :rolleyes:

That can't help international standing either.

Mostly I agree, but um... "Jap" is a racist term...

I thought that "Japo" was the racist term. :confused:

I thought that "Japo" was the racist term. :confused:

That sounds like the Australian equivalent. It'd make sense as it uses the same naming convention as a previously existing racist term (Abo).

Its the same as calling the British Brits.

I don't mind being called a Brit. ;)

I am not sure about that. The USA is the only place I've heard of where people brag about never having read a book. That's right. Brag about it.


I've heard that passed around as common talking point rhetoric, no reason to believe that's true however, at least not as a commonality. I'm sure in every single country there are some people who have bragged about such a thing, certainly I have met a few over here.

That sounds like the Australian equivalent. It'd make sense as it uses the same naming convention as a previously existing racist term (Abo).

I guess it's better to avoid using terms like that, then. Japo, Abo, Brit and the term we use to refer to Americans, gringo, should be avoided. I rather like calling Canadians Canucks, but it seems that's not a despective term to them.

Not unless calling British "Brits" is highly offensive. I don't use the term "Brits" because I'm not sure if it is.


I don't find it the least bit offensive.

I've heard that passed around as common talking point rhetoric, no reason to believe that's true however, at least not as a commonality. I'm sure in every single country there are some people who have bragged about such a thing, certainly I have met a few over here.

I'll admit it's more rumour than anything else. And it is very possible that it may not be true, but it is internationally perceived to be so.

And since the USA does have that international reputation, I think that if the USA wants to improve its image, that would be a place to start.

I worked at Yorktown last year for four months. As an Englishman, it really opened my eyes. I gained a lot of positive experiences from your wonderful country.

Some people would say I've been indoctrinated. I don't agree with the war in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. And I didn't like some of the xenophobia I experienced whilst working as a park guide around Yorktown. But those small unpleasant things aside, I have a very positive opinion of America.

I am not sure about that. The USA is the only place I've heard of where people brag about never having read a book. That's right. Brag about it.
It's ridiculous and sad.


Every single POTUS before that was a Christian. And every one since. You might as well pretend that race or gender weren't important until Carter's administration either.

And it was a huge issue when one ran who wasn't the right sort of Christian either. People forget that it was controversial that John F. Kennedy was Catholic.

Not unless calling British "Brits" is highly offensive.

It's not, but fairly annoying, especially because the English Welsh and Scottish don't like being lumped together.

I thought that "Japo" was the racist term. :confused:

Never heard "Japo" used. Just "Jap." And believe me, most of the people of Japanese ancestry I've known (and going to the high school I did, I knew quite a few) would be quite offended to be called such. I don't blame them for being sensitive about it, I mean, many of their grandparents or great grandparents were in the camps.

It's not, but fairly annoying, especially because the English Welsh and Scottish don't like being lumped together.

A real good way to piss off a Scottish person, I have heard, is to refer to them as English.

I'll admit it's more rumour than anything else. And it is very possible that it may not be true, but it is internationally perceived to be so.

And since the USA does have that international reputation, I think that if the USA wants to improve its image, that would be a place to start.This would not be the first time that international perceptions have been wrong about us. The same applies to our beliefs about other countries. :)

I think I'd grow to respect you if you just chose McSame and keep on going 8 more years like all is -and was- OK. I respect tenacity.

It's not, but fairly annoying, especially because the English Welsh and Scottish don't like being lumped together.

Don't forget Northern Ireland, and all the dominions and dependencies, such as Gibraltar, the Falklands, the countless others!

(Nah I'm just being picky lol)

Some do mind, some don't. I would prefer to be called English, but I'm not fussed, British will do. What IS annoying about the British thing, is that the Northern Irish, Scottish, and Welsh all think they are something else, and get their own parliaments, courtesy of Westminster. This is okay, once the English get theirs. However it does also mean people paying taxes in England, find their money being used in Scotland. Just not fair really.

It's not, but fairly annoying, especially because the English Welsh and Scottish don't like being lumped together.

I think we should go further. The South of England should secede from England. I don't want to be lumped in with big smelly northerners:p

I think we should go further. The South of England should secede from England. I don't want to be lumped in with big smelly northerners:p

This could have its merits.