[quote]right-wing eliteist newspapers. Eg. Global/National Post, CTV/Bell GlobeMedia (Globe and Mail)<hr></blockquote>
The National Post was founded by Conrad Black, a close affiliate of the British Conservative Party. However, Izzy Asper (head of CanWest Global) was the leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba in the early seventies. Though you probably know that he is exerting a strong pro-Israel bias on his papers and on Global (a terrible network; also the most profitable by 1997 figures), he is not associated with a right-wing party, and his newspapers will come to reflect that.
Ivan Fecan, President of CEO of Bell GlobeMedia, is also a Liberal party affiliate, I believe. I don't read the Globe and Mail or the National Post often, although what I've seen from the Globe and Mail doesn't support what you're saying about political leanings. Link to something that demonstrates what you mean, maybe. Both are rather snooty though.
[quote]The left is much further to the left and the right is closer to centrist American policies.<hr></blockquote>
Go Marxist-Leninist Party (or Marijuana Party)! <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]These are just ordinary citizens who are expressing their democratic right to protest.<hr></blockquote>
Genoa was a cesspool of idiocy. I'd vouch that 1% in every such protest has an idea of what they want accomplished. 90% want to stick it to the man and the rest want to hit things.
[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: Dead Member ]</p>
"which is silly to equate mainstream with anything left . . ..
in the eighties, the right moved the parameters of the debate so far to the right that what is now called liberal by the frothy mouthed masses was once considered squarely conservative . . ."
Just out of interest, can you give me an example of this? You are saying that in the 70s there were issues where the average American's viewpoint would be considered very liberal by today's standards.
I feel that the Globe has a real wishy-washy feel to it. Some of its writers are very right-wing and some are somewhat left-of-centre. The majority of the writers are slanted more towards the right, I feel. It is also a business oriented newspaper - don't forget. It has a very large ROB every saturday and every month it has a magazine on it so it does cater more to the Bay-Street types than ordinary folk.
I hate watching the Global/CFTO (CTV local in Toronto) newscasts. Both have incredibly slanted coverage - for example, I went down to a large Ontario Common Front rally on Oct. 16th, 2001 in an attempt to disrupt the financial district. The protest went well and it was non-violent and respectful but the coverage protrayed us all as a group of murderous, soul-less thugs.
I do agree with you about these large-scale anti-globalization protests. Not many people know exactly what is going on and 95% want to follow a non-violent, direct action route but the Black Bloc usually manages to show up and ruin the party... That still doesn't excuase the Italian government's action, however.
We all know there nations on earth, entire populations that hate the US. We can speculate that this is due to American dominance in economics, military, and culture to a certain extent.
We have the best economy and overall standard of living in the whole world.
Actually, Canada has the highest standard of living, I think the U.S. is in third, behing Norway?
... and as a result, we became the richest, most powerful nation in the world.
I don't really how you can describe a country with over 6 trillion in debt that escalates by a more then a million a day rich .... the fact that americans spend more on alcohal and tobacco then they do on education doesn't help the "nation of great wealth" either"
.... We have corruption and crime just like you do, but we're working on it.
I think Japan is about the only country among the G-8 with more corruption then the U.S. even still, they've never pulled an Enron.
Did we have states leaving the union and forming their own tribal militias? No.
Don't count Texas out just yet ...
You want to know why? Because with all its flaws, OUR SYSTEM OBVIOUSLY WORKS.
obviously
And now, after all we have been through, after we have defended nation after nation,
if you don't count the few you've accidently bombed.
You decide we are decadent, fat and lazy.
the fat part is actually fact. lazy is usually associated with fat, i'll let you off the decadent remark.
Never mind we saved your collective asses 11 years ago, from another mad man. Never mind that at all.
Who could it be who keeps arming all these mad men?
Why not try it out guys? How about laying off the US and trying what we did? You know what? We'll even help you set the whole thing up!!!
You mean like the number you did on the U.S.S.R.?
That country will be ****ed up for generations after democracy was forced upon them.
At first, I didn't realize that you were addressing "rogue" states .... buddy EVERYONE hates the states ... forget all of the above ... you pollute, are self-absorbed, and force your policies on everyone else .... but hey you sure can throw a party!
[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: the cool gut ]</p>
At first, I didn't realize that you were addressing "rogue" states .... buddy EVERYONE hates the states ... forget all of the above ... you pollute, are self-absorbed, and force your policies on everyone else .... but hey you sure can throw a party!
Then how about we stay home and let the world's problems work themselves out by themselves. Do you honestly think the world would be better off? Stop kidding yourself. For all our faults, the good far outweighs the bad and I bet a majority of world leaders would concur......................................
Stop kidding yourself. For all our faults, the good far outweighs the bad and I bet a majority of world leaders would concur......................................</strong><hr></blockquote>
This isn't about if the world would be better off if the States didn't even exist .... although I doubt it would be a resounding no ... this is about the rest of the world hating the U.S. - which it does, like it or not, weither it's justified or not.
--edit: I'd like to add ... the "world" doesn't hate you guys like they want to kill you ... they just don't LIKE you. Although, if I can make an observation ... you actually CARING what the rest of the world thinks is VERY UN-american like.
[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: the cool gut ]</p>
[quote]...you seems to base all of your opinions of sterotypes and generalizations and when someone can prove you wrong you resort to personal attacks.<hr></blockquote>
This pretty much sums up this thread, and the post that started it. The sad part is that there are many informed, intelligent Americans... hell, some of the greatest minds in the world are American... but so few compared to the ignorant knee-jerks. They are whispers in a stadium of cheering idiots.
It is encouraging, however, to see sane people from around the world voicing the distinctly non-American POV on this board. Americans would do well to heed thier words, or at least consider them, if planes are to stop smashing into World Trade Centers and Pentagons.
there are many informed, intelligent Americans... hell, some of the greatest minds in the world are American... but so few compared to the ignorant knee-jerks. They are whispers in a stadium of cheering idiots.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Same apply to most (let's say all) countries in the world : they are less informed intelligent peoples than jerks.
However the definition of a jerk and intelligent informed people is relative, and being intelligent and informed does not means automatically that you are not an idiot or a moron.
When i tested by the army during my 21, age where all french people are tested (or used to be, because our army is now a professional army), i discover the incredible number of people with a small level of education and intelligence.
Anyway when they vote, sometimes very humble guys can vote like me, and very clever and informed people can vote the opposite way. Intelligence and information are not the only key to make a good decision there is something that we call in France "le bon sens" who is important. I would traduct "le bon sens" the intuitive thought that bring you in the reality.
[quote] "The report recommended various adaptation strategies, such as "changing planting dates and varieties to significantly offset economic losses and increase relative yields".
Pollution levels will be discussed at the Earth Summit this summer
It also concluded that global warming would probably wipe out certain fragile areas altogether.
"A few ecosystems, such as alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains and some barrier islands, are likely to disappear entirely," the report said. <hr></blockquote>
In other words: things will change but by adopting the loss will be minimal or can even be turned around and be an advantage. The crops will move north and new kinds of plants ill be introduced in the south.
Well thats all good for countries like US and Denmark but what about countries that just don´t can build dikes to keep the rising water away, where traditional crops can´t be used anymore (creating huge social change) aso. And this is just an example of how much other people are affected by the choices made in the west and give us a responsibility that the US government and coorporations refuses to take.
Actually, Canada has the highest standard of living, I think the U.S. is in third, behing Norway?
Standard of Living measurements are only meaningful if you assume that the formula used are actually reflective of quality of life. There are a variety of arguments about the methodology that I could put forth since I believe some of the formula(s) to be flawed, but that is mostly a pointless exercise since that inevitable would just become a discourse on what things are important and to what extent in life. And that is naturally an extremely esoteric subject.
I don't really how you can describe a country with over 6 trillion in debt that escalates by a more then a million a day rich .... the fact that americans spend more on alcohal and tobacco then they do on education doesn't help the "nation of great wealth" either"
Looking at National Debt in and of itself is pointless, it should be taken within the context of what % of GDP it constitutes. The US does have excessive debt thanks in particular to the Reagan/Rostonkowski years. However, much of that debt is owed to ourselves, 40% is owed to the Federal Reserve Bank/Federal Govt. and other portions are owed to entities like mutual funds, state govts etc in which US taxpayers have large stakes. Other states such as Germany and Sweden etc have issues with National Debt that are significant too. And while the US population is aging, other countries are undergoing even more significant aging which when accompanied with their population decreases will make them far more vulnerable on the debt issue than we are.
By most standards, the US's GDP, per capita income, % of population that are upper class, property owners etc the US ranks at or very close to the top, particularly when you throw out very small contries like Lichenstein. This isn't really even very disputable, you can criticize the US in many ways but to claim that the US is not whole on the mean is silly.
I would love to see credible stats which back your assertions on alcohol/tobacco and education.
I think Japan is about the only country among the G-8 with more corruption then the U.S. even still, they've never pulled an Enron.
Some evidence to support your first claim might be in order. Enron is just one company, one that was very large, but still just one company. Accounting shenanigans are certainly not exclusive to the U.S., and I have seen no evidence that they are more prevelant in the US.
if you don't count the few you've accidently bombed.
Yes, war is a perfect science. That is why we have never ever lost one of our own soldiers to friendly fire.
Who could it be who keeps arming all these mad men?
The US has some culpability for that. On the other hand, China, Russia and Iran have certainly done their fair share too. To pretend that madmen would not have weapons were it not for the US is silly.
You mean like the number you did on the U.S.S.R.?
That country will be ****ed up for generations after democracy was forced upon them.
That country will be ****ed up for generations, mostly because of what Russians have done to themselves. What has the US done to Russia that can even be compared to the actions of Stalin and friends, the impact of 70 years of communism, and the semi-medieval nature of much of Russia?
At first, I didn't realize that you were addressing "rogue" states .... buddy EVERYONE hates the states ... forget all of the above ... you pollute, are self-absorbed, and force your policies on everyone else .... but hey you sure can throw a party!
More generic criticisms without the thoughtful articulations of real arguments that would back up your positions. Come on, you are better education than us after all so this should be no problem.
The original post was idiotic to an extreme, so much so that I wouldn't even bother to respond to it. But these sorts of vague "I don't like the US" commentaries without the necessary support just wind up making you look ignorant too.
See, I haven't resorted to personal attacks because I think we should be able to have a reasonable discussion like regular people. You, however, seem to attack me personally ant my opinions. You never actually gave me some solid evidence against my case - attacking me works just as well right?
You do not have a right to be discussing this sensitive topic since you seems to base all of your opinions of sterotypes and generalizations and when someone can prove you wrong you resort to personal attacks. So please, shut the FUC.K up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I called you hopeless because your totally unsubstantiated liberal wacko hatred of the IMF and World Bank is ridiculous. I love seeing people at these rallies demonstrating against captialism. Never mind that many protest groups have weekly meetings and FUNDRAISERS to RAISE CAPTIAL for their activities. HELLO?
AND, it is YOU who are basing your opinions on stereotypes and half-thruths. Show ME some solid evidence that the IMF and World Bank. as well as NAFTA hurt poor nations more than they help them. Since you are making the complaint, the burden of proof lies on YOU, not me.
I am open to possibility that the World Bank and IMF cause problems, but I'm not going to take your word for it. Your allegations of police brutality in this nation are also totally absurd.
You actually mean to tell me that THE POLICE caused riots in Seattle? I suppose it wasn't the liberal sheep that were there with baseball bats? Did they have right to loot and riot?
[quote]This pretty much sums up this thread, and the post that started it. <hr></blockquote>
Why, thank you! I love being called stupid! What is truly funny is how people actually criticize people like me for thinking their nation is "the best". God forbid! I must be a facist! How dare I suggest that some of the totally failing nations on earth try democracy! How dare I suggest that some nations envy us for our money and power! What totally absurd suppositions! I also LOVE, truly and deeply, how people put words in my mouth. Somehow my post was perverted into my saying that "man, we kick ass....EVERYONE must want to live here among us truck drivin' country-western listenin', Bud drinkin' Americans"
Facts:
1. We have the srongest economy in the world. It isn't a boast or brag. But some nations resent it anyway.
2. We have the largest, richest middle class in the world. I never said we didn't have poor.
3. We have the strongest military in the world. Period.
My point is that I believe we have these things due to the system of government that we tried., I agree we have done some pretty underhanded things at times, and made mistakes. But we wouldn't be "where we are now" if it wasn't for our system of government. And yes, we practically DID invent it. Democracy in Greece was totally different. We were the first modern democracy.
My POINT, ONCE AGAIN, is that perhaps some of the nations that are poorer than dirt try modern democracy. I know many won't...not yet. And don't give me the line about Russia. The Soviets were in tough shape long before we started pummeling them in the cold war. Communism doesn't work as well as Democracy. Face it. Neither does military oppression and/or closed societies with no religious freedom. I never said "these nations want to be like us"....NEVER. What I AM saying is that there is no question the leaders of Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, China, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, etc....ALL either resent the US for its influence of envy it for its power.
One last point: The belief that we shouldn't "push our beliefs" of democracy on the rest of the world is a classic flaw in the liberal mindset. Democracy is a fundamental human right. Choice is a fundamental human right. Freedom of worship is a fundamental human right. To say "yes, but we shouldn't push our beliefs on them" is a perfect quote by someone who also doesn't believe in right or wrong, good and evil, etc. Democracy IS the way. And I will never apologize for thinking that every nation on earth should have a democratically elected government, accountable to the people. NEVER.
So how many think the US is a tyrant drunk on power and out to kill anyone in its path to, um, more power? How many think that is defines America, this is what America stands for? Please raise your hands.
SDW, democracy is great....I might even say its the 'best' . . .it is not the best for all situations at all times. There are places where instituted democracy would immediately bring in tyrany from the elected powers, such as in Algeria. There are also situations that are custom based where instituting an imposed democracy would erase a system where things have been done in a form that fits the cultural physiognomy of the poeple, and has done so for generations . . . .but perhaps you think that all systems that are NOT a US style democracy cannot actually be the choice of the people in that state: do you know the saying that "a people get the government they deserve"
I think that saying is a bit overstatement but it tells an essential truth and that is: that the form of governance mirrors the cultural expressions of a people .. . at least to some extent. And, with that said, not all countries are America and they don't want to be.
I agree that freedoms are right, but not everybody believes that what you call freedomn is what they call freedom. For instance: some people believe that they should be free not to starve. I don't define it this way... but many do. They wiegh the differences and, consequently have different expressions of what they think is best . . . . clearly in this situation they do not think America is the 'best'.
The Jehovas witness just knows that what he is telling everybody is the truth IS the truth... and that everybody who thinks otherwise believes in some secular form of "reletavism" or worse some evil satan inspired religion like Catholicism . . . he just KNOWS he is right and therefore his thinking is the "best" . . . . you might look at yourself and just entertain for a minute the scant possibility that your certainty is like the Jehovas witnesses' beliefs. Contrary to the idiotic belief in the self evidence of "principle" (which are good to have, but good to recognize as being a matter of intellegent application to changing circumstances) real maturity of thought and character come from an opennes to the multiplicity of life, a circumspect analysis of circumstances and then a judgement. And no judgement should be singularly certain . . . we are not god and do not know everything....
which brings me to this:
[quote]But there are a lot of things that shake down to the really simple, whether you choose to admit that or not.
One of the reasons that MY world-view is filled with simple choices is that principles are involved. One choice
violates my principles and the other does not -- simple. It's much easier to declare that decisions are too
complex and then never make them; no judgement and therefore no responsibility.
I'd argue that many topics come down to simple, binary choices if they're analyzed correctly. Would you want
to drive across a bridge built by someone who didn't understand the fundamental (read: simple) nature of
mechanics? (Simple: it stands OR it falls) Would you want a doctor who didn't understand the fundamentals
of his discipline? (Simple: you live OR you die). At any point in time, these individuals have to exercise
judgement and that depends upon simple choices. Let's hope those choices are made using and
understanding of principles.
It's amazing, maybe, but the smartest folks I've ever met, throughout my life, thought in terms of principles as
well. Most of them are very successful because of it.
<hr></blockquote>This really does a very simple thing, it exhibits the simplistic nature of your thinking. THere is not only one way to build a bridge. If there were we would still be walking across logs. ENgineers can devise many alternative bridges for any one river, taking into account any number of factors, including aesthetics, purpose, availability of materials, region ect ect. Likewise with medecine, there are alternative approaches to different illnesses, many times in fact what is treated is only the symptom because of the myopic vision of the physician, and, the single approach to an illness often results in long term problems for example, for years it was, "infection? lets throw antibiotics at it" this has shown itself to be a problematic approach who's problem has been excaserbated by the "principle" of "the miracle drugs, antibiotics"
I understand what would motivate you to embrace this stance, you probably feel so proud of yourself when you say to us how "principled " you are. You who understand the simple truths that ellude us, you probably look around at all of your stuff and say "it is mine....I will protect it" it is your "principle" to do so, you work for your living and look around and say, "my job, I worked hard to get here just as everybody could...except most are too lazy... it is because I am 'principled'" These are probably your "principles" silly little "decisions" that you made about jobs and objects.... how dare you say that others have not had to make real decisions.... I have had to make many LIFE and DEATH situations in my life and none of them were ever simple like your silly little simpleton's "principles"
There are times when it boils down to do or don't . . . and people can even have guiding ideas that would suggest weighing things in one direction or another (principles) however if the application of such a 'principle' negates consideration for what all of the realities of the other option are then the person utilizing those "principles" would be blinded by thier prejudice as well as being a simpleton.
All this, and more shows your attachement to principles is really an excuse for closed mindedness . . . but what really bothers me about your responce is the smug attitude that is in it (and which I know surrounds it) namely the puffed chest, righteousness that you always assume differentiates you from everybody else on these boards.... you are so correct and it is because you are"principled" like a flowing flag, a soaring eagle, a stocked gun case, a 4wheel drive . . . the reality is is that you are predictable and though you think that you are an individual all of your thoughts have been predefined by others and you don't even know it.... why don't you know it? because reflection is too complicated... and could make you stray from your "principles" and certainty . . . and on "principle" that would be a bad thing
You guys do realize that these other countries have an over abundance of news that bloats the American image into " everyone has a cadillac and lives in a penthouse suite. They can't help the propaganda. Just like the stuff over here that subtly suggests that we are better ( more right ) than everyone else.
We do generally have it better ( in some cases a lot better ) and they resent that. It's pretty much human nature. Why is that hard to see? If it was reversed we'd feel the same.
Actually, I to have always believed that any situation can be boiled down to it's elementary terms. Most things in the universe can be defined in very simple terms. Just ask any scientist or philosopher.
Like I've said before some people can't see the forest. They are too busy looking at the trees. Seeing the forest as a whole sometimes is the most important vantage.
Here it is made up of a very complex arrangement of trees. Looking at every single tree isn't nearly as important as taking in the whole. Considering the whole is much more simple also.
When you consider a person do you think of every last little cell that makes them up? Or do you consider the whole.
It's the same with the world's problems and differences. Only people with their prejudices and biased attitudes make them complex.
I'm hoping this metaphor hasn't gone " whoosh " over the top of many of your heads.
We are the big kid on the block. Sometimes we abuse that power. We aren't always right.
The U.S. is made up of imperfect human beings just like anywhere on this planet.
That might be a legitimate cause for resentment. But, I put it to you : Can you honestly say if Denmark or France or England or Mexico were in our place they would be any better at it? We are all imperfect. I just want some people who are under an illusion that we're perfect to realize it. Realizing it is the first step toward improvement.
Well I am sure I heard a flock of birds fly across my room.
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>
It's the same with the world's problems and differences. Only people with their prejudices and biased attitudes make them complex.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see things directly opposite. All this "evil" "good" "liberal" "conservative" "anti-semite" aso stuff make people say "well he only say that because he hates jews/is liberal/conservative/stupid/envyous/evil". By saying "the world is simple" you will tend to confirm the binary "conflict" that you already is biased to see the world through.
An example: People often say "Don´t try to rationalise evil or you are one of them" like when someone is trying to find a reason for people to blow themself and a bus up in Israel. It is very easy to say they are "evil" incarnated and/or the are victims of an evil religion and we should do nothing but condemn it. But if we do only that we miss the political strategic reasoning from Hamas, the experiences that makes young person strap on explosives and take their own lifes. Only by opening our eyes to the complexity of the situation we are (perhaps) able to find a solution to the problem.
(hope I cleared it up a bit <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> )
Comments
The National Post was founded by Conrad Black, a close affiliate of the British Conservative Party. However, Izzy Asper (head of CanWest Global) was the leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba in the early seventies. Though you probably know that he is exerting a strong pro-Israel bias on his papers and on Global (a terrible network; also the most profitable by 1997 figures), he is not associated with a right-wing party, and his newspapers will come to reflect that.
Ivan Fecan, President of CEO of Bell GlobeMedia, is also a Liberal party affiliate, I believe. I don't read the Globe and Mail or the National Post often, although what I've seen from the Globe and Mail doesn't support what you're saying about political leanings. Link to something that demonstrates what you mean, maybe. Both are rather snooty though.
[quote]The left is much further to the left and the right is closer to centrist American policies.<hr></blockquote>
Go Marxist-Leninist Party (or Marijuana Party)! <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]These are just ordinary citizens who are expressing their democratic right to protest.<hr></blockquote>
Genoa was a cesspool of idiocy. I'd vouch that 1% in every such protest has an idea of what they want accomplished. 90% want to stick it to the man and the rest want to hit things.
[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: Dead Member ]</p>
"which is silly to equate mainstream with anything left . . ..
in the eighties, the right moved the parameters of the debate so far to the right that what is now called liberal by the frothy mouthed masses was once considered squarely conservative . . ."
Just out of interest, can you give me an example of this? You are saying that in the 70s there were issues where the average American's viewpoint would be considered very liberal by today's standards.
I hate watching the Global/CFTO (CTV local in Toronto) newscasts. Both have incredibly slanted coverage - for example, I went down to a large Ontario Common Front rally on Oct. 16th, 2001 in an attempt to disrupt the financial district. The protest went well and it was non-violent and respectful but the coverage protrayed us all as a group of murderous, soul-less thugs.
I do agree with you about these large-scale anti-globalization protests. Not many people know exactly what is going on and 95% want to follow a non-violent, direct action route but the Black Bloc usually manages to show up and ruin the party... That still doesn't excuase the Italian government's action, however.
R.I.P. Carlo Giuliani
We all know there nations on earth, entire populations that hate the US. We can speculate that this is due to American dominance in economics, military, and culture to a certain extent.
We have the best economy and overall standard of living in the whole world.
Actually, Canada has the highest standard of living, I think the U.S. is in third, behing Norway?
... and as a result, we became the richest, most powerful nation in the world.
I don't really how you can describe a country with over 6 trillion in debt that escalates by a more then a million a day rich .... the fact that americans spend more on alcohal and tobacco then they do on education doesn't help the "nation of great wealth" either"
.... We have corruption and crime just like you do, but we're working on it.
I think Japan is about the only country among the G-8 with more corruption then the U.S. even still, they've never pulled an Enron.
Did we have states leaving the union and forming their own tribal militias? No.
Don't count Texas out just yet ...
You want to know why? Because with all its flaws, OUR SYSTEM OBVIOUSLY WORKS.
obviously
And now, after all we have been through, after we have defended nation after nation,
if you don't count the few you've accidently bombed.
You decide we are decadent, fat and lazy.
the fat part is actually fact. lazy is usually associated with fat, i'll let you off the decadent remark.
Never mind we saved your collective asses 11 years ago, from another mad man. Never mind that at all.
Who could it be who keeps arming all these mad men?
Why not try it out guys? How about laying off the US and trying what we did? You know what? We'll even help you set the whole thing up!!!
You mean like the number you did on the U.S.S.R.?
That country will be ****ed up for generations after democracy was forced upon them.
At first, I didn't realize that you were addressing "rogue" states .... buddy EVERYONE hates the states ... forget all of the above ... you pollute, are self-absorbed, and force your policies on everyone else .... but hey you sure can throw a party!
[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: the cool gut ]</p>
At first, I didn't realize that you were addressing "rogue" states .... buddy EVERYONE hates the states ... forget all of the above ... you pollute, are self-absorbed, and force your policies on everyone else .... but hey you sure can throw a party!
Then how about we stay home and let the world's problems work themselves out by themselves. Do you honestly think the world would be better off? Stop kidding yourself. For all our faults, the good far outweighs the bad and I bet a majority of world leaders would concur......................................
<strong>
Stop kidding yourself. For all our faults, the good far outweighs the bad and I bet a majority of world leaders would concur......................................</strong><hr></blockquote>
This isn't about if the world would be better off if the States didn't even exist .... although I doubt it would be a resounding no ... this is about the rest of the world hating the U.S. - which it does, like it or not, weither it's justified or not.
--edit: I'd like to add ... the "world" doesn't hate you guys like they want to kill you ... they just don't LIKE you. Although, if I can make an observation ... you actually CARING what the rest of the world thinks is VERY UN-american like.
[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: the cool gut ]</p>
[quote]...you seems to base all of your opinions of sterotypes and generalizations and when someone can prove you wrong you resort to personal attacks.<hr></blockquote>
This pretty much sums up this thread, and the post that started it. The sad part is that there are many informed, intelligent Americans... hell, some of the greatest minds in the world are American... but so few compared to the ignorant knee-jerks. They are whispers in a stadium of cheering idiots.
It is encouraging, however, to see sane people from around the world voicing the distinctly non-American POV on this board. Americans would do well to heed thier words, or at least consider them, if planes are to stop smashing into World Trade Centers and Pentagons.
<strong>I think it was pfflam who posted:
there are many informed, intelligent Americans... hell, some of the greatest minds in the world are American... but so few compared to the ignorant knee-jerks. They are whispers in a stadium of cheering idiots.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Same apply to most (let's say all) countries in the world : they are less informed intelligent peoples than jerks.
However the definition of a jerk and intelligent informed people is relative, and being intelligent and informed does not means automatically that you are not an idiot or a moron.
When i tested by the army during my 21, age where all french people are tested (or used to be, because our army is now a professional army), i discover the incredible number of people with a small level of education and intelligence.
Anyway when they vote, sometimes very humble guys can vote like me, and very clever and informed people can vote the opposite way. Intelligence and information are not the only key to make a good decision there is something that we call in France "le bon sens" who is important. I would traduct "le bon sens" the intuitive thought that bring you in the reality.
"<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_2023000/2023835.stm"; target="_blank">BBC about the new US government report about global warming</a>
A little snip:
[quote] "The report recommended various adaptation strategies, such as "changing planting dates and varieties to significantly offset economic losses and increase relative yields".
Pollution levels will be discussed at the Earth Summit this summer
It also concluded that global warming would probably wipe out certain fragile areas altogether.
"A few ecosystems, such as alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains and some barrier islands, are likely to disappear entirely," the report said. <hr></blockquote>
In other words: things will change but by adopting the loss will be minimal or can even be turned around and be an advantage. The crops will move north and new kinds of plants ill be introduced in the south.
Well thats all good for countries like US and Denmark but what about countries that just don´t can build dikes to keep the rising water away, where traditional crops can´t be used anymore (creating huge social change) aso. And this is just an example of how much other people are affected by the choices made in the west and give us a responsibility that the US government and coorporations refuses to take.
Standard of Living measurements are only meaningful if you assume that the formula used are actually reflective of quality of life. There are a variety of arguments about the methodology that I could put forth since I believe some of the formula(s) to be flawed, but that is mostly a pointless exercise since that inevitable would just become a discourse on what things are important and to what extent in life. And that is naturally an extremely esoteric subject.
I don't really how you can describe a country with over 6 trillion in debt that escalates by a more then a million a day rich .... the fact that americans spend more on alcohal and tobacco then they do on education doesn't help the "nation of great wealth" either"
Looking at National Debt in and of itself is pointless, it should be taken within the context of what % of GDP it constitutes. The US does have excessive debt thanks in particular to the Reagan/Rostonkowski years. However, much of that debt is owed to ourselves, 40% is owed to the Federal Reserve Bank/Federal Govt. and other portions are owed to entities like mutual funds, state govts etc in which US taxpayers have large stakes. Other states such as Germany and Sweden etc have issues with National Debt that are significant too. And while the US population is aging, other countries are undergoing even more significant aging which when accompanied with their population decreases will make them far more vulnerable on the debt issue than we are.
By most standards, the US's GDP, per capita income, % of population that are upper class, property owners etc the US ranks at or very close to the top, particularly when you throw out very small contries like Lichenstein. This isn't really even very disputable, you can criticize the US in many ways but to claim that the US is not whole on the mean is silly.
I would love to see credible stats which back your assertions on alcohol/tobacco and education.
I think Japan is about the only country among the G-8 with more corruption then the U.S. even still, they've never pulled an Enron.
Some evidence to support your first claim might be in order. Enron is just one company, one that was very large, but still just one company. Accounting shenanigans are certainly not exclusive to the U.S., and I have seen no evidence that they are more prevelant in the US.
if you don't count the few you've accidently bombed.
Yes, war is a perfect science. That is why we have never ever lost one of our own soldiers to friendly fire.
Who could it be who keeps arming all these mad men?
The US has some culpability for that. On the other hand, China, Russia and Iran have certainly done their fair share too. To pretend that madmen would not have weapons were it not for the US is silly.
You mean like the number you did on the U.S.S.R.?
That country will be ****ed up for generations after democracy was forced upon them.
That country will be ****ed up for generations, mostly because of what Russians have done to themselves. What has the US done to Russia that can even be compared to the actions of Stalin and friends, the impact of 70 years of communism, and the semi-medieval nature of much of Russia?
At first, I didn't realize that you were addressing "rogue" states .... buddy EVERYONE hates the states ... forget all of the above ... you pollute, are self-absorbed, and force your policies on everyone else .... but hey you sure can throw a party!
More generic criticisms without the thoughtful articulations of real arguments that would back up your positions. Come on, you are better education than us after all so this should be no problem.
The original post was idiotic to an extreme, so much so that I wouldn't even bother to respond to it. But these sorts of vague "I don't like the US" commentaries without the necessary support just wind up making you look ignorant too.
<strong>
Could you please explain to me why I am so?
See, I haven't resorted to personal attacks because I think we should be able to have a reasonable discussion like regular people. You, however, seem to attack me personally ant my opinions. You never actually gave me some solid evidence against my case - attacking me works just as well right?
You do not have a right to be discussing this sensitive topic since you seems to base all of your opinions of sterotypes and generalizations and when someone can prove you wrong you resort to personal attacks. So please, shut the FUC.K up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I called you hopeless because your totally unsubstantiated liberal wacko hatred of the IMF and World Bank is ridiculous. I love seeing people at these rallies demonstrating against captialism. Never mind that many protest groups have weekly meetings and FUNDRAISERS to RAISE CAPTIAL for their activities. HELLO?
AND, it is YOU who are basing your opinions on stereotypes and half-thruths. Show ME some solid evidence that the IMF and World Bank. as well as NAFTA hurt poor nations more than they help them. Since you are making the complaint, the burden of proof lies on YOU, not me.
I am open to possibility that the World Bank and IMF cause problems, but I'm not going to take your word for it. Your allegations of police brutality in this nation are also totally absurd.
You actually mean to tell me that THE POLICE caused riots in Seattle? I suppose it wasn't the liberal sheep that were there with baseball bats? Did they have right to loot and riot?
Give me a break.
[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
[quote]This pretty much sums up this thread, and the post that started it. <hr></blockquote>
Why, thank you! I love being called stupid! What is truly funny is how people actually criticize people like me for thinking their nation is "the best". God forbid! I must be a facist! How dare I suggest that some of the totally failing nations on earth try democracy! How dare I suggest that some nations envy us for our money and power! What totally absurd suppositions! I also LOVE, truly and deeply, how people put words in my mouth. Somehow my post was perverted into my saying that "man, we kick ass....EVERYONE must want to live here among us truck drivin' country-western listenin', Bud drinkin' Americans"
Facts:
1. We have the srongest economy in the world. It isn't a boast or brag. But some nations resent it anyway.
2. We have the largest, richest middle class in the world. I never said we didn't have poor.
3. We have the strongest military in the world. Period.
My point is that I believe we have these things due to the system of government that we tried., I agree we have done some pretty underhanded things at times, and made mistakes. But we wouldn't be "where we are now" if it wasn't for our system of government. And yes, we practically DID invent it. Democracy in Greece was totally different. We were the first modern democracy.
My POINT, ONCE AGAIN, is that perhaps some of the nations that are poorer than dirt try modern democracy. I know many won't...not yet. And don't give me the line about Russia. The Soviets were in tough shape long before we started pummeling them in the cold war. Communism doesn't work as well as Democracy. Face it. Neither does military oppression and/or closed societies with no religious freedom. I never said "these nations want to be like us"....NEVER. What I AM saying is that there is no question the leaders of Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, China, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, etc....ALL either resent the US for its influence of envy it for its power.
One last point: The belief that we shouldn't "push our beliefs" of democracy on the rest of the world is a classic flaw in the liberal mindset. Democracy is a fundamental human right. Choice is a fundamental human right. Freedom of worship is a fundamental human right. To say "yes, but we shouldn't push our beliefs on them" is a perfect quote by someone who also doesn't believe in right or wrong, good and evil, etc. Democracy IS the way. And I will never apologize for thinking that every nation on earth should have a democratically elected government, accountable to the people. NEVER.
I think that saying is a bit overstatement but it tells an essential truth and that is: that the form of governance mirrors the cultural expressions of a people .. . at least to some extent. And, with that said, not all countries are America and they don't want to be.
I agree that freedoms are right, but not everybody believes that what you call freedomn is what they call freedom. For instance: some people believe that they should be free not to starve. I don't define it this way... but many do. They wiegh the differences and, consequently have different expressions of what they think is best . . . . clearly in this situation they do not think America is the 'best'.
The Jehovas witness just knows that what he is telling everybody is the truth IS the truth... and that everybody who thinks otherwise believes in some secular form of "reletavism" or worse some evil satan inspired religion like Catholicism . . . he just KNOWS he is right and therefore his thinking is the "best" . . . . you might look at yourself and just entertain for a minute the scant possibility that your certainty is like the Jehovas witnesses' beliefs. Contrary to the idiotic belief in the self evidence of "principle" (which are good to have, but good to recognize as being a matter of intellegent application to changing circumstances) real maturity of thought and character come from an opennes to the multiplicity of life, a circumspect analysis of circumstances and then a judgement. And no judgement should be singularly certain . . . we are not god and do not know everything....
which brings me to this:
[quote]But there are a lot of things that shake down to the really simple, whether you choose to admit that or not.
One of the reasons that MY world-view is filled with simple choices is that principles are involved. One choice
violates my principles and the other does not -- simple. It's much easier to declare that decisions are too
complex and then never make them; no judgement and therefore no responsibility.
I'd argue that many topics come down to simple, binary choices if they're analyzed correctly. Would you want
to drive across a bridge built by someone who didn't understand the fundamental (read: simple) nature of
mechanics? (Simple: it stands OR it falls) Would you want a doctor who didn't understand the fundamentals
of his discipline? (Simple: you live OR you die). At any point in time, these individuals have to exercise
judgement and that depends upon simple choices. Let's hope those choices are made using and
understanding of principles.
It's amazing, maybe, but the smartest folks I've ever met, throughout my life, thought in terms of principles as
well. Most of them are very successful because of it.
<hr></blockquote>This really does a very simple thing, it exhibits the simplistic nature of your thinking. THere is not only one way to build a bridge. If there were we would still be walking across logs. ENgineers can devise many alternative bridges for any one river, taking into account any number of factors, including aesthetics, purpose, availability of materials, region ect ect. Likewise with medecine, there are alternative approaches to different illnesses, many times in fact what is treated is only the symptom because of the myopic vision of the physician, and, the single approach to an illness often results in long term problems for example, for years it was, "infection? lets throw antibiotics at it" this has shown itself to be a problematic approach who's problem has been excaserbated by the "principle" of "the miracle drugs, antibiotics"
I understand what would motivate you to embrace this stance, you probably feel so proud of yourself when you say to us how "principled " you are. You who understand the simple truths that ellude us, you probably look around at all of your stuff and say "it is mine....I will protect it" it is your "principle" to do so, you work for your living and look around and say, "my job, I worked hard to get here just as everybody could...except most are too lazy... it is because I am 'principled'" These are probably your "principles" silly little "decisions" that you made about jobs and objects.... how dare you say that others have not had to make real decisions.... I have had to make many LIFE and DEATH situations in my life and none of them were ever simple like your silly little simpleton's "principles"
There are times when it boils down to do or don't . . . and people can even have guiding ideas that would suggest weighing things in one direction or another (principles) however if the application of such a 'principle' negates consideration for what all of the realities of the other option are then the person utilizing those "principles" would be blinded by thier prejudice as well as being a simpleton.
All this, and more shows your attachement to principles is really an excuse for closed mindedness . . . but what really bothers me about your responce is the smug attitude that is in it (and which I know surrounds it) namely the puffed chest, righteousness that you always assume differentiates you from everybody else on these boards.... you are so correct and it is because you are"principled" like a flowing flag, a soaring eagle, a stocked gun case, a 4wheel drive . . . the reality is is that you are predictable and though you think that you are an individual all of your thoughts have been predefined by others and you don't even know it.... why don't you know it? because reflection is too complicated... and could make you stray from your "principles" and certainty . . . and on "principle" that would be a bad thing
[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
We do generally have it better ( in some cases a lot better ) and they resent that. It's pretty much human nature. Why is that hard to see? If it was reversed we'd feel the same.
[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Please try answer this: How many of you think there are other and more legitimate reasons than pure envy that people resent US for?
And why is it that people never react to my posts in threads like this? Am I in everybodies kill filter or something?
Like I've said before some people can't see the forest. They are too busy looking at the trees. Seeing the forest as a whole sometimes is the most important vantage.
Here it is made up of a very complex arrangement of trees. Looking at every single tree isn't nearly as important as taking in the whole. Considering the whole is much more simple also.
When you consider a person do you think of every last little cell that makes them up? Or do you consider the whole.
It's the same with the world's problems and differences. Only people with their prejudices and biased attitudes make them complex.
I'm hoping this metaphor hasn't gone " whoosh " over the top of many of your heads.
It depends on what you define as legitimate.
We are the big kid on the block. Sometimes we abuse that power. We aren't always right.
The U.S. is made up of imperfect human beings just like anywhere on this planet.
That might be a legitimate cause for resentment. But, I put it to you : Can you honestly say if Denmark or France or England or Mexico were in our place they would be any better at it? We are all imperfect. I just want some people who are under an illusion that we're perfect to realize it. Realizing it is the first step toward improvement.
[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>
It's the same with the world's problems and differences. Only people with their prejudices and biased attitudes make them complex.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see things directly opposite. All this "evil" "good" "liberal" "conservative" "anti-semite" aso stuff make people say "well he only say that because he hates jews/is liberal/conservative/stupid/envyous/evil". By saying "the world is simple" you will tend to confirm the binary "conflict" that you already is biased to see the world through.
An example: People often say "Don´t try to rationalise evil or you are one of them" like when someone is trying to find a reason for people to blow themself and a bus up in Israel. It is very easy to say they are "evil" incarnated and/or the are victims of an evil religion and we should do nothing but condemn it. But if we do only that we miss the political strategic reasoning from Hamas, the experiences that makes young person strap on explosives and take their own lifes. Only by opening our eyes to the complexity of the situation we are (perhaps) able to find a solution to the problem.
(hope I cleared it up a bit <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> )
[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: Anders ]</p>