# To All Of The Non-American SS.Org Folks...



## Josh Lawson (Aug 23, 2008)

Many people around the world hate the USA, this is a very unfortunate fact. Some might hate American policies but not the people. Where did we go wrong/right in your opinion? What should we do to be a better neighbor/partner/friend to other nations, (once again in your opinion)? I am going to bow out of this thread and respectfully ask all of my US countrymen to do the same. Americans shutting up, I'll believe it when I see it.......


----------



## Josh Lawson (Aug 23, 2008)

So no one cares........come on!


----------



## stuh84 (Aug 23, 2008)

Its not particularly the peoples fault, I just find the media and people in power lead the followers to believe VERY strange things, but this can happen anywhere, not just the US, it just seems to be more prevalent.

Once you've got rid of the preacher with a finger on the doomsday button hoping for the apocalypse in the White House, things will improve greatly.


----------



## Stitch (Aug 23, 2008)

Two words:

Kyoto Protocol.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 23, 2008)

Educate yourself. 
Shut down fox news.
Put bush in prison. 

That would help a lot.


----------



## Clydefrog (Aug 23, 2008)

Stitch said:


> Two words:
> 
> Kyoto Protocol.



Kyoto was a joke and everyone knows it.


----------



## Stitch (Aug 23, 2008)

So...what made it a joke, in your opinion?


----------



## Stitch (Aug 23, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> Educate yourself.
> Shut down fox news.
> Put bush in prison.
> 
> That would help a lot.



I'd go one step farther and actually say dissolve your senate and the rest of the governmental system and start again from the ground up. Ridiculous things like tax cuts for the rich (crazy...) need to stop. You're haemoraghing yourselves...


----------



## HaGGuS (Aug 23, 2008)

I love your country and its people.
I dislike your leader and his war on oil..err i mean terror. 

I hope that when elections are held, a new leader can repair the damage done by Bush.
And from my limited understanding of the candidates policies,McCain is not the guy.


----------



## dpm (Aug 23, 2008)

Oh wow... what a question 

The whole US political system needs a big rethink. Religion needs to be absolutely removed from politics. The legal bribery (aka 'donations') in politics needs to go. People with potential conflicting interests in the business world should not have political power. The US government needs to STFU about other peoples affairs for a while and take a long hard look at what's happening internally, because from here it looks pretty frightening. Public health, education and housing might be good places to start.

On a world scale I'd like to see some environmental responsibilty. Take the lead, cut emissions, and base your decisions on their true merits instead of how it's going to effect some precious lobby group or politician's business interests. Ethanol from corn?... etc....

On a personal level I take people as they come, and I've met a ton of Americans who are fantastic, particularly on this site. People are people regardless of their nationality, it's their attitudes and behaviour that matter.

All my , of course, and only a view from outside.


----------



## MorbidTravis (Aug 23, 2008)

HaGGuS said:


> I love your country and its people.
> I dislike your leader and his war on oil..err i mean terror.
> 
> I hope that when elections are held, a new leader can repair the damage done by Bush.
> And from my limited understanding of the candidates policies,McCain is not the guy.



its accually not a war until congress says it is, yet i still dont know why they dont just call it a war, and not a conflict.


----------



## forelander (Aug 23, 2008)

I had a lengthy response, but I think it'd piss people off and I'd end up neg rep'd. Suffice it to say, especially in terms of the media we see from America, there's a sense of arrogance. The world has a lot of problems and America doesn't seem to care, then it affects Americans and all of a sudden it's a world crisis that needs to be solved. As long as it doesn't change America's bank balance of course. That's the media and the people in power though, and this site has shown me Americans are a lot smarter, thoughtful, concerned and genuine than their media gives them credit for. 

There are also a lot of American tourists and students that come here, mostly due to our proximity to the reef. Generally, they're assholes, and think they're better than me, or any other dumb Aussie. Sometimes I swear they think we're just here to entertain them. I think the tourists with that attitude world over are probably a big part of the problem too.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

O and also, stop dipping your nose in other countries business, you need to fix your own backyard first, what's going on in new orleans and places like that is fucking horrible, and down right inhumane.


----------



## buffa d (Aug 24, 2008)

Stitch said:


> Two words:
> 
> Kyoto Protocol.



SWISHHH!!

That was a good one.

-Oh, invading other countries is always good rep for USA (team America, eh?)
-Dropping two nukes in Japan was also happy as hell.
-Issues concerning human rights. Guantanamo!

I'm not too happy that you're building the missile defense system in Poland.
The Russians are really taking it as a threat. Now they're arming their submarines with nuclear warheads.
Cold war, anyone?
...And I just happen to live in the neighbourhood.

Why do people hate your country?

I do like USA as a country. I have a lot of friends living there.
It's just that I don't agree with your governments politics.

Desecrated: I'm loving how straight forward you are.


----------



## Naren (Aug 24, 2008)

buffa d said:


> Why do people hate your country?
> 
> I do like USA as a country. I have a lot of friends living there.
> It's just that I don't agree with your governments politics.



Pretty much the same sentiments here. I'm an American citizen, but I don't live in the US (and haven't for almost 4 years now). I have a lot of American friends and I like the US as a country (all my relatives live in the US), but I don't like (or agree with) the US' politics.

To the original poster, yes, I'm an American citizen, but I think it'd be pretty pointless if I couldn't post in this thread.

Some of my friends find it ironic that I say more negative things about American tourists than anyone else. In GENERAL, I hate and despise them. They oftentimes act like they're superior to everyone else and think everyone in this country should speak English and bend to their every whim. This whole "Why doesn't anyone in this damn country speak English?" attitude pisses the fuck out of me (last time I checked, the official language of this country wasn't "English"). Of course, this isn't just Americans. Chinese tourist do the same thing, expecting everyone in the city and airports to speak Chinese and bend to their every whim (my girlfriend works at Narita airport).

Edit: And before anyone gets on my back and says "What? Do you expect them to learn the language of every country they go to?" I'm not complaining that they aren't fluent in the language. I'm complaining that they aren't even trying. They just expect everyone in the world to be able to speak fluent English and then get angry when they can't. I would cut them slack if they at least _tried_ to speak the language of the country - even if with just a phrase book (and slaughtered the pronunciation).


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Aug 24, 2008)

personaly i think alot of it has to do with the medias perception, portrayal of americans as being uneducated hicks  i know it is a horrible steriotype, and i dont beleive it, because i know how educated and generaly great bloke alot of americans are, but all we see on the news is bush making a complete cock of himself, trying to govern other countrys when he see fit, and showinging in search of a better words, complete political incompetence.
plus on the amasing race the people are always rude to the locals, that does not help


----------



## arktan (Aug 24, 2008)

First of all:
Someone who tells me that he hates the US as a country (the people and their way of life) is a dumbass IMO. 
Someone who hates the US as political entity (actual Government, Law-changes, military policy and so on) has a valid point.... and that is fucking sad.

And now why i hate the US as a political entity:
The US were the pioneers concerning Democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, modern civil liberties... to put it short: The US were a model of how an ideal country had and has to look like (and that was over 200 years ago !!!)
Our modern societies as we have them here on this planet are all inspired by that model or at least they have borrowed some parts of it.

Well, i said that i would explain the reason why i hate the US as a political entity and untill now it all sounded more or less positive... right?
I hate the US as political entity because the US of today have destroyed exactly those things i loved about them (a good example: The patriot act )

all in all this man summed it up pretty well even before it all happened:


this is one of the major problems of the US: Obviously nobody heard Eisenhower's words


----------



## playstopause (Aug 24, 2008)

forelander said:


> ... there's a sense of arrogance.



I could write 2 pages, and somehow, it could come down to this.



> ... this site has shown me Americans are a lot smarter, thoughtful, concerned and genuine than their media gives them credit for.



So TRUE. 
Some of the biggest american criticizers here... are americans.  That's mind-comforting. AND it shows you can't generalize. Anyway, there's pricks and good guys in any country, in every race. Hell, my front neighbor might be the biggest prick ever. That's not a exclusive U.S. thing. Americans just have more Hollywood-style "flash" to it. 

Yet, I think there's a lot of fascination / repulsion goin' on with the U.S.A.



> I think the tourists with that attitude world over are probably a big part of the problem too.



Very good point. Everywhere I went to in the world, even in my own town, when I hear people talking out loud on top of the others, like everyone should hear, disturbing others and acting like they don't give a flying fuck, in a self-absorbed attitude, taking too much place, it's always (and I mean _always_ as in 95% of the cases) americans. That sucks. 
I hate that "King of the world" vibe. And I know for a fact that it pisses off a lot of other people too. But then, that's it, I mean, it's not like there is something to do. Some hate frenchs too.  I know I do hate a couple of french guys from France (there is many here nowadays) ... So go figure. Human nature -->


----------



## Stitch (Aug 24, 2008)

This is fascinating. I agree with it all so far, but I'm amazed that it isn't just me - I thought I was just a very cynical person.


----------



## cev (Aug 24, 2008)

forelander said:


> there's a sense of arrogance.



Yes! If I have to hear one more American politician refer to the US as 'the greatest country in the world', I think I'm going to cry! Because that's really just another way of saying 'we're better than everyone else because we're America.'

I mean, everyone in Canada thinks we're the greatest country in the world, and I'm sure plenty of other countries do too, do we don't go around saying it out loud all the time!

Obviously this isn't directed at all Americans, or even most Americans, but you've got a significant minority out there that makes you all look like arrogant jackasses to everyone else.


----------



## Naren (Aug 24, 2008)

cev said:


> Yes! If I have to hear one more American politician refer to the US as 'the greatest country in the world', I think I'm going to cry! Because that's really just another way of saying 'we're better than everyone else because we're America.'
> 
> I mean, everyone in Canada thinks we're the greatest country in the world, and I'm sure plenty of other countries do too, do we don't go around saying it out loud all the time!
> 
> Obviously this isn't directed at all Americans, or even most Americans, but you've got a significant minority out there that makes you all look like arrogant jackasses to everyone else.



In the US, after criticizing some aspect about the states, people will oftentimes say, "But, even with that said, America is still the greatest country in the world." or "Even with those problems, there is no place in the world with a higher standard of living than the United States."

And I was the only person I have ever seen to dispute this. Most people are just like, "Yeah... I guess you're right." But I would always say disparaging remarks such as, "That is an entirely opinionated statement -- and quite ethnocentric might I add. To someone else, Sweden might be the greatest country in the world or South Korea might be the greatest country in the world. And, you seem to be misinformed if you think that the US has the highest standard of living in the world. Because it doesn't." And I would always give a lot of statistics that pretty much stopped every single person I've spoken to in their tracks. Some people have tried to argue, but they always get shut down by hard facts.

Of course, I always came off as a very unpatriotic person (still do, I guess) and I got a lot of flak for this attitude, since the US probably has more patriotic maniacs than any country in the world. 

It just annoys me that so many people throw that around as fact without actually thinking about whether it may be true or not. I even attacked my mom for saying something like that. She hasn't changed her mind, but she does look at it a little more objectively now that I had given her a more open-minded perspective regarding the issue.

Some Americans just have this image that the rest of the world is just so far behind the US and that even first world countries like Germany, Japan, and Australia are way behind the US. This mindset sickens me. It's a willing lack of knowledge. Because they are happier not to know the truth.


----------



## S-O (Aug 24, 2008)

While I am an american, I agree with just about everything that has been said.

We need to pull out (tee hee) of every country we have our shit in where it shouldn't be, take all the billions of dollars being spent on war, and put it into education. Education is where it all starts, if you schools are shitty, your people will be shitty. And fuck our "free" market. Tax the hell out of the rich folk just like you do the middle class, they have plenty of cash to throw away, they don't need an airplane that makes Airforce 1 look like a childs toy, yet they still get 4 of them. Sure it is their money, but that doesn't mean they can be stupid with it.

And lets help these homeless folk, we support lazy ass people that have been on welfare for 20 years, but not a guy who lost his job and house while his wife ran back to her mommy with the kids telling her 'you were so right about him'.

Call it communism, call it socialism, but fuck me in the nose if it isn't better than things now.

and, forgive me for butting in


----------



## Harray 18 (Aug 24, 2008)

The fact is, people love to hate Americans. 
This is probably as a result of media etc, however it has to be said that there is sufficient evidence to prove that Americans are not the most considerate or giving people in the world; with things like their C02 emmisions and general consumption of most things being proportionally more than other nations.
And yes, their arrogance towards other nations. 

I think it is obvious why the stereotypical view of an American is an arrogant, naive and overly patriotic redneck; because the one American which all the world knows, the main representative of America, is George Bush...


----------



## darren (Aug 24, 2008)

Some really good articles:

The Austin Chronicle: Columns: Letters at 3AM &#8211;.No. 1?
No concept lies more firmly embedded in our national character than the notion that the USA is "No. 1," "the greatest." Our broadcast media are, in essence, continuous advertisements for the brand name "America Is No. 1." Any office seeker saying otherwise would be committing political suicide. In fact, anyone saying otherwise will be labeled "un-American." We're an "empire," ain't we? Sure we are. An empire without a manufacturing base. An empire that must borrow $2 billion a day from its competitors in order to function. Yet the delusion is ineradicable. We're No. 1. Well ... this is the country you really live in...

The Austin Chronicle: Columns: Letters at 3AM &#8211; Slippage
Statistics on American education tell a dreadful story, the story of an advanced technological society slipping back to a state of ignorance and superstition.

The Austin Chronicle: Columns: Letters at 3AM &#8211; $4 a gallon
America is over. America is like Wile E. Coyote after he's run out a few paces past the edge of the cliff &#8211; he'll take a few more steps in midair before he looks down. Then, when he sees that there's nothing under him, he'll fall. Many Americans suspect that they're running on thin air, but they haven't looked down yet.


----------



## buffa d (Aug 24, 2008)

cev said:


> Yes! If I have to hear one more American politician refer to the US as 'the greatest country in the world', I think I'm going to cry! Because that's really just another way of saying 'we're better than everyone else because we're America.'
> 
> I mean, everyone in Canada thinks we're the greatest country in the world, and I'm sure plenty of other countries do too, do we don't go around saying it out loud all the time!
> 
> Obviously this isn't directed at all Americans, or even most Americans, but you've got a significant minority out there that makes you all look like arrogant jackasses to everyone else.



Good point!
BTW am I the only one who thinks that "god bless America" is an extremely cheesy punchline?
I believe someone already said that religion should be separated from politics. True! 

But since the American economy is getting worse and worse, It's making an even greater impact all over the world. 
-One of the great drawbacks in world economy.


----------



## Nick (Aug 24, 2008)

i lived in america and the people there imo, are without doubt, nicer than people here (i lived in small town america (Jeff County MO).

People there also have no clue about anything outside of america. One girl asked me to say something in my own language after being informed i was from Scotland in the UK.......

This gives the rest of the world the impression that the people are ignorant in that they dont put any value in learning about anything outside the USA. Another part of this is that there are a lot of americans who actually do think america is better than everywhere else haha!

anyway thats my what i think.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> Educate yourself.



 There's certainly something uneducated going on here, but it's not an American post.



> Shut down fox news.
> Put bush in prison.
> 
> That would help a lot.



I do agree here, however.



Desecrated said:


> O and also, stop dipping your nose in other countries business, you need to fix your own backyard first, what's going on in new orleans and places like that is fucking horrible, and down right inhumane.



It was fine all those other times where our soldiers died though, right? (Cough, WW2)

Or here?



> Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning



Wait, how about a slightly dated list (2005) of all the foreign aid we pass out?



> 1. Israel 2.58 Billion
> 2. Egypt 1.84 Billion
> 3. Afganistan 0.98 Billion
> 4. Pakistan 0.70 Billion
> ...





> Washington &#8212; The United States is the single largest donor of foreign economic aid, but, unlike many other developed nations, Americans prefer to donate their money through the private sector, according to a new report published by a Washington research organization.
> 
> Of the* $122.8 billion of foreign aid provided by Americans in 2005 * (the most current data available), $95.5 billion, or 79 percent, came from private foundations, corporations, voluntary organizations, universities, religious organizations and individuals, says the annual Index of Global Philanthropy.



Anyone who relies solely on the media for their impressions of ANY country has a lot of learning to do.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Naren said:


> And I would always give a lot of statistics that pretty much stopped every single person I've spoken to in their tracks. Some people have tried to argue, but they always get shut down by hard facts.



For every one-sided stat you throw out, there is a counterpoint of the US doing something good. Just because you can rattle off a bunch of anti-US factoids doesn't negate everything this nation has done.



> Of course, I always came off as a very unpatriotic person (still do, I guess) and I got a lot of flak for this attitude, since the US probably has more patriotic maniacs than any country in the world.



Supporting your country makes you a "patriotic maniac". Very nice. Do me a favor and change your citizenship.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Aug 24, 2008)

You know, it's only really the last 8 years or so that the world has started to wonder what the fuck is going on. I remember it started with the Kyoto protocol, which really was just a taste of things to come. The Iraq war, restriction of liberties, control of people through fear, but mostly it all seems to come down to the current administration walking over whoever they like, whether it be their own people (new orleans) or other nationalisties to get what they want.

It's really sad, i've spent a lot of time in the US, met some awesome people, and even gone on holiday there after spending a lot of time there previously. What ruins it is a short sighted foreign policy, politics that just seem corrupt pat my back I'll pat yours, waterboarding, torture, patriot act, and a general path towards isolation in general.

I think what pisses people off is when you get told by someone to be a certain way by someone who does not represent the ethics they are pushing. 

Not that I particularly like england either by the way...

I think it's a case of one administration dragging an entire country of peoples names through the dirt for the puspose of making themselves and their buddies richer.

I have nothing against americans, I know a load, get on well with them, they're fun to hang with, but on the world stage the people representing them really are doing a terrible job.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

7 Dying Trees said:


> I think it's a case of one administration dragging an entire country of peoples names through the dirt for the puspose of making themselves and their buddies richer.
> 
> I have nothing against americans, I know a load, get on well with them, they're fun to hang with, but on the world stage the people representing them really are doing a terrible job.



This hits the nail on the head. I am hopeful that it will change once GW is long gone.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

And regarding the patriot act:



> The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is a danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."



"That is what Justice Robert H. Jackson said in his dissent in a free-speech case in 1949 when, according to Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia, "the majority opinion, by Justice William O. Douglas, overturned the disorderly conduct conviction of a priest whose anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi rantings at a rally had incited a riot. The court held that Chicago's breach-of-the-peace ordinance violated the First Amendment."


----------



## kristallin (Aug 24, 2008)

Naren said:


> Pretty much the same sentiments here. I'm an American citizen, but I don't live in the US (and haven't for almost 4 years now). I have a lot of American friends and I like the US as a country (all my relatives live in the US), but I don't like (or agree with) the US' politics.
> 
> To the original poster, yes, I'm an American citizen, but I think it'd be pretty pointless if I couldn't post in this thread.
> 
> ...



Preach on, brother. As a non-US citizen living in the US I've seen Americans both abroad and at home, and when it comes to tourists, buy a fucking phrase book. People will at least appreciate the effort and are glad to help out, but damn it, make the effort.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Harray 18 said:


> I think it is obvious why the stereotypical view of an American is an arrogant, naive and overly patriotic redneck; because the one American which all the world knows, the main representative of America, is George Bush...



Agree 100%.

However I find nothing wrong with being overly Patriotic as long as a person is willing to equally decry their governments wrongdoings and celebrate their triumphs.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Naren said:


> Some of my friends find it ironic that I say more negative things about American tourists than anyone else. In GENERAL, I hate and despise them. They oftentimes act like they're superior to everyone else and think everyone in this country should speak English and bend to their every whim. This whole "Why doesn't anyone in this damn country speak English?" attitude pisses the fuck out of me (last time I checked, the official language of this country wasn't "English"). Of course, this isn't just Americans. Chinese tourist do the same thing, expecting everyone in the city and airports to speak Chinese and bend to their every whim (my girlfriend works at Narita airport).
> 
> Edit: And before anyone gets on my back and says "What? Do you expect them to learn the language of every country they go to?" I'm not complaining that they aren't fluent in the language. I'm complaining that they aren't even trying. They just expect everyone in the world to be able to speak fluent English and then get angry when they can't. I would cut them slack if they at least _tried_ to speak the language of the country - even if with just a phrase book (and slaughtered the pronunciation).



Your job is to be bilingual, so it's easy for you to hop on a pedestal and say "well I do it, everyone else should too". If I took the same viewpoint as you're preaching here, then you should learn to engineer everything that you use that's designed by someone like me. While you're at it, learn to grow the food you eat that the farmers provide you, generate your own electricity that the engineers at the power plant churn out for you, and take up plumbing, because that showerhead you stood under this morning doesn't magically generate water.


----------



## Metal Ken (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> Your job is to be bilingual, so it's easy for you to hop on a pedestal and say "well I do it, everyone else should too". If I took the same viewpoint as you're preaching here, then you should learn to engineer everything that you use that's designed by someone like me. While you're at it, learn to grow the food you eat that the farmers provide you, generate your own electricity that the engineers at the power plant churn out for you, and take up plumbing, because that showerhead you stood under this morning doesn't magically generate water.



well, look at it this way - Just about everyone in europe is bi/tri-lingual, as a product of the education system. its not a matter of being a 'job'. I've always thought bilingual education in this country is kind of a joke compared to say, sweden or something.


----------



## Brendan G (Aug 24, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> well, look at it this way - Just about everyone in europe is bi/tri-lingual, as a product of the education system. its not a matter of being a 'job'. I've always thought bilingual education in this country is kind of a joke compared to say, sweden or something.


However, there are many opportunities for one in Europe to speak another language, as there are a lot of languages and cultures in Europe.For the US pretty much the only other language that is spoken by a lot of the residents is Spanish, however a lot of people resent a lot of the native Spanish speakers' presence here (why is a purpose for another thread). And even though there is a province in Canada that speaks French I haven't heard anyone around here whose main language is French.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> well, look at it this way - Just about everyone in europe is bi/tri-lingual, as a product of the education system. its not a matter of being a 'job'. I've always thought bilingual education in this country is kind of a joke compared to say, sweden or something.



Good for them. I don't care to speak another language, so I don't. That's not a fault of mine, just as not knowing calculus isn't a fault of Naren's. The point is that it's just another baseless "point" to bring up to try and knock American people.


----------



## Lucky Seven (Aug 24, 2008)

Goddamn! Chris, everything you've said in this thread is exactly what I've been thinking as I read it!


----------



## stuh84 (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> Good for them. I don't care to speak another language, so I don't. That's not a fault of mine, just as not knowing calculus isn't a fault of Naren's. The point is that it's just another baseless "point" to bring up to try and knock American people.



I don't think Naren was saying you should learn a language to be able to visit another country, the point is that some people expect every person they talk to in another country to speak their language, and then get pissy when they don't (this last part being the operative part of the point). 

Its not restricted to Americans though, half of the population of the UK is like it too, they think the cure to people not understanding what they are saying when in a foreign country is just to talk twice as loud....


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

I think it's easy to see why europeans think that americans are arrogant when we believe that learning another language is a benefit and you see it as pointless.


----------



## Brendan G (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> I think it's easy to see why europeans think that americans are arrogant when we believe that learning another language is a benefit and you see it as pointless.


Obviously there is more of a benefit to learn many languages if you live in Europe as there are a lot of countries that speak different languages near each other. I am aware there is are large populations near the US that speak Spanish and French but as I said earlier I haven't seen/heard of anyone that currently resides in the US whose main language is French, and many people in the US resent a lot of the native Spanish speakers.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> I think it's easy to see why europeans think that americans are arrogant when we believe that learning another language is a benefit and you see it as pointless.



I think it's easy to see that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about because I didn't say anything even remotely close to that. Does that make it easy to see that all Europeans will invent reasons to justify their anti-American sentiment?

No. It just means that *you* are full of shit.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

stuh84 said:


> I don't think Naren was saying you should learn a language to be able to visit another country, the point is that some people expect every person they talk to in another country to speak their language, and then get pissy when they don't (this last part being the operative part of the point).
> 
> Its not restricted to Americans though, half of the population of the UK is like it too, they think the cure to people not understanding what they are saying when in a foreign country is just to talk twice as loud....



Tourists will be tourists. Lots of foreign people visit this country, and LIVE in this country, and don't speak English. Does that make these arrogant, ignorant societies? According to Desecrated, it does.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Brendan G said:


> Obviously there is more of a benefit to learn many languages if you live in Europe as there are a lot of countries that speak different languages near each other. I am aware there is are large populations near the US that speak Spanish and French but as I said earlier I haven't seen/heard of anyone that currently resides in the US whose main language is French, and many people in the US resent a lot of the native Spanish speakers.



I still think this is wrong, I really don't think it matters where you live, if you don't want to you can go you're entire life without speaking another language, most european countries isn't more exposed to other cultures then usa and canada, it's just that we approach it and seek it out more then you do. 

Also you can learn a language for many reason, one is for reading and watching movies from other culture in the original language, appreciation of art and culture is something everyone can do, I speak at least 2 languages which I've never spoken to another person with (longer conversations) nor met anybody that speaks it in my daily life. But I can still enjoy it.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> I think it's easy to see that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about because I didn't say anything even remotely close to that. Does that make it easy to see that all Europeans will invent reasons to justify their anti-American sentiment?
> 
> No. It just means that *you* are full of shit.



It's the attitude given in both this thread and in others, that most americans don't think that they are responsible for what their government do or how the world views you. Some people said in the other thread that it was pointless to learn spanish and so on, I don't remember writing your name to my post. 

The fact that you need to attack me personally is just ridiculous.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> Tourists will be tourists. Lots of foreign people visit this country, and LIVE in this country, and don't speak English. Does that make these arrogant, ignorant societies? According to Desecrated, it does.



There are some cultures that stereotypically won't learn english for some reasons, I have no idea why and yes I thing it is somewhat arrogant and ignorant to live in america or any other country and not learn the language.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> I still think this is wrong, I really don't think it matters where you live, if you don't want to you can go you're entire life without speaking another language, most european countries isn't more exposed to other cultures then usa and canada, it's just that we approach it and seek it out more then you do.
> 
> Also you can learn a language for many reason, one is for reading and watching movies from other culture in the original language, appreciation of art and culture is something everyone can do, I speak at least 2 languages which I've never spoken to another person with (longer conversations) nor met anybody that speaks it in my daily life. But I can still enjoy it.



What the hell does this have to do with America, again? I can solve advanced calculus problems and change the motor in my car. All of these things are skills, and none of them make one culture any more or less arrogant, ignorant or otherwise.

It's awesome that you can speak two languages. You also work at an Oxygen bar, a job that highschool kids do here at airports for minimum wage.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> There are some cultures that stereotypically won't learn english for some reasons, I have no idea why and yes I thing it is somewhat arrogant and ignorant to live in america or any other country and not learn the language.



So if someone comes here from, say, Japan, and develops a cure for cancer while never learning to speak English, he is arrogant and ignorant?


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> It's the attitude given in both this thread and in others, that most americans don't think that they are responsible for what their government do or how the world views you. Some people said in the other thread that it was pointless to learn spanish and so on, I don't remember writing your name to my post.
> 
> The fact that you need to attack me personally is just ridiculous.



If you're going to make blanket statments I am going to call you out on them asking for proof. Please do link some examples of people here demonstrating a belief that we aren't responsible for our government, and that learning other languages is pointless.

If you're going to chime in on a thread shitting on the country that I live in, I am going to defend it, and half-typed blanket statements with nothing to back them up aren't going to be well recieved. If I made a thread shitting on your country, you'd be apt to expect the same.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Brendan G said:


> Obviously there is more of a benefit to learn many languages if you live in Europe as there are a lot of countries that speak different languages near each other. I am aware there is are large populations near the US that speak Spanish and French but as I said earlier I haven't seen/heard of anyone that currently resides in the US whose main language is French, and many people in the US resent a lot of the native Spanish speakers.



There's no benefit to *not* learning another language if you can, absolutely. The point I'm getting at is that it doesn't make a person (regardless of their background) ignorant if they choose not to.


----------



## dpm (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> So if someone comes here from, say, Japan, and develops a cure for cancer while never learning to speak English, he is arrogant and ignorant?



Frankly, if he or she makes no attempt to learn the basics, yes, this is a fairly arrogant thing to do. One can achieve great things for humanity and still be a prick.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> What the hell does this have to do with America, again? I can solve advanced calculus problems and change the motor in my car. All of these things are skills, and none of them make one culture any more or less arrogant, ignorant or otherwise.
> 
> It's awesome that you can speak two languages. You also work at an Oxygen bar, a job that highschool kids do here at airports for minimum wage.



you do know that the oxygen bar is a joke right ?


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> So if someone comes here from, say, Japan, and develops a cure for cancer while never learning to speak English, he is arrogant and ignorant?



Well, what you just proved is that there is different forms of ignorance and arrogance  

I know many people who are extremely clever but extremely rude and brute.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

dpm said:


> Frankly, if he or she makes no attempt to learn the basics, yes.



On what grounds? Again, I am not saying that it's a bad idea, or anything even remotely close to that. If someone lives, and works, with people who speak the same language and can get things done without learning the native language of where they're currently living, why fault them? 

Would I try and pick up a second language if I lived somewhere else? Sure. Would I knock someone else who didn't if it didn't hinder their ability to get things done? No.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> Well, what you just proved is that there is different forms of ignorance and arrogance



So which designation are you making when you say this?



you said:


> I think it's easy to see why europeans think that americans are arrogant





> I know many people who are extremely clever but extremely rude and brute.



Just because someone's telling you what you don't want to hear doesn't make it rude.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

dpm said:


> Frankly, if he or she makes no attempt to learn the basics, yes, this is a fairly arrogant thing to do. One can achieve great things for humanity and still be a prick.



I don't know what your homelife is man, but at least in my case I work 50 hours a week at the office, another 3-4 hours a night when I'm home and when I actually do get free time I try to spend it with my family and friends and relax. Jumping to the conclusion that someone's a prick because they don't speak the native language of where they live is (imo, of course) short sighted. There are a million reasons that said person might not be able to pick it up, and the biggest is most likely just time.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> If you're going to make blanket statments I am going to call you out on them asking for proof. Please do link some examples of people here demonstrating a belief that we aren't responsible for our government, and that learning other languages is pointless.
> 
> If you're going to chime in on a thread shitting on the country that I live in, I am going to defend it, and half-typed blanket statements with nothing to back them up aren't going to be well recieved. If I made a thread shitting on your country, you'd be apt to expect the same.



I've made several threads shitting on my own country, if you can think of one good thing to say about sweden I will gladly debate it, because I can't think of one. 

Links/quotes: 



Lucky Seven said:


> Learning another language displaces other things in school, if you ask me, the other stuff is more important. I mean, it's a nice idea, I just don't think it would work.





The Dark Wolf said:


> We've never had the social pressure to have to learn another language.





The Dark Wolf said:


> Y
> 
> We haven't needed to, and still, in many ways, don't need to.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> There's no benefit to *not* learning another language if you can, absolutely. The point I'm getting at is that it doesn't make a person (regardless of their background) ignorant if they choose not to.



What I meant in the post I made, is that it is easy to see why some europeans might think so when we think so differently about language.


----------



## dpm (Aug 24, 2008)

Well, with the possible exception of military bases, I very much doubt a person can live in a foriegn country without having to interact with the local population in some way. Apart from the practical element, if this person is making use of facilities provided by the US, then in my view it's as much a show of respect than anything else.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> Just because someone's telling you what you don't want to hear doesn't make it rude.



Once again, your taking it personal, I'm not talking about you right now, I'm talking about people in general that might be a fucking doctor but still cuts in the food line, harbor racists ideology and beats their wife.


----------



## Brendan G (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> I still think this is wrong, I really don't think it matters where you live, if you don't want to you can go you're entire life without speaking another language, most european countries isn't more exposed to other cultures then usa and canada, it's just that we approach it and seek it out more then you do.
> 
> Also you can learn a language for many reason, one is for reading and watching movies from other culture in the original language, appreciation of art and culture is something everyone can do, I speak at least 2 languages which I've never spoken to another person with (longer conversations) nor met anybody that speaks it in my daily life. But I can still enjoy it.


What I'm trying to say is learning a language for Americans isn't really applicable. When it really comes down to it if you can't apply it to your everyday life, learning a new language isn't more or less valid than learning anything else whether it be related to math, science, music etc.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> I don't know what your homelife is man, but at least in my case I work 50 hours a week at the office, another 3-4 hours a night when I'm home and when I actually do get free time I try to spend it with my family and friends and relax. Jumping to the conclusion that someone's a prick because they don't speak the native language of where they live is (imo, of course) short sighted. There are a million reasons that said person might not be able to pick it up, and the biggest is most likely just time.



It's definitely hard to learn a new language as an adult, but as we talk about in the last thread, your education system isen't exactly trying to help the kids be bilingual and as somebody pointed out, a lot of americans don't even think that this should be done, or that the education system as it is today should be burden with another subject to fail in


----------



## Brendan G (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> your education system isen't exactly trying to help the kids be bilingual


Actually in my school, taking two semesters of a foreign language is required.


----------



## dpm (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> I don't know what your homelife is man, but at least in my case I work 50 hours a week at the office, another 3-4 hours a night when I'm home and when I actually do get free time I try to spend it with my family and friends and relax. Jumping to the conclusion that someone's a prick because they don't speak the native language of where they live is (imo, of course) short sighted. There are a million reasons that said person might not be able to pick it up, and the biggest is most likely just time.



I work pretty much non-stop, and have a family. Speaking of work, I have to go there now.

I'm not talking about becoming fluent in a language. Not learning the basics of communication _by choice_ is arrogant. Even if this person works their tits off, they'll still need to buy food, use transportation, etc.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Brendan G said:


> What I'm trying to say is learning a language for Americans isn't really applicable. When it really comes down to it if you can't apply it to your everyday life, learning a new language isn't more or less valid than learning anything else whether it be related to math, science, music etc.



You don't think music is a valid thing ? 
You don't think learning language, math, science, music can be good for the individual ? 
And that a land of good individuals would be better then a majority of nascar fans ? 

 

(extreme generalization above, read with caution)


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Brendan G said:


> Actually in my school, taking two semesters of a foreign language is required.



That's great, I think another member of this board had the same, while some others barely had english on their schedule. 
On of the problem with america is that you don't have a uniform system for all schools across the country,. 
This also makes us european coming off as extra prejudiced :/


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Brendan G said:


> What I'm trying to say is learning a language for Americans isn't really applicable. When it really comes down to it if you can't apply it to your everyday life, learning a new language isn't more or less valid than learning anything else whether it be related to math, science, music etc.




This.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Brendan G said:


> Actually in my school, taking two semesters of a foreign language is required.



That's the same in most American cities. I had Spanish and French in high school.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> You don't think music is a valid thing ?
> You don't think learning language, math, science, music can be good for the individual ?
> And that a land of good individuals would be better then a majority of nascar fans ?
> 
> ...



What he's saying, and the point that you're completely missing, is that they are ALL valid.


----------



## Brendan G (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> You don't think music is a valid thing ?
> You don't think learning language, math, science, music can be good for the individual ?
> And that a land of good individuals would be better then a majority of nascar fans ?
> 
> ...


Your misread what I said, what I meant was, let's just say you live in Japan, and you decide to learn Portuguese for example, it's not really practical to use that in your average life, so essentially you're learning it just to learn it, which makes it just as valid as learning something about music, math, science. I agree learning all of those subjects can benefit an individual. You just seem to imply that learning another language is one of or the most important subject. That may not be what you mean but that's just how I see it.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

dpm said:


> Well, with the possible exception of military bases, I very much doubt a person can live in a foriegn country without having to interact with the local population in some way. Apart from the practical element, if this person is making use of facilities provided by the US, then in my view it's as much a show of respect than anything else.



This whole debate was brought up based on tourist, and Naren's assumption that any tourist who visits a foreign country without brushing up on that place's native tongue is ignorant. My example was an extreme overgeneralization.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> What he's saying, and the point that you're completely missing, is that they are ALL valid.



Sorry I read it as if none of them was valid.


----------



## Shannon (Aug 24, 2008)

On the subject of learning the primary language of a country....

I am married to a native Mexican. She came to the USA about 8 years ago & didn't know a single word of English. Yes, she knew this country is the land of opportunity. Now although she didn't have to learn the language, she chose to. Why? Because, it's an English speaking country. Is English hard to learn? Yes. Why? Because, English is a "mutt" language that's a melting pot of many other languages combined. Honestly, a lot of the rules of English make no sense because all depends on what you're saying, the intended meanings & the origins of said word, phrase, etc. 

Anyway, the point is that she knew that is way the right thing to do. She started learning English by doing the following....
1) Watching television (listening to the English dialogue with Spanish subtitles so she could make the connection to the various words, phrases, etc)
2) She would talk to everyone she could find & tell them "If I say something wrong, tell me the right way to say it."

It was a very concious effort. We are currently going through the immigration process to make her a full fledged citizen. All in all, she made her home in the USA & therefore, she's learning to be an American. This includes speaking the language of this country. Personally, I find it very admirable. 

I look at it this way. The USA has a lot to offer everybody because it really is the land of opportunity. It's a young country that has a little bit of every race, creed & color. I think it's wonderful that you can experience so many diverse cultures in your own backyard. However, if you are going to live here, learn to speak the dominant language. If I had chosen to leave the USA & move to Japan, I better know some Japanese. Otherwise, I'm really hindering myself. The same applies to those immigrating to the USA.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> I've made several threads shitting on my own country, if you can think of one good thing to say about sweden I will gladly debate it, because I can't think of one.
> 
> Links/quotes:



Those posts are, for the most part, correct too. They're from people who live in America who speak English saying that they haven't had a need to learn a second language.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Brendan G said:


> Your misread what I said, what I meant was, let's just say you live in Japan, and you decide to learn Portuguese for example, it's not really practical to use that in your average life, so essentially you're learning it just to learn it, which makes it just as valid as learning something about music, math, science. I agree learning all of those subjects can benefit an individual. You just seem to imply that learning another language is one of or the most important subject. That may not be what you mean but that's just how I see it.



I think you can learn more from learning a language then learning advanced dynamics. when you break through the language barrier into another culture there is so much more to benefit then just the simple language of knowing it. 
If you learn Portuguese you can also learn Portuguese music, art, culture, poetry, movies, food, history and so on. Advanced dynamic will kinda limit you to, advanced dynamics


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> Those posts are, for the most part, correct too. They're from people who live in America who speak English saying that they haven't had a need to learn a second language.



And that is exactly the kind of attitude that europeans often think of as arrogant.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> That's great, I think another member of this board had the same, while some others barely had english on their schedule.
> On of the problem with america is that you don't have a uniform system for all schools across the country,.
> This also makes us european coming off as extra prejudiced :/



There's also the quality of schooling in America that is a problem. Affluent cities and towns have better teachers, and as a result, better curriculum. People living in "the ghetto" (for lack of a better word) aren't going to get the same education as people living in white collar communities because, plain and simple, the better teachers (and school officials) are not going to want to live and work there. Additionally, the funding for the school itself in a "bad" town is a lot less than a neighborhood like mine. So you have a poorly maintained facility staffed by low-paid teachers with a majority student base from financially burdened backgrounds.

I'm lucky. My family has always been financially comfortable and I live in a nice little town with a good school system. Now, compare me with someone living in an apartment in a bad town with a single parent who's an alcoholic. Some might say that we have the same opportunities, but that person is going to have to work a LOT harder than I will just to overcome the poor quality of education available to them.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> There's also the quality of schooling in America that is a problem. Affluent cities and towns have better teachers, and as a result, better curriculum. People living in "the ghetto" (for lack of a better word) aren't going to get the same education as people living in white collar communities because, plain and simple, the better teachers (and school officials) are not going to want to live and work there. Additionally, the funding for the school itself in a "bad" town is a lot less than a neighborhood like mine. So you have a poorly maintained facility staffed by low-paid teachers with a majority student base from financially burdened backgrounds.
> 
> I'm lucky. My family has always been financially comfortable and I live in a nice little town with a good school system. Now, compare me with someone living in an apartment in a bad town with a single parent who's an alcoholic. Some might say that we have the same opportunities, but that person is going to have to work a LOT harder than I will just to overcome the poor quality of education available to them.



America needs a uniform tax system, everyone pays as much as the other, and every schools gets just as much as the other.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> And that is exactly the kind of attitude that europeans often think of as arrogant.



And again, what I'm asking you to answer, is this:

If I live in America, and in 32 years I have never, ever, needed to speak a second language to anyone, nor do I intend to live abroad, move anywhere else, or in any way put myself in a position to be surrounded by a culture that doesn't speak English, why, then, am I arrogant if I choose to spend my energies elsewhere?

Case in point: In my spare time I'm learning to code Java. This will help me both from a hobbyist (this site) standpoint and from a job perspective (I write code for a living). I could just as easily use that time to learn Spanish, but instead I am spending it on something that is *relevant to my way of life*. I don't go anywhere that's Spanish speaking, I don't know any Spanish-speaking people and I don't plan to visit any Spanish-speaking countries.

Why is that arrogant?


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> America needs a uniform tax system, everyone pays as much as the other, and every schools gets just as much as the other.



That's called Communism.

If I work hard and make more money than someone else, I should have the option of spending the money that I work for to buy a better education for myself and my future kids than someone who is lazy and flips burgers. You can't equalize the tax system without doing the same for people's salaries. If everyone makes the same amount, who'd want to be a doctor when you do something much easier and still be paid the same?

What is the incentive to work hard if the "reward" is the same for those who don't?


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Shannon said:


> 2) She would talk to everyone she could find & tell them "If I say something wrong, tell me the right way to say it."



This method is extremely effective. 
I've also found that using spell check when typing on the internet helps a lot.


----------



## Brendan G (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> I think you can learn more from learning a language then learning advanced dynamics. when you break through the language barrier into another culture there is so much more to benefit then just the simple language of knowing it.
> If you learn Portuguese you can also learn Portuguese music, art, culture, poetry, movies, food, history and so on. Advanced dynamic will kinda limit you to, advanced dynamics


Let's just say you're job for example requires you to learn advanced dynamics, you can make a living out of it, yes I realize you can get a job learning a different language. Also with advanced dynamics or some kind of advanced math or physics you can see how many things work or with dynamics how things work under certain conditions. You don't have to learn Portuguese to be exposed to Portuguese music, art, culture, food, or history, you can read a book in your native language about those subjects. You would however need to learn Portuguese to understand poetry and movies.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> That's called Communism.
> 
> If I work hard and make more money than someone else, I should have the option of spending the money that I work for to buy a better education for myself and my future kids than someone who is lazy and flips burgers.
> 
> What is the incentive to work hard if the "reward" is the same for those who don't?



We call it social-democracy  

People should still have some pride in doing a good job even if they don't always get a reward. And the majority of sweds fell that sharing and contributing to our society is a reward in it self. 
solidarity>personal gain. 

And some americans will probably not agree and some europeans will think that they are arrogant and selfish, and on we go again


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> We call it social-democracy
> 
> People should still have some pride in doing a good job even if they don't always get a reward. And the majority of sweds fell that sharing and contributing to our society is a reward in it self.
> solidarity>personal gain.
> ...



Are you actually trying to say that everyone in Sweden makes the same amount of money and has the same quality of life? So your garbage man high-fives a brain surgeon on his way to work and says "Rock on dude, we both support the community!"?

Sometimes the things that come out of your mouth astound me dude.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Brendan G said:


> Let's just say you're job for example requires you to learn advanced dynamics, you can make a living out of it, yes I realize you can get a job learning a different language. Also with advanced dynamics or some kind of advanced math or physics you can see how many things work or with dynamics how things work under certain conditions. You don't have to learn Portuguese to be exposed to Portuguese music, art, culture, food, or history, you can read a book in your native language. You would however need to learn Portuguese to understand poetry and movies.



I really really don't think you can penetrate the culture of another country without learning the language, listening to american music would be pretty pointless if I can't understand the lyrics, and trust me, you do not want to read a book in your native language if it's written on another language, I tried reading Allen poe in swedish and ended up crying in laughter. Not the reaction he would have wanted. 

Food on the other hand is pretty universal, but it helps to know the language, sometimes you name berries and vegetable after their characters, and it's fun to understand how different cultures approach the same berry.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> Are you actually trying to say that everyone in Sweden makes the same amount of money and has the same quality of life? So your garbage man high-fives a brain surgeon on his way to work and says "Rock on dude, we both support the community!"?
> 
> Sometimes the things that come out of your mouth astound me dude.



No but they pay the same amount of tax and in the end the difference salary between a garbage man and a surgeon is something like 500 dollars per month. 
And yes the doctor will appreciate the garbage man, but sweds are often shy so they will probably pass each others looking down in the ground and mumble a hi before walking away quickly.

Sometimes they way you interpreter the things I write amazes me.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> No but they pay the same amount of tax and in the end the difference salary between a garbage man and a surgeon is something like 500 dollars per month.



Not according to this:

Average monthly salary by occupational group - Statistics Sweden

*Average monthly salary and salary dispersion, county council sector*
Medical Doctors, men: 55,000
Cooks, men: 18,400
"Helpers and cleaners in offices, hotels and other establishments", men: 17500



> Sometimes they way you interpreter the things I write amazes me.



Let me know if I'm interpreting you saying "the difference salary between a garbage man and a surgeon is something like 500 dollars per month" incorrectly based on the above, because "helper and cleaner" makes less than 1/3 the average salary of "medical doctor".


----------



## Brendan G (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> I really really don't think you can penetrate the culture of another country without learning the language, listening to american music would be pretty pointless if I can't understand the lyrics, and trust me, you do not want to read a book in your native language if it's written on another language, I tried reading Allen poe in swedish and ended up crying in laughter. Not the reaction he would have wanted.
> 
> Food on the other hand is pretty universal, but it helps to know the language, sometimes you name berries and vegetable after their characters, and it's fun to understand how different cultures approach the same berry.


Some people listen to music just for the aspect of the music, some however like to understand the lyrics. There is a German band called Rammstein which is popular in the US (well at least where I live) and most people who like them do not understand German, some do however do look up the lyrics just for curiosity but for the most part don't really care. Edgar Allen Poe isn't the best example, because from what I remember he used some words that aren't really used anymore and there may not be Swedish ( or any other languages for that matter) words for it. Learning the names of foods and the meaning behind them goes back to learning stuff just to learn it deal.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> Not according to this:
> 
> Average monthly salary by occupational group - Statistics Sweden
> 
> ...



Garbage men get more then cleaners, but also, remember that that is before tax. If everybody pays the same amount of tax, the more you earn, the more you pay. 

Also that amount looks a little high, most doctors I know don't make more then 30.000 = about 5000 dollars a month. Maybe senior doctors make more.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> Garbage men get more then cleaners, but also, remember that that is before tax. If everybody pays the same amount of tax, the more you earn, the more you pay.



 It's no use. Clearly I need to move to Sweden and become a garbage man.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

junior doctor average pay 30.000 (it is listed as 36500 but that is if they work all hours and they rarely do) 

30.000 x 0.67 = 20100

garbage truck driver 20000

20000 x 0,67 = 13400

that allows you to seek help for rent, which is another 1200 sek kr

total 14 600

difference 20100-14600 = 5500 5500= 900 dollars. 

So I was a bit off. but I still think it's closer to the difference between a doctor and a garbage truck driver in usa.

And the doctors kid and the garbage man kid will go to the same school, if they live in the same area. 

Now of course there are some private doctors and dentist that can pull in a shitload of money, but a lot of doctors actually move to england just to make money, so we hire a lot of polish doctors because they think 30000 sek a month is a shitload of money


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Aug 24, 2008)

As far as language goes, I'm all for learning a new language, think it's a great idea, and wish our schools emphasized it more.

My original point, in the language thread, wasn't that it's a question of will, ignorance, or people's lack of motivation. Again, for the millionth time, it's a great idea. But, it's unlikely to happen.

I'll explain in a hypothetical situation -
- Say Sudan wants to grow tons of corn, apples, and wheat. And say we all know the tremendous benefits of corn, apples, and wheat. Now, their geography isn't exactly conducive to corn, apple, and wheat growing on a major scale. But here in the US, we have the perfect climate and location. So, me, being a hypothetical corn, apple, and wheat grower, says to Sudan, "Try harder!" Well, what if Sudan's main crop is yams, always has been yams, always will be yams, because yams grow good there, but the things I grow don't? Why should they try harder? They're lesser of a people because they don't grow the things that grow well here?

Language is like that. There are lots of educated Americans who are multi-lingual. But the simple fact is, there isn't a strong demand here for learning a new language. We have a landmass equal to, or larger than, continental Europe, that speaks predominately 2 languages - English and Spanish, and English is the overwhelming majority. (Guess what? Most bi-lingual Americans' second language is... you guessed it, Spanish. And there is a strong demand here to know Spanish, hence, lots of people know it. Hell, even I know a little.  )

But Europe is totally different. Not because Europeans are better, or worse, than Americans, but because they live in a geographic and economic unit that is _tremendously_ diverse, both linguistically, and culturally. There is huge pressure, need, and demand to be multi-lingual in such a varied culture. But America is the great melting pot, and our culture is much, much more homogeneous and uniform. As I said before, in America, I can drive for days and days in any direction, and _never_ hear another language other than English. Can you say that about Europe, and any specific language? No way.

So, to conclude, again, and once again, I think it's a great idea to learn and acquire new languages. Most Americans do, too. Books and audio on learning new languages are tremendously popular here. But nothing changes the social reality that the _need_ to acquire languages drives language acquisition, just like climate and geography drive agriculture.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> junior doctor average pay 30.000 (it is listed as 36500 but that is if they work all hours and they rarely do)



Dude, you can't quote stats that you invent and claim that they're more valid than what's posted on every census and expect me to believe you. The garbage man and the brain surgeon are not $500/mo apart in your country.



> And the doctors kid and the garbage man kid will go to the same school, if they live in the same area.



You must have missed my entire post a couple of pages back. Are you saying that every house in Sweden costs the same too, and that there is no difference in affluence between neighborhoods? Does the McDonald's manager live right next door to the CEO of a Law Firm? 

This:



> if they live in the same area.



Is what you're missing. That's a giant IF dude. 13 year old Billy who's mom is a widowed crackhead would go to a white collar school here if his mom could afford a $750,000 house to live in the area. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 24, 2008)

Well, I'll chime in on the language topic as I live in a bi-lingual province in Canada. They force us to take french for 10 years in school. I CAN NOT speak french. I didn't do well. I can do the basics, like "bonjour" and "au revoir (sp?)", shit like that, but I can not carry a conversation. The reason? I don't need it, I don't care about it. Would french help me? Yes, it would help me get a better job possibly, but it's not a necessity. I could care less about it. Is that arrogant? Maybe, but I don't give a fuck  Learning more languages doesn't HURT you, but if you don't need it, then I'd rather spend my time practicing guitar, reading a good book, or masturbating to goat porn. 

For the immigration thing, if I was moving to another country, I'd work my ass off to learn the local language, as not speaking the local language would severely limit your job options. 

As for the quality of life thing, I don't see the QOL being that different between Canada and the US, if anything, I'd prefer to live here. More land, less population, easier to get a house cheap, and free health care.

And for the tourist thing, if I was going to Japan, or some other country, I'd at least take a little dictionary or something and try to say basic words so I can ask people to point me in the right way, like "retaurant" or "hotel". If someone chooses not to, I don't think they're arrogant, maybe just not thinking ahead. What happens when you're wandering around, lost, hungry, and don't know what the fuck to do because you can't communicate with anyone?


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> Dude, you can't quote stats that you invent and claim that they're more valid than what's posted on every census and expect me to believe you. The garbage man and the brain surgeon are not $500/mo apart in your country.



I was thinking 5000 sek and directly translated it to 500 dollars, but 5000 sek equals more like 900 dollars. But I was also wrong, a medical doctor makes a lot more money then I thought. 
But I also think they pay more taxes somehow, for something, I know that it evens out somehow, I have to ask those I know who actually work at the hospital and make a comparison with them. 





> You must have missed my entire post a couple of pages back. Are you saying that every house in Sweden costs the same too, and that there is no difference in affluence between neighborhoods? Does the McDonald's manager live right next door to the CEO of a Law Firm?



Houses cost different, the mcdonalds manager can live near to a ceo of a law firm, but it's not that common, I've lived near people who makes a lot more money then me, but never close to a guy making millions, in my grade school we had 2 kids who's parents made more then a million swedish kr per year. 



> This:
> 
> Is what you're missing. That's a giant IF dude. 13 year old Billy who's mom is a widowed crackhead would go to a white collar school here if his mom could afford a $750,000 house to live in the area. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.



We had some kids who's parents were addicts, definitely more then the rich kids but they still end up pretty close to each other. 

But as I said before, sweden isen't perfect by any chance, and I don't think that we are better then america either, but that doesn't mean that america shouldn't improve itself.


----------



## arktan (Aug 24, 2008)

this was the starting post:



Josh Lawson said:


> Many people around the world hate the USA, this is a very unfortunate fact. Some might hate American policies but not the people. Where did we go wrong/right in your opinion? What should we do to be a better neighbor/partner/friend to other nations, (once again in your opinion)? I am going to bow out of this thread and respectfully ask all of my US countrymen to do the same. Americans shutting up, I'll believe it when I see it.......



i read this thread untill now and here we are...
again a part of the first post:



Josh Lawson said:


> I am going to bow out of this thread and *respectfully ask all of my US countrymen to do the same*. Americans shutting up, I'll believe it when I see it.......



it was a simple wish, which has been destroyed by national pride. Done with the same kind of arguments like some russians defended their country on other forums lately 
This thread is another thing why we perceive some of you guys over there as arrogant... It's that "I MUST SAY IT NOW!!! FUCK THE WISHES OF OTHERS!!!" -attitude, and no, there's no link but an example: the war in Iraq-> U.N. : "We do not want a war." US: "Fuck you! We're going anyway, who's with us?"-> and don't put this one only on Bush, there were a LOT of supporters who even bashed the parents of some soldiers (who got K.I.A.) because they questioned what their sons died for 
And also a big no to the "they make shit up to hate us"-thing
That's also a pretty arrogant argument because it implies that we're all jealous or that we can't live without bashing someone. It's an insult. More than half of the europeans actually have reasons why they're sceptical when it comes to the US, they're not dumb fucks who need to make up some shit so they can bash the US and feel better.

but on the other hand this thread also got to the point where one thought that europe is an utopia because *everything's* better in the EU 
Yeah, noone wrote it literally but that feeling came up. It's not true, we have our problems here aswell.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

arktan said:


> it was a simple wish, which has been destroyed by national pride. Done with the same kind of arguments like some russians defended their country on other forums lately



If you think I'm going to say nothing while people spew nonsense about the country that I live in, you are sadly mistaken. I am going to correct them. Also when someone says this:



Josh Lawson said:


> I am going to bow out of this thread and respectfully ask all of my US countrymen to do the same.



Followed by this:



> Americans shutting up, I'll believe it when I see it.......



I don't find myself overly motivated to abide.



> This thread is another thing why we perceive some of you guys over there as arrogant... It's that "I MUST SAY IT NOW!!! FUCK THE WISHES OF OTHERS!!!" -attitude, and no, there's no link but an example: the war in Iraq-> U.N. : "We do not want a war." US: "Fuck you! We're going anyway, who's with us?"-> and don't put this one only on Bush, there were a LOT of supporters who even bashed the parents of some soldiers (who got K.I.A.) because they questioned what their sons died



The fact that you have the audcaity to compare a thread on a music forum to the war in Iraq speaks volumes about your ignorance to the world at large. You can percieve me as arrogant as you want. I percieve you as an ignorant European who's made a bunch of random statements in this post without making a single clear statement.



> And also a big no to the "they make shit up to hate us"-thing
> That's also a pretty arrogant argument because it implies that we're all jealous or that we can't live without bashing someone. It's an insult. More than half of the europeans actually have reasons why they're sceptical when it comes to the US, they're not dumb fucks who need to make up some shit so they can bash the US and feel better.



I'm sure that there are informed Europeans with valid opinions on the topic who can express themselves in a way that doesn't make them seem like they're jumping on the It's Cool To Hate America bandwagon. You are not one of them.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

arktan said:


> And also a big no to the "they make shit up to hate us"-thing



Actually, all you have to do to see a small related example of this is to scroll to the top of the page for the Desecrated Version Of Swedish Economics where he adjusts published census figures in order to try and counter my proof that his argument is incorrect.



Desecrated said:


> No but they pay the same amount of tax and in the end the difference salary between a garbage man and a surgeon is something like 500 dollars per month.





me said:


> Average monthly salary and salary dispersion, county council sector
> Medical Doctors, men: 55,000
> Cooks, men: 18,400
> "Helpers and cleaners in offices, hotels and other establishments", men: 17500





Desecrated said:


> junior doctor average pay 30.000 (it is listed as 36500 but that is if they work all hours and they rarely do)



See how we went not only from surgeon to "junior doctor", and even then the listed salary is 36500 but cutting 20% off of that figure to make his numbers work makes his argument seem a bit more valid?

You are all more than welcome to say what you want about the United States. If it's factual and not some absurd opinion I'll say nothing, but if people are going to make shit up to try and prove their point then I will indeed make them justify it.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

arktan said:


> *More than half of the europeans actually have reasons why they're sceptical when it comes to the US*, they're not dumb fucks who need to make up some shit so they can bash the US and feel better.



I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt though, and this should be an easy one.

Let's hear some of _your_ reasons.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> Actually, all you have to do to see a small related example of this is to scroll to the top of the page for the Desecrated Version Of Swedish Economics where he adjusts published census figures in order to try and counter my proof that his argument is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I made a simple mistake, and also not all doctors make the average, I have a friend who works as a anesthetist, and her salary is about 30.000 sek, I assumed that is what most doctors made, but I was wrong. 
That doesn't mean that I'm lying or trying to manipulate anything.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> I made a simple mistake, and also not all doctors make the average, I have a friend who works as a anesthetist, and her salary is about 30.000 sek, I assumed that is what most doctors made, but I was wrong.
> That doesn't mean that I'm lying or trying to manipulate anything.



There are a slew of good reasons to hate my country's current administration. I only ask that you present ones that aren't false.


----------



## S-O (Aug 24, 2008)

On the topic of learning, be it languages or Physics:

If you truly believe learning to be impractical and a waste of time, you are holding back the education system. I have absolute trust in my ability to learn. I learn because it improves me as a person in all aspects.

Choosing not to learn something because it is something you just don't want to, it doesn't peak your interest, etc...hell even if you just don't care is fine, I am not saying you HAVE to learn every dialiect of spanish but choosing not to learn because you see it as a *waste* is astoundingly ingorant.

Other than that, on the stereotyping of americans, there is no single stereotype. There are regional stereotypes, texans are all seen as being clones of G. W. Bush, California is full of gay men and fake boobies. There are also racial stereotypes for americans; every tan black haired person is either a terrorist or an illegal immigrant working for 10% of minimum wage, every black person has a daddy in jail a mommy hooked on crack and have been on welfare for 3 generations and love flavor-aid with their watermelon. Every asian is in AP astrophysics, got a 40 on their SAT, plays the cello and violin, and pronounces L's as R's and R's as L's, All white people are racist and are the most hateful race in america, all Indian people love curry and smell like shit; etc... stupid shit like this.

And fuck Europians who think their country is perfect  I will admit, America does and has some fucked things. Less Taxes if you get more money? Wut. Denied welfare when you lose your job and have to forclose on your home and tough it on the streets, while lazy ass people who have been on welfare for 30 years still get their check? Wut. Teens graduating who can't read? Wut.

I think every country has some shit thats good, and some shit that is bad. It is a shitty life being middle class, you get the short end of every deal pretty much. But sometimes you just have to tough it out. I also wish people would get over themselves, regardless of country or race. 

Do I wish I could fix everything? Hell. Fucking. No. I enjoy pointing out shit, but I don't want to fix them. It's too funny.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 24, 2008)

I don't think anyone has said it's a WASTE to learn another language, or anything for that matter, just that priorities lie elsewhere. If I could choose between being fluent in calculus, or fluent in french, I'd have to take Calculus, even though french might be handier for me, Calculus is a lot more interesting.


----------



## S-O (Aug 24, 2008)

If I have misunderstood any posts, I apologise. But my point still stands.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 24, 2008)

I'm in agreement dude. I don't think it's a waste to learn anything, I'm sure it'll come in handy SOME DAY, no matter how useless a skill you may think it is.


----------



## Brendan G (Aug 24, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I don't think anyone has said it's a WASTE to learn another language


I may have come off like that, but what I meant to say was, that if you never speak or use that language it is less useful than if you used it on a regular basis.


----------



## forelander (Aug 24, 2008)

I think the issue of language has been completely misread. The poster asked why people generally dislike America / Americans. Naren said tourists who go to a country where English is not a native or official language, expect everyone to speak English and make no effort to speak any of the native language. 

If you are on holidays, it would be polite to at least learn how to say a couple of phrases, hello, goodbye, thank you, please etc. It'd take 20 minutes. No one is asking you to be fluent. Refusing to make that small effort, in that context, is what people find rude. Sure if you're on business or whatever it might be hard (read a phrase book on the plane), but those aren't the people we're talking about. We're talking general tourists. Turning this into a debate about learning languages in school in America strays incredibly far from the original point, and to be honest shouldn't have anything to do with what people think of America


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

forelander said:


> I think the issue of language has been completely misread. The poster asked why people generally dislike America / Americans. Naren said tourists who go to a country where English is not a native or official language, expect everyone to speak English and make no effort to speak any of the native language.
> 
> If you are on holidays, it would be polite to at least learn how to say a couple of phrases, hello, goodbye, thank you, please etc. It'd take 20 minutes. No one is asking you to be fluent. Refusing to make that small effort, in that context, is what people find rude. Sure if you're on business or whatever it might be hard (read a phrase book on the plane), but those aren't the people we're talking about. We're talking general tourists. Turning this into a debate about learning languages in school in America strays incredibly far from the original point, and to be honest shouldn't have anything to do with what people think of America



Agreed, but this is not an American thing, this is an everyone thing.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Aug 24, 2008)

^ yeah exactly.
my main problem (althoigh i dont really have a problem with it) is that the media constatly bombards other countrys with the image of the patriotic american, claiming they live in the best country in the world. that doesnt help. my problem is the nway you americans shortens words, like colour to color :squnint:


----------



## forelander (Aug 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> Agreed, but this is not an American thing, this is an everyone thing.



Which is why I carefully avoided saying Americans and kept with tourists. I can't comment on that since my country is English speaking and it's not an issue. Just trying to clarify some of the points others were making


----------



## jim777 (Aug 24, 2008)

Desecrated said:


> America needs a uniform tax system, everyone pays as much as the other, and every schools gets just as much as the other.



Never going to work, and it wouldn't be better. As an FYI : In 1999, about 30 million tax filers had no income tax liability after taking advantage of their credits and deductions. By 2006, the number of non-payers had grown to nearly 44 million, one-third of all income tax filers.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2005, the top 20 percent of households paid 86.3 percent of income taxes while the bottom 80 percent paid a collective 13.7 percent of the income tax burden. The top 1 percent of households paid 38.8 percent of all income taxes.
Lowering the percentage paid by the wealthiest would severely affect the bottom line, and the cries of hardship that would come from that bottom third should they be forced to pay the same would definitely sweep too many people out of office to be practical. Certainly a Democrat would never propose it! 

It's a little difficult to give tax relief to people when a full third of the people in the country (the presumably poorest third) aren't paying anything. It's also very difficult to get people to understand the true cost of social programs and the general sustaining of governmental services when they don't see a cost to themselves for any of these programs or services. I would have to say it could potentially undermine the democracy itself when such a large percentage pay nothing in taxes. On the other hand, it is also a bit shortsighted to think that expecting a very small percentage to pay a wildly dispproprionate percentage of the taxes is a good long term solution to economic issues without considering the possible downsides inherent in such a setup. My $.02


----------



## forelander (Aug 24, 2008)

Thrashmanzac said:


> my problem is the nway you americans shortens words, like colour to color :squnint:



Given that grammar, I'm sorry, but I don't think you're in a position to judge


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Aug 24, 2008)

forelander said:


> Given that grammar, I'm sorry, but I don't think you're in a position to judge



 shit, i just looked back over that.
everyone can completely disreguard my post in that case


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Aug 25, 2008)

DISREGARD.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Aug 25, 2008)

cev said:


> Because that's really just another way of saying 'we're better than everyone else because we're America.'


Lewis Black did a standup act about that. This America > * mentality is sickening.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Aug 25, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> DISREGARD.



FUCK
this is not my day


----------



## cev (Aug 25, 2008)

I thought maybe you were just trying to be ironic


----------



## arktan (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris said:


> The fact that you have the audcaity to compare a thread on a music forum to the war in Iraq speaks volumes about your ignorance to the world at large. You can percieve me as arrogant as you want. I percieve you as an ignorant European who's made a bunch of random statements in this post without making a single clear statement.



I didn't compare this thread with the war in Iraq.



> I'm sure that there are informed Europeans with valid opinions on the topic who can express themselves in a way that doesn't make them seem like they're jumping on the It's Cool To Hate America bandwagon. You are not one of them.


If you go back a few posts, to here: http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/po...-non-american-ss-org-folks-2.html#post1186481

You'll find this:



arktan said:


> First of all:
> Someone who tells me that he hates the US as a country (the people and their way of life) is a dumbass IMO.
> Someone who hates the US as political entity (actual Government, Law-changes, military policy and so on) has a valid point.... and that is fucking sad.
> 
> ...




So where do you read that i'm on the I hate america wagon? In the end *you* decide who's on that wagon and who not:



> I'm sure that there are informed Europeans with valid opinions on the topic who can express themselves in a way that doesn't make them seem like they're jumping on the It's Cool To Hate America bandwagon. *You are not one of them*.


So you judged my relation to the USA by reading 2 posts of mine?

I'm going to bow out of this thread aswell, because there are 2 fronts trying to prove each other wrong or to defend themselves. This is not a kind of discussion which takes someone somewhere. 
I just want to quote Mr. Fuentes before i do so:

"What the United States does best is to understand itself. What it does worst is understand others."
Carlos Fuentes


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 25, 2008)

After rereading this thread after some much needed sleep, I realized that there was a lot more misunderstanding then I first thought. 
I never wanted to paint Europe or sweden as an utopia I just happened to use and example that chris misunderstood and blow out of proportion, And I was to tired/stupid/highstrung, not to notice that he took it that way. Then adding my mistakes with numbers really didn't help  
For the best of this thread I'm leaving too, I don't think I can contribute anything reasonable right now.


----------



## Naren (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris said:


> This whole debate was brought up based on tourist, and Naren's assumption that any tourist who visits a foreign country without brushing up on that place's native tongue is ignorant. My example was an extreme overgeneralization.



I said no such thing. I said that what pisses me off is tourists expecting everyone in the world to be able to speak English and not even trying to communicate in that country's language, whether it be with a phrasebook or whatever. I don't speak Portuguese AT ALL, but if I went to Brazil, I would at least have a phrasebook or a dictionary.

I never said anything about fluency. I was talking about the attitude that I see so often where a tourist goes off into a tirade about "Can't anyone in this country speak English?" In my mind, even if you completely suck and can't speak the language, the act of TRYING is very important.

And, as for changing my nationality, I haven't found a suitable nationality to change it to. Like I said in my posts, I love the United States. It has its problems, but so does everywhere else in the world. We were just touching on the subject of why Americans are perceived as arrogant in many areas of the world. My complaints about the US were not meant to infer that Japan is any better. I personally rank Japan and the US at the same level in my mind, both countries excelling in different areas (and this is my own personal ranking).



forelander said:


> I think the issue of language has been completely misread. The poster asked why people generally dislike America / Americans. Naren said tourists who go to a country where English is not a native or official language, expect everyone to speak English and make no effort to speak any of the native language.
> 
> If you are on holidays, it would be polite to at least learn how to say a couple of phrases, hello, goodbye, thank you, please etc. It'd take 20 minutes. No one is asking you to be fluent. Refusing to make that small effort, in that context, is what people find rude. Sure if you're on business or whatever it might be hard (read a phrase book on the plane), but those aren't the people we're talking about. We're talking general tourists. Turning this into a debate about learning languages in school in America strays incredibly far from the original point, and to be honest shouldn't have anything to do with what people think of America



 That's exactly what I meant (said).



Chris said:


> Agreed, but this is not an American thing, this is an everyone thing.



Yes. And in my post, I said that this isn't just the US and I used China as an example of another country that does this. The UK is another country that does this as well.


----------



## HotRodded7321 (Aug 25, 2008)

I think everywhere sucks. I'm moving to Petoria.


----------



## DavyH (Aug 25, 2008)

Interesting thread.

Before I go further, the majority of the population of any country comprises complete bloody idiots. Unfortunately, they are the ones who become the stereotypical representative of the country: the British are football hooligans with bad teeth, the Irish are loveable drunkards who will beat the shit out of you at the drop of a hat. South Africans (and Australians) are Texans with different hats. And the Americans?

Two problems I can think of: firstly, the parochial view of the world in that it's judged by US standards; the politicos in the US want to impose their own brand of democracy on everyone else - so far it's only worked in Britain, and that was mainly due to Churchill's love of all things American. Conversion to democracy by force is not going to work. 

Secondly, the ubiquitous American tourist. Self-righteous, loud, badly dressed and generally obnoxious. I doubt there are many of that sort left, but the impression has been made. If I recall the numbers correctly, something like 5% of Americans had passports during the 1980s, and only about 20% of them travelled - what the outside world saw was not exactly representative.

I firmly believe both are a result of the isolationist policy pursued for so long by the US. While this built up the country's own infrastructure and turned the US into a potential superpower (which only became a real fact post WWII), a lack of understanding of the outside world resulted. 

Widespread communication will take care of this over time, which is one reason forums like this are so important. It's a pity the majority of politicians in all countries aren't taking the time to speak crap with others on a daily basis and find out what they really think though. They might be surprised to find out there are fewer differences than they realised.

Anything else? Sheer envy - Americans can buy anything they want at the lowest consumer prices.

I know that all comes off a bit wet, but I'm trying to be tactful....

I could just have said you're a bunch of narrow minded twats!


----------



## distressed_romeo (Aug 25, 2008)

Regarding the language thing, the UK are most definitely just as bad as the States for doing this abroad, and it's fucking embarassing (speaking as someone who's lived in Air Force communities abroad and seen firsthand how a lot of Brits and Americans interact with the locals). The stupid thing is, if you just show willing and make effort to learn just a few basic phrases, most people in European countries will be perfectly happy to help you out by speaking English when it comes to things like ordering food, and yet so many people still assume that if they just speak English louder or slower they'll automatically be understood.


----------



## Drew (Aug 25, 2008)

Stitch said:


> Two words:
> 
> Kyoto Protocol.



Sorry about that one, dude. We weren't too happy that didn't get ratified either. :/


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

Naren said:


> I said no such thing.



Let's focus on some fun things you did say, then.



naren said:


> people will oftentimes say, "But, even with that said, America is still the greatest country in the world." ... And I was the only person I have ever seen to dispute this





naren said:


> I always came off as a very unpatriotic person (still do, I guess) and I got a lot of flak for this attitude, since the US probably has more *patriotic maniacs* than any country in the world.





> Some people have tried to argue, but they always get shut down by hard facts.



Let's hear some facts, Naren. If you always shut people down with them you should be able to rattle off a bunch. I don't want to hear bullshit and doublespeak, I want you to back up what you've said in this thread with facts. 



> And, as for changing my nationality, I haven't found a suitable nationality to change it to. Like I said in my posts, I love the United States.



I find that very hard to believe. I will certainly raise a pint glass the day you do, however.

Now, on with the facts.


----------



## Drew (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris said:


> However I find nothing wrong with being overly Patriotic as long as a person is willing to equally decry their governments wrongdoings and celebrate their triumphs.



There's a long American tradition that being patriotic is more about speaking out when you're country is in the wrong than it is about ever voicing approval.


----------



## Drew (Aug 25, 2008)

A few other general thoughts, reading this thread. 

I suspect a lot of the reason America is disliked abroad right now comes from a question of perception, and not from any actual substance. I mean, there's some pretty heated anti-American commentary in here, accusing us of arrogance. Some is warranted, certainly, but less than we're being accused of, and the degree of viterol doesn't really align with the substance. 

I guess it's worth noting that until very recently, there was no other nation on this planet who could match the American standard of living. It's been said that even America's poor have air conditioners, TV's, and refrigerators, and have had these conveniences for decades. This is beginning to change, as both the American economy is losing its competitive edge and as other nations are beginning to catch up, but from maybe the 1950's on, no other nation could match America's standard of living, higher educational opportunities, strength and resilience of the economy, impressive civil liberties, and military might. After World War II to a limited extend, and especially after the collapse of Soviet Russia, we really were the last remaining world superpower. As such, comments like "Still, America is the greatest nation in the world" need to be taken in context. At least prior to 2000, there would have been some grumbling but no one would have disagreed except a few hardcore fundamentalists here and there. It's sort of like saying, "Still, a Lamborghini is a hell of a lot faster than a Prius." It may sound a little cocky in conversation between a Diablo owner and a Prius owner, but that's because the dude with the Lamborghini really CAN peak out abotu a hundred miles an hour faster than the guy with the hybrid. 

Post-2000 is a totally different story. This point has been abundantly made in this thread, but a LOT of the damage done can be traced to the Bush Administration. For everyone posting about how the Iraqi war is proof of American's arrogance, please remember that even when we declared war a hefty portion of Americans (I want to say approval for the war even in the early days never got above 60%) thought we were making a horrible mistake. This is a time when the Administration's lackey's were questioning the patriotism of anyone who spoke out against the war (I remember a Democrat getting lambasted by the Republican speaker of the house for a lack of patriotism and not supporting the troops after he said it was a shame to put so many lives of young Americans at risk given the fact we had so little hard evidence), and when tensions were still very high after a rare terrorist attack on American soil (remember, we're pretty isolated, geographically - for better or for worse, we're not used to our civilians dying by the thousands). And, on top of this, most media outlets have since confessed that they never really gave the attention they should have to the other side of the war story - the lack of connection between Saddam and Bin Laden, the holes in our National Security reports, etc. All things considered, given that the Administraton was fanning the flames of blind patriotism in the wake of the worst attack on American soil since literally the Civil War, and the media was anything but unbiased, I think it's a testament that only a slight majority of Americans thought we should go to war. 

Anyway, what's done is done. Bush's foreign policy, and more improtantly the attitude he brought to the international table, has done massive damage to our reputation, and it's more popular to hate the United states than it ever has been. Bush is gone in a matter of months, though, so now we have to focus on the rebuilding process; a more concilitory foriegn policy, working with nations abroad and not over them, and a healthier, more open dialogue at home. 

No arguments here that the American tax structure is fucked, or that our public schools are falling behind the world and we need to do something about it. And let's not talk about the budget - we're now paying more on interest on outstanding debt than we are for education. But please try to separate a lot of your dislike for America from your dislike from Bush - know that if you dislike America because of things Bush has done since he was elected, then something like 75% of Americans agree with you. 

And, at the end of the day, if 75% of America agrees with the international consensus, we can't be THAT bad, can we? There's hope.


----------



## Naren (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris said:


> I find that very hard to believe. I will certainly raise a pint glass the day you do, however.



 I guess I'm just a very negative person. You'll note that I haven't said "This country is better" or anything like that. In fact, my graduation thesises were about Japanese discrimination against Korean blooded people living in Japan and about modern Japanese social problems.



Chris said:


> Let's hear some facts, Naren. If you always shut people down with them you should be able to rattle off a bunch. I don't want to hear bullshit and doublespeak, I want you to back up what you've said in this thread with facts.



Well, seeing as the two quotes I used were "America is the greatest country in the world" and "The US has the highest standard of living in the world," I cannot debate the first since it is 100% opinionated. To someone else, Canada is the greatest country in the world. However, I can debate the "standard of living" point.

The US is #6 behind Norway, Sweden, Canada, Belgium, and Australia.

High Living Standard Countries, High Standard of Living Countries


----------



## Drew (Aug 25, 2008)

...which is a pretty recent change, Naren, and depends* heavily *on how you define or choose to quantify "standard of living." 

All countries you mention have some form of socialized health care (which, to be fair, I'm in favor of), and generally have high taxes coupled with robust social services benefits for their citizens. As such, I'm guessing the "standard of living" is weighted towards lower income bracket "baseline standard of living" measurements like access to free health care, and quality of public schools. 

These are very important things, and I agree that they're worth pursuing. However, the American model has always been way more private sector - we don't offer free health care to all, but we have some of the best health care in the world available to people who can pay for it. Our public schools are good, but our private schools (and in particular private colleges) are known as the best in the world, and people come from literally all over the world to enroll. Meanwhile, even low class Americans have access to commodities that are considered luxuries for much of the world. 

Meanwhile, I believe it's norway which has the highest suicide rate in the world...? 

At a glance that's a telling statistic, Naren, but with zero information provided as to how those countries were ranked, it's an empty stat.


----------



## ohio_eric (Aug 25, 2008)

Norway is #41 sir. 

List of countries by suicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Drew (Aug 25, 2008)

Hmm. I remeber seeing a list where one of the northern Europe socialist nations topped the developed world's per capita suicide list. 

Anyway, if nothing else, that just sort of underlines how dangerous statistics can be without the proper context.  

FWIW, more people commit suicide in every nation that Naren's stats claim have a higher standard of living than the US with the exception of Australia, and they're ranked right below us with a 0.2 per capita difference. That's a statistic that paints a very different picture than the one Naren presented.


----------



## Makelele (Aug 25, 2008)

IMO the US has problems just like every other place. Examples are the public school system, and in some ways the higher education system too, and of course the health care system seems kind of sketchy to me. The thing about the higher education that kinda bugs me is that it's really expensive to get into colleges etc., which of course gives those schools tremendous recourses, but at the same time weeds out a lot of those whose parents can't afford to pay that much. That's not a problem just in the US, but in many places in Europe too. 

Still, Finnish and other Scandinavian countries have a really high standard in University education, even though studying is free (you just pay for books and other materials).

The other thing I dislike is the current administration, and the constant meddling in certain areas of the world (the US isn't alone with this either - the other "super powers" (China, Russia) seem to be doing this too lately).

The thing about American tourists only speaking English while abroad doesn't really bother me that much, and in Scandinavia most people know English fairly well, so I don't think many Scandinavians are too bothered by that. Hell - if I go to the Czech Republic, France or Italy I'll speak English too (I might try to learn words like "Hello" or "Thanks" in the local languages). In Germany, Austria or Switzerland I'd probably try to get by with German, and in Sweden I'd speak Swedish, because I speak it just as well as I speak Finnish, but if I don't know the local language I'll try to get by with English, and if that fails, I'll use some improvised sign language (like pointing at maps etc.)



Drew said:


> FWIW, more people commit suicide in every nation that Naren's stats claim have a higher standard of living than the US with the exception of Australia, and they're ranked right below us with a 0.2 per capita difference. That's a statistic that paints a very different picture than the one Naren presented.



Americans are so busy murdering each other, that they don't have time to commit suicide.

(this comment is not to be taken seriously)

Seriously though, most (if not all) the countries Naren mentioned have a lower murder rate than the US.

List of countries by homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## cev (Aug 25, 2008)

It's not a matter of whether America is or isn't the 'greatest country in the world', to me. Because even if it is true (which is way too subjective to really debate here), constantly shoving it in everyone's faces is still a really arrogant thing to do.

I don't even mind if Americans say stuff like this in private. What you say among yourselves is your own business, and it's only natural to love your own country. But when American leaders constantly refer to America as 'the greatest' in national or even international speeches... it's practically a direct insult. 'Ha ha, we're better than all your crappy countries.' I think everyone has gotten rather sick of hearing it by now, true or not.


----------



## Naren (Aug 25, 2008)

ohio_eric said:


> Norway is #41 sir.
> 
> List of countries by suicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I'm surprised Japan is only #10. I would have assumed Japan would be in the top 3.


----------



## canuck brian (Aug 25, 2008)

I just really hate the Bush administration and the religious right wing nutcases. Other than that, it's a beautiful country with a lot of nice people in it. It's a shame that those nice people are not the ones calling the shots on anything.


----------



## Naren (Aug 25, 2008)

Drew said:


> ...which is a pretty recent change, Naren, and depends* heavily *on how you define or choose to quantify "standard of living."
> 
> All countries you mention have some form of socialized health care (which, to be fair, I'm in favor of), and generally have high taxes coupled with robust social services benefits for their citizens. As such, I'm guessing the "standard of living" is weighted towards lower income bracket "baseline standard of living" measurements like access to free health care, and quality of public schools.
> 
> ...



True. I was more just disputing the "US is number one!" "The United States is the greatest country in the world!" whole thing.

And, in some respects, the US is still number one. The US has the highest technology in the world in regards to many fields such as medicine.

However, as of late, a lot of things have really gone down the crapper in the states.


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

Naren said:


> I guess I'm just a very negative person. You'll note that I haven't said "This country is better" or anything like that



You say negative, I say a sheltered and naive kid. You can do the mad at the world thing all you want, but at the end of the day it just makes you look petty, especially when you're criticizing something that you obviously don't know as much about as you try and let on.



> Well, seeing as the two quotes I used were "America is the greatest country in the world" and "The US has the highest standard of living in the world," I cannot debate the first since it is 100% opinionated. To someone else, Canada is the greatest country in the world. However, I can debate the "standard of living" point.
> 
> The US is #6 behind Norway, Sweden, Canada, Belgium, and Australia.
> 
> High Living Standard Countries, High Standard of Living Countries



So that's it? This represents the "hard facts" that you "always shut people down with"? One link to a chart on good old 'mapsofworld.com', and a largely subjective comparison between a country with a population of just under 5 million (Norway) versus the US (Over 300 million). Yeah, that's a fair and accurate comparison right there.


----------



## Naren (Aug 25, 2008)




----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

Drew said:


> For everyone posting about how the Iraqi war is proof of American's arrogance, please remember that even when we declared war a hefty portion of Americans (I want to say approval for the war even in the early days never got above 60%) thought we were making a horrible mistake.



This is overstated, imo. There were a good many reasons to go to Iraq and do what we did. It was not a mistake to oust Hussein, and it was not a mistake to try to help the Iraqi people rebuild. Being humanitarian is never a horrible mistake, even if it is (as it is in this case) horribly overshadowed by the festival of greed and fuckups that it's become.

It's also incorrect to lay 100% of the blame on the US government for the timetable in Iraq. Their government officials are crooked and lazy just like ours are. These are the same people that wanted to take a month off in the summer because "it's too hot" while our engineers and servicemen/women are there in full body armor and riot gear trying to keep the peace so that our engineers can rebuild their city.

The Iraqi parliament is as bad, if not worse, than the international view of the Bush administration. The people saying that we should just up and leave either do not understand the entire scope of the situation, or plainly put, are ignorant. Is Iraq better off having been occupied by the US? Depends who you ask, and at the end of the day the only person whose opinion really matters is that of an Iraqi.

Here are some things that don't get mentioned because it's easier to just take shots at Big Bad America. 

- Almost 5 million people ther have clean drinking water for the first time, ever.
- Over 400,000 kids have up to date immunizations. 
- Over 1500 schools have been renovated and ridded of the weapons that were stored there so education can occur. 
- The port of Um Qasr was renovated so grain can be off loaded from ships faster. 
- School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war. 
- The country had it's first 2 billion barrel export of oil last August, considering that Iran Imports most of theirs, this is great. 
- The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war. 
- 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed compared to 35% before the war. 
- Elections are taking place in every major city and city councils are in place. 
- Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city. 
- Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets. 
- Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country. 
- Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers. 
- Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.
- Girls are allowed to attend school for the first time ever.

Yes, things are fucked up. Yes, it's time to leave. But I am sick of hearing viewpoints from people who conveniently ignore ALL of the good and sensationalize the bad in an attempt to make their point seem stronger.


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

Naren said:


>



I take that as a yes. 

It's amazing how people curl right up into a ball when they're asked to actually present a valid argument instead of just repeating what they hear on the news.


----------



## Makelele (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris said:


> This is overstated, imo. There were a good many reasons to go to Iraq and do what we did. It was not a mistake to oust Hussein, and it was not a mistake to try to help the Iraqi people rebuild. Being humanitarian is never a horrible mistake, even if it is (as it is in this case) horribly overshadowed by the festival of greed and fuckups that it's become.



I'd say supporting Hussein in the first place was the real mistake the US did here, and in many other countries as well. Installing extreme right wing dictators to fight against communism might not have been the best strategy. 

Getting rid of Hussein wasn't a bad thing, there just might have been better ways to do it (like getting rid of him in 1991, when the war wasn't built on false evidence and lies).


----------



## Drew (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris said:


> This is overstated, imo. There were a good many reasons to go to Iraq and do what we did. It was not a mistake to oust Hussein, and it was not a mistake to try to help the Iraqi people rebuild. Being humanitarian is never a horrible mistake, even if it is (as it is in this case) horribly overshadowed by the festival of greed and fuckups that it's become.



I guess this is fair to a certain extent. However, all of the "official" reasons for war with Iraq (ties with al Quaida, weapons of mass destruction) have since been debunked, and we ended up executing Saddam for "war crimes" he commited as an American ally. I'm not saying he wasn't a despicable human being who deserved what he got, because genocide is genocide. However, the time to put him on trial was 1988, not 2008. 

You are right, though, that there has been a lot of good that has come from the Iraqi war, and that many critics of the war don't recognize this (I'm definitely guilty of this as well, and it's nice to see some hard numbers quantifying what we've done). But just as it's not fair to ignore the good, it's also not fair to let the ends justify the means, and downplay the fact we waged pre-emptive war on a nation for arbitrary means that we specifically targeted from the morning of 9/11 if not before, and that we did so on trumped up grounds. 

I guess I'd have been a lot cooler with the war from day one had it not been for all the subterfuge involved in selling it to America. I just hope that 50 years from now we can look back on this and say that at least the good we had done managed to outlast the bad, but the reality is our reputation is tarnished badly in the region, and it'll be a long time before we can get a sense of the final outcome. 

One nitpick - the elections? A sham. We're talking about a country with no democratic history. Most Iraqis simply went to their local seat of government and asked how they were supposed to to vote, because they had never had that responsibility before and couldn't get their heads around the principle of self determination. I guess it's a case of "fake it until you make it," and get the mechanism in place while waiting for the people to begin to buy into democracy, but the Bush administration made WAY too much about this one.


----------



## Drew (Aug 25, 2008)

Makelele said:


> I'd say supporting Hussein in the first place was the real mistake the US did here, and in many other countries as well. Installing extreme right wing dictators to fight against communism might not have been the best strategy.
> 
> Getting rid of Hussein wasn't a bad thing, there just might have been better ways to do it (like getting rid of him in 1991, when the war wasn't built on false evidence and lies).



Eh, it's tough though. Saddam made sense in the Cold War. 

Anyone who hasn't seen "Charlie Wilson's War" needs to ASAP, I think. Not only is the dude more or less the exact sort of senator I'd like to be, it also builds the case that we didn't fuck up by supporting Afghan rebels against the USSR, we fucked up by abandoning them after they defeated the rebels, and letting extremists take over because they had nothing else.


Also, have you read George H.W. Bush's commentary from his memoir about why they left Saddam in power? It's diturbingly prophetic.


----------



## Naren (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris said:


> I take that as a yes.
> 
> It's amazing how people curl right up into a ball when they're asked to actually present a valid argument instead of just repeating what they hear on the news.



More like: Some of us want to have an actual discussion, but you are resulting to name-calling and insults (and not just to me). I understand that this is a subject you feel passionate about, but I really didn't see the point of responding in saying that you're going to toast the day I lose my American citizenship and then refer to me as a "sheltered and naive kid." You are insulting simply because you disagree with me. I might be a kid (I'm 25), but I'm neither sheltered nor naive. But I have to think that you don't really believe that.


----------



## Drew (Aug 25, 2008)

Actually, I think he said he'd toast the day you were truly proud to be an American, dude.


----------



## Naren (Aug 25, 2008)

Drew said:


> Actually, I think he said he'd toast the day you were truly proud to be an American, dude.



I am proud to be an American. But I would say that I'm not "patriotic" in that I'm proud of the country (the people, the culture, and everything involved), but not of the current government. Hopefully the next president can change that.

Also, I'd like to add that the things I've said negatively about tourists do not make me wish I wasn't American or anything like that. I'm a little embarassed of them, but there are people like that in a lot of countries.


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

Naren said:


> More like: Some of us want to have an actual discussion, but you are resulting to name-calling and insults (and not just to me). I understand that this is a subject you feel passionate about, but I really didn't see the point of responding in saying that you're going to toast the day I lose my American citizenship and then refer to me as a "sheltered and naive kid." You are insulting simply because you disagree with me. I might be a kid (I'm 25), but I'm neither sheltered nor naive. But I have to think that you don't really believe that.



Hardly. If you're insulted of my opinion of you, you probably should be. The fact that you, who was given every opportunity as an American, and is still an American, are admittedly so quick to shit all over your country and celebrate the negatives while ignoring all things positive is, quite frankly, disgraceful. 

I am asking all of the people who are vaguely stating negatives to point to facts. I asked you, who even mentioned "hard facts", to post said facts. You responded with a comparitive census based entirely on subjective opinion. If you are insulted it's not because I disagree with you. It's because you are wrong, and I just happened to be the one to point it out.



you said:


> Of course, I always came off as a very unpatriotic person (still do, I guess) and I got a lot of flak for this attitude, since the US probably has more patriotic maniacs than any country in the world.


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

Drew said:


> Actually, I think he said he'd toast the day you were truly proud to be an American, dude.



Nope, I did in fact say that I'd be glad to see him go.


----------



## Drew (Aug 25, 2008)

My bad. 

And if we want to start pointing fingers at patriotic maniacs, I think the word "jihad" and all of its connotations, when taken from the perspective of a non-secular fundamentalist state, is deserving of at least a passing mention...


----------



## Makelele (Aug 25, 2008)

To be honest, I don't see Naren "shitting all over his country". So, he's saying that it's not necessarily the best country in the world, but so what? I don't think Finland is the best country in the world, but I'm still happy to be a Finnish citizen, and I'm not going to change that. 

Also Naren brought up positives about the US too so I think you're kind of reading what you want to read and ignoring the rest, Chris.


----------



## arktan (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris said:


> - Almost 5 million people ther have clean drinking water for the first time, ever.
> - Over 400,000 kids have up to date immunizations.
> - Over 1500 schools have been renovated and ridded of the weapons that were stored there so education can occur.
> - The port of Um Qasr was renovated so grain can be off loaded from ships faster.
> ...



Where did you find these numbers?


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

Makelele said:


> To be honest, I don't see Naren "shitting all over his country". So, he's saying that it's not necessarily the best country in the world, but so what? I don't think Finland is the best country in the world, but I'm still happy to be a Finnish citizen, and I'm not going to change that.
> 
> Also Naren brought up positives about the US too so I think you're kind of reading what you want to read and ignoring the rest, Chris.



I think you need to read the entire thread before handing off your opinions of what I'm doing. Plain and simple, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am challenging the people who are saying negative things about my country to back them up. That's it.

The issue arises when they can't do it, and they don't like it, and can't do anything about it, so they resort to "Chris is calling me names". It's fine, I'm a maniac patriot, after all.


----------



## DelfinoPie (Aug 25, 2008)

I've never been to the US and I haven't met that many Americans in person so I can only go on media representation...however I don't because media representation is incredibly bias. Like Chris has pointed out already you only ever hear the negatives regarding the US and rarely hear the positives such as how much aid they donate to other countries. The Americans I have met and all the Americans on this forum seem to be a level-headed bunch but even then it's a small selection of that countries population so again I wouldn't base my opinion of the country on this small selection.



7 Dying Trees said:


> I think it's a case of one administration dragging an entire country of peoples names through the dirt for the puspose of making themselves and their buddies richer.
> 
> I have nothing against americans, I know a load, get on well with them, they're fun to hang with, but on the world stage the people representing them really are doing a terrible job.



I wholeheartedly agree 

You can't tar a nation with the same brush just because the people in control are giving off bad impressions.



Desecrated said:


> Educate yourself.



 I don't get what you mean here? Educate themselves about what?


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

arktan said:


> Where did you find these numbers?



Immunizations

School renovations (old article, quick google)

Um Qasr Port

School attendance

Water and sewer treatment plants

Children, schooling, other issues.


----------



## playstopause (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris said:


> This is overstated, imo. There were a good many reasons to go to Iraq and do what we did. It was not a mistake to oust Hussein, and it was not a mistake to try to help the Iraqi people rebuild. Being humanitarian is never a horrible mistake, even if it is (as it is in this case) horribly overshadowed by the festival of greed and fuckups that it's become.



Ok, so the american presence in Iraq has some positive points. There's also a lot of negative aspects, so I guess it balances out at the end of the day.

But seriously, what right has the U.S. army to be there in the first place?


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

playstopause said:


> Ok, so the american presence in Iraq has some positive points. There's also a lot of negative aspects, so I guess it balances out at the end of the day.
> 
> But seriously, what right has the U.S. army to be there in the first place?



I guess we had no right to get involved in WW2 either. Poland would be way better off wearing red swastika armbands in honor of the Fuhrer, right?

Regarding Iraq, here:

Saddam Hussein's Iraq

Read that. If you want to know why we went, there it is. It outlines everything from Hussein abusing the Oil for Food program, using chemical weapons his own people, building himself two billion dollar palaces while his people outside have no running water or sewage, torture, environmental destruction to serve his own ends, the list goes on and on.

I could quote it all, but if anyone really has the same question as PSP, there you go.


----------



## playstopause (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris said:


> I guess we had no right to get involved in WW2 either. Poland would be way better off wearing red swastika armbands in honor of the Fuhrer, right?
> 
> Regarding Iraq, here:
> 
> ...



Ok, fine. I really don't see the connection with Poland and the fuhrer, but whatever.
I'm not talking about WWII (things were way different back then), i'm asking about Iraq. Just Iraq.

We're all very aware that Iraq under Saddam was hell. I'm sure you know that the same (kind of) shit is happening in other countries beside Iraq. So why help Iraq and not other countries? As an example, what the U.S did when the genocide was happening in Rwanda? Did they send the army? No, they did not. So why Iraq? There's gotta be some damn good reason (other than wanting to "help people", wich I'll never believe) to send that many american men and women die on the other side of the planet.

Anyway, that still doesn't answer the question: seriously, what right has the U.S. to send its army in Iraq?


----------



## arktan (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris said:


> Immunizations



globalsecurity.org? Is that your understanding of hard evidence?




> School renovations (old article, quick google)




The US departement of defense? Yeah, and i'm believeing the russian departement of defense when it comes to questions concerning Chechnya /sarcasm 
Come on, what do you expect them to do? Off course they'll give you a nice article. Hell, they even try to glorify deaths of 19 year old children, how can you believe them this?



> Um Qasr Port


Just let me try to understand this: This site links to a CIA Factbook and they try to tell that they only have serious links? WTF? Are you then trusting russian FSB-sources concerning Georgia and Chechnya??

But anyway, where did you read that it got renovated? And where did you read that the Coalition financed the "renovation"? It only states that a Maltaian Ship docked there and that it carried 60 000 tones (not even stated of what, the other three ships had each 56 000 tones of wheat).
Yeah, hard facts...



> School attendance


Yeah, over 1500 schools have been renovated AFTER 3000 were looted and/or destroyed in the last war. That would be a point one would put to the "see, we did something nice" -list...



> Water and sewer treatment plants


Now that was a good, informative read! Honestly, i didn't know about that. Thanks for linking me to that (so i learned somethig after all, huh? )



> Children, schooling, other issues.


Touching stories but hardly hard facts. And they do this only for catholic kids....  and not one of these schools is in Iraq. They pick up the kids out of refugee camps and put them in greek catholic schools. So how do you relate this article to something positive? 
They're refugees, for Christ's sake! Why are they refugees?
But yeah, i'll leave it at that...
Catholic relief services? That was that charity (whatever) organisation that "lost" money that was intended for the Ethiopian people during the 80's... right? Excuse me if i don't see their articles through pink glasses...
And they have 1 regional information officer for Europe and the Middle East? Sources of hard facts have a bit more.


----------



## Drew (Aug 25, 2008)

playstopause said:


> Ok, fine. I really don't see the connection with Poland and the fuhrer, but whatever.
> I'm not talking about WWII (things were way different back then), i'm asking about Iraq. Just Iraq.
> 
> We're all very aware that Iraq under Saddam was hell. I'm sure you know that the same (kind of) shit is happening in other countries beside Iraq. So why help Iraq and not other countries? As an example, what the U.S did when the genocide was happening in Rwanda? Did they send the army? No, they did not. So why Iraq? There's gotta be some damn good reason (other than wanting to "help people", wich I'll never believe) to send that many american men and women die on the other side of the planet.
> ...



I think the comparison was along these lines: 

America saw something bad happening in Iraq, Germany, and the Soviet Union. America acted, even though they didn't have a "right" to do so. In two of those situations, the action was lauded. In the third, it's been a little less glowing so far, true, but if you want to condemn the principle of American intervention, then you can't pick and chose the interventions you want to condemn. It's we should fight Saddam, Adolf, and Stalin, or we should stay home and mind our own business, consequences be damned. 

My biggest problem with the military action in Iraq is the way it was sold - first it was about weapons of mass destruction, then it was about al Quaida, now it's about spreading democracy. I won't even pretend that Bush didn't have a personal vendetta, but we're sort of stuck in this mess so the only responsible thing we can do as a nation is to try to do what we can to leave the place a better place than we found it. 

arktan, are you even reading the articles, or just blindly condemning them by their URL's? The first is mostly UNICEF quotes and statistics, and the UN is a relatively biased source, don't you think? 

I've got friends on the ground in Iraq and friends who have come back. Thank god, they're all still alive and mostly unharmed. They've all told me that they're in a really shitty situation, but one thing that does make it easier for them to cope is there does seem to be a legitimate sense of gratefulness from the Iraqis they've worked with, that they have helped them since they've been there. 

Whatever the original motives may have been, mo matter how twisted they were, I take a certain amount of solace in that. I don't think anyone here will support the original justification for war, and I for one think this wasn't our conflict to begin with. But the fact remains we're there now, and no amount of arguing on the net can change that. So, let's get out, but let's look at the bigger picture and try to do it riight, you know?


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

playstopause said:


> Ok, fine.
> But i'm not talking about WWII (things were way different back then), i'm asking about Iraq. Just Iraq.
> 
> We're all very aware that Iraq under Saddam was hell. I'm sure you know that the same (kind of) shit is happening in other countries beside Iraq. So why help Iraq and not other countries? What the U.S did when the genocide was happening in Rwanda? Did they send the army? No, they did not. So why Iraq? There's gotta be some damn good reason (other than wanting to "help people") to send that many men on the other side of the planet.
> ...



The answer is the same. The US sends its troops to where it feels it can make a difference. I don't know what happened Rwanda. I know what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, ad infinitum.

The answer is obvious, but I'll say it because I know it's what you're fishing for. Oil. That's a big reason that the current administration sent us there. However the current administration isn't on the ground there. They aren't the men and women dying over there. They aren't the people risking their lives and taking sniper fire in combat zones to deliver medical care to children. 

If ending the oppressive regime of a tyrant isn't a good enough reason for you to have the US go there, I don't know what to tell you. You can conspiracy theory WMD's all day long as well but keep in mind that they aren't necessarily pointed at us. If Iran nukes Iraq and Iraq responds and nukes Jordan and Joran nukes Georgia (bad example but take it with a grain of salt) that is bad for everyone. If the country in control of a large share of the world's oil reserves is lead by a warmongering, inhuman criminal, someone has to step in. "Why Iraq" can just as easily be "Why Poland", it doesn't matter if things are different now, though in defense of your point we were bailing Poland out rather than invading. To sit idle and watch injustice happen when you could have done something about it is nearly as bad as committing the act itself. 

That's why I get defensive (or offensive, heh) when people say that "The US should just mind their own business". No, we shouldn't, because we have the power to change things and help people, and for the most part that's what we do. Unfortunately, when you're in the spotlight like we are, when you fuck something up it's going to get a lot more attention than the good you've done. 

In wars things get destroyed and people die. The problem is that with the internet and all the other media today that sensationalizes EVERYTHING to garner ratings, people get bored and want something new. They're waiting to flip on the news and see Baghdad look like Cleveland. "Oh, that war's still going on? They aren't done yet? Wtf, it's been like, five years already!"

The reality of the situation is that it's war. Things get destroyed, people die, governments fall and rebuilding takes a lot more time than the must-have-it-now internet generation is prepared to wait. So they complain. And the media covers it. And it becomes scandal, and finger pointing, and it goes on and on. I believe that in the end, the people of that region will be better off having endured it all and that my country will indeed help them rebuild and prosper again. That won't happen in 5 years, or 10 years, or perhaps even 20, but it will.

That's why I love America, and the current elected official does not represent the feelings and opinions of it's people, nor does it usuall ever. We, Americans, DO care. *I* give a shit what happens there. *I* want to help. *I* don't want to turn my back when atrocities happen because I'm an American, and my country has the power, knowledge and temperance to be a catalyst for change in the world. To make life better for people. The fact that GW is a fuckup or that there are greedy Oil tycoons in place wanting to milk it for every dime doesn't change the fact that the *Americans* currently there *are not a part of that*. So I get defensive when "Americans" are bundled up with the Bush administration's fucked up politics and regarded as a bunch of arrogant, greedy dicks. Historically we have ALWAYS stood up for EVERYONE and we're being villified en masse largely by people who live in places that have no idea what it's like to have friends die thousands of miles away fighting for something that the person sitting next to you only knows about from what he/she watches on the ten o'clock news. That's why I plainly say "fuck you" to people who don't live here and say that we should just pack up and leave because it's NOT the right thing to do, and neither would have us NOT stepping in to do something about it have been. 

The world is a fucked up place, and as the strongest, we are obligated to police it. Everyone has to live here. People are people and "countries" are just made up of imaginary lines in the sand. That's the way of things.


----------



## arktan (Aug 25, 2008)

America fought against the germans because Hitler declared war on the US

Hitler Declares War on the United States

Iraq DID NOT declare war on the US. So please stop comparing these 2 situations.


----------



## Rick (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris said:


> They're waiting to flip on the news and see Baghdad look like Cleveland.



Nice. 

I love my country as well but I know that things haven't been done the way they should have. I think it's unfair to lump everyone in a country that's not "popular." Not everyone believes the same thing, I'm sure calling a German person a skinhead Nazi wouldn't be the most enjoyable experience. I'm sure not all Russians want to take over Georgia, not all Iraqis hate America, and so on. 

*Rick departs the thread.*


----------



## Drew (Aug 25, 2008)

arktan said:


> America fought against the germans because Hitler declared war on the US
> 
> Hitler Declares War on the United States
> 
> Iraq DID NOT declare war on the US. So please stop comparing these 2 situations.



Bah, please. Don't split hairs. We declared war on Japan on December 8th. Considering Japan and Germany were allies, Hitler declaring war on the US on the 11th was a mere formality. We went to war against the Axis powers; one way or another, with our declaration of war on the 8th, we were entering war with Germany.


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

arktan said:


> Blah



If I felt it were even partially worth it for me to dig up 5 sources for each quote in hopes of one of them being "credible" enough for you, I would. You can go and google them on your own if you'd like, and if you find one that's completely the opposite of any of mine by all means post it up. I do not have a fact sheet next to me, nor am I a political science major. However since you're coming off as "Regardless of what you say I'll disagree, even if it's from the UN and UNICEF", it's hardly worth the effort on my part because you're one of the people I'm talking about that will just never accept anything but absolute villany from my country. I don't fault you in particular, but I'm almost numb to it at this point.

Speaking as someone who's actually been to Baghdad and Afghanistan, and someone who's job is to keep people alive there, and someone who lost several friends both there and in 9/11, you can probably guess how lightly I consider the opinion of someone safely tucked away in Switzerland behind a keyboard.

No offense meant, but that's pretty light. Take that as you will.


----------



## Drew (Aug 25, 2008)

Rick said:


> Nice.
> 
> I love my country as well but I know that things haven't been done the way they should have. I think it's unfair to lump everyone in a country that's not "popular." Not everyone believes the same thing, I'm sure calling a German person a skinhead Nazi wouldn't be the most enjoyable experience. I'm sure not all Russians want to take over Georgia, not all Iraqis hate America, and so on.
> 
> *Rick departs the thread.*



Rick, when you're not making gay jokes about me, sometimes you have some pretty level-headed things to say.


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

Rick said:


> Nice.
> 
> I love my country as well but I know that things haven't been done the way they should have. I think it's unfair to lump everyone in a country that's not "popular." Not everyone believes the same thing, I'm sure calling a German person a skinhead Nazi wouldn't be the most enjoyable experience. I'm sure not all Russians want to take over Georgia, not all Iraqis hate America, and so on.
> 
> *Rick departs the thread.*



Rick basically just summed up 15 pages of my ranting in one paragraph. 

Cheers, sir.


----------



## Rick (Aug 25, 2008)

Drew said:


> Rick, when you're not making drunk jokes about me, sometimes you have some pretty level-headed things to say.



That's better. I don't make gay jokes about you...I think.  



Chris said:


> Rick basically just summed up 15 pages of my ranting in one paragraph.
> 
> Cheers, sir.



Just trying to keep the peace, thanks. 

Check your PMs.


----------



## arktan (Aug 25, 2008)

Drew said:


> Bah, please. Don't split hairs. We declared war on Japan on December 8th. Considering Japan and Germany were allies, Hitler declaring war on the US on the 11th was a mere formality. We went to war against the Axis powers; one way or another, with our declaration of war on the 8th, we were entering war with Germany.



Japan, Italy, and Germany Declare War on the United States - World War II Multimedia Database



> Roosevelt, who wanted war with Germany, particularly worried that the European war, a far greater threat in his estimation, would be seen in the United States as a European problem and Japan as the Americans sole concern. Within days, Hitler would alleviate his concerns.



It wasn't sure as you make it sound there that the US were to enter war against Italy and Germany...
I'm not splitting hairs, i'm merely setting you guys straight on an issue which is always used to shut us Europeans up in discussions concerning the just/unjust wars of America.
It's not all gold that shines and it's not all truth that you learn in the school of your country (this one is meant generally and not specifically for the US)


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

Rick said:


> That's better. I don't make gay jokes about you...I think.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They're probably full of anti-US hatemail by this point.


----------



## Rick (Aug 25, 2008)

Quite possibly, but check it anyway.


----------



## arktan (Aug 25, 2008)

Rick said:


> Nice.
> 
> I love my country as well but I know that things haven't been done the way they should have. I think it's unfair to lump everyone in a country that's not "popular." Not everyone believes the same thing, I'm sure calling a German person a skinhead Nazi wouldn't be the most enjoyable experience. I'm sure not all Russians want to take over Georgia, not all Iraqis hate America, and so on.
> 
> *Rick departs the thread.*



Where did someone here write that all Americans are assholes? The discussion was about the Politics and some hyped it up to an attack on the US. It seems that some of you guys WANT to see us hating you.


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

buffa d said:


> Dropping two nukes in Japan was also happy as hell.



Another educated tidbit from someone with a clear command of history.



> The Allies demanded unconditional surrender of the Axis. In the Pacific Theatre, the Allies, led by the United States, rolled up the Japanese expansion island by island. When Guam was taken, the Allies had a base from which stage an invasion. The estimates of American casualties for an invasion of mainland Japan was in excess of 1 million Americans. Possibly in excess of 2 million Americans. The United States dropped two atomic bombs to save American lives and speed the end of the war. Prior to using the atomic bomb, Japan was given ultimatums to surrender along with warnings of the dire consequences. The Japanese government ignored the warnings. While the use of the atomic bomb was a technological and strategic turning point in both WWII and all future diplomatic and strategic activities, there were more people killed, maimed, and injured during the Tokyo firebombing campaigns than by the atomic bomb.


----------



## DelfinoPie (Aug 25, 2008)

Rick said:


> Nice.
> 
> I love my country as well but I know that things haven't been done the way they should have. I think it's unfair to lump everyone in a country that's not "popular." Not everyone believes the same thing, I'm sure calling a German person a skinhead Nazi wouldn't be the most enjoyable experience. I'm sure not all Russians want to take over Georgia, not all Iraqis hate America, and so on.
> 
> *Rick departs the thread.*



+rep

You mean all 301,139,947 people that live in the US DON'T share the same ideals!? 

This goes with what I said in my other post, you can't tar everyone in a nation with the same brush. To do so borders on xenophobia.

Similarly, if it's not "right" to stay in Iraq, then would it be "right" to help the country out and once the main objective has been reached simply leave it in a mess saying "It's all yours..., you're welcome"?

Call me crazy, but if any country did that to another country I'd think a lot less of them than if they stayed and continued to help to stabilise it.


----------



## HighGain510 (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris said:


> That's why I love America, and the current elected official does not represent the feelings and opinions of it's people, nor does it usuall ever. We, Americans, DO care. *I* give a shit what happens there. *I* want to help. *I* don't want to turn my back when atrocities happen because I'm an American, and my country has the power, knowledge and temperance to be a catalyst for change in the world. To make life better for people. The fact that GW is a fuckup or that there are greedy Oil tycoons in place wanting to milk it for every dime doesn't change the fact that the *Americans* currently there *are not a part of that*. So I get defensive when "Americans" are bundled up with the Bush administration's fucked up politics and regarded as a bunch of arrogant, greedy dicks. Historically we have ALWAYS stood up for EVERYONE and we're being villified en masse largely by people who live in places that have no idea what it's like to have friends die thousands of miles away fighting for something that the person sitting next to you only knows about from what he/she watches on the ten o'clock news. That's why I plainly say "fuck you" to people who don't live here and say that we should just pack up and leave because it's NOT the right thing to do, and neither would have us NOT stepping in to do something about it have been.



This sums up exactly how I feel about this topic and really hits close to home for me. My brother came up from NC to visit me this past weekend and after hearing some of the shit he had to put up with during the 18 months he served in Afghanistan, I bought him drinks for the night. It's a shame that it seems a lot of folks outside the US seem to want to hold *everyone* responsible for the things people above us decide to do.  While I agree that something needed to be done overseas, I don't entirely agree with the way it panned out. I am, however, EXTREMELY grateful for the folks who do make it possible for our country to help make a difference. I do my small part to help those folks make that happen (although I'd wager to a much lesser degree than you do, Chris ). 

My hope is that the next elected president will move America a bit closer to the direction the *AMERICAN PEOPLE* would like it to, rather than the folks mentioned above.  Maybe then on the world stage people won't make blanket statements the way they do now.


----------



## Drew (Aug 25, 2008)

Oh, right, you give me shit about my album.  

arktan - I'm aware that the continental war was Roosevelt's first and foremost concern when the decision was made to declare war on Japan. 

It's also worth noting that while there's not enough concrete evidence to back this up beyond a shadow of a doubt, there's a school of thought that Roosevelt may have allowed Pearl Harbor to occur as an excuse to bring America into WWII. I actually wrote a paper on this years ago in a high school AP US history class - evidently, we intercepted Japanese communications about 7:30 in the morning EST the day of the attack detailing their intentions, a good six or so hours before Pearl Harbor was attacked. What happened next is a little fuzzy, but not long later the Pacific Fleet, minus a token onshore presence, was directed to take an unannounced and unplanned training exersize that kept them both out of the harbor and out of sight of the Japanese fleet. Just enough of a presence was left to draw a Japanese attack, and just enough life was lost to spark public rage, but the bulk of the Pacific Fleet just happened to be away that morning. I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories, but it's certainly food for thought.


----------



## Drew (Aug 25, 2008)

> While the use of the atomic bomb was a technological and strategic turning point in both WWII and all future diplomatic and strategic activities, there were more people killed, maimed, and injured during the Tokyo firebombing campaigns than by the atomic bomb.



As a Vonnegut fan/scholar, it's also worth noting what we did to Dresden in this context.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Aug 25, 2008)

Drew said:


> As a Vonnegut fan/scholar, it's also worth noting what we did to Dresden in this context.



Indeed, one of the most callus and indescribably horrific acts ever made by humanity. I guess all three parties in the war (Allies, Axis and Soviet) had their darkest of moments...


----------



## playstopause (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris, honestly, I wasn't fishing for the "oil" answer. That's too obvious. 
Anyway, you make a lot valuable points but i'd like to point you in direction of what I was _really_ fishing for : 



Chris said:


> - The US sends its troops to where it feels it can make a difference.



They could make a difference in many, many other places than Irak. Thing is there is no "external" point of interest for them to go.



> - If ending the oppressive regime of a tyrant isn't a good enough reason for you to have the US go there, I don't know what to tell you.



Why choose a particular tyran over another? Why choose to go while every other country in the U.N. are against it?



> - To sit idle and watch injustice happen when you could have done something about it is nearly as bad as committing the act itself.



The thing is the U.S. defines what is an injustice is in a way that can justify their next move.



> - ... we have the power to change things and help people, and for the most part that's what we do.





> - ... my country has the power, knowledge and temperance to be a catalyst for change in the world. To make life better for people.



True, the U.S. have some kind of power, but that's pretty irrelevant to think you can "save the world" and rebuild it based on american standards.



> - Historically we have ALWAYS stood up for EVERYONE...



Everyone. Really?



> - That's why I plainly say "fuck you" to people who don't live here and say that we should just pack up and leave because it's NOT the right thing to do...



Well, don't be surprised if people say "fuck you" in return if they don't feel the same, you know?

And probably the strongest one: 



> - ... and as the strongest, we are obligated to police it.



This "obligation" to police the world is mainly (IMO) what bugs other countries citizens.

The thing is, and I really hope you can understand this, people find The U.S to be arrogant because the U.S decide by themselves (as if they possesses universal truth) about what is wrong and what's not. What country is good and what country is bad. The U.S. decide who they should stand for and who should they left ignored. The U.S. decides who stays in power and who doesn't stays. They decide what justice is and what freedom is, ignoring the different realities in other parts of the world. They impose their vision.

Really, that's what I wanted to point at. And everything you say in your answers points to that line of thinking.

...


Different views makes great conversations, me thinks.


----------



## arktan (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris said:


> Another educated tidbit from someone with a clear command of history.
> 
> 
> 
> > The Allies demanded unconditional surrender of the Axis. In the Pacific Theatre, the Allies, led by the United States, rolled up the Japanese expansion island by island. When Guam was taken, the Allies had a base from which stage an invasion. The estimates of American casualties for an invasion of mainland Japan was in excess of 1 million Americans. Possibly in excess of 2 million Americans. The United States dropped two atomic bombs to save American lives and speed the end of the war. Prior to using the atomic bomb, Japan was given ultimatums to surrender along with warnings of the dire consequences. The Japanese government ignored the warnings. While the use of the atomic bomb was a technological and strategic turning point in both WWII and all future diplomatic and strategic activities, there were more people killed, maimed, and injured during the Tokyo firebombing campaigns than by the atomic bomb.



And the Japanese knew that the Americans weren't bluffing. In fact: Nobody except the Americans knew what destruction a nuke could do (your government kept it pretty secret).
Now imagine you're at war with a country and it's leaders send you something like this:

"We have means to fuck you up. We have Nukes :insert description of a nuke here:
If you don't surrender we're gonna drop it."


Would you believe it? Wouldn't you look at this as a bluff? And why didn't the US drop a nuke on a small island near Japan to show it, they would have surrendered. But noooooo, we must nuke 2 big cities.
Even the fact that you justify it that way (1-2 million AMERICAN soldiers are more worth than Japanese civilian) is simply disgusting.

And someone who had more military know how than you, me or Truman spoke out against the use of the nuke since the Japanese showed signs of surrender even before the use of the bomb. The name of that man was Dwight D. Eisenhower. So you are justyfing a thing against the oppinion of a man who actually had the knowledge and experience to say it was wrong? You don't even know that part of your own history but you can tell me that America policing the world is the only right thing to do?


----------



## ZeroSignal (Aug 25, 2008)

arktan said:


> And the Japanese knew that the Americans weren't bluffing. In fact: Nobody except the Americans knew what destruction a nuke could do (your government kept it pretty secret).
> Now imagine you're at war with a country and it's leaders send you something like this:
> 
> "We have means to fuck you up. We have Nukes :insert description of a nuke here:
> ...



Not to mention that culturally it was unacceptable for the Emperor to surrender. So knowing this the American military could murder the civilian population of a country that they had brought to it's knees and with the knowledge that they could get away with testing these devices by slaughtering innocent people because they were still technically at war with the country.


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

playstopause said:


> Honestly, I wasn't fishing for the "oil" answer. That's too obvious.



Filthy liar! 



> They could make a difference in many, many other places than Irak. Thing is there is no "external" point of interest for them to go. Why choose a particular tyran over another? Why choose to go while every othe country in the U.N. are against it?



People make the best decisions that they can, I don't know what more to tell you.



> The thing is the U.S. defines what is an injustice is in a way that can justify their next move.



In what way? Surely you aren't saying that what Saddam was doing to his people wasn't an injustice - so what do you mean?



> True, the U.S. have some kind of power, but that's pretty irrelevant to think you can "save the world" and rebuild it based on american standards.



If that standard is better than the standard in place, what's a better option then? Freedom and liberty shouldn't just be American ideals. 



> Well, don't be surprised if people say "fuck you" in return, you know?



That's no problem as long as the person telling me to fuck off has a point, and isn't just telling me to fuck off because I told them to. That's the same as "I know you are but what am I!" childish nonsense and is the rallying cry of people who lack either the nerve or the knowledge (usually both) to defend their point of view.



> This "obligation" to police the world is mainly (IMO) what bugs other countries citizen.



As a person and a human being, I think it's a good idea to stand up for people who can't do so for themselves. That includes tyrannical regimes and crazed lunatics with nuclear weapons and religious ideals that tell them that everyone who isn't faithful to their god deserves to die, and that they'll be rewarded for killing them. If you see someone on the street getting raped, are you obligated to step in, or are you being a dick who should mind his own business?



> The thing is, and I really hope you can understand this, people find The U.S to be arrogant because the U.S decide by themselves (as if they possesses universal truth) about what is wrong and what's not. What country is good and what country is bad. The U.S. decide who they should stand for and who should they left ignored. The U.S. decides who stays in power and who doesn't stays. They decide what justice is and what freedom is, ignoring the different realities in other parts of the world. They impose their vision.



That's partially true, partially media spin, and partially because countries, and people, who are apathetic and don't take action will always be quick to judge people who do because (in my opinion, of course) they are in some way guilty of not doing anything. I do get what you're saying, but as with everyone else in this thread I'll ask you the same - please point out a situation where the US went in and invaded a country that was full of happy, content citizens who weren't in need of any help at all and pushed our values on them. I'm not saying that there isn't one, there probably is, but I don't know of one off the top of my head. And at the same time, please point to one of the many times we did go in alone and had it turn out for the better.



> Really, that's what I wanted to point at. And everything you say in your answers points to that line of thinking.



I'm not ashamed of this line of thinking because as I said above - sometimes making the wrong decision is better than making no decision at all. If my country chooses not to sit idle and let the rest of the world butcher itself and is villified for stepping in and trying to promote freedom, I will never, ever find fault in that. For all the anti-US sentiment out there, it's a wonder that there isn't the same amount for countries that do nothing. But again, we are the strongest, and it is our obligation to do this sometimes because plainly put, we are the only ones that can. 

People dying isn't something that you can quietly contemplate for a few years hoping that it will go away, which is what the UN tends to want us to do. Countries and populations in need are in need NOW, not 5 caucuses, 6 sessions, two votes and 5 months of planning later.


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

arktan said:


> And the Japanese knew that the Americans weren't bluffing. In fact: Nobody except the Americans knew what destruction a nuke could do (your government kept it pretty secret).
> Now imagine you're at war with a country and it's leaders send you something like this:
> 
> "We have means to fuck you up. We have Nukes :insert description of a nuke here:
> ...



Are you going to bring up Pearl Harbor, or should I?

The fact that you pick and choose my rebuttals to you instead of answering to everything (like I am doing with you) is further proof that you're paddling a sinking ship. I already said that you aren't really worth debating with because you pick and choose your rebuttals to suit your ends, but here, in easy-to-read quoted text.



> The reasons The Bomb was used in the first place was [1] we had the weapon, and [2] we wanted to avoid having to invade the Japanese Home Islands because we already had a pretty good idea what it was going to cost in lives. The Japanese in 1945 refused to quit no matter how much we firebombed them. They were preparing a defense of the Home Islands that, by one estimate at least, would cost a million American Dead and Ten Million Japanese dead &#8212; because they had already demonstrated over and over that they would kill themselves rather than suffer the dishonor of surrender.



Yes, 200,000 dead is better than eleven million.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris said:


> As a person and a human being, I think it's a good idea to stand up for people who can't do so for themselves. That includes tyrannical regimes and crazed lunatics with nuclear weapons and religious ideals that tell them that everyone who isn't faithful to their god deserves to die, and that they'll be rewarded for killing them. If you see someone on the street getting raped, are you obligated to step in, or are you being a dick who should mind his own business?



By crazed lunatics with nuclear weapons and aggressive religious ideals you do mean America, Israel, India, Pakistan, (and minus the religion bit) the U.K. and Russia, right? Because that's who I'm most afraid of at the moment. It really doesn't matter who has nuclear weapons at this stage because there are so many of them all over the world that not much is really going to be done with them. Governments are just going to sit staring at one another with their hand on the button just the same as always and even if Iran had them that just means that another person is sitting on a stockpile of nuclear weapons. Join the party. It is called Mutually Assured Destruction after all. We seem to be on our way to another Cold War anyway as Russia seems to be considering itself cornered by the looks of things.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Aug 25, 2008)

> The reasons The Bomb was used in the first place was [1] we had the weapon, and [2] we wanted to avoid having to invade the Japanese Home Islands because we already had a pretty good idea what it was going to cost in lives. The Japanese in 1945 refused to quit no matter how much we firebombed them. They were preparing a defense of the Home Islands that, by one estimate at least, would cost a million American Dead and Ten Million Japanese dead &#8212; because they had already demonstrated over and over that they would kill themselves rather than suffer the dishonor of surrender.



This is what I mentioned in my post on the previous page. They could not surrender.


----------



## arktan (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris said:


> Are you going to bring up Pearl Harbor, or should I?
> 
> The fact that you pick and choose my rebuttals to you instead of answering to everything (like I am doing with you) is further proof that you're paddling a sinking ship. But here, in easy-to-read quoted text.
> 
> ...



I'm merely not responding to insults. If you change your tone, we can discuss this in a much better and informative way (and don't point the finger at me talking bullshit since my tone was pretty balanced before you attacked me on a personal level).
Did you even read my post? Dropping a nuke on a small island near Japan would have solved that aswell. There never was a need to invade Japan. Dropping the bomb was NOT NECESSARY. Even Eisenhower said that.


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> By crazed lunatics with nuclear weapons and aggressive religious ideals you do mean America, Israel, India, Pakistan, (and minus the religion bit) the U.K. and Russia, right? Because that's who I'm most afraid of at the moment.



Actually, I said "tyrannical regimes and crazed lunatics". Last I checked, America wasn't brutally enslaving innocent populations and hitting them with nerve gas, nor are we celebrating the killing of our enemies as acts of god, and furthermore defining our enemies not by their actions, but by their faith.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

arktan said:


> I'm merely not responding to insults. If you change your tone, we can discuss this in a much better and informative way (and don't point the finger at me talking bullshit since my tone was pretty balanced before you attacked me on a personal level).
> Did you even read my post? Dropping a nuke on a small island near Japan would have solved that aswell. There never was a need to invade Japan. Dropping the bomb was NOT NECESSARY. Even Eisenhower said that.



I'm not changing my tone, nor am I insulting you. If you're insulted by me pointing out the holes in your argument, that's your problem. I'm pretty sure my response to your current redundant question is still quoted a in my post a few posts up.

Edit:

All you seek is on this page.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris said:


> Actually, I said "tyrannical regimes and crazed lunatics". Last I checked, America wasn't brutally enslaving innocent populations and hitting them with nerve gas, nor are we celebrating the killing of our enemies as acts of god, and furthermore defining our enemies not by their actions, but by their faith.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong.



Well you said "tyrannical regimes _*and*_ crazed lunatics with nuclear weapons". Which is different to "tyrannical regimes who are crazed lunatics with nuclear weapons".

As for brutally enslaving people. Guantanamo Bay has a track record of imprisoning innocent people unfairly and using various methods of torture. This doesn't include the Black Sites that America "supposedly" keep around the world for torture and "interrogation" (BTW, American torture flights fly through Shannon Airport on the way to such locations). While it is not on the same scale (that we know of) as Saddam had it still doesn't leave the American establishment in the clear in this regard.

Was it not one of your Generals who famously said "I knew my god was bigger than his. I knew that my god was a real god and his was an idol" when referring to a Muslim Somalian warlord? A Lt. General William G. Boykin.


----------



## Brendan G (Aug 25, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Was it not one of your Generals who famously said "I knew my god was bigger than his. I knew that my god was a real god and his was an idol" when referring to a Muslim Somalian warlord? A Lt. General William G. Boykin.


Please note you put ONE General, if all of the American armed forces or even the majority thought that, then you may have something.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Aug 25, 2008)

Brendan G said:


> Please note you put ONE General, if all of the American armed forces or even the majority thought that, then you may have something.



This is true. But there are quite a few of evangelical Christians in America. One of them is the Commander in Chief of your armed forces. What he says goes, in a manner of speaking.

Also, according to the American Department of Defence only 14% of the American population are evangelical Christian while Department of Defence statistics show that 40% of active duty personnel are evangelical Christians. 60% of taxpayer-funded military chaplains are evangelical.


----------



## Brendan G (Aug 25, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> This is true. But there are a LOT of evangelical Christians in America. One of them is the Commander in Chief of your armed forces. What he says goes, in a manner of speaking.


This is also quite true, but just keep in mind that the majority of the US are not evangelical and or fundementalists, they are just the very vocal minority.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Aug 25, 2008)

Brendan G said:


> This is also quite true, but just keep in mind that the majority of the US are not evangelical and or fundementalists, they are just the very vocal minority.



Yes, this is very true. In fact I've just edited my previous post to account for that. Sorry if it appears like a "ninja-edit".


----------



## Brendan G (Aug 25, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> This is true. But there are quite a few of evangelical Christians in America. One of them is the Commander in Chief of your armed forces. What he says goes, in a manner of speaking.
> 
> Also, according to the American Department of Defence only 14% of the American population are evangelical Christian while Department of Defence statistics show that 40% of active duty personnel are evangelical Christians. 60% of taxpayer-funded military chaplains are evangelical.


Well in that case, it looks like you got something here( about the military thing).


----------



## ZeroSignal (Aug 25, 2008)

Brendan G said:


> Well in that case, it looks like you got something here.



Yes, but they're 2005 statistics. I wonder how that has changed over the past couple of years.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Aug 25, 2008)

this is getting a bit too heated for me...


----------



## ZeroSignal (Aug 25, 2008)

Thrashmanzac said:


> this is getting a bit too heated for me...



Same here to be honest. I'm sure this is so far gone past the O.P.'s original intentions...


----------



## Josh Lawson (Aug 25, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Same here to be honest. I'm sure this is so far gone past the O.P.'s original intentions...


Yes it has. Although a good vigorous debate is always good.


----------



## Brendan G (Aug 25, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Same here to be honest. I'm sure this is so far gone past the O.P.'s original intentions...


But to be honest, can you really expect a "What's wrong with (insert country here)" thread and not turn out into a full blown argument/debate?


----------



## ZeroSignal (Aug 25, 2008)

Brendan G said:


> But to be honest, can you really expect a "What's wrong with (insert country here)" thread and not turn out into a full blown argument/debate?



Good point.


----------



## Rick (Aug 25, 2008)

The policies are fucked up. 

Period.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 25, 2008)

I haven't followed much of the thread (except for Rick's badassery) but, on behalf of a fairly large portion of America, I have to say...

We really are trying to figure out the whole 'reboot Washington' thing. Seriously. Takes time, but we're working on it, we swear.

Jeff


----------



## ZeroSignal (Aug 25, 2008)

JBroll said:


> I haven't followed much of the thread (except for Rick's badassery) but, on behalf of a fairly large portion of America, I have to say...
> 
> We really are trying to figure out the whole 'reboot Washington' thing. Seriously. Takes time, but we're working on it, we swear.
> 
> Jeff



You guys will find it. Washington will resist but you guys have shown in the past that you're a fantastic people when the shit hits the fan as it were. I just hope that the government won't have enough influence to totally resist total change.


----------



## playstopause (Aug 25, 2008)

Chris said:


> Filthy liar!



But I swear! 



> People make the best decisions that they can, I don't know what more to tell you.



True. Nobody's perfect. However, I wonder why each time U.S. "helps" another country, it seems tainted by some hidden agenda. It might be a wrong perception, but I also wonder why I and some other people _have_ that perception. I feel the same with Russia by the way.



> In what way? Surely you aren't saying that what Saddam was doing to his people wasn't an injustice - so what do you mean?



Of course it was. What I meant was that the U.S. knew what Saddam was doing... for years. Why not try to put him down earlier? Because there was no need for oil yet? Imo, no oil in Irak = no invasion.



> If that standard is better than the standard in place, what's a better option then? Freedom and liberty shouldn't just be American ideals.



True, but what i'm talking about is Freedom and Liberty as defined by the americans. That's different. Sometimes, your country is promoting Freedom and Liberty like its promoting McDonald's restaurants. We've heard it too many times and it has an after taste.



> As a person and a human being, I think it's a good idea to stand up for people who can't do so for themselves. That includes tyrannical regimes and crazed lunatics with nuclear weapons and religious ideals that tell them that everyone who isn't faithful to their god deserves to die, and that they'll be rewarded for killing them. If you see someone on the street getting raped, are you obligated to step in, or are you being a dick who should mind his own business?



Well, that's a pretty different situation, isn't it? 
When you help a country (especially a country that has 1000x your history) you are dealing with values, traditions that goes back hundred of centuries in the past. You can't just go "boom" and install a democracy. Those who thought they could get out of Irak within a year were quite off the track (and probably living in some sort of parallel dream world). 

I agree about the fact that the strongest should help the weakest. But helping doesn't mean _imposing_ your system, values and ways of thinking / do things.

_"We'll help you, but you have have to become a democracy because we decided that's what it's going to be, no matter what the traditions are here. That's what we have in America and that's what you need! Shut up! You'll see!"_



> That's partially true, partially media spin, and partially because countries, and people, who are apathetic and don't take action will always be quick to judge people who do because (in my opinion, of course) they are in some way guilty of not doing anything.



That might be a part of it... Or they'll be quick to judge because they think there is simply a better course of action. That's also possible, right?



> I do get what you're saying, but as with everyone else in this thread I'll ask you the same - please point out a situation where the US went in and invaded a country that was full of happy, content citizens who weren't in need of any help at all and pushed our values on them. I'm not saying that there isn't one, there probably is, but I don't know of one off the top of my head. And at the same time, please point to one of the many times we did go in alone and had it turn out for the better.



Off the top of my head, there is no hard facts that comes to mind. Anyway, that's not what I'm trying to say here (and i'm quite sure you get what i'm saying but you decided to be stubborn ). Anyway, how to prove feelings among people with hard evidences?

I don't think I need to prove that there's some hate goin' on with the U.S., as you are already well aware of that. What I want so say here is it's all in _the way things are done_. If some people around the world hate the U.S. (there's probably as much that loves it), I believe there some reasons to. 

To me, it's the "I don't give a fuck what you think, i'm right" attitude (flexes muscles, cocky style). 



> I'm not ashamed of this line of thinking because as I said above - sometimes making the wrong decision is better than making no decision at all. If my country chooses not to sit idle and let the rest of the world butcher itself and is villified for stepping in and trying to promote freedom, I will never, ever find fault in that. For all the anti-US sentiment out there, it's a wonder that there isn't the same amount for countries that do nothing. But again, we are the strongest, and it is our obligation to do this sometimes because plainly put, we are the only ones that can.



But that's a role YOU gave yourselves. Nobody asked for that in the first place! 
Alright, the U.S. helps a LOT of people in need all over the world. But damn, there is no need to invade (like Vietnam, like Irak).

And promoting freedom is fine, as long as it's not "Freedom made in the U.S.A.". It's not a universal system you can apply to different cultures and all. U.S.'s freedom is U.S. freedom only. It belongs to your history.



> People dying isn't something that you can quietly contemplate for a few years hoping that it will go away, which is what the UN tends to want us to do. Countries and populations in need are in need NOW, not 5 caucuses, 6 sessions, two votes and 5 months of planning later.



Agreed, things take way too much time to move. Things should be done in a different way. But is this a reason to bypass everyone, just because you can? I don't think so. That's like giving the finger to the whole world. It's just going to bring hate your way from all the people of all those different countries, just because they won't feel respected.

Note: _all_ of the above is imho.



Josh Lawson said:


> Yes it has. Although a good vigorous debate is always good.







JBroll said:


> We really are trying to figure out the whole 'reboot Washington' thing. Seriously. Takes time, but we're working on it, we swear.
> 
> Jeff



God bless America!  I hope for you guys. We also need to reboot Ottawa. 




...

This thread is WAY too time consuming... I gotta get out!!!!!!


----------



## JBroll (Aug 25, 2008)

It's okay, we still love you - even if you do hate freedom.

Jeff


----------



## Rick (Aug 25, 2008)

JBroll said:


> (except for Rick's badassery)



Wow, quite the compliment dude, thanks.


----------



## playstopause (Aug 25, 2008)

JBroll said:


> It's okay, we still love you - even if you do hate freedom.
> 
> Jeff





It's okay, we still love you too - even if you do hate maple syrup.


----------



## Rick (Aug 25, 2008)

I fucking love maple syrup.

I gotta have something to go on my pancakes.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 25, 2008)

It's hard to find the real stuff down here, which cuts down on my pancake intake massively.

Jeff


----------



## Rick (Aug 25, 2008)

Naturally, IHOP doesn't count.


----------



## playstopause (Aug 25, 2008)

There you go guys.


----------



## Rick (Aug 25, 2008)

Isn't that cute, even in a maple leaf bottle!


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Aug 25, 2008)

playstopause said:


> There you go guys.


 
I just ate a buncha bacon n' eggs.

And now I want syrup soaked pancakes damnit!!


----------



## Chris (Aug 26, 2008)

JBroll said:


> I haven't followed much of the thread (except for Rick's badassery) but, on behalf of a fairly large portion of America, I have to say...
> 
> We really are trying to figure out the whole 'reboot Washington' thing. Seriously. Takes time, but we're working on it, we swear.
> 
> Jeff



I'm going to end this trainwreck of a flamefest thread on a sign that armageddon is coming.

I agree with Jeff.


----------



## Drew (Aug 26, 2008)

Chris said:


> I'm going to end this trainwreck of a flamefest thread on a sign that armageddon is coming.
> 
> I agree with Jeff.





I'll also say that there's actually cause for hope here, too - the one takeaway from the Bush Administration is that allowing one branch of the government to dominate the other two (in this case the Executive branch, which got a blank check from the Congressional and basically ran slipshod over the Judiciary) is a VERY dangerous thing to do and can seriously impact our reputation at home and abroad. 

One of the more promising things about Obama's campaign (especially compared to clinton, who is somewhat iron willed) is that he has a track record as a compromiser, and is good at forging consensus amongst different parties. Not only is he not the sort of president likely to push the limits of Executive power by pushing the borders of executive privelage, having his team draw up questionable-at-best legal justifications to support illegal acts, and by issuing unconstitutional "signing statements" with legislation, there's a fair chance Obama will allow some of the checks on executive power to fall back in place. 

The American form of government isn't perfect, but if allowed to run correctly it CAN work. What we saw here however was way closer to a constitutional monarchy than a representative democracy. The pendulum is way off to one side now - it almost has to swing back.

/abuse of mod powers.


----------

