Refering to this BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6288933.stm

Well, it seems the USA is heading towards another phase of isolationist politics, only this time it appears that the rest of the world is isolating itself from the USA, as far as it is possible the USA being a superpower and all.
A superpower that nobody appears to like because it is acting as if the rest of the world isn't there.

Question: are americans ok with that? Tall, proud of something, alone, oppressing others.

He has long-argued that Americans need to better understand how their policies appear to others.

"To communicate effectively," he has written, "Americans must first learn to listen."

This is the crux of the issue.

The problem is that this is just a approve-disapprove poll. Without further and more indepth questions we cannot be sure for the reasons of the approve-disapprove. It could be that they don't think we do enough in Iraq, didn't crush NK when we should have, didn't talk hard enough with Iran, or any number of things. All this shows is that quite a few people are unhappy.

Not everything popular is right and not everything right is popular.

"Right" itself is something very subjective.
What might be right for you, may not be right for others.

And I doubt that the respondents really ment that the USA should have gone all the way and nuked Iraq. :D

When much of the world attempts to shit on America repeateldy, whyever should we listen to them?

The way Islamic countries "communicate with the United States" is to commit terrorist actions.

The way North Korea "communicates with the United States" is by exploding a fission weapon.

The way Africa "communicates with the United States" is stealing our aid money.

When much of the world attempts to shit on America repeateldy, whyever should we listen to them?
America shits on the world. You failed to listen.


The way Islamic countries "communicate with the United States" is to commit terrorist actions.
Because you failed to listen.

The way North Korea "communicates with the United States" is by exploding a fission weapon.
Because you failed to listen.

The way Africa "communicates with the United States" is stealing our aid money.
The US is making a nice profit of Africa. I wouldn't be to worried about them stealing some petty cash. Why did the US fuck up in somalia? Failed to listen.

America shits on the world. You failed to listen.

And that is why we spend billions in aid and have committed no atrocities to any people in our 225 year history.

Because you failed to listen.

Yes, we failed to listen to stop being "the great Satan" and to institute shariah. Right.

Because you failed to listen.

Don't you think they fail to listen to their starving people? Or how about the women Kim Jung'il abducts and rapes?

The US is making a nice profit of Africa. I wouldn't be to worried about them stealing some petty cash. Why did the US fuck up in somalia? Failed to listen.

What money, outside the diamond industry?

What money, outside the diamond industry?
:eek:

And that is why we spend billions in aid and have committed no atrocities to any people in our 225 year history.
The list of atrocities is so long it is embarassing. I'm not going to name them all. Once again a clear example that americans do not listen.

Two nuclear weapons used on civilian targets.
vietnam war.
Invasion of Iraq.
The removal of many democratic regimes.
The teaching of torture to dictatorial regimes.
Support of terrorist organizations such as mujahideen or contras in Nicaragua.




Yes, we failed to listen to stop being "the great Satan" and to institute shariah. Right.
A typical response of someone who has not listened to the ME.



Don't you think they fail to listen to their starving people? Or how about the women Kim Jung'il abducts and rapes?
Once again you are just showing reluctance to engage in a dialogue with North Korean.




What money, outside the diamond industry?
Educate yourself. Nigeria for example is sitting on a huge oil reserve.

And that is why we spend billions in aid and have committed no atrocities to any people in our 225 year history.

Atrocities
http://www.google.com/search?q=US+atrocities&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Aid
Some perspectives:

Most aid serves as an instrument of foreign policy, not really as a charitable gift. For example, in 1965-66, during a famine, the United States threatened to cut off food aid to India when its government attempted to take control of U.S.-owned fertilizer companies. India capitulated because it needed the money, thereby giving more freedom to U.S. investment companies. In effect, while millions of Indians starved, food shipments were stalled to force the government to capitulate to the demands of U.S. corporations. In 1964, U.S. aid to Brazil dropped from $81.8 million to $15.1 million because America disapproved of the government at the time. These are just two instances in which the U.S. government withheld food for political purposes. Food is used to reward and manipulate poor countries rather than to feed hungry people. ~

Surprisingly, most U.S. aid actually winds up subsidizing American corporations. During the Johnson administration, 90 ,' percent of all foreign aid benefited U.S. corporate development programs, such as the building of dams, nuclear power plants, roads, and bridges in the Third World, and the profits accrued to the relevant U.S. companies. So U.S. foreign aid serves not only as a coercive instrument of foreign policy but also to support private U.S. contractors, universities, banks, consulting firms, lobbyists, and so forth. In fact, foreign aid is now recognized to be a lucrative business, and companies are scrambling to capitalize on it. Even in 1970, multinationals invested $270 million in Africa and repatriated $995 million, $200 million in Asia and received $2,400 million, and $900 million in Latin America for $2,900 million. Corporations also tend to borrow most of their investment funds for Third World projects from Third World banks.
In 1986, U.S. foreign aid expenditure totaled $15.9 billion, while Americans spent $10.3 billion on movies and theaters, $34.2 billion on tobacco, and $59 billion on alcohol. An expenditure of five cents per person would save the sight of 100,000 children who are blinded annually because of a vitamin A deficiency, and a mere three dollars each would immunize them against poliomyelitis, tetanus, whooping cough, diphtheria, and measles. One year's expenditure by the U.S. cosmetics industry would provide 1.6 billion people with sanitation.

Third World debt is exacerbating global environmental degradation. Until 1973, the poor developing countries had made great strides in public health and preventive medicine, in education, and in crop production. But in the years 1973-74 world dynamics changed. The oil-producing, OPEC countries suddenly increased the price of oil fivefold, and oil became scarce. There were large and often angry lines outside gas stations in the United States and elsewhere. The oil-rich countries made huge profits and deposited their money, called petrodollars, in the world's major banks, particularly in the United States.
The banks, ever eager to profit from this windfall, decided to offer low-interest loans to Third World countries, which could obviously benefit from extra cash. The banks called this lending policy "recycling," but it turned out to be, in effect, an international lending spree, in which they unloaded petrodollars on unsuspecting developing countries.


The World Bank, which represents many of the major banks in the United States and other wealthy countries, decided at a conference in the Philippines in 1976 to lend this impoverished country $4.5 billion. It openly stated that it would rather lend to "stable" countries (that is, ones ruled by dictators) than to democracies governed by the people. Hence President Marcos of the Philippines was an excellent client. Countries with similar dictatorships received huge petrodollar loans-Chile, Brazil Argentina, and Uruguay. Other borrowers included Mexico Tanzania, and many struggling African nations. The amount of money available was vast. Lending to Latin America increased from $35 billion in 1973 to $350 billion in 1983.


Most of the loans were based on variable interest rates. During 1981-82, U.S. interest rates doubled, to 20 percent, because of tight monetary policies caused by the growing U.S. deficit, engendered by the Reagan administration's lavish spending on weapons. But each 1 percent increase in the interest rate meant $4 billion more that Latin America had to give American banks in interest payments. Furthermore, a global recession at that time decreased the demand for exports from developing countries, thus decreasing their income. Debt servicing rose from 15 percent of their export earnings in 1980 to 31 percent in 1986 in sub-Saharan Africa. Between 1973 and 1980, Third World debt increased by a factor of four, to $650 billion, and it now stands at $1.3 trillion. This is an unbelievable burden for countries whose populations are hardly surviving.

In Latin America, for instance, a large percentage of the petrodollars was used to buy expensive weapons. Military spending in these countries increased 10 percent each year during the 1970s and 1980s. In Africa, spending on weapons increased 18 percent annually. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that 20 percent of the Third World debt is a result of military spending. It goes without saying that these poor countries do not manufacture military equipment themselves. It is made in the United States, the Soviet Union, Israel Germany, France, Britain, and other industrial nations. Each country's military-industrial complex lobbies to sell weapons to poor countries. Arms bazaars are held in many cities of the United States and other countries each year.

The World Bank has encouraged countries to destroy tropical rain forests to pay back their debt. In Brazil, it proposed that 5 million hectares of the Amazon be "brought under control and management"; in Ecuador, 1 million hectares; and in India, 30 million hectares. It is the same story in the Congo and in Papua New Guinea. The World Bank also approved a loan of $156 million for a dam on the Serang River, in central Java, Indonesia, which would entail the resettlement of twenty thousand people and the flooding of huge areas of forest. Similar projects have been prepared in Zaire and in Gujarat, India.


Since 1982, the IMF has decided to impose severe austerity measures that forced desperately poor Third World countries to use more and more of their land to grow cash or luxury crops for export, such as bananas, coffee, cocoa, pineapples, and flowers, in order to help pay off the debt. Forests and virgin land are being destroyed and cultivated, producing ecological damage and leaving very little land on which the indigenous population can grow food. The people then become dependent upon cheap imported food from the United States (grown with subsidies from the American government). In the 1970s, food imports to Africa increased 600 percent, and by 1985 two-fifths of Africa's food was imported. The net effect of these policies has been to produce nations that are hostage to the American and European agricultural system and that lose their independence. Instead, foreign aid should be used primarily to establish agricultural and economic autonomy for Third World countries.

Most of the profits from commodity sales in the Third World go to retailers, middlemen, and shareholders in the First World. Only 15 percent of the $200 billion in the annual sales of these commodities in rich countries winds up in the countries that grow them. For instance, just 11 percent from the sale of bananas is paid to the producing country. In Brazil, only 4 percent in royalties is paid for the millions of tons of bauxite (used to produce aluminum) exported to the United States. The workers in the Third World in general receive only 1 to 2 percent of the value they create. Nicaraguan coffee pickers receive 0.5 percent of the wholesale value of the coffee, while governments and rich plantation owners make $750 million per year. And tea pickers in India starve because they get only eight cents per day and food prices are high, whereas company profits in 1976-77 were $21 million. In the Caribbean, the people actually starve beside fields growing flowers and tomatoes for export to the United States.

Wealthy countries impose tariffs or trade barriers on processed goods, but none on raw materials, thus ensuring that poor countries remain in poverty. For instance, in 1985, British tariffs on raw cotton were zero, on cotton yam 8 percent, and on cotton T-shirts 17 percent. So the Third World can never break the poverty cycle, because First World tariffs work against the importation of manufactured goods from the Third World. A Third World country is defined as one that exports raw materials and imports finished goods. But processed goods are worth much more money than raw materials are.

And so the spiral continues: increased debt leads to more cash crops and environmental degradation, which leads to flooded markets in the First World and lower prices, with decreased return to the Third World. Therefore, the debt increases, and this leads to malnutrition, starvation, and helplessness.
To make matters worse, the IMF also decreed that governments of debtor nations severely curtail spending on social programs. In Mexico, whose economy has stagnated for seven years, there has been a severe overall decline in health services, education, and housing. Twelve million people are out of work; the Mexican people consume one-third fewer calories than they did in 1982, because food is more expensive. Two million acres of arable land were taken out of public agriculture because of an 80 percent cut in public funding. About 40 percent of the money that Mexico earns from exports goes to service the debt, and real wages for its people have fallen 30 to 40 percent. Mexican interest payments are $1 billion per month, the debt has actually increased by 50 percent, and the country now owes more than it did before the crisis began. And the U.S. banks call Mexico a success story-for themselves!

Huge U.S.-based corporations called agribusinesses also grow food in Third World countries for foreign markets, mainly the American, and the debt crisis ensures them a plentiful supply of cheap, if not slave, labor and cheap land. They pay virtually no taxes to the host country. Ninety percent of the protein fed to British animals comes from underdeveloped countries. The meat consumption of people in the First World accounts for a volume of grain that would feed 1.2 billion people.

And this is information before the 90s.

For whats happening now,
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/Causes.asp

"Right" itself is something very subjective.
What might be right for you, may not be right for others.

And I doubt that the respondents really ment that the USA should have gone all the way and nuked Iraq. :D

How do you know? They could have. You just have to look at the poll and realize it means nothing excpet people disagree. They could want genocide or peace, they could want fire bombings or some diplomacy, they could think we should have had a better plan or that we react better when our plan stalls. Without knowing why they disapprove this poll might as well ask if they like cheese.

I can vouch for the general feel in Europe.

p.s. http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=5351&edition=2&ttl=20070123105717&#paginator

How do you know?

We are not americans. ;)

How do you know? They could have. You just have to look at the poll and realize it means nothing excpet people disagree. They could want genocide or peace, they could want fire bombings or some diplomacy, they could think we should have had a better plan or that we react better when our plan stalls. Without knowing why they disapprove this poll might as well ask if they like cheese.

This is the information age. Seek and ye shall find.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,,1327656,00.html

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/WarOnTerror/OpinionGap.asp

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0317/p04s01-usfp.html

Japan, France and Germany are all more highly regarded than the United States among the countries of Europe; even the British and Canadians have a more favorable view of these three nations than they do of America. Strikingly, China now has a better image than the U.S. in most of the European nations surveyed.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994924.stm

http://www.nola.com/frontpage/t-p/index.ssf?/base/news-5/114784645160150.xml

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=10375

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2814371

spuriousmonkey:

Two nuclear weapons used on civilian targets.

Against a power that had killed over hundreds of thousands of Americans in war, had started the war against America, in hopes of ending the war earlier than an invasion, and for less Allied and Japanese deaths.

vietnam war.

Attempting to save a people from Communism is an atrocity?

Invasion of Iraq.

Saving someone from an evil despot is an atrocity?

Oh yes, you do not believe he is evil, yes?

The removal of many democratic regimes.

Communists. And you know the history of them.

The teaching of torture to dictatorial regimes.

Source?

Support of terrorist organizations such as mujahideen or contras in Nicaragua.

Freedom fighters against Soviet Russia and rebels against the illegitimate government of Nicaragua.

A typical response of someone who has not listened to the ME.

Moslems respond through violence only. When has any Moslem asked for anything but death for America?

Once again you are just showing reluctance to engage in a dialogue with North Korean.

WE did. And they lied to us and betrayed the agreement.

Why should we trust them again?

Educate yourself. Nigeria for example is sitting on a huge oil reserve.

How likely are we going to be able to exploit this when they can't even keep themselves in line over there?

SamCDKey:

http://www.google.com/search?q=US+at...ient=firefox-a

Any that don't fit into the above I dealt with?

On aid:

Why should we not look out for our interests when helping other governments? Your government wanted to steal US businesses. You cannot commit a crime against us and expect us to be okay with.

Third world debt is debt rightfully owed to us. Why should we give to them -loans- if they are not to pay back?

Beg us for charity, beg us for aids, but do not say you will pay us back when you do not.

HELLOOOOOO!!!!

You said the US commited NO atrocities. We are not really interested in why they commited atrocities.

torture: school of america
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_america

On aid:

Why should we not look out for our interests when helping other governments? Your government wanted to steal US businesses. You cannot commit a crime against us and expect us to be okay with.

Third world debt is debt rightfully owed to us. Why should we give to them -loans- if they are not to pay back?

Beg us for charity, beg us for aids, but do not say you will pay us back when you do not.

Outsourcing

US public debt

Petrodollar

HELLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOO

If it wasn't abundantly clear, I was saying those atrocities were not atrocities at all.

That is to say, the US has never committed a single atrocity against any country that can be objectively labelled as such, or which stemmed from policy rather than deranged soldiers (I freely admit that some American troops did horrible things in Vietnam).

SamCdKey:

I am afraid I don't grasp the point you are trying to make there?

What does outsourcing have to do with this?

Spuriousmonkey:

Where does it teach "torture"? The techniques referenced in the "Torture Books" at the School of America, are interrogation.

What do you expect us to do? Let them sit in a nice, air conditioned room, as we patiently wait for them to tell us everything?

If it wasn't abundantly clear, I was saying those atrocities were not atrocities at all.

That is to say, the US has never committed a single atrocity against any country that can be objectively labelled as such, or which stemmed from policy rather than deranged soldiers (I freely admit that some American troops did horrible things in Vietnam).

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/death_squads.htm
http://www.doublestandards.org/ustorture.html
http://www.soaw.org/new/

HELLOOOO

the fucking point is that the whole world says those are cases of atrocities and torture. That's what this thread is about. Americans don't listen.

at least america is open enough that her atrocities are available for all to see.
quite unlike denmark, india, britain, japan, china, iraq, ethiopia, and a host of others.
let the first country that is innocent cast the first stone.

Yust wondering did anybody forget abouth the Indians

They where treathet nicley didn't they, then there was offcourse the slavery.

And many more, 225 years is aftherall a long time

Spurious: "The removal of many democratic regimes."

James: "Communists. And you know the history of them."

me: what about 9.11? not the one with the planes and all, I mean 1973...

I-Am-Invisible:

What are you refering to in 1973?

Spuriousmonkey:

the fucking point is that the whole world says those are cases of atrocities and torture. That's what this thread is about. Americans don't listen.

Sure, Communists would claim it is atrocities. They have a vested information in getting the good old "let's hate America" train going.

Same with the Islamic terrorists.

Hell, even the Japanese can go bitch about a pair of bombs that saved them millions of lives and which they deserved for attacking another country and expecting to be immune to counterattack.

SamCDKey:

Internal investigation groups are needed by governments in order to be assured that their government won't be over taken by rebels and insurgents. The CIA never told them "go out and torture these people". They said "here is how to get rid of the Communist bishops, by expelling them through and their support" and various other things.

The CIA did not participate in any torture from what I can tell from reading a good deal of the stuff on the webpage you entered.

11.09.1973 US helpt pinochet get rid of the elected president of chile so he could become the self-appointed president...

And we saved Chile from Communists.

Aka: We gave them the greatest blessing we ever could.

And we saved Chile from Communists.

Aka: We gave them the greatest blessing we ever could.

What's that? death squads?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_squad#Chile

And we saved Chile from Communists.

Aka: We gave them the greatest blessing we ever could.

Oh yes, saved from a democratically elected government which you (the USA) happened not to like.

p.s. Now I know you're a troll. No-one sane in mind would have said such a thing.

Spuriousmonkey:

I bet the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, et cetera, wished they had US-sponsored death squads to stop their Communist regimes.

Avatar:

Communists cost the world about 150,000,000 lives in the 20th century. Are you telling me that this would make for a good situation in Chile?

Sorry, but defeating Communism trumps "democracy".

Sure, Communists would claim it is atrocities. They have a vested information in getting the good old "let's hate America" train going.

Same with the Islamic terrorists.

Hell, even the Japanese can go bitch about a pair of bombs that saved them millions of lives and which they deserved for attacking another country and expecting to be immune to counterattack.

many times i agree with you james, but this is one time i must wholeheartedly disagree with.

america has done much harm to the world, mostly unknown by its people, some intentional by its people, and some completely unintentional.

whether or not it is an atrocity to us has no weight on the argument whatsoever. individually we want to be treated like we prefer, not how other people prefer, right? so if we are to label atrocities, label them by the definition of the people it affected most. i don't care if the two atomic bombs dropped on japan would have saved millions of our peoples' lives. the fact remains that we wasted two whole cities of civilians, most of whom had no idea, and had no part in the war.

think of the effects of the contra war fueled by US funds and CIA operatives in south america. think of the slaves owned and beated by our ancestors in the early days of our nation. think of the natives who lived here before us, massacred and pushed out of their land. think of the Congo authoritarian military regime funded and aided by the US in order to depose a peaceful african leader who's only goal was to unite his nation. think of all the people america used and threw away in order to remain the top superpower of the world. all those lives wasted simply because we wanted to be the best.

last of all, think of the warped culture and lack of responisbility this nation has nurtured. think of all the problems that could be fixed simply by people caring for once instead of turning the other way.

but....
i don't want to take away from all the good things america has done and continues to do. and really, its not the peoples' direct fault so much as their lack of doing anything about it. the real blame lies in individuals within the fabric of the authoritative system.

but....
i don't want to take away from all the good things america has done and continues to do. and really, its not the peoples' direct fault so much as their lack of doing anything about it. the real blame lies in individuals within the fabric of the authoritative system.

Isn't the problem currently that the balance is completely gone? Nobody can think of anything good the US recently has done, while there is no problem listing the bad things.

I am starting t0 gaze at my russian passp0rt t0 c0me t0 use....s0metime s00n...

Inaction is also an action.

I am starting t0 gaze at my russian passp0rt t0 c0me t0 use....s0metime s00n...
Hey, what moronic keyboard are you using, draqon? It writes a zero instead of O.

Isn't the problem currently that the balance is completely gone? Nobody can think of anything good the US recently has done, while there is no problem listing the bad things.

its mostly because our steps in advancement (as humans, not as americans) are becoming smaller, so its much harder to see it as individual leaps forward.

but its also because other nations are advancing as fast, some faster. and they are learning to advance in areas that we aren't working on.

its also due to our nation's foundation in both heavy conservatism (even our liberals are mostly conservative by worldwide standards) and persuit of happiness, which makes for a lot of dispute (between those who tell others what is right and those who think what is right is up to themselves). this seems, to me, to cause us to spiral into stagnation--we are too caught up with arguing about what is right and wrong that we don't do anything at all.

Hey, what moronic keyboard are you using, draqon? It writes a zero instead of O.

the o d0esnt w0rk 0n my keyb0ard....the 0nly way I can type an "o" is if I paste it c0nstantly. anyways the fact that y0u can see the "0" instead 0f a o...is because y0u are using either a mac 0r a linux.

RoyLennigan:

whether or not it is an atrocity to us has no weight on the argument whatsoever. individually we want to be treated like we prefer, not how other people prefer, right? so if we are to label atrocities, label them by the definition of the people it affected most. i don't care if the two atomic bombs dropped on japan would have saved millions of our peoples' lives. the fact remains that we wasted two whole cities of civilians, most of whom had no idea, and had no part in the war.

You cannot be "not part of a war" in a total war situation. All civilians were supporting the Japanese military. They provided troops, support, rebuilding and building efforts, and were going to be used as a last line of defense.

think of the effects of the contra war fueled by US funds and CIA operatives in south america. think of the slaves owned and beated by our ancestors in the early days of our nation. think of the natives who lived here before us, massacred and pushed out of their land. think of the Congo authoritarian military regime funded and aided by the US in order to depose a peaceful african leader who's only goal was to unite his nation. think of all the people america used and threw away in order to remain the top superpower of the world. all those lives wasted simply because we wanted to be the best.

The contras saved South and Central America from Communism.

The slaves were sold to us by Africans and brought to AMerica, where their descendents live in splendour compared to what they had in Africa.

The American Indians made war on us just as often as we did them. They lost because they had an inferior military civilization.

What was the name of the Congo leader that you are referencing?

last of all, think of the warped culture and lack of responisbility this nation has nurtured. think of all the problems that could be fixed simply by people caring for once instead of turning the other way.

Such as?

This is the information age. Seek and ye shall find.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,,1327656,00.html

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/WarOnTerror/OpinionGap.asp

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0317/p04s01-usfp.html


http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994924.stm

http://www.nola.com/frontpage/t-p/index.ssf?/base/news-5/114784645160150.xml

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=10375

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2814371

:eek:

Question: are americans ok with that? Tall, proud of something, alone, oppressing others.
Seems like it. I think for the most part America doesnt give a fuck what others think of it.

RoyLennigan:
You cannot be "not part of a war" in a total war situation. All civilians were supporting the Japanese military. They provided troops, support, rebuilding and building efforts, and were going to be used as a last line of defense.
i'll grant you this, but the act itself (of dropping the bombs) regardless of the intent, purpose or cause, was an atrocity.

The contras saved South and Central America from Communism.
are you still stuck in the 50's? come on, james! i was taught developing world politics by a 40 yr-old venezuelan: the contra war wrecked south america and put an authoritarian despot in power in chile (if i recall correctly). simply because the majority of the population wanted a socialist form of government (the USSR was hardly associated with these groups, if at all) the US funded the contras (a war that actually had nothing to do with communism/capitalism in the first place) and even sent their own operatives at times. very similar to what happened in the congo.

also, i cannot believe that you still adhere to the 'red scare'. its not like south america was becoming a new USSR--they wanted socialism, the people wanted socialism. and it was that seemingly miniscule fact that scared the US into thinking they were becoming allies with Russia. communism is not evil, nor ever was.

The slaves were sold to us by Africans and brought to AMerica, where their descendents live in splendour compared to what they had in Africa.
i'm sure...
material things and modern living do not equate to splendour. we (as humans) only like what we do because we get used to it.

The American Indians made war on us just as often as we did them. They lost because they had an inferior military civilization.
they had a legitimate reason to wage war on us. we didn't.
if someone came into your home and told you to leave, you wouldn't without a fight, would you?

What was the name of the Congo leader that you are referencing?
1960...
Patrice Lumumba had the majority of the Republic of the Congo following his words. he spoke of uniting the congo, even of uniting all of africa. he fought for the independence of the congo from belgium, and it was won and he became the first PM of the country.

but the country was poor, so he went to Washington DC and asked the US for aid. the president did not even care to see him and he was sent away with nothing. so he asked the USSR for aid and they complied. it wasn't till this point that the US became interested. the US contacted Lumumba's military commander, Mobutu, giving him large amounts of money for him to take control of the congo, forcefully.

to make a long story short, Lumumba was killed by mobutu's people and the congo was locked in constant warring independent militia 'gangs' across the country. only in the last decade or so has there been any resemblence of a working government there.

Such as?

capitalist ideals of letting the strongest win and getting all you can, even at (or sometimes preferebly at) the expense of others. we waste everything we make/have because it makes our lives easier. we are plunging into a future in which we can do almost nothing ourselves, but have to have things a special way for us to deal with them.

we wrap everything in plastic--creating hordes of unusable trash that just gets piled up.
we eat copious amounts of food and get fat while people in other nations are starving to death.
we pride ourselves on our 'superior morals' (because we never have to do anything moral that anyone really notices) while many people are forced into what we would naively call an immoral lifestyle.

but that's not the fault of everyone in america, just enough of them.

Question: are americans ok with that? Tall, proud of something, alone, oppressing others.

The isolation? I am. Don't know about anyone else though.

Communists cost the world about 150,000,000 lives in the 20th century. Are you telling me that this would make for a good situation in Chile?

Sorry, but defeating Communism trumps "democracy".

That would make you an apologist for Hitler, wouldn't it? Comparing Stalinist regimes to Allende's socialist governments is a poor comparison. To my knowledge Allende never did anything undemocratic and did not deploy violence against his opponents.

...
Question: are americans ok with that? Tall, proud of something, alone, oppressing others.

I have a question. Why would / should American's care?

In my experience, everyone in the world was divided under two camps under the control of two super powers... the USSR, and USA. Ever since the Soviet Union collapsed, everyone has been pushing and shoving the last reamaining world power trying to knock it down, and that includes a number of countries and governments which before the Soviet Union collapses were our biggest allies. The reason is simpler, and all the arguments in this discussion for or against the USA are only symptoms. The details of all the horrors America is said to have commited are irrelevant. As has been pointed out, no one in the world has clean hands. The real fear is that the United States, being the worlds only remaining super power is by default feared simply because of how powerful this nation is. It is easy to look at ANY country and find something in it's history which could be pointed out as an atrocity. The only reason such high standards are applied to America is because it is the largest and most powerful. The real reason America is held to a higher standard than the rest of the world is because militarily, America is for the most part undefeatable. Every war we have lost was a "limited" war, or political aim, also called a police action. Every UNRESTRICTED war America has ever engaged in within the last 150 years or so has been entirely suscesful. If no nation on the face of this planet could ever attack America directly and win, diplomacy is the ONLY weapon of war (psycological / war of world opinions) that anyone can wield in order to shackle or destroy America as a soverign nation and culture.

Xevious:

Excellent insight.

In my experience, everyone in the world was divided under two camps under the control of two super powers... the USSR, and USA. Ever since the Soviet Union collapsed, everyone has been pushing and shoving the last reamaining world power trying to knock it down, and that includes a number of countries and governments which before the Soviet Union collapses were our biggest allies. The reason is simpler, and all the arguments in this discussion for or against the USA are only symptoms. The details of all the horrors America is said to have commited are irrelevant. As has been pointed out, no one in the world has clean hands. The real fear is that the United States, being the worlds only remaining super power is by default feared simply because of how powerful this nation is. It is easy to look at ANY country and find something in it's history which could be pointed out as an atrocity. The only reason such high standards are applied to America is because it is the largest and most powerful. The real reason America is held to a higher standard than the rest of the world is because militarily, America is for the most part undefeatable. Every war we have lost was a "limited" war, or political aim, also called a police action. Every UNRESTRICTED war America has ever engaged in within the last 150 years or so has been entirely suscesful. If no nation on the face of this planet could ever attack America directly and win, diplomacy is the ONLY weapon of war (psycological / war of world opinions) that anyone can wield in order to shackle or destroy America as a soverign nation and culture.

Any country wanting to extend their hand over others besides itself is going to be held to a higher standard. Ever had a boss? What type of qualifications do you think is required to be a real leader for the long haul? You need to understand what you are dealing with. Thats why you failed in vietnam. How can you convince a people that believe you are prejudiced toward. Thats why you are despised now. Its not just military might, do you have the maturity to understand others?

You have enough internal problems right now.

What makes you think america isn't being undermined in other ways besides militarily?

Its culture is degenerating even before it had a chance to even become something of value.

Your nation is basically being outsourced and being overrun by hispanics and others of humble origins.

Your educational system is suffering.

You have as a nation quite an ego for being a blip on the radar.

You are like a teenager with an intimidating temper and already failing.

What do you think america will be in a thousand years? A hundred? five hundred? Can you even be sure america would exist?

Does it really matter? Is it about just your country prospering or to better the world? How lofty are your goals? Does it extend beyond the simple powermonger and ego-gratification or do you have a world vision that encompasses whats best for everyone?

We'll see.

Roy Lennigan:

i'll grant you this, but the act itself (of dropping the bombs) regardless of the intent, purpose or cause, was an atrocity.

I shall go as far as to say this: It was not ideal to have to nuke a city filled with civilians and to kill 150,000 of them in the nuclear flame.

Not ideal in the least.

Neither was Dresden's firebombings.

WWII was rough. Very rough.

are you still stuck in the 50's? come on, james! i was taught developing world politics by a 40 yr-old venezuelan: the contra war wrecked south america and put an authoritarian despot in power in chile (if i recall correctly). simply because the majority of the population wanted a socialist form of government (the USSR was hardly associated with these groups, if at all) the US funded the contras (a war that actually had nothing to do with communism/capitalism in the first place) and even sent their own operatives at times. very similar to what happened in the congo.

Well actually, Chile modernized and became a healthy economy under Pinochet. He might have oppressed people through fear of killing and torture, but he most certainly aided Chile greatly.

Moreover, the USSR always got involved with Socialist groups. Cuba, for instance. There was simply no Socialist and Communist regime not touched by either Stalinist or Maoist support groups.

also, i cannot believe that you still adhere to the 'red scare'. its not like south america was becoming a new USSR--they wanted socialism, the people wanted socialism. and it was that seemingly miniscule fact that scared the US into thinking they were becoming allies with Russia. communism is not evil, nor ever was.

Communism was not evil? I am afraid I shall have to disagree!

150,000,000+ people, man! From 1919 to the present day! Killed by Communism. Surely this is horrific?

Also, see my "A Moral INdictment of Communism" for a written critique of Communism.

i'm sure...
material things and modern living do not equate to splendour. we (as humans) only like what we do because we get used to it.

I think we can say they live better than African blacks, no?

Although yes: Slavery was pretty crappy. I shall not white wash the reality that being a slave is not good.

they had a legitimate reason to wage war on us. we didn't.
if someone came into your home and told you to leave, you wouldn't without a fight, would you?

Didn't we buy much of our land from them? Did not we also fill many areas where there was no population?

Wars resulted from the pressures that population had on one another. They hardly had the right to claim the whole continent, when they could not defend that, no?

to make a long story short, Lumumba was killed by mobutu's people and the congo was locked in constant warring independent militia 'gangs' across the country. only in the last decade or so has there been any resemblence of a working government there.

Was he intending to implement Soviet "reforms"? Or just got aid from there?

capitalist ideals of letting the strongest win and getting all you can, even at (or sometimes preferebly at) the expense of others. we waste everything we make/have because it makes our lives easier. we are plunging into a future in which we can do almost nothing ourselves, but have to have things a special way for us to deal with them.

I can agree with you here. Sometimes our material culture is devoid of any humanity. There is also a certain nihilism in our commercial focus to the exclusion of everything else.

Its not just military might, do you have the maturity to understand others?

I can ask you the same question for even asking such a question. America has it's position now because it was GIVEN to us by our alliances with other powers during the last century. You don't get such trust, or alliances between big world players without their being some form of understanding between them. A lot of countries we are having headaches with right now such as North Korea used to be under the protection of the USSR. It's true we gave Iran a lot of weapons in the late 70's, but people seem to forget that little regime change that happened in 80-81 (and Iran subsequently got LOADS of aid from the USSR) and also forget that the Iranians we were aiding then aren't the ones that are there now. It is arguably the lack of the USSR's presence, which America has some responsibility for which is to be blamed for much of the worlds current instability. You'll find that just about all of our Cold War allies, while they disagree with the USA's current METHODS do not disagree with much of Americas current philosophy. That is, they saw the need to go after Iraq but didn't feel invasion was the solution. They agreed largely with our invasion of Afghanistan, but felt it wasn't done in a way they would have. In other words, there are different kinds of understanding. You need to be a lot more specific in your arguments.

You have enough internal problems right now.

Everyone has internal problems. France isn't so hot either (Arabs), Germany has issues (population implosion), Russia has ills (poverty). North Korea is stable only through brute force. If you are not an American citizen, you are not in a position to judge what you think are "enough" internal problems. Besides, if you want to argue Americas internal politics, start a new thread... better yet, ask about your own country and compare your quality of living to mine.

What makes you think america isn't being undermined in other ways besides militarily?

I didn't say we wern't. Wasn't that my point behind pointing out how international politics works?

Its culture is degenerating even before it had a chance to even become something of value.

Put a man on the Moon, be the biggest low interest lender in the world, be the forerunning nation in preventing and treating AIDS and other diseases, and allow the migrant workers from Mexico to be the 2nd largest contributors to Mexico's economy, and have your countries poorest families living in conditions equivalent to most countries middle-class, and then you can argue with me.

Your nation is basically being outsourced and being overrun by hispanics and others of humble origins.

We're the most generous people on the planet. If we were Russia, North Korea, China, or anybody else we would be shooting every illigal alien that comes over our border. Instead, we arrest American citizens and even Border Patrol agents that do. Oh, aren't we SO evil?

Your educational system is suffering.
We're well in the top 10% of educational systems in the world.

You have as a nation quite an ego for being a blip on the radar.
Putting aside how rediculous that is considering you are shaking your fists at the WORLD SUPERPOWER, which is incidently the world leader in Compter Technology, 2nd largest producer of food, has the largest military in the world, the biggest GDP in the world, ect. are you saying your country is bigger?

You are like a teenager with an intimidating temper and already failing.
If you feel threatened by us, considering how much good we do for so many people... maybe you should ask yourself WHY you feel intimidated by America. Are you on the recieving end of Iraq or something?

What do you think america will be in a thousand years? A hundred? five hundred? Can you even be sure america would exist? The average life expectancy of a government is give or take 10 years. With a track record of 231 years, we aren't doing so bad. Rome lasted 1,000 years but it's system of government was replaced many times. We're operating on the same government for almost 200 of those years. Pretty good odds. How long has your country had the same government?

Does it really matter? Is it about just your country prospering or to better the world? How lofty are your goals? Does it extend beyond the simple powermonger and ego-gratification or do you have a world vision that encompasses whats best for everyone?

If you think there is ANYONE on the face of this planet... American, Russian, French, Korean, African, who is qualified to be trusted with a world vision which is what is best for everyone, you're beyond lost. The idea of what is best for everyone changes from person to person. I don't agree with you, and you probably don't agree with your own parents, brothers and sisters on every single point. Power corrupts... and even as the world superpower we have our issues. I never said we were perfect. But, we aren't Nazi Germany either. We haven't thrown millions of people in gas chambers. We haven't TAKEN OVER a country or territory since the early 20th century. Indeed, the last territory we assimilated entirely (The Phillipines) we got as a spoil in a war with Spain. They asked their freedom, and America GAVE it to them freely with no strings attached. The Phillipines are now an independent nation. Would your country do something like that?

We'll see.[/QUOTE]

to Prince James:

so you are saying 150mil from Communist regime all throughout? (where exactly do you get those numbers from?)
and what of democratic regime during the same span of years? do tell me.

Seems like it. I think for the most part America doesnt give a fuck what others think of it.
Personally, as an American, I don't give a f*ck about what people who don't give a f*ck about what I think think.

Bitching about America/America's pursuits of its own interests/Americans is bitching about not having a say in what America is/does/thinks.

Bitchers get tuned out real fast.

If folks wish to influence America/Americans, be persuasive and engaging, not whiners and bitchers.

And be adult enough to properly deal with rejection. Just like Americans. ;)

Draqon:

The numbers come from those killed by the Soviets, Communist China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, et cetera, et cetera.

Example of a source:

"As late as 1997, however, when some French authors published The Black Book of Communism , some leftists reacted vehemently, since the book pointed out that Stalin and Mao had caused more than 100 million deaths and that both communism and Nazism are evil. These leftists could not bring themselves to equate Stalin and Mao with Hitler and refused to mention fascism and communism in the same breath, even though the latter had caused far more deaths."

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-9-30/46436.html

All my other sources come from "history as a whole". In essence, every legitimate source of history of Communism puts the deaths caused by Communism tremendously high.

Democratic regimes, on the other hand, have never practiced a policy of extermination on their own people, as Communists have.

Democratic regimes, on the other hand, have never practiced a policy of extermination on their own people, as Communists have.

who said here about their own people??? How about extermination of other people by Democratic regimes? from 1900 please till 2000...the figures. that includes the CIA and set-ups.

But excluding war totals?

But excluding war totals?

you included everything in your 150mil...why dont you include what democratic governments took away from other countries...the number of souls total from their action from 1900 to 2000, please.

Prince James, were art thou? You wrote Moral Indictment of Communism whispering loudly...why not write Moral Indictment of Democracy screaming softly?

Actually, I excluded war casualities from Communism.

Excluding war, Democracies probably have caused directly perhaps around a million deaths, maximum. I'd place it lower, but I am going to give you one million deaths.

Including war, Democracies reached around 50 million.

Including war for Communists, about 200 million.

Also, do note: I am not a Democrat. I am a Meritocrat. I do not affirm the morality of Democracy.

Actually, I excluded war casualities from Communism.

Excluding war, Democracies probably have caused directly perhaps around a million deaths, maximum. I'd place it lower, but I am going to give you one million deaths.

Including war, Democracies reached around 50 million.

Including war for Communists, about 200 million.

well what can I say than...trully the democratic records speak the truth...communism is way to evil. :p

I would like to see your method for estimating this.

yes please.

I can ask you the same question for even asking such a question. America has it's position now because it was GIVEN to us by our alliances with other powers during the last century. You don't get such trust, or alliances between big world players without their being some form of understanding between them. A lot of countries we are having headaches with right now such as North Korea used to be under the protection of the USSR. It's true we gave Iran a lot of weapons in the late 70's, but people seem to forget that little regime change that happened in 80-81 (and Iran subsequently got LOADS of aid from the USSR) and also forget that the Iranians we were aiding then aren't the ones that are there now. It is arguably the lack of the USSR's presence, which America has some responsibility for which is to be blamed for much of the worlds current instability. You'll find that just about all of our Cold War allies, while they disagree with the USA's current METHODS do not disagree with much of Americas current philosophy. That is, they saw the need to go after Iraq but didn't feel invasion was the solution. They agreed largely with our invasion of Afghanistan, but felt it wasn't done in a way they would have. In other words, there are different kinds of understanding. You need to be a lot more specific in your arguments.



Everyone has internal problems. France isn't so hot either (Arabs), Germany has issues (population implosion), Russia has ills (poverty). North Korea is stable only through brute force. If you are not an American citizen, you are not in a position to judge what you think are "enough" internal problems. Besides, if you want to argue Americas internal politics, start a new thread... better yet, ask about your own country and compare your quality of living to mine.



I didn't say we wern't. Wasn't that my point behind pointing out how international politics works?



Put a man on the Moon, be the biggest low interest lender in the world, be the forerunning nation in preventing and treating AIDS and other diseases, and allow the migrant workers from Mexico to be the 2nd largest contributors to Mexico's economy, and have your countries poorest families living in conditions equivalent to most countries middle-class, and then you can argue with me.



We're the most generous people on the planet. If we were Russia, North Korea, China, or anybody else we would be shooting every illigal alien that comes over our border. Instead, we arrest American citizens and even Border Patrol agents that do. Oh, aren't we SO evil?


We're well in the top 10% of educational systems in the world.


Putting aside how rediculous that is considering you are shaking your fists at the WORLD SUPERPOWER, which is incidently the world leader in Compter Technology, 2nd largest producer of food, has the largest military in the world, the biggest GDP in the world, ect. are you saying your country is bigger?


If you feel threatened by us, considering how much good we do for so many people... maybe you should ask yourself WHY you feel intimidated by America. Are you on the recieving end of Iraq or something?

The average life expectancy of a government is give or take 10 years. With a track record of 231 years, we aren't doing so bad. Rome lasted 1,000 years but it's system of government was replaced many times. We're operating on the same government for almost 200 of those years. Pretty good odds. How long has your country had the same government?



If you think there is ANYONE on the face of this planet... American, Russian, French, Korean, African, who is qualified to be trusted with a world vision which is what is best for everyone, you're beyond lost. The idea of what is best for everyone changes from person to person. I don't agree with you, and you probably don't agree with your own parents, brothers and sisters on every single point. Power corrupts... and even as the world superpower we have our issues. I never said we were perfect. But, we aren't Nazi Germany either. We haven't thrown millions of people in gas chambers. We haven't TAKEN OVER a country or territory since the early 20th century. Indeed, the last territory we assimilated entirely (The Phillipines) we got as a spoil in a war with Spain. They asked their freedom, and America GAVE it to them freely with no strings attached. The Phillipines are now an independent nation. Would your country do something like that?

We'll see.[/QUOTE]

That's the thing about americans, you can't handle any bit of criticism or else you get a barage and litany of how great thou art, what you've done, your resume and amazing defensiveness.

We don't like your fuking queer ego, because as you say you are the most generous but the most selfish as well. So what the fuk is new. And anybody CAN criticize anyone. What do you mean its not anybody's right. I can retort with its not your right to do the sh*t you do. You sound alergic to criticism, for being so powerful then what is the problem??

For all your rationalizing what comes through strongest is your american pride and arrogance. Thats the most important thing to you. So of course, who the FUK CARES except americans.

Also, you are typically pompous and subtly denigrating toward other countries. I WILL HAVE YOU KNOW that a friend of mine including myself have traveled the world extensively. You can be the biggest braggart you want about your country but even he as an american has told me and was surprised that there were so many other places that he considered to have a higher standard of living than america. He told me that new zealand and australia is better than america. That japan, singapore, and hong kong was more advanced. He said thailand was beautiful and the people were very friendly! He did admit he did not prefer india and he said the philipines was pitiful. I just went to tokyo last month. It is like a page out of blade runner. I was also looking at apartments in both japan and germany, the apartments are EXTREMELY contemporary in both architecture and amenities than I've seen in the states. Even a girlfriend who lived in the netherlands commented how much cleaner it is and how everything is so fresh, she also did not see any homeless people either! Also, both he and her have told me that americans seem to be the least friendly, europe nicer and most asian countries the most friendly!

You have your ghettoes, poor and dirty areas and to be honest i think most american towns are quite unnattractive and not that clean!

That's the thing about americans, you can't handle any bit of criticism or else you get a barage and litany of how great thou art, what you've done, your resume and amazing defensiveness.

We don't like your fuking queer ego, because as you say you are the most generous but the most selfish as well. So what the fuk is new. And anybody CAN criticize anyone. What do you mean its not anybody's right. I can retort with its not your right to do the sh*t you do. You sound alergic to criticism, for being so powerful then what is the problem??

For all your rationalizing what comes through strongest is your american pride and arrogance. Thats the most important thing to you. So of course, who the FUK CARES except americans.

Also, you are typically pompous and subtly denigrating toward other countries. I WILL HAVE YOU KNOW that a friend of mine including myself have traveled the world extensively. You can be the biggest braggart you want about your country but even he as an american has told me and was surprised that there were so many other places that he considered to have a higher standard of living than america. He told me that new zealand and australia is better than america. That japan, singapore, and hong kong was more advanced. He said thailand was beautiful and the people were very friendly! He did admit he did not prefer india and he said the philipines was pitiful. I just went to tokyo last month. It is like a page out of blade runner. I was also looking at apartments in both japan and germany, the apartments are EXTREMELY contemporary in both architecture and amenities than I've seen in the states. Even a girlfriend who lived in the netherlands commented how much cleaner it is and how everything is so fresh, she also did not see any homeless people either! Also, both he and her have told me that americans seem to be the least friendly, europe nicer and most asian countries the most friendly!

You have your ghettoes, poor and dirty areas and to be honest i think most american towns are quite unnattractive and not that clean!

It is interesting that in all your screaming about my ego, you are attacking purely on emotional terms. "You're so stupid! You're so ignorant!" because of the way I responded. I responded factually, and to the point. You made claims about what is wrong with America, and I disagreed and pointed out where your argument was either false, or debateable. I have not in this entire debate called you ignorant, or stupid. In fact, I don't even know what country you are in so I can hardly compare what your country is compared to mine, and see where you get your point of view. You demand understanding but refuse to talk more about your perspective. You are angry at me for disagreeing. That is your problem.

I never said you are stupid or ignorant.

It is interesting that in all your screaming about my ego, you are attacking purely on emotional terms. "You're so stupid! You're so ignorant!" because of the way I responded. I responded factually, and to the point. You made claims about what is wrong with America, and I disagreed and pointed out where your argument was either false, or debateable. I have not in this entire debate called you ignorant, or stupid. In fact, I don't even know what country you are in so I can hardly compare what your country is compared to mine, and see where you get your point of view. You demand understanding but refuse to talk more about your perspective. You are angry at me for disagreeing. That is your problem.

You've obviously not been following iam's posts.:p

The slaves were sold to us by Africans and brought to AMerica, where their descendents live in splendour compared to what they had in Africa

How is slavery any different from Communism? How can you support one regime, and not support the other, when they are identical? Rationally, that is.

Also, where do you get your 150 millions number?

How is slavery any different from Communism? How can you support one regime, and not support the other, when they are identical? Rationally, that is.

Also, where do you get your 150 millions number?Exactly. Someone that annoints himself the Morality Decider supports slavery, segregation and mass murder, if done by rightwing military dictatorships. Go Reds! Take State!

He implied I was ignorant actually without saying it, based on his posting about how he views the world and that he doesn't like how I disagreed with him. Putting aside the fact that he ignored every single point I made in my earlier post and resorted back to his emotional attacks (and demonstrating his own unwillingness to understand)... as he seems to imply that I do as well. As I said before, and admitted to in my first post. America has problems. I didn't say we didn't. But, prentending that we don't do any good for the world either (as he said)

Its culture is degenerating even before it had a chance to even become something of value.

...is purely a prejudicial statement. Furthermore, most of his arguments he has made thus far have been largely subjective, and not objective. He doesn't give many specific examples other than "AMERICANS SUCK". Blanket, prejudicial statements. He doesn't like Americans as a whole. Thats again, his problem. I'll leave him to his hatred and go to work with the Mexican immigrant who helps out. I'll see his wife a few times a week when she comes in to help clean the store, and ask how their family is. At least he tries to be useful and contribute to the things we try to do. I'll also be sure to visit my Norwegian girlfriend this Summer, as I do every few months, and listen to how her neighbors complain all the German tourists are so rude every summer. I'll spend 30 kroner at the flower shop to bring her a rose, as the flower girl giggles knowing what the rose is for, and what it means. I'll remember the Australians who laughed and joked with me when I went to play a concert in the Sydney Opera House.

I'll remember the French citizens who last year tagged grafitti on the graves of American soldiers who died on the beaches of Normandy to free their country from Nazi Germany, because they said "They are polluting our soil." I'll remember how Paris burned because of their "understanding" for the Arabs who lived there. I'll remember that we have a Statue of Liberty because the architect Bartoldi wanted to politically protest the conditions of his own country. I'll also remember that Jacques Chirac accepted money from Saddam Hussein to speak out against the American invasion of Iraq.

I'll remember all the hours of Arab television that was video taped by an Arabic friend of mine and shown to me... how most of it said "DEATH TO AMERICA" over and over again, how it glorified suicide bombers, accused the Jews of eating pastries made with human blood, and showed CARTOONS to children glorifying martyerdom. I'll remember all the American civilians that insurgents kidknapped and beheaded publically, and then spread the videos all over the Internet.

Yes, I will remember how the world hates us. You can talk all you want about America. When these are considered justified ways to treat Americans because of their nationality then the moral arguments of others are completely negated.

I mean, I can completely understand PJ if it's an "us v. them" argument, which at some fundamental level, I agree. When it comes down to it, I'll support my people, over everyone, at whatever cost. But when he tries to dress it up as some sort of ethical, moralistic issue, to make himself feel better? The hypocrisy's gross.

Call a spade a spade, PJ. Give up the self-righteousness. You know you're not really making sense in the "my beliefs are totally contradictory" sense. Don't over rationalize. A simple "we did what we had to" will suffice. Not an artificial, mythical spectre of "Communism" and a simplistic, misconstructed history.

The West, America most definitely included, has committed heinous atrocities despite it's purpoted principles– some of the worst crimes were committed in the name of freedom and other high-minded bullshit, yet motivated purely for power and wealth. Often we find America's actions in direct contradiction with her espoused ideals. It's obvious and undeniable.

I'm not sure what you get out of trying to believe otherwise. All the evidence is there. Someone with a 156 IQ should be able to realize this. But I feel you're just trying to reconcile your beliefs with your feelings. Why must you dress up your lust for heathen blood as anything but bloodlust? You are clearly passionate about killing people, but I think this makes you uncomfortable. So you invent some sort of ethical system which is terribly contradictory.

I mean, I can completely understand PJ if it's an "us v. them" argument, which at some fundamental level, I agree. When it comes down to it, I'll support my people, over everyone, at whatever cost. But when he tries to dress it up as some sort of ethical, moralistic issue, to make himself feel better? The hypocrisy's gross.

Call a spade a spade, PJ. Give up the self-righteousness. You know you're not really making sense in the "my beliefs are totally contradictory" sense. Don't over rationalize. A simple "we did what we had to" will suffice. Not an artificial, mythical spectre of "Communism" and a simplistic, misconstructed history.

The West, America most definitely included, has committed heinous atrocities despite it's purpoted principles– some of the worst crimes were committed in the name of freedom and other high-minded bullshit, yet motivated purely for power and wealth. Often we find America's actions in direct contradiction with her espoused ideals. It's obvious and undeniable.

I'm not sure what you get out of trying to believe otherwise. All the evidence is there. Someone with a 156 IQ should be able to realize this. But I feel you're just trying to reconcile your beliefs with your feelings. Why must you dress up your lust for heathen blood as anything but bloodlust? You are clearly passionate about killing people, but I think this makes you uncomfortable. So you invent some sort of ethical system which is terribly contradictory.:eek: By far the most eloquent and intelligent post I've ever seen by Roman. Good Show.

Roy Lennigan:

I shall go as far as to say this: It was not ideal to have to nuke a city filled with civilians and to kill 150,000 of them in the nuclear flame.

Not ideal in the least.

Neither was Dresden's firebombings.

WWII was rough. Very rough.
well put, this is pretty much what i was getting at.

Well actually, Chile modernized and became a healthy economy under Pinochet. He might have oppressed people through fear of killing and torture, but he most certainly aided Chile greatly.
i remember watching interviews of lower class people who lived in chile during his reign who would be hard pressed to point out the 'aid' he gave the country. they were tortured (especially women). but yes, he did temporarily stabilize the nation.

from wiki:
"At the time of his death in 2006, around 300 criminal charges in Chile were still pending against Pinochet for human rights abuses and embezzlement during his rule. Pinochet remains a polarizing figure in many parts of the world, dividing people who condemn him for human rights abuses and for taking power from a democratically elected government, from those who credit him with stabilizing Chile and preventing a Communist takeover."

though i disagree that preventing communism was a good thing. they were voting for socialism, mostly independant from USSR persuasion. pinochet performed a military coup with support from the US to usurp rule from the democratically elected socialist president, Allende.

during the contra war, president Regan wanted to depose the socials leader of chile because he viewed it as a threat. but the house voted that he could not legally do this. so Regan went against their ruling by selling guns to Iran for the Iran-Iraq war and then 'laundering' to the contras.

Moreover, the USSR always got involved with Socialist groups. Cuba, for instance. There was simply no Socialist and Communist regime not touched by either Stalinist or Maoist support groups.
of course, it was a game of black and white. but there were so many emerging independant nations first free from colonialism at this time (after WWII) that they only wanted support one way or another--they were, for the most part, naive to rammifications of their political stances.

thing is, its not fully the fault of these newly independant nations that they got caught up in USSR persuasion. the USSR was a superpower and many ways of making an offer that can't be refused, militarily or economically or otherwise. and if they truly like the idea of communism and/or socialism, which is why most of them chose those forms, then they didn't care about where it put them in the cold war game.

Communism was not evil? I am afraid I shall have to disagree!

150,000,000+ people, man! From 1919 to the present day! Killed by Communism. Surely this is horrific?
i'm sure you can see the difference between the effects of an ideal and the effects of certain totalitarians using an ideal to their benefit. besides, most of the casualties occured in the nations that caused them. a surprisingly large amount of russian fatalities were due to friendly fire or "making an example".

Also, see my "A Moral INdictment of Communism" for a written critique of Communism.
I will.

I think we can say they live better than African blacks, no?
i don't know, its up to the individual. ask someone in africa and ask someone in america. but make sure to ask ones in different areas. i'm positive you can find answers contrary to your presumption.

but still, it doesn't matter, its like the bombing of japan. doesn't matter the intentions or the results--when speaking of atrocity it only matters what the opinions of those most deeply affected were.

Didn't we buy much of our land from them? Did not we also fill many areas where there was no population?
i am not sure. this is an area i have not done much studying in. i believe what you say is true, but again, consider those most deeply affected and their helplessness with dealing with it. i'm sure there were peaceful dealings with native americans, but there were so many violent and ruthless acts by europeans towards them. its all due to an utter lack of human understanding (mostly by europeans).

Wars resulted from the pressures that population had on one another. They hardly had the right to claim the whole continent, when they could not defend that, no?
so do a people who have the ability to take all the land from another people have the right to? it was genocide.

Was he intending to implement Soviet "reforms"? Or just got aid from there?
a southern province of the congo had seceded--it was mostly owned by a foreign company that mined precious minerals and seceded from the congo because it felt it would be more profitable--and so Lumumba wanted help to keep his country from falling apart. from my understanding he had no intention of implementing soviet reforms.

I can agree with you here. Sometimes our material culture is devoid of any humanity. There is also a certain nihilism in our commercial focus to the exclusion of everything else.

yes, but it is mostly because of our extreme success as a nation--we become proud and after we become proud we become used to it. and after we're used to it we become arrogant because we think everything we do is the right way to do it.

My estimation:

Non-wartime direct involvements with despotisms and other such things, generally produced in order of a few tens of thousands of deaths at most. Considering, however, that there has been several dozen such involvements, by various democracies for the last 100 years, I opted to give 1 million as a sort of cap.

In regards to Communism's atrocities, these are well documented by every legitimate historical source on it. Thus I will reference "history".

In regards to war, I gave a loose total of the deaths suffered by the enemies of Democracies in the major conflicts of the 20th century. I did the same for Communists.

Roman:

Also, where do you get your 150 millions number?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/bates051305.htm

"Black Book of Communism" gives a total of 100 million deaths all together for Communism without war.

With war, it would amount to tens of millions more.

However, this "Black Book of Communism" is notoriously leninent, as the highest estimates for China alone is 100 million.

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-9-30/46436.html

Another article that discusses Communism as a whole with about 100 million non-wartime deaths.

My estimates come by giving Mao the 100 million round figure alone, then about 50 million for the rest of Communism, with most of that going to the Soviet Union.

How is slavery any different from Communism? How can you support one regime, and not support the other, when they are identical? Rationally, that is.

Slavery is different from Communism in as much as a slave-based system never enslaves the totality of a society, nor does it erase merit as a social thing to aspire to. However, I am not pro-slavery.

My estimation:

Non-wartime direct involvements with despotisms and other such things, generally produced in order of a few tens of thousands of deaths at most. Considering, however, that there has been several dozen such involvements, by various democracies for the last 100 years, I opted to give 1 million as a sort of cap.

In regards to Communism's atrocities, these are well documented by every legitimate historical source on it. Thus I will reference "history".

In regards to war, I gave a loose total of the deaths suffered by the enemies of Democracies in the major conflicts of the 20th century. I did the same for Communists.As long as you have your boogeymen to grasp onto to justify your hateful spirit.....:rolleyes:

Roman:

I mean, I can completely understand PJ if it's an "us v. them" argument, which at some fundamental level, I agree. When it comes down to it, I'll support my people, over everyone, at whatever cost. But when he tries to dress it up as some sort of ethical, moralistic issue, to make himself feel better? The hypocrisy's gross.

I do not think it is hypocrisy to note that whatever we have done, for whatever reason, has never amounted to even the tiniest shread of the evil which Communism has committed.

Moreover, I do not see what AMerica has done that is "evil". Nor most Western nations.

Call a spade a spade, PJ. Give up the self-righteousness. You know you're not really making sense in the "my beliefs are totally contradictory" sense. Don't over rationalize. A simple "we did what we had to" will suffice. Not an artificial, mythical spectre of "Communism" and a simplistic, misconstructed history.

Communism was hardly mythical.

But yes, I do agree: It was either us or them and we had to do what we had to do. I shall not say that does not play a part in America - and every other nation's - policy. What I disagree is that this meant that America transgressed any ethical laws.

The West, America most definitely included, has committed heinous atrocities despite it's purpoted principles– some of the worst crimes were committed in the name of freedom and other high-minded bullshit, yet motivated purely for power and wealth. Often we find America's actions in direct contradiction with her espoused ideals. It's obvious and undeniable.

Which atrocities as a matter of direct, purposeful action, and sanctioned by the nation in the last century?

Do you include such things as Dresden and Hiroshima? Or are we going to exclude that due to the universal Total War nature of WWII?

I'm not sure what you get out of trying to believe otherwise. All the evidence is there. Someone with a 156 IQ should be able to realize this. But I feel you're just trying to reconcile your beliefs with your feelings. Why must you dress up your lust for heathen blood as anything but bloodlust? You are clearly passionate about killing people, but I think this makes you uncomfortable. So you invent some sort of ethical system which is terribly contradictory.

You are quite right that I love the idea of slaughtering heathen animals, but actually this stems from the moral principle that Communism is evil. I do not support the purposeful killing of innocent people.

Good response, though. Thanks for the reply Roman.

RoyLennigan:

well put, this is pretty much what i was getting at.

But can we go as far as to say this was an "atrocity"?

I think that atrocity requires, at the very least, a sense of "this was not necessary". It is, at the very least, controversial to claim that Dresden and Hiroshima were not necessary acts of war. It was not the equivalent of going in and slaughtering village after village in a genocidal rampage even if it was not necessary, though.

i remember watching interviews of lower class people who lived in chile during his reign who would be hard pressed to point out the 'aid' he gave the country. they were tortured (especially women). but yes, he did temporarily stabilize the nation.

Only 30-40,000 out of several million, were tortured.

though i disagree that preventing communism was a good thing. they were voting for socialism, mostly independant from USSR persuasion. pinochet performed a military coup with support from the US to usurp rule from the democratically elected socialist president, Allende.

during the contra war, president Regan wanted to depose the socials leader of chile because he viewed it as a threat. but the house voted that he could not legally do this. so Regan went against their ruling by selling guns to Iran for the Iran-Iraq war and then 'laundering' to the contras.

Iran Contra was a big mess, yes. But the Gipper did what he had to do.

of course, it was a game of black and white. but there were so many emerging independant nations first free from colonialism at this time (after WWII) that they only wanted support one way or another--they were, for the most part, naive to rammifications of their political stances.

thing is, its not fully the fault of these newly independant nations that they got caught up in USSR persuasion. the USSR was a superpower and many ways of making an offer that can't be refused, militarily or economically or otherwise. and if they truly like the idea of communism and/or socialism, which is why most of them chose those forms, then they didn't care about where it put them in the cold war game.

True, but clearly they saw what happened after they accepted the Soviet's support.

It was a very Edenic scene. The Red Snake promising an hammer to knock the apple from the tree and a sickle to peel it.

i'm sure you can see the difference between the effects of an ideal and the effects of certain totalitarians using an ideal to their benefit. besides, most of the casualties occured in the nations that caused them. a surprisingly large amount of russian fatalities were due to friendly fire or "making an example".

I do not know if an ideal can be claimed when there was no example of an ideal ever working for the Communists.

i don't know, its up to the individual. ask someone in africa and ask someone in america. but make sure to ask ones in different areas. i'm positive you can find answers contrary to your presumption.

but still, it doesn't matter, its like the bombing of japan. doesn't matter the intentions or the results--when speaking of atrocity it only matters what the opinions of those most deeply affected were.

I think slavery might be an example of a "bad thing producing a good end".

i am not sure. this is an area i have not done much studying in. i believe what you say is true, but again, consider those most deeply affected and their helplessness with dealing with it. i'm sure there were peaceful dealings with native americans, but there were so many violent and ruthless acts by europeans towards them. its all due to an utter lack of human understanding (mostly by europeans).

Well from what I can tell from my historical studies, the warfare was very mutual. There were attacks of vicious nature on both sides, and obviously, one side eventually conquered the other.

Again, it was probably not the best thing that could have happened, but neither could the colonists not take land that they needed.

so do a people who have the ability to take all the land from another people have the right to? it was genocide.

Ultimately, if you aren't using the land, it is not really yours to begin with, is it?

One could claim that if the American Indians were a huge empire, that it would have been far more immoral to deal with them as such. However, for the most part, North America was not used.

a southern province of the congo had seceded--it was mostly owned by a foreign company that mined precious minerals and seceded from the congo because it felt it would be more profitable--and so Lumumba wanted help to keep his country from falling apart. from my understanding he had no intention of implementing soviet reforms.

I'll read up on this guy. Thanks for telling me about him.

yes, but it is mostly because of our extreme success as a nation--we become proud and after we become proud we become used to it. and after we're used to it we become arrogant because we think everything we do is the right way to do it.

Perhaps there is a light flavouring of hubris in our cultural stew.

RoyLennigan:

But can we go as far as to say this was an "atrocity"?

I think that atrocity requires, at the very least, a sense of "this was not necessary". It is, at the very least, controversial to claim that Dresden and Hiroshima were not necessary acts of war. It was not the equivalent of going in and slaughtering village after village in a genocidal rampage even if it was not necessary, though.
i think we're arguing semantics at this point. i would say that we chose the lesser of two forseeable evils. though i believe that there could have been other ways to deal with it (even if i nor anyone else can think of them).

but what i am trying to convey is how they felt about it. obviously not very well.

Only 30-40,000 out of several million, were tortured.
right, just like only 3000 people died in the WTC... no big deal.

Iran Contra was a big mess, yes. But the Gipper did what he had to do.
there is always an alternative. In my view, Regan was one of our worst presidents, even with what he did for our country. He just didn't have any humanity for anyone other than americans. let me spell it out for you:

He was told by the House that he could not fund the contra war.
So he illegally sold guns to Iran in order to get money to central america to give to the contras in order to depose a democratically elected leader in favor of an authoritarian leader who preferred america.

True, but clearly they saw what happened after they accepted the Soviet's support.

It was a very Edenic scene. The Red Snake promising an hammer to knock the apple from the tree and a sickle to peel it.
i am not quite sure what you mean. i'll have to read about this.

I do not know if an ideal can be claimed when there was no example of an ideal ever working for the Communists.
well, maybe not the communism you refer too, which is perhaps why you view it in such an evil light. socialism is a widely accepted characteristic of many existing governments, though it is hardly practiced as it is written by Lenin or Marx. as a characteristic of government it works quite well. but as a purely socialist government, who knows. there has never been one.

Well from what I can tell from my historical studies, the warfare was very mutual. There were attacks of vicious nature on both sides, and obviously, one side eventually conquered the other.

Again, it was probably not the best thing that could have happened, but neither could the colonists not take land that they needed.
So, because the colonists were too cowardly or unintelligent or weak to fight for their right in their own land, they travel across the ocean to fight weaker people for their land.

Ultimately, if you aren't using the land, it is not really yours to begin with, is it?
is all land ours to use? is the world our ashtray? they used the land as they saw fit. it was renewable that way. the way we use it is destructive and it will never grow back the same as it was. maybe the atrocity here was not against the natives, but against the land itself.

One could claim that if the American Indians were a huge empire, that it would have been far more immoral to deal with them as such. However, for the most part, North America was not used.
they were not an empire because it was against their lifestyle. they did not want to harm the land as we did.

Perhaps there is a light flavouring of hubris in our cultural stew.
i would say.

I know i haven't been hiding my dislike of america or americans in general. I admit that. I will also admit that I know there are good people in america as well. Example, I admire and respect Bill Gates tremendously. He has turned out to be a true humanitarian. I also don't hate all white people. One of my favorite authors is Charles Dickens if that means anything. I know its a silly example.

What I don't like is the general obnoxiousness and prejudice of americans. This has been my experience. Of course, we know this leads to feelings of hatred and me thinking of killing them and feeling they are as worthless as they see me. It's really difficult for anyone to like or respect a culture that you feel is for the majority this way. So to clarify, I have to admit I don't like americans or american culture for the most part.

Sorry

I know i haven't been hiding my dislike of america or americans in general. I admit that. I will also admit that I know there are good people in america as well. Example, I admire and respect Bill Gates tremendously. He has turned out to be a true humanitarian.
Uh...have you heard of tax breaks?

As long as you can admit it like that iam, I am a lot more willing to listen to and talk to you. People have differences. People have prejudices. I admit I've had some in my past, and I have some now. We can start again if you want, and understand why you feel the way you do. One thing my experience has taught me is that everyone feels the way they do for a reason. It might not be a reason we agree with, but nontheless it is there. Is it what others tell you about Americans which shape your opinions, or have you had bad experiences personally?

Give a little more information. What experiences have you had? I've traveled abroad as well, and had nothing but good times and met good people. Maybe I was lucky?

Uh...have you heard of tax breaks?

Uh..he's not a humanitarian because of tax breaks. He is literally pouring billions into medical relief, research, and education especially in third world countries. Though of course it makes intelligent sense, how many billions does a person truly need right?

Give a little more information. What experiences have you had? I've traveled abroad as well, and had nothing but good times and met good people. Maybe I was lucky?

What are you talking about? Isn't it self-explanatory. I mentioned their seems to be more aggravated prejudice in america. Also, americans tend to be more rude. Do the math. prejudice + rude. You are pretending OR assuming going to other countries BESIDES america MUST have to equal to the same experience. You are still on your "great america cannot be as bad as and is better than" kick! For some it might be, but most people who have traveled the world will tell you americans are pretty rude or bad-mannered. But as i mentioned, an associate thought indians and koreans were pretty rude as well but she is white and american as there might be some anti-western resentment etc.

What are you talking about? Isn't it self-explanatory. I mentioned their seems to be more aggravated prejudice in america. Also, americans tend to be more rude. Do the math. prejudice + rude. You are pretending OR assuming going to other countries BESIDES america MUST have to equal to the same experience. You are still on your "great america cannot be as bad as and is better than" kick! For some it might be, but most people who have traveled the world will tell you americans are pretty rude or bad-mannered. But as i mentioned, an associate thought indians and koreans were pretty rude as well but she is white and american as there might be some anti-western resentment etc.

I have a Korean friend who says that the US government policy plays up the divide between the North and South Korea as well, that it would probably disappear if the US soldiers left.

Yes, it would disappear when Seoul was a hulking pile of smoking wreckage and Communist shock troops were pillaging the farms of the SOuth Korean countryside for every scrap of food to feed their starving people, even as they spiked the farmers on their bayonets.

Yes, it would disappear when Seoul was a hulking pile of smoking wreckage and Communist shock troops were pillaging the farms of the SOuth Korean countryside for every scrap of food to feed their starving people, even as they spiked the farmers on their bayonets.

You read too many novels.

http://www.jpri.org/publications/workingpapers/wp93.html

http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=3367

http://hnn.us/articles/3740.html

Refering to this BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6288933.stm

Well, it seems the USA is heading towards another phase of isolationist politics, only this time it appears that the rest of the world is isolating itself from the USA, as far as it is possible the USA being a superpower and all.
A superpower that nobody appears to like because it is acting as if the rest of the world isn't there.

Question: are americans ok with that? Tall, proud of something, alone, oppressing others.

As long as the rest of the world does business with the US, there is no isolation, it's a complete myth.

If the economy crashes, then we are truly fucked. So keep an eye on the economy.

What are you talking about? Isn't it self-explanatory. I mentioned their seems to be more aggravated prejudice in america. Also, americans tend to be more rude. Do the math. prejudice + rude. You are pretending OR assuming going to other countries BESIDES america MUST have to equal to the same experience. You are still on your "great america cannot be as bad as and is better than" kick! For some it might be, but most people who have traveled the world will tell you americans are pretty rude or bad-mannered. But as i mentioned, an associate thought indians and koreans were pretty rude as well but she is white and american as there might be some anti-western resentment etc.

Nope. Not on a superiority kick at all. I'm asking what YOUR experience has been outside of what you have been told by others. Have you run into Americans yourself, and if so what happened? As I mentioned before, I have also traveled in the world and been treated very well. No one has ever called me rude, or arrogant, and I've never been in any incidents either. None of the people I have talked with abroad in Australia or Scandinavia have ever said that they thought badly of Americans. Sure I've been told from time to time people don't like certain points about America. I think you'll find that inside America, everyone has things about the Government policy they don't like. But at the same time, America is respected and brings much to the world as well.

If you don't like America, FINE. That is your prejudice. But it can't be denied by anyone that we've pulled quite a few countries (like France) out of the fire quite a few times either. The ultimate point though, is that with an additude like yours you're only inviting Americans like me to to be rude and disrespectful of your opinion which in turn breeds misunderstanding on YOUR part. No one listens to a whiner, and especially does not respect a bigot. I'm tired of being nice. I tried... and you still accused me of being on a superiority kick. You've been squelched. Have a nice life.

Bigot.

France also pulled you out of the fire.

SamCDKey:

We have 44 percent of people that hate our country, too.

We call them "Democrats".

US is a lost country. Just when everyone was ready for a Democrat President, look who Democrats pulled out of their asses for candidacy. The most respectable party seems to be the Libertarian party, but they never get enough attention.

I don't really care about US's bad reputation abroad, because Europeans seem to have caught the trend of hating their presidents from us. It's more of teen angst in Europe than a reasonable dislike. Besides, France is ridiculous, Britain is being metrosexual, Germany's silly, Russia's publicly cursing everyone out. Nobody looks respectable nowadays, it's not in fashion. =P

Nope. Not on a superiority kick at all. I'm asking what YOUR experience has been outside of what you have been told by others. Have you run into Americans yourself, and if so what happened? As I mentioned before, I have also traveled in the world and been treated very well. No one has ever called me rude, or arrogant, and I've never been in any incidents either. None of the people I have talked with abroad in Australia or Scandinavia have ever said that they thought badly of Americans. Sure I've been told from time to time people don't like certain points about America. I think you'll find that inside America, everyone has things about the Government policy they don't like. But at the same time, America is respected and brings much to the world as well.

If you don't like America, FINE. That is your prejudice. But it can't be denied by anyone that we've pulled quite a few countries (like France) out of the fire quite a few times either. The ultimate point though, is that with an additude like yours you're only inviting Americans like me to to be rude and disrespectful of your opinion which in turn breeds misunderstanding on YOUR part. No one listens to a whiner, and especially does not respect a bigot. I'm tired of being nice. I tried... and you still accused me of being on a superiority kick. You've been squelched. Have a nice life.

Bigot.

I don't think you understand that I really don't give a sh*t. I'll tell you why. Because if I don't LIKE something, it is my opinion. Just as you are entitled to not LIKE something as well. I would hardly consider that being a bigot. You are also in severe denial of some warped kind, I stated that it was MY experience NOT what was told to me. Basically, you are making things up to bolster your argument and make my opinions seem unfounded. And its clear you are so preoccupied with american ego even though you deny it. You keep harping on what you have done for other countries as if they OWE you ASSKISSING. I'm actually not whining. You asked and you did not like my reply as well. You personally may have not been called rude or arrogant but the general concensus is americans are fairly rude and obnoxious. If you disagree, I can't stop you. For being such a great country that has done so much for the WORLD, you sure do have a limited and paranoid worldview, simpleton american defensiveness. Meaning you really don't give a sh*t about other countries. So you can just drop the act and rather than preach about what you've done for others while hypocritically your concern for the world pretty much stops at your beach. Have a nice day.

And we saved Chile from Communists.

Aka: We gave them the greatest blessing we ever could.

Woohoo! We saved chileans from a communist regime! Oh, I forgot!:bugeye: We just established a dicatorship!!:eek:

What if that communist party wasn't gonna cause violence? Pinochet caused forced disapearences on his own people! He was violent JUST LIKE SADDAM HUSSEIN!

its mostly because our steps in advancement (as humans, not as americans) are becoming smaller, so its much harder to see it as individual leaps forward.

but its also because other nations are advancing as fast, some faster. And they are learning to advance in areas that we aren't working on.

It's also due to our nation's foundation in both heavy conservatism (even our liberals are mostly conservative by worldwide standards) and persuit of happiness, which makes for a lot of dispute (between those who tell others what is right and those who think what is right is up to themselves). this seems, to me, to cause us to spiral into stagnation--we are too caught up with arguing about what is right and wrong that we don't do anything at all.

I. Do you mean nations like China?

II. RoyLennigan is right. Since USA was on top for so many years, we americans don't like other nations to advance just like USA. USA needs to understand that being on top and pushing everyone down is mere selfishness & heartlessness. We americans must learn many things, including these:

1. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. We americans must learn that we don't need to be on top to be a great nation: if we have the abilities we'll meet our needs; & that we must not try succeed in abilities by trying to topple democracy in other nations, so that they never develope into a great nation like USA. We must also learn that we MUST meet the needs of the people 1st, even the needs of people in different nations as well.

2. Give, and it shall be given unto you. We americans must learn to respect other nations. If we give respect to others, we will get respect. Here's an example: Germany & Japan are much smarter nations than USA; let's respect that.

3. We need to stop being selfish. Profit has become the only motive for business decisions in America, so much that we invaded Iraq.