Stop the America-bashing!

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Coracle

So you all but compare the U.S. to the Muslim maniacs? "Hypocrites"? "Holier than thou"? Don't like "axis of evil"? Oh, really.

Well, YOU BET there is EVIL out there - blind fanatical religious hatred fueld by the most reactionary anti-human elements in Islam, and they hate America because of its success, because of its tolerance, because OUR values are the opposite of THEIR values, values dealing with women, theocracies, liberty, religious acceptance, and so much more.

Most of the terrorists of 9/11 came from upper middle class or wealthy families, BTW. So spare me that anti-American Clinton style garbage about us "not doing enough" for the Third World.

The problem is they correctly think we are suckers - too generous and not tough enough. They understand one thing - force. When Muslims for no reason a few weeks ago burned up scores of Hindus in a train in India, the Hindus responded in kind. That is what they understand.

American has for far too long wanted to be loved - instead of demanding to be respected and feared. The other problem is America's suicidal Open Borders policy. Osama's henchmen laughed at us before 9/11 for those borders, and they were right to laugh. They can get terrorists in here anytime they want - and they still can. Man, what a joke the INS is.

Woah, there. I didn't compare the U.S. to "Muslim maniacs" (is that different than Christian, Jewish, Hindu... maniacs? Was good 'ole Timmy McVeigh somehow significantly different?). But the fact is the United States of America, as in our government, has, in the past, done some pretty shady things (coups in Chile and Iran, support for some pretty unsaviory groups in Central America, to name a few). Therefore, it pisses people off when we get all self righteous and start throwing around the word "evil." That in NO WAY condones/apologizes for/etc. the 9/11 attacks. I was merely suggesting a possible reason for the fairly widespread dislike of the US government & its foreign policies - particularly in Europe, countries with whom we are allied! Think about that - those are our friends.

The idea that Islamic fanatics hate the USA for its success alone is, in my opinion, a copout. Plain and simple. It's so easy to say that, shrug your shoulders, saying "they hate us for who we are, which we aren't going to change, so..." and blithely consider whether or not to bomb Iraq (which, incidentally, is probably the least radically Islamist Arab nation). Sure, our nation's wealth and power are part of the equation. Anything that we do in the world is magnified by out "Superpower" status. The spotlight is on us, so-to-speak, and jealousy plays a role.

But it isn't just that. The fact is, our foreign policy is the source of a lot of the hatred. I don't by any stretch of the imagination think this hatred of the USA is all our fault. Then again, I don't buy the argument that it has nothing to do with our policies. I think US foreign policy needs to be re-examined, but then again, I've thought that for years.

Yes, there are large cultural differences between the USA and the Arab/Muslim world, as most clearly illustrated by the Taleban. That will be a source of friction no matter how clear and principled our foreign policy is, and maybe a few groups will keep trying to blow us up. So be it. Do you actually think we can stop terrorism by bombing the hell out of whichever country we think was involved in 9/11? Have a look at the Israeli vs. Palestinian conflict, and ask yourself if that's the path you wish to choose.

As for the "force is all they understand" bit... you really believe we are dealing with barbarians, don't you? The terrorists - yeah, I'd agree with you. The problem is that those people in India you were talking about were most likely 99% innocent civilians, not terrorists. But because they got lumped in with the fanatics, they got killed or beaten. How does that help things? It merely generates more hatred - which breeds terrorism. Think of it this way: you say that "they" understand only force, and that the Hindu response to the train burning was the "correct" way. By that twisted, ****ed-up logic, targeting civilians for the actions of a given organization is ok. Thus, a person upset about the U.S. government's bombing campaign in Afganistan would be "correct" in attacking any U.S. citizen he can find.

Finally, with regard to your comments about our open borders - what exactly do you suggest? That we stop immigration? Of course the INS needs a kick in the ass, and we need to be alert, but I have a feeling that you would approve of harrassing anyone who happens to be Muslim or of Arabic origin.

-Arrian

[Beren]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Thanx. Its not that I didn't believe you but people are prone to make statements which are unfounded. I always question statements, its part of my job.

The next questions - how many lives has it saved? If the US hadn't acted how many people would have died in further attacks? Are the people of Afghanistan and the world better off? Has the action done more harm than good? Etc.

As an analogy I'm sure more civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died than were killed at Pearl Harbour.

All are rhetorical points that nothing is black and white.

I was questioning whether America used too much violence in Afghanistan. Though I admit I disagreed with them originally, I think they had a possitive effect in the long run. But I think the actions could have been done with less violence.
As you can read in my links, Rumsfeld once bombed a village because they supported the Talibaan...
Where they supposed to revolt?

BTW: America is currently supporting the Israeli tactics in their 'war on terrorism.' Once again, America is supporting a form of suppression.

[Dauphin]

I agree that the US could have used less violent methods to acheive the same objectives, but I don't think they could have chosen methods to acheive their objectives more effectively or efficiently.

Having said that the actions taken were, and are, beneficial to wider society when taken in full context.

[siredgar]

*Yawns*

[Jaguar]

I think america is kind of like microsoft. people criticize it but couldn't get along a day without it.

[~Vodka~]

Yep, face it Ameri-bashers your livlyhood depends on American more than you like to admit.

[Dauphin]

If microsoft collapsed tomorrow, it would not be the end of the computer OS's. In fact computer users may be better off, Linux et al would have there chance to shine.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
I think america is kind of like microsoft. people criticize it but couldn't get along a day without it.

I know Israel couldn't last a day without America bankrolling with BILLIONS every year its assault on the Palestinians.

[Beren]

Now, if Europe would just form a unity, we would be superior to America.

[Dauphin]

That's debatable. Depends on the yardstick you use.

[Tori]

What's America?

I have never noticed it before ... well, on TV perhaps.

[~Vodka~]

Oh I got a better one:

Whats "Iceland" ? Isn't it one of those things that hands from the gutters in the winter after it rains...? No, thats an Icesicle... huh. Well, i'm stumped!

[Dauphin]

Iceland is a supermarket chain that sells frozen food.

[~Vodka~]

Oh yeah!

[Beren]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
That's debatable. Depends on the yardstick you use.

Of course, I agree. In terms of military power, USA is superior. But if you talk about National Product, the EU is superior. I choose the last one, because it shows the potential of the union.

[~Vodka~]

Oh, i'm sure it's just a matter of a few years befor every country in the EU starts speaking ONE language and working together.... good one!

[sargon2]

Originally posted by Beren
Of course, I agree. In terms of military power, USA is superior. But if you talk about National Product, the EU is superior. I choose the last one, because it shows the potential of the union.

The US are spending hundreds of billions on military - their hole/whole surplus - and led it detonate in someones desert.
But for a long time they are dependent on foreign money-influx to compensate tradedeficite.

World ain't be better or worse with or without the US. They are often telling about moral in their political decissions, but they don't talk on moral about their intrerests and in the conflicts they don't care about. The hole diplomacy, miltary and US-foreignpolicy is directed in getting advantade for their economy. Cheap oil from central asia and middle neareast and so on.
But led me tell you it doesn't calculate. U could safe a lot of money if you paid some more on gasoline and much less on military to control those areas.
From an economical state it is a big miscalcutation. And the moral talking you can stamp in a can - to do something if Albanians are tread bad and leave and even support the opressor if Palastinians are tread worse is not moral it is pure interests.
I'm not angry about the indifference of most Americans on foreign-policy they just care on their own. But now is the best time in american history and it won't last for ever. Other almost superpowers are already waiting for their time - but what is the US doing - they waste their money, and selling off to play war-games.
I'm an America-sympathizer. Not of foreign-policy but of culture and people. Let that war-gaming be. Save mutch money and you automatically have less enemies and aggression against you. Just like a normal country got. And don't led you beeing a tool for foreign interests. The US is fighting in Israel as it was about their own life, there are only 5 Million Jews in the US(population 260Mil. at least), many more ten millions of single different nations-heritance why do you risk and pay american lifes for one foreign country - mindless supporting just causes agression. Not the US were attackeed on 11/9 but the sectores which are directed abroad bound - instruments and symbols of economical and military policy and influence in the world.

I got a good friend who told me he is earning only little money for running costs. just 750 EUR of which taxes and social tribut is even still be taken. So only little money is left on him to spend, he says the government has to spend the money they took from him very reasonable, it is a big part of his money - but they don't, they wast a lot and spend it for sensless things. I guess it is not different about people in the US - doesen't your heard bleeding if military is shooting a million-dollar-rocked in someones desert, it is more than sensless.

[sargon2]

Originally posted by ~Vodka~
Oh, i'm sure it's just a matter of a few years befor every country in the EU starts speaking ONE language and working together.... good one!

We don't need to be homogenized, we are proud of every single nation creating the big european civilization, watch our new coins. So we will never speak only with one language neither metaphorical.

Read Beren's post and those of other europeans and you will understand what I mean. If we were all only 320 Million Germans, French or Italians we would be poor. Every culture got its own tribute. And that is even economically measurable. For every nation has a advantage in doing something. Germans like ingeneering, so they are champions in building machins like cars, Britsh are good in diplomacy so they are skill with finances, skandinavians love comunication, so they are leading and pushing europe to the top. Every nation got something to contribute even if I don't get an example for it. And if even not they got a special or more contributes than others on culture and relationships.

There is already a common identity of sense. And if at all there will be a confederation of autonomous countries.

I can love my country/Union without bashing USA.
A kiss is just a kiss.

[~Vodka~]

If we wern't around to "influence" countrys millitarily then your countrys would have to spend more more stabalizing them.
*Example*Just think what the price of oil would be like if Iraq conqured Kuwait and perhaps a few other surrounding countrys.(I'll giv ya a hint its THROUGH THE ROOF! and all of that money funding the nuclear/biological weapons programs.)

Yes, the world would be a MUCH diffirent place w/o us, and if it left the world without a large democratic super-power then what makes you think your now puny little millitarys can police the globe as ours does? Or aren't you just like every other european who, LIKE THE "IGNORANT" Americans you talk so much about, doesn't give a D@mn about what and who is keeping things going outside Europe?

Its true isn't it? Of course you'll deny it but you know its true. You, like every other person whos life doesn't deal with international issues everyday doesn't even think about what AMERICA is doing around the world, around the clock to keep the FREE WORLD, NOT JUST AMERICA the free world that it is today!

[Tori]

Originally posted by ~Vodka~
If we wern't around to "influence" countrys millitarily then your countrys would have to spend more more stabalizing them.

But you do know that your are talking about the lifes of other human beings, don't you? I can see the danger to look at the world like playing civilization, just remembering your own advantage.

I'm not only talking about the USA, I'm also talking about Europe.

Well, if you want to "stop the american bashing" try it. I would love to thank you.
But you will never succeed the way your are currently trying to. Didn't someone tell you that understanding and acceptance are the key to succeed and not bashing the other opinion. This will get you nowhere. And I'm not talking about America I am talking about you.

Well, but I do know that every intelligent person with a normal level of self-confidence will read these lines and smile about the people posting here.

By the way, ...

I don't live in Iceland.

Now feel free bashing me

[sargon2]

Originally posted by ~Vodka~
If we wern't around to "influence" countrys millitarily then your countrys would have to spend more more stabalizing them.
*Example*Just think what the price of oil would be like if Iraq conqured Kuwait and perhaps a few other surrounding countrys...

The US have created this worldorder. They lead the politic of divide and rule. They supported the iraqi dictator to fight the fundamentalistic Iran. They supplied the Taliban to fight SU and communistic government of Afghanistan - the remaindors then directed against you. They supported Croatia, Bosnia and the Albanians so mutch, that they feld strong enough not to make any compomises to the militarily dominating Serbia - Croatia i.e. wanted to keep the areas of foreign ethnitiesin its own country and the minority areas of its nation in its neighboring countries and so on and on. I wrote already on Vietnam and Corea on page 17. The countries in Latin-America were bribed for many generations dictators were arised and supported. Now in all these areas politicalsystems are wounded, intesions are between the neighbors, economy is weak, so they grow drugs. The main troubles are directing you.
But you are right if u say world wouldn't be peacful without the US - though not that aggressiv as with. The european tools are mutch different. Beside USA we are culturaly and economically leading. Our mean is the exclusion of sympathy and entry in to our markets. No country can hold for long time this tension. There are only few dircect connections between worldareas. I.e. between africa and asia, or asia and southamerica, they are mainlay indirctly via europe and increasingly via america. So if we, or u if u joined this way, do blockade this way rouge countries are mainly isolated - that is our power - and it would last in most cases, and in the rest a world with less frutration would work together to fight occasional idiots.
No we didn't need american auxilians in a world of a peacful , modest and selfconscious America.

Come on and join this way,
and don't goad on the Brittish they were already further in their development than now.

So don't get me wrong I don't think the US are evil, just mislead and miscalculating. I want to convince not bashe.

[Dauphin]

Of course, I agree. In terms of military power, USA is superior. But if you talk about National Product, the EU is superior. I choose the last one, because it shows the potential of the union.

When economies are so closely matched and large militaries unimportant its personal lifestyle that I see as important. Thus I would guage the two regions on their standard of living.

We are economically equal ($10-11 trillion), but as the US has a far smaller population the average American is richer. From a selfish, thus personal perspective, the US is a better place to work, and Europe a better place to retire/fall ill/be unemployed etc.

[Spiffor]

USA : more than 300 million people
EU : less than 350 million people.
There's a difference, but not that much. In EU, there are former underdeveloped countries by our standards (Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Greece) which are getting richer, but still not enough to match Germany or Netherlands.
The difference in GNP / person will be really visible when former communist countries will come into the EU (2005 I believe). But this difference won't mean Europeans are more lazy than Americans, it would just mean some of us will lack good infrastructures to work efficiently. (Btw, the Portuguese have the lmost working hours a day in Europe, while British have the shortest working days, so say the statistics, I was surprised too).

[sargon2]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

We are economically equal ($10-11 trillion), but as the US has a far smaller population the average American is richer. From a selfish, thus personal perspective, the US is a better place to work, and Europe a better place to retire/fall ill/be unemployed etc.

No, it is only easier to become super-rich. Money and Property is mutch less shared by large groups as it is in europe. The number of poor and super-rich people is mutch higher, therefor is the group that is well off in europe bigger.
Even the poor people in my country get high welfare-rates, so that there is a lack of motivation.
Statistics look good, but if somebody got the double of what he needs to survive he is not double happy to equal the statistical desperatness of that one who got nothing to survive. And a super-rich of million $ is not as happy as thousands of poor are unhappy together, I guess neither of one.

But I don't really refuse the American system. I, if they led me in after my posts, would like to go one day to the US, and stay for some years, it got its attraction. But I will alway have a back-flight-ticked if I got trouble to get back - for if you don't have money and relationship you are damned there.

[Coracle]

There must be a happy midpoint between the socialist-welfare statism of Europe with its handouts and exorbitant taxes, and the "you are on your own" situation in America where health care is inadequate for tens of millions and non-existent for over forty million.



BTW, just saw a poll on the news about how the majority of people in Saudi Arabia "hate" America because of America's mindless knee-jerk support for Israel against the Palestinian people. Sadly, I can see their point. Israel has been a political albatross around America's neck for decades, although the "Israel first" so-called Americans don't care.

[sargon2]

Originally posted by Coracle
There must be a happy midpoint between the socialist-welfare statism of Europe with its handouts and exorbitant taxes, and the "you are on your own" situation in America where health care is inadequate for tens of millions and non-existent for over forty million.

Quite right. The midpoint is moveable and it is you. A lot of admireable thinks in the US weren't possible in a different system. So I don't wana be without that. Find again and again your point inbetween.

So I already mentioned that: if there were no US it must be invited.

[Dauphin]

No, it is only easier to become super-rich. Money and Property is mutch less shared by large groups as it is in europe. The number of poor and super-rich people is mutch higher, therefor is the group that is well off in europe bigger

Wealth distribution may be more heavily weighted to the rich in the US, but whatever average you take (median, modal and mean) income in the US is still higher than in the EU.

Also population percentile to population percentile the US citizen has more income. Top 10% of Americans have more money than Top 10% of Europeans. The 10%-20% of richest Americans have more than their European counterparts etc... Although the gap is reduced as you get closer to the poor end of the spectrum.

[Herr David]

Here's my old data from 1996

GNP per capita

EU - 23,640 US$
USA - 26,980 US$

as taken from "Aktuell '99" (A world almanac, published anually by Harenberg Verlag, Germany)

It actually isn't that different. Unfortunately I don't have any new numbers available...

[Keynes]

Well I am obliged to take some corrective action here....

The GNP is the Gross National Product and measures the total income earned by all nationals of a nation. This includes for example the income earned by U.S. nationals in Japan or any other foreign country. A much better way of measuring the living-standard of a country is the GDP, or Gross Domestic Product. The GDP per capita for the U.S. was 35,619 based on Purchasing Power Parity. For the OECD-EU15 area it was 24,377. These figures are from the OECD-Website for the year 2000. As you can see the U.S. is still leader of the pack concerning the GDP-per-capita and it will probably remain there too because its annual GDP growth rate exceeds that of Europe too.

[Herr David]

Smartass, of course I meant to write GDP instead of GNP. I confused the letters, and I only had the German abbreviation at hand

However, I didn't know that the difference was that big. Does it have something to do with the Euro's value compared to the US$?