Oppositions to Arabs

[Traelin]

Originally posted by roalan
Yes civil. pop. does flee in time of war. Don't forget Israel has only about 2-3mil. people and if they allow anyone in they will soon be absorbed into the arab population. We in the US let in many other countries people, we are a large land with a hugh pop. Other countries such as England let in others but are not kindly disposed to them . Neither are many other countries. Israel is no different when trying to keep the majority as Jews, however Israel does let in all Jews from all countries in the world so they have a very god mix of people form all parts of the world. One problem is that Jews which is a religion and Israel a Nation are mixed. This does not seem to be the case in the rest of the world. It is a big conflict but I guess it extends back to bible days.
I notice in todays news the US blasted a car load of terrorists and there is not a peep of protest or call for revenge from the rest of the world. If Israel did it the UN would meet to condem them.Screems of revenge would be heard through out the land. I also see no condomnation of yeaterdays bombing of a mall in Israel or Israel threat of revenge (even though they will do it) And when it comes you will hear world leaders condem Israel and hear more screems of revenge. If Israel was as big a Turkey and had 40 Million people and some oil. The world would never say anything against Israel .

Actually Israel has a population of 6-7 million, but that's just nitpicking on my part. Your point is well taken, they are a small country with a much smaller sphere of influence (due to pop. constraints) than the U.S.

You are also correct that Israel gets lambasted for every little thing they do. The world community is ridiculous with how they hound the Israelis. Anyone that denies this is denying the facts that are staring them in the face. Even though our war on terrorism is absolutely, 100% justified, we will at the very most be frowned upon for anything we do. As the old adage goes, he with the power and gold makes the rules.

I think a lot of the world sentiment toward Israel (and, to a lesser extent, the U.S.) is driven by pro-Mideastern Muslim sentiment in Europe. Not to get off on yet another tangent, but my boss at work used to live in France. He doesn't really swing either way WRT Israel and the Palestinians, but he told me that the French govt. makes very public statements against racism. Yet -- as he put it -- you wouldn't find a government more tainted toward Israel in Europe than France. Oh well, such is life I guess.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Traelin


Hrm, I'm ignorant on Lansky. Who was he?

Infamous Mafia "financeer" intimately involved in building the Las Vegas casino empire.

[roalan]

Your right 1995 pop. of Israel 5,607,900. I remember when it was 2 mil. Still not as many people as Mass.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Traelin

I think a lot of the world sentiment toward Israel (and, to a lesser extent, the U.S.) is driven by pro-Mideastern Muslim sentiment in Europe. Not to get off on yet another tangent, but my boss at work used to live in France. He doesn't really swing either way WRT Israel and the Palestinians, but he told me that the French govt. makes very public statements against racism. Yet -- as he put it -- you wouldn't find a government more tainted toward Israel in Europe than France. Oh well, such is life I guess.

Having lived in, and retained close ties to Europe, IMO the overall sentiment is that VERY recent European history (like, all of the the last century!) has made Europeans, in general, wary of both hyper-nationalism and "racialism" (to use the English equivalent of the American "racism"). It is one of the great historical ironies that Jews, having suffered among the worst from these (although I wonder -- where are all the, e.g., Armenians with views about all this?) are now perceived as (to quote Bob Dylan) "Neighborhood Bullies".

Also the European view of the U.S. and Israel is that the tail too often wags the dog -- and I somehow doubt that my POV on this will change anyone's opinion ...

Any Europeans care to comment?

-Ozymandias

[roalan]

If the tail waged the dog then Israel would have acted like all other countries and got rid of the Palestine problem. In Israel's case they usually cave into what the US wants. I would say that perhaps this is the first time Israel ignored the wishes of the US. When Bush ordered them out of disputed areas and actually assumed that Israel would comply. He looked a bit foolish when they didn't go. I found it hard to believe they actually stood up to the US-never thought I would see it.Any other gov. besides Sharon would have caved in. If Shrons Gov. ends in elections and a Rabin type Gov takes over then Bush will again order them out of disputed land and I bet Israel goes.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by roalan
If the tail waged the dog then Israel would have acted like all other countries and got rid of the Palestine problem

... Do you mean, "All the other countries who have engaged in 'ethnic cleansing'?"

The tail mercifully can't wag the dog quite THAT far!!!

[roalan]

No not ethnic cleansingI I did not say slaughter the people just move them out. Something like the Kurds,American Indians,Like the Europeans that like to move groups around to locations other then their own,Like the russians moving whole populations with out a sense of shame. I am just saying Israel would act no differently then anyone else is solving their problem.Like Traelin says," He with the power and the Gold makes the rules". Don't make up separate rules for Israel and automatically assume they will cleanse everything. Maybe they would maybe they wouldn;t. Depends on the mood at the time it happens.I just state a fact Israel if it could- would solve their problem just like any large and powerful country would. Take it anyway you wish. You seem to want to lean on the worse side so who knows perhaps you would be correct. We shall never know because the power is there but not allowed to be used. Whats that other saying. The road to Hell is paved with good intensions.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by roalan
No not ethnic cleansingI I did not say slaughter the people just move them out ... Don't make up separate rules for Israel ... I just state a fact Israel if it could- would solve their problem just like any large and powerful country would.

In current, common usage -- at least since the recent Balkan Wars and the disasters in Rwanda -- "ethnic cleansing" means "forced relocation" as well as extermination.

The last "large and powerful" countries in the world to engage in this practice were totalitarian nightmares.

Last I checked, Israel belongs to the United Nations?--

The preamble to the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights begins:

"Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law ..."

Maybe a full reading would do us all some good:

http://www.hrcr.org/docs/universal_decl.html

As I quoted in an earlier post, Israel can pick any and only two out of the following three: a democratic Israel, a greater Israel, a Jewish Israel ...

... That is, without committing war crimes. And I say this without intent to be inflammatory (although I have zero hope that'll be the case) but to worry about a tragic updating of Absalom -- you know, the part where, after the unspeakable is committed, comes the lamention at the horror.

-Ozymandias

P.S. BTW with this post I have decided not to comment / respond with any more posts regarding the behavior of the modern Israeli state. It is fruitless, and fills me with sorrow.

-Oz

[Mellian]

simply saw this coming when i first saw this thread few days ago this should be moved to Off-TOpic.

in my opinion, i thik the people who complains about the Arab is being racist deep down, how sad .... as well as lazy for not taking out the civ themselves


-Mellian

[Mellian]

Originally posted by roalan
If the tail waged the dog then Israel would have acted like all other countries and got rid of the Palestine problem. In Israel's case they usually cave into what the US wants. I would say that perhaps this is the first time Israel ignored the wishes of the US. When Bush ordered them out of disputed areas and actually assumed that Israel would comply. He looked a bit foolish when they didn't go. I found it hard to believe they actually stood up to the US-never thought I would see it.Any other gov. besides Sharon would have caved in. If Shrons Gov. ends in elections and a Rabin type Gov takes over then Bush will again order them out of disputed land and I bet Israel goes.

I wouldn't obey Bush either, lol

-Mellian

[roalan]

I do agree with most of what you just said. So lets leave it there.GBAGL

[ThaddeusAlexander]

I would have preferred incas as well.. if only for map placement purposes!!

And I think we all know that they could not have left out the Americans if they wanted to sell the game to more people in their biggest consumer capitol, the USA (duh!) but i find that if you think of them as the american indians that lived in the current US, you get used to it Of course if you ask an american s/he'll just tell you "the US has as much impact and importance on the world today as any other civ did in history".

As for the arabs, I think they're interesting but lets not forget that they never said NO to another expansion and maybe one day everyone will be happy

Although I'm sure I'll still need to mod in the Canadians no matter what ... oh well

Cheers
~Thadalex

[Druuge]

Things seem to pretty bad in the region of Israel.

Muslims tend to be unable or unwilling to find peaceful solutions like Northern on Far-Eastern countries would.
I think that they have tilted world view as medieval Christians did towards other cultures. Especially the more isolated countries.

BTW - I do NOT understand why US oficially calls Iran to be "evil". So what, if they whip their criminals? I'd prefer some whipping to jailing, also, although it is a little "medieval". 1979?

The Jews' biggest sin seems to be Superbia - they have adopted Hitler's propaganda and they think (or SEEM to) that they are better than others. Don't they think of arabs that they are "untermenchen"? Here in the quiet corner between Baltic Sea and Russia very few (bad) people have - traditionally - ever felt repulsion towards Jews and Israel. Lately, when sionistic (its FASCISM!) propaganda has reached the press people have began to dislike this Jewish business.

This whole propaganda stuff is repulsive to Eastern Europe as whole, I think. So what if Jews were killed, they ask. Gypsies, Polish, Ukrainians were ALSO killed. Why should they have SPECIAL ceremony for Jews separately? Why.

Now comes the difficult part. To live not accusing the Jews (who are nice people - educated, they survive the hardships), Germans - (their sense of humour may not be the best but they work well, are honest and care about nature), Russians - (They may drink a little bit too much but they are very kind and they are BLOODY cost-effective researchers when compared with western ones). I as an Estonian would have 1000 reasons to hate Russians but I wonder how we have managed to live peacefully together.

I'm afraid that it is just too late for Israel and Chechnya Too much evil has become past. Today's West IS fearing the ghost of Hitler. US govt exaggerates wrong things too much - they should sign the Kyoto protocol instead...

[Chemical Ollie]

I think this debate is getting a little hot-headed and off topic.

I would like to make a post that is more on topic: In the choice between Arabs and Hebrews to be included in PtW, I think the Arabs should be the more qualified tribe. Why? Because as good as every tribe in CIV3 had some kind of prospering empire at some stage in history. Aztecs, Americans, Vikings, Indians, Russians, English, Chinese, Romans - you name them! I could only find one clear exception - Iroquis (correct me if I'm wrong).

The Hebrews had their golden age about 1000 BC. Their empire covered present-day Israel and parts of Jordan. For greater part of history, the Hebrews have been slaves to other CIV3 tribes like Egyptians, Babylonians, Romans and Germans.

The Arabs had their golden age about 700-1200 AD, with an Empire streching from Spain to Persia.

While both tribes has put their solid footprint in world history, the Arabs had a longer golden age, larger empire and larger population (still has). That would make them more qualified to be in the game.

But on other hand, I believe that more real-world Hebrews are playing the game than real-world Arabs, so thats a good reason to include the Hebrews.

Perhaps this is a meaningless discussion as I have not seen a complete list of the tribes in PtW. And the game is already released (but not yet in Sweden). Are any of the discussed tribes included?

[Cyclotron]

The Arabs and Ottomans were included in PTW. No Jewish Civ was.

[sabrewolf]

olaf: yep, the tribes have been chosen: arabs, ottomans, carthagians, viking (yay... something for you sweds ), celts, spanish, mongols and the koreans...

so no point discussion, who should be in ptw... it's out (at least in the US - in europe as of 22nd novembre) and the choice has been done.

let's discuss, who should be in Civ3XP2 or in the civ3-community-extrapack...

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Mellian
simply saw this coming when i first saw this thread few days ago this should be moved to Off-TOpic.

in my opinion, i thik the people who complains about the Arab is being racist deep down, how sad .... as well as lazy for not taking out the civ themselves


-Mellian

I think the word "racist" is used WAAY too liberally. Racism has a connotation that implies dislike or contempt for an ENTIRE ethnic group. That is definitely different than prejudice. Everyone is prejudiced in one way, shape, or form. And just because someone isn't politically correct doesn't make them racist.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Druuge
US govt exaggerates wrong things too much - they should sign the Kyoto protocol instead...

Granted, no government is perfect. Not one. But one thing that everyone must admit is that we have strived and struggled to reach a point in our history where we could handle our own problems, and with vigor. We prefer peace, but aren't usually fooled into that false sense of peace like many other countries in the world.

Terrorism is wrong, and we are handling it effectively. Too bad we don't handle it with 100% of our capability, which we certainly aren't (and no, I'm certainly not hinting toward nukes for goodness sake).

The main problem I have when people say "Well terrorism has always existed, but now America is awakened to it" is the following:

This couldn't be further from the truth. Anyone that believes this is in utter denial with how much money we have shoved at other countries to fight atrocities. We do this to help others fight evil. But why do people have discontent toward us because we can handle our own problems? Sometimes I just get frustrated with all the U.S. bashing. I mean it's not my fault we have the clout. Nor is it my fault that other countries gut their militaries to the point that they are impotent against evil.

Common sense dictates many things, and one of them is to deliver a knockout blow in a war when you can, and to do so as much as you can on your own IMHO. I think other countries mistake an American individualist mentality for American arrogance. Quite frankly, if a country asked for our help to fight terrorism or a dictator or whatever, I'd say heck yeah, let's help. But don't bite the hand that feeds. That's just IMHO.

And I am not going into the even more OT discussion of Kyoto, no matter how much I want to.

[sabrewolf]

traelin,

i think the vast majority of the people around here agrees, that terrorism is bad and must be fought against.

the problem i have is when it comes to decide what's terrorism and what not. and to say who's bad and who's not. that is exactly what bush is doing by himself (well... with his administration of course).

we (most europeans) don't mind him fighting evil, but we criticise his methods and motives.
- if you want to get rid of evil dictators, get rid of all of them (equal stakes for all).
- if you want to reduce WoMD, start by giving a good example (e.g. getting rid of your own)
- don't mix up fight for independence with terrorism
- don't go by yourselves. if the majority of the world nations is against something, most probably YOU are wrong and not all others. that's the reason for your so called "U.S. bashing".
you (yourself, but also bush&co.) as a catholic (or generally christian) believe in "under god everyone is the same"... and you consider democracy the best governement. so that means, that everyone has the same rights. so why are you so sure, you're right and all others are wrong?
please answer me honestly: do you think the opinion of an american is more worth than the opinion of 10 foreigners?
- state terrorism is also terrorism - even if performed by an ally and friend

the rest of the world also want's to get rid of terrorism, but we prefer to use sustainable methods. we want to eliminate the root of evil (poverty, big influence of radicals, no-future-mentality, etc.).
terrorism is like an illness. if you only kill the terrorists, it's like taking drugs against the pain. but the infection is still there and the pain will return sooner or later.... again and again and again... sometimes you just have to consider a "real" treatment, like antibiotics or an operation.

[vmxa1]

Well actually the way it works is the biggest and the strongest determine what is and they will listen (maybe) to others, but in the end it does not matter. They will do what they percieve as in their best interest.
In this time and place that means Bush decides.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Well actually the way it works is the biggest and the strongest determine what is and they will listen (maybe) to others, but in the end it does not matter. They will do what they percieve as in their best interest.
In this time and place that means Bush decides.

Lovely, so the entirety of international law (treaties; conventions; UN declarations -- hey! how about democratic elections in countries like Venezuela that don't elect El Presidente Bush's favorite candidate? -- kinda like the good ol' 1970s when ITT didn't like the government in Chile and so had the CIA "do something" about it) goes out the bloody window. You know, in the end, we will suffer for his pig-ignorant cowboy arrogance by seeing U.S. soldiers held in indefinite detention until hauled before secret war crimes court -- for that IS the precedent WE have set -- WE are threatenening to abrogate the very fabric of what has defined decent treatment of civilian and warrior alike, across international borders - diplomacy, treaty, law.

Heil Bush!

[Cyclotron]

This is the most OT thread I have ever seen in an on topic forum.

Way to go, guys!

[vmxa1]

Ozymandias, nice anti american sentiments, but it only proves the point I made. It in fact does not matter who the power is at the time in history, in the past it was other countries and in the future it will be who knows who, but the law of the universe is might makes right. Like it or not.

[sabrewolf]

no! don't move this thread to off topic!
we've got a quite high standard of discussion here... in OT you'll get the fascist comments from fez and the communistic PoVs of others.

and every 10th post here is on-topic

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Ozymandias, nice anti american sentiments, ... but the law of the universe is might makes right. Like it or not.

So, we have a thread on Arabs in Civ, often enjoyable and informative, often veering all over the place, too often veering towards a cliff of intolerance- we've had rants of every stripe and color, pro- and anti- oh, just about every nation and religion at hand.

I certainly will not argue that "might" is unimportant -- and I think this is the 3rd or 4th time in these forums that I'll quote Grace Slick's brilliant observation about, oh, say, 99% of human history: "In loyalty to their kind, they cannot tolerate our rise \ In loyalty to our kind we cannot tolerate their obstruction."

However, I AM very curious as to what you define "might" and "right" as -- if you are merely observing that the strongest usually wins -- then perhaps you are too young to recall Buddhist monks burning themselves to death. Or never read how the Russian winter is notorious for overcoming military power -- or, out of curiosity, are you including weather patterns in your assessment of "might"?

On 9/11, hijacked airliners were mighty -- You getting my drift here?

Now, let's walk through this slowly, just so I'm certain precisely where my "anti-Americanism" comes in.

1. My point vis-a-vis Europe was that, after a century or so of hot and cold war in which millions perished, there has been even more effort made to agree upon basic human freedoms, no matter how weak the human, or group of humans, is.

2. Likewise, in America, we have a Constitution (just curious -- have you ever read it?) and laws enacted and enforced, derived from it, whose entire purpose is to mitigate (as an attorney might put it) "Might v. Right". Why do you think we have a bicameral legislature wherein the Senate guarantees that "mighty" states don't overpower "lesser" ones, thanks to the Senate?

-- Or how about Gore getting 300,000 more votes than Bush? Which was right and which was might?

3. My POINT is that we are, NOMINALLY, a nation of laws, in a community of nations tied together by agreements with the force of laws. My comments (which you presumably deem "anti-American") are about adhering to law and treaty.

Now, I've loved people who have done wrong, and loved them after. Just because I disagree with a guy who "won" an election by NEGATIVE 300,000 votes -- and who floated his candy-ass through the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war -- AND (worst of all!) seems intent upon shredding the Constitution for kitty litter -- DOESN'T mean I don't love America -- AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT MEANS QUITE THE OPPOSITE!

BTW -- I live in lower Manhattan, and spent three days breathing in what I knew to be the fumes of corpses of people I used to work with. I want the bastards behind that act of terror dead very, very badly, only NOT -- NEVER, EVER! -- at the cost of what I believe makes this country worth fighting and dying for in the first place!

-- Which pretty much defines my value structure, be it here or in the Middle East.

-- Oh, BTW Cyclotron7, I've got a can of gasoline -- Got a match?

-O.

[redstar1]

I think the over-indulgent anti-terrorism stance taken by the US post 9/11 sickens a lot of people around the world. It sickens me. For years American businessmen, politicians and industry have been pumping money into Irish terrorism, leading to many many deaths that could otherwise have been avoided had the US not 'sympathised' with terrorists.

Now I don't condone terrorism in any shape or form, and I certainly don't have a chip on my shoulder about the US. I just ask people to remember that your sympathy is another persons murder.

D

[KoalaBear33]

One thing that everyone is forgetting is that the civ decisions are not made on merit. Most of the civs in the game right now are basically there to sell the game. They are foremost a marketing tool. If you ask Firaxis they will probably say the same thing (although they might not disclose it publically).

Civs like the Germans, Koreans, etc are simply there to sell the game. These markets are where people buy games and so they are there.

The only time the civs were there due to merit was Civilization (one)--the original one. Back then I actually felt that the civs (like Incas, Aztec, etc) were there due to their importance in human history.

KoalaBear33

[Traelin]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
traelin,

i think the vast majority of the people around here agrees, that terrorism is bad and must be fought against.

the problem i have is when it comes to decide what's terrorism and what not. and to say who's bad and who's not. that is exactly what bush is doing by himself (well... with his administration of course).

That's not really true. Great Britain, Australia, and Canada are definitely behind us. Australia got shaken up by the Bali incident (10/12), but I think they are especially clear now on the situation.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
we (most europeans) don't mind him fighting evil, but we criticise his methods and motives.
- if you want to get rid of evil dictators, get rid of all of them (equal stakes for all).

His motives and methods are simple. Crush any terrorist or terrorist regime that threatens the existance of the U.S., and do so completely and thoroughly. I agree that all evil dictators and terrorists should be annihilated, but the U.S. is only responsible for those that affect it. It's time we start forcing others to do the same for us as we have for them. If they help us militarily and financially, we'll do the same.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
- if you want to reduce WoMD, start by giving a good example (e.g. getting rid of your own)

What's WoMD?

Originally posted by sabrewolf
- don't mix up fight for independence with terrorism

I'm not. One thing about America that distinguishes it from every other country in the world is that we value liberty above everything else. Threaten our liberty and we'll shove a sword in your face. As Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death!"

Originally posted by sabrewolf
- don't go by yourselves. if the majority of the world nations is against something, most probably YOU are wrong and not all others. that's the reason for your so called "U.S. bashing".

That's very untrue. The majority of the world is living in backwards, dictatorial regimes where they have no rights whatsoever. Why should I value what a Mideastern terrorist sympathizer thinks? As far as I'm concerned, he/she is worthless.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
you (yourself, but also bush&co.) as a catholic (or generally christian) believe in "under god everyone is the same"... and you consider democracy the best governement. so that means, that everyone has the same rights. so why are you so sure, you're right and all others are wrong?

No no. We as Christians believe everyone was created in the "image and likeness of God". People are generally good, but those that are evil must be dealt with. I really don't believe in the death penalty anymore. I used to, but I'm just not so sure about it anymore. However, for me to assume that death will not be visited upon terrorists is a pipe dream. Yeah, I'd like to round them all up and put them to ridiculously hard manual labor in the Klondike, but that's not reality.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
please answer me honestly: do you think the opinion of an american is more worth than the opinion of 10 foreigners?

Hrm, from which country are the foreigners? If you're talking Saudi Arabia, then I would say the average Westerner's opinion is more important than 100 of its average citizens' opinions.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
- state terrorism is also terrorism - even if performed by an ally and friend

I agree, that's why Iraq must be crushed into submission.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
the rest of the world also want's to get rid of terrorism, but we prefer to use sustainable methods. we want to eliminate the root of evil (poverty, big influence of radicals, no-future-mentality, etc.).
terrorism is like an illness. if you only kill the terrorists, it's like taking drugs against the pain. but the infection is still there and the pain will return sooner or later.... again and again and again... sometimes you just have to consider a "real" treatment, like antibiotics or an operation.

The majority of the world thinks economic sanctions and peacekeeping will solve the problem. This has been proven wrong time and time and time again. I now see why smarter men than me said, "There can be only be peace through war."

[KoalaBear33]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Ozymandias, nice anti american sentiments,

Why do conservatives always revert to namecalling instead of actually making a valid point. Is it because you don't have a valid poitn? Anti-American? LOL As Noam Chomsky says, the concept of anti-nationalism is a concept unheard of in democratic progressive socieites. The Soviets used to label any criticism as anti-Soviet (not anti-Communist) because it appeals to nationalist senses. Ever wonder why no one ever says "anti-Canadian", "anti-German", "anti-Italian", "anti-Chinese" or whatever?

As far as might making right... well, soon that is going to be an antiquated concept... warmongers like yourself are a dying breed...

KoalaBear33

[Traelin]

Originally posted by redstar1
I think the over-indulgent anti-terrorism stance taken by the US post 9/11 sickens a lot of people around the world. It sickens me. For years American businessmen, politicians and industry have been pumping money into Irish terrorism, leading to many many deaths that could otherwise have been avoided had the US not 'sympathised' with terrorists.

Now I don't condone terrorism in any shape or form, and I certainly don't have a chip on my shoulder about the US. I just ask people to remember that your sympathy is another persons murder.

D

Could you show me specific evidence of this? I'm not doubting that some businessmen probably had ties to terrorists, but many businessmen in many countries do this all the time. It's wrong and it sux, but it's life. Plus I guarantee that we dumped more money in Britain's lap to fight terrorism and for other things over the years than any American businessmen has for the IRA. Not that that excuses it. But I'm just curious, why does everyone remember the $1 that went to a corrupt terrorist, and not the $1 million that goes to fight him?

This is kinda what I mean about the discontent toward America. I should be the one that's annoyed, because my taxpayer dollars go to some cheeseball dictator in South America who says he's gonna fight against cartels, for example. But when it comes to repaying those favors is when you can tell who your true friends are. Much like our individual acquaintances IRL. IMHO we should stop giving foreign aid to every country except Britain, Australia, Canada, Israel, Russia, and Japan. Let the rest of the world deal with its own problems, and we'll deal with ours. At least until we as the taxpayers see some visible sign of appreciation.

EDIT: Oops, I forgot to mention S. Korea and New Zealand (for their awesome zoology projects).