Is America, Really as bad as people say? Options

[CrazayChristian]

I know, I'm an American, why am I asking this?

Well, I've heard both sides of the story, and I still don't see why people dislike America.

I came across this topic:

Click

And I realized that there must be some sort of prejudice involved.

In my opinion, we are doing alot already. We actually have more troups in the yugoslavian area than Iraq, and I think we lose more people there than Iraq. We have troups there to help stifle the fighting.
We have troups in Iraq so that we can help them to defend themselves.
We are the big brother of Isreal.

And yes we've had some bad moments, such as the bikini Islands. But, you're expected to make mistakes. Look at how the European powers did hundreds of years ago.

Some people blame the president for the problems, but put yourself in his shoes, to control the most powerful country in the world and try to make everyone happy. It just doesn't always work out.

So, I'm wondering, why do certain people (almost entire countries) dislike America?

(I'm curious about my facts, and I figured debate would be the best way to discuss diffrent sides)

[*kryogenix*]

The short answer: NO.

The long answer: As soon as someone argues otherwise.

[*not_your_average*]

President Bush's decisions have affected many, many countries in severely adverse ways. Take Iraq for example. We might be there to "help" them, but he attacked a soviergn nation with little proof of them being against our country. In Pres. Bush's press conference yesterday, he kept mentioning 9/11 while talking about Iraq, even though there is little proof of anyone from their country being involved in the 9/11 attacks. Even so, that is only a minute group of people, and we cannot blame an entire country for that. Now look at Iraq. There are car bombings, suicide bombings, all carried out by the insurgents. There was no news of this happening before the war.

This is exactly why so many countries hate the US. We have done things to their countries that might be unforgivable.

[CrazayChristian]

What about the middle east countries that are starting a democratic goverment?

And yes, there were no car bombings before? Why? Because there wasn't a threat. And if we didn't go in, then we would have never gotten the alquida(sp) leaders, and there would have been a threat still in the country. Car bombings happen because we are doing something that is affecting a terrorist force. If there is no problem there, and training them to defend themselves were not a problem, then why are the terrorists trying to stop us?

[*not_your_average*]

And yes, there were no car bombings before? Why? Because there wasn't a threat.

If there was no threat, then why did we go into Iraq?

And if we didn't go in, then we would have never gotten the alquida(sp) leaders, and there would have been a threat still in the country.

You just said that there was no threat. You're contradicting yourself. Besides, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam Hussein had no say in the 9/11 attacks. Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. That is nowhere near Iraq.

Car bombings happen because we are doing something that is affecting a terrorist force.

Again, you contradict your first statement. Plus, there was no good proof that terrorists were hiding in Iraq.

....why are the terrorists trying to stop us?

Because they are terrorists.

[*mipadi*]

In my opinion, we are doing alot already. We actually have more troups in the yugoslavian area than Iraq, and I think we lose more people there than Iraq.

I think those figures are inaccurate.

[Spirited Away]

Just FYI, and really I'm not throwing this directly at anyone, but I feel like someone is going to blame this all on Bush sooner or later, so I might as well say this for the record: people have disliked Americans since before both Bush Sr and Jr.

[meaganbabin]

i dont think it is as bad as ppl. say it is i mean if it was so bad y are they still living here?

[Spirited Away]

i dont think it is as bad as ppl. say it is i mean if it was so bad y are they still living here?

.... I think we're discussing about people outside US borders.

[meaganbabin]

I love america so i dont think so lol

[technicolour]

YES! Another debate over the war. WOOT! I am totally going with kryogenix on this one. NO!

The car bombings are aimed towards us. They despise us. They want us to rot in hell. We are their threat.

Besides, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam Hussein had no say in the 9/11 attacks. Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. That is nowhere near Iraq.

THE WAR WAS BASED UPON THE FACT THAT IRAQ HAD WMD'S. Getting the damn old bums known as terrorists were just a plus.

Just FYI, and really I'm not throwing this directly at anyone, but I feel like someone is going to blame this all on Bush sooner or later, so I might as well say this for the record: people have disliked Americans since before both Bush Sr and Jr.

Someone is going to blame it on Bush. Hell. People over there have hated us for like ever. Sure. It's all Bush's fault. [sarcastic here.]

[Spirited Away]

I love america so i dont think so lol

The point of the debate is not whether any American individual like or dislike America, but rather to look for reasons why foreigners may be hostile against America.

Just so you know, the rules of the debate forum is strictly enforced, so read that before posting.

[DizBukHahNi]

Everybody hates America, even some Americans. I don't know why, alls I know is that America kicks arse.

[sadolakced acid]

outside of america, china is held in higher status than america.

[technicolour]

China is communist. Higher status? Which status are you talking about...?

[Paradox of Life]

Everybody hates America, even some Americans. I don't know why, alls I know is that America kicks arse.

You just contradicted yourself. That's not justifying anything in this debate. And it's false. Not everybody hates America (considering you don't). If that were true, it wouldn't be as powerful a nation as it is now.

Bush has a bad reputation. Why? Because he made up some bogus idea that there were "weapons of mass destruction" stashed somewhere in Iraq and was having a paranoia fit that they were going to come and attack America. So he sent in soldiers, ruined their country and is now trying to rebuild it in "his" why as an act of kindness. Oh, and did I mention there weren't any weapons of mass destruction at all?

If Bush is representing the USA, what kind of reputation is our nation getting? A bad one, that's for sure and a lot of people considered moving to Canada after he was re-elected as president. Not everyone hates America, but I could understand if they did. Anyone who hates America, but hasn't had a chance to live in it probably hates it for all the wrong reasons. It's not horrible. It just may be ruled by someone that is.

And even then, he's not badly affecting our daily lives. Just the daily lives of other innocent people in other countries.

Sorry if some of my facts are wrong. I don't read up on politics very much.

[sadolakced acid]

China is communist. Higher status? Which status are you talking about...?

that's the point.

(higher regard. like, americans hold the british in higher regard than the french.)

they like a commie country more than us.

[ryfitaDF]

i hate america somtimes.

people hate america because of our arogant diplomacy polacy. plain and simple.

[*mipadi*]

I don't think America is that bad of a place, and a lot of Americans are good, honest people who really do want to make the world a better place. Right now, I have a few concerns about the American government, but the country itself. By biggest concern is with things like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. To turn on the news and see America torturing prisoners, or locking up men in a jail without trial for over three years, is disillusioning. We're not like that--that's not what we do in America. We're supposed to be honorable, and uphold justice, even for our enemies. One senator recently put it best, when she said something like, "If America is going to be the good guys, we need to act like the good guys." We haven't always been acting like the good guys in the past few years.

America is also rather arrogant at times. We refuse to support the Kyoto treaty, because for some reason we feel that we shouldn't have to help lower air pollution. We snub the UN (except when the UN acts in our favor), and we refused to allow American military personnel to be subject to international law.

At home, we currently have an administration who seems to be more focused on furthering Catholic political agendas than listening to the will of Americans as a whole.

Aside from a few problems with the US government, though, I don't think America, or Americans as a whole, are as bad as a lot of people say. I love America and think it's a wonderful country, except for a few (albeit big) things with which I take issue.

[sammi rules you]

you should read the book "the ugly american". it gives great insight as to why america as a whole is hated by other countries.

basically, the book is about how back in the day (and still even today, as my class discovered by doing a little research) american ambassadors would go over to less fortunate countries and make no effort to associate themselves with that countries. they brought in their fancy cars and such from america and bought lavish houses and even their secretaries had servants from the host country. russia, however, employed their own servants from their country, learned the host country's language, tried to blend in with the natives, etc.

well, that was why they did back in the day. what others have said about more recent times only fuels it more. we're a very greedy egotistical country. we think it's ok to take others' resources to consume for ourselves cause we're somehow "better" and then use it up like it's nothing. we're extremely materialistic as well, which fuels the more 3rd world countries to not be too fond of us.

[technicolour]

At home, we currently have an administration who seems to be more focused on furthering Catholic political agendas than listening to the will of Americans as a whole.

This country's rules were set up on a religious view.

Bush has a bad reputation. Why? Because he made up some bogus idea that there were "weapons of mass destruction" stashed somewhere in Iraq and was having a paranoia fit that they were going to come and attack America. So he sent in soldiers, ruined their country and is now trying to rebuild it in "his" why as an act of kindness. Oh, and did I mention there weren't any weapons of mass destruction at all?

Clinton had to deal with this too. Bush's DAD had to deal with this. It's not completely this bush's fault. It's been going on. Well. Frankly. When a leader of a country HATES US, and they had weapons that could kill the WHOLE country in a blink of an eye, um, I would do something about it.

[*not_your_average*]

THE WAR WAS BASED UPON THE FACT THAT IRAQ HAD WMD'S.  Getting the damn old bums known as terrorists were just a plus.

It was, but there wre no WMDs. Then, Bush had to rely on other reasons to justify this war. That doesn't make for a very good president in my eyes.

[*CrackedRearView*]

It was, but there wre no WMDs. Then, Bush had to rely on other reasons to justify this war. That doesn't make for a very good president in my eyes.

Presidents backtrack. It's a fact of United States life. Has been for centuries.

[*not_your_average*]

Presidents backtrack.  It's a fact of United States life.  Has been for centuries.

I still don't think the war is justified.

[*mipadi*]

This country's rules were set up on a religious view.

No. The country was influenced by religious views, but the Founding Fathers deliberately set things up so that religion would stay out of government. I'm not Catholic. The whole country is not Catholic. You are free to practice what you want in your free time, or teach your kids what you want--that's the great thing about America. But it is not the government's job to dictate morals and ethics to me or anyone else--that's for each of us to decide on his own.

Clinton had to deal with this too. Bush's DAD had to deal with this. It's not completely this bush's fault.  It's been going on.  Well. Frankly. When a leader of a country HATES US, and they had weapons that could kill the WHOLE country in a blink of an eye, um, I would do something about it.

Clinton didn't sacrifice thousands of troops over it, either. And there were no weapons of mass destruction--numerous investigations have come to that conclusion.

[*CrackedRearView*]

I still don't think the war is justified.

Then neither is any reversed decision by any other president. Henceforth, neither is the United States presidency.

Our country just isn't a very justified place. It sure beats the hell out of most others, though.

Count on that.

[technicolour]

This country was SET UP UPON CHRISTIAN TERMS. Yes. There is a difference between Church and State but still. Our laws were written under CHristian Terms.

[*mipadi*]

This country was SET UP UPON CHRISTIAN TERMS. Yes. There is a difference between Church and State but still. Our laws were written under CHristian Terms.

Why is it so important to you that the government continue to focus on Christian morals and ethics? You're more than free to practice them yourself, and raise your kids according to them--no one is suggesting you stop doing so. But what makes it so important that everyone else adhere to Christian morals and ethics, too? Isn't religious freedom one of the greatest things about America?

[*CrackedRearView*]

Why is it so important to you that the government continue to focus on Christian morals and ethics? You're more than free to practice them yourself, and raise your kids according to them--no one is suggesting you stop doing so. But what makes it so important that everyone else adhere to Christian morals and ethics, too? Isn't religious freedom one of the greatest things about America?

As much as I agree with you on this subject, I'm still dissatisfied with 2005's left half.

It seems like this past election has fostered more unsubstantiated whining than ever before.

Ungracious losers just aren't appealing.

[Spirited Away]

This country was SET UP UPON CHRISTIAN TERMS. Yes. There is a difference between Church and State but still. Our laws were written under CHristian Terms.

... not exactly, more like deistic.

Christianity was the smaller picture. Religious freedom was, and still is, the bigger picture. Christianity was simply the faith of those who wished for religious freedom in America. They believed in Christianity but they SOUGHT FREEDOM of RELIGIOUS PRACTICE.

So to respond to your comment, the historical impact is not Christianity, it is the finding of religious freedom. Thus, our First Amendment does NOT say that we have freedom to practice Christianity, it says we simply have religious freedom.

[sadolakced acid]

This country's rules were set up on a religious view.

This country was SET UP UPON CHRISTIAN TERMS. Yes. There is a difference between Church and State but still. Our laws were written under CHristian Terms.

our laws are not written under christian terms. there are christians who wish it, and they happen to make laws. but the country was founded on a lack or religion.

[CrazayChristian]

If there was no threat, then why did we go into Iraq?
You just said that there was no threat. You're contradicting yourself. Besides, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam Hussein had no say in the 9/11 attacks. Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. That is nowhere near Iraq.
Again, you contradict your first statement. Plus, there was no good proof that terrorists were hiding in Iraq.
Because they are terrorists.

I'm sorry, you misunderstood, I didn't say there was not threat over there. I'm saying that there was no threat to THEM before WE got there.
And if the terrorists weren't in Iraq, then why are we finding them there, and thier leaders?


And people, this is not about the war...


Our laws, aren't BASED on Christian religion. The laws fit virtually every religion, they just happen to fit very well into the christian religion. IF it was based on the christian religion, then we would all have no religious freedom because of the first commandment.
If there was a religion that said you had to kill who ever you saw, feel free to kill everyone you see. But, there is no way someone is going to accept this as religious freedom or make a law that allows such killings to take place under said excuse.
Laws aren't based on religion, religion just has set laws that are considered "morally correct" and we expand off that to make law.

[technicolour]

And people, this is not about the war...

People HATE America because of the war.
People HATE America case we stand for freedom.

--

And when I said Christian Terms, I really did mean to put RELIGIOUS views. I'm Christian so I put that. Sorry.

[demolished]

No, its not our fault. Its the president's choices. President increase the hatred and enmity of the countries against us.

I think the countries just want peace instead of choatic and killing.

[*xcaitlinx*]

THE WAR WAS BASED UPON THE FACT THAT IRAQ HAD WMD'S.  Getting the damn old bums known as terrorists were just a plus.
Someone is going to blame it on Bush. Hell. People over there have hated us for like ever. Sure. It's all Bush's fault. [sarcastic here.]

i find that so funny. if the whole war was on finding iraq's stash of WMDs, then how come the WAR IS STILL GOING ON? Bush wasn't man enough to admit that WMDs were NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. If that's what the whole war was revolving around, then how come it hasn't ended? hmmm??

America is hated by most European countries -- including Ireland and England. Why? Ask Bush. Reflect on our country's past actions. It baffles me that some people in this f**ked up country living in a bubble think that America is the #1 liked country in the world....and that it's a "kick-ass country". Please, get out more.

And yeah, the other countries want peace. But for some reason, Bush seems to think that destroying a country in a war will lead to peace. violence does NOT equal peace. damn straight.

[sadolakced acid]

And when I said Christian Terms, I really did mean to put RELIGIOUS views. I'm Christian so I put that. Sorry.

the only religion defined is the specific lack of religion.

[CrazayChristian]

America is hated by most European countries -- including Ireland and England. Why? Ask Bush. Reflect on our country's past actions. It baffles me that some people in this f**ked up country living in a bubble think that America is the #1 liked country in the world....and that it's a "kick-ass country". Please, get out more.

This is what I've asked, what has America done. Something as vague as "the war" doesn't cut the answer.

[JacksonLovejazz]

u gay...i should beat ur ass and send u to china and make u work like slavery back in the 40

[sadolakced acid]

This is what I've asked, what has America done. Something as vague as "the war" doesn't cut the answer.

we went against the UN. the europeans like thier red tape and inefficency of the UN.

[sadolakced acid]

...

[*Libertie*]

Why does America have such a bad reputation? We're a bunch of sheep. If the president tells us to be afraid, we're afraid. If he tells us we're in Iraq to retaliate, fight for freedom, help their country establish a democracy (or any of the other BS excuses he's given us), what do we do? We believe him. Why? He's the president.

For as long as I know, our country has gotten all upset for the slightest of events. Anyone remember 'freedom fries'? What did the French do to upset us so badly? Oh yeah.. They didn't agree with our decision to turn our backs on the UN and send troops to Iraq. What now? We leave the UN? You might be thinking, "Oh, that's ridiculous, who in their right mind would want to do that?" You'd be surprised.

There was a French exchange student this year at our school (I lived in Texas then). She was so miserable that she had to move to New Jersey to get away from all the French-haters, because she was ridiculed by them for being from a country that "doesn't support the US". She had always had a low opinion of Americans because of the things she had heard while in France, and you can only imagine how actually living in the US for a year affected that opinion. Needless to say, she clung to me the rest of her stay when she realized that I was the only liberal in our class (Literally - don't believe me? Hit up Hooks, Texas, and you'll find out).

Now. I've thrown in all this worthless jabber to make my point - we've portrayed ourselves as children to the rest of the world. And it won't get better until US citizens stop voting for the wrong reasons (you wouldn't believe how many people in my church voted for Bush because our pastor told them to) and become informed themselves without letting others influence their decisions. If we're such a diverse population, we need to start acting like it rather than acting like a flock of sheep.

[Spirited Away]

There was a French exchange student this year at our school (I lived in Texas then). She was so miserable that she had to move to New Jersey to get away from all the French-haters, because she was ridiculed by them for being from a country that "doesn't support the US". She had always had a low opinion of Americans because of the things she had heard while in France, and you can only imagine how actually living in the US for a year affected that opinion. Needless to say, she clung to me the rest of her stay when she realized that I was the only liberal in our class (Literally - don't believe me? Hit up Hooks, Texas, and you'll find out).

I live in Space City, Texas and things were never that bad We've got plenty of liberals! When I was in the southwest/Bellaire neigborhood areas during the '04 election, there were more Kerry/Edwards signs then Bush/Cheney. If you'd like, I can even tell you which streets as I frequent them enough. My own subdivision was the same.

My French professors, who lived in France most of their lives, may not agree with current American politics like so many other Americans, however, that doesn't mean they don't like Americans. If so, they wouldn't live in America...

It's ignorant to group Americans with the nation's government. Also, Sandra was attacked because there are people stupid enough to hate Americans simply because they live(d) in America! That's plain hate, and another dumb excuse to turn hate into violence.

[CrazayChristian]

I live in the austin area, and we never had that much of a problem with the French .

We're being fed diffrent information from a biased community. Someone who doesn't like Bush, is not going to admit that he did something right, they're going to extract every flaw they find and use it.

Someone who does like Bush however, will defend with as much information and contradict whatever is said against the case.

You can get your information from extremely liberal websites/shows/ect. But they will always be the opposite of conservative views. Each one will make thier case quite clear and supported. But, depending one which side you're on, you will instantly shoot either one down with a fact supported on your side.

We are separated because most Americans are stubborn and don't take both sides into effect. I'm guilty of this at certain times.

[sadolakced acid]

I live in Space City, Texas and things were never that bad We've got plenty of liberals!

space city's got NASA influence. apparently, NASA people are more likeley to be liberal.

also, colleges bring some liberal influence.

[Spirited Away]

space city's got NASA influence.  apparently, NASA people are more likeley to be liberal. 
also, colleges bring some liberal influence.

I live an hour or two away from NASA. I'm not sure what NASA has to do with influencing anyone's political decision let alone mine... But at any rate, not everyone from those neighborhoods goes to college. Since you don't know, the parts of Bellaire I was referring to is consider a pretty... wealthy neighborhood. Surprise, surprise, even the rich can be liberal. Oh, and I go to college and have been for the last three years, I don't consider myself very liberal either.

[sadolakced acid]

stastitically.

and, conservative presidents usually shift money away from NASA to the military, whereas liberal ones shift it to NASA more...

[Spirited Away]

stastitically. 
and, conservative presidents usually shift money away from NASA to the military, whereas liberal ones shift it to NASA more...

... but Mr. Acid, the only thing I said was "we got plenty of liberals". I didn't mean that we have more or less liberals, just that we have plenty. What I wanted to point out is that the person may have exaggerated the story a bit or that the French friend was a little... dramatic. at the word "dramatic". French and drama...

I'm sure more than half the people on this forum didn't know that fact about NASA and liberals. Actually, I'm sure that A LOT of liberals in the Houston area don't know that either. So, I don't think NASA has anything to do with it unless one is a fan of politics.

[ichigofan]

We loose about 20 soldiers a week in Iraq so pardon me when I can careless of what we are doing in friggin yugoslavia. We started this war on a false accusation which we now know it to be, Bush is nothing but a liar and a enemy against the consitution. This nation was founded on the idea that church and state were to be seperated but if you look at the laws that he is trying to pass if he has not yet done so, includes christian ideals. I cannot wait till mr bush is out of office and we have a actual president in charge.

[*Libertie*]

I suppose I should have mentioned that Hooks is rural Texas. Generally, urban Texas.. well, urban anywhere.. is quite a bit different. And really, I'm not trying to make any generalizations at all; I'm just making my point based on what town I lived in for two years. I simply meant that it's a shame that she had to be given THAT view of us. It's a shame that there were so many ignorant, closed-minded Americans in that particular town that she had to leave in order to avoid ridicule.

I can have a friendly political discussion with a conservative; it's when someone starts getting angry with me, shutting out my arguments, calling me anti-American, that I have a problem. I'm not by any means trying to call conservatives out for being stubborn, because I know that there are just as many intelligent conservatives as there are liberals, and just as many ignorant liberals as conservatives.

Anyway, CrazayChristian, you make the same point that I was trying to make - Americans should stop being biased by what they think is the 'right' side. One can be a liberal with some conservative views, or the other way around. Americans should gain personal belief by themselves, rather than depending on others to tell them what to believe.

[Spirited Away]

I suppose I should have mentioned that Hooks is rural Texas. Generally, urban Texas.. well, urban anywhere.. is quite a bit different. And really, I'm not trying to make any generalizations at all; I'm just making my point based on what town I lived in for two years. I simply meant that it's a shame that she had to be given THAT view of us. It's a shame that there were so many ignorant, closed-minded Americans in that particular town that she had to leave in order to avoid ridicule.

I see. I can definitely imagine what craziness the French student had to go through in rural TX. In small towns TX, there is a higher chance of folks being conservatives. It is a shame that she has to be subjected to that kind of treatment. However, it would be ignorant AND closed-minded of the French student to base her views on all Americans by the treatement she received in that small town. I'm sure her views on Americans in general are improved as she is in NJ now.

Sandra was attacked because she spoke English. The two guys who attacked her were stupid enough to think that everyone who speaks English must be American. Likewise, if the French student was ignorant enough to think that anyone American will be French-hating cowboys, then she wouldn't be any different from the two guys. I think she has more sense than that.

[Paradox of Life]

So if no one is making any generalizations, how can there be a topic asking if America is as bad as people say it is? There's nothing wrong with America as a nation and not many people think much of its negatives and positives when going about their daily lives. Civilians can go to the grocery store every day and get some milk and live just like they would anywhere else. So why base your judgement on the stereotype that causes people to hate America? You shouldn't hate any country.

Let's say somehow you thought China was a bad country because you heard people were dirty and spit on the streets and pirate copied video games. You live in America. And then you find out your father is getting a job transfer and you have to live in China. You're devestated, but then you go there and find out living is just the same. You can still go to the grocery store and get milk and do all the stuff you want to do. There are pros and cons of every country, so if you really take a moment to live someplace, you'll realize it's not that bad.

What generated hate for America? Stereotypes. Like what Libertie and Fae mentioned.

Why would someone hate a country and why is it so complicated? Because people are making life more complicated than it should be and they're making preconceived notions about how life should be in a certain place.

Is America as bad as people say it is? That's not a fair question. How can you judge all of America?

[lbjshaq2345]

iraq hates us bcuz we are trying to change their way of life but the rest of the world hates us bcuz we are trying to be peacemakers and they think that we should just stay out of it

[medic]

I have one way of looking at it, if you think America is a bad country - I will put you on a plane and send you to Somalia for a while. Then we will see how you feel about America after that.

[*CrackedRearView*]

iraq hates us bcuz we are trying to change their way of life but the rest of the world hates us bcuz we are trying to be peacemakers and they think that we should just stay out of it

Sure, but they love it when we donate 70% of the funding to the worldly 'peacekeeping' organization.

What's happened in Darfur? Nothing?

[*mipadi*]

I have one way of looking at it, if you think America is a bad country - I will put you on a plane and send you to Somalia for a while. Then we will see how you feel about America after that.

That's the kind of attitude that keeps America from improving.

I love America, but it's not perfect; the US does act irresponsibly in some world affairs (Iraq, the environment, etc.). I, for example, don't criticize the US because I hate it; I criticize it because I love it, and I want to see it improve, to be the best it can be, and be an example for the rest of the world. America gets nowhere when people just label critics as unpatriotic and offer to ship them somewhere else in the world.

[Spirited Away]

That's the kind of attitude that keeps America from improving.

I love America, but it's not perfect; the US does act irresponsibly in some world affairs (Iraq, the environment, etc.). I, for example, don't criticize the US because I hate it; I criticize it because I love it, and I want to see it improve, to be the best it can be, and be an example for the rest of the world. America gets nowhere when people just label critics as unpatriotic and offer to ship them somewhere else in the world.

It may be just the kind of attitude that keeps America from improving, but that's the attitude has shaped America to be what it is today. The majority of immigrants came to America because they believed America to be a better place than their own country. To hear people rant about this and that about America just doesn't make sense to us [immigrants] most of the time unless those same folks really know what they're saying. And the only way for them to know what they're saying is if they've seen what we've seen for their own eyes, lived as we lived... etc.

Seriously, I would totally understand those kinds of comments if it came from someone who traveled outside of the States before or understands politics and culture, but if the person hasn't done or know any of that, it sounds like just another unhappy brat trying to make everyone else unhappy.

Yes, I completely understand and agree that criticism is a great way to improve things. However, I'm sure you know about constructive criticism--from those who really know, and plain criticism--from those who don't know what the heck they're rambling about. Most of the time, people don't give constructive criticism. I love constructive criticism, but I can do without the unconstructive ones, and I'm sure the same goes for America.

Edit.. i just realize i went off ranting myself... sorry.

This post has been edited by uninspiredfae: Jul 7 2005, 11:54 PM

[medic]

I have been to many foreign countries and must say I am mighty grateful for what I have here and America - and the rights I have here. In Cuba I could not even leave my hotel without a armed escort due to the Violence. In Russia I about puked when we drove from city to city, the way they live in poverty is absolutely disgusting. And as for the outskirts of Cancun Mexico, well we don’t need to discuss that. If people feel that there country is better than the US so be it, I can assure you it could be.

[laxumaster8]

i am not yet into what the world thinks of america, but from what i see everyday, america is like where everyone wants to be...

[enyceXaddiction]

america is great to me it just the presidents who makes us look bad!!!

[Shahin]

america is great to me it just the presidents who makes us look bad!!!

The presidents are chosen by the people. So what's that say about us?

[*mipadi*]

In the last several elections, the president has been chosen by roughly 25% of the voting-age population.

[Shahin]

In the last several elections, the president has been chosen by roughly 25% of the voting-age population.

Well that doesn't say much either does it? Okay, the president is chosen by the 25% of the people who get their asses out to pick. The rest shouldn't bitch about it when it goes...poorly.

[squeegizzle]

every country has their problems......cuz of human error, greed, and everything else.....but if America was so bad..........people would be sneaking into mexico......but they dont.....thousands of people try to come here every day....America is the shit

[Spirited Away]

Well that doesn't say much either does it? Okay, the president is chosen by the 25% of the people who get their asses out to pick. The rest shouldn't bitch about it when it goes...poorly.

Haha! Damn good point, obvious, but still good!

[rinygrin]

I've decided NOT to live there, there polictics are horible not saying canadian politics are any better mind you lol. But I'm glad I live where I am now because I feel we have more freedom here in most parts of Canada. Not all the time. But really ... however I don't think all americans are rednicks and such and such. Most of them are really nice, and are just like you or me. I just don't like the fact how every outburst is controlled by the republicians. I.E like FOX Network. I love my friends from there, however it's not as scary a place as some think.

[Shahin]

Haha! Damn good point, obvious, but still good!

Ha, thank you Now all I have to do is wait for someone to argue with it.

[sadolakced acid]

The error returned was:

Flood control is enabled on this board, please wait 30 seconds before replying or posting a new topic

Well that doesn't say much either does it? Okay, the president is chosen by the 25% of the people who get their asses out to pick. The rest shouldn't bitch about it when it goes...poorly.

it means that 24.9 % of the people who did get off thier asses and went to vote voted AGAINST the president.

a president should rule for america, not the party that put him in office.

50.1% of voters voted for bush in the last election. it also means 49.9% voted against him. which means, (with 50% turnout) that 75 million people voted against bush.

[Spirited Away]

it means that 24.9 % of the people who did get off thier asses and went to vote voted AGAINST the president.

Huh?

< Feels like she's brain dead trying figure out what that sentence means.

a president should rule for america, not the party that put him in office.

Ideally, sure... well maybe... But which presidents have done so in the past?

[Shahin]

it means that 24.9 % of the people who did get off thier asses and went to vote voted AGAINST the president.

a president should rule for america, not the party that put him in office. 

50.1% of voters voted for bush in the last election.  it also means 49.9% voted against him.  which means, (with 50% turnout) that 75 million people voted against bush.

Can you clarify that? I don't understand fully. If the 25% statistic that was stated earlier is indeed correct, it means that only a quarter of American citizens that hold voting eligibility had gotten up to do just that.

It did not mean that 25% of voters necessarily voted against President Bush (damn! that was hard to say), it merely states that 25% of the American population with voting rights had gotten up. So now I revert to my previous statement.

Okay, the president is chosen by the 25% of the people who get their asses out to pick. The rest shouldn't bitch about it when it goes...poorly.

[sadolakced acid]

Huh?

< Feels like she's brain dead trying figure out what that sentence means.

errr.... i meant 24.9% of america got off ther asses and voted against bush.

Ideally, sure... well maybe... But which presidents have done so in the past?

err... there was that... president that was a hardline spoils system person till he got elected... forgot which one.

[*mipadi*]

Can you clarify that? I don't understand fully. If the 25% statistic that was stated earlier is indeed correct, it means that only a quarter of American citizens that hold voting eligibility had gotten up to do just that.

It did not mean that 25% of voters necessarily voted against President Bush (damn! that was hard to say), it merely states that 25% of the American population with voting rights had gotten up. So now I revert to my previous statement.

Okay, the president is chosen by the 25% of the people who get their asses out to pick. The rest shouldn't bitch about it when it goes...poorly.

It also means that roughly a quarter of America voted against the president, too, is what acid is trying to say.

I actually meant to quote the statistic as an interesting fact, not to support any argument per se.

[lakerfever2476]

People expect so much of America. After all, it is richer than the other countries, such as the Philippines or Cambodia. I appreciate what America has done for my family and myself. There are more jobs and it's really modern and everything. I don't see what not to love about it. Of course, except the president ..

[Shahin]

After all, it is richer than the other countries, such as the Philippines or Cambodia.

...That doesn't take much.

[*mipadi*]

...That doesn't take much.

Burninated!

[artislife90]

I enjoy america. It is a nice place. But I really dislike BUSH and his goverment.


Don't judge all americans on what Bush does...lets face it, he is well..not very bright.

[sadolakced acid]

I enjoy america. It is a nice place. But I really dislike BUSH and his goverment.
Don't judge all americans on what Bush does...lets face it, he is well..not very bright.

he got the equivalent of a 1500 of so my his SATs.

[Spirited Away]

errr....  i meant 24.9% of america got off ther asses and voted against bush.

< still lost. Forget it. I'm slow.

...That doesn't take much.

Not much, yet those countries are still behind. That means we're doing something right (or better) then, doesn't it?

[*mipadi*]

Either that, or we just have more opportunities.

[Spirited Away]

Where do opportunities come from?

[*mipadi*]

In the case of America, a lot of it can be attributed to the massive resources at our disposal, something many other countries in the world do not have.

[Spirited Away]

How do we acquire those resources?

[*mipadi*]

...?

You've studied American history, yes? That should give you the answers to that question.

[Spirited Away]

Did you not guessed the intention of the the question? I wanted to point out the fact that we have such resources at our disposals while others do not goes back to what I said about we're doing something better. After all, we've acquired it, others did not.

Oh, and yes, dear, I studied American History. I don't remember much, but I'm not completely clueless.

[*mipadi*]

Not necessarily. Certainly American ingenuity has contributed greatly to our success; I just mean to say that you cannot chalk up the lack of success on the part of other countries to a lack of ingenuity.

A parallel to the women's rights movements can be drawn here. Say men represent America, and women represent second- and third-world countries. You argue that women did not invent the airplane or penicillin or rubber because they were simply not as capable as men; I argue that women were just as capable of inventing those things, but they did not have the opportunity to do so.

[Spirited Away]

Not necessarily. Certainly American ingenuity has contributed greatly to our success; I just mean to say that you cannot chalk up the lack of success on the part of other countries to a lack of ingenuity.

And why not? Ingenuity would be a part of something we're doing right. If I invented the car and all you can do is invent the bike... well, you get the point. I'm not saying that you cannot invent the car, I'm just saying that I have it first and that means I did something right.

A parallel to the women's rights movements can be drawn here. Say men represent America, and women represent second- and third-world countries. You argue that women did not invent the airplane or penicillin or rubber because they were simply not as capable as men; I argue that women were just as capable of inventing those things, but they did not have the opportunity to do so.

Again this goes back to my question of where do opportunities come from? Also, do we make opportunity or do we wait for it? The answer varies, I believe.

This post has been edited by uninspiredfae: Jul 12 2005, 11:09 PM

[*mipadi*]

And why not? Ingenuity would be a part of something we're doing right. If I invented the car and all you can do is invent the bike... well, you get the point. I'm not saying that you cannot invent the car, I'm just saying that I have it first and that means I did something right.

If I don't have gasoline, what good is a car? If I don't have gasoline, how would I even think of such a thing as a car?

The point is that other countries suffer not necessarily from a lack of a talent or motivation, but a lack of natural resources.

[Spirited Away]

If I don't have gasoline, what good is a car? If I don't have gasoline, how would I even think of such a thing as a car?
The point is that other countries suffer not necessarily from a lack of a talent or motivation, but a lack of natural resources.

Japan lacks natural resources, but we don't see it classified as third world.

[*mipadi*]

But Japan has one very important resource: money. They have enough money to pump into economic and education programs, because they don't waste^h^h^h^h^hspend it on the military.

[Spirited Away]

But Japan has one very important resource: money. They have enough money to pump into economic and education programs, because they don't waste^h^h^h^h^hspend it on the military.

Are you telling me that Japan always had the money? They don't have to spend it on military because they did something right (or better). Which goes back to what I said about the US doing something better than Cambodia...etc.

Anyway, China is doing something better as well, don't you think?

OHH, and by the way, MONEY is not a natural resource. Resource? Yes, it is. Natural? No. Lets try for consistency. I get confused easily.

This post has been edited by uninspiredfae: Jul 12 2005, 11:24 PM

[*mipadi*]

Are you telling me that Japan always had the money? They don't have to spend it on military because they did something right (or better). Which goes back to what I said about the US doing something better than Cambodia...etc.

Uh, no, they don't spend it on the military because they are not allowed to, according to the constitution imposed upon them after World War II.

OHH, and by the way, MONEY is not a natural resource. Resource? Yes, it is. Natural? No. Lets try for consistency. I get confused easily.

Money is a resource, and an important one in economic development.

[Spirited Away]

Uh, no, they don't spend it on the military because they are not allowed to, according to the constitution imposed upon them after World War II.

Thank you, Jesus, that you know this fact because it leads to my point: I guess that means having such laws imposed upon them is an opportunity?

Money is a resource, and an important one in economic development.

Again, resource yes. Natural resource, no. I said that already. We were talking about NATURAL RESOURCES, I think. You were accusing America of having more natural resources and I simply pointed out a successful nation that lacked them.

I also asked if Japan always had the money or did they do something right to gain it.

[*mipadi*]

Japan is an interesting example to use. Japan got a kickstart after World War II when the United States funneled billions of dollars of aide into the country, in order to rebuild their industrial complex. So yes, Japan has performed admirably given the nation's stunning lack of resources, but they didn't exactly build their economy themselves; they had a lot of help from the United States. Prior to their military buildup around World War II, Japan was a relatively primitive nation; and they certainly didn't even begin developing until 1863, which shows that their lack of resources did in fact hinder their economic and technological development. Due to influences from the outside, especially the US and its financial resources, they were able to build their economy into one of the strongest today, and they are one of the most technologically-advanced nations on Earth. This happened due to a lot of outside influences, however, and was not completely built on their own natural resources; however, it shows that the country did have a fair amount of ingenuity, and just needed some resources (and yes, I am once again considering money to be a resource here, because it is--and I never specified completely natural resources) to get itself started. So yes, I think Japan supports the argument that a country and its economy fails not always due to a lack of ingenuity, ability, and achievement, but sometimes due to a lack of resources and opportunity.

[*disco infiltrator*]

......
*cheers*
Go go go!

Lol, just wanted someone else to post in between you two mauling eachother....

Mr. Mipadi, get on AIM will you.

Anyway, I think I'm going with Fae on this particulary arguement - Japan does quite well due to its technology knowledge.

[Spirited Away]

Japan is an interesting example to use. Japan got a kickstart after World War II when the United States funneled billions of dollars of aide into the country, in order to rebuild their industrial complex. So yes, Japan has performed admirably given the nation's stunning lack of resources, but they didn't exactly build their economy themselves; they had a lot of help from the United States. Prior to their military buildup around World War II, Japan was a relatively primitive nation; and they certainly didn't even begin developing until 1863, which shows that their lack of resources did in fact hinder their economic and technological development. Due to influences from the outside, especially the US and its financial resources, they were able to build their economy into one of the strongest today, and they are one of the most technologically-advanced nations on Earth. This happened due to a lot of outside influences, however, and was not completely built on their own natural resources; however, it shows that the country did have a fair amount of ingenuity, and just needed some resources (and yes, I am once again considering money to be a resource here, because it is--and I never specified completely natural resources) to get itself started. So yes, I think Japan supports the argument that a country and its economy fails not always due to a lack of ingenuity, ability, and achievement, but sometimes due to a lack of resources and opportunity.

First you say "imposed", now you say "help", so I want to know if by imposing, we helped?
Anyway, no, they definitely didn't build their economy on their own and yes outside forces helped the nation to be what it is today. So would you say that they did something right, or was the opportunity to be successful given to them?

Japan may have lacked natural resources, but are you sure about opportunity? If you say they lacked opportunity, how did they gained the opportunity? Was it given?

All these questions are asked with intent, please do not think I'm simple-minded for asking them... lol.

And you did specified. You said natural resources in a previous post and that is why I chose a country that lacked natural resources. Oh, here it is...

If I don't have gasoline, what good is a car? If I don't have gasoline, how would I even think of such a thing as a car?

The point is that other countries suffer not necessarily from a lack of a talent or motivation, but a lack of natural resources.

And please correct me if I'm wrong (since I've forgotten a lot of what I've learned in economics), money is capital, right? Yes, I know capital is a resource, but saying calling money a resource is kind of like calling pie a dessert instead of pie, isn't it?


Sammi, lol, we are not mauling! Well, I'm learning at least.

This post has been edited by uninspiredfae: Jul 13 2005, 12:19 AM

[Shahin]

Mipadi, you astound me on a regular basis with your knowledge on things that many know nothing or little about. Speaking my mind.

[Spirited Away]

Mipadi, you astound me on a regular basis with your knowledge on things that many know nothing or little about. Speaking my mind. 

which reduce the rest of us to be ill-educated idiots...
< jealous talk.
you are indeed a very good debator.

[Shahin]

which reduce the rest of us to be ill-educated idiots...
< jealous talk.
you are indeed a very good debator.

Of course I didn't mean it like that. You make your share of great points as well, but Mipadi I believe shut me down in a different debate which I forget the name of.

[Spirited Away]

Of course I didn't mean it like that.    You make your share of great points as well, but Mipadi I believe shut me down in a different debate which I forget the name of.

no no.. lol i was kidding see i said was speaking from jealousy. you're fine.. lol.

[Shahin]

no no.. lol i was kidding see i said was speaking from jealousy. you're fine.. lol.

Haha I know. But I felt the need to correct myself :X

[*CrackedRearView*]

So, I'm trying to understand exactly what you guys are arguing about here...

The root of the argument had to do with the United States' advantage over countries like Cambodia and the Philippines, and then you two got into it about 'why'.

Ingenuity vs. Privilege?

Despite this, the 'United States' advantage' harangue always leads into 'If it's so rich, why doesn't the United States of America try to help underprivileged countries more?'

We do, and more privately than anything...

US donations to Africa outstrip Europe by 15 to 1

Frasier Nelson


Private American citizens donated almost 15 times more to the developing world than their European counterparts, research reveals this weekend ahead of the G8 summit. Private US donors also handed over far more aid than the federal government in Washington, revealing that America is much more generous to Africa and poor countries than is claimed by the Make Poverty History and Live 8 campaigns.

Church collections, philanthropists and company-giving amounted to $22bn a year, according to a study by the Hudson Institute think-tank, easily more than the $16.3bn in overseas development sent by the US government. American churches, synagogues and mosques alone gave $7.5bn in 2003 - a figure which exceeds the government totals for France ($7.2bn) and Britain ($6.3bn) - according to numbers from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which deal a blow to those who claim moral superiority over the US on aid...

Just trying to be ahead of the game.