Should that matter ? They were being murdered and their women raped, all their property was being confiscated by the Camel Buggering Hordes of Iraqi's. We saved them from that. So we did it for free flowing oil we still did it.
Red Dawn,
I think that fighting for the free flow of oil was a VERY GOOD reason to go to war. There were nice side benefits, but we cannot go to war to stop bad things from happening to good people.
John
Red Dawn,
I think that fighting for the free flow of oil was a VERY GOOD reason to go to war. There were nice side benefits, but we cannot go to war to stop bad things from happening to good people.
John
Most of Americans dislike Microsoft knowing what they've done to other companies as well as the whole computer industry.
But, they are in love with U.S Gov. not knowing what they've done to other countries. It's all good to be a patriot, but you need to know where U.S Gov. is standing, and what they've done.
About Kosovo, it's true U.S did a major favor along with other countries, but where was U.S Gov. during East Timor crises? Why do you think U.S sold weapons to Indonesia knowing they'll be used for killing East Timor locals? Why do you think U.S only helped Kosovo? Not East Timor?
It's like you save a kid from drowning, and make a slave out of him.
P.S : Note that I used word "U.S Gov." instead of U.S, or America. Also, note when non Americans say U.S, or America, they aren't talking about the whole system of U.S, but U.S Gov. Personally, I like U.S. Not U.S Goverment. How about you?
Don't let the patriotism make you blind.
But, they are in love with U.S Gov. not knowing what they've done to other countries. It's all good to be a patriot, but you need to know where U.S Gov. is standing, and what they've done.
About Kosovo, it's true U.S did a major favor along with other countries, but where was U.S Gov. during East Timor crises? Why do you think U.S sold weapons to Indonesia knowing they'll be used for killing East Timor locals? Why do you think U.S only helped Kosovo? Not East Timor?
It's like you save a kid from drowning, and make a slave out of him.
P.S : Note that I used word "U.S Gov." instead of U.S, or America. Also, note when non Americans say U.S, or America, they aren't talking about the whole system of U.S, but U.S Gov. Personally, I like U.S. Not U.S Goverment. How about you?
Don't let the patriotism make you blind.
Geekbabe
Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
<<
<< Most of Americans dislike Microsoft knowing what they've done to other companies as well as the whole computer industry. >>
Not truew, most people do not dislike Microsoft. (this ought to open up another can of worms) >>
oh boy, are you brave !!!
From what I've seen the only people who truly "hate" MS are Techno Elitist types who sneer at anyone who doesn't consider some flavor of Linux to be the ultimate OS . The average end user, all MS and Windows jokes aside appreciates what MS has done to bring standardization to computing. To Mr & Mrs Average, MS Office looks and works the same way at home or at Cousin Billy's as it does at the office, that big blue "E" means web fun and everybody in the house from the youngest child to Grandma can learn to surf the web,send an email ,play a game or type and print a letter. MS is familar to them, people like the familar, MS also provides lots of amusing jokes, the dog everyone likes to kick but in reality would be lost without.
Miramonti
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2000
- 28,653
- 100
- 106
This country's arrogance is predicated on its wealth and ability to generate wealth. Take away the money, thus take away the smoke screen, and you'll find that this is a pretty racist, segregated, judgemental, selfish, arrogant, uncompassionate, and little morality and integrity. Without our wealth, including the ability to finance a multibillion dollar defense budget, other countries would much more freely laugh at us when we criticize them, but now they can't always afford to, given their dependance on our money and fear of our military, which certainly doesn't mean our country is better.
Some Christians say God has blessed this country with wealth. I see the wealth but I don't see how it could be considered a "blessing" if it doesn't make the people in this country better people, but actually has the very opposite affect.
Some Christians say God has blessed this country with wealth. I see the wealth but I don't see how it could be considered a "blessing" if it doesn't make the people in this country better people, but actually has the very opposite affect.
<< << RD, I can never figure you out... You always get dissed by the conservatives but yet you're clearly not liberal... >>
I'm an Enigma >>
I didn't know the definition to Enigma was "Old and Kranky".
Technically your a probably a well thought centrist. You consider each point of view and you aren't afraid to tell anyone what you think of their pre-programmed opinion. Bravo. << This country's arrogance is predicated on its wealth and ability to generate wealth. Take away the money, thus take away the smoke screen, and you'll find that this is a pretty racist, segregated, judgemental, selfish, arrogant, uncompassionate, and little morality and integrity. Without our wealth, including the ability to finance a multibillion dollar defense budget, other countries would much more freely laugh at us when we criticize them, but now they can't always afford to, given their dependance on our money and fear of our military, which certainly doesn't mean our country is better.
Some Christians say God has blessed this country with wealth. I see the wealth but I don't see how it could be considered a "blessing" if it doesn't make the people in this country better people, but actually has the very opposite affect. >>
I know many women in foreign countries who would disagree with you.
And I love how you overlook countries in Asia and Eastern Europe who have committed Genocide more than once.
LOL Your ignorance is laughable but sad.
This post is on the reasons for hatred of the US.
1)
<< Another possibility is that there is a large group of people that are analogous to the Luddites. They do not want any change, they are afraid of change and will fight against any change to their culture and their way of life. The problem with that is their culture is tied to a book that was written for a different era. Many of the rules do not apply to a modern society yet they will fight and die and attack what they think threatens that culture even if that threat is not intentional or malevolent. >>
Here's an example of a much deeper level of the arrogance that has been discussed in this thread. It's basically a hard thing to get around, because to all of us, our "modern" society (with its technology, ideas, government, etc.) is the best that ever existed. But to many others around the world, it is not.
Reality is not a deeper level of arrogance. I do prefer the modern society that I have grown up in. I will not judge what is the best for people of other countries, but neither do I force our society on them.
In the last 300 years or so, Europeans have basically forced their (our -- I should say, being a person of European ancestry) way of life, which had been developed over millennia into something that worked pretty well for Europeans, onto people who had different societies and different socio-evolutionary paths that had led them to where they stood before their conquest by the Europeans. Europeans, who naturally saw their own worldview as correct, essentially forced this view on the native populations, in both subtle and non-subtle ways. (Non-subtly: if you don't follow our laws, we'll kill you; subtly: if you act this way, that's 'civilized' and therefore raises you above the noncivilized masses.)
We continue this to this day, but it's become much more subtle. We now export our music all over the world, touting it as the "cool" thing to listen to. We bash people for not having women's rights and say "that's not civilized" when it took several centuries for womens' rights to develop in Europe in the first place. Imagine if someone had shown up in Europe in 1600 and said "Okay, you've got to let your women vote and they don't have to wear dresses any more and they have to be given the same level of education as the men" and so forth. You can bet that the Europeans of the time would rightfully want to kick the guy's ass! Who the hell does he think he is, trying to force his ways upon us? (This would occur even though Europe in 1600 was much closer to being "modern" in terms of womens' rights than most Arab nations of today.) [/i]
The Europeans were known for their colonialism, I think that is a given.. The subject of this thread is the U.S. Has the U.S. shown up demanding that the Taliban not force their women to wear the burka? No, we did not interfere with their system until they harbored a criminal organization that attacked us. There is a large difference between what you accuse the U.S. of and what is reality.
We talk, full of pride in our hearts, of the new 'globalized' world, but really it's just a 'Westernized' or even 'Americanized' world in which true diversity is lost to the overwhelmingly powerful forces of capitalism and materialism which we have unleashed upon the world.
BTW I'm not a Marxist, not even a Socialist. I think that capitalism and materialism can work well in the societies in which these forces/ideas have naturally developed, but I think that they can only wreak havoc in societies which are suddenly expected to change from subsistence farming or gathering societies into players in the global technology and information economy.
Yes, we are proud of our system. You have yet to show or prove how we FORCE it upon others.
2)t of all, we sit on our asses in our heated and air conditioned homes while typing away on our computers and we talk about such things as justice and liberty, and bragging about how rich and powerful we are, while at the same time allowing monstrous acts of cruelty to go on all over the world. If people are mercilessly killing each other, we don't care. But if they threaten to withhold oil or otherwise damage our precious economy, we're ready to nuke 'em.
We don't really care about justice and liberty. All that we care about is the computer in front of our faces, the homes that surround us, the TV shows that entertain us, the comfortable beds that we sleep on. Justice? Bah, we can trust John Ashcroft to look after that for us. Liberty? Okay, well I guess I don't mind being strip-searched in the airport. Just as long as it's purportedly protecting me and my property, without which I just wouldn't know how to live.
It?s catch 22, if we interfere then we are accused of hegemony, if we don?t than we are selfish and uncaring. Your?s is an old argument that only goes to prove that you cannot please all of the people all of the time. The answer is to wisely choose your battles, pick the ones where you can make a difference and the ones that affect you. No U.S. president could or should stay in office if he meddled in the affairs of every country on earth that has had internal strife. That is what you seem to be suggesting be done though.
And you know what? It's that attitude that really pisses people off. As Tyler Durden says in Fight Club, "You are not your fscking Khakis." But so many of us are caught up in it -- "What am I going to wear tomorrow?" "Oh, I really can't decide between the steak and the chicken." "Duron 1.1 or Athlon 900?" Cry me a fscking river, people. There are people right outside your doors, in your own cities and country that have to make a LOT worse decisions than you do. Some of them are probably even your own fscking relatives. (When's the last time you called your grandmother? When's the last time you made sure that she had enough to eat?) "Should I buy medicine or buy food?" "Will I be able to survive the cold tonight?" And it gets a LOT worse outside of the USA. It's right there, plain for everybody to see. And yet, we ignore it. We all just go on with our lives, not caring about other people, just about ourselves and our things.
I?m sorry to discuss this with someone who quotes from a movie like ?Fight Club?. I hope your superior attitude is serving you well in your school days. Someday you will grow up and find out that the real world is not black and white but shades of gray. Sometimes you can help someone and other times you will learn that you cannot solve all of the ills that are wrong with the world and you must choose your battles. How can you speak for the entire U.S. when you say ?we all just go on with our lives?. That sort of hubris will be tempered as you grow older.
Well I'm sorry to rant like that, but I thought that I could provide a bit of insight as to why people get so amazingly pissed off at us, when we talk about how powerful we are, we go in and topple governments halfway around the world with impunity, while we all do NOTHING to help the injustices within our own communities and especially in the rest of the world.
Your insight is old and well worn. It is a mixture of the liberal we must save the world from ourselves and our collective guilt that we have done well while some societies have for whatever reason not grown out of third world status. You will learn that you cannot do both of what you suggest. You cannot save them and let them keep their current failed society. The world refuses to stand still as much as some people want it to. Progress will continue and the people that attack in anger and frustration that it won?t stop in it?s orbit will not withstand that progress or survive.
Finally, I'm not saying that I'm really any better than the people at whom I ranted in this little rant, but I'm sure as hell trying to be. Thanks for reading.
I?m not trying to dash your dreams of saving the world. We need people that are idealists. It keeps a balance in society. So please continue to tilt at the windmills, someday though you too will find out that Aldonza really is just the inn?s serving girl and the windmills are just that, windmills. I'll hum a few bars of Impossible Dream for you though.
1)
<< Another possibility is that there is a large group of people that are analogous to the Luddites. They do not want any change, they are afraid of change and will fight against any change to their culture and their way of life. The problem with that is their culture is tied to a book that was written for a different era. Many of the rules do not apply to a modern society yet they will fight and die and attack what they think threatens that culture even if that threat is not intentional or malevolent. >>
Here's an example of a much deeper level of the arrogance that has been discussed in this thread. It's basically a hard thing to get around, because to all of us, our "modern" society (with its technology, ideas, government, etc.) is the best that ever existed. But to many others around the world, it is not.
Reality is not a deeper level of arrogance. I do prefer the modern society that I have grown up in. I will not judge what is the best for people of other countries, but neither do I force our society on them.
In the last 300 years or so, Europeans have basically forced their (our -- I should say, being a person of European ancestry) way of life, which had been developed over millennia into something that worked pretty well for Europeans, onto people who had different societies and different socio-evolutionary paths that had led them to where they stood before their conquest by the Europeans. Europeans, who naturally saw their own worldview as correct, essentially forced this view on the native populations, in both subtle and non-subtle ways. (Non-subtly: if you don't follow our laws, we'll kill you; subtly: if you act this way, that's 'civilized' and therefore raises you above the noncivilized masses.)
We continue this to this day, but it's become much more subtle. We now export our music all over the world, touting it as the "cool" thing to listen to. We bash people for not having women's rights and say "that's not civilized" when it took several centuries for womens' rights to develop in Europe in the first place. Imagine if someone had shown up in Europe in 1600 and said "Okay, you've got to let your women vote and they don't have to wear dresses any more and they have to be given the same level of education as the men" and so forth. You can bet that the Europeans of the time would rightfully want to kick the guy's ass! Who the hell does he think he is, trying to force his ways upon us? (This would occur even though Europe in 1600 was much closer to being "modern" in terms of womens' rights than most Arab nations of today.) [/i]
The Europeans were known for their colonialism, I think that is a given.. The subject of this thread is the U.S. Has the U.S. shown up demanding that the Taliban not force their women to wear the burka? No, we did not interfere with their system until they harbored a criminal organization that attacked us. There is a large difference between what you accuse the U.S. of and what is reality.
We talk, full of pride in our hearts, of the new 'globalized' world, but really it's just a 'Westernized' or even 'Americanized' world in which true diversity is lost to the overwhelmingly powerful forces of capitalism and materialism which we have unleashed upon the world.
BTW I'm not a Marxist, not even a Socialist. I think that capitalism and materialism can work well in the societies in which these forces/ideas have naturally developed, but I think that they can only wreak havoc in societies which are suddenly expected to change from subsistence farming or gathering societies into players in the global technology and information economy.
Yes, we are proud of our system. You have yet to show or prove how we FORCE it upon others.
2)t of all, we sit on our asses in our heated and air conditioned homes while typing away on our computers and we talk about such things as justice and liberty, and bragging about how rich and powerful we are, while at the same time allowing monstrous acts of cruelty to go on all over the world. If people are mercilessly killing each other, we don't care. But if they threaten to withhold oil or otherwise damage our precious economy, we're ready to nuke 'em.
We don't really care about justice and liberty. All that we care about is the computer in front of our faces, the homes that surround us, the TV shows that entertain us, the comfortable beds that we sleep on. Justice? Bah, we can trust John Ashcroft to look after that for us. Liberty? Okay, well I guess I don't mind being strip-searched in the airport. Just as long as it's purportedly protecting me and my property, without which I just wouldn't know how to live.
It?s catch 22, if we interfere then we are accused of hegemony, if we don?t than we are selfish and uncaring. Your?s is an old argument that only goes to prove that you cannot please all of the people all of the time. The answer is to wisely choose your battles, pick the ones where you can make a difference and the ones that affect you. No U.S. president could or should stay in office if he meddled in the affairs of every country on earth that has had internal strife. That is what you seem to be suggesting be done though.
And you know what? It's that attitude that really pisses people off. As Tyler Durden says in Fight Club, "You are not your fscking Khakis." But so many of us are caught up in it -- "What am I going to wear tomorrow?" "Oh, I really can't decide between the steak and the chicken." "Duron 1.1 or Athlon 900?" Cry me a fscking river, people. There are people right outside your doors, in your own cities and country that have to make a LOT worse decisions than you do. Some of them are probably even your own fscking relatives. (When's the last time you called your grandmother? When's the last time you made sure that she had enough to eat?) "Should I buy medicine or buy food?" "Will I be able to survive the cold tonight?" And it gets a LOT worse outside of the USA. It's right there, plain for everybody to see. And yet, we ignore it. We all just go on with our lives, not caring about other people, just about ourselves and our things.
I?m sorry to discuss this with someone who quotes from a movie like ?Fight Club?. I hope your superior attitude is serving you well in your school days. Someday you will grow up and find out that the real world is not black and white but shades of gray. Sometimes you can help someone and other times you will learn that you cannot solve all of the ills that are wrong with the world and you must choose your battles. How can you speak for the entire U.S. when you say ?we all just go on with our lives?. That sort of hubris will be tempered as you grow older.
Well I'm sorry to rant like that, but I thought that I could provide a bit of insight as to why people get so amazingly pissed off at us, when we talk about how powerful we are, we go in and topple governments halfway around the world with impunity, while we all do NOTHING to help the injustices within our own communities and especially in the rest of the world.
Your insight is old and well worn. It is a mixture of the liberal we must save the world from ourselves and our collective guilt that we have done well while some societies have for whatever reason not grown out of third world status. You will learn that you cannot do both of what you suggest. You cannot save them and let them keep their current failed society. The world refuses to stand still as much as some people want it to. Progress will continue and the people that attack in anger and frustration that it won?t stop in it?s orbit will not withstand that progress or survive.
Finally, I'm not saying that I'm really any better than the people at whom I ranted in this little rant, but I'm sure as hell trying to be. Thanks for reading.
I?m not trying to dash your dreams of saving the world. We need people that are idealists. It keeps a balance in society. So please continue to tilt at the windmills, someday though you too will find out that Aldonza really is just the inn?s serving girl and the windmills are just that, windmills. I'll hum a few bars of Impossible Dream for you though.
etech:
"I?m not trying to dash your dreams of saving the world. We need people that are idealists. It keeps a balance in society. So please continue to tilt at the windmills, someday though you too will find out that Aldonza really is just the inn?s serving girl and the windmills are just that, windmills. I'll hum a few bars of Impossible Dream for you though."
We need cynical pontificating jaded old farts looking down their long bitter noses at the idealistic too. I especially like the combo of liberal and collectively guilty and then moving on to mention the superiority of the person addressed. "Did you fail self reflection?" I see few soliloquies so intended for another and so much better applied at home. The opposite side of the coin as far as quilt is concerned is denial. So often pragmatism is just another term for failure of vision.
"I?m not trying to dash your dreams of saving the world. We need people that are idealists. It keeps a balance in society. So please continue to tilt at the windmills, someday though you too will find out that Aldonza really is just the inn?s serving girl and the windmills are just that, windmills. I'll hum a few bars of Impossible Dream for you though."
We need cynical pontificating jaded old farts looking down their long bitter noses at the idealistic too. I especially like the combo of liberal and collectively guilty and then moving on to mention the superiority of the person addressed.
"Did you fail self reflection?" I see few soliloquies so intended for another and so much better applied at home. The opposite side of the coin as far as quilt is concerned is denial. So often pragmatism is just another term for failure of vision. etech:
Firstly I thank you for refraining from what must have been almost overwhelming temptation to thoroughly bash me through the wall. I was expecting much worse. Thank you for keeping it civil.
I do realize that in my post I left some ends hanging and some contradictions apparent. I will try to clear those up. But first:
<< Reality is not a deeper level of arrogance. I do prefer the modern society that I have grown up in. I will not judge what is the best for people of other countries, but neither do I force our society on them. >>
<< You cannot save them and let them keep their current failed society. The world refuses to stand still as much as some people want it to. Progress will continue and the people that attack in anger and frustration that it won?t stop in it?s orbit will not withstand that progress or survive. >>
<< Yes, we are proud of our system. You have yet to show or prove how we FORCE it upon others. >>
I think that you've just shown it yourself. "I will not force our society on them" versus "If they don't accept 'progress', they'll die."
I think that this gets at the root of what I'm talking about. Who the hell are WE to define 'progress' for the whole rest of the world? Sure, we have made wonderful advances, but at what cost? We're mere atoms in a mechanistic society geared only to produce more, more, more. We've nearly lost all concepts of family and honor and other ideals that have been held sacred by most societies since the beginning of history. We don't think about the past and how we should honor it, and we don't think about the future and how we can positively affect it. We only think about the present and ourselves. You can call that hubris if you want, but I think that what I write accurately describes at least 90% of the US population.
<< The Europeans were known for their colonialism, I think that is a given.. The subject of this thread is the U.S. >>
The successor of the European colonial nations is the U.S. We are, like Rome, Spain and England before us, the most powerful nation in the world. Our influence extends beyond all borders. Our music, our ideas, our money, our technology, everything wends its way into the most backwater countries in the world.
<< It?s catch 22, if we interfere then we are accused of hegemony, if we don?t than we are selfish and uncaring. Your?s is an old argument that only goes to prove that you cannot please all of the people all of the time. The answer is to wisely choose your battles, pick the ones where you can make a difference and the ones that affect you. No U.S. president could or should stay in office if he meddled in the affairs of every country on earth that has had internal strife. That is what you seem to be suggesting be done though. >>
Ah, yes, you have a good point. I didn't explain myself fully. So, what I meant is the following. We do interfere WAY too much in the world. But most of the time, we give money to puppet governments that we've put into place to sell us oil, or otherwise oppress the majority of the people while looking out for our own interests. Look at unrest and dislike of America among the grassroots populations of Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Pakistan, Thailand, and basically any country that has received money from the IMF. IDEALLY, I would definitely say that we should withdraw from interfering in these countries (just about any country that's not in Western Europe -- include Japan, Australia, maybe a few others that are highly industrialized) in any way. No money for their governments, no trade, nothing. Let the people figure it out themselves. If they're being oppressed or their lives are sh!tty, they will overthrow their governments themselves (as long as the US isn't giving the govt money to arm itself to protect itself from the starving populace). Self-rule and self-determination for all is my ideal. If people are slaughtering each other, let them. There will be survivors, and these survivors must find some way to live together, or they must find some other place to live. It's kill or be killed; natural selection at its highest (since humans are the most highly-evolved species on earth). However, we really throw things into an imbalance when we sell weapons to governments which can then ruthlessly oppress their people.
Okay, now I've described my ideal. However, GIVEN that we have these foreign entanglements all over the world, we should strive to do what is right and honorable and leads to the best governments in place for the country in question, rather than follow our own interests all of the time like we do now. IF we're going to brag about how powerful and 'progressive' we are, and how much we hold to our ideals of democracy and freedom (which I don't think we should do), THEN let's at least stick to our word and use our power for good instead of evil, rather than expose our rank hypocrisy all over the place, which leads only to hatred.
<< You cannot save them and let them keep their current failed society. >>
Agreed! Let's NOT try to save them from their 'failed' society; let's let them KEEP their 'failed' society and live and die with it, and change it if they want to! Let's NOT force ours onto them! But, we have ALREADY forced our society at least partially onto them, so we must try to correct our mistakes by balancing our effects.
<< The answer is to wisely choose your battles, pick the ones where you can make a difference and the ones that affect you. >>
Agreed again! Partially at least. We should only pick the ones that affect us, and we should also go to great lengths to try to limit the number of battles that affect us. This means saying "we're doing more harm than good by trading with this country. I think that we can make clothes in our own country" and "let's find alternative sources of energy so that we're not so dependent on this country for oil". Let's stop trying to pull other countries "up to our level", because they probably don't want it, and they probably don't deserve it! If they're not going to take it upon themselves to develop their societies, why the hell should we do it for them? (Answer: because it's in our own interest... but it ends up being NOT in our own interest because sooner or later we have people who live in caves who know how to build bombs with OUR technology who are REALLY pissed off at us!)
<< I?m sorry to discuss this with someone who quotes from a movie like ?Fight Club?. (. . .) Someday you will grow up and find out that the real world is not black and white but shades of gray. >>
1) What's wrong with 'Fight Club'? and 2) I find that usually the grayness comes from unclear thinking, and it resolves to black and white once you define things properly and think through them logically.
<< The world refuses to stand still as much as some people want it to. >>
I think that the problem is the opposite: Many people in the world refuse to move 'forward' (as defined by us, of course) as much as we want it to.
<< So please continue to tilt at the windmills >>
I will, thank you very much. And hopefully one day when I finally succeed, you and your kind will realize that the windmills were really nukes in disguise.
Firstly I thank you for refraining from what must have been almost overwhelming temptation to thoroughly bash me through the wall. I was expecting much worse. Thank you for keeping it civil.
I do realize that in my post I left some ends hanging and some contradictions apparent. I will try to clear those up. But first:
<< Reality is not a deeper level of arrogance. I do prefer the modern society that I have grown up in. I will not judge what is the best for people of other countries, but neither do I force our society on them. >>
<< You cannot save them and let them keep their current failed society. The world refuses to stand still as much as some people want it to. Progress will continue and the people that attack in anger and frustration that it won?t stop in it?s orbit will not withstand that progress or survive. >>
<< Yes, we are proud of our system. You have yet to show or prove how we FORCE it upon others. >>
I think that you've just shown it yourself. "I will not force our society on them" versus "If they don't accept 'progress', they'll die."
I think that this gets at the root of what I'm talking about. Who the hell are WE to define 'progress' for the whole rest of the world? Sure, we have made wonderful advances, but at what cost? We're mere atoms in a mechanistic society geared only to produce more, more, more. We've nearly lost all concepts of family and honor and other ideals that have been held sacred by most societies since the beginning of history. We don't think about the past and how we should honor it, and we don't think about the future and how we can positively affect it. We only think about the present and ourselves. You can call that hubris if you want, but I think that what I write accurately describes at least 90% of the US population.
<< The Europeans were known for their colonialism, I think that is a given.. The subject of this thread is the U.S. >>
The successor of the European colonial nations is the U.S. We are, like Rome, Spain and England before us, the most powerful nation in the world. Our influence extends beyond all borders. Our music, our ideas, our money, our technology, everything wends its way into the most backwater countries in the world.
<< It?s catch 22, if we interfere then we are accused of hegemony, if we don?t than we are selfish and uncaring. Your?s is an old argument that only goes to prove that you cannot please all of the people all of the time. The answer is to wisely choose your battles, pick the ones where you can make a difference and the ones that affect you. No U.S. president could or should stay in office if he meddled in the affairs of every country on earth that has had internal strife. That is what you seem to be suggesting be done though. >>
Ah, yes, you have a good point. I didn't explain myself fully. So, what I meant is the following. We do interfere WAY too much in the world. But most of the time, we give money to puppet governments that we've put into place to sell us oil, or otherwise oppress the majority of the people while looking out for our own interests. Look at unrest and dislike of America among the grassroots populations of Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Pakistan, Thailand, and basically any country that has received money from the IMF. IDEALLY, I would definitely say that we should withdraw from interfering in these countries (just about any country that's not in Western Europe -- include Japan, Australia, maybe a few others that are highly industrialized) in any way. No money for their governments, no trade, nothing. Let the people figure it out themselves. If they're being oppressed or their lives are sh!tty, they will overthrow their governments themselves (as long as the US isn't giving the govt money to arm itself to protect itself from the starving populace). Self-rule and self-determination for all is my ideal. If people are slaughtering each other, let them. There will be survivors, and these survivors must find some way to live together, or they must find some other place to live. It's kill or be killed; natural selection at its highest (since humans are the most highly-evolved species on earth). However, we really throw things into an imbalance when we sell weapons to governments which can then ruthlessly oppress their people.
Okay, now I've described my ideal. However, GIVEN that we have these foreign entanglements all over the world, we should strive to do what is right and honorable and leads to the best governments in place for the country in question, rather than follow our own interests all of the time like we do now. IF we're going to brag about how powerful and 'progressive' we are, and how much we hold to our ideals of democracy and freedom (which I don't think we should do), THEN let's at least stick to our word and use our power for good instead of evil, rather than expose our rank hypocrisy all over the place, which leads only to hatred.
<< You cannot save them and let them keep their current failed society. >>
Agreed! Let's NOT try to save them from their 'failed' society; let's let them KEEP their 'failed' society and live and die with it, and change it if they want to! Let's NOT force ours onto them! But, we have ALREADY forced our society at least partially onto them, so we must try to correct our mistakes by balancing our effects.
<< The answer is to wisely choose your battles, pick the ones where you can make a difference and the ones that affect you. >>
Agreed again! Partially at least. We should only pick the ones that affect us, and we should also go to great lengths to try to limit the number of battles that affect us. This means saying "we're doing more harm than good by trading with this country. I think that we can make clothes in our own country" and "let's find alternative sources of energy so that we're not so dependent on this country for oil". Let's stop trying to pull other countries "up to our level", because they probably don't want it, and they probably don't deserve it! If they're not going to take it upon themselves to develop their societies, why the hell should we do it for them? (Answer: because it's in our own interest... but it ends up being NOT in our own interest because sooner or later we have people who live in caves who know how to build bombs with OUR technology who are REALLY pissed off at us!)
<< I?m sorry to discuss this with someone who quotes from a movie like ?Fight Club?. (. . .) Someday you will grow up and find out that the real world is not black and white but shades of gray. >>
1) What's wrong with 'Fight Club'? and 2) I find that usually the grayness comes from unclear thinking, and it resolves to black and white once you define things properly and think through them logically.
<< The world refuses to stand still as much as some people want it to. >>
I think that the problem is the opposite: Many people in the world refuse to move 'forward' (as defined by us, of course) as much as we want it to.
<< So please continue to tilt at the windmills >>
I will, thank you very much. And hopefully one day when I finally succeed, you and your kind will realize that the windmills were really nukes in disguise.
wbwither
etech:
Firstly I thank you for refraining from what must have been almost overwhelming temptation to thoroughly bash me through the wall. I was expecting much worse. Thank you for keeping it civil.
Thank you for the nice back-handed insult. I?ll leave it at that.
I think that you've just shown it yourself. "I will not force our society on them" versus "If they don't accept 'progress', they'll die."
I think that this gets at the root of what I'm talking about. Who the hell are WE to define 'progress' for the whole rest of the world? Sure, we have made wonderful advances, but at what cost? We're mere atoms in a mechanistic society geared only to produce more, more, more. We've nearly lost all concepts of family and honor and other ideals that have been held sacred by most societies since the beginning of history. We don't think about the past and how we should honor it, and we don't think about the future and how we can positively affect it. We only think about the present and ourselves. You can call that hubris if you want, but I think that what I write accurately describes at least 90% of the US population.
We've nearly lost all concepts of?
Speak for yourself, you are not speaking for my family or the people that I know. These are people that work to support their family, love their families and do not resemble anything approaching the outlook that you have.
The successor of the European colonial nations is the U.S. We are, like Rome, Spain and England before us, the most powerful nation in the world. Our influence extends beyond all borders. Our music, our ideas, our money, our technology, everything wends its way into the most backwater countries in the world.
We are the successor to the European colonial nations, that does not mean that we follow in their footsteps. Yes our culture is dominant at this time in history. Ask yourself why that is.
Ah, yes, you have a good point. I didn't explain myself fully. So, what I meant is the following. We do interfere WAY too much in the world. But most of the time, we give money to puppet governments that we've put into place to sell us oil, or otherwise oppress the majority of the people while looking out for our own interests. Look at unrest and dislike of America among the grassroots populations of Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Pakistan, Thailand, and basically any country that has received money from the IMF. IDEALLY, I would definitely say that we should withdraw from interfering in these countries (just about any country that's not in Western Europe -- include Japan, Australia, maybe a few others that are highly industrialized) in any way. No money for their governments, no trade, nothing. Let the people figure it out themselves. If they're being oppressed or their lives are sh!tty, they will overthrow their governments themselves (as long as the US isn't giving the govt money to arm itself to protect itself from the starving populace). Self-rule and self-determination for all is my ideal. If people are slaughtering each other, let them. There will be survivors, and these survivors must find some way to live together, or they must find some other place to live. It's kill or be killed; natural selection at its highest (since humans are the most highly-evolved species on earth). However, we really throw things into an imbalance when we sell weapons to governments which can then ruthlessly oppress their people.
Please contrast the above paragraph with what you wrote before.
Most of all, we sit on our asses in our heated and air conditioned homes while typing away on our computers and we talk about such things as justice and liberty, and bragging about how rich and powerful we are, while at the same time allowing monstrous acts of cruelty to go on all over the world.
They are so full of contradictions that I do not know which to address, the post where you want us to ignore the events happening in the rest of the world or where you posted how bad we are because you think that we do.
Okay, now I've described my ideal. However, GIVEN that we have these foreign entanglements all over the world, we should strive to do what is right and honorable and leads to the best governments in place for the country in question, rather than follow our own interests all of the time like we do now. IF we're going to brag about how powerful and 'progressive' we are, and how much we hold to our ideals of democracy and freedom (which I don't think we should do), THEN let's at least stick to our word and use our power for good instead of evil, rather than expose our rank hypocrisy all over the place, which leads only to hatred.
What makes you think that our government sits around how to be evil today? I will not argue that mistakes have been made. History is full of lost opportunities and events that did not turn out as planned or hoped. I will argue that the majority of the actions taken by the U.S. are based on good intentions and must be taken in the context of the times and the knowledge that the leaders held at that time. The U.S. is not the big bad boogey man that you make it out to be.
Agreed! Let's NOT try to save them from their 'failed' society; let's let them KEEP their 'failed' society and live and die with it, and change it if they want to! Let's NOT force ours onto them! But, we have ALREADY forced our society at least partially onto them, so we must try to correct our mistakes by balancing our effects.
I haven?t seen the U.S. take over any nations recently besides ones that are harboring a terrorist organization. The U.S. is not forcing its society on any nation.
Agreed again! Partially at least. We should only pick the ones that affect us, and we should also go to great lengths to try to limit the number of battles that affect us. This means saying "we're doing more harm than good by trading with this country. I think that we can make clothes in our own country" and "let's find alternative sources of energy so that we're not so dependent on this country for oil". Let's stop trying to pull other countries "up to our level", because they probably don't want it, and they probably don't deserve it! If they're not going to take it upon themselves to develop their societies, why the hell should we do it for them? (Answer: because it's in our own interest... but it ends up being NOT in our own interest because sooner or later we have people who live in caves who know how to build bombs with OUR technology who are REALLY pissed off at us!)
You might make a good Republican, if you remember from the election that it was Pres. Bush who stated that the U.S. should not be involved in nation building. There are problems though in having nations with multitudes of poor and oppressed people. The problems are magnified when the leaders of those countries use the state run media to blame the countries problems on the U.S. instead of their own failed leadership. I don?t have the answer to that problem, but I?m not sure that anyone does or we might not have been attacked on 11 Sept.
1) What's wrong with 'Fight Club'? and 2) I find that usually the grayness comes from unclear thinking, and it resolves to black and white once you define things properly and think through them logically.
There was nothing ?wrong? with fight club as long as you understand that it was entertainment and not an essay on life. I find that the young are the only one that think that everything can be reduced to black and white and have the arrogance to believe that they have the only viable viewpoint on any subject. Gray comes from seeing both sides of the argument.
<< The world refuses to stand still as much as some people want it to. >>
I think that the problem is the opposite: Many people in the world refuse to move 'forward' (as defined by us, of course) as much as we want it to.
The only constant is change.
<< So please continue to tilt at the windmills >>
I will, thank you very much. And hopefully one day when I finally succeed, you and your kind will realize that the windmills were really nukes in disguise.
.
What kind am I? Please don't hold back, let it all out.
etech:
Firstly I thank you for refraining from what must have been almost overwhelming temptation to thoroughly bash me through the wall. I was expecting much worse. Thank you for keeping it civil.
Thank you for the nice back-handed insult. I?ll leave it at that.
I think that you've just shown it yourself. "I will not force our society on them" versus "If they don't accept 'progress', they'll die."
I think that this gets at the root of what I'm talking about. Who the hell are WE to define 'progress' for the whole rest of the world? Sure, we have made wonderful advances, but at what cost? We're mere atoms in a mechanistic society geared only to produce more, more, more. We've nearly lost all concepts of family and honor and other ideals that have been held sacred by most societies since the beginning of history. We don't think about the past and how we should honor it, and we don't think about the future and how we can positively affect it. We only think about the present and ourselves. You can call that hubris if you want, but I think that what I write accurately describes at least 90% of the US population.
We've nearly lost all concepts of?
Speak for yourself, you are not speaking for my family or the people that I know. These are people that work to support their family, love their families and do not resemble anything approaching the outlook that you have.
The successor of the European colonial nations is the U.S. We are, like Rome, Spain and England before us, the most powerful nation in the world. Our influence extends beyond all borders. Our music, our ideas, our money, our technology, everything wends its way into the most backwater countries in the world.
We are the successor to the European colonial nations, that does not mean that we follow in their footsteps. Yes our culture is dominant at this time in history. Ask yourself why that is.
Ah, yes, you have a good point. I didn't explain myself fully. So, what I meant is the following. We do interfere WAY too much in the world. But most of the time, we give money to puppet governments that we've put into place to sell us oil, or otherwise oppress the majority of the people while looking out for our own interests. Look at unrest and dislike of America among the grassroots populations of Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Pakistan, Thailand, and basically any country that has received money from the IMF. IDEALLY, I would definitely say that we should withdraw from interfering in these countries (just about any country that's not in Western Europe -- include Japan, Australia, maybe a few others that are highly industrialized) in any way. No money for their governments, no trade, nothing. Let the people figure it out themselves. If they're being oppressed or their lives are sh!tty, they will overthrow their governments themselves (as long as the US isn't giving the govt money to arm itself to protect itself from the starving populace). Self-rule and self-determination for all is my ideal. If people are slaughtering each other, let them. There will be survivors, and these survivors must find some way to live together, or they must find some other place to live. It's kill or be killed; natural selection at its highest (since humans are the most highly-evolved species on earth). However, we really throw things into an imbalance when we sell weapons to governments which can then ruthlessly oppress their people.
Please contrast the above paragraph with what you wrote before.
Most of all, we sit on our asses in our heated and air conditioned homes while typing away on our computers and we talk about such things as justice and liberty, and bragging about how rich and powerful we are, while at the same time allowing monstrous acts of cruelty to go on all over the world.
They are so full of contradictions that I do not know which to address, the post where you want us to ignore the events happening in the rest of the world or where you posted how bad we are because you think that we do.
Okay, now I've described my ideal. However, GIVEN that we have these foreign entanglements all over the world, we should strive to do what is right and honorable and leads to the best governments in place for the country in question, rather than follow our own interests all of the time like we do now. IF we're going to brag about how powerful and 'progressive' we are, and how much we hold to our ideals of democracy and freedom (which I don't think we should do), THEN let's at least stick to our word and use our power for good instead of evil, rather than expose our rank hypocrisy all over the place, which leads only to hatred.
What makes you think that our government sits around how to be evil today? I will not argue that mistakes have been made. History is full of lost opportunities and events that did not turn out as planned or hoped. I will argue that the majority of the actions taken by the U.S. are based on good intentions and must be taken in the context of the times and the knowledge that the leaders held at that time. The U.S. is not the big bad boogey man that you make it out to be.
Agreed! Let's NOT try to save them from their 'failed' society; let's let them KEEP their 'failed' society and live and die with it, and change it if they want to! Let's NOT force ours onto them! But, we have ALREADY forced our society at least partially onto them, so we must try to correct our mistakes by balancing our effects.
I haven?t seen the U.S. take over any nations recently besides ones that are harboring a terrorist organization. The U.S. is not forcing its society on any nation.
Agreed again! Partially at least. We should only pick the ones that affect us, and we should also go to great lengths to try to limit the number of battles that affect us. This means saying "we're doing more harm than good by trading with this country. I think that we can make clothes in our own country" and "let's find alternative sources of energy so that we're not so dependent on this country for oil". Let's stop trying to pull other countries "up to our level", because they probably don't want it, and they probably don't deserve it! If they're not going to take it upon themselves to develop their societies, why the hell should we do it for them? (Answer: because it's in our own interest... but it ends up being NOT in our own interest because sooner or later we have people who live in caves who know how to build bombs with OUR technology who are REALLY pissed off at us!)
You might make a good Republican, if you remember from the election that it was Pres. Bush who stated that the U.S. should not be involved in nation building. There are problems though in having nations with multitudes of poor and oppressed people. The problems are magnified when the leaders of those countries use the state run media to blame the countries problems on the U.S. instead of their own failed leadership. I don?t have the answer to that problem, but I?m not sure that anyone does or we might not have been attacked on 11 Sept.
1) What's wrong with 'Fight Club'? and 2) I find that usually the grayness comes from unclear thinking, and it resolves to black and white once you define things properly and think through them logically.
There was nothing ?wrong? with fight club as long as you understand that it was entertainment and not an essay on life. I find that the young are the only one that think that everything can be reduced to black and white and have the arrogance to believe that they have the only viable viewpoint on any subject. Gray comes from seeing both sides of the argument.
<< The world refuses to stand still as much as some people want it to. >>
I think that the problem is the opposite: Many people in the world refuse to move 'forward' (as defined by us, of course) as much as we want it to.
The only constant is change.
<< So please continue to tilt at the windmills >>
I will, thank you very much. And hopefully one day when I finally succeed, you and your kind will realize that the windmills were really nukes in disguise.
.
What kind am I? Please don't hold back, let it all out.
I will try to keep this short.
I was not trying to be backhanded or insulting. I was genuinely happy that you did not curse me out or suggest that I be shot. Instead, you presented actual arguments in a reasonable manner. I again thank you for that.
<< Speak for yourself, you are not speaking for my family or the people that I know. These are people that work to support their family, love their families and do not resemble anything approaching the outlook that you have. >>
That's a bright view on things, and I hope that both you and those that you know carry this view. However, I'd rather assume the worst. If I end up being wrong, then that's actually a good thing.
<< They are so full of contradictions that I do not know which to address, the post where you want us to ignore the events happening in the rest of the world or where you posted how bad we are because you think that we do. >>
I thought that I had made this clear. The contradiction occurs only because my ideal world is necessarily unrealized. IF we lived in a perfect world and had a fresh start with everything, THEN I'd advocate complete nonintervention and self-determination. HOWEVER, GIVEN that we do NOT live in that world and that we DO have foreign entanglements all over the world and that we brag about our power left and right, we should 1) try to minimize the malignant effects of our policies and 2) actively withdraw from interference and leave the people to govern themselves once we have re-established a political equilibrium in the countries affected, so that one day the ideal world referred to above might become a reality.
<< I haven?t seen the U.S. take over any nations recently besides ones that are harboring a terrorist organization. The U.S. is not forcing its society on any nation. >>
I've stated this several times before. Our conquest does not occur only with guns and bombs and troops but also through money, media, and technology. If you wish to continue to deny the huge impact that American popular culture has all over the world, you're free to do so. Just don't tell me about it any more.
<< What makes you think that our government sits around how to be evil today? I will not argue that mistakes have been made. History is full of lost opportunities and events that did not turn out as planned or hoped. I will argue that the majority of the actions taken by the U.S. are based on good intentions and must be taken in the context of the times and the knowledge that the leaders held at that time. The U.S. is not the big bad boogey man that you make it out to be. >>
I agree that the U.S. has not been actively malicious, but it appears so to those who feel threatened. And it's those who feel threatened (whether rightly or wrongly) who strike back against us. We can't worry about whether we're right or wrong; we've got to worry about how OTHERS percieve what we do, because if they perceive it as threatening, we're the ones who end up paying the price. (FYI, this is not some sissy liberal outlook I'm taking here. It's game theory. We're playing a game, and we're one of the players. We not only reap the direct effects of what we do; we also deal with the effect of what the Others do, based on what we do first. We've got to take these indirect effects into account when we make our initial decisions. These ideas are the basis for much of modern economic theory.) If we simply reduced our presence around the world, I believe that the perception of threat would be lessened.
<< There was nothing ?wrong? with fight club as long as you understand that it was entertainment and not an essay on life. >>
Sure, it was just entertainment. Does that mean that everything said in it is wrong or irrelevant?
<< What kind am I? Please don't hold back, let it all out. >>
Please stop with the baiting. I don't wish to be caught up in a war of insults. In fact, I'm done with this thread. We're the only ones who have posted here in the last 24 hours. I don't really see a point to this if there's no outside interest and it's dwindled to two guys yelling at each other. There's no reason to walk away from this with a bad taste in our mouths. You have your opinion, and I have mine, and it doesn't look like either's going to change very soon. Truce?
I was not trying to be backhanded or insulting. I was genuinely happy that you did not curse me out or suggest that I be shot. Instead, you presented actual arguments in a reasonable manner. I again thank you for that.
<< Speak for yourself, you are not speaking for my family or the people that I know. These are people that work to support their family, love their families and do not resemble anything approaching the outlook that you have. >>
That's a bright view on things, and I hope that both you and those that you know carry this view. However, I'd rather assume the worst. If I end up being wrong, then that's actually a good thing.
<< They are so full of contradictions that I do not know which to address, the post where you want us to ignore the events happening in the rest of the world or where you posted how bad we are because you think that we do. >>
I thought that I had made this clear. The contradiction occurs only because my ideal world is necessarily unrealized. IF we lived in a perfect world and had a fresh start with everything, THEN I'd advocate complete nonintervention and self-determination. HOWEVER, GIVEN that we do NOT live in that world and that we DO have foreign entanglements all over the world and that we brag about our power left and right, we should 1) try to minimize the malignant effects of our policies and 2) actively withdraw from interference and leave the people to govern themselves once we have re-established a political equilibrium in the countries affected, so that one day the ideal world referred to above might become a reality.
<< I haven?t seen the U.S. take over any nations recently besides ones that are harboring a terrorist organization. The U.S. is not forcing its society on any nation. >>
I've stated this several times before. Our conquest does not occur only with guns and bombs and troops but also through money, media, and technology. If you wish to continue to deny the huge impact that American popular culture has all over the world, you're free to do so. Just don't tell me about it any more.
<< What makes you think that our government sits around how to be evil today? I will not argue that mistakes have been made. History is full of lost opportunities and events that did not turn out as planned or hoped. I will argue that the majority of the actions taken by the U.S. are based on good intentions and must be taken in the context of the times and the knowledge that the leaders held at that time. The U.S. is not the big bad boogey man that you make it out to be. >>
I agree that the U.S. has not been actively malicious, but it appears so to those who feel threatened. And it's those who feel threatened (whether rightly or wrongly) who strike back against us. We can't worry about whether we're right or wrong; we've got to worry about how OTHERS percieve what we do, because if they perceive it as threatening, we're the ones who end up paying the price. (FYI, this is not some sissy liberal outlook I'm taking here. It's game theory. We're playing a game, and we're one of the players. We not only reap the direct effects of what we do; we also deal with the effect of what the Others do, based on what we do first. We've got to take these indirect effects into account when we make our initial decisions. These ideas are the basis for much of modern economic theory.) If we simply reduced our presence around the world, I believe that the perception of threat would be lessened.
<< There was nothing ?wrong? with fight club as long as you understand that it was entertainment and not an essay on life. >>
Sure, it was just entertainment. Does that mean that everything said in it is wrong or irrelevant?
<< What kind am I? Please don't hold back, let it all out. >>
Please stop with the baiting. I don't wish to be caught up in a war of insults. In fact, I'm done with this thread. We're the only ones who have posted here in the last 24 hours. I don't really see a point to this if there's no outside interest and it's dwindled to two guys yelling at each other. There's no reason to walk away from this with a bad taste in our mouths. You have your opinion, and I have mine, and it doesn't look like either's going to change very soon. Truce?
I will try to keep this short.
I was not trying to be backhanded or insulting. I was genuinely happy that you did not curse me out or suggest that I be shot. Instead, you presented actual arguments in a reasonable manner. I again thank you for that.
Why would you assume that anyone that does not hold your views would ?curse you out? or suggest you be ?shot?? It can only be one of two reasons. Either you are trying a back-handed insult of implying that anyone that has an alternative viewpoint from yours would be the type of person to curse and threaten or you have such an elitist view of yourself that you think that is the only way that your arguments can be countered. Obviously neither is the case.
That's a bright view on things, and I hope that both you and those that you know carry this view. However, I'd rather assume the worst. If I end up being wrong, then that's actually a good thing.
When one assumes the worst in people that is all one will see in them.
I thought that I had made this clear. The contradiction occurs only because my ideal world is necessarily unrealized. IF we lived in a perfect world and had a fresh start with everything, THEN I'd advocate complete nonintervention and self-determination. HOWEVER, GIVEN that we do NOT live in that world and that we DO have foreign entanglements all over the world and that we brag about our power left and right, we should 1) try to minimize the malignant effects of our policies and 2) actively withdraw from interference and leave the people to govern themselves once we have re-established a political equilibrium in the countries affected, so that one day the ideal world referred to above might become a reality.
Isolationism has been tried and found to not work. Read up on your history.
What makes you think that the U.S. does not try to minimize ?malignant? effects of our foreign policy. As you said, it?s not a perfect world and we do not have perfect leaders. Sometimes unintended effects will be caused by the most beneficial of actions. That does not make them ?malignant?. You should choose your words with more care, someone might think that you believe the U.S. is intentionally evil.
I've stated this several times before. Our conquest does not occur only with guns and bombs and troops but also through money, media, and technology. If you wish to continue to deny the huge impact that American popular culture has all over the world, you're free to do so. Just don't tell me about it any more.
I never denied that the U.S. is the currently dominant culture of this world. I disagree with your contention that it is a deliberate ?conquest? with malicious intent.
I agree that the U.S. has not been actively malicious, but it appears so to those who feel threatened. And it's those who feel threatened (whether rightly or wrongly) who strike back against us. We can't worry about whether we're right or wrong; we've got to worry about how OTHERS percieve what we do, because if they perceive it as threatening, we're the ones who end up paying the price. (FYI, this is not some sissy liberal outlook I'm taking here. It's game theory. We're playing a game, and we're one of the players. We not only reap the direct effects of what we do; we also deal with the effect of what the Others do, based on what we do first. We've got to take these indirect effects into account when we make our initial decisions. These ideas are the basis for much of modern economic theory.) If we simply reduced our presence around the world, I believe that the perception of threat would be lessened.
Then the problem is in our public relations not in our actions and that is what should be addressed. We could act like whiney little children and go home and sulk that those foreigners don?t like us or we can address the problems as they arrive and continue trying to do good throughout the world. I?ll pick the latter.
<< There was nothing ?wrong? with fight club as long as you understand that it was entertainment and not an essay on life. >>
Sure, it was just entertainment. Does that mean that everything said in it is wrong or irrelevant?
Of course not, I have a problem with the popular culture that believes that actors are somehow enlightened solely because they can act or a writer or director is somehow more politically aware than anyone else solely because they are in the business of entertainment.
<< What kind am I? Please don't hold back, let it all out. >>
Please stop with the baiting. I don't wish to be caught up in a war of insults. In fact, I'm done with this thread. We're the only ones who have posted here in the last 24 hours. I don't really see a point to this if there's no outside interest and it's dwindled to two guys yelling at each other. There's no reason to walk away from this with a bad taste in our mouths. You have your opinion, and I have mine, and it doesn't look like either's going to change very soon. Truce?
Asking what ?kind? that you think I am is not baiting. You referred to ?you and your kind? and I would truly like to know what you think my ?kind? is.
No one here is ?yelling? at anyone.
I have never felt the need to have an audience to have an intelligent conversation with someone.
If you discuss and express you views you will learn. You may not change my opinion and I may not change yours but that is not the reason to have these discussions. The act of defining and defending your position and pointing out what appears to you to be flaws in the other?s position is an educational process in itself. You must know your position to defend it and you must understand and learn of the other?s position to debate against.
?Truce?, We have never gone to war, there is no need for a ?truce?.
I was not trying to be backhanded or insulting. I was genuinely happy that you did not curse me out or suggest that I be shot. Instead, you presented actual arguments in a reasonable manner. I again thank you for that.
Why would you assume that anyone that does not hold your views would ?curse you out? or suggest you be ?shot?? It can only be one of two reasons. Either you are trying a back-handed insult of implying that anyone that has an alternative viewpoint from yours would be the type of person to curse and threaten or you have such an elitist view of yourself that you think that is the only way that your arguments can be countered. Obviously neither is the case.
That's a bright view on things, and I hope that both you and those that you know carry this view. However, I'd rather assume the worst. If I end up being wrong, then that's actually a good thing.
When one assumes the worst in people that is all one will see in them.
I thought that I had made this clear. The contradiction occurs only because my ideal world is necessarily unrealized. IF we lived in a perfect world and had a fresh start with everything, THEN I'd advocate complete nonintervention and self-determination. HOWEVER, GIVEN that we do NOT live in that world and that we DO have foreign entanglements all over the world and that we brag about our power left and right, we should 1) try to minimize the malignant effects of our policies and 2) actively withdraw from interference and leave the people to govern themselves once we have re-established a political equilibrium in the countries affected, so that one day the ideal world referred to above might become a reality.
Isolationism has been tried and found to not work. Read up on your history.
What makes you think that the U.S. does not try to minimize ?malignant? effects of our foreign policy. As you said, it?s not a perfect world and we do not have perfect leaders. Sometimes unintended effects will be caused by the most beneficial of actions. That does not make them ?malignant?. You should choose your words with more care, someone might think that you believe the U.S. is intentionally evil.
I've stated this several times before. Our conquest does not occur only with guns and bombs and troops but also through money, media, and technology. If you wish to continue to deny the huge impact that American popular culture has all over the world, you're free to do so. Just don't tell me about it any more.
I never denied that the U.S. is the currently dominant culture of this world. I disagree with your contention that it is a deliberate ?conquest? with malicious intent.
I agree that the U.S. has not been actively malicious, but it appears so to those who feel threatened. And it's those who feel threatened (whether rightly or wrongly) who strike back against us. We can't worry about whether we're right or wrong; we've got to worry about how OTHERS percieve what we do, because if they perceive it as threatening, we're the ones who end up paying the price. (FYI, this is not some sissy liberal outlook I'm taking here. It's game theory. We're playing a game, and we're one of the players. We not only reap the direct effects of what we do; we also deal with the effect of what the Others do, based on what we do first. We've got to take these indirect effects into account when we make our initial decisions. These ideas are the basis for much of modern economic theory.) If we simply reduced our presence around the world, I believe that the perception of threat would be lessened.
Then the problem is in our public relations not in our actions and that is what should be addressed. We could act like whiney little children and go home and sulk that those foreigners don?t like us or we can address the problems as they arrive and continue trying to do good throughout the world. I?ll pick the latter.
<< There was nothing ?wrong? with fight club as long as you understand that it was entertainment and not an essay on life. >>
Sure, it was just entertainment. Does that mean that everything said in it is wrong or irrelevant?
Of course not, I have a problem with the popular culture that believes that actors are somehow enlightened solely because they can act or a writer or director is somehow more politically aware than anyone else solely because they are in the business of entertainment.
<< What kind am I? Please don't hold back, let it all out. >>
Please stop with the baiting. I don't wish to be caught up in a war of insults. In fact, I'm done with this thread. We're the only ones who have posted here in the last 24 hours. I don't really see a point to this if there's no outside interest and it's dwindled to two guys yelling at each other. There's no reason to walk away from this with a bad taste in our mouths. You have your opinion, and I have mine, and it doesn't look like either's going to change very soon. Truce?
Asking what ?kind? that you think I am is not baiting. You referred to ?you and your kind? and I would truly like to know what you think my ?kind? is.
No one here is ?yelling? at anyone.
I have never felt the need to have an audience to have an intelligent conversation with someone.
If you discuss and express you views you will learn. You may not change my opinion and I may not change yours but that is not the reason to have these discussions. The act of defining and defending your position and pointing out what appears to you to be flaws in the other?s position is an educational process in itself. You must know your position to defend it and you must understand and learn of the other?s position to debate against.
?Truce?, We have never gone to war, there is no need for a ?truce?.
<< Most people hate the US because they are:
a) the most powerful nation in the world
b) the most ignorant nation in the world
That is quite a horrible combination and I hope you agree. You guys don't give a damn about anything environmental and you WILL cause the extinction of the world. You act like you are the policemen of the world, though you only help out when it will give you a favourable economic situation afterwards. If it is simply to save some people you won't go in and help, but if you can save some people and be considered for oil trading, etc., you're all for it. The only way that smaller countries can try to raise awareness to this problem is terrorism and your leader is trying to remove this ability from the world as well. As soon as terrorism is eradicated he will be able to move freely in his own blundering way, pushing us all towards the physical limits of the earth.:| >>
Cool, I support the US confiscating all the Worlds resources!!
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
I thought the US fought the Iraq\Kuwait war for the oil not for the Kuwaiti aristocracy. The Muslim world does not like the US because it is not Islamic and it supports Israel no matter what.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I believe the Gulf war was fought as much to keep the despot Saddam from getting control of the oil and the money and power it would give him as to secure the oil supply for the west.
Red Dawn,
Great point. Our foreign policy can never please everyone and there will always be someone who will hate us as a result.
Generally speaking, I think we can all do without the arrogance in this forum.
<<
<< The problem with this is, people here whom you would tab as arrogant KNOW they are arrogant, and actually WANT to be arrogant, and therefore see nothing wrong with it... >>
OK, you are right but answer me this. Why should we go out of our way to KowTow to them when it isn't in our best interest? Surely you understand that there's nothing we could possibly do to placate everybody. Someone will always have a hard on for us no matter what we do. If we show any sign of weakness there will always be some who will use it against us. Since we are flawed Species incapable of getting along with each other shouldn't we consider looking after our own first, then those who are our friends second and then finally those who are our antagonist last? >>
Great point. Our foreign policy can never please everyone and there will always be someone who will hate us as a result.
Generally speaking, I think we can all do without the arrogance in this forum.
<<
<< The problem with this is, people here whom you would tab as arrogant KNOW they are arrogant, and actually WANT to be arrogant, and therefore see nothing wrong with it... >>
OK, you are right but answer me this. Why should we go out of our way to KowTow to them when it isn't in our best interest? Surely you understand that there's nothing we could possibly do to placate everybody. Someone will always have a hard on for us no matter what we do. If we show any sign of weakness there will always be some who will use it against us. Since we are flawed Species incapable of getting along with each other shouldn't we consider looking after our own first, then those who are our friends second and then finally those who are our antagonist last? >>
<< Why would you assume that anyone that does not hold your views would ?curse you out? or suggest you be ?shot?? It can only be one of two reasons. Either you are trying a back-handed insult of implying that anyone that has an alternative viewpoint from yours would be the type of person to curse and threaten or you have such an elitist view of yourself that you think that is the only way that your arguments can be countered. Obviously neither is the case. >>
I was judging from other peoples' reactions in this forum to similar statements made by others, even in this very thread in the responses to teriba's statements. Maybe there's a history there that I don't know about, and maybe the people who made the replies were just joking or had teased teriba before, but still I thought that I was going to get seriously flamed. Sorry.
<< Of course not, I have a problem with the popular culture that believes that actors are somehow enlightened solely because they can act or a writer or director is somehow more politically aware than anyone else solely because they are in the business of entertainment. >>
How you got that from my post is beyond me. If I quoted Yoda, Pikachu, Kurt Cobain, Orson Welles, Steven Spielberg, Roseanne, Bill Cosby, or Bugs Bunny, I wouldn't have done it out of respect for them as entertainers but rather out of respect for what they said, possibly better than I could have.
<< Asking what ?kind? that you think I am is not baiting. You referred to ?you and your kind? and I would truly like to know what you think my ?kind? is. >>
Maybe not, but "don't hold back, let it all out" is. As to your kind -- generally, people who are in denial about the U.S. and how much we're doing that's causing others to hate us enough that they will kill themselves to get back at us.
<< If you discuss and express you views you will learn. You may not change my opinion and I may not change yours but that is not the reason to have these discussions. The act of defining and defending your position and pointing out what appears to you to be flaws in the other?s position is an educational process in itself. You must know your position to defend it and you must understand and learn of the other?s position to debate against. >>
Agreed, but when it's mostly us repeating ourselves then it seems kind of pointless. Especially when I make points about your arguments that are completely ignored by you in your next post. When you pointed out a problem with my argument, I explained myself further. When I did the same, you ignored it. That's not a good argument in my book and can only lead to frustration. (referring specifically to your statements "I'm not forcing my views on anyone" and "if they don't like progress, they can just die" (loosely quoted).)
Also -- and this is the biggest reason that I must end this here -- I've been spending much more time here than is healthy for me. I can't continue to stay on Anandtech till 5AM every night. While I agree that the educational process of arguing against you is worthwhile, I must weigh it against other parts of my life, which are also worthwhile.
wbwither
I was judging from other peoples' reactions in this forum to similar statements made by others, even in this very thread in the responses to teriba's statements. Maybe there's a history there that I don't know about, and maybe the people who made the replies were just joking or had teased teriba before, but still I thought that I was going to get seriously flamed. Sorry.
Assumptions and generalizations, I had noticed your tendency towards those. In any case, apology accepted.
How you got that from my post is beyond me. If I quoted Yoda, Pikachu, Kurt Cobain, Orson Welles, Steven Spielberg, Roseanne, Bill Cosby, or Bugs Bunny, I wouldn't have done it out of respect for them as entertainers but rather out of respect for what they said, possibly better than I could have.
You quoted a fictional character out of movie. I would hope you could find better sources than that to back up a political argument.
Maybe not, but "don't hold back, let it all out" is. As to your kind -- generally, people who are in denial about the U.S. and how much we're doing that's causing others to hate us enough that they will kill themselves to get back at us.
Perhaps the ?don?t hold back? was a bit strong. Mea culpa.
I seriously doubt from a few paragraphs in this thread that you have enough information to judge what ?kind? I or anyone else really is. We?re back to the black and white and shades of gray argument.
Agreed, but when it's mostly us repeating ourselves then it seems kind of pointless. Especially when I make points about your arguments that are completely ignored by you in your next post. When you pointed out a problem with my argument, I explained myself further. When I did the same, you ignored it. That's not a good argument in my book and can only lead to frustration. (referring specifically to your statements "I'm not forcing my views on anyone" and "if they don't like progress, they can just die" (loosely quoted).)
Also -- and this is the biggest reason that I must end this here -- I've been spending much more time here than is healthy for me. I can't continue to stay on Anandtech till 5AM every night. While I agree that the educational process of arguing against you is worthwhile, I must weigh it against other parts of my life, which are also worthwhile.
I really thought the argument of ?"I'm not forcing my views on anyone" and "if they don't like progress, they can just die" (very loosely quoted).) was obvious. The U.S. is not forcing its culture on the rest of the world. They are buying into it all on their own. As to the statement that they will die if they refuse to advance with the rest of the world that is also obvious.
Research some of the cures that people have come up for aids in Africa and why it has spread there so much more than in the more industrialized cultures. The climate will change whether by man made reasons or natural cycles of the earth. The cultures that have the technology to adapt will be more able to survive. There is still a growing population on the earth. The cultures that have advanced and have the technology will be able to adapt and protect their supplies.
A dicussion and exchange of ideas and viewpoints is not an argument.
I was judging from other peoples' reactions in this forum to similar statements made by others, even in this very thread in the responses to teriba's statements. Maybe there's a history there that I don't know about, and maybe the people who made the replies were just joking or had teased teriba before, but still I thought that I was going to get seriously flamed. Sorry.
Assumptions and generalizations, I had noticed your tendency towards those. In any case, apology accepted.
How you got that from my post is beyond me. If I quoted Yoda, Pikachu, Kurt Cobain, Orson Welles, Steven Spielberg, Roseanne, Bill Cosby, or Bugs Bunny, I wouldn't have done it out of respect for them as entertainers but rather out of respect for what they said, possibly better than I could have.
You quoted a fictional character out of movie. I would hope you could find better sources than that to back up a political argument.
Maybe not, but "don't hold back, let it all out" is. As to your kind -- generally, people who are in denial about the U.S. and how much we're doing that's causing others to hate us enough that they will kill themselves to get back at us.
Perhaps the ?don?t hold back? was a bit strong. Mea culpa.
I seriously doubt from a few paragraphs in this thread that you have enough information to judge what ?kind? I or anyone else really is. We?re back to the black and white and shades of gray argument.
Agreed, but when it's mostly us repeating ourselves then it seems kind of pointless. Especially when I make points about your arguments that are completely ignored by you in your next post. When you pointed out a problem with my argument, I explained myself further. When I did the same, you ignored it. That's not a good argument in my book and can only lead to frustration. (referring specifically to your statements "I'm not forcing my views on anyone" and "if they don't like progress, they can just die" (loosely quoted).)
Also -- and this is the biggest reason that I must end this here -- I've been spending much more time here than is healthy for me. I can't continue to stay on Anandtech till 5AM every night. While I agree that the educational process of arguing against you is worthwhile, I must weigh it against other parts of my life, which are also worthwhile.
I really thought the argument of ?"I'm not forcing my views on anyone" and "if they don't like progress, they can just die" (very loosely quoted).) was obvious. The U.S. is not forcing its culture on the rest of the world. They are buying into it all on their own. As to the statement that they will die if they refuse to advance with the rest of the world that is also obvious.
Research some of the cures that people have come up for aids in Africa and why it has spread there so much more than in the more industrialized cultures. The climate will change whether by man made reasons or natural cycles of the earth. The cultures that have the technology to adapt will be more able to survive. There is still a growing population on the earth. The cultures that have advanced and have the technology will be able to adapt and protect their supplies.
A dicussion and exchange of ideas and viewpoints is not an argument.
<< Most people hate the US because they are:
a) the most powerful nation in the world
b) the most ignorant nation in the world
That is quite a horrible combination and I hope you agree. You guys don't give a damn about anything environmental and you WILL cause the extinction of the world. You act like you are the policemen of the world, though you only help out when it will give you a favourable economic situation afterwards. If it is simply to save some people you won't go in and help, but if you can save some people and be considered for oil trading, etc., you're all for it. The only way that smaller countries can try to raise awareness to this problem is terrorism and your leader is trying to remove this ability from the world as well. As soon as terrorism is eradicated he will be able to move freely in his own blundering way, pushing us all towards the physical limits of the earth.:| >>
Sure, try saying this in front of Russ or RD, and you'll soon see what a real pansy you are. I wouldn't go that far in insulting our neighbors south of us. I actually find the federal government, and our democracy are the sad sack of patriotism. We can't even defend our own coastlines, and you're here taking a piss on US's foreing policies?
Oh boy..
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter