Hating America The new world sport
#1
Posted 01 September 2006 - 09:28 PM
So you non-American members, what do you think of America?
And; my fellow americans: (I couldn't resist :blink:)
What do you think of what they think about you... etc.
#2
Posted 01 September 2006 - 11:09 PM
#3
Posted 01 September 2006 - 11:13 PM
#4
Posted 02 September 2006 - 12:43 AM
#5
Posted 02 September 2006 - 01:50 AM
I have a friend who DESPISES America. C'mon, lots of people have issues with America, but thie ' friend' has never been there in his life, he doesnt know anything about their politics, apart from the fact that Bush cant run a country.
#6
Posted 02 September 2006 - 02:45 AM
#7
Posted 02 September 2006 - 03:32 AM
Like when I walk into any EB games they always go "Hey, welcome to EB Games! I'm *insert name here*! How are you?".
Americas great.
The government ain't.
#8
Posted 02 September 2006 - 03:35 AM
American: Hey, are you Australians?
Friend: Yes...
American: Cool! Can you talk like Steve Irwin?
#9
Posted 02 September 2006 - 03:38 AM
"Oh my god are you ossie?! WOW! That's so cool!"
Then they'd go on about an 'Ossie' they once knew or some junk.
#10
Posted 02 September 2006 - 03:49 AM
#11
Posted 02 September 2006 - 06:32 AM
#12
Posted 02 September 2006 - 06:36 AM
I hate Snakes on a Plane.
#13
Posted 02 September 2006 - 06:43 AM
Anyway, I like America. 'Cause I live here. But its weird. All my
#14
Posted 02 September 2006 - 06:47 AM
#15
Posted 02 September 2006 - 07:38 AM
Split Infinity, on Sep 2 2006, 08:36 AM, said:
BLASPHEMY!!!
#16
Posted 02 September 2006 - 08:02 AM
#17
Posted 02 September 2006 - 09:23 AM
Platinum Sun, on Sep 2 2006, 02:38 PM, said:
BLASPHEMY!!!
It's hard to believe that the Government were trying to stop English fans from doing chants like that. It's part of what makes people feel proud of their country (even at the expense of another).
#18
Posted 02 September 2006 - 11:14 PM
Anyway:
The only problem with America is that we have some pretty bad leaders. Our politics and government sucks ass pretty much. But other than that, America is a damn good country.
And America is NOT a big wasteful country. In fact, we're getting a lot better. It's not like we can change to be a very clean country in one day. Cut us some slack; we're human. It's not like frikkin' China isn't making a lot of pollution, why are we the only ones getting the finger?
As for America stereotyping other countries... what, it's not like you don't stereotype us to be an uneducated, ranting, overweight, and terribly patriotic group. :D Besides, doesn't Britain stereotype itself all the time? (Monty Python/Blackadder, anyone?)
As for being selfish and arrogant. We think a lot about other countries, so I don't know where you got that selfish bit, DK... as for arrogance, I guess we do throw our big Military weight around a bit. BUT if we didn't, a lot of countries would be at each others throats. And I'm sure most of you know what countries I'm thinking of.
#19
Posted 03 September 2006 - 06:03 AM
I am one of those people who loves the British saying that was going around during the Second World War: "Damn Yanks. They're overpaid, oversexed, and over here!"
That was a brilliant phrase. ^^
#20
Posted 03 September 2006 - 07:37 AM
Bexie, on Sep 3 2006, 01:03 PM, said:
I am one of those people who loves the British saying that was going around during the Second World War: "Damn Yanks. They're overpaid, oversexed, and over here!"
That was a brilliant phrase. ^^
I've got to say I've never heard that before. Brilliant. :D
Still, and this comes with grim reluctance, I think the War would have been a lot more difficult for Britain had America not assisted them. Still they won't shut up about it now. They're all like 'Hey remember when we saved you guys in the war?' and we're all like 'That was 60 years ago. What have you done for us recently?' and they're all like '...'. Yeah.
#21
Posted 03 September 2006 - 07:40 AM
#22
Posted 03 September 2006 - 08:21 AM
#23
Posted 03 September 2006 - 08:52 AM
Split Infinity, on Sep 3 2006, 09:40 AM, said:
Yeah Austrailia is always uber neutral. They're the only country whose economy dosn't operate on a giant national debt. This is probably because they
#24
Posted 03 September 2006 - 11:03 AM
#25
Posted 03 September 2006 - 12:26 PM
#27
Posted 03 September 2006 - 03:10 PM
Wind Dude, on Sep 3 2006, 08:49 PM, said:
It's not a current phrase WD. As Bexie said it was from the Second World War. It doesn't have any bearing on modern day times. Don't take it too seriously.
#28
Posted 04 September 2006 - 01:20 AM
I don't like America on a broad scale. However, if you dig down I do feel the sterotypes to most Americans as: uneducated, hateful, fat, etc etc etc the complients just keep piling on. I think my main beef againest America is the current government and all the ****headish greedy companies (Enron anyone)? I think the best you guys could do is vote in Oprah or Mike Moore.
#29
Posted 04 September 2006 - 01:43 AM
#31
Posted 04 September 2006 - 03:33 PM
I think it's just all the crimes and shootings. Comlbine, Oaklahoma bombing and stuff.
#32
Posted 04 September 2006 - 05:15 PM
#33
Posted 04 September 2006 - 07:57 PM
#34
Posted 04 September 2006 - 07:58 PM
#35
Posted 04 September 2006 - 08:02 PM
#36
Posted 04 September 2006 - 09:11 PM
But yeah, it's pretty obvious that the American news channel will forcus on the American crimes, Americans really want to see what's happening in their background rather than others, who wouldn't...
#37
Posted 04 September 2006 - 09:44 PM
Wind Dude, on Sep 4 2006, 10:02 PM, said:
Right to beat arms is the second Amendment to the Constitution. (which I hear is quite popular across the country. :P) So all states grant the right to bear arms.
#38
Posted 05 September 2006 - 04:17 PM
Texas sure does love it's shotguns, though.
#39
Posted 05 September 2006 - 04:31 PM
Eugine, that, is stereotyping. Not ALL news networks are like that. Usually, that's just what people see in the movies. The invasive reporter trying to get you tell something personal in an insensitive way or whatnot. Yeah, that happens, but besides that, networks like Fox News, regardless of what some of you idiots say, is not biased. Yes, they tend to be Pro Republican sometimes, but look at CNN. They're Pro Democrat ALL the time. If something bad happens that a Republican is responsible for, they don't care if it was an acident or whatever. They cut out all the "non-interesting" stuff, and only use the "interesting stuff". Which usually turns out to be incriminating or something. And for those of you who say that Fox doesn't give "accurate" news, but instead gives fake reports, I have a question for you. How the hell does a news network survive if their coverage isn't true?
#40
Posted 05 September 2006 - 06:00 PM
#41
Posted 06 September 2006 - 08:35 AM
Me111, on Sep 3 2006, 02:37 PM, said:
Still, and this comes with grim reluctance, I think the War would have been a lot more difficult for Britain had America not assisted them. Still they won't shut up about it now. They're all like 'Hey remember when we saved you guys in the war?' and we're all like 'That was 60 years ago. What have you done for us recently?' and they're all like '...'. Yeah.
Bah, I bet we could have won the war without them. Sure, it might have taken a bit longer, but we could have done it.
Besides, America didn't show their faces in the war until a few years after it started. Policy of isolationism, anyone?
They only joined because the Japanese bombed Pearl Habour. If they hadn't have done that, America would never have joined in the war. they couldn't give a damn about what was happening to Europe, just themselves.
Same with communism. I hear Americans going "Oh, we saved all of Europe from the communists" all the time. No, they didn't. They were saving themselves. America believed that if communism spread through Europe, it'd hit the USA (Hence the "Domino Theory"). They didn't give a damn about the people in Europe.
The point of that rambling? Basically, just to show that, throughout history, the US only seemed to have cared about itself. They probably would have happily watched all of Europe become Nazi or Communist, so long as the USA wasn't threatened.
Me111, on Sep 3 2006, 10:10 PM, said:
Exactly.
Wind Dude, on Sep 5 2006, 02:57 AM, said:
Bah. So we killed a few Scots a few hundred years ago.
... Okay, it was more than a few, it was a hell of a lot... and for centuries it was actually the law for an Englishman to kill a Welshman on sight after dark... and we had to remove a verse from our National Anthem because it taled about killing the Scots... but... but...
Oh, nevermind.
FlamingDuck, on Sep 5 2006, 02:58 AM, said:
You can't judge England on the chavs.
#42
Posted 06 September 2006 - 09:28 AM
Still I don't think the general crime situation is not as bad as in America (sorry Wind Dude -_- ) but it's on the rise and it's worrying.
#43
Posted 07 September 2006 - 05:09 AM
WD-You can't argue with the stats. And even if you bring the population of America into account it still works out at a higher death by gun ratio to any first world country.
#44
Posted 10 September 2006 - 08:09 PM
And no SoT. The current government does not enjoy war, they enjoy peace. But sometimes there must be a war to have peace. Just think of the Civil War between Britan and America. Before we could be free and peacful, we had to fight a war. And to those of you who hate Bush, thin of it this way. Sometimes descisions made in a previous candidacy, take a while to have an effect. So some descisions made by Bill Clinton, like selling nukes to China, wouldn't show their ill effects until the next candidacy. And I'll say it again to those of you who say that Bush went to war for oil. If he did, wouldn't we be getting more oil, instead of less? And wouldn't we be getting lower gas prices instead of higher? The only reason we went to war, is to take out the terrorist organization that bomed us, so that nothing like that would ever happen again. Quit being conspiracy theorists.
#45
Posted 10 September 2006 - 08:18 PM
Wow, I agree with Toasty...
*checks to see if sky is falling
#46
Posted 10 September 2006 - 08:23 PM
Wait...did you just agree with me?.....wow....I'd better go start preparing for Armageddon.....
#47
Posted 10 September 2006 - 08:41 PM
Restoring a stable oil supply won't get us back to the prices we knew before the energy crisis and all this Middle-East stuff happened. (Ahhh... remember two dollar gas? Good times...) Until the refineries Katrina wiped out are restored that rock-bottom price limit will remain higher than it was pre-Katrina.
Until then, do your part:
Send angry letters to your nearest environmental support group. ;)
#48
Posted 10 September 2006 - 09:42 PM
#49
Posted 11 September 2006 - 04:22 AM
Mr.T, on Sep 11 2006, 12:09 PM, said:
I'll agree maybe Al-Queda(Sp?) are to blame, but what did Iraq do? Osama and Saddam were not allies, they would of rather sided with Bush then each other.
#50
Posted 11 September 2006 - 04:52 AM
P.S. I don't hate America... I just prefer other countries =)
And like I said (I think), Bush went to war to leave a legacy! Now it's destroying him and the American government, the Iraq war was a total waste IMO... Now the US Government is spending alot on maintaining the peace and you know what? They'll practically get nothing out of it, and the Iraq government will probably backstab them in the future because religion and people over there is more important than the American freedom.
#51
Posted 11 September 2006 - 06:04 PM
We attacked Saddam because he was becomeing a new "Hitler", and possibly had weapons of mass destruction.
Bush DID NOT go to war to "lead a legacy". He went to war to keep another 911 from happening. Call me brainwashed or whatever you like, but I'm not. I have a mind of my own, and I actually live here and watch the actions of the government first hand. Just like every other American. You're not even in America, so how do you know what his motives are?
#52
Posted 11 September 2006 - 06:11 PM
It really does look like that if you think about it:
Bush Sr. had mild contesting of his election to office. Bush Jr. had a huge contesting of his election that took nearly a month and went all the way to the supreme court. Sr. had a war in Iraq, Jr. has a disasterous war in Iraq. Bush Sr.'s VP had a minor scandal involving misappropriation of campaign funds, Bush Jr.'s VP shot a guy in the face
#53
Posted 11 September 2006 - 06:18 PM
Yeah, the CIA is saying bad intelligence now, but I personally believe to call it "misleading" intelligence... And, me not being American has allowed me to see things from three, or atleast two opinions... You may say I can't see it on an American point of view but American news tell me enough, I can also see it on a terrorist level as well as a bystander... You now will choose to see it only one one level...
#54
Posted 11 September 2006 - 07:11 PM
One reason why the CIA doesn't give as good intelligence anymore is because the Liberals are trying to get rid of the laws that allow them to perform well. Like wire tapping. The reason why I don't believe Bush went to war to make a legacy, is because of his actions during the attacks on 9/11. I may not have been in New York when it happened, but I was in the US, and really, what else should he have done? Sit on his butt and say "Oh, they only bomed us, it's not that big of a deal"? His actions on 9/11, and towards the War on Terror, prove that it's not just for a legacy. I understand how the terrorists feel about us, they feel like we're the devil, and that it's their duty to see us thwarted. It would be a lie if I said I knew what it looked like to a bystandered though. But to me, he's giving the people who's families died, justice, and keeping further 9/11's from happening. Whether or not he's doing it for a legacy (which he's not), it's the only right thing to do. What would you do if terrorists did something like this to your country?
#55
Posted 11 September 2006 - 07:57 PM
#57
Posted 11 September 2006 - 08:08 PM
The 9/11 hijackers were from Afghanistan, sent by Osama Bin Laden. Saddam was a messed up dude, but he had N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with 9/11.
#58
Posted 11 September 2006 - 08:14 PM
[EDIT] I have an unbaised article that I found in our IBD newspaper, that directly shows the links of Iraq and Al-Qiada. I'll post it tomorrow.
On a side note, my cousin, who works for the FBI, and who I also don't know very well, interrogated Saddam. I'd tell more, but he didn't say anything past that. It was confidential.
#59
Posted 12 September 2006 - 04:40 AM
Now that it's cleared up Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (The CIA even said that IIRC...) lets move on...
Why would Bush invade Iraq, which at the point in time did not treathen US security? Actually, like PS, Iraq wasn't even able to challenge the USA. He went there to finish what his father started, to topple Saddam for the sake of leaving a legacy...
AND, America didn't like Saddam's thinking because he wasn't for America, this fits in neatly with my speech above.
And, I'm not depating the Afganistan invasion, I could understand that... Al Queda was infact based there.
Anyway, I'm off to college.
#60
Posted 12 September 2006 - 05:46 AM
Mr.T, on Sep 12 2006, 10:04 AM, said:
Of which are yet to be found.
Mr.T, on Sep 12 2006, 11:11 AM, said:
Yet he did just that, for what was it? 6 minutes or something. Watch the footage of him at that school in Texas or w/e
PS: They were Suaddi Arabian (sp?). I'll find the book tomorrow.
#61
Posted 12 September 2006 - 06:23 AM
America rocks. Our gov't dont.
#62
Posted 12 September 2006 - 09:05 AM
watch, on Sep 12 2006, 12:46 PM, said:
I guess there are two possible reasons for this. 1.) He's shocked (I know I was when I heard about this when I got home) or 2.) He didn't want to leave whilst he was in the middle of the school's presentation. It wouldn't exactly be fair on the kids.
#64
Posted 12 September 2006 - 06:15 PM
The article that shows the links between Iraq and Al-Qaida is right here. It's true, and yes, Iraq WAS linked to Al-Qaida, whether you believe it or not.
First half: http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/2558/li...e1customqr0.jpg
Second Half: http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/7263/li...e2customko6.jpg
They're both part of the same article, but a line was cut off by the scanner where I had to fold it.
#65
Posted 12 September 2006 - 07:51 PM
Watch: (Saudi) And it dosn't really matter where they came from, the fact is that Osama sent them, so we have to go bust him up, not Saddam.
#66
Posted 12 September 2006 - 07:53 PM
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/09/...on=nation_world
#67
Posted 13 September 2006 - 08:51 PM
#69
Posted 14 September 2006 - 04:39 PM
#70
Posted 14 September 2006 - 05:10 PM
"Al Queda-Hussein Link Is Enforced"
Quote
Yeah, countering with that article means it counters the Sept. 11 commission...
#71
Posted 14 September 2006 - 06:33 PM
#72
Posted 14 September 2006 - 07:27 PM
#73
Posted 14 September 2006 - 07:32 PM
#74
Posted 14 September 2006 - 08:06 PM
So, do you think America will remain the worlds most wealty nation, or well, the country with the highest GDP? Statistics shows by 2020 China should surpass (everywhere except the CIA says so) in terms of GDP... Opinion/comments?
#75
Posted 15 September 2006 - 06:17 AM
Either China ( as Eugine said) or Japan, America is too focused on War then technology.
BTW Mr.T. If it were my leader who just heard his country had been attacked I wouldn't want him just sitting there, childern's feelings aside. Honestly who cares if a bunch of little 5 year olds have their feelings hurt, in comparsent to hearing from your leader, who leads in war and peace.
#76
Posted 15 September 2006 - 04:24 PM
OMGZES!!!!! I've been Chaos lorded!!!!
#77
Posted 15 September 2006 - 07:54 PM
And just to let you know, 5 minutes wouldn't have made much of a difference. It's just trying to point out more irrelivent flaws. And on top of that, as far as I know, it's the country that has the largest military that's top dog, and so far, that appears to be the US. I don't expect that to change any time soon. Regardless of the war on terror.
#78
Posted 15 September 2006 - 08:05 PM
Mr.T, on Sep 15 2006, 09:54 PM, said:
That probably has something to do with my addiction to the spamboard. Back when it existed, 130% of my posts were there. (Not kidding, spam posts were higher than my post count.) Now that it no longer exists I'm getting a lot more meaningful ones. Speaking of which:
True, but just because we're on top now is no guarantee that we'll stay that way. I think it's because our wealth has enabled us to get increasingly lazy over the years...
#79
Posted 15 September 2006 - 09:02 PM
Just one thing I hated about America was back when the Boxing Day Tsnaumi (sp?) happened. I think the Canadian (sp?) government matched every dollar their citizens gave. Australia gave millions straigh off, where America gave a hand full of pennies. I think Finland's first donation was higher then Americas first two or something.
#81
Posted 15 September 2006 - 10:37 PM
And yes, there are definately a lot of fat lazy people in the US, but there's more hardworking people than lazy ones. As for the government, one thing that could lead to our demise, is the stupid liberals trying to give terrorists rights in America. That's just so ****ing stupid! They're trying to blow us up! Why give them any rights?
#82
Posted 15 September 2006 - 11:09 PM
#83
Posted 15 September 2006 - 11:33 PM
But seriously. Why give terrorists rights?
#84
Posted 16 September 2006 - 07:25 AM
#85
Posted 16 September 2006 - 08:46 AM
#86
Posted 16 September 2006 - 09:41 AM
I think Bush may be the biggest dumbass to lead our country in a long while, but despite that I still have a certain degree of respect for him... I mean, he could be a LOT worse, and he CAN run our country well enough to a certain degree. Even if he doesn't always get good results. (I don't know where Bush supporters get the idea of him doing so well)
#87
Posted 16 September 2006 - 03:55 PM
#88
Posted 16 September 2006 - 07:33 PM
#89
Posted 16 September 2006 - 08:05 PM
#90
Posted 17 September 2006 - 10:46 PM
Oh and pray tell, where is Osama Bin Laden? You guys have had over 5 years since he used his CIA training to launch his second terriost attack on the World Trade Center. (If it was even him the second time)
#91
Posted 18 September 2006 - 06:17 AM
watch, on Sep 18 2006, 12:46 AM, said:
Oh and pray tell, where is Osama Bin Laden? You guys have had over 5 years since he used his CIA training to launch his second terriost attack on the World Trade Center. (If it was even him the second time)
out of the 6 billion people on earth, were looking for 1. I think those are pretty high odds.
#92
Posted 18 September 2006 - 08:37 PM
And Watch, if you're implying AGAIN that Bush "pilfered" oil, then give me proof. I'd like to see a rock solid article that has even any proof of it.
#93
Posted 19 September 2006 - 07:01 AM
#94
Posted 19 September 2006 - 12:57 PM
#95
Posted 19 September 2006 - 05:25 PM
#96
Posted 19 September 2006 - 05:30 PM
#99
Posted 20 September 2006 - 06:12 AM
pHantOm, on Sep 18 2006, 10:17 PM, said:
The guy lives in a cave in a third world country. You've had since, when did he plant that car bomb under the world trade center? 1993 or 1995 come to mind, not 100%. And he's been like in the top ten on the worlds most wanted for how long?
But yes I agree how hard it is to locate a fleeing person in a world this big. Maybe on Mercury...:)
#100
Posted 20 September 2006 - 06:22 AM
#101
Posted 20 September 2006 - 08:35 AM
Piers Watermaster, on Sep 20 2006, 08:22 AM, said:
No hes right
They tried blowing up the world trade center one time before 9/11, only to have failed because the towers were built to withstand a bomb from its base. The only reason the towers collapsed was due to the heat of the planes fuel melting the support beams of half the building.
And Bin Laden was within our grasps in the 90's, but Clinton let him go. You can thank Democrats once again.
#102
Posted 20 September 2006 - 09:36 AM
pHantOm, on Sep 20 2006, 03:35 PM, said:
I doubt people would have thought of the possiblity of a plane crashing into the towers before 9/11 though. I know I hadn't thought of the possibility and by the security measures that used to be taken in airports, neither did anyone else. It was totally unexpected.
Oddly I'd only heard about the 1993 incident recently. I guess it didn't cause as much shock as it wasn't such a big impact, but you wouldn't expect it not to be widely known.
#103
Posted 20 September 2006 - 01:03 PM
Me111, on Sep 20 2006, 11:36 AM, said:
Actually, the towers were built with (abiet accidental) aircraft impacts in mind. That's why they both stood for several minutes after the panes hit. The trouble is, in the 25(ish) years that they stood, planes got bigger and the towers didn't get any stronger. Plus the attackers knew what they were doing, they chose long range filghts that were loaded with tons of fuel and hijacked them quickly enough that they didn't get they chance to burn much of it. The greater explosion of a plane that didn't exist when the towers were constructed shattered the fireproofing foam of the towers' steel trusses. That's why they fell.
#104
Posted 20 September 2006 - 11:28 PM
#105
Posted 30 September 2006 - 03:06 PM
This does seem to make up a large number though...
#106
Posted 30 September 2006 - 05:43 PM
Ravenblade, on Sep 30 2006, 04:06 PM, said:
This does seem to make up a large number though...
Nah, the arrogant ones actually make up a smaller number than the non-arrogant ones.
I'm Italian, but I've been living in the US for most of my life. What do I think? It's an excellent country, way more than a hell of a lot better than the backwater, pain-in-the-ass countries in the Middle East. And I also think it's better than Italy, but I don't feel like explaining why. There are only two things I dislike in the US:
1. Most of the government.
2. Gangs.
#107
Posted 01 October 2006 - 01:50 AM
The government however, it depends on who the president is. I'd rather have a conservative president, because regardless of popular views, they were the better ones. But even if they're liberal, if they govern well (which doesn't seem very often), I don't mind.
#108
Posted 26 October 2006 - 06:48 PM
Mr.T, on Oct 1 2006, 06:04 AM, said:
I say amen to that.
Anyway a lot of time people hate America because they are jelous and some of it is false accusation. I heard some UK people say everyone in America is rich which is far from the truth. I like America because we enjoy our right and freedoms. Not alot of counties have them as we do, for many reason.
Well as a final call.
For the USA!!!!!
#109
Posted 26 October 2006 - 10:35 PM
#110
Posted 29 October 2006 - 03:17 PM
Quit being a hipocrite.
#111
Posted 29 October 2006 - 03:26 PM
(Wow I backed America in something!)
#112
Posted 29 October 2006 - 04:20 PM
#114
Posted 03 November 2006 - 10:28 AM
I don't hate America. I hate conservative America. It was a much better country with Clinton as the president, and that is shown by Bush's 30% approval rating. (I'm sure someone will say 38% now)
When 2008 rolls around, if I have American citizenship (which I plan to get when I know that the possibilities of a draft are past), I'll be behind Barack Obama for president. He is a smart, well spoken man that has the right ideas on how to run the country. Hillary Clinton is a joke, and if Obama runs, there's no way she can get her points across better than he can.
#115
Posted 03 November 2006 - 10:49 AM
Its a shame but it does seem like American Foriegn Policy (or rather Bush foreign policy) has demonised your country, even in the eyes of "your closest allies" ie Britain =/
Poll On Most Dangerous Threats to world security
#116
Posted 03 November 2006 - 10:52 AM
#117
Posted 03 November 2006 - 10:54 AM
Picture this
Kim jon as President of the US.
Dear God ;)
#118
Posted 03 November 2006 - 10:55 AM
But hey, if America does get nuked, maybe Bush will attack China claiming that 'they are the ones behind this attack'
#119
Posted 03 November 2006 - 10:58 AM
pHantOm, on Nov 3 2006, 07:08 PM, said:
Picture this
Kim jon as President of the US.
Dear God ;)
You know, thats a really good point - i would much rather Bush in charge of the US than Kim Jong or Bin Laden =/
#120
Posted 03 November 2006 - 11:01 AM
#121
Posted 03 November 2006 - 02:53 PM
Sea_of_Time, on Nov 3 2006, 02:09 PM, said:
But hey, if America does get nuked, maybe Bush will attack China claiming that 'they are the ones behind this attack'
If we nuke China, we better wipe it off the face of the Earth or were screwed. We would get one shot at taking them out completely.
#122
Posted 04 November 2006 - 02:15 AM
#123
Posted 04 November 2006 - 04:35 PM
#125
Posted 05 November 2006 - 01:43 AM
#126
Posted 07 November 2006 - 01:30 PM
#127
Posted 07 November 2006 - 02:38 PM
#129
Posted 07 November 2006 - 05:24 PM
#130
Posted 08 November 2006 - 10:44 AM
As for fighting for peace, that like having sex to get virginity. You can't do one and be something else.
#131
Posted 08 November 2006 - 11:41 AM
#132
Posted 08 November 2006 - 02:10 PM
#133
Posted 08 November 2006 - 02:29 PM
And the irony is, that America thought up the whole UN idea to prevent a WO I from reocurring, calling it the league of nations. The whole idea collapsed because (what a suprise...) America didn't want to join it after the war. And this being one of the indirect reasons for WO II.
#134
Posted 08 November 2006 - 02:34 PM
#135
Posted 08 November 2006 - 05:05 PM
"Germany, stop invading Poland!"
Unsuprisingly, this was unsucessful in preventing the Second World War.
#136
Posted 08 November 2006 - 09:47 PM
Oh and yes The president after WW1 did think up the league of nations, but ya also gotta realize is that america is a democracy that means in enough people don't want something to happen, it won't happen. So the reason why the US didn't join right away is because Americans at the time didn't want to get involved in foreign affairs. So they voted against it.
and the whole iraq issue just makes me even madder! I hate war just as much as the next guy, but think of the scenario reversed. what would of happened if Saddam would of stayed in power? could of more people died? could he himself start another war with the support of muslim extremists?( Not meaning to affend anyone) No one can predict what would of happened. Could the UN solved this peacefully? Yes. could they have failed? Yes. It's just based on what seems right at the moment. Unless anyone can tell the future.
BOTTOM LINE: The reason why America isn't perfect is because we make mistakes like everyone else, our actions were based on what we thought was right. And sometimes it's not right. I just don't think people should start Critizing the US just because of that.
Man topics like these get me wondering many things :)
#137
Posted 09 November 2006 - 12:21 AM
And America's democracy system is one of the vaguest I know. The president there has far too much power for a good democracy.
#138
Posted 09 November 2006 - 02:05 AM
Secondly, no, the president doesn't have any more power than the Senate or House of Representitives. They all have the power to veto eachother (that means that the law/action being discussed won't end up in a ballot), and none of them can get away with breaking the law either. That's where the federal court comes in. If anyone in the house or sentate, or the president, breaks a law, they are punished for it and someone else replaces them. In the presidents case, that would be the vice president. The only thing that the president can do that no one else can, is use his presidential power to over rule the house and senate, allowing him to decide without their consent. He can only do this once per term though, and the federal court still applies, so he regardless, he can't use it to get out of prison.
It is very well balanced, especially since the people in the Senate and House are elected by the people, so they speak for the people when it comes do makeing descisions. And there are always Democrats and Republicans in the two. The only problem is, is that when the Democrats take control of the Senate or house, Republicans don't have a say in anything because of the way they run it. When Republicans are in power however, they respect the founding fathers intentions, and allow the power to flow evenly. This has been shown many times over the years. Rejecting it is rejecting reality.
Saturos Striker, on Nov 8 2006, 02:43 PM, said:
And the irony is, that America thought up the whole UN idea to prevent a WO I from reocurring, calling it the league of nations. The whole idea collapsed because (what a suprise...) America didn't want to join it after the war. And this being one of the indirect reasons for WO II.
So you're saying that WWII is America's fault? FYI, Japan attacked us, and we attacked back in defense. They took out almost all of our battleships, but fortunately, we still had our aircraft carriers.
And SS, both you and SoT are wrong in saying that it's impossible to get peace by going to war. The proof is sitting right in front of you. We fought in WWI, and WWII, and guess what? They were wars, and they ended in peace because the axis's were defeated. Right there is a perfect example of why sometimes you must fight to gain peace. There isn't any way either war could have been settled with politics, and there isn't any way the Iraq war can be either.
The reason we went to Iraq: We went to Iraq because we had strong, convicting proof that Saddam was conspiring with Iraq (even harder evidence than the evidence that there were going to be attacks on US soil by planes, i.e. 9/11). Because of this evidence, and because we were (and still are, no thanks to Democrats) looking for Osama, this was our best lead. We also had very good reason to believe he had wepons of mass destruction (you would be convinced too if someone only let you look in one place for them each time, regardless of whether or not it was a different location each time). And so, when we invaded, he fought back at us. The remainders of his army are what is attacking us still in Iraq.
That's what happened, so deal with it.
#139
Posted 09 November 2006 - 05:41 AM
Quote
That's not true.
Currently, no one knows the true reason why America went to Iraq anymore. Their reasons have changed with time.
Quote
Hm...
How can those reasons be so convicting Toasty, when later down they found no proof at all. None
That simply shows it was cooked up intelligence. All of those causes are lost now, and deemed untrue by the US and international community, if there was convicting evidence, atleast something would have been made out of it.
#140
Posted 09 November 2006 - 06:38 AM
#141
Posted 10 November 2006 - 01:23 AM
The only flawed thing about going to overthrow Saddam put a blind eye to his wealth and oil is the fact, it was already mentioned, there are so many other countries just as corrupt and messed up. If you had of chosen North Korea a year ago or whatever then I'm sure they would not have the world all worried about weapons and bombs.
#142
Posted 10 November 2006 - 04:07 AM
Eugine, on Nov 9 2006, 05:55 AM, said:
Currently, no one knows the true reason why America went to Iraq anymore. Their reasons have changed with time.
How can those reasons be so convicting Toasty, when later down they found no proof at all. None
That simply shows it was cooked up intelligence. All of those causes are lost now, and deemed untrue by the US and international community, if there was convicting evidence, atleast something would have been made out of it.
Funny how you edited out most of what I said. For all we know, and anyone else for that matter, he could have shipped them off somewhere and left someone else in charge of attacking us with them. But I highly doubt that's true. It's much more likely that he was just provokeing us into attacking him, which we did, and now he's out of power and his people are free of his rain of terror.
And Watch, you are now, yet again, assuming that we went to Iraq for oil. Sorry, but that's not true. We had been seraching for weapons there that he was possibly hiding, and since we went to the middle east to stop the terrorists, we were put right near him, so we attacked him because of the strong possibility of him haveing weapons of mass destruction, and because of the strong possibility of him conspiring with the terrorists. This meant that he might use those weapons against us, so we attacked him to keep further soldiers from being killed. Besides that, since we attacked him, his people have been freed of him. So though we didn't find any weapons, we freed many people.
And besides that, we havn't pillaged a single gallon of oil from Iraq. Otherwise our gas prices wouldn't be so high, they'd be lower than ever since we would've gotten the oil for free. That right there disproves your theory.
#143
Posted 10 November 2006 - 07:00 AM
Mr.T, on Nov 10 2006, 11:21 PM, said:
And the fact you have found no terriosts and no WMD says what? Don't start with the whole look in one place at a time thing becuase that is not true. He had weapons, that is true, but the weapons talked about by the media? Never existed.
Yes he has been removed but at the current cost of 150,000+ lives on the civilian front alone. Not to mention foreign soliders and hostage's.
#144
Posted 10 November 2006 - 07:04 AM
And how many do you think would have been lost if he stayed in power? Many, many more. At least over a longer course of time, but the end result would be worse than what we have now.
#145
Posted 10 November 2006 - 07:24 AM
I think it was this:
The Bush administration, after being hit on 9/11 and attacking the Taliban who funded Al Qaeda felt the need to have some centre of control in the gulf region from which they could continue to monitor and contain the terrorist threat. Iraq was an easy target as Saddam is your average evil disctator. I think this was a political move to make America seem less of an evil to people in the middle east in the long run, as they could use the new Iraqi government to improve their image.
Im curious though Mr T, Bush said they were going in for WMDs - so either he lied or the intelligence was wrong - either way, doesnt it mean the war was unjustified as Iraq wasnt doing what they accused it of? I very much doubt the intelligence would have been wrong, so i think they lied, and i suspect for the reason ive mentioned above.
Mind you, that reason isnt as bad as come conspiracy theories - its still not the US' right to do that though. It hasnt paid off in the end either as, finally, as a result of the elections, we're seeing that the Bush Administration didnt get away with it.
#146
Posted 10 November 2006 - 07:44 AM
#147
Posted 10 November 2006 - 09:44 AM
Mr.T, on Nov 10 2006, 04:58 PM, said:
So if that is true we can expect wars in the following countries to get the following people:
Paul Kagame Rwanda 1994–Present Vice-President of Rwanda 1994-2000; President 2000-Present. Brouhgt to power by a guerilla movement which plunged the country into bloodshed and led to the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. Responsible of the the killings of innocent civilians, women and children in Kibeho refugee camp (see [9], [10]). Responsible of the killings of 4 millions congolese (see [11]). Responsible of the killings of Priests and Archbishops in Kab***i
Robert Mugabe Zimbabwe 1980–present
Gained power through election, and repeatedly re-elected, but criticized for steps used to maintain power. From 1999 on, used police and militant groups like the War Veterans Association and Border Gezi Youth to enforce ZANU-PF policies and to prevent opponents from voting; called "king" by his aides.[17] Arrested and tortured opponents and human rights activists; gave amnesty to murderers of his political opponents in 2000; ignores court rulings.[18] Criticized as dictator by Desmond Tutu[19] and Vladimir Putin[20].
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Iran 1989-present Continues Khomeini's Islamist path & uses religion as a tool, cracks down on all authentic dissent, tortures, and has given orders that permit killings like that of Akbar Mohammadi and Zahra Kazemi. Only permitts government-organized demonstrations. Allows a multi-party government but disallows the candidacy of true moderates.
Than Shwe Myanmar (Burma) 1992–present Unelected; persecution of minorities leading 250,000 to flee; no free press
If this was the real reason, I don't think you should join the US army for a while. They've got a full program.
#148
Posted 10 November 2006 - 09:58 AM
#149
Posted 10 November 2006 - 10:29 AM
Hotshot101, on Nov 10 2006, 07:12 PM, said:
These are all real, living, in-power dictators. So it is so, see for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia....st_of_dictators
#150
Posted 10 November 2006 - 10:41 AM
#151
Posted 10 November 2006 - 12:15 PM
Hotshot101, on Nov 10 2006, 07:55 PM, said:
If the guy had them in the first place. And as the law says, everybody is innocent unless proven otherwise. As is hasn't been proven that he had WMD, he's innocent on that matter.
And please don't say that America had some good proof he had them. If they did have proof, they'd publish it, or at least show it to France or Germany. But the point is, no one knows if they did have real evidence for sure. (That was 100% reliable.)
#152
Posted 10 November 2006 - 06:06 PM
#153
Posted 10 November 2006 - 06:24 PM
Anyways, the UN weapons inspectors went into Iraq and were shown around and found that he had none. This was confirmed. And better than any intelligence the US military could have had as they werent allowed access. The British weapons inspector released a report saying that there were no weapons and then committed suicide which is another way of saying Mi5 had him shot. Im not saying Britain wasnt equally to blame in this cover up but face the facts here, they lied about WMDs - there had to be something bigger at stake.
#154
Posted 10 November 2006 - 09:05 PM
#155
Posted 11 November 2006 - 02:29 AM
#156
Posted 11 November 2006 - 06:37 AM
#160
Posted 16 December 2006 - 03:54 AM
He was also.. disturbed about how patriotic Americans are. Starting each schoolday by singing to the American flag, even when they're five year olds. He also mentioned that in some school books there was propoganda for the government.
Although he brings certain things... very radical. He is right on a lot of things.
#161
Posted 16 December 2006 - 02:51 PM
Whoever that Dutch guy is, hes a deucebag. Yes, we do the pledge of alligience at schools, but your not forced to do them (Depends on your teachers though ;)). Not all Americans believe in bossing the world around. Our GOVERNMENT does, and I have NEVER had a school book that in any way, shape, or form had propoganda for the government....except when describing communists. :(
#162
Posted 17 December 2006 - 06:38 PM
Also, we cover American History in our class, but we don't cover other country's much.
#163
Posted 17 December 2006 - 06:43 PM
Saturos Striker, on Dec 16 2006, 04:54 AM, said:
He was also.. disturbed about how patriotic Americans are. Starting each schoolday by singing to the American flag, even when they're five year olds. He also mentioned that in some school books there was propoganda for the government.
Although he brings certain things... very radical. He is right on a lot of things.
SS if you judge people by what others tell you, you won't get the entire picture. You can't just read this book and say every American is that way. For all you know the person could be lieing, just to give us a bad reputation. So for all you know that guy may have not even been in the American borders.
#164
Posted 17 December 2006 - 07:03 PM
Wind Dude, on Dec 18 2006, 11:38 AM, said:
Also, we cover American History in our class, but we don't cover other country's much.
In my 11 years of school I have only ever done Australian history once, for half a year as a minor subject.
I've covered Greece, Egyptians, Aztecs, China, Amercia, Middle Ages, 'Cave Men'. Only time I've done my own country's history was in Primary school.
#165
Posted 17 December 2006 - 07:47 PM
#166
Posted 17 December 2006 - 09:20 PM
#167
Posted 17 December 2006 - 10:32 PM
Being ignorant is a part of a bad image.
#168
Posted 18 December 2006 - 12:38 PM
Hotshot101, on Dec 18 2006, 01:43 AM, said:
He's a pretty reknown teacher throughout holland. And he's been in America allright. The book was written pretty subjective though. So it's hard to tell if those are solid facts he's presenting.
But still, in Europe America seems like a big cry baby. Allways wanting their way. The easiest example, Iraq. They go to the UN, UN says no. Germany and France call a veto. And still.. they go and invade Iraq.
But is it true then that in the southern states they start a school day by singing to the flag?
#169
Posted 18 December 2006 - 01:59 PM
#170
Posted 18 December 2006 - 02:08 PM
Saturos Striker, on Dec 18 2006, 01:38 PM, said:
But is it true then that in the southern states they start a school day by singing to the flag?
First of all, BUSH wanted to invade. At the time, people did back him due to fear of terrorism, and ate what he said. There were plenty of other people (A WHOLE LOT), that didn't support the war from Day 1. People need to stop making generalizations about Americans, and look at the big picture.
And all states start the day with the pledge (I believe), but like Platinum Sun said, you can stand silently. (Ever since that big issue with the reference to God).
#171
Posted 18 December 2006 - 03:13 PM
And for the Iraq question, I was referring to the government. I know that there are loads of people in America who don't support the war.
In fact I think the bigger part wants the war to stop and the forces to retreat. The senate elections showed that.
#172
Posted 18 December 2006 - 05:11 PM
#173
Posted 18 December 2006 - 05:16 PM
#174
Posted 18 December 2006 - 06:29 PM
#175
Posted 18 December 2006 - 07:02 PM
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, for Liberty and Justice for all.
I stand, but I don't recite the pledge. I don't because I've been doing it for the last 10 or so years that I've been in school. It's ANNOYING. My school hasn't done the pledge recently, though.
#176
Posted 18 December 2006 - 07:04 PM
#178
Posted 18 December 2006 - 07:13 PM
The school I went before was a Catholic school, and there we prayed every morning (didn't have a choice)... On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays we sang the national anthem and our school song. I didn't complain about it, I loved doing it ^^
#179
Posted 18 December 2006 - 07:13 PM
Quote
exactly. In order to really know you have to ask someone who has been there (By that I mean one of the soldiers).
#180
Posted 19 December 2006 - 12:14 AM
Hotshot101, on Dec 19 2006, 12:11 AM, said:
I'm just guessing that your a biased republican.
As for the media, they can't be that biased. The liberty of the media lets the show what they want to. The bosses of media networks have different opinions. Because if that isn't so, you've got a media monopoly, which isn't free.
#182
Posted 19 December 2006 - 08:41 AM
#183
Posted 19 December 2006 - 12:42 PM
Saturos Striker, on Dec 19 2006, 07:14 AM, said:
1. The senate elections showed that the people of the America are supporting the democrats more then the republicans. So they're bound to put the democrats in a good daylight to keep and attract viewers.
2. Everyone knows Bush does enough good things. In Europe we don't really see that face of him because the good things hardly concern us. The bad things do, so we're bound to get a more negative picture of him then the regular American.
3. Is Bush in the history books already? He probably will with the 2nd Gulf War and terrorist attacks on the WTC. And that's probably not the best way to go down in history.
#184
Posted 19 December 2006 - 02:11 PM
Hotshot101, on Dec 19 2006, 09:41 AM, said:
I'd like to quickly state that Bush really isn't in history books, mostly the 9/11 attacks are in it, they may only include him in a sentence.
As to what Hotshot said, I don't have to say much because SS pretty much summed it up. Still, i'm not gonna lie that Bush hasn't done some decent things for our country, but looking at the bigger picture here, i'd have to say America's image with the world has deteriorated more with him in office, than it was before.
#185
Posted 19 December 2006 - 05:46 PM
Saturos Striker, on Dec 18 2006, 10:14 PM, said:
As for the media, they can't be that biased. The liberty of the media lets the show what they want to. The bosses of media networks have different opinions. Because if that isn't so, you've got a media monopoly, which isn't free.
I would guess that too, but it doesn't make it any less true. The terrorist won't budge if you offer them candy, they'll only budge if you threaten to punch their lights out. Previous situations with them haas proved that. Democrats want everybody to be all lovey dovey with eachother, and they try their hardest to do it. The problem with that, is that it won't ever happen. People will always hate other people, whether they're for good reasons or bad reasons. The only way to settle disputes in this world (most of the time) is to show a little force.
#186
Posted 19 December 2006 - 07:26 PM
Showing force will only provoke them into wanting revenge. Thus, it'll be a never ending cycle of violence. Get my point?
#187
Posted 19 December 2006 - 09:37 PM
Saturos Striker, on Dec 19 2006, 01:42 PM, said:
2. Everyone knows Bush does enough good things. In Europe we don't really see that face of him because the good things hardly concern us. The bad things do, so we're bound to get a more negative picture of him then the regular American.
3. Is Bush in the history books already? He probably will with the 2nd Gulf War and terrorist attacks on the WTC. And that's probably not the best way to go down in history.
1. they do because the republicans didn't even vote
2. yes he does. you should believe the negative picture. Europeans must be more libral then some Americans except they have some spine.
3. I was talking about the story with Regan. Bush ain't in the history books just yet.
as for GD yes I would say its hard to eliminate terrorists (stupid jihadists), but we can't sit back and do nothing can we? If do nothing we will just get bombed until where all dead. We can't negotiate are way out of this so scratch off the American left's way. We have to fight back. Although we can't just go zooming all threw out the world either.
#188
Posted 20 December 2006 - 02:04 PM
#189
Posted 20 December 2006 - 03:02 PM
#190
Posted 20 December 2006 - 03:26 PM
#191
Posted 21 December 2006 - 10:30 AM
Golden Djinn13, on Dec 20 2006, 03:04 PM, said:
Dude there has been mabye 3,000 killed in the war. Compare that to the tens of MILLIONS KILLED IN WWI and WWII and those presidents where democratic. They saw the light so why don't you? Owned
#193
Posted 21 December 2006 - 01:59 PM
#194
Posted 21 December 2006 - 02:05 PM
#195
Posted 21 December 2006 - 02:06 PM
#196
Posted 21 December 2006 - 02:12 PM
The World Wars actually concerned the protection of a country. Now America is invading Iraq, like Germany did with Europe. This war wasn't necesary, maybe if they did have nuclear weapons, but this has been discussed in the Iraq War topic.
#197
Posted 21 December 2006 - 06:07 PM
#198
Posted 21 December 2006 - 06:15 PM
#199
Posted 21 December 2006 - 08:17 PM
#200
Posted 21 December 2006 - 09:46 PM