FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Are Americans stupid?





polis
Don't get me wrong, thats the topic on youtube.

just watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

Note: 20% of Americans can't find their own country in a world map.
ThePolemistis
loll... although ive seen it before... it always makes me laugh.

Another great one is Are British stupid?
check it out here.

However, its not as bad as the American one. The British do get asked tougher questions Razz
mjohnson
lol.American peoples is humorous and not stupid,I think so.
LimpFish
Haha well, I don't think americans are more stupid than the general person, but I do however think that they dont care about the world outside of the US as much as we do here in Europe for instance. I have a lot of american friends and Ive come to the same conclusion with them. I dont know why this is really, but I can speak for myself and say that I kinda take a little pride in knowin as much as I can about the world, where countries are and a little about them, to me that stuff is important.
MARCIV
I saw a pool where 10% of american people believed they have a common border whith IRAK .....

without comment Rolling Eyes
Tim Graham
Given some of the spelling errors in this thread it would appear that it's not only Americans that are stupid (that's a joke by the way).

Ah yes..that was from CNNNN - chances are that you've heard of the people behind that video clip since they went on to produce the Chaser's War on Everything - they were the ones that breached APEC security in a faux-Canadian limousine. I understand that caused quite a stir on various American news programs..

Here's the actual footage from the show - quite compelling, hilarious, viewing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAPLpHyBrlg
fourx
Americans have the highest rate of Church attendence, and the lowest rate of passport ownership of any Western country- now there's food for thought... Rolling Eyes
Moonspider
fourx wrote:
Americans have the highest rate of Church attendence, and the lowest rate of passport ownership of any Western country- now there's food for thought... Rolling Eyes


I don't see the correlation.

However, I would see the correlation between land mass and passport ownership among western countries. Texas alone is larger than most Western countries. Furthermore, the U.S. shares contiguous borders with only two countries. And up until October 1, 2007, no passport was required to enter either from the United States.

Respectfully,
M
GSIS
I think the reality of those videos is that they ask hundreds of people the same questions - then throw away the sensible, accurate responses to leave a false impression.

I don't think that Americans are significantly more or less stupid than any other nation.
watersoul
I agree,

you'll find people who don't know so much in any nation, there's just more of them in a country of 300 million. As far as their general world knowledge goes, America has states even bigger and more populous than my own country, so I'm not surprised people know more about neighbouring states than the rest of the world!

People are people everywhere, they're just labelled from where they were born.

...the film did make me laugh though, and also the British one Laughing
polis
Yes, there are stupid people everywhere, but can't tell of a country that 20% of it's population doesn't know where they are on the map.

My favourites:
"Kentucky Fried Chiken right?" and "Cofee in what?"

Hahaha
coolclay
And you guys don't think people give stupid answers on purpose, when I was a kid in high school, we would get surveys, some kids would just put down all kinds of crap just to mess the surveys up. I am sure people do it on these surveys too.
patasarriba
Moonspider wrote:
fourx wrote:
Americans have the highest rate of Church attendence, and the lowest rate of passport ownership of any Western country- now there's food for thought... Rolling Eyes


I don't see the correlation.

However, I would see the correlation between land mass and passport ownership among western countries. Texas alone is larger than most Western countries. Furthermore, the U.S. shares contiguous borders with only two countries. And up until October 1, 2007, no passport was required to enter either from the United States.

Respectfully,
M


This is very true.

I'm not sure Americans really are so much dumber than everyone else, but they're undoubtedly more ignorant.
pampoon
Wow. I seriously hope to think that they did try to leave a bad impression about America. I know none of us are really that stupid where I live. It's a little embarrassing to see those things that make fun of us.

We really aren't that stupid. Sure, some of us are pretty dumb, but that's a very small minority. And with today's new education, that percentage of stupidity will surely decrease. I remember that all though high school I was made sure of that I could use a map and find key places on it.

Everyone's ignorant. It's the people who are more ignorant than others that appear "stupid"...

God bless Cool ,
Pampoon
smarter
The question is stupid!

There's no correlation between stupidity and nationality. I've never been to America but traveled extensively around Europe. The man in the street is ignorant (and probably not very bright Very Happy ) anywhere.

Indeed it's possible that Americans as a whole are more self-centered and ignorant than other nations. This is because of their education system. But those video clips on YouTube are intended to make fun of and bash the Americans.

You can make such a "funny video" in a couple of hours anywhere in the world. People find these videos entertaining because they see other people even more "confused" than them.
otiscom
Perhaps a little naive because they live in such a vast country they don't travel abroad much so they dont see other cultures and people.

So they tend to believe only what is told them by their own peers.
GSIS
otiscom wrote:

So they tend to believe only what is told them by their own peers.


I think we're all guilty of that, to some extent.

More importantly, I think, there has been a tendency for people to believe what they are told by their elected (or un-elected) governments, news services etc. This has led to a situation where governments do as they want - and not what their election promises stated they would do.

In the UK people are beginning to realise that government officials are rarely trustworthy - especially over matters of international policy and security. Hopefully the same is happening in the US although the size of that country does, undoubtedly, slow things down as news coverage tends to be more focussed on the US - international news content being reduced and, to some extent, filtered to gain viewers/readership.

Sadly "all quiet in the Middle East" doesn't generate interest whereas ""Iraq sponsors Al-Qaeda. Iran wants to nuke Israel" certainly does.

The "Americans are stupid" videos are simply manipulative nonsense. I think it's more accurate to say that, as with so many other countries, "Americans are misled."
edzofcit
Based on the Video, I don't think americans are that stupid. They just didn't care about what's with the outside world. All they've cared is their greatness. They just think they're the best, all others were just merely a puppet that do whatever they did.

They're so powerful that they can have an authority to WAR IRAQ for an unproven reason. They can even let that country be wiped out if they wanted to. UN can't surely block them, They're the best. Crying or Very sad
coolclay
Quote:
They're the best.

Well at least someone realizes it, finally. Laughing
polis
coolclay wrote:
Quote:
They're the best.

Well at least someone realizes it, finally. Laughing


Yeah, even though 1 out of 5 of them can't find their own country on the map. Razz
pacslim
if i see the family bush i would say yes but im not so prejudgemental to generalize a whole part of the world and say all of em are .. Rolling Eyes .. lol Arrow
riyadh
well need i say anything?i think it speak for itself.either that or americans are really self centered (no doubt about tht) and they are just plain imbeciles who just can't seem to be able to see the world living in peace.
Soulfire
Ignorant, yes, but stupid ... I don't think so.

The problem is that the sample source isn't all too great. And to be honest, the reason people don't know what's going on, where their country is, etc. is because they honestly do not care.

Apathy is the death of democracy, and it's coming at us like a train.
Moonspider
polis wrote:
Don't get me wrong, thats the topic on youtube.

just watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

Note: 20% of Americans can't find their own country in a world map.


As others have said, its just a joke, whether it be Americans or Brits, YouTube or Leno. It has no statistical meaning and therefore no real relevance except for its value as humor.

Respectfully
M
LumberJack
Its a TV show. Besides I am not sure if anyone took it seriously.
Tim Graham
It's by the Chaser..and Australian comedy group with a show on the national public broadcaster (the Australian Broadcasting Corporation). National public broadcaster means no ads, which means editorial independence, which means they can do almost whatever they like.

Like I said above, they were the group that got all the attention because of their APEC motorcade stunt.

I don't think all Americans are stupid at all, but I think what most people find interesting about this video is that even in the 'biggest and best' country in terms of wealth, military power, etc. there are people who seem to know very little about what lies outside their own backyard. There are chav/bogan/whatever-you-call-them-in-your-country contingents everywhere.

And you'll probably find that most people have no problem with Americans anyway..polls taken (at least in Australia) show that we don't dislike Americans, it's the government, foreign policy, and in particular Bush.
Ucbet
The chaser are legends !!! Funny as hell, not because of this "stupid American clip, but you guys should really check out their other clip !!
riv_
I love the responses to, "How many sides in a triangle?"

Honestly though, I can't help but think they "prime" the inteviewees with a series of confusing questions beforehand. How could they find that many people who are that stupid?
fourx
[quote="Tim Grahamand ....""Australian comedy group with a show on the national public broadcaster (the Australian Broadcasting Corporation). National public broadcaster means no ads, which means editorial independence.[/quote]
Indepenendence?
You have to be joking.... Very Happy The MEAA, which pulls the strings on almost every aspect of the ABC is two kilometers to the left of Stalin's left tit..and at least 70% of the journalists, presenters, producers and commentators ( not at all surprising from an organisation formed by Sir Charles Moses Exclamation ) are Jewish, of course...which makes for a very strange slant indeed on any story involveing Zionism ( or Pratt and Visy, or Adler, or Vizard, or ...etc, etc).
I'm an avid ABC consumer, radio and TV, but unbiased it ain't.
Tim Graham
Editorial independence and bias are somewhat seperate things, despite Howard's best efforts (Albrechtsen, Windschuttle, et al). The MEAA is toothless, and what makes you think they're Jewish at all? As for the Zionist tilt thing - the place is monitored to within an inch of it's life.. In addition to the fun, I mean bias, police, you of course have senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and her band of merry supporters in the Liberal Party room neurotically taking note of every perceived twitch to the left..
unique
lol, all the countries are in australia and they really didn't remark? omg
fourx
Tim...Romona Koval, Norman Swan, Louise Adler, Caroline Baum, Robin Williams, Elle McFeast ( who's real name I can't remember), Andrew Denton....I could go on, but the Radio National death-rays ( from the Left speaker, of course) appear to have sparked a Senior Moment. Shocked
I'm not knocking talent- it's just that a few Hussains and the like would be nice, to balance thigs up.
Pass me that tinfoil helmet....
Molle
Many people here look at americans as simply stupid, and some very fat people. I have heard lots of amazing storys from the US, that are so stupid it is hard to believe. I know many of you are... not that stupid, but but. I do not really know.
Bru, stuffce
You do have to wonder about a country that reelected George Bush, though. 90% of the rest of the world saw that he was an idiot before he was elected, but it took most Americans until his second term, and some still think he's smart now!
LimpFish
sayin that having the opinion that George Bush is not an idiot is being stupid, is just clarifying to everyone else that you yourself are really stupid. but you did that really good though! well done!
Flakky
ThePolemistis wrote:
loll... although ive seen it before... it always makes me laugh.

Another great one is Are British stupid?
check it out here.

However, its not as bad as the American one. The British do get asked tougher questions Razz


Nice video's, I liked both of them Smile This will definately proof that however the global average is very low... Except for the Dutch people Rolling Eyes .
Tim Graham
LimpFish wrote:
sayin that having the opinion that George Bush is not an idiot is being stupid, is just clarifying to everyone else that you yourself are really stupid.
Ce ne pas?

Not everything to have come out of Bush and Co. is stupid, just the majority of it. For instance, when you actually think about it the known knowns/unknown knowns/unknown unknowns/known unkowns is quite profound.
liljp617
Hate to break it to people, but there are more important issues on the table in front of us outside of "determining" which nation is the dumbest or which nation doesn't know geography. We have a world that is being destroyed because of EVERYONE'S stupidity, ignorance, and naive feelings. The WORLD is on the brink of a war between numerous nations. To sit there and insult a nation based on their geography knowledge when it was taken in their first year of high school is sheer stupidity and manipulation. I would think people would be smart enough to realize that. I think it's funny that people from other nations sit there and act superior when 60% of their general population doesn't believe evolution exists and 40% doesn't believe global warming is an issue. Who's dumb? Everyone. Can point all the fingers you want, but we're all in the same boat. Knowing where your country is on a map isn't gonna stop the polar caps from melting or stop the unbelievable mass extinction of all species that has been going on for years. Everyone is dumb, simply because nobody has their priorities straight...
access-tutor
I don't think that Americans are more or less stupid than any other nation.In each world region peope makin jokes about neigbord nations.
bogger
The french/germans/ luxembourgers/ dutch slag the Belgians
belgians slag the Irish
The irish people slag each the USA
And the usa slags canada
Which slags the usa, thus ending my lovely little circle of insultion.


It's all personal opinion really, no way to discuss it properly
Flakky
bogger wrote:
The french/germans/ luxembourgers/ dutch slag the Belgians
belgians slag the Irish
The irish people slag each the USA
And the usa slags canada
Which slags the usa, thus ending my lovely little circle of insultion.


It's all personal opinion really, no way to discuss it properly
Good point, we should slag everyone and make no exception just not to discriminate a certain group Very Happy
Soltair
Honestly, I don't think it's only Americans who are stupid but a lot of people around the world. Actually, I think that if you asked people to point their country on a map, not much would be able to answer, and even less if it was another country than their own.

So really I think it's a problem with the "general culture" of people, which is really low nowadays.
Tim Graham
I sincerely hope that most people in Australia can point to their countrie on a map..
polis
Quote:
Hate to break it to people, but there are more important issues on the table in front of us outside of "determining" which nation is the dumbest or which nation doesn't know geography. We have a world that is being destroyed because of EVERYONE'S stupidity, ignorance, and naive feelings. The WORLD is on the brink of a war between numerous nations. To sit there and insult a nation based on their geography knowledge when it was taken in their first year of high school is sheer stupidity and manipulation. I would think people would be smart enough to realize that. I think it's funny that people from other nations sit there and act superior when 60% of their general population doesn't believe evolution exists and 40% doesn't believe global warming is an issue. Who's dumb? Everyone. Can point all the fingers you want, but we're all in the same boat. Knowing where your country is on a map isn't gonna stop the polar caps from melting or stop the unbelievable mass extinction of all species that has been going on for years. Everyone is dumb, simply because nobody has their priorities straight...


Who started the Iraq war?

Soltair wrote:
Honestly, I don't think it's only Americans who are stupid but a lot of people around the world. Actually, I think that if you asked people to point their country on a map, not much would be able to answer, and even less if it was another country than their own.

So really I think it's a problem with the "general culture" of people, which is really low nowadays.


You see....your problem is that you think everyone is like the USA, if not, they are "barbarians".

In my country, every single person could point his/her own country in a worldmap since they are about 12 years old.[/quote]
ocalhoun
^As much fun as it would be to prove you wrong on that, we'd have to know what country that is first.

I would doubt some of the claims here, except I've seen similar stupidity. My favorite example was on a game show: The contestant was being offered a large sum of money to be able to answer this question: "What country is to the North of the USA?" The contestant could not answer it! She didn't know! And this is somebody who lives in the USA. She eventually guessed "Mexico". (In case someone reads this and is similarly geographically challenged, the answer is Canada)

Knowing that many (if not most) people are utter morons can be very useful, and explains many things, though.
liljp617
polis wrote:
Quote:
Hate to break it to people, but there are more important issues on the table in front of us outside of "determining" which nation is the dumbest or which nation doesn't know geography. We have a world that is being destroyed because of EVERYONE'S stupidity, ignorance, and naive feelings. The WORLD is on the brink of a war between numerous nations. To sit there and insult a nation based on their geography knowledge when it was taken in their first year of high school is sheer stupidity and manipulation. I would think people would be smart enough to realize that. I think it's funny that people from other nations sit there and act superior when 60% of their general population doesn't believe evolution exists and 40% doesn't believe global warming is an issue. Who's dumb? Everyone. Can point all the fingers you want, but we're all in the same boat. Knowing where your country is on a map isn't gonna stop the polar caps from melting or stop the unbelievable mass extinction of all species that has been going on for years. Everyone is dumb, simply because nobody has their priorities straight...


Who started the Iraq war?

Soltair wrote:
Honestly, I don't think it's only Americans who are stupid but a lot of people around the world. Actually, I think that if you asked people to point their country on a map, not much would be able to answer, and even less if it was another country than their own.

So really I think it's a problem with the "general culture" of people, which is really low nowadays.


You see....your problem is that you think everyone is like the USA, if not, they are "barbarians".

In my country, every single person could point his/her own country in a worldmap since they are about 12 years old.
[/quote]

The Bush Administration started it. If you want to fault them for that, I'll happily join you. Blaming the American public for it is absurd. They were constantly lied to and fed misinformation from the media/government in an attempt to gain support for the war. The country had just been attacked by terrorists (9/11); the government used that as a backdrop to gain support and push forth the idea that we must fight back. Blame the entire country all you want, but there is no present or past superpower/empire in the history of the world that didn't fight less than a few bad wars. If you're too blinded by pride for your country to see that, I don't know what to tell you (no I'm not defending the choice to invade Iraq). And honestly, living seven years in the past is useless. It's not a matter of who started it at this point. The fact of the matter is the world, yes the world, is on the brink of a war. It is not a war between two nations; it is a war between Muslim fundamentalists and the world. They want the entire western world wiped out and their main goal in all of this is to have a caliphate type of government that rules over the entire world...it honestly is not directed specifically at the US. If you think it is, then you need to educated yourself on a jihadist's true mission (it's not to blow everything in site up as is often portrayed). The world is in the war, whether they want to be or not. The world can fix the issue, or they can sit back and point fingers like they're better.

There's also the issue that you're basing 300+ million people on one President's 7 year term. If that's not ignorant and insane logic, I don't know what is. There's a reason the US's universities rank as some of the highest in the world. There's a reason why millions of foreigners come here every year on educational visas to go to college here. There's a reason why a huge amount of the new vaccines/cures/surgeries for every field of health and medicine are developed here. I'm pretty sure it's not cause every American is stupid and doesn't know where their country is.

The point still stands that there are more important issues than where your country is on a map. Again, if you (or anyone) thinks that a lack of geography skills is at the top of any list, the priorities are wrong.

In response to your reply to the other person's post: I don't really understand your path of logic there. It seems you took that one and twisted it completely to fit your argument. For one, the poster is from Canada, so you painting him as a naive American is fairly dumb. For two, he never said the USA was any better than any country. Three, where was the mention of barbarians? Perhaps that's your view? Four, THERE ARE dumb/ignorant people EVERYWHERE...IN EVERY COUNTRY. Making some general, silly statement that every single person in your country could point out their country on a map is a quite terrible argument. I'm pretty sure anybody could find dumb people in any country who have a lack of geographical education. Of course you won't agree, because you seem to be overly proud of your country...and Americans have too much hubris? -.-

ocalhoun wrote:
^As much fun as it would be to prove you wrong on that, we'd have to know what country that is first.

I would doubt some of the claims here, except I've seen similar stupidity. My favorite example was on a game show: The contestant was being offered a large sum of money to be able to answer this question: "What country is to the North of the USA?" The contestant could not answer it! She didn't know! And this is somebody who lives in the USA. She eventually guessed "Mexico". (In case someone reads this and is similarly geographically challenged, the answer is Canada)

Knowing that many (if not most) people are utter morons can be very useful, and explains many things, though.

Assuming you're talking about the show on Fox (Smarter than a 5th grader or whatever): Take into account that that show is completely, 100% scripted/staged. Not a single kid on that show has ever missed a question and the adults are wrong the vast majority of the time. It's a show created to pull in money and nothing more. You can't actually take information away from it and use it logically in an argument...the evidence from that show is completely irrelevant and wrong.
polis
liljp617 wrote:

The Bush Administration started it. If you want to fault them for that, I'll happily join you. Blaming the American public for it is absurd. They were constantly lied to and fed misinformation from the media/government in an attempt to gain support for the war. The country had just been attacked by terrorists (9/11); the government used that as a backdrop to gain support and push forth the idea that we must fight back. Blame the entire country all you want, but there is no present or past superpower/empire in the history of the world that didn't fight less than a few bad wars. If you're too blinded by pride for your country to see that, I don't know what to tell you (no I'm not defending the choice to invade Iraq). And honestly, living seven years in the past is useless. It's not a matter of who started it at this point. The fact of the matter is the world, yes the world, is on the brink of a war. It is not a war between two nations; it is a war between Muslim fundamentalists and the world. They want the entire western world wiped out and their main goal in all of this is to have a caliphate type of government that rules over the entire world...it honestly is not directed specifically at the US. If you think it is, then you need to educated yourself on a jihadist's true mission (it's not to blow everything in site up as is often portrayed). The world is in the war, whether they want to be or not. The world can fix the issue, or they can sit back and point fingers like they're better.

There's also the issue that you're basing 300+ million people on one President's 7 year term. If that's not ignorant and insane logic, I don't know what is. There's a reason the US's universities rank as some of the highest in the world. There's a reason why millions of foreigners come here every year on educational visas to go to college here. There's a reason why a huge amount of the new vaccines/cures/surgeries for every field of health and medicine are developed here. I'm pretty sure it's not cause every American is stupid and doesn't know where their country is.

The point still stands that there are more important issues than where your country is on a map. Again, if you (or anyone) thinks that a lack of geography skills is at the top of any list, the priorities are wrong.


And who elected "The Bush Administration"?..........-twice-
liljp617
polis wrote:
liljp617 wrote:

The Bush Administration started it. If you want to fault them for that, I'll happily join you. Blaming the American public for it is absurd. They were constantly lied to and fed misinformation from the media/government in an attempt to gain support for the war. The country had just been attacked by terrorists (9/11); the government used that as a backdrop to gain support and push forth the idea that we must fight back. Blame the entire country all you want, but there is no present or past superpower/empire in the history of the world that didn't fight less than a few bad wars. If you're too blinded by pride for your country to see that, I don't know what to tell you (no I'm not defending the choice to invade Iraq). And honestly, living seven years in the past is useless. It's not a matter of who started it at this point. The fact of the matter is the world, yes the world, is on the brink of a war. It is not a war between two nations; it is a war between Muslim fundamentalists and the world. They want the entire western world wiped out and their main goal in all of this is to have a caliphate type of government that rules over the entire world...it honestly is not directed specifically at the US. If you think it is, then you need to educated yourself on a jihadist's true mission (it's not to blow everything in site up as is often portrayed). The world is in the war, whether they want to be or not. The world can fix the issue, or they can sit back and point fingers like they're better.

There's also the issue that you're basing 300+ million people on one President's 7 year term. If that's not ignorant and insane logic, I don't know what is. There's a reason the US's universities rank as some of the highest in the world. There's a reason why millions of foreigners come here every year on educational visas to go to college here. There's a reason why a huge amount of the new vaccines/cures/surgeries for every field of health and medicine are developed here. I'm pretty sure it's not cause every American is stupid and doesn't know where their country is.

The point still stands that there are more important issues than where your country is on a map. Again, if you (or anyone) thinks that a lack of geography skills is at the top of any list, the priorities are wrong.


And who elected "The Bush Administration"?..........-twice-

Not me. And still living in the past. It's something that can't be changed. If you refuse to look at the present, at the situation in front of everybody (not just the US), then I can no longer have this discussion. You're just skimming over my posts with the intentions of finding some loophole so you can make some smartass comment about anything.
Billy Hill
polis wrote:
Note: 20% of Americans can't find their own country in a world map.


40% of humans cannot read a map. What's your point? Rolling Eyes
polis
Billy Hill wrote:
polis wrote:
Note: 20% of Americans can't find their own country in a world map.


40% of humans cannot read a map. What's your point? Rolling Eyes


LOL, what you're saying makes no sense at all.
Billy Hill
polis wrote:
Billy Hill wrote:
polis wrote:
Note: 20% of Americans can't find their own country in a world map.


40% of humans cannot read a map. What's your point? Rolling Eyes


LOL, what you're saying makes no sense at all.


It figures. Rolling Eyes Can YOU read a map? Cuz you're having a hard time reading english. Wink
quex
I'm American (Statian), and I have to agree we're pretty dumb. We weren't always this way, though... my elder relatives learned all manner of interesting things by the time they left high school, like every national capital, the succession of the British monarchy back into the 1700s, Latin (and not by choice), the chance-percentage table for a game of craps up to the third round, etc. With the exception of the craps tables, these things were in the national curriculum. When I went through high school, we only learned US history (and a large section on the USSR), with a digression here and there to cover our allies in World War II. Latin wasn't offered. The only kids who could find any Asian, African, or South American nations on the map were the ones with ethnic background in those countries, or the ones taking Spanish to fulfill their one-year language requirement. I'd like to think that I fixed all that in college, but the truth is, even my general courses there didn't present a lot of the basic material that students in Europe or Asia have already memorized regarding the world, history, and languages. It wasn't that we were expected to have known it, either -- it was simply never made necessary.

So, I wonder... is this lack of information the result of a nationalistic preoccupation, "we don't learn the world because we only focus on America in our culture," or is it rather a paring down of the curriculum to adjust for the actual abilities of the modern American student? Is American culture predisposed to allow ignorance of the world at large, or are Americans simply too dumb to keep up?

Either way, it's funny to note that in almost every primetime drama on US television, if a character is supposed to be "smart," he or she is often played with a British accent. Really.

;_; I dislike my nation's averages.
quex
Yay geographic knowledge insufficiency.

But I still think it's worse in America... so many folks can't even name the states bordering their own.
horseatingweeds
I’ve found that in general, stupid people assume everyone else is stupid, especially people or ideas that are complex or different.

If you think that Americans are, in general, stupid; you must also believe that God really is on their side.

With regard to geography, the thing about America, if you’ve ever been there, anything and everything you could ever want or need is usually right there. People can easily live their entire lives, lacking nothing, without traveling over a sea, ocean, large river, or national beerier. The average American doesn’t need to know much Geography.

The US developed usable antibiotics, plastics, and a million other things. I wouldn’t call them stupid, especially if I lived in one of the European countries – France – that has been bailed out numerous times over the past 100 years by them.

Anyway, if it makes you feel better to bash the US, go ahead. According to American values you have that right. Millions of those silly bastards had sacrificed to ensure those rights to Americans and its allies.

One other quick thing: Americans do care what goes on outside their country and the ramifications of their actions. You might disagree with US policies and ways they have handled threats, but you can’t ignore the American spirit. The fact that every person is not ‘free’ and does not have access to such things as clean water, air, and food simply appalls them. They call such things human rights. There’s even talk of medical insurance being a human ‘right.’

Personally, I like that idea, stupid or not.
Moonspider
I know this was all in fun (although many seem to take such silly videos as seriously as they do statistics), but I must at this point quote from the classic novel, "A Study in Scarlet."

Most people here would probably agree that Sherlock Holmes is arguably one of the most intelligent characters in literature. Yet he too would be ignorant of most of the facts used here to support the stupidity of Americans.

Watson and Holmes in A Study in Scarlet wrote:
His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge. Of contemporary literature, philosophy and politics he appeared to know next to nothing. Upon my quoting Thomas Carlyle, he inquired in the naivest way who he might be and what he had done. My surprise reached a climax, however, when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the Solar System. That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to be to me such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it. Watson, describing Holmes in "A Study in Scarlet"

"What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently; "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work." Sherlock Holmes, in "A Study in Scarlet"

"You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that a little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones." Sherlock Holmes, in "A Study in Scarlet"


Holmes would argue that "useless" facts are anything unrelated to your particular work. Thus general knowledge (except for that which helps you in your occupation), according to Doyle's famous detective, is a waste of brain space.

In fact, once Watson briefly educated Holmes on the Solar System, Holmes vowed to forget it as soon as possible!

Very Happy

Respectfully,
M
TomGrey
Good job, Moon, I was about to mention that.

Stupidity is very different than ignorance. Ignorance is not knowing some, or many, "facts", as compared to a less ignorant person. Like that of city folk stranded in a rural area for a while, and not knowing some of the basic things children who live there know.

Stupidity is, essentially, the making of "bad decisions" while having the same facts as those who make good decisions. Like deciding to call in sick when you want to sleep longer -- every day for a week (as compared to maybe once a year).

The silly Bush hatred about Iraq is particularly funny -- what war? In America, only Congress can "declare war". And it hasn't done so since Dec 7, 1941 ... ok, since Dec 10 and thru WW II.
Korea? Police action, not really a war. Vietnam? same. Desert Storm in 91? not quite a "war", because it was in support of a UN SC resolution (660 it's on the UN site), followed by a cease-fire, with conditions that Iraq needed to comply with.
And, as documented here http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline.htm, refused to comply with.

So America's military involvement in Iraq begins in 1990, after Saddam invaded Kuwait ... and it didn't end in 1998 when Pres. Clinton made "regime change" the US official policy, nor did it end when Congress in 2002 (in Oct, before Nov elections and under threat of losing to voters wanting an end to terrorism) voted to authorize force, nor did it end when Saddam ran away, was caught, tried and executed. Whatever the fighting is, it's not over yet.

But it's getting close -- and maybe even by next year Iraq will be looking a heck of a lot better than Congo (where the UN has been so active, especially trading food for young girl sex), or Zimbabwe (where anti-American economic policies have turned former food exporter into a humanitarian basket case), or Darfur (where Bush says genocide is occurring, but the UN says no ...).

Of course, I doubt if any of the commenters who laugh at Bush on the Iraq war (what else to call it? but is it, really?) have actually read the 16 UN SC resolutions.

It's so much easier to think Bush, an MBA graduate, is stupid -- while remaining ignorant.

Just like most Americans, mostly out of laziness, don't bother learning about other unimportant countries.

How much do you know about Burkina Faso? Why should you, or I, or most folk, care?
Billy Hill
TomGrey wrote:


...

The silly Bush hatred about Iraq is particularly funny -- what war? In America, only Congress can "declare war". And it hasn't done so since Dec 7, 1941 ... ok, since Dec 10 and thru WW II.

...


But it's getting close -- and maybe even by next year Iraq will be looking a heck of a lot better than Congo (where the UN has been so active, especially trading food for young girl sex), or Zimbabwe (where anti-American economic policies have turned former food exporter into a humanitarian basket case), or Darfur (where Bush says genocide is occurring, but the UN says no ...).

Of course, I doubt if any of the commenters who laugh at Bush on the Iraq war (what else to call it? but is it, really?) have actually read the 16 UN SC resolutions.

It's so much easier to think Bush, an MBA graduate, is stupid -- while remaining ignorant.

...


Brilliant. Very Happy

Very good points about Iraq and Bush. Points that will (and have) gone completely ignored by many here.
vineeth
Why Americans? In a local news paper, I read that about 40% of Europeans believes that the Everest is in Europe !
liljp617
TomGrey wrote:
Of course, I doubt if any of the commenters who laugh at Bush on the Iraq war (what else to call it? but is it, really?) have actually read the 16 UN SC resolutions.

It's so much easier to think Bush, an MBA graduate, is stupid -- while remaining ignorant.

I doubt he's read it either...

It's funny to defend him on the propaganda he spread to get support for Iraq considering he's doing the exact same thing at this moment with Iran. There's a trend. They declared the Iran regime a terrorist group. Now they've set their sights on keeping Iran from getting weapons of mass destruction. I think I've seen this movie before...it doesn't end that good.

Don't try to tell me a degree means somebody is smart. He got into Yale because of his families background. He graduated with C's. His ignorance (or lack of use) of history is reprehensible. His stubbornness destroys any bit of intelligence he has. His inability to get over the fact that god doesn't talk to him destroys any bit of intelligence he has. This idea that he has some intellectual type of thinking that no one else can acquire allows him to brainwash himself into thinking pure bullshit is true. He's a lying, ignorant, stubborn man in the most powerful position in the world. He used 9/11 as a backdrop to gain support for Iraq and now he's using it to gain support to invade Iran. The "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality just shows he's ignorant and...well, I don't like to say it, but stupid. It's not how you run foreign policy or diplomacy.

And I know he's not the only one to blame, because the entire administration is corrupt and full of crap, but don't tell me his intelligence comes through in his decisions. I don't care how smart he is outside of the presidency or how much he reads outside of the office. Means nothing to me. Simple fact of the matter is his ignorance of the Middle East, ignorance of how diplomacy is supposed to work, and pure stubbornness to admit he made some mistakes along the way has led us into one of the shittiest positions we've ever been in since the US was founded.
Moonspider
liljp617 wrote:
TomGrey wrote:
Of course, I doubt if any of the commenters who laugh at Bush on the Iraq war (what else to call it? but is it, really?) have actually read the 16 UN SC resolutions.

It's so much easier to think Bush, an MBA graduate, is stupid -- while remaining ignorant.

I doubt he's read it either...

It's funny to defend him on the propaganda he spread to get support for Iraq considering he's doing the exact same thing at this moment with Iran. There's a trend. They declared the Iran regime a terrorist group. Now they've set their sights on keeping Iran from getting weapons of mass destruction. I think I've seen this movie before...it doesn't end that good.

Don't try to tell me a degree means somebody is smart. He got into Yale because of his families background. He graduated with C's. His ignorance (or lack of use) of history is reprehensible. His stubbornness destroys any bit of intelligence he has. His inability to get over the fact that god doesn't talk to him destroys any bit of intelligence he has. This idea that he has some intellectual type of thinking that no one else can acquire allows him to brainwash himself into thinking pure bullshit is true. He's a lying, ignorant, stubborn man in the most powerful position in the world. He used 9/11 as a backdrop to gain support for Iraq and now he's using it to gain support to invade Iran. The "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality just shows he's ignorant and...well, I don't like to say it, but stupid. It's not how you run foreign policy or diplomacy.

And I know he's not the only one to blame, because the entire administration is corrupt and full of crap, but don't tell me his intelligence comes through in his decisions. I don't care how smart he is outside of the presidency or how much he reads outside of the office. Means nothing to me. Simple fact of the matter is his ignorance of the Middle East, ignorance of how diplomacy is supposed to work, and pure stubbornness to admit he made some mistakes along the way has led us into one of the shittiest positions we've ever been in since the US was founded.


Really? We're in a worse position now as a country than we were in 1812? 1861? 1929? 1941? I find that truly hard to believe. In fact, I find entirely unsupportable.

And there's nothing wrong with being stubborn. Look at Lincoln. He had more problems with domestic support than Bush (or any other president) could ever imagine. And Lincoln was prosecuting the most unpopular war in U.S. history. He stuck to his position and I think the United States is better off for it. Perhaps you would have voted for McClellan in 1864, but I would have voted for Lincoln.

Respectfully,
M
ThePolemistis
MoonSpider wrote:

Really? We're in a worse position now as a country than we were in 1812? 1861? 1929? 1941? I find that truly hard to believe. In fact, I find entirely unsupportable.

And there's nothing wrong with being stubborn. Look at Lincoln. He had more problems with domestic support than Bush (or any other president) could ever imagine. And Lincoln was prosecuting the most unpopular war in U.S. history. He stuck to his position and I think the United States is better off for it. Perhaps you would have voted for McClellan in 1864, but I would have voted for Lincoln.


The most unpopular war to Americans may have been that of 1812. And then perhaps Vietnam.
But as every day goes by, and the news of a American death in Iraq or Afghanistan, operation enduring freedom, is slowly becoming unpopular.
But it doesnt matter if its unpopular to the people, it matters on the damage its done to America.

Yes, the American ppl may still love Bush, and if it had been possible, may have voted him for third time (thank god he cant run again Razz).
But, we are living in a global society, a small world full of International Press and Opinions. America has become the most hated nation ever on this Earth. No one loves America anymore. America is seen as the worlds biggest bully and noone nation in the entire histroy books, has been hated so much.
WHo is americas best friend? Britain? France? Germany? Russia? Rest of Euorpe? No. The whole of Middle east (including Israel)? No. Africa? China? India? No, No, and No!
The only friend u may have is at most Japan (and u should be thankful for that, cus I do not know how a nations people can forgive when u completely destroyed their country thru 2 nuclear bombs). But every other major power and relevant nation hates you.

and now look at your economy. Look at how much the war costs u. u r wasting over a billion a week in Iraq which could go towards improving the lives of ur own citzzens. The American economy is on the verge of collapse. The American people r up to their eyeballs in debt, and yet u think u can fix Iraqs problems when u cannot even fix ur own.
horseatingweeds
Are you ok over there ThePolemistis? Let me help you out a bit. First, I don’t think the world hates the US, it is more so frustrated and fearful that her policies have not gone smooth in an age were we’ve all gotten used to the US as being powerhouse of competence. I suppose you can’t blame anyone for it, not even Bush.

The country has finally been forced to face her enemy. Not “terrorism;” Fascist Islamic fundamentalists. This enemy fights in an old way but on a grand world wide scale using viral recruiting.

As for being the most hated country in history, that is just silly: Nazi Germany, 1916 Germany, Rome, USSR, 1940 Japan. Any displeasure with the US is publicized but hate? Remember everyone wants to come to the US and her farmers feed half of them. Most people know the American people are very interested in their countries actions and developing and improving the world.

The countries you list are all still friends with the US; still trading with and supporting, just not with hard apparent boots and rifles. And just for your historical facts collection, the US didn’t destroy Japan with 2 nuclear bombs. The US had already crushed every other city large city on that island with incendiary bomb, the only difference being residual radiation and 3 planes rather than 300. In other words, the fire bomb attacks were as bad as the nuclear ones. The controversy around dropping the nuclear bombs is asinine. If there’s any controversy it should surround the intentional bombing of civilians, something that the US and GB did to Germany as well. The world was glad the US had the backbone for the job and can trust she’ll be there again; she’s learned though and would rather face threats early, before you stick, “World,” in front of the conflict name.

Don’t worry about the US economy. That billion a week is peanuts and so is her dept. She may approached an Economic Growth Recession (This is what the media sometimes calls a ‘recession’ and is when the economy GROWS less that something like 1.5%) but that’s nothing new. The biggest fear was $100+ oil but it’s looking like things are shaping up to accept it.

And just so you understand, the idea with Iraq is to fix Iraq in order to PREVENT foreseen problems. That’s the understanding. Trouble in the Mid-east means trouble for oil means trouble for everyone, remember besides powering SUVs the US feeds us with oil – one way or the other – and it powers developing countries who have no green options. So – yes blood for oil regardless of war….
ThePolemistis
Okay... im typing this out for the second time because i accdiently pressed the back button. I should listen to Moonspider more and do it in MS Word arghh. much of my point r lost, and i cant remmeber loll.
Ill try to be straight to the point as possible, but clear too cus im very tried.

horseatingweeds wrote:


Are you ok over there ThePolemistis? Let me help you out a bit. First, I don’t think the world hates the US, it is more so frustrated and fearful that her policies have not gone smooth in an age were we’ve all gotten used to the US as being powerhouse of competence. I suppose you can’t blame anyone for it, not even Bush.


Im fine thanks Smile. Lolll... US being a powerhouse of competence?? Bush is incompotent, which is making America incompotent in carrying out their duties. Just look at Iraq.

horseatingweeds wrote:


The country has finally been forced to face her enemy. Not “terrorism;” Fascist Islamic fundamentalists. This enemy fights in an old way but on a grand world wide scale using viral recruiting.


This is an enemy that America herself has created, simply because of her biased, racist and unjust foreign practises.

1. America funded these Islamic fundies $30 billion in afghanistan, where the US president at the time said the Russian invasion of afghanistan is the biggest threat to world peace since WW2.

2. Dictatorship fuels Islamic fundamentalism. America constantly funds and supports the dictatorsips of Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi and mcuh more, and these are the very countries these extremsits groups arise from (due to resentment of their governments). If you make governments oppress their people, then surely the people will rebel, and they see extremism the only way to establish peace.

Look at the Palestinians. They are the forgotten people. 6 million Jews died in WW2, which is saddening of course. But why have the Palestinians paid the price? Which American media emphasises that over a million Palestinians were forced out their homes because their lands were stolen from them? None do. And the Palestinians are the most oppressed people in the world, all thanks to America which gives Israel more funds than the whole of Africa. She vetos most resolutiosn against Israel too.
And the world questions why the Palestinians are blowing themselves up? Cherie Blair (wife of PM Tony Blair) once said, "As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up you are never going to make progress."
By trapping the Palestinians in cages like the ISraelis r doing (similar to that of what the Nazis did to them), u dont give the Palestinians much options, do you?



horseatingweeds wrote:


As for being the most hated country in history, that is just silly: Nazi Germany, 1916 Germany, Rome, USSR, 1940 Japan. Any displeasure with the US is publicized but hate? Remember everyone wants to come to the US and her farmers feed half of them. Most people know the American people are very interested in their countries actions and developing and improving the world.



Todays world is different. We are living in more of a global society, with the Interntional press shaping public opinion, demestically and internationally.
Where the Germans hated by the little villages in China or by people on the otherside of the world? No. They were only hated by the people they had direct conflict with.
However, Europe hates America and they are not even at war.

horseatingweeds wrote:

The countries you list are all still friends with the US; still trading with and supporting, just not with hard apparent boots and rifles. And just for your historical facts collection, the US didn’t destroy Japan with 2 nuclear bombs. The US had already crushed every other city large city on that island with incendiary bomb, the only difference being residual radiation and 3 planes rather than 300. In other words, the fire bomb attacks were as bad as the nuclear ones. The controversy around dropping the nuclear bombs is asinine. If there’s any controversy it should surround the intentional bombing of civilians, something that the US and GB did to Germany as well. The world was glad the US had the backbone for the job and can trust she’ll be there again; she’s learned though and would rather face threats early, before you stick, “World,” in front of the conflict name.


America is becoming the most hated nation in the world. Todays leaders are yesterdays people who did not dislike America as much. Tomorrows leaders will be from todays people who hate america.
Tony Blairs love for America forced him to resign.
Americans illegal war saw the largest anti-war demonstartion (or any demonstartion), Britain has ever seen EVER. Even more than the demostartions that forced thatcher to resign.
France and Russia both felt to veto any attempt to legitamise the war by America in the eyes of the UN.
China is not exactly Americas best of friends.
and I could go on.
But more specifically, I was relating to peoples opinions. The people of the country and not necessarily the politicians. I thinkin a report 60% of Iraqis are willing to blow themselves up to get Americans out of Iraq.

Regarding trade: yes it is true these countries are still trading. But so were American companies such as Ford still operating under Nazi Germany.
Also, 10% of Americas oil comes from Venezuela. Is Venezuela are wonderful friend of the United States? Of course not, and it is ignorant to base friendship simply on trade.

on the Jpanese issue: I am not here to debate it. But FYI: I was stating that the nuclear bomb is the greatest crime a nation can commit in warfare and yet Japanese still found it in themselves to forgive America. Children are being born blind and permanently disbaled still today because of the aftermath of the nuclear bombs 60 years ago, and yet Japan has the notion to forgive and forget.

horseatingweeds wrote:

Don’t worry about the US economy. That billion a week is peanuts and so is her dept. She may approached an Economic Growth Recession (This is what the media sometimes calls a ‘recession’ and is when the economy GROWS less that something like 1.5%) but that’s nothing new. The biggest fear was $100+ oil but it’s looking like things are shaping up to accept it.


Dont worry, I am not worrying- but you should.
Your people are getting in debt, house prices are falling, a recession is only imminent. Greenspan and Burnank agree.
AFAIK regarding recession, it is when there is 2 quarters of a fall in output. Dont quote me on it tho... but yea... it would still fit ur above definition and if the next quarters were 2.5 and 2.4% growth and now was 2.6,, then i guess this would be a recession. or the definition might be 2 quarters of negative growth. You look it up,, your the one who needs to Smile

Yup, regarding oil: not much of a tragedy. You know ur Saudi puppets will kiss ur feet and loewr prices the moment u put pressure on them. The recent example of Iran and Venezuela wanting to change oil currency, but Saudis refusal because it will "hurt America" is one clear example.

horseatingweeds wrote:


And just so you understand, the idea with Iraq is to fix Iraq in order to PREVENT foreseen problems. That’s the understanding. Trouble in the Mid-east means trouble for oil means trouble for everyone, remember besides powering SUVs the US feeds us with oil – one way or the other – and it powers developing countries who have no green options. So – yes blood for oil regardless of war….


im for democracy in the middle east. But they need to create democracy not us. If we create democracy, it will be dictatorships (ie Husni Mubarak), and that results in extremism i.e. bad for us.
if we let them get on with their lives i.e. stop funding the corrupt SAudis who dont even let women to drive, then I think the MidEast will be mcuh peaceful.
It means good ties with US and Europe, cheaper oil for us, better investment for them, the world is happy. Then if they build their infrastructure like Malaysia is doing, precisely because of no American influence, there is no need for blood for oil, they'll probably give us it for free, just maybe.
polis
I agree with ThePolemistis, but America still has some friends:

-Israel
-United Kingdom
-South Korea
-Saudi Arabia
-Japan

The rest of the world hates America.
ThePolemistis
polis wrote:
I agree with ThePolemistis, but America still has some friends:

-Israel
-United Kingdom
-South Korea
-Saudi Arabia
-Japan

The rest of the world hates America.



Actually... these friends are slowly becoming not so good friends with exception on japan. On political level, which I assume u are talking about.
Although by friends(or even they dont resent america sense), im more talking about the people which make up the country , not exactly the political leaders, otherwise most of teh arab world would be America's friends including Iraq, but of course, we know that is not the case.
horseatingweeds
Are you ok over there ThePolemistis? Let me help you out a bit. First, I don’t think the world hates the US, it is more so frustrated and fearful that her policies have not gone smooth in an age were we’ve all gotten used to the US as being powerhouse of competence. I suppose you can’t blame anyone for it, not even Bush.
[/quote]

Im fine thanks Smile. Lolll... US being a powerhouse of competence?? Bush is incompotent, which is making America incompotent in carrying out their duties. Just look at Iraq.[/quote]

And that scares people because they're used to relying on the US as the competent world leader.

ThePolemistis wrote:

This is an enemy that America herself has created, simply because of her biased, racist and unjust foreign practises.

1. America funded these Islamic fundies $30 billion in afghanistan, where the US president at the time said the Russian invasion of afghanistan is the biggest threat to world peace since WW2.

2. Dictatorship fuels Islamic fundamentalism. America constantly funds and supports the dictatorsips of Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi and mcuh more, and these are the very countries these extremsits groups arise from (due to resentment of their governments). If you make governments oppress their people, then surely the people will rebel, and they see extremism the only way to establish peace.

Look at the Palestinians. They are the forgotten people. 6 million Jews died in WW2, which is saddening of course. But why have the Palestinians paid the price? Which American media emphasises that over a million Palestinians were forced out their homes because their lands were stolen from them? None do. And the Palestinians are the most oppressed people in the world, all thanks to America which gives Israel more funds than the whole of Africa. She vetos most resolutiosn against Israel too.
And the world questions why the Palestinians are blowing themselves up? Cherie Blair (wife of PM Tony Blair) once said, "As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up you are never going to make progress."
By trapping the Palestinians in cages like the ISraelis r doing (similar to that of what the Nazis did to them), u dont give the Palestinians much options, do you?


1. he US supported a people fighting for their freedom from the Iron Curtin through Pakistan's ISI. Al Quaeda came out of the Afghan Arabs, a foreign group including Bin Ladin. So no, they didn't 'create' the 'terrorist.' If you know the history and understanding, you would realize this decision would seem necessary to stave off an expansionist HUGE dictatorship. Thank whatever god you believe in for that because you wouldn't be aloud to if the USSR absorbed your country. When the next expansionist empire emerges hopefully there will be an entity like to US to rescue the world again.

2. Poor ignorant people fuel Islamic fundamentalism, and true, dictatorships produce poor ignorant people - it's a necessary mechanism to keep the people's minds on their stomachs and not on their leadership. You can blame the US for dictatorships. The US has supported those who would support world stability, sadly, not all of these supporters have the same values as the US.

3. Yes, look at Palestine. Everybody look. They are Arabs and the Israelis are Jews. The US supports Israel so it must be supporting the Zionist Empire that wants to take over the world and kill all the Arabs....

US supports Israel because it is friendly to the US and all its neighbors proclaim they plan to destroy it. Are you saying that if the US let Israel be massacred the fundamentalists would let up? Israel deals poorly with Palestine but that is a whole mess the US can't be blamed for. The allies put Israel together after WWII. Blame the US if you want. It's popular. Anything but taking responsibility yourself and teaching your children not to blow themselves up an seek a rational solution and choose non-fanatic leader to bring them out of oppression. That's how the other oppressed people have done it.

ThePolemistis wrote:

Todays world is different. We are living in more of a global society, with the Interntional press shaping public opinion, demestically and internationally.
Where the Germans hated by the little villages in China or by people on the otherside of the world? No. They were only hated by the people they had direct conflict with.
However, Europe hates America and they are not even at war.


Is it different? Does Europe HATE the US? If they do they do a poor job of showing it. We still trade. It's just fear and disappointment. The difference is communication and global trade. Yes, people on the other side of the world hated 1914 Germany. That's why people from all over the globe converged in France to fight the Germans. Everyone communicates and trades with the US so everyone gets upset when their not looking great.

ThePolemistis wrote:

America is becoming the most hated nation in the world. Todays leaders are yesterdays people who did not dislike America as much. Tomorrows leaders will be from todays people who hate america.
Tony Blairs love for America forced him to resign.
Americans illegal war saw the largest anti-war demonstartion (or any demonstartion), Britain has ever seen EVER. Even more than the demostartions that forced thatcher to resign.
France and Russia both felt to veto any attempt to legitamise the war by America in the eyes of the UN.
China is not exactly Americas best of friends.
and I could go on.
But more specifically, I was relating to peoples opinions. The people of the country and not necessarily the politicians. I thinkin a report 60% of Iraqis are willing to blow themselves up to get Americans out of Iraq.

Regarding trade: yes it is true these countries are still trading. But so were American companies such as Ford still operating under Nazi Germany.
Also, 10% of Americas oil comes from Venezuela. Is Venezuela are wonderful friend of the United States? Of course not, and it is ignorant to base friendship simply on trade.

on the Jpanese issue: I am not here to debate it. But FYI: I was stating that the nuclear bomb is the greatest crime a nation can commit in warfare and yet Japanese still found it in themselves to forgive America. Children are being born blind and permanently disbaled still today because of the aftermath of the nuclear bombs 60 years ago, and yet Japan has the notion to forgive and forget.


I would never judge public opinion on protesters. Comfortable people protest any war they don't understand and there are a lot more comfortable people now. The Iraqi invasion looks like a mistake because it is costly. If it wasn't costly, lives, and had gone smooth putting up a democracy in a year, no one would be complaining. Regardless, Sadam caused the invasion by not showing that he had no WMD, of course he didn't want to show that because he was afraid or Iran.... Someone had to move. If the US didn't, they would have looked incapable. Sadam couldn't move or he would.

I seriously doubt your %60. More likely %99.999999 would rather their children go to school and their wives have food to buy. They're just afraid of open support because of the fundamentalists. Soon, hopefully, if things continue as they are, the Iraqi economy will grow, the people will choose rational leaders, and their country will flourish - that's the goal. Every one's best interests.

We're not talking about friendship, we're talking about HATE. US companies continued trading with Germany in the beginning of the war, before it grew into a global war. France and Germany had been at each other for a thousand years before that.

Japan forgive? How cut.... Do you have any idea what Japan did to Asia?


ThePolemistis wrote:


Dont worry, I am not worrying- but you should.
Your people are getting in debt, house prices are falling, a recession is only imminent. Greenspan and Burnank agree.
AFAIK regarding recession, it is when there is 2 quarters of a fall in output. Dont quote me on it tho... but yea... it would still fit ur above definition and if the next quarters were 2.5 and 2.4% growth and now was 2.6,, then i guess this would be a recession. or the definition might be 2 quarters of negative growth. You look it up,, your the one who needs to Smile

Yup, regarding oil: not much of a tragedy. You know ur Saudi puppets will kiss ur feet and loewr prices the moment u put pressure on them. The recent example of Iran and Venezuela wanting to change oil currency, but Saudis refusal because it will "hurt America" is one clear example.


If your not worried why should I? You know what happens in the type of recession the US is facing? Fewer Christman presents, low SUV sales, less eating out.... No body starves. I'm not sure what you problem is with US oil agreements. Do you WANT oil to cost the US more? I sort of do, it would put the US in a better direction concerning energy. The trouble for other countries is that during the transition food will cost more.

ThePolemistis wrote:

im for democracy in the middle east. But they need to create democracy not us. If we create democracy, it will be dictatorships (ie Husni Mubarak), and that results in extremism i.e. bad for us.
if we let them get on with their lives i.e. stop funding the corrupt SAudis who dont even let women to drive, then I think the MidEast will be mcuh peaceful.
It means good ties with US and Europe, cheaper oil for us, better investment for them, the world is happy. Then if they build their infrastructure like Malaysia is doing, precisely because of no American influence, there is no need for blood for oil, they'll probably give us it for free, just maybe.


Malaysia is doing well because they don't have crazy leaders. I doubt destroying relations with the Saudis would result in women being able to drive cars and thus a free Mid-East.... I don't mean to be condescending but you'll have to explain to me how trading with Saudi Arabia is steal in democracy from the ME. I thought it was the extremists convincing people that they should blow themselves up until everyone is under Sharea law and the corrupt dictators who's only interest is in keeping power?

Invading Iraq was not for the purposes of installing democracy. Bush determined Sadam a threat and decided that removing him then was better than waiting until US credibility was warn out with everyone with regard to threats of military action. That's what he did. We can look back and disagree but we won't ever really know what would have happened if he didn't. The US elects leaders who plan on protecting their lives and keeping the economy strong. That was his goal.

I wouldn't blame the US for dealing with the Saudis. Would you have the US only deal with countries with leaders that share the same values? That would certainly not be good for the people of the world. The US only cuts off relations when a nation posses an open threat to it or its allies. Saudi Arabia has posed no such threat and is cooperative in fighting the Fascists.

And as for your point about Africa, take a look and the increases Bush has made to those projects.... Would you call that stupid? Or maybe the smart thing to do is cut off Israel, let them be destroyed, stop all influence in the ME (that will make the Fascists happy, right), allow US gasoline to rise to $15 per gallon, make a difficult transition over the next ten years to alternative energy, and just not worry about the other countries we are currently able to support.

Besides letting our allies down, I sort of like the idea. Burning oil is a sin anyway. We already have people (not the idiot auto companies) getting 100 miles to the gallon on biodiesel in SUVs, the wind turbine factories can turn out enough of them, and if the US stopped feeding half the world it could produce plenty of ethanol (not from stupid corn). The stupid hillbillies on my block might have to keep their doors and window closed in winter though. Gee - I hope they can deal with it.
liljp617
Moonspider wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
TomGrey wrote:
Of course, I doubt if any of the commenters who laugh at Bush on the Iraq war (what else to call it? but is it, really?) have actually read the 16 UN SC resolutions.

It's so much easier to think Bush, an MBA graduate, is stupid -- while remaining ignorant.

I doubt he's read it either...

It's funny to defend him on the propaganda he spread to get support for Iraq considering he's doing the exact same thing at this moment with Iran. There's a trend. They declared the Iran regime a terrorist group. Now they've set their sights on keeping Iran from getting weapons of mass destruction. I think I've seen this movie before...it doesn't end that good.

Don't try to tell me a degree means somebody is smart. He got into Yale because of his families background. He graduated with C's. His ignorance (or lack of use) of history is reprehensible. His stubbornness destroys any bit of intelligence he has. His inability to get over the fact that god doesn't talk to him destroys any bit of intelligence he has. This idea that he has some intellectual type of thinking that no one else can acquire allows him to brainwash himself into thinking pure bullshit is true. He's a lying, ignorant, stubborn man in the most powerful position in the world. He used 9/11 as a backdrop to gain support for Iraq and now he's using it to gain support to invade Iran. The "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality just shows he's ignorant and...well, I don't like to say it, but stupid. It's not how you run foreign policy or diplomacy.

And I know he's not the only one to blame, because the entire administration is corrupt and full of crap, but don't tell me his intelligence comes through in his decisions. I don't care how smart he is outside of the presidency or how much he reads outside of the office. Means nothing to me. Simple fact of the matter is his ignorance of the Middle East, ignorance of how diplomacy is supposed to work, and pure stubbornness to admit he made some mistakes along the way has led us into one of the shittiest positions we've ever been in since the US was founded.


Really? We're in a worse position now as a country than we were in 1812? 1861? 1929? 1941? I find that truly hard to believe. In fact, I find entirely unsupportable.

And there's nothing wrong with being stubborn. Look at Lincoln. He had more problems with domestic support than Bush (or any other president) could ever imagine. And Lincoln was prosecuting the most unpopular war in U.S. history. He stuck to his position and I think the United States is better off for it. Perhaps you would have voted for McClellan in 1864, but I would have voted for Lincoln.

Respectfully,
M

There's a particular reason I said "one of the worst." If you don't think we're in one of the worst positions ever I don't know what to tell you. Allies turning their backs on us, torturing people with no evidence they have info, fighting a war that is costing billions upon billions of dollars while 70% of the nation is against it, not catching the people responsible for 9/11, invading a country for no evident reason other than to "liberate the people," overthrowing a dictator who at least had some control only to replace it with a government that has no control and one the Iraqi people despise...the list goes on and on.
Moonspider
liljp617 wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
TomGrey wrote:
Of course, I doubt if any of the commenters who laugh at Bush on the Iraq war (what else to call it? but is it, really?) have actually read the 16 UN SC resolutions.

It's so much easier to think Bush, an MBA graduate, is stupid -- while remaining ignorant.

I doubt he's read it either...

It's funny to defend him on the propaganda he spread to get support for Iraq considering he's doing the exact same thing at this moment with Iran. There's a trend. They declared the Iran regime a terrorist group. Now they've set their sights on keeping Iran from getting weapons of mass destruction. I think I've seen this movie before...it doesn't end that good.

Don't try to tell me a degree means somebody is smart. He got into Yale because of his families background. He graduated with C's. His ignorance (or lack of use) of history is reprehensible. His stubbornness destroys any bit of intelligence he has. His inability to get over the fact that god doesn't talk to him destroys any bit of intelligence he has. This idea that he has some intellectual type of thinking that no one else can acquire allows him to brainwash himself into thinking pure bullshit is true. He's a lying, ignorant, stubborn man in the most powerful position in the world. He used 9/11 as a backdrop to gain support for Iraq and now he's using it to gain support to invade Iran. The "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality just shows he's ignorant and...well, I don't like to say it, but stupid. It's not how you run foreign policy or diplomacy.

And I know he's not the only one to blame, because the entire administration is corrupt and full of crap, but don't tell me his intelligence comes through in his decisions. I don't care how smart he is outside of the presidency or how much he reads outside of the office. Means nothing to me. Simple fact of the matter is his ignorance of the Middle East, ignorance of how diplomacy is supposed to work, and pure stubbornness to admit he made some mistakes along the way has led us into one of the shittiest positions we've ever been in since the US was founded.


Really? We're in a worse position now as a country than we were in 1812? 1861? 1929? 1941? I find that truly hard to believe. In fact, I find entirely unsupportable.

And there's nothing wrong with being stubborn. Look at Lincoln. He had more problems with domestic support than Bush (or any other president) could ever imagine. And Lincoln was prosecuting the most unpopular war in U.S. history. He stuck to his position and I think the United States is better off for it. Perhaps you would have voted for McClellan in 1864, but I would have voted for Lincoln.

Respectfully,
M

There's a particular reason I said "one of the worst." If you don't think we're in one of the worst positions ever I don't know what to tell you. Allies turning their backs on us, torturing people with no evidence they have info, fighting a war that is costing billions upon billions of dollars while 70% of the nation is against it, not catching the people responsible for 9/11, invading a country for no evident reason other than to "liberate the people," overthrowing a dictator who at least had some control only to replace it with a government that has no control and one the Iraqi people despise...the list goes on and on.


I still disagree. Today's "one of" would be pretty far down the list in my book. But if all historians agreed, history would be a science. Wink

Respectfully,
M
bukaida
They are a bit careless about the rest of the world.Most of the highschool students have poor general knowledge than any other country peers.
ThePolemistis
horseatingweeds wrote:

1. he US supported a people fighting for their freedom from the Iron Curtin through Pakistan's ISI. Al Quaeda came out of the Afghan Arabs, a foreign group including Bin Ladin. So no, they didn't 'create' the 'terrorist.' If you know the history and understanding, you would realize this decision would seem necessary to stave off an expansionist HUGE dictatorship. Thank whatever god you believe in for that because you wouldn't be aloud to if the USSR absorbed your country. When the next expansionist empire emerges hopefully there will be an entity like to US to rescue the world again.


Americans like to do their work differently. They like to rule countries through puppets. The USSR did it through the old ideas of colonolism. However way they do it, they are both perceived as Imperial powers.

You should know, that terrorism cannot exist if it doesn't breed, just like anyother organism. American provided the breeding ground for Terrorists to breed. They provided the arms, the money, the intelligence, and with the situation in Israel, the fuel for their hate.

Secondly, give me the definition of terrorism in the eyes of America? You are saying it was perfectly acceptable to fund these groups in Aghanistan to carry out missions that are almost no different to the ones in Iraq. Why are not the Iraq resistance group against Americans not be seen in the same light as the Afghan resistance group againt Russians?


horseatingweeds wrote:

2. Poor ignorant people fuel Islamic fundamentalism, and true, dictatorships produce poor ignorant people - it's a necessary mechanism to keep the people's minds on their stomachs and not on their leadership. You can blame the US for dictatorships. The US has supported those who would support world stability, sadly, not all of these supporters have the same values as the US.


The dictatorships America has supported are ones that promote not world or regional stability, but rather financial benefits for America.
How can you ever have democracy if you do not give the Arab world a free press? The corrupt SAudi king is only hanging to his throne because of America: he is hated by the people.


horseatingweeds wrote:

3. Yes, look at Palestine. Everybody look. They are Arabs and the Israelis are Jews. The US supports Israel so it must be supporting the Zionist Empire that wants to take over the world and kill all the Arabs....


I think you have lost it here. The zionists only want from the river of egypt (nile) to river of euphrates (iraq/turkey).. only Smile


horseatingweeds wrote:


US supports Israel because it is friendly to the US and all its neighbors proclaim they plan to destroy it.


Incorrect. Egypt and Jordan dont want to destroy it. Nor does Iran (the wipe Israel off the map is a pro-zionist lie)
There is a difference between recognising Israels right to exist and wanting to destroy Israel.

Israels existence with todays borders and apartheid wall, both go against International Law.


horseatingweeds wrote:

Are you saying that if the US let Israel be massacred the fundamentalists would let up? Israel deals poorly with Palestine but that is a whole mess the US can't be blamed for. The allies put Israel together after WWII. Blame the US if you want. It's popular. Anything but taking responsibility yourself and teaching your children not to blow themselves up an seek a rational solution and choose non-fanatic leader to bring them out of oppression. That's how the other oppressed people have done it.


Israel is massacring Palestinians not the other way round. The Palestinians are a resistance people, fighting for the freedom of Palestine. It is Israel that is violating International Law not Palestine. Israel is taking Palestinian land not Palestine taking Israeli land. You should remember that.

The UN partition of 1947 gave 1/3 of the land to Jews, and the rest to Arabs. However only 7% of land ownership was Jewish at the time. Both sides rejected it, and now we see 2/3 of land Jewisha and the rest Arab. Both the parition of 1948 and now, are both unjust towards the Palestinian people who lived on the land for centuries and commited no crime before 1918 against Jews.

Now on the situation on teching children not to blow themselves up. Tell me what the rational solution is? How can Palestinians ahve their land back? If the Palestinians stopped all resistence activities, there would be no Palestine. The Apertheid wall Israel is building (which is illegal), mutes the voices of the Palestinian children. They cannot see beyond the cage Israel has forced them into- its liek a holocaust. This is not like the United States, where people like Martin Luther King can demostrate peacefully and get some sort of freedom for Blacks. This is Israel occupied Palestine. The International Press rarely covers the truth behind what is really going on: that is Israel has massacred more Women and CHildren than the Palestinian "terrorists" have of Israeli Womena nd Children. In such sitations as in Palestine (and also like in South Africa), you don't have democracy, you dont have human rights, here you have a Jewish state created exclusively for the Jewish people. Resistence must take form of violence. Thats what wins independance, the situation is nothing like in the West. If peaceful demostrations where employed, we will have teh situation of American peace activist Rachel Currie who was trodden to death by an Israeli bulldozer an hourly occurance.


horseatingweeds wrote:

Is it different? Does Europe HATE the US? If they do they do a poor job of showing it. We still trade. It's just fear and disappointment. The difference is communication and global trade. Yes, people on the other side of the world hated 1914 Germany. That's why people from all over the globe converged in France to fight the Germans. Everyone communicates and trades with the US so everyone gets upset when their not looking great.



Like I said, 10% of American oil is from Venezuela. You are still trading fine. Are you/they loved?


horseatingweeds wrote:

I would never judge public opinion on protesters. Comfortable people protest any war they don't understand and there are a lot more comfortable people now. The Iraqi invasion looks like a mistake because it is costly. If it wasn't costly, lives, and had gone smooth putting up a democracy in a year, no one would be complaining. Regardless, Sadam caused the invasion by not showing that he had no WMD, of course he didn't want to show that because he was afraid or Iran.... Someone had to move. If the US didn't, they would have looked incapable. Sadam couldn't move or he would.


nevertheless,, the largest demonstration in London. Tht says something. Blair also resigned, that says another. bush lowest confidence vote is a third.

horseatingweeds wrote:

I seriously doubt your %60. More likely %99.999999 would rather their children go to school and their wives have food to buy. They're just afraid of open support because of the fundamentalists. Soon, hopefully, if things continue as they are, the Iraqi economy will grow, the people will choose rational leaders, and their country will flourish - that's the goal. Every one's best interests.


loll.. things to continue how they are and the Iraqi economy will grow? Do you know the unemployment figures? Its worse than Saddams period. Do you know the number of deaths? It is also worse than Saddams period. If things conitnue how they are, it would make Saddams era a success story.

horseatingweeds wrote:


We're not talking about friendship, we're talking about HATE. US companies continued trading with Germany in the beginning of the war, before it grew into a global war. France and Germany had been at each other for a thousand years before that.


Doesn't Chavez HATE Bush or even Bush HATE Chavez?

horseatingweeds wrote:

Japan forgive? How cut.... Do you have any idea what Japan did to Asia?


Of course, the situation in China for instance. But that didnt leave generations after it affected as much as the mushroom cloud did.


horseatingweeds wrote:

If your not worried why should I? You know what happens in the type of recession the US is facing? Fewer Christman presents, low SUV sales, less eating out.... No body starves. I'm not sure what you problem is with US oil agreements. Do you WANT oil to cost the US more? I sort of do, it would put the US in a better direction concerning energy. The trouble for other countries is that during the transition food will cost more.


People are not starving yet, but how will u overcome the debt crisis? I said before, the economy is on the verge of collapse. The rise of oil will only increase Americans debt. An increase in debt, Americans will only buy necessities. American blue chip companies therefore will be largely affected at home and collapse, and investment from abroad to America will be reduced. The dollar will depreciate in value and using it as a reserve currency liek China, japan and UK do, will begin to lower in favour of Euro. Its a downward spiral from here.

Actually, I want oil prices to rise. because not only, like u said that it would make us dependant on other sources of energy, but it will send a strong signal to the stupid arab governemnts that their economy cannot soley be based on oil and hopefully heir economy will diversify, which then can result a spread of wealth , subsequently less terrorism, and finally happiness for everyone Smile.

[quote="horseatingweeds"]
Malaysia is doing well because they don't have crazy leaders.
[quote="horseatingweeds"]

Its doing well because we have not installed a crazy leader there or interefered with their politics.

horseatingweeds wrote:

I doubt destroying relations with the Saudis would result in women being able to drive cars and thus a free Mid-East....



Im not saying destorying relations. I am saying the ending the support of a dictator in favour of "TRUE FREE AND FAIR" elections, ie. true democracy. Through democracy, you will have freedom for all people.


horseatingweeds wrote:


I don't mean to be condescending but you'll have to explain to me how trading with Saudi Arabia is steal in democracy from the ME. I thought it was the extremists convincing people that they should blow themselves up until everyone is under Sharea law and the corrupt dictators who's only interest is in keeping power?


Firstly, Malaysia has shariah law too, but that is totally different to the Shariah law imposed on Saudi.
Again as I said, extremists grow under dictatorship. Friendship is not based on trade. Friendship is based on policies of a countries towards others. When America starts bombing the MiddleEast, the Saudi citizens feel anger towards their government which favours America in everyway possible, and never portrays an independant view.

horseatingweeds wrote:

Invading Iraq was not for the purposes of installing democracy. Bush determined Sadam a threat and decided that removing him then was better than waiting until US credibility was warn out with everyone with regard to threats of military action. That's what he did. We can look back and disagree but we won't ever really know what would have happened if he didn't. The US elects leaders who plan on protecting their lives and keeping the economy strong. That was his goal.


Talking about the war on Iraq sends us in circles. btw, which economy are u keeping strong? Both seem to be fragile at the moment.

horseatingweeds wrote:

I wouldn't blame the US for dealing with the Saudis. Would you have the US only deal with countries with leaders that share the same values? That would certainly not be good for the people of the world. The US only cuts off relations when a nation posses an open threat to it or its allies. Saudi Arabia has posed no such threat and is cooperative in fighting the Fascists.


Well of course not, and Im not trying to imply that countries should only deal with those who have the same values. Some countries are extremely capitalist minded, and others are more social welfare minded and there is nothing wrong with this.
But, when you have USA and UK dealing with nations which have a pathetic human rights record against their own people, then thats where the problem lies. In such a sitation, any military relations should cease (such as selling ships, planes etc). BAE recently signed a £40 billion deal with the Saudi Governmant.
Its not exactly about posing a threat. It is about AMerica's credibility. She goes around the world crying for democracy and free and fair elections, and therefore only right, that she doesnt put a nations wealth before a nations people it trades with.


horseatingweeds wrote:

And as for your point about Africa, take a look and the increases Bush has made to those projects.... Would you call that stupid? Or maybe the smart thing to do is cut off Israel, let them be destroyed, stop all influence in the ME (that will make the Fascists happy, right), allow US gasoline to rise to $15 per gallon, make a difficult transition over the next ten years to alternative energy, and just not worry about the other countries we are currently able to support.


On Africa: what projects? Is there a sizeable military force to bring democracy in a very fragile continent. It needs democracy more than the MidEast.

Israel: No one wants Israel to be destroyed. But what we want is borders that adhere to Internation Law. The current borders which Israel occupies are much more than they deserve. Further, Israel should abide by all the resolutions which she is not doing. For instance, the 4th Geneva convention which clearly states that the occuping country cannot move its civilian population into the occupied territories which Israel is violating. Its not that hard... but its international law,, legally binding.


horseatingweeds wrote:

Besides letting our allies down, I sort of like the idea. Burning oil is a sin anyway. We already have people (not the idiot auto companies) getting 100 miles to the gallon on biodiesel in SUVs, the wind turbine factories can turn out enough of them, and if the US stopped feeding half the world it could produce plenty of ethanol (not from stupid corn). The stupid hillbillies on my block might have to keep their doors and window closed in winter though. Gee - I hope they can deal with it.


exacly... start now... y doesnt America understand that they dont need the arab world.. to hell with them right? Maybe then the world can be a safer place, politically and environmentally..

my hands hurt now... loll... I/We should argue less.
horseatingweeds
ThePolemistis wrote:


Americans like to do their work differently. They like to rule countries through puppets. The USSR did it through the old ideas of colonolism. However way they do it, they are both perceived as Imperial powers.

You should know, that terrorism cannot exist if it doesn't breed, just like anyother organism. American provided the breeding ground for Terrorists to breed. They provided the arms, the money, the intelligence, and with the situation in Israel, the fuel for their hate.

Secondly, give me the definition of terrorism in the eyes of America? You are saying it was perfectly acceptable to fund these groups in Aghanistan to carry out missions that are almost no different to the ones in Iraq. Why are not the Iraq resistance group against Americans not be seen in the same light as the Afghan resistance group againt Russians?


Seriously ThePolemistis, don't you own a history book? Go read about Afghanistan. The freedom fighters were at war with their government (a puppet of the Soviets), once they started winning the Soviets rolled in an systematically killed whole areas of people suspected of supporting rebels. They poisoned 1000 year old wells, destroyed 1000 year old irrigation systems, killed the live stock, destroyed all the buildings. Please, nothing like Iraq. I'm not going to answer your posts if you say more ridiculous stuff like that....

ThePolemistis wrote:


The dictatorships America has supported are ones that promote not world or regional stability, but rather financial benefits for America.
How can you ever have democracy if you do not give the Arab world a free press? The corrupt SAudi king is only hanging to his throne because of America: he is hated by the people.


That's illogical. The most important financial benefit to American business IS world stability. And what the hell are you saying? Give the Arab world free press? Are you really trying to say that Saudi Arabia wants to overthrow their leaders but America is somehow preventing it? Seriously! Decide it their smart of not.

ThePolemistis wrote:


I think you have lost it here. The zionists only want from the river of egypt (nile) to river of euphrates (iraq/turkey).. only Smile


According to the Fundamentalists they only want to start there.... I don't agree with either though. I bet they would be happy to just live and not get blown up.


ThePolemistis wrote:


Incorrect. Egypt and Jordan dont want to destroy it. Nor does Iran (the wipe Israel off the map is a pro-zionist lie)
There is a difference between recognising Israels right to exist and wanting to destroy Israel.

Israels existence with todays borders and apartheid wall, both go against International Law.


LOL - "pro-zionist" Do you not understand how ridiculous that is? The "wipe Israel off the map" come from the leader's mouths and makes the crowds cheer. Egypt, Jordan, and Syria TRIED to destroy Israel - remember. Remember? When those silly Jews chased Egypt through the Sinai, when they took the disputed land.

ThePolemistis wrote:


Israel is massacring Palestinians not the other way round. The Palestinians are a resistance people, fighting for the freedom of Palestine. It is Israel that is violating International Law not Palestine. Israel is taking Palestinian land not Palestine taking Israeli land. You should remember that.

The UN partition of 1947 gave 1/3 of the land to Jews, and the rest to Arabs. However only 7% of land ownership was Jewish at the time. Both sides rejected it, and now we see 2/3 of land Jewisha and the rest Arab. Both the parition of 1948 and now, are both unjust towards the Palestinian people who lived on the land for centuries and commited no crime before 1918 against Jews.

Now on the situation on teching children not to blow themselves up. Tell me what the rational solution is? How can Palestinians ahve their land back? If the Palestinians stopped all resistence activities, there would be no Palestine. The Apertheid wall Israel is building (which is illegal), mutes the voices of the Palestinian children. They cannot see beyond the cage Israel has forced them into- its liek a holocaust. This is not like the United States, where people like Martin Luther King can demostrate peacefully and get some sort of freedom for Blacks. This is Israel occupied Palestine. The International Press rarely covers the truth behind what is really going on: that is Israel has massacred more Women and CHildren than the Palestinian "terrorists" have of Israeli Womena nd Children. In such sitations as in Palestine (and also like in South Africa), you don't have democracy, you dont have human rights, here you have a Jewish state created exclusively for the Jewish people. Resistence must take form of violence. Thats what wins independance, the situation is nothing like in the West. If peaceful demostrations where employed, we will have teh situation of American peace activist Rachel Currie who was trodden to death by an Israeli bulldozer an hourly occurance.



I do remember that. I have no solution. However, a good start would be people, as you just did above, not pretending that Israel is an expansionist trying to take the Palestinian land. They're absolutely not! Yes, the Palestinians should stop resisting by BLOWING THEMSELVES UP. One rational and educated Palestinian, speaking rationally to the world, NOT amongst bombers - would go miles further.

The US support of Israel isn't the cause of Palestinian grief - THAT is an anti-zionist lie... Israel deals poorly with Palestine - agreed. Israel shouldn't be setting up house in the occupied territories - agreed. Should the US stop supporting Israel - no. She is an ally. The US is trying to find a solution to the mess but NO BODY CAN SEEM TO FIND ONE.

We can start by being rational. If Palestine wasn't blowing Israel up the world wouldn't stand for its 'oppression' of the Palestinians.

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

Is it different? Does Europe HATE the US? If they do they do a poor job of showing it. We still trade. It's just fear and disappointment. The difference is communication and global trade. Yes, people on the other side of the world hated 1914 Germany. That's why people from all over the globe converged in France to fight the Germans. Everyone communicates and trades with the US so everyone gets upset when their not looking great.



Like I said, 10% of American oil is from Venezuela. You are still trading fine. Are you/they loved?


Neither. That's my point. America needs oil, Venezuela need money - they trade. If Venezuela was openly threatening the US or its allies, the situation would be different. I might not like the guy that runs the grocery store and he might not like me, but we trade.

ThePolemistis wrote:


nevertheless,, the largest demonstration in London. Tht says something. Blair also resigned, that says another. bush lowest confidence vote is a third.


It does. It says people don't like war. It says people are comfortable and don't understand why a war should ever be fought. Listen to the protester's arguments, they could apply to ANY war. They would argue: "WWII, that war needed fighting, not like this 'illegal' one. If another Hitler pops up, we will support stopping him." Yet people did protest WWII and the world is teeming with Hitlers. Thankfully, for now, the US has learned her lesson an won't cling to isolationism why the next Hitler finds his power.

ThePolemistis wrote:


loll.. things to continue how they are and the Iraqi economy will grow? Do you know the unemployment figures? Its worse than Saddams period. Do you know the number of deaths? It is also worse than Saddams period. If things conitnue how they are, it would make Saddams era a success story.


I guess if you call productivity and the absorption of the people's progress by an oppressive leader success. Of course unemployment was low as well as deaths under a dictator. The deaths the dictator causes don't count! If you don't do what Sadam says Ode will rape your wife and cut off your ears! If a group gets together in opposition they get gassed.

We'll see. Iraq has HUGE potential with US support. They could rival the UAE in my opinion. They just need to stop the sectarian criminals and other stupid groups. Industry and infrastructure is growing, despite it getting destroyed. Hopefully, the brave Iraqis can overcome and build they country into a thriving democracy. Not likely with all the selfish corruption though, but I guess thats the culture there.

I hope the good Iraqis win and to do so they need support. It doesn't help that US politicians are trying to get elected by saying they'll leave....

ThePolemistis wrote:


Doesn't Chavez HATE Bush or even Bush HATE Chavez?


No. Regardless, the personal feelings of the US president doesn't matter. What's best for the people does. It's different Venezuela but I imagine his priority is economics and keeping his people supporting him. Hate or love, both countries benefit each other.

horseatingweeds wrote:

Japan forgive? How cut.... Do you have any idea what Japan did to Asia?


Of course, the situation in China for instance. But that didnt leave generations after it affected as much as the mushroom cloud did.[/quote]

Nope - it just ended generations. Stopped them out-right throughout Asia and set the region back a century - but thankfully the US forgave and rebuilt for them, learning from post-WWI Germany. The US built Japan.

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

If your not worried why should I? You know what happens in the type of recession the US is facing? Fewer Christman presents, low SUV sales, less eating out.... No body starves. I'm not sure what you problem is with US oil agreements. Do you WANT oil to cost the US more? I sort of do, it would put the US in a better direction concerning energy. The trouble for other countries is that during the transition food will cost more.


People are not starving yet, but how will u overcome the debt crisis? I said before, the economy is on the verge of collapse. The rise of oil will only increase Americans debt. An increase in debt, Americans will only buy necessities. American blue chip companies therefore will be largely affected at home and collapse, and investment from abroad to America will be reduced. The dollar will depreciate in value and using it as a reserve currency liek China, japan and UK do, will begin to lower in favour of Euro. Its a downward spiral from here.

Actually, I want oil prices to rise. because not only, like u said that it would make us dependant on other sources of energy, but it will send a strong signal to the stupid arab governemnts that their economy cannot soley be based on oil and hopefully heir economy will diversify, which then can result a spread of wealth , subsequently less terrorism, and finally happiness for everyone Smile.


Indeed. I don't see how places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait function. A lot of young rich people with nothing to do....

I think, though, you misunderstand the magnitude of the US economy. It can feed its entire population with a small percentage of it farmed land. One of the fifty state could feed all the rest. Gas doesn't cost more than it did in the 1970's during the last energy crisis. The current dept, consumer wise, is bad. Not a disaster though. Housing wise, people many people own more house than they can afford - this simply reduces housing cost - not significantly. The US dept is in foreign bonds. These people won't sell their bond until the US$ goes up. The US has had this deficit before.

The US has too much technology, food, and high level manufacturing for the dollar to spiral down.

ThePolemistis wrote:


Its doing well because we have not installed a crazy leader there or interefered with their politics.


We haven't installed a crazy leader or interfered because their leader isn't crazier that another choice and is not an open threat. Come on.... be serious.

ThePolemistis wrote:


Im not saying destorying relations. I am saying the ending the support of a dictator in favour of "TRUE FREE AND FAIR" elections, ie. true democracy. Through democracy, you will have freedom for all people.


Ok, so you think ending support for the Saudi government will somehow motivate the people to demand elections? How should this be done? Stop buying oil. Stop selling stuff to the people there? I the Saudi people want elections it's their's to demand. The US won't interfere unless the demanders have a leader with an agenda that threatens world stability.


ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:


I don't mean to be condescending but you'll have to explain to me how trading with Saudi Arabia is steal in democracy from the ME. I thought it was the extremists convincing people that they should blow themselves up until everyone is under Sharea law and the corrupt dictators who's only interest is in keeping power?


Firstly, Malaysia has shariah law too, but that is totally different to the Shariah law imposed on Saudi.
Again as I said, extremists grow under dictatorship. Friendship is not based on trade. Friendship is based on policies of a countries towards others. When America starts bombing the MiddleEast, the Saudi citizens feel anger towards their government which favours America in everyway possible, and never portrays an independant view.


That doesn't explain. The Saudi government sees that supporting the US, as subtly as possible, is in their best interest. The bombing, taking out Sadam, was also in the Saudi's best interests. The notion that infidels shouldn't be on the sacred land and all that, I think, is just to motivate people against the current powers so others with the same aspirations can take over.

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

Invading Iraq was not for the purposes of installing democracy. Bush determined Sadam a threat and decided that removing him then was better than waiting until US credibility was warn out with everyone with regard to threats of military action. That's what he did. We can look back and disagree but we won't ever really know what would have happened if he didn't. The US elects leaders who plan on protecting their lives and keeping the economy strong. That was his goal.


Talking about the war on Iraq sends us in circles. btw, which economy are u keeping strong? Both seem to be fragile at the moment.


The US economy. The priority of most voting Americans. 9-11 scared the crap out of America and everyone was willing to do anything to keep another attack away. People were willing, Bush identified a threat, or eventual threat, and took it out.

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

I wouldn't blame the US for dealing with the Saudis. Would you have the US only deal with countries with leaders that share the same values? That would certainly not be good for the people of the world. The US only cuts off relations when a nation posses an open threat to it or its allies. Saudi Arabia has posed no such threat and is cooperative in fighting the Fascists.


Well of course not, and Im not trying to imply that countries should only deal with those who have the same values. Some countries are extremely capitalist minded, and others are more social welfare minded and there is nothing wrong with this.
But, when you have USA and UK dealing with nations which have a pathetic human rights record against their own people, then thats where the problem lies. In such a sitation, any military relations should cease (such as selling ships, planes etc). BAE recently signed a £40 billion deal with the Saudi Governmant.
Its not exactly about posing a threat. It is about AMerica's credibility. She goes around the world crying for democracy and free and fair elections, and therefore only right, that she doesnt put a nations wealth before a nations people it trades with.


This is true. And the US and UK doesn't support such governments. However, Saudi Arabia is a special case. It and Isreal (and no Iraq) are the only countries on an entire region of human rights abusers. I think, and the leaders of the US and UK also seem to think, that supporting Saudi Arabia is a step toward human rights in the region, not a step away. Credibility to people who miss the big picture it one thing - zero allies is a whole other.


ThePolemistis wrote:


On Africa: what projects? Is there a sizeable military force to bring democracy in a very fragile continent. It needs democracy more than the MidEast.


Indeed. And as I said, the US wouldn't move military forces unless an African country became on open threat. The projects I refer to are aid projects, mostly for AIDS.

ThePolemistis wrote:
Israel: No one wants Israel to be destroyed. But what we want is borders that adhere to Internation Law. The current borders which Israel occupies are much more than they deserve. Further, Israel should abide by all the resolutions which she is not doing. For instance, the 4th Geneva convention which clearly states that the occuping country cannot move its civilian population into the occupied territories which Israel is violating. Its not that hard... but its international law,, legally binding.


Correct, moving into the occupied territory is wrong. The trouble is that Israel needs to take and occupy these areas to protect its self from rockets and suicide bombers. It is only natural, although illegal, for civilians to move in.

And yes, people do want to destroy Israel, or at least put them in a boat off in the Med. That's what the Fundamentalist preach. Jews and Arabs both feel they deserve the Holly land.... People need to cut this kind of crap out and think of their children. Would a father want his two sons to fight over a birth right - regardless of who's it is? Would he want them killing each other over generations for it? I don't think so. I doubt it. He's probably as freaked out as we are and wishing he hadn't promised not to send another flood.


ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

Besides letting our allies down, I sort of like the idea. Burning oil is a sin anyway. We already have people (not the idiot auto companies) getting 100 miles to the gallon on biodiesel in SUVs, the wind turbine factories can turn out enough of them, and if the US stopped feeding half the world it could produce plenty of ethanol (not from stupid corn). The stupid hillbillies on my block might have to keep their doors and window closed in winter though. Gee - I hope they can deal with it.


exacly... start now... y doesnt America understand that they dont need the arab world.. to hell with them right? Maybe then the world can be a safer place, politically and environmentally..

my hands hurt now... loll... I/We should argue less.


Yes, argument is useless - discussion however tests ideas. That's why I'm here. America is starting to understand this, sort of. People are still buying SUVs and 3000 square foot homes that probably cost more in energy $'s than my whole mortgage. I don't know where you live but I know people who have heating bills in the winter in excess of $900 per month. Now that's stupid!

America is moving away from oil. The technology she develops doing so will aid the rest of the world to make that same transition. Oil should be used for making stuff not burning. I just hope gasoline stays above $3 a gallon and keeps the movement going.
polis
ThePolemistis wrote:
polis wrote:
I agree with ThePolemistis, but America still has some friends:

-Israel
-United Kingdom
-South Korea
-Saudi Arabia
-Japan

The rest of the world hates America.



Actually... these friends are slowly becoming not so good friends with exception on japan. On political level, which I assume u are talking about.
Although by friends(or even they dont resent america sense), im more talking about the people which make up the country , not exactly the political leaders, otherwise most of teh arab world would be America's friends including Iraq, but of course, we know that is not the case.


You are wrong. Israel is the Nº1 ally of USA.

1-Israel
2-United Kingdom
3-Saudi Arabia
4-South Korea
5-Japan
horseatingweeds
I'd like to see how you two calculate those numbers, 1-2-3-4-5....
ThePolemistis
horseatingweeds wrote:

Seriously ThePolemistis, don't you own a history book? Go read about Afghanistan. The freedom fighters were at war with their government (a puppet of the Soviets), once they started winning the Soviets rolled in an systematically killed whole areas of people suspected of supporting rebels. They poisoned 1000 year old wells, destroyed 1000 year old irrigation systems, killed the live stock, destroyed all the buildings. Please, nothing like Iraq. I'm not going to answer your posts if you say more ridiculous stuff like that....


The soviets did not poison wells or destroying irrigation systems. You must be talking about the Taliban. Although I must say, for once you use the word freedom fighters. Nice of you to recognise that but the true freedom fighters lie in Palestine, of which you continue to call fundamentalists.

horseatingweeds wrote:

That's illogical. The most important financial benefit to American business IS world stability. And what the hell are you saying? Give the Arab world free press? Are you really trying to say that Saudi Arabia wants to overthrow their leaders but America is somehow preventing it? Seriously! Decide it their smart of not.


Your missing my point completely. I am saying that a free press is the building blocks on building democracy in the region. Further, im saying that the Saudi Arabia has a tough stance agaist its own citizens. If the West produced a single outcry (from the top level) against the Saudis, Saudi Government will be on the brink of collapse. The problem is that they do not voice their concerns against the Saudis - i sometimes think who is afraid of who.

horseatingweeds wrote:

According to the Fundamentalists they only want to start there.... I don't agree with either though. I bet they would be happy to just live and not get blown up.


Thats the zionists. Im sure most Israelis are happy with the current situation, but that is still much more than they legally deserve.
Plus, all of us are happy to just live and not be blown up, including the fundamentalists. But there is a reason why they have become resistant fighters, and its because their right to live on their own land which has been theirs for generations has been taken away.

Also, please do not refer to the Palestinians as fundamentalists. This is not AlQaeda. The Palestinians are a resistant group just like the Irish, which the great America supported their independence from Britain. The only differences between the Irish situtaion and the Palestinians is the colour of their skin, thats the only difference. That is why you have perceived "terrorism" commited by Palestinians, but not by Irish. What terrorism are the Palestinians commiting? The right to claim back their own land through violence? - peaceful measures, hasve been tried, such as the UN Resolutions which Israel refuses to abide by.


horseatingweeds wrote:

LOL - "pro-zionist" Do you not understand how ridiculous that is? The "wipe Israel off the map" come from the leader's mouths and makes the crowds cheer. Egypt, Jordan, and Iran TRIED to destroy Israel - remember. Remember? That when those silly Jews chased Egypt thought the Sinai. That's when they took the disputed land.


Firsltly, no Farsi translator will tell you that Ahmedinejhad said "wipe", "israel" and "map" in his sentence. Even the British The Guardian newspaper, made a article titled Lost In Translation regarding the situation. Ahmedinejhads exact words were "The imam (Khomeini) said that the regime occupying Jersulem must vanish from the page of time". This is the same regime that Nelson Mandela said was worst than the Apertheid government in South Africa. So away with the Zionist lies. You should take heed of language more carefully.

Egypt, Jordan maybe tried to destroy Israel. But the Germans killed Jews, and teh British tried to prevent American independance. If you want to keep looking at history rather than their current positive actions, then you might as well still be blaming the British role on America.


horseatingweeds wrote:

I do remember that. I have no solution. However, a good start would be people, as you just did above, not pretending that Israel is an expansionist trying to take the Palestinian land. They're absolutely not! Yes, the Palestinians should stop resisting by BLOWING THEMSELVES UP. One rational and educated Palestinian, speaking rationally to the world, NOT amongst bombers - would go miles further.


Good you remember, pity you don't have a solution. Firstly, regarding the expansionist approach, it is Hamas who is calling for a ceasefire but Israel continues to reject it. Look, Israels establishment was wrong- the world knows it was illegal, but here Hamas is trying to make ends. Its not simply on one occasion, it tries many. Look at in March 2002, where it was accepted by the entire Arab League, Fatah and Hamas. But Israel refuses and throws it back in their face.

Regarding resisting by blowing themselves up. The Palestinians resist also by sticks and stones and home made bombs. No match for the American built tanks, rockets or helicopters than bombard the Palestinians day in and day out. They believe by blowing themselves up, normal Israelis would fear living on the occupied territories, and hence go back home. Further, if the Palestinians did not blow themselves up, what message do u think it would send Israeli construction of settlements? Build more of course.

No I do not think a rational and educated Palestinian would go miles further either. The media is biased in favour of Israel. Look at the case of Rachel Connie, an American peace activist, who was trodden over by a bulldozer. If they value American life cheap, then the lives of the Palestinians to them is worse than that of dogs.

horseatingweeds wrote:


The US support of Israel isn't the cause of Palestinian grief - THAT is an anti-zionist lie... Israel deals poorly with Palestine - agreed. Israel shouldn't be setting up house in the occupied territories - agreed. Should the US stop supporting Israel - no. She is an ally. The US is trying to find a solution to the mess but NO BODY CAN SEEM TO FIND ONE.


Okay, nice for you to accept:Israel deals poorly with Palestine - agreed. Israel shouldn't be setting up house in the occupied territories - agreed.

Now on the next arguement on US support. If USA stopped its 4 billion dollar per annum in financial aid which is given always in a lump sum at the beginning of the year, and its miliary aid to Israel which only needs to be 20% invested in American companies, if America ceased to provide this, then I am sure it would be in the right direction for peace.

Israel is already a developed nation, but receives more aid than the whole of Africa. There are much more ways in being supportive of Israel than thru military/financial. Perhaps it can try to build a true Palestinian independant soverign nation and increase education of the normal Palestinians all of which will subsequently help Israel.
America is currently giving 0 to the Palestinian people (since Hamas took over).

America is funding a nation that is deeply violating international law. It happened also before WW2 though slightly different called appeasement, in which Britain and France provided what Hitler asked for.. look what that lead to. I do not see germany then any different to Israel now.

horseatingweeds wrote:


We can start by being rational. If Palestine wasn't blowing Israel up the world wouldn't stand for its 'oppression' of the Palestinians.


If the Palestinians did not resist by blowing themselves up, the world would not even come to know about the situation in Israel. The media would simply be shut out.



horseatingweeds wrote:

Neither. That's my point. America needs oil, Venezuela need money - they trade. If Venezuela was openly threatening the US or its allies, the situation would be different. I might not like the guy that runs the grocery store and he might not like me, but we trade.


OKay I get your point.



horseatingweeds wrote:

It does. It says people don't like war. It says people are comfortable and don't understand why a war should ever be fought. Listen to the protester's arguments, they could apply to ANY war. They would argue: "WWII, that war needed fighting, not like this 'illegal' one. If another Hitler pops up, we will support stopping him." Yet people did protest WWII and the world is teeming with Hitlers. Thankfully, for now, the US has learned her lesson an won't cling to isolationism why the next Hitler finds his power.


Do you actually think Arab leaders are able to oppress anyone except themselves? Give me one example?

horseatingweeds wrote:

I guess if you call productivity and the absorption of the people's progress by an oppressive leader success. Of course unemployment was low as well as deaths under a dictator. The deaths the dictator causes don't count! If you don't do what Sadam says Ode will rape your wife and cut off your ears! If a group gets together in opposition they get gassed.


I understand Saddam was bad, but the situation in Iraq is not much better. The Iraqis lived in fear then, but they live more in fear now. If they were disobident to Saddam, yes they would pay a heavy price. But if you were to walk in a governmental street in Iraq today, or be seen with an official, or even an innocent bystander walking on your way to buy your daily bread, bang! Iraq is worse now than then. Regardless how you die, ie. gas or cutting up, it still the same, your dead (most likely blown up by a bomb though)


horseatingweeds wrote:

We'll see. Iraq has HUGE potential with US support. They could rival the UAE in my opinion. They just need to stop the sectarian criminals and other stupid groups. Industry and infrastructure is growing, despite it getting destroyed. Hopefully, the brave Iraqis can overcome and build they country into a thriving democracy. Not likely with all the selfish corruption though, but I guess thats the culture there.


Any nation in the MidEast can rival UAE. Wealth is not the problem, the leaders are. Industry and infrastrcuture is not growing. The Iraqis dont even have access to clean water, the most basic commodity.
Brave Iraqis? They are more scared than ever.
Who are you fooling. You can say a any countries has huge potential. I think Africa, the richest continent in teh world has potential. But not unless their stupid corrupt leaders are hanged, drawn and quartered.
The secret or the key lies in democracy, true democracy, true, free, fair elections. Have a private media. and things will take root from their.

horseatingweeds wrote:

I hope the good Iraqis win and to do so they need support. It doesn't help that US politicians are trying to get elected by saying they'll leave....


And who are the good from the bad? The ordinary Iraqis are blowing themselves up in resentment to the occupation. I dont think there would be many good ones left. The good ones have probably already migrated to nearby lands and out of Iraq or become dead in conflict.

horseatingweeds wrote:

No. Regardless, the personal feelings of the US president doesn't matter. What's best for the people does. It's different Venezuela but I imagine his priority is economics and keeping his people supporting him. Hate or love, both countries benefit each other.



Benefit is not the same as love. I said America is the most hated country ever. Not whether America does the most trade. Sadly however, the world needs America to survive and for the success of their own economies. So therefore, no matter how much a nation hates america, there will always be trade.

horseatingweeds wrote:
I'd like to see how you two calculate those numbers, 1-2-3-4-5....
rolie
pacslim wrote:
if i see the family bush i would say yes but im not so prejudgemental to generalize a whole part of the world and say all of em are .. Rolling Eyes .. lol Arrow


There are plenty of Americans that are against bush. I protested the war before it began and I'm proud to say that I helped change public opinion on him. It's been slow but I think people in America are starting to think better.

I don't think intelligence has anything to do with nationality. I think it has more to do with number of televisions one owns. I would take a guess that America has the most. The writer's strike is a blessing in disguise. I hope more people turn off the tv.
horseatingweeds
ThePolemistis wrote:


The soviets did not poison wells or destroying irrigation systems. You must be talking about the Taliban. Although I must say, for once you use the word freedom fighters. Nice of you to recognise that but the true freedom fighters lie in Palestine, of which you continue to call fundamentalists.


From what I understand the Soviets systematically attempted to destroy the rebels and all its supporters by intentionally crushing villages and destroying infrastructure.

I call the Mujahideen freedom fighters because they didn't blow themselves up killing civilians (terrorist), on horseback they chases tanks around the mountains and blew them up with rockets. I also call them freedom fighter because they were fighting, at first, a Marxist state (military dictatorship), and then the Soviets - who were actively trying to destroy them. The non-Marxist Afghans had no peaceful rout. The communist ideology of the day believed it was in "the people's" interest that they be forced under communism.

Iraq is totally different and so is Palestine. Also, I didn't mean to refer to the Palestinians as Fundamentalists, what I meant was the the Fundamentalists motivate the Palestinians to commit terror crimes.

The reason Israel takes Palestinian neighborhoods it to stop attacks - if there was a better idea I imagine they'd try it. They're not trying to force them under a regime. It is bad form when Israelis move in to those areas though.

ThePolemistis wrote:


Your missing my point completely. I am saying that a free press is the building blocks on building democracy in the region. Further, im saying that the Saudi Arabia has a tough stance agaist its own citizens. If the West produced a single outcry (from the top level) against the Saudis, Saudi Government will be on the brink of collapse. The problem is that they do not voice their concerns against the Saudis - i sometimes think who is afraid of who.


Indeed, press is important to democracy. I'm not sure who is afraid of who either, but I'm certain neither wants to find out. I think most every government in the ME is on the verge of collapse, I doubt a single cry from the west would do it though... it might actually get support from the Fundamentalists.

ThePolemistis wrote:


Thats the zionists. Im sure most Israelis are happy with the current situation, but that is still much more than they legally deserve.
Plus, all of us are happy to just live and not be blown up, including the fundamentalists. But there is a reason why they have become resistant fighters, and its because their right to live on their own land which has been theirs for generations has been taken away.

Also, please do not refer to the Palestinians as fundamentalists. This is not AlQaeda. The Palestinians are a resistant group just like the Irish, which the great America supported their independence from Britain. The only differences between the Irish situtaion and the Palestinians is the colour of their skin, thats the only difference. That is why you have perceived "terrorism" commited by Palestinians, but not by Irish. What terrorism are the Palestinians commiting? The right to claim back their own land through violence? - peaceful measures, hasve been tried, such as the UN Resolutions which Israel refuses to abide by.


Your first paragraph is just crazy. If the Israelis are happy getting attacked - why are they occupying Palestine? The trouble is that we ALL are not happy to just live. In our world there is the AGGRESSOR. He is willing to kill for what he want to take from others. The Fundamentalists believe all should live a certain way and if they resists they deserve death and hell.

Don't assume my perceptions. I perceive 'terrorism' when terror tactics are used. There were significant differences between the Irish and Palestinians besides skin color. The Irish resistance was organized with a rational voice claiming independence form England. They had an army, the IRA. They simply wanted their independence.

The Palestinian voice is unorganized and speaks irrationally. It claims Israel should be destroyed and it makes claim to the Holly Land. The IRA wasn't claiming London to be their's. Both were / are guilty of terrorism. Terrorism is just a tactic though - not what popular media likes to make of it, as if it's some entity on its own.

ThePolemistis wrote:


Firsltly, no Farsi translator will tell you that Ahmedinejhad said "wipe", "israel" and "map" in his sentence. Even the British The Guardian newspaper, made a article titled Lost In Translation regarding the situation. Ahmedinejhads exact words were "The imam (Khomeini) said that the regime occupying Jersulem must vanish from the page of time". This is the same regime that Nelson Mandela said was worst than the Apertheid government in South Africa. So away with the Zionist lies. You should take heed of language more carefully.


Regardless of translation, the Palestinian leaders make it clear they want irrational things from Israel. I don't refer only to the public speaking that gets the crowd into an ant-zionist frenzy, but also the peace attempts.

ThePolemistis wrote:

Egypt, Jordan maybe tried to destroy Israel. But the Germans killed Jews, and teh British tried to prevent American independance. If you want to keep looking at history rather than their current positive actions, then you might as well still be blaming the British role on America.


Wrong. Nazi Germany killed Jews. Colonial Britain fought America. Current Egypt, Syrian, and Jordan tried, and continues to preach the destruction of Israel. I'm not looking at history and ignoring current positive. With regard to Palestine, i see no positive. Besides fighting with Israel they now fight themselves.

ThePolemistis wrote:


Good you remember, pity you don't have a solution. Firstly, regarding the expansionist approach, it is Hamas who is calling for a ceasefire but Israel continues to reject it. Look, Israels establishment was wrong- the world knows it was illegal, but here Hamas is trying to make ends. Its not simply on one occasion, it tries many. Look at in March 2002, where it was accepted by the entire Arab League, Fatah and Hamas. But Israel refuses and throws it back in their face.


Israel doesn't and can't trust Fatah or Hamas. Sure, a seas fire is called but an hour later a rocket comes over.

ThePolemistis wrote:

Regarding resisting by blowing themselves up. The Palestinians resist also by sticks and stones and home made bombs. No match for the American built tanks, rockets or helicopters than bombard the Palestinians day in and day out. They believe by blowing themselves up, normal Israelis would fear living on the occupied territories, and hence go back home. Further, if the Palestinians did not blow themselves up, what message do u think it would send Israeli construction of settlements? Build more of course.


If they didn't blow themselves up it would send the message that Israel wouldn't have to occupy territory at all! They are wrong. The terror tactics are hurting their own people. The discussion of whether or not the establishment of Israel, as you yourself pointed out referring of history / current positives, is moot. The people need to work together. The Israelis will not be compelled to do anything by Palestinian terror tactics but continue policing them like a huge group harboring criminals. Palestine is wrong to kill Israelis. Why, because Israelis are special? No. It forces Israel to use American tanks and bullets on them. What else are they going to do? Leave the occupied territories and leave themselves further vulnerable to their neighbors what claim they clan to destroy them and have tried in the past. NOOOOO!!!!

ThePolemistis wrote:


No I do not think a rational and educated Palestinian would go miles further either. The media is biased in favour of Israel. Look at the case of Rachel Connie, an American peace activist, who was trodden over by a bulldozer. If they value American life cheap, then the lives of the Palestinians to them is worse than that of dogs.


Or you could look at the one case per half hour in the US were a person is killed in an auto accident. I guess that means the US doesn't value human life either.... You make no point. If you don't see how a rational and educated Palestinian will help Palestine for than a misguided idiot with a rocket or bomb, I don't know what to tell you.

You say there is a media bias. If anything, the the US and UK anyway, the bias is against Israel. Anyway, if a group is using terror tactics, they are asking for a media bias. No better way to look like a savage than to INTENSIONALLY blow up women and children buying groceries. And don't bring up Israel killing Palestinians. They're not intensionally killing innocent people.

horseatingweeds wrote:


The US support of Israel isn't the cause of Palestinian grief - THAT is an anti-zionist lie... Israel deals poorly with Palestine - agreed. Israel shouldn't be setting up house in the occupied territories - agreed. Should the US stop supporting Israel - no. She is an ally. The US is trying to find a solution to the mess but NO BODY CAN SEEM TO FIND ONE.


ThePolemistis wrote:

Okay, nice for you to accept:Israel deals poorly with Palestine - agreed. Israel shouldn't be setting up house in the occupied territories - agreed.

Now on the next arguement on US support. If USA stopped its 4 billion dollar per annum in financial aid which is given always in a lump sum at the beginning of the year, and its miliary aid to Israel which only needs to be 20% invested in American companies, if America ceased to provide this, then I am sure it would be in the right direction for peace.

Israel is already a developed nation, but receives more aid than the whole of Africa. There are much more ways in being supportive of Israel than thru military/financial. Perhaps it can try to build a true Palestinian independant soverign nation and increase education of the normal Palestinians all of which will subsequently help Israel.
America is currently giving 0 to the Palestinian people (since Hamas took over).

America is funding a nation that is deeply violating international law. It happened also before WW2 though slightly different called appeasement, in which Britain and France provided what Hitler asked for.. look what that lead to. I do not see germany then any different to Israel now.


Perhaps the US stopping military support would bring peace, once Israel is destroyed anyway.... Palestine won't get help from anyone as long as idiots are in charge like Hamas. Palestine will never get its own state when it posses a threat, that's just silly.

If you don't see a difference between Nazi Germany, I don't know what to tell you. Read a history book perhaps? Appeasement is very different from supporting an ally. I think you're confused about post WWI Germany. France, England, and the US did the opposite, reparations. The war destroyed Germany and the demands of the Allied Powers depressed it more. Essentially, this is what gave Hitler what he needed to motivate the German population to follow him. The resulting Hitler run state got away with a lot of law breaking because not one wanted to argue their way into a war - a mistake.

People have learned this lesson - hopefully - and will not give appeasement. The US can't help Palestine under current conditions. It would be seem as "western interference" and the US can't strengthen a threat to its ally. Trust me though, the US would love to see and would send plenty of $$$ to Palestine in order to bring about a peaceful state - if such things WOULD help.

ThePolemistis wrote:

horseatingweeds wrote:


We can start by being rational. If Palestine wasn't blowing Israel up the world wouldn't stand for its 'oppression' of the Palestinians.


If the Palestinians did not resist by blowing themselves up, the world would not even come to know about the situation in Israel. The media would simply be shut out.


Is this what you really think ThePolemists? Seriously?

ThePolemistis wrote:


Do you actually think Arab leaders are able to oppress anyone except themselves? Give me one example?


I didn't say anything about Arab leader oppressing anyone, did I? You where speaking of Saudi Arabia oppressing their people. Sadam oppressed his.... There are those who believe the ME, places like Iraq, because of their culture of tribal and sectarian aggression, are not capable of democracy and require an oppressive leader. I don't. I'm no expert but I tend to thing people would just like to live and give their children a better world.

ThePolemistis wrote:


I understand Saddam was bad, but the situation in Iraq is not much better. The Iraqis lived in fear then, but they live more in fear now. If they were disobident to Saddam, yes they would pay a heavy price. But if you were to walk in a governmental street in Iraq today, or be seen with an official, or even an innocent bystander walking on your way to buy your daily bread, bang! Iraq is worse now than then. Regardless how you die, ie. gas or cutting up, it still the same, your dead (most likely blown up by a bomb though)


Indeed, put the threat to Iraqis is from insurgence and sectarian criminals. The US is doing its best to protect the Iraqi people. It's a tough job fighting these Fundamentalists who hide behind women and torture people for assisting the US or the new government. The corruption hurts too. The big harry difference is direction. People dieing under Sadam were dieing at his will to stay in power. People dieing now are in a fight for their freedom.

IF Iraq can make it to a peaceful democracy, the sacrifices will not be forgotten. These people are the TRUE martyrs. If Iraq IS allowed to fall into yet another Fundamentalist oppressive regime, then they will be forgotten, or hated perhaps. The winner names the battle.

horseatingweeds wrote:

We'll see. Iraq has HUGE potential with US support. They could rival the UAE in my opinion. They just need to stop the sectarian criminals and other stupid groups. Industry and infrastructure is growing, despite it getting destroyed. Hopefully, the brave Iraqis can overcome and build they country into a thriving democracy. Not likely with all the selfish corruption though, but I guess thats the culture there.


ThePolemistis wrote:

Any nation in the MidEast can rival UAE. Wealth is not the problem, the leaders are. Industry and infrastrcuture is not growing. The Iraqis dont even have access to clean water, the most basic commodity.
Brave Iraqis? They are more scared than ever.
Who are you fooling. You can say a any countries has huge potential. I think Africa, the richest continent in teh world has potential. But not unless their stupid corrupt leaders are hanged, drawn and quartered.
The secret or the key lies in democracy, true democracy, true, free, fair elections. Have a private media. and things will take root from their.


Indubitably and fanatically yes indeed! However, killing the leader isn't the answer. In Africa leaders are killed all the time - and replaced with another idiot. What you describe is the US goal in Iraq. One problem with democracy there though is electing an sectarian idiot. The other problem is the idiots destroying the progress, the infrastructure that brings clean water and energy.

And YES - very brave Iraqis. Bravery is NOT the ABSENCE of fear - it is following your values regardless. Going to the market regardless. Voting regardless. Giving information on the insurgence regardless. They inspire me!

My point was that Iraq has potential with US support because the US has the strength to hold the society together until they can make the transition to a stable government with a police force that can justly prosecute these damned criminals.

ThePolemistis wrote:


And who are the good from the bad? The ordinary Iraqis are blowing themselves up in resentment to the occupation. I dont think there would be many good ones left. The good ones have probably already migrated to nearby lands and out of Iraq or become dead in conflict.


No, normal Iraqis are doing normal things, like looking for work and buying food. The Fundamentalists feed the frustrated young unemployed men these stupid lies that make them blame the US 'occupation' for all their problems. Then these misguided fools do that which IS causing the problems - blowing up infrastructure, normal Iraqis buying food, and hindering economic development that would bring jobs.


ThePolemistis wrote:


Benefit is not the same as love. I said America is the most hated country ever. Not whether America does the most trade. Sadly however, the world needs America to survive and for the success of their own economies. So therefore, no matter how much a nation hates america, there will always be trade.


Right, and you're wrong as I feel I have proven. America is not the most hated country ever. People are frustrated and scared. They miss the powerful super competent America. America HAS done more that any country ever in bringing about productive society. And no, if a country HATES the US, meaning they want her to die, they won't trade - they would fight and attack her, like the Fundamentalists. People may act like they hate the US, like a teenager who claims they hate their parents perhaps. This is different from sincere hate.
Moonspider
ThePolemistis wrote:
MoonSpider wrote:

Really? We're in a worse position now as a country than we were in 1812? 1861? 1929? 1941? I find that truly hard to believe. In fact, I find entirely unsupportable.

And there's nothing wrong with being stubborn. Look at Lincoln. He had more problems with domestic support than Bush (or any other president) could ever imagine. And Lincoln was prosecuting the most unpopular war in U.S. history. He stuck to his position and I think the United States is better off for it. Perhaps you would have voted for McClellan in 1864, but I would have voted for Lincoln.


The most unpopular war to Americans may have been that of 1812. And then perhaps Vietnam.


I’ll concede that The War of 1812 may have been more unpopular than the Civil War. However, I will not so Vietnam.
- Desertion rates:
- Civil War (Union only) - More than 200,000 men (http://thomaslegion.net/americancivilwardesertionsunionandconfederate.html)
- Vietnam – peaked at 5% (http://www.startribune.com/722/story/1558147.html)
- Iraq War – highest (2007), 0.9% (Unite States Army, which had the highest rate of the four branches, http://www.startribune.com/722/story/1558147.html)
- Public
- I’ll ignore the fact that the Lincoln administration and Republicans were so unpopular that seven states seceded from the Union upon his election. But I don’t think any Southerners were in favor of U.S. military action. Wink
- I will concede though that Northern public opinion was probably more supportive of the war effort than that in Vietnam. However Lincoln also went to great lengths to suppress public dissension. Examples:
- Suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
- Declared Martial Law.
- Had Congressman Vallandigham of Ohio (an outspoken political opponent) taken into custody by armed soldiers in the middle of the night, thrown in a military prison, convicted by military tribunal of treason because of a speech he gave in the House of Representatives, and was promptly deported.
- Issued an arrest warrant for Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney after Taney issued an opinion that only congress could suspend habeas corpus.


ThePolemistis wrote:
But as every day goes by, and the news of a American death in Iraq or Afghanistan, operation enduring freedom, is slowly becoming unpopular.
But it doesnt matter if its unpopular to the people, it matters on the damage its done to America.

Yes, the American ppl may still love Bush, and if it had been possible, may have voted him for third time (thank god he cant run again Razz).
But, we are living in a global society, a small world full of International Press and Opinions. America has become the most hated nation ever on this Earth. No one loves America anymore. America is seen as the worlds biggest bully and noone nation in the entire histroy books, has been hated so much.


I don’t care about the public opinion of foreign citizens. I do care about foreign relations. Sometimes they go hand in hand. Sometimes they do not. So what hard facts can you present that demonstrates that the United States has been harmed? Aside from adverse political relations early in the war with a few countries, I cannot see any negatives in U.S. foreign relations with major nations now due to the Iraq War. Please provide examples you may have.

ThePolemistis wrote:
WHo is americas best friend? Britain? France? Germany? Russia? Rest of Euorpe? No. The whole of Middle east (including Israel)? No. Africa? China? India? No, No, and No!
The only friend u may have is at most Japan (and u should be thankful for that, cus I do not know how a nations people can forgive when u completely destroyed their country thru 2 nuclear bombs). But every other major power and relevant nation hates you.


Once again, please provide examples where the war has negatively impacted current relations with Britain, France, Germany, Russia, et. al.

ThePolemistis wrote:
and now look at your economy. Look at how much the war costs u. u r wasting over a billion a week in Iraq which could go towards improving the lives of ur own citzzens. The American economy is on the verge of collapse. The American people r up to their eyeballs in debt, and yet u think u can fix Iraqs problems when u cannot even fix ur own.


Our economy is doing fine. Growth is slowing, but it is still growth. The money spent on the war wouldn’t be going toward anything else. The government just wouldn’t spend it. I don’t know what you read or heard that gave you the impression that our economy is on the verge of collapse. Would you please provide a reference for that claim? And to top it all off, Iraq seems to be improving. Time will tell how Iraq progresses, but recent events have shown improvement.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071120/NEWS07/711200423/1009
http://www.sunherald.com/201/story/191748.html
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_071119.htm

Unfortunately even if the war/rebuilding/stabilization effort goes well, there are too many U.S. politicians invested in losing. They even have to spin good news to make it sound bad. They don’t care about the United States and Iraq succeeding. Their only selfish concern seems to be that the Bush Administration fail.

Respectfully,
M
liljp617
I'm tired of this Iraq is improving bullshit. 2007 has been the bloodiest year of the war to date in terms of casualties. Yes, some regions are becoming less violent, but common sense says if you put 30,000 more troops in an area it's going to get better. They're moving to other places or staying out of the light right now because they know it's impossible for the US to maintain the surge for an extended amount of time.
horseatingweeds
liljp617 wrote:
I'm tired of this Iraq is improving bullshit. 2007 has been the bloodiest year of the war to date in terms of casualties. Yes, some regions are becoming less violent, but common sense says if you put 30,000 more troops in an area it's going to get better. They're moving to other places or staying out of the light right now because they know it's impossible for the US to maintain the surge for an extended amount of time.


So what's you point? Just that you don't want to hear anything good? What you call commons sense is more surface logic. The US admitted its initial strategy was flawed. They've changed it and are seeing results.

Are you a member of the anti-Bush clan that hopes Iraq falls apart so you can wag a finger? You have company if you are. History will see this in two ways.

1. The invasion of Iraq was a blunder that resulted in a split warring state.

2. The invasion was a difficult step that resulted in a thriving mid-east state, despite laking support initially.

You seem to think the criminals in Iraq are unbeatable. I say freedom is unbeatable, once a society has a taste. All Iraq needs is a taste.
Moonspider
liljp617 wrote:
I'm tired of this Iraq is improving bullshit.


So even if the situation continues to improve, even if Iraq becomes an established, stable democracy, you don't want to hear it? Like I said, some people have invested themselves in losing. They don't care about succeeding, only quitting.

liljp617 wrote:
2007 has been the bloodiest year of the war to date in terms of casualties.

So? 1864 was a bad year overall for the United States. But it included the Battle of Gettysburg, which made all the difference in the war. We're looking at trends, not annual means! Casusalties are trending down. Attacks are trending down. That is good news. As I said, some people are so invested in losing that they spin good news to make it bad.

liljp617 wrote:
Yes, some regions are becoming less violent, but common sense says if you put 30,000 more troops in an area it's going to get better.


That was the point! So am I to understand you are criticizing the U.S. military strategy this year because it seems to have worked? Your statement is akin to criticizing the Battle of Midway by saying, "Yeah we spanked the Japanese. But common sense says that if you break the enemy's code and lay a trap for them you stand a good chance of winning."

"Actually," Nimitz would have hypothetically replied. "That's, uh, sort of why we did it."

liljp617 wrote:
They're moving to other places or staying out of the light right now because they know it's impossible for the US to maintain the surge for an extended amount of time.


Maybe so. But wars are not won by a single battle. Midway may have been the turning point in the Pacific, however three more bloody years followed. No one is saying the war is over, only that we may have turned a corner.

Like I said, some people have invested themselves in losing. They don't care about succeeding, only quitting.

Quitting is a choice, but it's not a solution.

I don't believe in no-win scenarios. I believe in solutions. Thus even if I were elected president in 2008 and did not agree with invading in 2003, I would still do everyting within my power to make sure we and the Iraqis succeed. Any candidate who believes losing a war is an option is not U.S. presidential material!

Respectfully,
M
liljp617
horseatingweeds wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
I'm tired of this Iraq is improving bullshit. 2007 has been the bloodiest year of the war to date in terms of casualties. Yes, some regions are becoming less violent, but common sense says if you put 30,000 more troops in an area it's going to get better. They're moving to other places or staying out of the light right now because they know it's impossible for the US to maintain the surge for an extended amount of time.


So what's you point? Just that you don't want to hear anything good? What you call commons sense is more surface logic. The US admitted its initial strategy was flawed. They've changed it and are seeing results.

Are you a member of the anti-Bush clan that hopes Iraq falls apart so you can wag a finger? You have company if you are. History will see this in two ways.

1. The invasion of Iraq was a blunder that resulted in a split warring state.

2. The invasion was a difficult step that resulted in a thriving mid-east state, despite laking support initially.

You seem to think the criminals in Iraq are unbeatable. I say freedom is unbeatable, once a society has a taste. All Iraq needs is a taste.


That's a nice attempt to paint me as an ******, but no thanks.

Assume what you will, but I would love this war to be a victory. A victory means you stop making young Muslim men want to blow us up. By flooding their homes and regions with thousands of troops, you're doing the exact opposite.

It took 4 years to admit the strategy was flawed, and now all they've done is put a band aid on the situation. What happens when we HAVE TO withdraw some of those troops? We cannot maintain the surge for an extended time and everybody knows that. Do you think everything is gonna be fine and dandy when at least some of those troops have to leave those violent regions? "Terrorists" (hate using that word) will simply flood back into those regions and everything will start over again.

Basically, what I'm getting at, is that we will not be winning the war or on the road to victory until there is a 100% stable government that can enforce its laws/policies. And right now, that's not even in sight. Arguing over military success is irrelevant at this point. Up until this point they've done their job...pretty sure nobody disagrees with that. But that doesn't mean the war is being won. The war isn't being won until Iraq can function without 80,000 US troops patrolling the streets 24 hours a day. And with the surge, the window for a stable government to be put in place is extremely small.

With regards to your Bush comment: Yes, I am anti-Bush. I support nothing he does or says. He's lied countless times to the American people (and Iraqis). He has done nothing good for this country in 8 years. He has taken it backwards. He, in no way, deserves any credibility for the military success in Iraq. I place the deaths of the 4,000 troops directly on his shoulders for taking 4 years to admit we were on the wrong course. In that sense, I am anti-Bush. Would I "wag my finger" at him if Iraq is eventually a failure? Probably not, just as I'll give him no credit if Iraq is a victory. And I'll happily say it. But being anti-Bush has nothing to do with this war. I'm pro-military and pro-Iraq. I wish the very best of success in Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East).

With regards to your freedom comment: We're not fighting another army. We're not fighting another country. We're fighting an ideology. You do not defeat an ideology. The idea that you can defeat an ideology of this type by using sheer military force is primitive thinking. This war will NEVER be over as long as the Middle East exists (no, I'm not suggesting we nuke them all). So yes, these criminals are unbeatable because they follow/teach an ideology that is unbeatable as long as Islam exists and it is multiplying exponentially among their people each and every day we're involved.

On a side note, may I ask what your definition of victory in Iraq is?
horseatingweeds
I'm sorry that your feelings are so hurt by the president that you are unable to support anything he does or give him credit for anything liljp617. It must be difficult to be so angry that logic becomes no use.

Your theory that the US has brought 'terrorism' on its self is shared. That what the Islamic Fascist Fundamentalists advertise anyway. the also advertise that they will not stop until the world converts to their brand of Islam. As they also say, they want all western influence out of "their" land. This means industry and all that stuff, stuff the normal people want.

Seriously, trying to appease these killers is no answer. Removing troops will only add yet another victory to their long list.

Let's see, Iraq needs a stable government enough to maintain a policing force - this doesn't mean a 100% stable government. It needs to be just strong enough so the voice of the people is running things and not the Fascists.

The military force is needed and will continue to be needed for a while, until this can happen. The major forces only need be there until this happens. Some forces should remain, as they do in many other countries, for the foreseeable, for a number of reasons.

The trouble in Iraq, as you have said, is that the 'ideology,' the Islamic Fascist Fundamentalist movement has moved in making it one of their many battle ground. This makes things though but not impossible. If Iraq can get to a certain point, they will be able to function as a state even under attack from this movement. The Iraqis are a people accustomed to living under such hardship. They functioned under the oppression of Sadam. The difference their sacrifice will be earning their children a better world where they can chart their own destiny.

I believe victory, a free and functioning Iraq where children can be educated and industry sprouted, is very much possible. The path is political entirely. Only political victories count in this war, not the resent military gains. However, military gains are required to produce political gains. Much work is left.

I'm glad you brought up the fact that the true fight, the fight against the movement is not winnable. I agree. This movement is world wide and recruit the poor oppressed and uneducated. No shortage. The movement is also concentrated on cultures following Islam. Such cultures reproduce faster than any US company can make bullets to kill them. Also, the movement find a place in the civilized world among, most effectively, rich well educated students.

Their plan is to reek havoc anywhere they can with the misguided poor recruits. With their university students, they intend to have followers eventually in positions of power through out the world.

Their dedication is.... very dedicated. They intend for your children to live under Shurea law - at any and all sacrifice, sacrifice that will be rewarded in heaven. Intentionally killing, say, a few thousand women and children is actually a good moral act. These woman and children are blessed as being part of God's will - and stuff.

Their enemy.... Well, that probably you, and certainly me. It's all the free nations, the non-Muslim, and the Muslim nations that don't follow their concoction of the Holly Koran.

they didn't start with '9-11.' '9-11' did wake up the US though, for a couple months anyway. They're back fast asleep now, complaining about gas prices and waiting longer at the airport.

The movements, the ideologies enemy does not have the stomach for the fight. Some want to go after the movement and strike its bases of operation, like in Afghanistan. This has worked very well in busting Al Qaeda up so bad it can only function in puny cells with idiots that attack an airport with two in one car. (What was the other guy for anyway - reading the F-in map?)

This doesn't mean their broken though. Iraq is their main target now, using their poor recruits. After Iraq, success or failure, they will find other such targets. No shortage of targets or recruits regardless of military presence used as a recruiting tool - I've heard that one - just silly. I think Africa could be next.

Thus far the movement has beaten all of the US allies in Iraq. Spain was the easy one - proved their methods.

We can't forget their other victories though. 17% fewer people are visiting the US bacause of increased security (heard it on NPR today) rights are being suspended, people all over the world are suspicious of brown Arab-looking people (particularly Sikhs for their turbin.... they're not even close to Islam). All great for proving that the entire world wants to destroy Islam.

Personally, I'm willing to accept that terror attacks will occur in order to avoid crushing freedom. I'm not willing to extend 'freedom' the hinders finding and killing the enemy. I'm also unwilling to hid or appease the movement. to keep them at bay we must destroy their bases of operation, their supporters, and cut their lines of supply and communication with rock hard military force, regardless if it somehow might make them "MORE" angry.

So, my conclusion:

Iraq is very much winnable

Defeating the movement is unlikely

The movement actually finding it victory is totally impossible, unless the world looses it taste for freedom.

Our big trouble now is that the civilized world has no stomach for what needs to be done. We have been to comfortable for to long to understand the need for war. We need to stop buying SUV so we have room for our kids and all their hockey gear - instead send them to Arabic class. We need to instill in them the thirst for freedom and equality, indoctrinate them as patriots and world servants. We need to ring out this plague of self entitlement, fear, and over indulgence. This way they may find victory when we're gone.

Not likely though. This will be like many other movements humanity has produced. It will burn out and be replaced.
Moonspider
liljp617 wrote:
Assume what you will, but I would love this war to be a victory. A victory means you stop making young Muslim men want to blow us up. By flooding their homes and regions with thousands of troops, you're doing the exact opposite.


I respectfully disagree with your definition of victory. One does not win wars by getting the enemy to like you. In every war I've ever studied, the loser doesn't particularly look favorably upon the winner. Now after a few decades or centuries, opinions of one another may change. However even then there may be latent hostility. (One sees it in the Southern United States against the Northern United States, Spaniards against Americans, Germans against French and vice versa, Koreans and Chinese against the Japanese, etc. for example.)

The simple fact is that groups warring against one another possess diametrically opposed objectives. The one who achieves their objective wins. The other loses. Few people are ever happy about losing.

In Iraq, our victory or defeat will be measured by whether or not we can help create a stable, democratic government. I believe that many of the groups warring in Iraq do not simply want the United States out, otherwise they’d be working to help build a democratic government and fight U.S. forces. However they are fighting one another and fighting the Iraqi government as well as the United States. Thus, I conclude that not only do those groups want us out, they also want a democratic Iraqi government to fail. Therefore, for them to stop, they must achieve a goal opposed to ours. This goal of theirs exists irregardless of our presence. Our expulsion is only a means to a greater end.

I don’t care if people want to kill me. That’s their problem not mine. And as long as I am a citizen of the United States, there will always be someone who wants to kill me now matter how the U.S. behaves. That’s a fact of life and a simple fact of living in the most powerful country in the world. There is nothing anyone can do to change that. Therefore idealistically setting a victory definition of “stop making Muslim men want to blow us up” is unrealistic. There can be no victory if your goal is to get everyone to like you.

liljp617 wrote:
It took 4 years to admit the strategy was flawed, and now all they've done is put a band aid on the situation. What happens when we HAVE TO withdraw some of those troops? We cannot maintain the surge for an extended time and everybody knows that. Do you think everything is gonna be fine and dandy when at least some of those troops have to leave those violent regions? "Terrorists" (hate using that word) will simply flood back into those regions and everything will start over again.


There are plans for this. This is why we train Iraqi military and police forces. It is part of the overall strategy. Once we root the enemy out of an area, we then deny it from them for future use by building up and strengthening indigenous forces and assets in that area. The “front lines” are always moving in a war. The trick is to make sure you don’t pay for the same real estate twice. And I assure you that we have no intention of doing that.

liljp617 wrote:
Basically, what I'm getting at, is that we will not be winning the war or on the road to victory until there is a 100% stable government that can enforce its laws/policies. And right now, that's not even in sight. Arguing over military success is irrelevant at this point. Up until this point they've done their job...pretty sure nobody disagrees with that. But that doesn't mean the war is being won. The war isn't being won until Iraq can function without 80,000 US troops patrolling the streets 24 hours a day. And with the surge, the window for a stable government to be put in place is extremely small.


Military success goes hand-in-hand with stabilization. Thus military success is very relevant. But this is a long process, in my opinion. I fully expect a 10-15 year military and diplomatic commitment on some level. And I have no problem with that. The other option (failure or loss) is unacceptable.

liljp617 wrote:
With regards to your freedom comment: We're not fighting another army. We're not fighting another country. We're fighting an ideology. You do not defeat an ideology.


I disagree here as well. I could point to our defeat of fascism and even our limited victory over communism. However that is not the point. The point is that we have no choice but to defeat this ideology. So we will. I don’t believe in accepting something simply because it’s never been done. Don’t tell me how we can’t do it. Figure out a way to do so.

Besides, a war against an ideology is not necessarily about destroying it. It’s about controlling and isolating it. The world still contains Nazis, other fascists, and any number of evil theologies and beliefs. However, where some once controlled major world powers, that is no longer the case. Likewise, I think with a concerted effort and determined resolve we can defeat an ideology, even if we cannot destroy it.

liljp617 wrote:
The idea that you can defeat an ideology of this type by using sheer military force is primitive thinking.


There is far more going on in Iraq than military action. Military action, in fact, is only a piece of the U.S. pie there. And it will continue to grow smaller as time goes on. We are not using “sheer military” force. Many of the U.S. forces there are engaged in rebuilding operations, Iraqi training and financing, support, advisor roles, and even diplomatic roles working with local governments and tribal organizations. These are some of the same tactics the U.S. military is using elsewhere in the Global War on Terror (Ethiopia, Djibouti, Philippines, Afghanistan).

liljp617 wrote:
This war will NEVER be over as long as the Middle East exists (no, I'm not suggesting we nuke them all). So yes, these criminals are unbeatable because they follow/teach an ideology that is unbeatable as long as Islam exists and it is multiplying exponentially among their people each and every day we're involved.


If that is truly the case, then one must destroy Islam to win. A leader who claims this to be the objective could never publicly say so, though. I think we can defeat this ideology without destroying Islam, however.

Respectfully,
M
horseatingweeds
Moonspider wrote:


There is far more going on in Iraq than military action. Military action, in fact, is only a piece of the U.S. pie there. And it will continue to grow smaller as time goes on. We are not using “sheer military” force. Many of the U.S. forces there are engaged in rebuilding operations, Iraqi training and financing, support, advisor roles, and even diplomatic roles working with local governments and tribal organizations. These are some of the same tactics the U.S. military is using elsewhere in the Global War on Terror (Ethiopia, Djibouti, Philippines, Afghanistan).



From what I understand, much of the resent success is due to cooperation with local tribal leaders who have determined that Al Qaeda and the other people blowing up Iraqis is not the best thing for Iraqis. Is this how you see it?

Also, do you think the free world is prepared to do what's necessary to cripple this ideology? I worry about this.

Allow me to have a quick rant about something I just now heard on the radio:

What the hell is Obama and Hilary talking about, "We need to end this war - bring our troops home."

Richardsen is the worst. All troops out in 6 months and no residual forces.... Is he retarded? What's he going to do? One day all of a sudden command every troop to just make a mad dash for the border?

Anyway, removing troops won't end any war. I can't believe so many American swallow that lump. All they're saying is that their willing to abandon the commitment to Iraq so the frightened Americans will elect them. I think they're full of crap. They know how unpopular a defeat would be - oh wait, we're already defeated - forgot.
polis
United States shouldn't have invade Iraq in the first place. That is the main reason why they should retreat. And of course, you can add facts such as lot of casualties, riots, and rate of veteran suicides.
Moonspider
horseatingweeds wrote:
Moonspider wrote:


There is far more going on in Iraq than military action. Military action, in fact, is only a piece of the U.S. pie there. And it will continue to grow smaller as time goes on. We are not using “sheer military” force. Many of the U.S. forces there are engaged in rebuilding operations, Iraqi training and financing, support, advisor roles, and even diplomatic roles working with local governments and tribal organizations. These are some of the same tactics the U.S. military is using elsewhere in the Global War on Terror (Ethiopia, Djibouti, Philippines, Afghanistan).



From what I understand, much of the resent success is due to cooperation with local tribal leaders who have determined that Al Qaeda and the other people blowing up Iraqis is not the best thing for Iraqis. Is this how you see it?


Yes it is.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Also, do you think the free world is prepared to do what's necessary to cripple this ideology? I worry about this.


No, I don't. It would take something monumental to sway people. In 1941 it took a lot fewer deaths in an attack on a then far-flung territory to mobilize us into war. This time a direct attack on the mainland with more deaths resulted in a much weaker and less committed response. I see two things that would cause Americans and/or the world to take this seriously:

1) A high-order detonation of a nuclear device.
2) A sustained terrorist campaign in the United States of small-scale attacks. (e.g. suicide bombers in malls, churches, schools, etc.)

I'm honestly surprised the latter has not happened yet. It is the top domestic terrorism priority of the Bush Administration, though.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Allow me to have a quick rant about something I just now heard on the radio:

What the hell is Obama and Hilary talking about, "We need to end this war - bring our troops home."

Richardsen is the worst. All troops out in 6 months and no residual forces.... Is he retarded? What's he going to do? One day all of a sudden command every troop to just make a mad dash for the border?

Anyway, removing troops won't end any war. I can't believe so many American swallow that lump. All they're saying is that their willing to abandon the commitment to Iraq so the frightened Americans will elect them. I think they're full of crap. They know how unpopular a defeat would be - oh wait, we're already defeated - forgot.


I agree. When people ask me when I think we should leave, I have a simple answer: "When we win."

I don't believe in resigning.

Respectfully,
M
polis
Moonspider wrote:


I agree. When people ask me when I think we should leave, I have a simple answer: "When we win."

I don't believe in resigning.

Respectfully,
M


what is the point? You only get more soliders killed, and more money is lost. Money that could be used for you healthcare system for example.

And, what do you mean with "Win"?
horseatingweeds
Try reading more than one post polis, your answers are all above.
ThePolemistis
horseatingweeds wrote:

From what I understand the Soviets systematically attempted to destroy the rebels and all its supporters by intentionally crushing villages and destroying infrastructure.


From what I understand, the Americans did the same in Iraq. Hey,, they couldnt even provide the Iraqis with clean drinking water. By carpet bombing cities,, you are killing innocents too

horseatingweeds wrote:


I call the Mujahideen freedom fighters because they didn't blow themselves up killing civilians (terrorist), on horseback they chases tanks around the mountains and blew them up with rockets.



Firstly, if they blow themselves up are they are instantly regarded as terrorists?
Also civilians and innocent civilians is a different issue in Israel. All civilians are guilty in Israel as they live on palestinian land, going against UN resolution. So they are guilty civilians already.

horseatingweeds wrote:

I also call them freedom fighter because they were fighting, at first, a Marxist state (military dictatorship), and then the Soviets - who were actively trying to destroy them.


So it is perfectly acceptable to fight and slaughter the leaders of a nation with non-democratic values? This is what you are implying right? All the Chinese leaders deserve to be hanged, drawn and quatered?


horseatingweeds wrote:

The non-Marxist Afghans had no peaceful rout. The communist ideology of the day believed it was in "the people's" interest that they be forced under communism.


And what is the peaceful route for the Palestinians? Go to the UN? They've done that and hundreds of resolutions condemning Israel, but situation is not better.


horseatingweeds wrote:

Iraq is totally different and so is Palestine. Also, I didn't mean to refer to the Palestinians as Fundamentalists, what I meant was the the Fundamentalists motivate the Palestinians to commit terror crimes.


Iraq certainly is different to Palestine.
I dont quite understand what you are saying now. You say fundamentalists motivate palestinians to commit terror crimes, so doesnt that actually make them also fundamentalists?
But no they are not fundamentalists, they are the worlds icons of the most oppressed resistance movement in the world.


horseatingweeds wrote:

The reason Israel takes Palestinian neighborhoods it to stop attacks - if there was a better idea I imagine they'd try it. They're not trying to force them under a regime. It is bad form when Israelis move in to those areas though.


Thats an outright lie. If Israel returned back all the land it stole illegally, then the Palestinians would have no reason to fight. It would create peace in that region.


horseatingweeds wrote:

Indeed, press is important to democracy. I'm not sure who is afraid of who either, but I'm certain neither wants to find out. I think most every government in the ME is on the verge of collapse, I doubt a single cry from the west would do it though... it might actually get support from the Fundamentalists.


fundamentalism only increases the wrath of power these american puppets have over their countries, but sadly they too increase people resulting to fundamentalism too.
And yes you r right, the ME is on the verge of collapse.


horseatingweeds wrote:

Your first paragraph is just crazy. If the Israelis are happy getting attacked - why are they occupying Palestine? The trouble is that we ALL are not happy to just live. In our world there is the AGGRESSOR. He is willing to kill for what he want to take from others. The Fundamentalists believe all should live a certain way and if they resists they deserve death and hell.


I meant ordinary Israelis are happy with the current land borders, not the current situation.
The Palestinians are not fighting to make all submit under a certain order. They are simply fighting for their freedoms, to have the right to live and the right to their own home and land. That is not a crime is it?
Don't confuse AlQaeda with the Palestinians. Don't paint all people of that region with the same brush.

horseatingweeds wrote:

Don't assume my perceptions. I perceive 'terrorism' when terror tactics are used. There were significant differences between the Irish and Palestinians besides skin color. The Irish resistance was organized with a rational voice claiming independence form England. They had an army, the IRA. They simply wanted their independence.


The IRA wanted their own homeland and the Palestinians want the same thing: their own homeland too. There is no difference between the Palestinians and the IRA.
The IRA used terror tactics. For instance, there was a time in the late 80s where even number 10 downing street (where the PM lives) was not safe from the IRA as they brought terror to london.



horseatingweeds wrote:

The Palestinian voice is unorganized and speaks irrationally. It claims Israel should be destroyed and it makes claim to the Holly Land. The IRA wasn't claiming London to be their's. Both were / are guilty of terrorism. Terrorism is just a tactic though - not what popular media likes to make of it, as if it's some entity on its own.


Firstly, you are trying to compare something you dont quite understand.
Some Palestinian groups are claiming to destroy Israel- correct. But the IRA was claiming to destroy Britain in Ireland. Similiarly, Palestinian groups want to destry Israel under what is rightfully Palestinian land. DO you understand? The Palestinian groups do not want to destroy New York or America (where 5 million Jews live or where Israel gets its finances from). They just want to destory Israel from the territory that rightfully belongs to them.

horseatingweeds wrote:

Regardless of translation, the Palestinian leaders make it clear they want irrational things from Israel. I don't refer only to the public speaking that gets the crowd into an ant-zionist frenzy, but also the peace attempts.


No. The translation means everything- it is what will drag you to another war against Iran, and then you will find out that the evidence has been a lie.

The Palestinians are not being irrational. They want a recognised state with true reflection of borders. What about the public speaking done by the IRA. For instance, "Go on home Britain, go on home. Havent you got no f*cking home of your own?" and then they talk about the consequences if theystay and blah blah... you can view it on youtube.

horseatingweeds wrote:

Wrong. Nazi Germany killed Jews. Colonial Britain fought America. Current Egypt, Syrian, and Jordan tried, and continues to preach the destruction of Israel. I'm not looking at history and ignoring current positive. With regard to Palestine, i see no positive.


Egypt is the next best friend America has in the middle East after Israel. He is your puppet. He does not want to destroy Israel.
False.. You are telling lies. Give me examples of when CURRENT Egypt, Syrian and Jordan leders have preached the destruction of Israel. They have peace agreements which they have all abided by.

horseatingweeds wrote:

Besides fighting with Israel they now fight themselves.


Do you know your histroy? Have you ever looked at how Hamas was created? Thanks to Israel to curb the growth of the PLO. This is the very reason why Israel financed Hamas into what it is today.
Read history more: heres a link: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2902isr_hamas.html

horseatingweeds wrote:

Israel doesn't and can't trust Fatah or Hamas. Sure, a seas fire is called but an hour later a rocket comes over.


False, you look at the peace treaties and tell me who broke them first. You don't provide a single claim towards your evident bias.


horseatingweeds wrote:

If they didn't blow themselves up it would send the message that Israel wouldn't have to occupy territory at all! They are wrong. The terror tactics are hurting their own people. The discussion of whether or not the establishment of Israel, as you yourself pointed out referring of history / current positives, is moot. The people need to work together. The Israelis will not be compelled to do anything by Palestinian terror tactics but continue policing them like a huge group harboring criminals. Palestine is wrong to kill Israelis. Why, because Israelis are special? No. It forces Israel to use American tanks and bullets on them. What else are they going to do? Leave the occupied territories and leave themselves further vulnerable to their neighbors what claim they clan to destroy them and have tried in the past. NOOOOO!!!!


Again you do not understand the reasoning. The Palestinians are blowing themselves up precisely because they are no match for the American build tanks or helicopters. Their sticks and stones may hurt the Israelis, but will never kill them. Whereas, Israel uses uranium impleated bullets or expanding bullets on the Palestinians.
Blowing themselves up is a form of resistence. They do not have the military backing like the IRA did with America. The Palestinians ARE the MOST OPPRESSED PEOPLE in the world. They voice is always looked down upon. Any sort of resistence is perceived to be an act of terrorism or fundamentalism or radicalism. But you forget one thing: IT IS THEIR LAND UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

The best thing Israel can do is to withdraw. If they withdrew then the Palestinians wont blow themselves up. Do you actually think the Palestinians would want to chase Jews living several hundred miles away when they could live in peace and at home? This is not ALQaeda.



horseatingweeds wrote:

Or you could look at the one case per half hour in the US were a person is killed in an auto accident. I guess that means the US doesn't value human life either.... You make no point. If you don't see how a rational and educated Palestinian will help Palestine for than a misguided idiot with a rocket or bomb, I don't know what to tell you.


Is it misguided that they fight for their freedom and land. Again you dont understand the situation. The international media especially American media is biased towaards Israel. Because of the horror of the holocaust, people feel sorry for Jews. But the Palestinians had no role in the holocaust is what everyone forgets. And now what happened to the Jews, is happening to the Palestinians by the Jews.


horseatingweeds wrote:

You say there is a media bias. If anything, the the US and UK anyway, the bias is against Israel. Anyway, if a group is using terror tactics, they are asking for a media bias. No better way to look like a savage than to INTENSIONALLY blow up women and children buying groceries. And don't bring up Israel killing Palestinians. They're not intensionally killing innocent people.


There obviously is, and you must be blind if you havent noticed. The incitement to religious hatred in Britain is not a crime, but anti-semetism is. Attacking the Jews is a very sensitive issue in the media, mainly because of WWII. Attacking the Muslims on the other hand, is a frequent issue. If you were to question the number of those died in the Holocaust, it is a crime (in at least 15 countries in the EU). But if u were to question the killings of millions by Stalin or even the amount of British soldiers died in WWII, you are considered as a intellectual historian.


i think the other issues about Iraq and stuff we have been over several times.. so there is no need to discuss them

Now on moonspiders comments


moonspider wrote:

I’ll concede that The War of 1812 may have been more unpopular than the Civil War. However, I will not so Vietnam.


Okay teh civil war maybe more unpopular than Vietnam but I didnt mean to emphasis it greatly.



moonspider wrote:

I don’t care about the public opinion of foreign citizens. I do care about foreign relations. Sometimes they go hand in hand. Sometimes they do not. So what hard facts can you present that demonstrates that the United States has been harmed? Aside from adverse political relations early in the war with a few countries, I cannot see any negatives in U.S. foreign relations with major nations now due to the Iraq War. Please provide examples you may have.


I think it does. If you want to win Operation Enduring Freedom, you must win the hearts and minds of the normal Arab people including Iraqis.


moonspider wrote:

Once again, please provide examples where the war has negatively impacted current relations with Britain, France, Germany, Russia, et. al.


Look at Russia for instance. Political relations are not exactly great between the two countries. The Iraq war worsened relations.
With france also. Both countries were planning to veto any resolution. But the new Sarkozy guy, may hcnage relations.
Look at Britain, our leader had to resign over it. Thats an example where it affects the people, and thus our leaders.

moonspider wrote:

Our economy is doing fine. Growth is slowing, but it is still growth. The money spent on the war wouldn’t be going toward anything else. The government just wouldn’t spend it. I don’t know what you read or heard that gave you the impression that our economy is on the verge of collapse. Would you please provide a reference for that claim?


American's (people) Debt. Credit Crunch. Weakness in dollar. These all build up.

moonspider wrote:

And to top it all off, Iraq seems to be improving. Time will tell how Iraq progresses, but recent events have shown improvement.


hmm,, I read: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071120/NEWS07/711200423/1009 and I do not see how its shows the situation in Iraq is improving overall. It just highlighted some small town.
2007 has been the bloodiest year so far for American forces, but for u it seems to be a success story.
Moonspider
ThePolemistis wrote:
By carpet bombing cities,, you are killing innocents too


Carpet bombing is the use of massive numbers of unguided bombs dropped by numerous bombers on an area of land. The modern U.S. military’s bombs are 98% guided. To my knowledge no carpet bombing tactics have been used in Iraq. The only example in the 21st Century might be during major Afghanistan fighting in 2001.

Even with the highly accurate guided munitions currently used, civilian casualties are probable when targeting sites in urban centers, though. However, I challenge you to provide a single example of a country that goes to more lengths to prevent collateral damage during a war than the United States.

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
I call the Mujahideen freedom fighters because they didn't blow themselves up killing civilians (terrorist), on horseback they chases tanks around the mountains and blew them up with rockets.


Firstly, if they blow themselves up are they are instantly regarded as terrorists?


Not necessarily, I don’t think. Japanese Kamikazes were not terrorists. Viet Cong sappers were not terrorists.

However the targeting of civilians for the sole purpose of “terrorizing” the populace does make them so. Terrorism has little to no military objective. The 9/11 attack had a limited military objective, for example: targeting a financial center, the seat of U.S. military authority, and a seat of governmental authority (the unsuccessful attack on the Capitol building). However its primary purpose was to kill civilians in an attempt to scare the populace. And thereby influence the government (through fear) to alter foreign policy in a manner favorable to Al Qaeda’s objectives. A “terrorist” and a “freedom fighter” may have the same political objective. However a terrorist uses terror to try and achieve that end, rather than direct military operations.

ThePolemistis wrote:
Also civilians and innocent civilians is a different issue in Israel. All civilians are guilty in Israel as they live on palestinian land, going against UN resolution. So they are guilty civilians already.


I wholeheartedly disagree here. To say that all civilians are guilty because of where they live is wrong. You are saying that a 5-year old child is just as much a legitimate military target as a 25-year old Israeli lieutenant. But once again terrorism is the use of terror to achieve a political objective. That, in my opinion, is immoral. It may sound trite, but two wrongs does not a right make. If you cannot achieve your objectives through legitimate means (including legitimate military operations) it does not excuse you to behave immorally. Terrorists, by their very means of attempting to achieve their political goals, lose the moral high ground in an argument, no matter how wronged they may have been. They cease being “freedom fighters” and become nothing more than thugs and murderers.


ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

I also call them freedom fighter because they were fighting, at first, a Marxist state (military dictatorship), and then the Soviets - who were actively trying to destroy them.


So it is perfectly acceptable to fight and slaughter the leaders of a nation with non-democratic values? This is what you are implying right? All the Chinese leaders deserve to be hanged, drawn and quatered?


I think H.E.W. is simply saying that these fighters were attempting to win by legitimate military operations aimed at legitimate military targets.

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

The non-Marxist Afghans had no peaceful rout. The communist ideology of the day believed it was in "the people's" interest that they be forced under communism.


And what is the peaceful route for the Palestinians? Go to the UN? They've done that and hundreds of resolutions condemning Israel, but situation is not better.


Once again, that does not excuse terrorism and murder. They can work through legitimate means and bravely suck-up their situation until such time as an agreement is reached. People, as a whole, do not feel sorry for groups that randomly target civilians. Thus, people, as whole, do not really care about the plight of Palestinians as long as groups like Hamas behave as they do. Their actions taint their grievances and their goals.

The peace talks this week in the United States serve as a prime example. You have the Arab world, including Syria, participating in the U.S. hosted summit. However Hamas is threatening to launch a barrage of attacks against Israel in protest. I believe their goal, if they carry out such attacks, is to draw the Israeli army into Gaza. This might cast a shadow over the summit or even derail it. They’d use such an Israeli defensive reaction to claim Israel is not negotiating in good faith. That propaganda might play well in the Arab world and in other regions, but not in the United States. Hamas does not want a settlement. They want it all. They don’t want to negotiate with Israel. They want to defeat Israel. They do not wish to coexist with Israel. They wish to destroy it and claim all of the Roman territory of Provincia Syria Palestina as their own.

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

The reason Israel takes Palestinian neighborhoods it to stop attacks - if there was a better idea I imagine they'd try it. They're not trying to force them under a regime. It is bad form when Israelis move in to those areas though.


Thats an outright lie. If Israel returned back all the land it stole illegally, then the Palestinians would have no reason to fight. It would create peace in that region.


“..stole illegally…?” Much of the land the Palestinians and others want Israel to return relate to the 1967 boundaries. That was not illegally stolen. That was legitimately acquired in a war precipitated by nations then hostile to Israel.

ThePolemistis wrote:
The translation means everything- it is what will drag you to another war against Iran, and then you will find out that the evidence has been a lie.


This is a little off-topic, but even if the United States goes to war with Iran tomorrow, the evidence will never be a lie, because the Iranian government makes claims every week that would be the basis for an attack. How can 3,000 centrifuges be a U.S. lie when it comes from the mouth of the Iranian president? Iran is developing the means to create weapons-grade nuclear material. They do not deny this, they even claim it. They only deny the intention of wanting to create a nuclear bomb. A U.S. attack would be aimed at preventing them from further developing the means. Iranian intentions are relevant, but not necessary to justify an attack. And like I said, the Iranian government itself provides the justification. If countries such as Russia (and now even a Saudi Arabian plan the Iranians are against) are willing to enrich uranium for Iran, why would Iran not accept the offer? It makes for very questionable intentions indeed.

ThePolemistis wrote:
Again you do not understand the reasoning. The Palestinians are blowing themselves up precisely because they are no match for the American build tanks or helicopters. Their sticks and stones may hurt the Israelis, but will never kill them. Whereas, Israel uses uranium impleated bullets or expanding bullets on the Palestinians.
Blowing themselves up is a form of resistence. They do not have the military backing like the IRA did with America. The Palestinians ARE the MOST OPPRESSED PEOPLE in the world. They voice is always looked down upon. Any sort of resistence is perceived to be an act of terrorism or fundamentalism or radicalism. But you forget one thing: IT IS THEIR LAND UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

The best thing Israel can do is to withdraw. If they withdrew then the Palestinians wont blow themselves up. Do you actually think the Palestinians would want to chase Jews living several hundred miles away when they could live in peace and at home? This is not ALQaeda.


First of all, a little off topic but Israel does not use American built tanks. They have their own model.

You say that “blowing themselves up” is a form of resistance. I’d agree if they were strapping bombs to themselves and throwing their bodies underneath Israeli tanks and blowing themselves up. However they are not. They are blowing themselves up in market places or other areas of civilian congregation.



ThePolemistis wrote:
Is it misguided that they fight for their freedom and land. Again you dont understand the situation. The international media especially American media is biased towaards Israel. Because of the horror of the holocaust, people feel sorry for Jews. But the Palestinians had no role in the holocaust is what everyone forgets. And now what happened to the Jews, is happening to the Palestinians by the Jews.


Once again, it is not the goal but the means that undermines their legitimacy. No matter how bad a murder’s life has been, people tend to look unfavorably upon murderers.

I assume that at this point you would argue that Israelis are murderers of Palestinians. But in the West we see Palestinians intentionally targeting civilians with suicide bombers and primitive rockets. Whereas the Israeli military appears to be killing terrorists and creating buffer zones against the rocket attacks on their civilian populace, with Palestinian civilians simply being collateral damage. We also see the Israelis attempting to negotiate in good faith (this week being another example), whereas major Palestinian organizations like Hamas seem uninterested in negotiating at all.

Besides that, watching Palestinians dancing in the streets and celebrating after the 9/11 attack is not exactly a good way to endear oneself to Americans.

ThePolemistis wrote:
moonspider wrote:

I don’t care about the public opinion of foreign citizens. I do care about foreign relations. Sometimes they go hand in hand. Sometimes they do not. So what hard facts can you present that demonstrates that the United States has been harmed? Aside from adverse political relations early in the war with a few countries, I cannot see any negatives in U.S. foreign relations with major nations now due to the Iraq War. Please provide examples you may have.


I think it does. If you want to win Operation Enduring Freedom, you must win the hearts and minds of the normal Arab people including Iraqis.


Agreed. I was not referring though to Iraqis or Afghans, but rather to other nations, particularly outside the Middle East.

I honestly don’t think there is anything we can do to win the hearts and minds of the Arab majority, though. There are those who love us (Kuwaitis), but for the most part I think we’ll always be frowned upon as a whole because of our support of Israel and our Middle Eastern/Global hegemony. Neither of these will ever change as long as the United States exists.

ThePolemistis wrote:
moonspider wrote:

Once again, please provide examples where the war has negatively impacted current relations with Britain, France, Germany, Russia, et. al.


Look at Russia for instance. Political relations are not exactly great between the two countries. The Iraq war worsened relations.


Ah, yes. But the United States and Russia are often at odds, and will be almost always be so, for numerous reasons that have nothing to do with Iraq.

ThePolemistis wrote:
With france also. Both countries were planning to veto any resolution. But the new Sarkozy guy, may hcnage relations.


Yes, France and U.S. relations are warming again.

ThePolemistis wrote:
Look at Britain, our leader had to resign over it. Thats an example where it affects the people, and thus our leaders.


I believe it only temporary, though. The worst I think has past.

ThePolemistis wrote:
moonspider wrote:

Our economy is doing fine. Growth is slowing, but it is still growth. The money spent on the war wouldn’t be going toward anything else. The government just wouldn’t spend it. I don’t know what you read or heard that gave you the impression that our economy is on the verge of collapse. Would you please provide a reference for that claim?


American's (people) Debt. Credit Crunch. Weakness in dollar. These all build up.


Economies flow in cycles. I’ve been hearing talk of U.S. financial collapse since the 1970s. 9/11 is a prime example of how resilient the U.S. economy is. And however goes the U.S. economy, so goes the world.

ThePolemistis wrote:
moonspider wrote:

And to top it all off, Iraq seems to be improving. Time will tell how Iraq progresses, but recent events have shown improvement.


hmm,, I read: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071120/NEWS07/711200423/1009 and I do not see how its shows the situation in Iraq is improving overall. It just highlighted some small town.
2007 has been the bloodiest year so far for American forces, but for u it seems to be a success story.


Overall violence is down since the surge, in Baghdad and elsewhere. Yes, 2007 has been the bloodiest year for U.S. forces. But this coincided with the surge-related offensives. Casualties since September have been significantly less than those during the same months in any previous year.

Respectfully,
M
horseatingweeds
Wasn't it you, ThePolemistis, that I said I wasn't going to answer you post if you said another really ridiculous thing? Anyway, I'll try to help you out but above it sounds like all you want to do is debate (support you own argument regardless) rather than discus (test you argument and mine). Your arguments sound like they came out of a recruiting manual....

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

From what I understand the Soviets systematically attempted to destroy the rebels and all its supporters by intentionally crushing villages and destroying infrastructure.


From what I understand, the Americans did the same in Iraq. Hey,, they couldnt even provide the Iraqis with clean drinking water. By carpet bombing cities,, you are killing innocents too


Your wrong again. Unintentionally killing a civilian that an insurgent is hiding behind is very different from rolling up a column of tanks, knocking down a village, and chasing down everyone and killing them - INTENTIONALLY.

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:


I call the Mujahideen freedom fighters because they didn't blow themselves up killing civilians (terrorist), on horseback they chases tanks around the mountains and blew them up with rockets.



Firstly, if they blow themselves up are they are instantly regarded as terrorists?
Also civilians and innocent civilians is a different issue in Israel. All civilians are guilty in Israel as they live on palestinian land, going against UN resolution. So they are guilty civilians already.


Are you seriously this slow? NO, THEY INTENTIONALLY KILL INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN - DOESN'T MATTER HOW.

And my claiming that Israelis who are in the occupied territories are guilty, are you saying their not innocent - hence good targets? If you are you have some problems to deal with on your own - don't bother responding to this post.

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

I also call them freedom fighter because they were fighting, at first, a Marxist state (military dictatorship), and then the Soviets - who were actively trying to destroy them.


So it is perfectly acceptable to fight and slaughter the leaders of a nation with non-democratic values? This is what you are implying right? All the Chinese leaders deserve to be hanged, drawn and quatered?


Gees.....

NOOOOOOOOOOO. The Afghans were fighting a real entity actually trying to take their homes. The Fascist Islam Fundamentalists sell a tail of the zionist entity that wants to take over the world and kill all the Arabs. One is very real and one it total stupidity.


ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

The non-Marxist Afghans had no peaceful rout. The communist ideology of the day believed it was in "the people's" interest that they be forced under communism.


And what is the peaceful route for the Palestinians? Go to the UN? They've done that and hundreds of resolutions condemning Israel, but situation is not better.


Right, they try peaceful means in the morning and throw rocks in the afternoon.

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

Iraq is totally different and so is Palestine. Also, I didn't mean to refer to the Palestinians as Fundamentalists, what I meant was the the Fundamentalists motivate the Palestinians to commit terror crimes.


Iraq certainly is different to Palestine.
I dont quite understand what you are saying now. You say fundamentalists motivate palestinians to commit terror crimes, so doesnt that actually make them also fundamentalists?
But no they are not fundamentalists, they are the worlds icons of the most oppressed resistance movement in the world.


You mean the crazy-arab world's icon of the most oppressed movement. You said it yourself - "icon." Why are they and "icon." Because the Fundamentalists use this "icon" to motivate their misguided followers, some of them Palestinians.

The fundis convince some of the Palestinians to commit crimes. Freedom is found through a much different rout. Everyone knows Israel won't submit to suicidal jerks.

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

The reason Israel takes Palestinian neighborhoods it to stop attacks - if there was a better idea I imagine they'd try it. They're not trying to force them under a regime. It is bad form when Israelis move in to those areas though.


Thats an outright lie. If Israel returned back all the land it stole illegally, then the Palestinians would have no reason to fight. It would create peace in that region.


Don't you mean a zionist lie???? And no, Israel took the land during war. They keep it because of the out-right strategical advantage it has. This is basic knowledge. They took much more in the war but only kept the strategic chunks that were used against them.

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

Indeed, press is important to democracy. I'm not sure who is afraid of who either, but I'm certain neither wants to find out. I think most every government in the ME is on the verge of collapse, I doubt a single cry from the west would do it though... it might actually get support from the Fundamentalists.


fundamentalism only increases the wrath of power these american puppets have over their countries, but sadly they too increase people resulting to fundamentalism too.
And yes you r right, the ME is on the verge of collapse.


American puppets..... Rolling Eyes

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

Your first paragraph is just crazy. If the Israelis are happy getting attacked - why are they occupying Palestine? The trouble is that we ALL are not happy to just live. In our world there is the AGGRESSOR. He is willing to kill for what he want to take from others. The Fundamentalists believe all should live a certain way and if they resists they deserve death and hell.


I meant ordinary Israelis are happy with the current land borders, not the current situation.
The Palestinians are not fighting to make all submit under a certain order. They are simply fighting for their freedoms, to have the right to live and the right to their own home and land. That is not a crime is it?
Don't confuse AlQaeda with the Palestinians. Don't paint all people of that region with the same brush.


I'm not confusing them, and yes, when you try to effect political change by blowing up civilians, that is very much a crime. In Palestine's case, a crime against Palestine and Israel. These tactics are counter productive. The Fundies encourage it for that reason, they want this problems in the region to keep that icon of yours healthy. They need it to further their agenda.

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

Don't assume my perceptions. I perceive 'terrorism' when terror tactics are used. There were significant differences between the Irish and Palestinians besides skin color. The Irish resistance was organized with a rational voice claiming independence form England. They had an army, the IRA. They simply wanted their independence.


The IRA wanted their own homeland and the Palestinians want the same thing: their own homeland too. There is no difference between the Palestinians and the IRA.
The IRA used terror tactics. For instance, there was a time in the late 80s where even number 10 downing street (where the PM lives) was not safe from the IRA as they brought terror to london.


Do you have a point here or are you just trying to say, "ok, the Palestinians are WRONG but hay, so was the IRA." I'm saying the Irish at least had a rational voice and thus a chance in hell. The Palestinians are going no where.

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

The Palestinian voice is unorganized and speaks irrationally. It claims Israel should be destroyed and it makes claim to the Holly Land. The IRA wasn't claiming London to be their's. Both were / are guilty of terrorism. Terrorism is just a tactic though - not what popular media likes to make of it, as if it's some entity on its own.


Firstly, you are trying to compare something you dont quite understand.
Some Palestinian groups are claiming to destroy Israel- correct. But the IRA was claiming to destroy Britain in Ireland. Similiarly, Palestinian groups want to destry Israel under what is rightfully Palestinian land. DO you understand? The Palestinian groups do not want to destroy New York or America (where 5 million Jews live or where Israel gets its finances from). They just want to destory Israel from the territory that rightfully belongs to them.


Indeed. If only we could define "their land." From what the Fundies say, they want the entity of Israel destroyed - its on Arab land that the Palestinians deserve. The Irish wanted the British off the island of Ireland, not out of the UK. Anyway, I'll never buy that the Palestinians are fighting for those puny occupied territories. Please - blowing people up that..... You're better to compare the Fundi Palestinians (not all) to the anarchists in the IRA. Regardless, both are wrong and won't get what they want.

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

Regardless of translation, the Palestinian leaders make it clear they want irrational things from Israel. I don't refer only to the public speaking that gets the crowd into an ant-zionist frenzy, but also the peace attempts.


No. The translation means everything- it is what will drag you to another war against Iran, and then you will find out that the evidence has been a lie.

The Palestinians are not being irrational. They want a recognised state with true reflection of borders. What about the public speaking done by the IRA. For instance, "Go on home Britain, go on home. Havent you got no f*cking home of your own?" and then they talk about the consequences if theystay and blah blah... you can view it on youtube.


What?...... Another war with Iran?.... Do you have a point here?

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

Wrong. Nazi Germany killed Jews. Colonial Britain fought America. Current Egypt, Syrian, and Jordan tried, and continues to preach the destruction of Israel. I'm not looking at history and ignoring current positive. With regard to Palestine, i see no positive.


Egypt is the next best friend America has in the middle East after Israel. He is your puppet. He does not want to destroy Israel.
False.. You are telling lies. Give me examples of when CURRENT Egypt, Syrian and Jordan leders have preached the destruction of Israel. They have peace agreements which they have all abided by.


You need to do some studying and understand what a "puppet" government is. These countries have made progress in peace with Israel and with trade with the US but they are still infected with Fundies.

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

Besides fighting with Israel they now fight themselves.


Do you know your histroy? Have you ever looked at how Hamas was created? Thanks to Israel to curb the growth of the PLO. This is the very reason why Israel financed Hamas into what it is today.
Read history more: heres a link: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2902isr_hamas.html


You're using surface logic here fella. If you support the enemy of your enemy it doesn't take away your right to defend yourself from him later.

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

Israel doesn't and can't trust Fatah or Hamas. Sure, a seas fire is called but an hour later a rocket comes over.


False, you look at the peace treaties and tell me who broke them first. You don't provide a single claim towards your evident bias.


First, that's just illogical. Second, I'm not the bias one in this discussion. Neither Fatah nor Hamas have enough control, or at least it didn't seem so this past year and a half, to call a thorough seas fire. Anyway, what are the to going to do once they get a Palestinian state, fight over that with each other.....

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

If they didn't blow themselves up it would send the message that Israel wouldn't have to occupy territory at all! They are wrong. The terror tactics are hurting their own people. The discussion of whether or not the establishment of Israel, as you yourself pointed out referring of history / current positives, is moot. The people need to work together. The Israelis will not be compelled to do anything by Palestinian terror tactics but continue policing them like a huge group harboring criminals. Palestine is wrong to kill Israelis. Why, because Israelis are special? No. It forces Israel to use American tanks and bullets on them. What else are they going to do? Leave the occupied territories and leave themselves further vulnerable to their neighbors what claim they clan to destroy them and have tried in the past. NOOOOO!!!!


Again you do not understand the reasoning. The Palestinians are blowing themselves up precisely because they are no match for the American build tanks or helicopters. Their sticks and stones may hurt the Israelis, but will never kill them. Whereas, Israel uses uranium impleated bullets or expanding bullets on the Palestinians.
Blowing themselves up is a form of resistence. They do not have the military backing like the IRA did with America. The Palestinians ARE the MOST OPPRESSED PEOPLE in the world. They voice is always looked down upon. Any sort of resistence is perceived to be an act of terrorism or fundamentalism or radicalism. But you forget one thing: IT IS THEIR LAND UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

The best thing Israel can do is to withdraw. If they withdrew then the Palestinians wont blow themselves up. Do you actually think the Palestinians would want to chase Jews living several hundred miles away when they could live in peace and at home? This is not ALQaeda.


You have some odd logic here.... American backing the IRA???? The IRA's terror attacks were with home-made cheep grocery store bombs. Are you talking about Irish-American supporters????

And I am understanding the reasoning. The reasoning is clear. It's just illogical. The Palestinians want the Israelis out, sow they make criminal attacks on civilians. Really clever....

In reality, all their attacks do is give Israel license to push further and certainly makes them unwilling to give up the strategic areas. You need to understand the Israeli reasoning as well and not follow this misguided Fundi idea that Israel is an expansionist.

ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

Or you could look at the one case per half hour in the US were a person is killed in an auto accident. I guess that means the US doesn't value human life either.... You make no point. If you don't see how a rational and educated Palestinian will help Palestine for than a misguided idiot with a rocket or bomb, I don't know what to tell you.


Is it misguided that they fight for their freedom and land. Again you dont understand the situation. The international media especially American media is biased towaards Israel. Because of the horror of the holocaust, people feel sorry for Jews. But the Palestinians had no role in the holocaust is what everyone forgets. And now what happened to the Jews, is happening to the Palestinians by the Jews.


LOL..... I guess it's not really funny. Is this what you really think? Who is feeding you this crap???!!!!

I live in the US - ok - the media is NOT bias toward Israel. The opposite in fact. The average American that watches sports instead of the news just sees the conflict as another pair of ME states fighting over nothing. The people that do what the news see Israeli tanks and well dressed soldiers standing in streets. They hear how they have occupies another neighborhood. Americans don't like this at all. When Israel went after Hamas, people didn't like it and everyone was sore with Israel.

What it comes down to has nothing to do with the holocaust. Most Americans don't even connect the two. The reason no one stops Israel is because the Palestinians are blowing up civilians. And no, what happened to the Jews is not happening to the Palestinians.


ThePolemistis wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:

You say there is a media bias. If anything, the the US and UK anyway, the bias is against Israel. Anyway, if a group is using terror tactics, they are asking for a media bias. No better way to look like a savage than to INTENSIONALLY blow up women and children buying groceries. And don't bring up Israel killing Palestinians. They're not intensionally killing innocent people.


There obviously is, and you must be blind if you havent noticed. The incitement to religious hatred in Britain is not a crime, but anti-semetism is. Attacking the Jews is a very sensitive issue in the media, mainly because of WWII. Attacking the Muslims on the other hand, is a frequent issue. If you were to question the number of those died in the Holocaust, it is a crime (in at least 15 countries in the EU). But if u were to question the killings of millions by Stalin or even the amount of British soldiers died in WWII, you are considered as a intellectual historian.


That's just ridiculous. Where are you from???? As I said, I'm familiar with US and UK news, they bash Israel hard every chance they get and go out of their way to treat any Arab or Muslim issue gingerly. The holocaust has nothing to do with anything, except that crazy Fundamentalists bring it up and show how uneducated they are. The only other group bringing it up are neo-nazis. Are bright group as well....

ThePolemistis wrote:
moonspider wrote:

I’ll concede that The War of 1812 may have been more unpopular than the Civil War. However, I will not so Vietnam.


Okay teh civil war maybe more unpopular than Vietnam but I didnt mean to emphasis it greatly.


Vietnam was unpopular because the cost was on TV. Like Iraq, if it had been a three week success, there would have been no opposition. Our comfortable societies have not the stomach for war of any kind.

ThePolemistis wrote:
moonspider wrote:

Our economy is doing fine. Growth is slowing, but it is still growth. The money spent on the war wouldn’t be going toward anything else. The government just wouldn’t spend it. I don’t know what you read or heard that gave you the impression that our economy is on the verge of collapse. Would you please provide a reference for that claim?


American's (people) Debt. Credit Crunch. Weakness in dollar. These all build up.


Yes, just like your bubble gum expenses, gold fish food, movie rental bill. You're just misunderstanding the magnitude of the US economy. The headlines you're reading are for purposes of selling their media - that's how it's always been. The US has had in the past all these problems and worse. It's just part of economic cycle. I know you want to get you hopes up, but the US will do fine.

ThePolemistis wrote:
moonspider wrote:

And to top it all off, Iraq seems to be improving. Time will tell how Iraq progresses, but recent events have shown improvement.


hmm,, I read: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071120/NEWS07/711200423/1009 and I do not see how its shows the situation in Iraq is improving overall. It just highlighted some small town.
2007 has been the bloodiest year so far for American forces, but for u it seems to be a success story.


Do you not understand what a TREND is?
LimpFish
ThePolemistis wrote:

Thats an outright lie. If Israel returned back all the land it stole illegally, then the Palestinians would have no reason to fight. It would create peace in that region.


Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Do you know what the goals of Hamas and their similar organizations are? I can assure you they will not become peaceful just because they would get "their" land back. If Im not mistaken they want all jews out of Jerusalem, for one thing.
TomGrey
Before the 1947 UN partition plan, there was no "Palestinian people" as such -- there were Arabs living under British & French post WW I administration of former Ottoman Empire controlled land.

"Whose land is it, and was it" is the heart of the problem. It was controlled by the Turks for hundreds of years. But Turkey lost control. To the British & French. So now who owns it?

Countries do not own land the same way that people do. People own land in accordance with some legal jurisdiction, enforced by the gov't. Prior to WW I, people who owned land in current Israel owned it according to the Turks. Afterwards, ownership was based on acceptance of legal title by the British & French.

There was never a Palestinian gov't / legal jurisdiction over any of the land. In the Zionist movement of the late 19th century, Jews were going there and BUYING the land from local owners, under the Turks. This peaceful Jewish immigration was somewhat restricted by the British between the wars, but these restrictions against Jewish movement was seen after the holocaust as support for the Nazis.

How many Arabs were in current Israel before each War seems a bit under dispute as well.

If Palestinians never "owned" the land, it couldn't be "stolen".

But there was some Israeli terrorism against Arabs in the 1947-48 war, after the Arabs refused to recognize Israel. Lebanon and Syria still do not recognize Israel, there is no Peace Agreement.


The Arabs want to "win". Not peace, not even land, "winning". But Israel isn't interested in losing, and as long as the Arabs fight and murder, rather than cooperate and develop, Israel won't lose.

Until Iran gets a nuke, and some crazies use it ... on Tel Aviv.
Billy Hill
TomGrey wrote:


The Arabs want to "win". Not peace, not even land, "winning".


And winning means wiping the Jews off the face of the Earth. That's the bottom line. The biggest case of racial hatred since the Nazis.

Quote:
But Israel isn't interested in losing, and as long as the Arabs fight and murder, rather than cooperate and develop, Israel won't lose.

Until Iran gets a nuke, and some crazies use it ... on Tel Aviv.


That (likely) won't be a problem, the US, or anyone else for that matter, won't be able to stop Israel from destroying Iran's facilities before they have the chance to use a nuke. Wink
Afaceinthematrix
I've seen this video and yes, these are stupid people. But I do not think that it is right to say Americans are stupid in general. There are stupid people in every country, not just America. I'm American and I'd say that I'm far from stupid. However, I've heard this statistic and I have observed it, and that is that our average students have lower intelligence than average students of many other countries but our TOP students are about equal with top students in other countries... But most of our average students are stupid. I tutor math and I was tutoring basic Algebra today and was having trouble explaining to these students how to solve basic quadratics like this: x^2+5x+6=0. They just didn't understand any of the information. Most of these students have trouble with basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. But when I go to high level classes like calculus classes, I find that the students there are really smart and that they know what they're talking about.
Billy Hill
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I've seen this video and yes, these are stupid people. But I do not think that it is right to say Americans are stupid in general. There are stupid people in every country, not just America. I'm American and I'd say that I'm far from stupid. However, I've heard this statistic and I have observed it, and that is that our average students have lower intelligence than average students of many other countries but our TOP students are about equal with top students in other countries... But most of our average students are stupid. I tutor math and I was tutoring basic Algebra today and was having trouble explaining to these students how to solve basic quadratics like this: x^2+5x+6=0. They just didn't understand any of the information. Most of these students have trouble with basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. But when I go to high level classes like calculus classes, I find that the students there are really smart and that they know what they're talking about.


I've taught math as well. Algebra, trig and geometry. I'd have to say your teaching technique is what is the problem there. By using real world examples that affect the students, you can easily teach them the basic principals of math. Wink
Afaceinthematrix
Billy Hill wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I've seen this video and yes, these are stupid people. But I do not think that it is right to say Americans are stupid in general. There are stupid people in every country, not just America. I'm American and I'd say that I'm far from stupid. However, I've heard this statistic and I have observed it, and that is that our average students have lower intelligence than average students of many other countries but our TOP students are about equal with top students in other countries... But most of our average students are stupid. I tutor math and I was tutoring basic Algebra today and was having trouble explaining to these students how to solve basic quadratics like this: x^2+5x+6=0. They just didn't understand any of the information. Most of these students have trouble with basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. But when I go to high level classes like calculus classes, I find that the students there are really smart and that they know what they're talking about.


I've taught math as well. Algebra, trig and geometry. I'd have to say your teaching technique is what is the problem there. By using real world examples that affect the students, you can easily teach them the basic principals of math. :wink:


I'd have to disagree there - it is not my technique. It is the students. I have tutored calculus before with success because the students that take calculus actually care and want to learn. But let's face it, high school seniors taking Algebra I for the fourth time in a row because they've failed it each year and need it to graduate high school simply don't care and there's really nothing I can teach them. They don't do their work, they rarely show up to class and when they do show up to class they sleep. These people are simply stupid. I spend day after day explaining why x^2 + x isn't 2x^2. I do try real life examples. I'll try things like, "Here I have one wallet and one pencil. Can I say that I have two wallets or two pencils?" They respond with, "I don't know."

These same students are also failing most of their classes. One student that I was tutoring was in my Spanish class. The teacher, in Spanish, asked us what countries we'd been to. This girl asked me (after I had to translate the sentence for her because she doesn't know any of the Spanish that she's suppose to learn), "Hey, what country do we live in? Is the country Moreno Valley or is the country California (I live in Moreno Valley, California, USA)?" And after I stared at her, shocked, "I simply replied that the country is The United States." One of her friends rose her hand and said that the only other country she'd been to was Texas (which is a state of the US).

With these students here, I highly doubt that it is my teaching methods. These fools are just dumb.
Billy Hill
Afaceinthematrix wrote:


I'd have to disagree there - it is not my technique. It is the students.


You taught students. I taught adults. Between the ages of 18 and 60. Many had never done math before past the basics. By giving them real life examples of how to use it, they ALL picked it up to the point that they could apply it to their new career. (I did career training and re-training).

Some people can pick up math, some can't. But when they use it in real world applications they don't associate it with math and are able to comprehend better. (I taught machining and programming, by the way)

If you can find something the students physically use the math with, you can teach them all. Wink
Bru, stuffce
I have to say that there's something stupid about people who just can't work out what this thread is about.

What on earth does the Israeli land grab or Palestinians' terrorism have to do with stupid Americans? (Except that some Americans are dumb enough to believe what they see on the news; but then, so are some of all of us.)

Closer to the topic, I read recently that International Baccalaureate students do better in pretty much any academic test than any other large group. The study found this to be due mainly to the teaching method, but also to the process of allowing those who cannot achieve the top levels of academic excellence to aim for a lower one.

The IB curriculum is designed to make students think for themselves, even to the point of writing their own essay titles. e.g. in history my daughter was told to compare any two historical documents that give a different picture of an event; any event. I believe that wherever this practice is used the students give a better impression. Of course, you could trick many of them into saying something that sounds dumb.
Soulfire
Stupid? No.

Ignorant, oblivious, and apathetic? Yes.
doppleganger
well americans are not at all stupid in any manner, they are very good and have sufficient knowledge abt the nearest KFC, STARBUCKS, etc outlets and dats all they know abt it.

they pretend to be smart, intelligent which they are not.

as proof u can just ask any person who has worked in a call centre in the technical support department and u will come to know what is the truth and whats now

to make matters worse they are egoistic and seem to think that they are the only supreme beings on this planet

in fact i would say, leave them this way in their dream world, why shatter the myth which they have surrounded themselves with
polis
As I said before...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww&feature=related

a fifth of Americans can't find their own country in a world map.
Moonspider
polis wrote:
As I said before...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww&feature=related

a fifth of Americans can't find their own country in a world map.


And as I said earlier, the character of Sherlock Holmes believed that such ignorance is good. Knowledge beyond one's vocation was a waste of brain space in his opinion. Wink

I personally don't condone such ignorance, to which my Heinlein quote testifies. However, much to my chagrin, the 19th Century this is not. Wink

Respectfully,
M
ganesh
I have seen the video linked above. It is outrageously funny! But, I think it is more of a way of editing the responses in such a way that is appears preposterous.

That said, I have myself met Americans who admit that, for example, for a guy in Michigan, what is happening in the rest of the world in the news is something like some event in California.. They learn minimally about other countries / events around the world and, on the funnier side of it, I guess that is why Bush got re-elected a second term for presidency! Razz
indianinworld
lol.American peoples is humorous and not stupid,I think so.

Above line is very funny Very Happy.
Bru, stuffce
polis wrote:
As I said before...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww&feature=related

a fifth of Americans can't find their own country in a world map.


But that's due to education, not to stupidity.
HalfBloodPrince
I think that Americans are by far the stupidest people on Earth. When asked to name a country beginning with the letter U, none could think of United States...

...The American is a strange, strange creature, with many needs to harbor its appetite.

Here is an American cub in its natural habitat.

Uncyclopedia:Americans wrote:
Major Species
There are numerous species of American. For the sake of brevity, only the most common types will be described.

Obese American
A young obese American in its natural habitat.The most common type of American, A. fatassus, mostly inhabits cities like Houston and Chicago. It is often seen gathered around fast-food joints, and is easily recognizable because it is the most massive of all the species.

A. fatassus is a parasitic omnivore, and it uses its lobes of fat to suck the ambient life force out of the surrounding environment. The obese American will also eat anything, be it shit-grade beef or compressed garbage, so long as it is sandwiched in a burger bun or taco shell. It eats in large volumes, and stores the fat in sacs that give it its obese appearance. It saves the stored energy in case it has to do something strenuous, like walking ten feet. Its two-ton body is, in many cases, too heavy to move without aid, and so it relies on SUVs to cart itself around (much like Jabba the Hutt on his sail barge).

Males and females are indistinguishable, because rolls of fat block the genitals from view. Further confusing gender identification are the man-boobs seen on chest of the male. One should avoid mating with them, or watching them mate, at all costs.

Warning: Obese Americans, like plastic bags, must not be left near children unsupervised. Children may be stepped on, sat on, or become hopelessly entangled in their rolls of fat. Infants especially must be kept away, as direct contact with the obese's fat lobes will instantly snuff the life force out of them.

Ruby-Throated American
Ruby-throated Americans displaying their formal wear. The hoods are not to be confused with dunce caps, despite their geometric similarities.A. ignotus makes its home primarily south of the Mason-Dixon line. It is commonly called the "red-neck", however, this term has fallen out of use with scientists, who now prefer the gentler-sounding "ruby-throated". A. ignotus typically has a porky build, and it is the second largest species of American, often mistaken for the obese American by inexperienced American-watchers. Its preferred foods include squirrel, rattlesnake, vittles (whatever the hell those are), and fried chicken. In times of scarcity, they have been known to eat children, though as a testament to their family values, they never eat their own children, only others'.

Such Americans are of little threat without additional armaments, as their teeth are generally missing due to drunken Nascar-induced fistfights, and their drug-induced crazes usually preclude any consistent muscle movement. Travelers through the habitat of the ruby-throated American should take caution, however, as this type of American is known to favor shotguns, cans of cheap beer, and large dogs (as well as other instruments traditional to the mating practices of the ruby-throated American) to defend its territory. Ruby-throats have developed a primitive language, though scientists have yet to decode its meaning.

The ruby-throated American mainly inhabits trailer parks, although it may also be observed in the ugly part of any suburban neighborhood. The species can be identified by its prominent display of the Confederate flag. These flags serve to warn predators that the ruby-throated American's flesh is poisonous. Anyone who eats one will suffer from excruciating indigestion, acid-reflux, and cancer. This variety of American seldom thinks independently, and tends to accept everything its leaders say as fact without question.

Warning: The ruby-throated American is simultaneously the most dangerous and the most ignorant kind of American. It is a danger to itself and others, but mostly to gays, Jews, blacks, liberals, and you.

The black American community is incredibly diverse.Black American
A. africanus, or the black American, inhabits large portions of America, although it does not exist in Alaska, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, or Maine. The black American is an omnivore and eats rap music and "bitches," a type of vegetable. The species can be identified by their display of the race card, which warns would-be predators that they are an Oppressed Minority and attacking them will result in a public condemnation from Al Sharpton. This defensive mechanism is highly effective, and studies show that Al Sharpton successfully prevents 95% of all racism.

Middle-class American
The common middle-class American in its juvenile stage. The horror... the horror!Another prevalent species, A. mediocres (common name "middle-class American" or just "middle American"), mainly inhabits the suburbs, although it can be spotted migrating to warmer parts of the planet (or just to see relatives) during the weekends and holidays. A. mediocres, like its cousin A. fatassus, does eat fast food, but it primarily eats loans, mortgages, and useless consumer products. Unlike the richer variations of American, the middle-class American does not store money for the economic wintertime, preferring to eat its money now rather than later. As a result of such poor financial management, middle Americans are the first to start whining whenever the economic wintertime begins or interest rates go up.

The middle-class American is also the most docile American, and is easily herded in any particular direction. It is this habit of the middle-class that causes some to believe that A. mediocres evolved from lemmings, a theory supported by cases of politicians driving it en masse over cliffs. However, this theory was disproven when genetic tests tied them to a type of cow. Even aside from the genetic evidence, it is debatable whether the middle American "evolved" from lemmings, as it is clearly a de-evolution and is actually dumber than a lemming. (Ever tried to herd a lemming? You can't.)

Black Middle-class American

An alleged sighting of the mythical black middle-class American. The image is believed to have been a hoax.The black middle-class American, A. mediocres-negros, is a hybrid of the middle-class American and the black American. Like most cross-species offspring, it is unable to reproduce, which accounts for its extremely low population. It is so rare that some scientists don't believe it exists and consider it to be a mythical entity like Sasquatch or Loch Ness. Although occasional sightings of black middle-class Americans are reported, no conclusive evidence of its existence has ever emerged. (Think of A. mediocres-negros as the "black unicorn of Americans.")

If the black middle-class American did exist, it would revolutionize the way blacks are thought of by scientists. Unfortunately, since no one has proven that they exist, scientists therefore conclude that all blacks live in ghettos and enjoy rap music.

Rich American
A. patrician, or the rich American, is much less common than most of the other species of its genus, but it makes up for it by leading all the other American species. Whatever it says goes, and the middle-class American especially follow the whims of the rich American the way Evangelicals follow the Gospel. It lives wherever the hell it wants to—if a rich American wants to live in the White House, then by God, it gets the White House. (Indeed, so many rich Americans want to live in the White House that they all agreed to take turns in it, changing every four years on January 20th.)

A. patrician is omnivorous and it eats whatever it wants to, but it prefers the flesh and blood of poor people, undocumented immigrants, and the middle class. The rich American is also very territorial, and regularly claims and invades foreign territories (see Iraq and Manifest Destiny). Individual rich Americans also maintain fairly large personal territories, in the form of vacation mansions and the Bahamas.

Celebrity American
A. celebritus' primary habitat is Los Angeles, and occasionally Miami. The celebrity is a dietovore, its main food being TrimSpa, the South Beach diet, and the Atkins diet. It is a compulsively fashionable creature and only pimps the latest charities and humanitarian aid efforts.

The celebrity bears similarities to both the rich American (A. patrician) and the British nobility (Britannia patrician)—in fact, if you sucked the latter's brains out and gave them breast augmentation surgery, they would be identical to celebrities. A. celebritus is generally considered the dumbest species (see Paris Hilton for examples) and also the most beautiful species (if by "beautiful" you mean anorexic).

Pictures of celebrities are very rare—no one ever seems to have a camera when they're around.

Undocumented Immigrant
Immigratus unofficius, or the undocumented immigrant, is a transition species, in the process of evolving from Mesoamericanus emigratus into a true member of the Americanus genus. The undocumented immigrant primarily subsists off of whatever tidbits rich Americans throw at it. It lives wherever there are jobs other Americans are too lazy or incompetent to do themselves.

Though scientists are excited at the prospect of a living "transition species", they caution that it will take several million more years before I. unofficius evolves into a full American.

Detection and Eradication
Americans are considered to be dangerous invasive species. They have been known to wipe out whole ecosystems of native flora and fauna. Unfortunately, once established, they are notoriously hard to get rid of. The following are a few handy suggestions towards eliminating an American invasion.

Detection
Can you spot the invading Americans?Ask yourself this: Have I seen any Americans lately? Even the presence of two or three Americans can lead to a whole flock of them coming and establishing themselves. (One American alone is not enough to cause worry. Two are necessary to reproduce. Or handle artillery.) Detection is fairly easy, because Americans in foreign countries always look like tourists.

Eradication
If you have detected an infestation of Americans in your homeland, get an industrial strength American repellant. (Look for labels like "contains highbrow elements" or "contains substances the state of California may possibly acknowledge as being vaguely carcinogenic." Either of these ingredients will send Americans fleeing in terror.)

Once Starbucks coffee shops appear, however, the American infestation is permanent. At this point, the most humane alternative is through capture and forced relocation. Capturing invading American hordes is fairly easy: simply place tourist traps in various locations, effectively detaining them in a controlled area. (For best results, bait such traps with trinkets, such as t-shirts, paperweights, and the occasional item of cultural value. All of them way overpriced, of course.) Eventually, they will relocate themselves (back into the U.S.) once they run out of money.

LimpFish
Haha the above post is really funny! I say this in a non-condemning way though, cuz I like americans. But that sure is funny.. and long! Did you write that yourself? Good job if you did!
HalfBloodPrince
Haha no I got it from uncyclopedia.org it basically paroides wikipedia and makes fun of everything... Laughing
polis
Check this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaN6Rx8X6_I&feature=related

I Don't know if all of his statistics are true, but it wouldn't surprise me if they are.
HalfBloodPrince
1x = s

1x + y = s + c

x = American
s = stupid
y = Europian
c = cultured
icecool
americans are not more or less stupid then your average person anywhere else.
but also like everywhere else, there is alot of illiteracy and lack of education for a number of reasons. and they live a very sheltered life within their own borders.
media controll, politics, big bucks are to blame for that - not the guy or gal on the street.

cheers
HalfBloodPrince
icecool wrote:
americans are not more or less stupid then your average person anywhere else.


I disagree. I believe that they are much stupider.
thejam
Right now i am living in Shanghai, and since i am a expat, i work together with loads of nationalities.
All of them are from all over the world, and we have one (well i guess more) thing in common. We are all guests in China. Most people adapt someway to the Chinees way of living, or at least respect it. I really notice, and actually kind of anoyed by the attitude of most Americans.
Most of them don't seem to adapt or even respect the way Chinese handle stuff at all. Yes, there are quite some things between western-chinese culture what clash, but doesn't necesserely have to be better then another. Perhaps it's just a certain type of Americans who come down to china...
This behaviour is pissing me off big time, because they ****** up for more people than just Americans, and even worse, They really ****** up for the Americans who DO behave..

Again, i am not anti-American or so, but there is a noticable big deiffernce in behaviour between all these nationalities....

Is anyone else working as a expat, where they see different behaviour amost Americans and other nationalities??
Moonspider
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
icecool wrote:
americans are not more or less stupid then your average person anywhere else.


I disagree. I believe that they are much stupider.


Why? Do you honestly believe that the United States became the power that it is with North America inhabited by the dumbest people in the world? Your comment smacks of hatred or loathing, not logic.

I guess we're just lucky.

thejam wrote:
Right now i am living in Shanghai, and since i am a expat, i work together with loads of nationalities.
All of them are from all over the world, and we have one (well i guess more) thing in common. We are all guests in China. Most people adapt someway to the Chinees way of living, or at least respect it. I really notice, and actually kind of anoyed by the attitude of most Americans.
Most of them don't seem to adapt or even respect the way Chinese handle stuff at all. Yes, there are quite some things between western-chinese culture what clash, but doesn't necesserely have to be better then another. Perhaps it's just a certain type of Americans who come down to china...
This behaviour is pissing me off big time, because they ****** up for more people than just Americans, and even worse, They really ****** up for the Americans who DO behave..

Again, i am not anti-American or so, but there is a noticable big deiffernce in behaviour between all these nationalities....

Is anyone else working as a expat, where they see different behaviour amost Americans and other nationalities??


My father worked as an expat in Saudi Arabia for twenty years. Could you provide some examples of American behavior you believed inappropriate?

Respectfully,
M
JessieF
polis wrote:
Don't get me wrong, thats the topic on youtube.

just watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

Note: 20% of Americans can't find their own country in a world map.



Really? Oo OMFG, are the Americans who can't find their own country that stupid, ignorant, or uneducated? O.O
liljp617
thejam wrote:
Right now i am living in Shanghai, and since i am a expat, i work together with loads of nationalities.
All of them are from all over the world, and we have one (well i guess more) thing in common. We are all guests in China. Most people adapt someway to the Chinees way of living, or at least respect it. I really notice, and actually kind of anoyed by the attitude of most Americans.
Most of them don't seem to adapt or even respect the way Chinese handle stuff at all. Yes, there are quite some things between western-chinese culture what clash, but doesn't necesserely have to be better then another. Perhaps it's just a certain type of Americans who come down to china...
This behaviour is pissing me off big time, because they ****** up for more people than just Americans, and even worse, They really ****** up for the Americans who DO behave..

Again, i am not anti-American or so, but there is a noticable big deiffernce in behaviour between all these nationalities....

Is anyone else working as a expat, where they see different behaviour amost Americans and other nationalities??

You're talking about complete opposite sides of the Earth. It's been that way since the dawn of mankind. Why would you expect the most westernized nation in the world immediately adapt and cope with the most eastern nation in the world? You can't.
Afaceinthematrix
Billy Hill wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:


I'd have to disagree there - it is not my technique. It is the students.


You taught students. I taught adults. Between the ages of 18 and 60. Many had never done math before past the basics. By giving them real life examples of how to use it, they ALL picked it up to the point that they could apply it to their new career. (I did career training and re-training).

Some people can pick up math, some can't. But when they use it in real world applications they don't associate it with math and are able to comprehend better. (I taught machining and programming, by the way)

If you can find something the students physically use the math with, you can teach them all. :wink:


But it sounds like to me that these people want to learn. They probably had some level of competence.
j_f_k
highly amusing - however one has to wonder at how many people got the answer correct that were edited out of the footage and also how they picked people to answer the questions, and from where.

What it proves (and also the dumb british one) is that dumb people are to be found everywhere if you look hard enough.
LimpFish
i almost wonder myself if the people in the movies are all actors... how can you not know how many sides there are to a triangle?
ThePolemistis
LimpFish wrote:
ThePolemistis wrote:

Thats an outright lie. If Israel returned back all the land it stole illegally, then the Palestinians would have no reason to fight. It would create peace in that region.


Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Do you know what the goals of Hamas and their similar organizations are? I can assure you they will not become peaceful just because they would get "their" land back. If Im not mistaken they want all jews out of Jerusalem, for one thing.



Do you know even who supported "military" Hamas to curb the growth of the PLO? That's right, none other than the ZIonist state.
ThePolemistis
TomGrey wrote:
Before the 1947 UN partition plan, there was no "Palestinian people" as such -- there were Arabs living under British & French post WW I administration of former Ottoman Empire controlled land.

"Whose land is it, and was it" is the heart of the problem. It was controlled by the Turks for hundreds of years. But Turkey lost control. To the British & French. So now who owns it?

Countries do not own land the same way that people do. People own land in accordance with some legal jurisdiction, enforced by the gov't. Prior to WW I, people who owned land in current Israel owned it according to the Turks. Afterwards, ownership was based on acceptance of legal title by the British & French.

There was never a Palestinian gov't / legal jurisdiction over any of the land. In the Zionist movement of the late 19th century, Jews were going there and BUYING the land from local owners, under the Turks. This peaceful Jewish immigration was somewhat restricted by the British between the wars, but these restrictions against Jewish movement was seen after the holocaust as support for the Nazis.

How many Arabs were in current Israel before each War seems a bit under dispute as well.

If Palestinians never "owned" the land, it couldn't be "stolen".

But there was some Israeli terrorism against Arabs in the 1947-48 war, after the Arabs refused to recognize Israel. Lebanon and Syria still do not recognize Israel, there is no Peace Agreement.


The Arabs want to "win". Not peace, not even land, "winning". But Israel isn't interested in losing, and as long as the Arabs fight and murder, rather than cooperate and develop, Israel won't lose.

Until Iran gets a nuke, and some crazies use it ... on Tel Aviv.



The problem lies when people try to bring religion into it. The Zionist Christians/Jews want an Israel that stretches from the river of Nile to the river of Euphrates. The Muslim Extremists wants to the land back to before British rule, ie. before 1918.


Until Iran gets a nuke? Israel already has nukes. And Israel is a greater threat to world peace than Iran. Israel has violated more UN resolutions than anyother nation in the world.

oh yea,, thats right, Israel is only a threat to the Arabs and not the West, so they are allowed to have nukes.
Afaceinthematrix
LimpFish wrote:
i almost wonder myself if the people in the movies are all actors... how can you not know how many sides there are to a triangle?


I'm sure 999,999 out of 1,000,000 million people over the age of five know that. They probably just kept asking people until they found the 1 out of a million person that didn't know.
MaxStirner
I admit that I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but still feel I need to add my 2 cents worth:
Having spent a few years in the US (at college), I feel at least moderately capable of answering the question with "No, Americans are not stupid." but I believe there are two specific reasons why this assumption is sometimes made:

  • Americans, at least as a general rule, are more US-centric. In a large, prosperous nation this is not surprising, especially when your next-door neighbor can be reached only by a 20-minute drive. (here in Germany, a 2-hour drive will get me to any of four countries).
  • The education system is a bit top-heavy, with junior colleges making up for many deficits from high-school. A high-school graduate in many European countries is probably much further along than his/her American counter-part. The quality of higher education in the US tends to make up for these shortcomings.
thejam
I am kinda late with my reply, buttah here some examples of Americans who seem to be behaving worse then other nationalities:

- in Bars: loud, respecteless towards (local) staff and other guests.
- respectless and judgemental to locals behaviour (i have to say; some of the local behaviour is pretty disgusting from my point of view 2, however i don't judge it as good or bad, its just what they do..)
- Not very knowledgable abt local/culture and history.

Again, this is not abt all American expats, and quite some people from all arroudn the world do these things, and some even worse. BUT in general there seems to be more of this behaviour amongst Americans, then other nationalities.

I don't want to judge Americans or American expats here, but it is something what i (and quite some other people here) have noticed. [/quote]
redace
Many people have the opinion that it is not important to know in the modern era of web, but to have the ability to find the information. I partly agree, but some basic information about the main topics can be vital in siuations in which you are supposed to decide quickly and correctly and I bet that this kind of situation is quite common. But to be honest, I do not think that unawareness of some fact is indication of stupidity. I suppose that it is much more important to be able to solve a problem which arises in a most effective way by yourself and not to search for information on how to solve it a day or more. And by the way I fully agree with others saying that this type of clip is cutted trough and only the funny answers are given to us so it all looks at the end as Americans are really stupid, but I belive they are not.
inphurno
stupid is both a subjective and relative term. what are you comparing americans to? also what is the bar of smartness?
ibay
Americans are known as the dumbest people on planet, how else can a democracy elect a chimp-like president?
liljp617
ibay wrote:
Americans are known as the dumbest people on planet, how else can a democracy elect a chimp-like president?

Welcome to 2004. If you all still can't come up with better reasoning behind your logic after 4 years, just give it up. Thanks.
smspno
I reckon it is just a stereotype. We must not generalize and say that every American is stupid. American nation like any other nation is very differential and it is natural that some part is not well educated.
matomarx
Most of the americans i've met in Europe are very nice, but quite shallow and ignorant. On the other hand, thats an impression I get from a lot of other people to. I've been thinking of what kind of americans who travels to europe. Probably mostly middle-class people. There are those who are here to party, and there are others who are curious. What i'm trying to say is that it's hard to generalise (spelling?) without nowing he background. Expecially concerning americans who live in a very divided and culturally seperated society.
projektdeth
I'm American and I think thats so funny Laughing

Most of them questions were very easy.
paul_indo
Most Americans I have met, both within America and in other countries, have a rather limited world view but that is also true of many nationalities.

I hope that with Obama as president the USA may move into a new era and begin to understand their place in the world and that they are not actually as important as they believe.

The world got on fine before America came along and it will get on just fine after America is gone.
easysolution
lol.American peoples is humorous and not stupid,I think so.
TomS
polis wrote:
Don't get me wrong, thats the topic on youtube.

just watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

Note: 20% of Americans can't find their own country in a world map.


I haven't read the whole 5 sites, but it's the same in germany.
Most beautiful women of ex-east-germany have to draw the ex-borders between east- and westgermany, and find Poland on the map. Emberassing. Sorry, it's in german. But the drawings are selfexpressing xD http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=9JKOz4zq2F4
TomGrey
Quote:
The world got on fine before America came along and it will get on just fine after America is gone.


If you like 100 year wars, empires of death, plague and genocide, then, yeah, the world was OK before.

Ha ha. Instead of democracy, Europe would be either national socialist or (national, not really international) communist now, without free speech, without freedom of religion, with a limited market
and much, much, poorer.

Or maybe not.

In Slovakia, the natives are often a bit upset at how little most Americans know about Slovakia, or even Europe. But few Europeans know that much about China, India, Japan, or Africa. They know about America, and care about America -- a bit like Americans know about America and care about America. But locals also know about their local country. United States citizens usually know about ... their local state.

How many Europeans know how many major languages are spoken in Pakistan?
(If not, why are you reading about 'stupid Americans'?)
jabce85
yes, in general we are stupid...... especially on the road
vicar013
But not so bad at space travel, maybe that evens it up? The US does have some horrendous extremes of intelligence, and unintelligence. Theres some very arrogant, conceited people who've had every opportunity to get educated over there. But then theres countries elsewhere with massive rates of illiteracy, with little education. They just don't get on tv much. ho ho.
In conclusion, Americans - 'generally (more?') - politically naive, enthusiastic/fanatical, fat. Not stupid though.
Have some faith people, but don't be religious about it.

BTW Mr Birkhead (jabce85) I am fascinated by you, you're clearly very smart and talented. Good luck with the engineering thing, and if all else fails you're a pianist and a writer to me. Wink
smspno
Yesterday I realised that the American are not dumb at all. Eventually, they stood up and seized this great opportunity to bring about some changes in their country and chose excellently. Barrack Obama is great.
deanhills
Americans are brilliant marketers. Disneyland and Epcott Centre come to mind. Sea World. American people are savvie business people, quite a large percentage anyway. Think the real genius lies in the collection however of 50 states together, rather than any one in isolation, and the power of 300 million people, rather than little groups in isolation. America is a powerful country with powerful people collectively. There is some brilliance in that.
f99123
I don't think so . In my eyes US is a power country and Americans are very smard . You see , the most rich companines are most in the US.
im1ofthem
Honestly, i feel that all of us Americans are merely puppets, or perhaps hamsters.
We have Simulated free will, we think we decided it, but it was actually the government. We think we have a choice, but we don't. .. I'm gonna move to N. Korea.
liljp617
im1ofthem wrote:
Honestly, i feel that all of us Americans are merely puppets, or perhaps hamsters.
We have Simulated free will, we think we decided it, but it was actually the government. We think we have a choice, but we don't. .. I'm gonna move to N. Korea.


Generic pessimistic view of the US from the inside. I take it you've never been outside the country? It seems you really don't know how good you have things compared to the majority of the world.
TomGrey
As Obama rapidly reduces expectations of huge, fast change, I'm less and less unhappy about him winning.

He'll leave Iraq a bit sooner than is probably optimal, but that will only mean more Iraqis are murdered by Iraqi supported AQ terrorist killers, before the Iraqi military/ police (security forces) stop the killers.

Maybe he'll get serious about Afghanistan, like he said he would.

He'll do more bailouts, but Bush was also doing them, and McCain would have, too -- now the Reps can get tougher in opposition to the worst of the pig trough feeding (which Reps have been supporting).

He'll appoint pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage US SC justices. Well, 55% of the Catholics voted for him. That's the real sad thing.
liljp617
^^

What does that have to do with the thread at all?
themarine
I always want to know what Americans think about it?
themarine
I think we're all guilty of that, to some extent.

More importantly, I think, there has been a tendency for people to believe what they are told by their elected (or un-elected) governments, news services etc. This has led to a situation where governments do as they want - and not what their election promises stated they would do.

In the UK people are beginning to realise that government officials are rarely trustworthy - especially over matters of international policy and security. Hopefully the same is happening in the US although the size of that country does, undoubtedly, slow things down as news coverage tends to be more focussed on the US - international news content being reduced and, to some extent, filtered to gain viewers/readership.

Sadly "all quiet in the Middle East" doesn't generate interest whereas ""Iraq sponsors Al-Qaeda. Iran wants to nuke Israel" certainly does.

The "Americans are stupid" videos are simply manipulative nonsense. I think it's more accurate to say that, as with so many other countries, "Americans are misled."
deanhills
themarine wrote:
The "Americans are stupid" videos are simply manipulative nonsense. I think it's more accurate to say that, as with so many other countries, "Americans are misled."


I like that. All of us are misled and deluded at the same time. Information is being manipulated in a million of ways, with too much self-interest involved, such as the media all having their own agendas, politicians using and manipulating the media, etc etc.
goniagara
You can do this about any country ... every country has uneducated morons, so if you walk around and interview enough people, you can get enough people to say stupid things.
deanhills
goniagara wrote:
You can do this about any country ... every country has uneducated morons, so if you walk around and interview enough people, you can get enough people to say stupid things.

Perhaps the media are at fault as well as possibly it takes stupid questions to get stupid answers, and I sometimes wonder whether when reporters go out to interview people, they design their questions to get specific answers. I.e., they decided what it should be, and then prepared a list of questions in advance, that have been approved by their editors, hoping to get the "right" answers to back up a theory that they have. Sort of make true what they wish to be true usually along sensational lines, as sensation and drama sell.

True, this goes for any country in the world. Except dictatorships perhaps where there is some form of censorship in place.
shrykull
My observation is that americans aren't stupid they are just educated in specific field rather than in general like in Poland where I come from. I have also studied in the US (higshool) and did't see bigger ignorance than in my country. US is different in many areas, I must admitt that they are more brainwashed with nationalism, patrioticism and so on but they underline their individuality at the same time. All in al,l americans are not ignorant they are just less educated generally thats the issue. That's at lest my personal opinion.
Regards,
Shrykull
deanhills
shrykull wrote:
My observation is that americans aren't stupid they are just educated in specific field rather than in general like in Poland where I come from. I have also studied in the US (higshool) and did't see bigger ignorance than in my country. US is different in many areas, I must admitt that they are more brainwashed with nationalism, patrioticism and so on but they underline their individuality at the same time. All in al,l americans are not ignorant they are just less educated generally thats the issue. That's at lest my personal opinion.
Regards,
Shrykull
Depends probably also which part of the US one finds yourself. We had a discussion under the Philosophy and Religion Forum about education standards of Mississipi, and it would appear that the standard of education from State to State is not completely the same and that of Mississipi the lowest by a large margin, with predictable results.
handfleisch
Arthur Schlesinger, in the last essay he ever wrote, put it this way:

Quote:
Sometimes, when I am particularly depressed, I ascribe our behavior to stupidity -- the stupidity of our leadership, the stupidity of our culture. Thirty years ago we suffered military defeat -- fighting an unwinnable war against a country about which we knew nothing and in which we had no vital interests at stake. Vietnam was bad enough, but to repeat the same experiment thirty years later in Iraq is a strong argument for a case of national stupidity.


He didn't live to see the latest promotion of stupidity onto the American public by Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Malkin...

Quote:
BECK: This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seed hatred for white people or the white culture.

LIMBAUGH: Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman. I think he is genuinely revved up about race. You know me. I think he is genuinely angry in his heart and has been his whole life.

MALKIN: I think he is a racial opportunist.

LIMBAUGH: Look, I had a dream. I had a dream that I was a slave building a sphinx in a desert that looked like Obama.

BECK: He has a problem. He has a - this guy is, I believe, a racist.


http://www.opednews.com/articles/Prosecuting-For-War-Crimes-by-Lawrence-Velvel-080623-875.html
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-gops-overt-racism
gandalfthegrey
Americans are no more or less stupid on average then any other peoples.

The problem is that the majority of people in any country are highly ignorant and their beliefs are conformed.
goutha
I don't think that americans are stupid.

America dominated the 20th century. Stupid people cannot dominate the world...

However, maybe that America was ruled by stupid persons sor the last 8 or 9 years ...
deanhills
goutha wrote:
I don't think that americans are stupid.

America dominated the 20th century. Stupid people cannot dominate the world...

However, maybe that America was ruled by stupid persons sor the last 8 or 9 years ...
I don't believe Americans are stupid either. But I don't believe that those who conquered the world need to be necessarily bright in mind. All they need is power through conquest, either via the economy or through war. War can be stupid, and to fiddle around with the economy in order to dominate it, can be bright for the moment when the act is made, but can come back to bite you and make you look stupid in retrospect.
timothymartin
Everybody can choose to be stupid sometimes. Razz
c'tair
gandalfthegrey wrote:
Americans are no more or less stupid on average then any other peoples.

The problem is that the majority of people in any country are highly ignorant and their beliefs are conformed.

I'd agree to this. Intelligence is on par as everywhere else, but the ignorance is almost extraordinary. And this is easily visible on the vid presented by the original poster of this thread.



Quote:
I don't think that americans are stupid.

America dominated the 20th century. Stupid people cannot dominate the world...

However, maybe that America was ruled by stupid persons sor the last 8 or 9 years ...

I believe there is a huge cultural difference between today's americans and americans alive in the 20's - 60's. Different values, different times. During wwII you had american boys literally fighting to be able to fight in the war, the politicians actually cared about the people (or so it seemed). Compare that to now? Young people not wanting to fight in a war they didn't want to be part of, the politicians not giving a fu*ck about the people. Eg. NY senator/congressman (forget which) wants to cancel children's free lunch in schools to save money.
deanhills
c'tair wrote:
I believe there is a huge cultural difference between today's americans and americans alive in the 20's - 60's. Different values, different times.
Not only Americans but all of the world has changed radically. We've become gigantic consumers for example, and the world has become a global village with the improvement in international travel, and communication systems - especially the Internet. People everywhere seem to be more in touch with other people and cultures.
mengshi200
I like American stupid.they are very happy.heart and soul is very clean and pure,close to god.
hehe.
Asafe
They just don't know.
busman
liljp617 wrote:
Hate to break it to people, but there are more important issues on the table in front of us outside of "determining" which nation is the dumbest or which nation doesn't know geography. We have a world that is being destroyed because of EVERYONE'S stupidity, ignorance, and naive feelings. The WORLD is on the brink of a war between numerous nations. To sit there and insult a nation based on their geography knowledge when it was taken in their first year of high school is sheer stupidity and manipulation. I would think people would be smart enough to realize that. I think it's funny that people from other nations sit there and act superior when 60% of their general population doesn't believe evolution exists and 40% doesn't believe global warming is an issue. Who's dumb? Everyone. Can point all the fingers you want, but we're all in the same boat. Knowing where your country is on a map isn't gonna stop the polar caps from melting or stop the unbelievable mass extinction of all species that has been going on for years. Everyone is dumb, simply because nobody has their priorities straight...


THIS 1000 times over!
D'Artagnan
no. people are stupid
gandalfthegrey
I can't help but feel the majority of the population is stupid, ignorant and uninformed - EVERYWHERE.

Proof:
Russians reelected their dictator Putin
Egyptians elect an radical Islamist party
British elected David Cameron, Crypto-fascist
Canadians elected Stephen Harper, another Crypto-fascist
Greece elects the conservative New Democracy - the party that has ruled Greece for much of the last 50 years and one of the two parties (along with the socialists) that are responsible for screwing up the countries finances
deanhills
I'm sure if one is focused on stupidity one will definitely find it. And if one is focused on brilliance one would find that too. All in the eye of the beholder.
slimviking
polis wrote:
coolclay wrote:
Quote:
They're the best.

Well at least someone realizes it, finally. Laughing


Yeah, even though 1 out of 5 of them can't find their own country on the map. Razz


It's more an urban legend
Nick2008
Having lived in America for 10 years and other countries like Canada, the Czech Republic, and Russia in the past, I don't think Americans are necessarily more "stupid" than people from other countries.

What I do find is that Americans tend to be very conformed to their views and unwilling to accept anything that goes against their starting assumptions. For example, they tend to view American healthcare as the best in the world and have these unfounded beliefs that people in Canada and Europe die all the time because they're put on evil, socialized waiting lists that are backlogged for 2 years. They tend to look at me like I'm crazy when I try to explain that there are "emergency" and "elective" treatments and that only those who can wait are put on those lists (known as "elective" treatment). There are even private hospital choices in Australia and Germany where you can skip the waiting list for elective treatment if you have the money or medical insurance to pay (just like in America).

Americans are also very patriotic and nationalistic. They believe that America is #1 at everything and have a hard time coming to terms that there are some things need to be changed.

In my opinion, Americans aren't stupid by default, they are only stupid by their failure to see the big picture and accept reality. I've found that the Americans who have personally experienced "Un-American" things and are more educated and informed in worldly affairs are actually very delightful to talk with.
codegeek
Some of the smartest people I have heard of are American. The people who invented the internet were American. Americans have been responsible for a lot of the inventions that have made modern life easy. Hence, I do not think anybody can dismiss Americans as being stupid. However, I was quite surprised to read that 20% of Americans can't find America on the map. What demographic was this group mostly comprised of?
deanhills
codegeek wrote:
However, I was quite surprised to read that 20% of Americans can't find America on the map.
I'd be curious to know where you got this statistic from? Sounds a bit weird to me. I've heard of Americans who can't find South Africa or Australia on the map, but I'd imagine your average American is pretty clued up where America is.
LxGoodies
deanhills wrote:
codegeek wrote:
However, I was quite surprised to read that 20% of Americans can't find America on the map.
I'd be curious to know where you got this statistic from? Sounds a bit weird to me. I've heard of Americans who can't find South Africa or Australia on the map, but I'd imagine your average American is pretty clued up where America is.

It's the Google-effect. Paper world maps are school knowledge. People forget geography, they don't need to memorize anymore. Ask any Western internet-savant kid to calculate 13x17, there's the same problem. I suppose a lot of people assume nowadays, that the Tomtom router system in their car is The Map. You don't have to know anything, just type a name and off you go ! You can't find a world map in a Tomtom device, let alone you could pinpoint the US anywhere. Say you spell it wrong.. Ever tried to find Amerika in a Tomtom ? It's actually there ! You'll end up in Europe somewhere, in The Netherlands.. a little village exists with the name "Amerika".


Lx
codegeek
polis wrote:
Don't get me wrong, thats the topic on youtube.

just watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

Note: 20% of Americans can't find their own country in a world map.


@deanhills, This is where I read it.
zaxacongrejo
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, thats the topic on youtube.

just watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

Note: 20% of Americans can't find their own country in a world map.


This is valid to any country, are they all stupid? My opinion is no.
And America proved it in the last 300 years; you see my Portuguese family is older than America
So you can see how smart and intelligent they are, that in 300 years from a colonie they passed to a planet and if we are here today its thanks to America we shouldn’t forget that
LxGoodies
WATCH OUT !! Shocked Shocked I'm gonna spontaneously autocombust myself now

No offense Zaxacongrejo but that sailor of yours was completely lost.. he was actually looking for India

Lx
zaxacongrejo
I don’t doubt but honestly at the time with the technologies available, what can we expect?
But we did adventure "ourselves" you see if you contextualize it, its comparable to going to mars but in India we did as army terrible things but guess what at the end they throw us out of there. And I’m speaking of an army of 1/400 their where not playing
They said we want you guys out of here and they did it, in a honest way, and we still being friendly countries.
deanhills
codegeek wrote:
polis wrote:
Don't get me wrong, thats the topic on youtube.

just watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

Note: 20% of Americans can't find their own country in a world map.


@deanhills, This is where I read it.
OK sorry, I missed it. Not sure it is much of a scientific study. Just imagine a guy from the media with a camera man approaching you when you're quite unused to the situation, you'd probably fumble a bit and your first response may be a dumb one. Mine would have been for certain, although I'd have ducked that media guy as much as I could. I remember they used to have those media reporters probing the public regularly in Vancouver, BC, Canada, and if I spotted them down the road I'd take large a detour to avoid them.

Regarding the question about a country name starting with a "U", I'd say if someone should ask me that question in the country I live in, I'd assume they meant a country outside the country I'm living in. For example, if they questioned me in the United Arab Emirates, I'd probably have said United States instead of United Arab Emirates. Utah was an interesting answer however. I wonder how many news reports refer to England as the United Kingdom however. The Scots and Irish may take offense to that. So maybe that reporter was a bit unenlightened himself and the unenlightened tend to get unenlightened responses as well. Very Happy
dude_xyx
gandalfthegrey wrote:
I can't help but feel the majority of the population is stupid, ignorant and uninformed - EVERYWHERE.

Proof:
Russians reelected their dictator Putin
Egyptians elect an radical Islamist party
British elected David Cameron, Crypto-fascist
Canadians elected Stephen Harper, another Crypto-fascist
Greece elects the conservative New Democracy - the party that has ruled Greece for much of the last 50 years and one of the two parties (along with the socialists) that are responsible for screwing up the countries finances


People believe they do the right thing or sometimes there isn't an another choice. Like about Putin some of my Russian friends like him because he took the Russia from what it had become in time of Boris Yeltsin. I guess everyone can agree Now Russia is stable and stronger than those times. But Some friends hate him for coz he is another dictator who runs a whole corrupted government. Probably they are right about that. But you have to pick be best from what you have.

Back to the Main topic well American people are not different than any other people. They vote for presidents and governments but they don't run governments. So when Governments do stupid things world see it as Americans stupid which is not. Like most other governments US government is run by business men and policy makers who think they are the gods. It's same everywhere not just in USA.
Sabbadon
gandalfthegrey wrote:
I can't help but feel the majority of the population is stupid, ignorant and uninformed - EVERYWHERE.


thumb up!
LxGoodies
Deanhills wrote:
Regarding the question about a country name starting with a "U"

Eeej.. what about Ukraine, Uruguay, Uganda or Uzbekistan Very Happy

Lx
deanhills
LxGoodies wrote:
Deanhills wrote:
Regarding the question about a country name starting with a "U"

Eeej.. what about Ukraine, Uruguay, Uganda or Uzbekistan Very Happy

Lx
Right! Guess they were not in the forefront of their minds. I probably wouldn't have thought of them myself if I had been interviewed. Very Happy
Related topics
Stupid Ad
Just plain Stupid "Hacking"
FOR WAR OR NOT
WAR OF THE WORLDS!
Who is Stupid?
Stupid MSN virus
why should we pay stupid people to rebuild their homes?
Democrats at it again: Caught in another lie
Porn in school....
Names
Homeland Security downplays N.Y.C. threat
Do people sue too much?
Americans Only: Will You Vote For Clinton Anyway?
Are (Radical) Muslims Stupid?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.