Country-bashing

[Sylvia727]

There's a thread over on CS right now that getting pretty heated, so I thought I start the debate over here. The argument is that Americans (or USAns) get bashed when they go to other countries, so it's okay for Americans to bash foreigners here. Or possibly the Americans started it, so it's okay for other countries to do it to USAn citizens. I don't think there's ever an excuse to bash someone's country, but it does happen. I've heard second-hand stories from friends (A Brit started ranting about baseball, another Brit started ranting about Americans' lack of etiquette, and a Canadian blaming Joe Average for George W's actions). I've also seen foreigners being mistreated by my fellow citizens, much to my shame. Reactions?

[Greenday]

I bash Canada when I'm talking to a couple of the Canadian members of one of my gaming clans and they bash America back. It's a lot of fun

The only time I seriously bash another person's home-country is when a foreigner I'm trying to talk to gets pissy with me for not speaking their language. Oh, I'm sorry, English is America's main language. Get used to it and shut the hell up.

[Boozy]

I bash Canada when I'm talking to a couple of the Canadian members of one of my gaming clans and they bash America back. It's a lot of fun

Oh definitely. As old friends and neighbours, Americans and Canadians have a long-standing tradition of mutual bashing. Its usually done in the spirit of fun.

Its kind of like this: Canada and the US are sisters. I can call my sister a bitch, and she can call me one back, and we'll both laugh it off because that's how we grew up together.

Come to think of it, the United Kingdom is sort of like our parents. They can't call us bitches, but they can sort of joke around about us being silly little children. They shake their heads and tsk-tsk a lot.

/tortured metaphor

In all seriousness: No, Americans can't treat foreigners like shit just because they've been treated like shit when they traveled. That's like saying, "Oh, I was pick-pocketed in Calcutta, so I'm going to shoplift from the Indian-owned convenience store in my hometown in retaliation."

One person should never be held responsible for the cumulative evils of their country.

[AFPheonix]

Furthermore, the old saw about 2 wrongs not making a right is very much salient here.
I haven't been out of the country for a few years, but I can't say that I've ever had trouble with people in other countries, no matter if I was in Canada, Spain, Mexico or the Caribbean. Typically, if you yourself behave in a respectful manner, then you will be treated in kind.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Stereotypes exist for a reason. They're not fair, and they're certainly not kind, but they didn't get started for nothing. If we were able to eradicate the (bad) causes behind them, the stereotypes would (eventually) die out.

Country-bashing can get on my nerves, depending on who's doing it and what the intent is (as someone else mentioned, the (usually) friendly rivalry between Canada and the US). Two such examples stand out in my mind: the "Freedom Fries" and the wardrums for Iran.

France didn't want to get bogged down in a poorly-planned muckup started under false pretenses by a bratty little would-be prince? Can't say that I blame them, frankly. But because they didn't kiss ass like they Should Have, it's OK to deride them for it.

As for Iran, it's not the world's greatest place on earth, but it's also not exactly the cesspool it's often made out to be. Yes, human rights have been and continue to be a huge problem there (particularly in regards to free press), but there are people, many of them Iranians themselves (risking torture and imprisonment for it to boot), who are working to fix that. Iran, unlike our so-called progressive 'allies' Saudi Arabia, actually lets their women vote and drive, and despite the still-restrictive code on dress, doesn't as a general rule require women to wear the full-body burkha that is common in SA. Even Iranians will say that it's the government and the religious factions that are the problem, not the citizenry - many of whom are, or would be, friendly(er) towards Americans (if we'd stop demonizing the entire country) - as a whole.

I find it very interesting that their nutjobs are not much different than the nutjobs we have here in the US: heavy use of military and religious symbolism and saber-rattling, nationalism as a rallying point, regressive and restrictive codes of self-proclaimed 'morality' forcibly imposed (or in the process of being so) on the populace, censorship and control of the mass media...

As far as the US goes, I believe I'm entitled to criticize certain of its factors because hey, I live here and thus have a front-row seat to our particular brand of idiocy in action. (Hell, it even states in our founding documents that we're SUPPOSED to criticize it!) And, let's face it - there ARE other countries that DO do certain things way better than we do. For instance, places in Europe have probably less than half the trouble we do with guns, drugs, sex-related topics and crime. Could it be because they maybe take education a little more seriously and dispense with all the bullshit Puritan guilt-tripping and coddling and crap? They must be doing something right, if their levels of such maladies are lower than ours.

However, that doesn't mean that I think *all* Americans are troglodytes or that I want to go setting flags on fire everywhere I go (which I think is stupid anyway, mainly because it's a waste of a perfectly good flag and it really doesn't accomplish anything other than pissing off people who might otherwise be motivated to help causes). I *am* thankful that I was born here and not someplace truly horrid like places that undergo constant warfare and abuse. For all its faults, there are still a lot of good things about the US, and those good things are worth taking care of.

I imagine the same probably holds true for a lot of other places. No country on earth is perfect and ever will be, but you could do a lot worse than countries that are popular targets for bashing.

[Seshat]

Stereotypes exist for a reason. They're not fair, and they're certainly not kind, but they didn't get started for nothing.

I imagine the same probably holds true for a lot of other places. No country on earth is perfect and ever will be, but you could do a lot worse than countries that are popular targets for bashing.

Some Americans are Ugly American Tourists. Face it, it's true. Some Australians are also Ugly Australian Tourists. Some Americans are jingoistic, bigotted, and narrow-minded. But it's Australia that birthed Pauline Hanson. (Sorry folks. At least we managed to kick her out of parliament. But some of us actually VOTED for her! :o)

Most of the time, most people try to do their best. That's the one thing I firmly believe in, and I believe it crosses borders and boundaries. People may disagree on what 'best' is: and much as I hate it, Pauline Hanson probably believes her agenda is what's best for Australia. But even when people disagree on what 'best' is, I still think most people are trying to do their best.

I don't like country-bashing, stereotyping, and other things like that, but I know I sometimes do it myself. Eh, I'm human too.

[rahmota]

Oh I hated the "freedom fries" BS. Being in rural appalachia the whole Pro Us , The US is Gods Country thing ran very very very high and saying anything against it was tantamount to treason in a lot of people's eyes. Heck I went to last years 4th of July festival in peebles (population less than a mcdonalds in new york) and the local VFW was still selling "freedom fries" at their booth.

So yeah stupidity is hard to die. Stereotypes do exist for a reason and there are people who live it. Fortunately things have calmed down so you wont get lynched asking for french fries in the local diner anymore but still america pride is high.

Not that being proud of your country gives anyone the right to deride anyone else. I am proud to be an american for the most part, but theres quite a lot about other countries people can be proud of too. I mean seshat has a lot to be proud about in australia and I have no quibble about that. Boozy has a lot about canada to be proud of.

So yeah its stupid, its rude and its very human to do this. Doesnt make it right but it does make life interesting.

[Seshat]

We all have things to be proud about, and things to wince and kind of hope noone mentions them. it's life.

[ditchdj]

There's a thread over on CS right now that getting pretty heated, so I thought I start the debate over here. The argument is that Americans (or USAns) get bashed when they go to other countries, so it's okay for Americans to bash foreigners here.

I never said that. I cant apologize for something I didnt say. That's how some people have chosen to take it. But it really pisses me off to no end when people in the world single out Americans for being loud and rude and blame America for the world's problems. Then I turn around and see and hear about millions of people all over the world literally tearing down our borders to move here. I once had a conversation about this with a student teacher that just moved here from Israel. I told him that I find it funny that so many people in the world hate America and Americans, yet there's so many people in the world that want to move here and adopt OUR way of life. He actually wasnt offended at all and explained to me that our country has a much higher standard of living and how much better opportunities there are here. But when I look at the big picture, what do people care what I think? In the end, people are gonna think what they wanna think and the ONLY thing that I (and everyone else) can do is just be aware of our circumstances and adapt to survive.

[rahmota]

DitchDJ: I think a lot of it is people hate the policies and politics of America, especially concerning the international sphere of influence. But they like the way americans have a lot more freedoms, personal wealth and lack of people with guns waiting to do the whole jackboot tpa dance on their head. Even as screwed up as america has become over the past 8 years we are still better than quite a few places on this planet.

[Sylvia727]

I wasn't trying to quote any one specific person, and I'm sorry if you read it as so. I was just trying to sum up the debate in as few words as possible.

As to the people who bash on Americans and then try to move here: I don't see how this behavior is hypocritical at all. They want our nice things. We have a lot of nice things, some say we have too many nice things. But no two people are going to share every single opinion, and it's primarily attitudes that get bashed. A frequent insult I see in regards to Americans is "corrupt." The idea from some bigoted losers seems to be that every single American is a spoiled child, and our nice things should go to someone more deserving. It's a disgusting attitude, but not hypocritical.

I frankly don't understand it. I don't go onto CS, read a SC customer thread, and respond with "Well, that's typical RandomCountrysCitizen behavior."

[Seshat]

DitchDJ: I think a lot of it is people hate the policies and politics of America, especially concerning the international sphere of influence.

Yes. Most frustrations with "America" are frustrations with unfair trade practices, uncontrolled corporate greed, and arrogant political behaviours. None of these are the fault of ordinary Americans; but people who haven't come into contact with many ordinary Americans don't know that. Nor do the kind of people who prefer knee-jerk reactions to thinking.

But they like the way americans have a lot more freedoms, personal wealth and lack of people with guns waiting to do the whole jackboot tpa dance on their head.

Definitely. They want freedom to raise their children in a relatively uncorrupt environment, they want medical treatment, they want the kind of life they see displayed in American sitcoms.

Then they actually get to the States and are shocked and distressed by minimum wage jobs that only let them afford a dirty shared apartment with no heat, and a complete lack of medical insurance, and - well, the sitcoms LIED.

But still, at least they don't have a jackboot on their head, their sons aren't being forcibly conscripted at age ten, and their daughters aren't being raped by the local so-called 'police'. It's still better.

As I mentioned (in different words) in a different thread: if we richer countries helped get most of the world's people into safe, relatively uncorrupt lives where all their needs and some of their wants are met, illegal immigration will be greatly reduced.

[rahmota]

Seshat: yeah america may have its own corruption, social classes and lack of great social mobility and definately a lot less of the whole jackboot thuggery. We've got problems but by comparison its still not that bad a place.

As for getting things in the rest of the world worked out. Ummm yeah sure when I get to deity status I'll get back to you on that one. Seriously good luck on figuring that one out. We cant even give everyone in america the american way of life, how can we do that for everyone else on the planet?

[AFPheonix]

Stop fucking around in other countries' business when we don't need to (like Iraq), but stepping in in places when it's definitely needed, like Somalia currently and Darfur?

Furthermore not holding a double standard as far as our allies' behavior compared to some less savory countries, like we do with Israel and, say, Syria?

[Seshat]

We cant even give everyone in america the american way of life, how can we do that for everyone else on the planet?

You can't, and shouldn't be expected to. But you (as a nation) can prevent your mega-corporations from making it harder. And a lot of the 'how' can be summarised as holding the mega-corps responsible for the stuff they do.

Continue the same process you've gone through as a nation: stopping the railroad barons, stopping the 'company store' abuses, stopping abusive child labour. The big mega-corporations are still doing that sort of stuff, they're just doing them overseas and 'out of sight'. But those abuses were out of sight to most Americans even when they were happening in America. Yet you stopped them anyway.

Simply doing it again - stopping those abuses again - will go a LONG way towards improving everyone's welfare. More jobs in America, since some jobs will be more profitable to do close-to-market once abusive labour is no longer available; and better conditions elsewhere.

[Greenday]

You can't, and shouldn't be expected to. But you (as a nation) can prevent your mega-corporations from making it harder. And a lot of the 'how' can be summarised as holding the mega-corps responsible for the stuff they do.

They can't actually be punished for it. If it's not happening inside our country, on our turf, our laws don't apply. And, since shutting down of all companies that do such a think would cripple the US economy, the government will not do a thing. I mean, there are checks and balances to prevent the government from hurting the economy through laws and such.

[daleduke17]

Stop fucking around in other countries' business when we don't need to (like Iraq), but stepping in in places when it's definitely needed, like Somalia currently and Darfur?

Furthermore not holding a double standard as far as our allies' behavior compared to some less savory countries, like we do with Israel and, say, Syria?

I hate to ask, why is the US needed in Somalia or Darfur?

[Amethyst Hunter]

I hate to ask, why is the US needed in Somalia or Darfur?

One word: genocide.

[daleduke17]

One word: genocide.

Gotcha, but, I'd like to ask another question:

Why does the United States of America have to jump in and police the world? I don't see any of the other countries jumping in near as much as the USA. I know genocide is bad and all, but, it seems like the USA is forgetting about their own citizens who are in need over taking care of everyone else in the world. The USA seems to not take much help from other countries (or it at least doesn't make the news too often) when the country has a disaster, but, the USA is out there everytime there's a problem (natural or manmade).

The tsunmai, Darfur, Somalia in the mid 90s, Mexico's numerous hurricanes, etc and etc. The USA seems to have gotten help twice in recent memory: 9/11 and Katrina (don't remember about Rita, though).

I'm not saying the USA should NOT go out and help, but, there needs to be a limit to it. The USA needs to have several things fixed or maintained, but the money isn't there. If something happens abroad, there is magically enough money.

Sorry to sound like such an asshole.

[AFPheonix]

We're the richest and most powerful nation in the world. Why would countries who have far less money and influence than us feel obligated to help us? Like you mentioned, when we really did need help, we did indeed receive it.

We help in places like Somalia and Darfur because it's the right thing to do. If we are to reap the benefits of globalization, then we must give back in turn by helping others when they need it. We cannot become isolationist now, we are entirely too dependent on other regions economically.

I agree with the limit to help. We should do so only when we aren't going to fuck around with whomever it is we're going to help. Fighting proxy wars in other places should be stopped.

[daleduke17]

We're the richest and most powerful nation in the world. Why would countries who have far less money and influence than us feel obligated to help us? Like you mentioned, when we really did need help, we did indeed receive it.


We've received help twice. We send help how many times? When the Greensburg tornado hit in Kansas (and probably so currently in AR and TN) the National Guard was stretched so thin that help couldn't get there immediately. Did we receive any help from Mexico or Canada (or any other country)? No (unless I missed it somewhere). I'm not saying that we should only give help when we are going to get help, but, it seems like the USA is being used a lot more than it should be.


We help in places like Somalia and Darfur because it's the right thing to do. If we are to reap the benefits of globalization, then we must give back in turn by helping others when they need it. We cannot become isolationist now, we are entirely too dependent on other regions economically.


I just don't like spending so much around the world when there are problems in our own backyard that seem to be overlooked because they "aren't cool". Seriously, the USA is not in any shape to be helping out in Darfur in any military shape. What all is going on right now? Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine still has some of our troops (I think) and protection of the USA itself.


I agree with the limit to help. We should do so only when we aren't going to fuck around with whomever it is we're going to help. Fighting proxy wars in other places should be stopped.

I'm guessing Iraq is one of those times?

[AFPheonix]

Yes. Iraq most definitely, and Afghanistan the first time around was a perfect example of a proxy war. I dislike the idea of using innocent people to take a jab at an enemy.

Well, how many weather disasters have we helped Canada with? I don't recall doing anything for them in some of the god-awful ice storms they've had in the past. Did we do anything for Mexico when hurricanes devastated their east coast?
I'm fairly certain we didn't do anything for Britain when the Rhine flooded.

[Boozy]

We've received help twice. We send help how many times?

US GDP, 2007: $13.86 trillion ($46,000 per capita)

Sri Lanka GDP, 2007: $83.21 billion ($4100 per capita)

Despite the entire nation of Sri Lanka still reeling from the devastation of the tsunami of the previous December, and despite having a GDP less than 1% the size of America's, they still sent $25,000 to the US in the aftermath of Katrina.

America should have been ashamed to cash that cheque.

The US also received offers from Bangladesh in the amount of $1 million, and Cuba, a country that has been suffering from a US trade embargo for over 40 years, offered to send over 1000 doctors.

Cuba's generous offer was refused. Don't want no help from those damn pinko commies, I guess.

America is the richest country in the world, and has achieved much of this on the backs of less fortunate countries. The Centre for Global Development ranks the US 14th in the world in the amount of foreign assistance they provide.

Personally, I don't want a dime of Canadian foreign aid going to the US, any more than I donate my Christmas food hamper to the millionaires across town. I donate my time and money to the needy.

[Rapscallion]

Why does the United States of America have to jump in and police the world?

History.

The US doesn't have that much history. Only two and a half centuries or so since independence, right? A country that hasn't had a good civil war or two and invaded ('helped') a few countries overseas is a failure in the eyes of its parents (who did the exact same thing).

Rapscallion

[protege]

Why does the United States of America have to jump in and police the world? I don't see any of the other countries jumping in near as much as the USA.

It's because too many people here complain about "those poor people." Give me a fucking break. Sorry...but what about the "poor people" in *this* country? I'm all for helping people out, but I think we should help out our own before we go sending our tax dollars to other countries. I mean, we have vets living in cardboard boxes. They don't get a dime, yet millions get sent away? Are you kidding me?

Sorry if I sound like an asshole, but I think we should be solving our own problems, instead of taking care of the others.

[Seshat]

I don't see any of the other countries jumping in near as much as the USA.

Correct. You don't see it.

CNN and ABC and the other American mass-media display American help to foreign nations. Besides, a dozen American battalions makes a big display.

Australia sends a greater proportion of her army to the same place - and it's half a battalion. Tiny display. Looks little and wimpy to CNN, and besides, it's not Our Boys, so they don't bother showing it.

Finding news in America about other countries is difficult even for Americans who have an active interest in what other countries are doing, or expat Australians (also presumably expat Brits, expat French, expat Whateveristan).

Just because you don't see us, don't assume we're not there. Australians have been involved in a lot of overseas work. Based on our news reports, and talking to friends who are or have been in our armed forces, between a quarter and a third of our armed forces are helping other nations at any given time. A lot of Australians also work for Medicins Sans Frontiers, Oxfam, and the other aid agencies - some on a volunteer basis, some accepting a lower income than they could get in Aussieland because they choose to help out.

Other than military support, however, the Australian government doesn't spend as much on foreign aid as many Australians think we should: there are regular articles in the newspaper about that. Based on those articles, however, there are a lot of countries who give a lot more than us, even when the foreign aid is given as a per head of population figure.

So again - it's just a 'you don't see it' issue. Foreign aid, generous foreign aid, is being given by many nations. Military support is given by many nations - both the news reports and the friends have mentioned that Australians work with people of many nations when our soldiers go overseas to help.

Blame your media, not other countries. You're not trying to hold the whole world on your shoulders, and we foreigners aren't asking you to. We just want a nation who has (or seems to have) lots of resources to keep holding a share.

(As for 'we've received help twice': well, again, based on our news reports, that's wrong. When you had those huge California bushfires a few years ago, our bushfire experts flew over and taught yours our experience with eucalypt fires. When New Orleans got hit by Katrina, Australian aid agencies collected donations of both money and goods. Every time you guys have a serious problem like that, our news reports include 'and X is collecting donations'. Either those donations don't get there, or your news media doesn't bother reporting them. I'm inclined to think it's the latter.)

[Greenday]

History.

The US doesn't have that much history. Only two and a half centuries or so since independence, right? A country that hasn't had a good civil war or two and invaded ('helped') a few countries overseas is a failure in the eyes of its parents (who did the exact same thing).

Rapscallion

Did you just say America hasn't had a civil war?

[Rapscallion]

I'm saying it has, but it's just following in the fine traditions of the countries that colonised it. War of the Roses for us - I intend to look deeper into what happened in that some time.

Rapscallion

[daleduke17]

Yes. Iraq most definitely, and Afghanistan the first time around was a perfect example of a proxy war. I dislike the idea of using innocent people to take a jab at an enemy.

Well, how many weather disasters have we helped Canada with? I don't recall doing anything for them in some of the god-awful ice storms they've had in the past. Did we do anything for Mexico when hurricanes devastated their east coast?
I'm fairly certain we didn't do anything for Britain when the Rhine flooded.

As far as the Mexican Hurricanes, I believe there was some help from the USA (maybe not US Government, but entities from the US helped like the Red Cross and such).

[Seshat]

I'm fairly certain we didn't do anything for Britain when the Rhine flooded.

<snarky geography comment follows>

Unless the Rhine flooding was at the same time as a disaster in the British Isles, I can't see why anyone would have. The Rhine is on the European continent. I suppose a serious flooding of the Rhine could have caused problems in the North Sea that might have caused problems in the British Isles, but it'd have to be really severe.

Now, if the Thames flooded . . .

</snark>

[Amethyst Hunter]

I'm not saying the USA should NOT go out and help, but, there needs to be a limit to it.

Sorry to sound like such an asshole.

You're not an asshole. It's a valid question. I agree that there needs to be a limit on certain things, being that we have our own problems we could be looking at instead of elsewhere (the infrastructure, as you pointed out). We won't be able to help anybody if we can't first take care of ourselves. And *I* may well get flamed for saying this, but I also think we should stop sucking up to Israel and Saudi Arabia so much - that right there is a HUGE chunk of why many Middle Easterners hate American government so much (but the US Israeli lobby group - I forget their name but I know I've seen it before - is incredibly powerful here, and the Shrubictator's bunch is in bed joined at the hip with the Saudis, and thus the meddling continues). I'm all for Israel's right to exist like any other place on earth, but at whose expense?

And speaking of other countries' pitching in - here's something that bugs me about 9/11 whenever that's invoked. It wasn't just America that was attacked (though we were obviously the primary target). At least 80 other countries lost citizens who were either in the WTC buildings or on the planes. But that seldom gets mentioned. Every life lost that day, regardless of where it came from (except for the hijackers; I have no sympathy for them because of what they chose to do), was a terrible tragedy. :(

[AFPheonix]

<snarky geography comment follows>

Unless the Rhine flooding was at the same time as a disaster in the British Isles, I can't see why anyone would have. The Rhine is on the European continent. I suppose a serious flooding of the Rhine could have caused problems in the North Sea that might have caused problems in the British Isles, but it'd have to be really severe.

Now, if the Thames flooded . . .

</snark>

Terribly sorry, you're right. Now, if you can name the river that runs through MY city off the top of your head...... ;)

Hey, at least I KNEW there was bad flooding last year.

[Seshat]

Presuming that your city is Phoenix, Arizona (yeah, taken from your name): not off the top of my head I can't.

But I do know - off the top of my head - that you're in the south/west quarter of the United States. You're a desert state, and a desert city. However, you do have permanent rivers in some areas, and I think you have a coastal region, so I presume that while the majority of the state is desert, you have some arable land. Probably semi-fertile at best by global standards, though I'm basing that on Australian near-desert arable land and might be wrong.

The south-west American desert has a characteristic formation, with red/yellow/orange/rust sands and sand-based sedimentary and metamorphic rock which has been wind-and-water-blown into mesa formations. There are also salt flats and dry lake beds, though the most well known and most dramatic salt flats are in the northern part of the desert, and may well be outside your state.

There used to be great cities in the south-west American desert, and large civilisations. Those civilisations were unfortunately dependant on small fertile areas, and most of the pueblo cities became abandoned due to drought or overuse of the fertile soil.

Pueblo architecture is still a great tourist and scientific resource in your area.

Many of the cities - and States - in your region get the majority of their water from the Colorado river, which is the same river that the Hoover dam is on, and which is also the same river that the Grand Canyon was formed by. The Colorado river gets a good deal of its water from Canadian snow melt.

There is serious water debate about the Colorado river, and debate about who has what water rights to it. (Similar to the problems Egypt, Ethiopia and other North African nations have with the Nile.)

Arizona hosts at least one of the American Air Force's training bases. I believe it's one of the states which borders Mexico, and either it or Nevada border California. (The other probably borders Texas.)

I'm afraid I don't know much more about Phoenix or Arizona specifically. How'd I do?

And pick any one of the Australian states at random, and tell me what you know about it. :)


(I looked up one thing: I kept thinking 'Columbia River' and knowing it was wrong, but couldn't make my brain pick out 'Colorado'.)

[AFPheonix]

Not too bad, except that I'm in Oregon :), so you were pretty close actually with the Columbia river. It runs along Oregon's border with Washington. Columbia River Gorge is a great site for windsurfing and other riparian entertainments ;). The Willamette river runs through the heart of Portland, OR. It's a huge shipping lane, but it's terribly polluted. It's better than it has been thanks to being a Superfund site, but it's still got a ways to go. I almost wonder if Matt Groening was thinking of it when he made Blinky the Fish in the Simpsons :D

I know that there are 6 of them, I don't think I could name all of them, though. (yes, I'm terrible.)
I know that the majority of your population is concentrated on the East and West Coasts with little population in the center and north (well, except for Darwin up there on the north coast) because it's so arid and dry.

I was just teasing you back. ;)

[Seshat]

I guessed, but thought I'd call you on it anyway. Besides, it was fun! :D

As for us:

6 states, two territories, though the Northern Territory is working towards becoming a state. The Australian Capital Territory will always remain a Territory - or at least that's the plan. We also govern Norfolk Island and a couple of other minor Pacific islands.

States, clockwise from the north-east corner:
Queensland (northern half of the eastern third of the mainland)
New South Wales (northern 2/3 of the southern half of the eastern third)
Victoria (remainder of the eastern third)
Tasmania (the little triangular island, also governs the Bass Strait islands)
South Australia (southern half of the middle third)
Western Australia (western third)

The Northern Territory is the northern half of the middle third.
The ACT is a tiny roughly-circular bit halfway between Sydney and Melbourne, and it's freezing and it's a lousy place to put a city. It's sole reason for existing is to have a capital city that's neither Sydney nor Melbourne. Politicians! :rolleyes:

The star on the flag that differentiates our flag from New Zealand's is called the Federation Star, and has seven points: one for each of the six states, one for the territories.

Most of our population is on the Eastern and Southern coasts, with a bubble of population in Perth (south-west corner, so 'southern coast', kinda), Darwin in the centre north, and Alice Springs in the middle near Uluru (Ayer's Rock).

You didn't do too badly, though. :)

To get an idea of just how dry our continent is: make a mental image of the contiguous US states (basically: not Alaska, not Hawaii).
Take out all the permanent rivers and lakes west of the Appalachians.
Imagine almost all your rainfall comes from the Atlantic, and the Appalachians trigger almost all the rain (and snow, and other precipitation) to fall - mostly east of them or on them, some immediately west.
Allow some rainfall around New Orleans, and more around Seattle. (The represent Darwin and Perth respectively).
Don't allow any Canadian snowmelt. And you don't get snow west of the Appalachians because there's no moisture in the air.

That's a rough guide to Australian geography. Flat desert plains west of the Appalachians/Great Dividing Range, rough desert mountains west of those. It's kind of similar - if you've got a good imagination.

[daleduke17]

Terribly sorry, you're right. Now, if you can name the river that runs through MY city off the top of your head...... ;)

Hey, at least I KNEW there was bad flooding last year.

Salt River, I believe (if you're in Phoenix).


:)

EDIT: It helps to read ALL of the posts before commenting. :-p

[ThePhoneGoddess]

However, you do have permanent rivers in some areas, and I think you have a coastal region, so I presume that while the majority of the state is desert, you have some arable land. Probably semi-fertile at best by global standards, though I'm basing that on Australian near-desert arable land and might be wrong.

Most of the rivers in Arizona are tributaries running down from the Colorado. Those are fast going dry. Some of the land in Arizona is used as farmland, but it was artificially made farmable using Colorado river water. It will eventually have to be stopped. There is very, veyr little true arable land in Arizona. Most of it is Sonoran Desert.

There used to be great cities in the south-west American desert, and large civilisations. Those civilisations were unfortunately dependant on small fertile areas, and most of the pueblo cities became abandoned due to drought or overuse of the fertile soil.

There were never great cities in the Southwest. There have been cultures here for eons, but they were always small settlements, as the climate could not support large cities. Archeologists don't know why the Anasazi settlements were abandoned, but they believe it had to do with climate change. Pueblo Bonita, the largest of the ruins, was a town about the size of the Roman Coliseum.

[Lace Neil Singer]

There was bad flooding in mid England I do believe; round where I am, luckily, there was none.

As for bashing, we in Britain bash each other roundly, and we all band together to bash the French. It's tradition, and nothing bad is meant by it. ;)

[Seshat]

Most of the rivers in Arizona are tributaries running down from the Colorado.

Sorry, let me clarify:
In Aussieland, we have a lot of 'rivers' which only have water in them at flood time. Any river which isn't a dry riverbed three years out of four is a 'permanent river' to us.

[DexX]

See, this is where the blind prejudice gets separated from the well-reasoned criticisms.

I spent five weeks in the US in September and October of 2003, and I have been desperate to save enough to get back ever since. I knew a bunch of people from an online community (http://www.stripcreator.com/) and crashed on many couches in my trek across many of the northern states of the US.

I had a 100% success rate maiing friends. Every one of these people I had only ever known online - mostly in text, but sometimes in dodgy webcam or voice chats - turned out to be a magnificent example of humanity, and it was the best holidays of my life.

BUT...

The US government shits me up the wall. The elected representatives of these people I adore keep doing evil shit and I really wish they would stop. They also share their country with some real pricks - imperialistic and insular entitlement whores. I never met an unpleasant American while I was over there, but I've been subjected to a few over here. That said, I've met plenty of very nice American tourists and students, too, so it isn't a blanket rule.

Americans, as a general rule I love you people to bits - I just can't stand your government. That's fair enough though, since for the past ten years I couldn't stand mine (hooray for Kevin Rudd!) and I know plenty of you can't stand yours.

The thing that surprised me most about the US was how alike we are. Some of the fine details differ, but in the end people are just people. When people in every nation on earth finally stop treating people of other nations as devils, monsters, or aliens then we will finally know peace.

Bombs never changed anyone's mind. We need peace, diplomacy, friendship, and education. When everyone on earth has access to all of these, war will end. It could actually happen in our lifetime - we have the technology to do it for the first time in human history. We have the internet, television, communication satellites... for the first time in a hundred thousand years of humanity we actually have the ability to reach everyone, talk to everyone, and make peace.

*sigh*

I seem to be in something of a hippie-ish mood today. Ah well, doesn't stop it from being true. :)

[Greenday]

Americans, as a general rule I love you people to bits - I just can't stand your government.

What a coincidence, neither can we. The people who run our government suck. We know it. Nothing will get done about it. We'll get a good president, and he'll either get shot or only lasts 4-8 years, then we are back with some moron.

[AFPheonix]

It's really a pendulum that swings back and forth, although it's gradually swinging more rightward as the baby-boomers get old and forget their populist roots.

We're very much due for a leftward swing, and I think we're at the start of at least a small one.
It is heartening to see how many college aged kids are getting involved these days. They will most definitely help fuel at least some superficial change. Whether we can extract our government from the grip of big money remains to be seen.

[DarthRetard]

Stop fucking around in other countries' business when we don't need to (like Iraq), but stepping in in places when it's definitely needed, like Somalia currently and Darfur?



How about we adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy like Ron Paul has been fighting for since 1976 and let the UN do it's fucking job? Oh, wait, because after we had our little Somalia incident, and were a little wary of intervening again, 800,000 Rwandans were murdered while Coffee-At-One sat there behind his desk and told America that we don't donate enough money.

We need to pull our bases out of the middle east (Saudi Arabia, etc.), and stop trying to drag out this "We did the NOrmandy WWII thing you owe us, etc etc."

The rest of the world needs to shut the fuck up and/or meet us halfway. We're not your enemy, and we mean perfectly damn well, and you know it. So stop promoting anti-american sentiment (Chirac, you bastard) while my cousin and I serve in our nation's military to do our jobs.

Amethyst Hunter, if you really want to get educated(dont read that as an insult, just a little info) on both sides of that Iraq War issue, I'd suggest reading the Iraq War Reader. It's a compilation of documents surrounding anything to do with the Iraq conflict. Let's stop calling it a war, will you? It's quite annoying, as Congress never declared it a war.

Back to what AFP said, we're not "fucking around" in other countries. We're doing something NATO and the UN should be doing. If you do the research, the UN has never had a successful peacekeeping mission. With the power and hegemony that the United States possesses, we are labeled with an obligation to mitigate any conflict necessary that may deemed a threat to us and/or our allies and global stability (read: Iraq, N. Korea, Iran). Israel bombed Iran because they were building facilities which would ultimately lead to another conflict (as if Israel doesnt get enough of that)and loss of life. Preventionism is not morally wrong. It's just not always morally right. Speaking of which, our interventionism in Kosovo has finally lead to their declaration as an independent nation, free from persecution.

Back on the topic as a whole (sorry, old debate habit, I digress) there's definitely a substantial amount of anti-american sentiment that's farmed and fertilized by our own damn media. All Wolf Blitzer talks about anymore is how the rest of the world disapproves of what we do. Do I personally give a damn about what a Parisian citizen thinks of how my president handles our shit? No. However, I do think things are getting better. The new french PM (or is it president? I dont remember) Nicolas Sarkozy has been much more malleable with the United States, and Britain's withdrawal of troops have settled some restlessness. We're handling things well with Putin, of Russia, who happens to be in a damn tight spot right now. I think, if we elect a new president who has a conscious mind for foreign policy (not one who goes around saying how great we are......you know who you are McCain.) and will consider opposite end reactions to our actions (good old Newton), nations internationally will respect us more as a whole.

[AFPheonix]

Unfortunately, a lot of our foreign policy to this point has been extremely reactionary and short sighted. Supporting the Shah in Iran unconditionally while he ran a corrupt government is a perfect example.
Our previous engagements in Afghanistan is another.
How we engaged with Saddam well before the first Iraq war is yet another. The current war in Iraq was a completely short-sighted catastrophe. I'd definitely call that "fucking around".
Let's see...where else have we fucked around....
Oh yes, the way we've treated a lot of our neighbors to the south of us hasn't always been as altruistic as some would like us to believe.
Our single-minded support of Israel without calling them out on their shit (and yes, they do crappy things too. No hands are clean over there) has really stirred a huge poop pot.

Now and again, we do really fabulous interventions that really make a huge difference. Taking out Milosovec was a great example of us working together with NATO and the UN and really giving Serbia a big hand up.

If we truly want to convey to the rest of the world that we do mean well and aren't in things solely for our own benefit, then we really need to plan better for all outcomes of a given conflict. Furthermore, playing one side off of another does not lead to future peace and prosperity.

We also need to retool our diplomatic forces into ones who are better versed in the languages and customs of the rising powers in the world as well as the hot spots. Condi is FINALLY putting more resources into getting emissaries who speak arabic, farsi and other languages of up and coming nations. This is a move that this administration has neglected for far too long, considering how much the middle east has shaped the image of Bush et. al.

[Boozy]

How about we adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy like Ron Paul has been fighting for since 1976 and let the UN do it's fucking job?

Because the US policy of self-isolationism in the 1930's was disastrous. It led to a stagnant economy causing the US depression to last far longer than it should have.

For the great powers, war and intervention is about trade. It is not about "doing good". Influence is spread through foreign aid and foreign involvement. This is how the US economy became so large and so rich in the post-war years. If the US draws back support, and China steps in...you have a pretty remarkable shift in international economic power.

With that said, if isolationism is what the libertarians want, I can understand that. What I am not hearing from them is any indication that they understand that this will seriously and possible irrevocably change the US way of life - and quality of life - at home. Say goodbye to your oil.

[Greenday]

I'm with DarthRetard on the UN and NATO. They've become basically as useless as the League of Nations. It's all well and good to tell people what they can and cannot do. But you need to actually have a pair in order to enforce those policies and the UN definitely doesn't have any balls.

[protege]

But you need to actually have a pair in order to enforce those policies and the UN definitely doesn't have any balls.

That's why I don't like the UN. Oh, and they like to tie things up with red tape, apparently. I'm referring to the 1990-99 Yugoslavia civil war. By the time they finally got involved, it was a full-blown war...and some serious atrocities had already been done.

[DarthRetard]

I'm not saying re-adpot the Monroe Doctrine. If you read my whole post, you'd get that what I said was that Americans have equated the idea of being moral with being interventionist. Yes, sometimes interventionism is good (Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Somalia, etc.). However, that same idea that it's our job to do everything because we're "right" or it's the "right thing to do" is what's made us reviled in some parts of the globe. I bought the book on Osama Bin Laden's speeches and statements. His first grievance against us as a cause for 9/11 (and im not saying we caused it, calm the fuck down :-D) was our defiling muslim soil by putting US Bases over there. Iraq's borders were not drawn by them. 1948 created israel, but it also upended an entire people who now have no government. It's not just the US, the West (yes canada, you're included too) has had a policy of intervening much too often and to little avail in the Middle East (crusades anybody? look up Saladin and his relationship with good ole King Richard the Lionhearted). The fact is, how would we like it if China put bases in Iowa? Or if Russia put missiles in Cuba? (That sounds kind of familiar.....) During the Cuban missile crisis all you heard about was Russian missiles near Cuba, but did you know anything about the US missile installations in turkey? Russia was merely retaliating under a Mutual Assured Destruction philosophy. In short, the point is, It's not our job, nor should it be our job, we need to pick our battles a little wiser. So vote for Ron Paul, because everything I've been talking about, is what that man has been fighting for for 30 years now, and he's the only candidate who will stick to it.

Boozy, with your logic on the great powers and war and interventionism, explain to me how China's economy is doing so well with lack of military involvement on a scale like ours? Or Luxembourg? Or Britain? Or Germany?

[Seshat]

The rest of the world needs to shut the fuck up and/or meet us halfway. We're not your enemy, and we mean perfectly damn well, and you know it.

Oooookay.

Please re-read (or read for the first time) post 26 (http://www.fratching.com/showpost.php?p=3831&postcount=26) of this thread.

I only talk about one country, because that's the country I'm an expert in. Our members in other first world countries can doubtless provide examples of 'meeting you halfway' - or going further than the US does.

If you're worried about numbers - for example, that the US sends a great many more troops than Australia does - read the CIA world factbook. Look at things like population figures and GNP. Continuing with the same example, Australia has a population roughly equivalent to New York City. Not state, city. We can't match the US in numbers (or dollars!).

As for 'We're not your enemy' - well, the US government sure acted like anyone who didn't get into Iraq with them after 9/11 was an enemy. Your government seriously pissed off a lot of residents of friendly nations. And not all of our citizens are intelligent and fair-minded enough to separate 'government' from 'people'.

Even nations who did go and help got aggressive and unfriendly behaviour from your government. We typically kept our mouths shut at the time because hey, you'd just received a severe shock, we understood. But some of your people still act like we never did - or do - anything to help! Newsflash: not true!

As for "If you do the research, the UN has never had a successful peacekeeping mission." The League of Nations, Australia, and the UN have overseen the continuing development of Papua New Guinea as a nation. Australia and the UN are working on East Timor.

I believe you may well be right - if you stick to the technicality of 'peacekeeping mission' and define 'success' within a scope of less than several decades. But both Papua New Guinea and East Timor are nations which have formed with UN (and League of Nations) assistance, have a mentor first world nation, and are on the way to becoming successful, independent nations.

I have spoken with members of the Australian military who have been posted to various locations in the southern Pacific and Indian oceans, and South-East Asia. Some of their missions were UN-sponsored, some were nominally 'peacekeeping'. Some were soldiers doing hard police work like dealing with drug or sex trafficking. Some were emergency assistance after natural disasters. They tell me that New Zealand forces often go to the same places as Australian forces, helping out with the same things: so that's two countries doing their share.

There seems to be a common perception among Americans that they're the only people who ever go out of their own country to help others. That perception is very, very wrong.

[Seshat]

But you need to actually have a pair in order to enforce those policies and the UN definitely doesn't have any balls.

Actually, the UN doesn't have any teeth. All it can do is ask the member nations to do stuff - it has no armies of its own, no citizenry to draw from, and no land to place training bases for its hypothetical citizens.

If the member nations who are able and willing to act are already fully committed to other projects - as Australia often is - then the UN is in the same position as a social worker with no foster homes or shelter beds to place the latest abused child. Helpless.

[DarthRetard]

In response to what you said Seshat, I understand that a great many nations did help us in our endeavors in Afghanistan, especially. My cousin served with Canadian special forces in several missions, and had nothing but praise for their tenacity and fervor for their job. Australia also has more respect from me than any other nation in this world because Australia sticks to their guns, doesnt back down, and frankly, is an all-around great nation from what I gather. Hopefully you'll understand what I meant through further clarification:

I was really mainly addressing the issue that it seems like everytime something big is about to go down, the UN is apt to opt for popular decisions, not necessarily the right ones, and when the United States tries to be (as it is commonly called) an example, and try to tread the right path, we're damned if we do, damned if we dont. If the US does adopt a more relaxed interventionist policy (i.e. not threatening everything in sight like a shi tzu in heat), and something happens, I know for damned well certain that the UN Security Council nations will be the first to say "I told you so" and place blame on US foreign policy. The "stfu and help us" argument/statement was mainly for Russia/France because I know Spain, Britain and most other nations did the best to give us the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't help that we fucked up big time, to be honest, but damned if we're not trying. The American people are good people, for the most part, and we don't really consider ourselves better than anyone, we're just spoiled I think, and we need a wake up call.

[Boozy]

Boozy, with your logic on the great powers and war and interventionism, explain to me how China's economy is doing so well with lack of military involvement on a scale like ours? Or Luxembourg? Or Britain? Or Germany?

To address just a few:

China: Their economy is based on paying their workers very little money to make a lot of plastic crap for export. I guess that's one way to go. :rolleyes:

Britain: Holy hell, the biggest imperialistic power of all-time. No lack of military or economic intervention there.

But I should clarify that I don't disagree with you at all when you say that America's imperialism is both wrong and out of control. I just feel that Ron Paul and his ilk do not fully grasp the fundamental changes in American society that will have to occur should the US stop pursuing its current course of action.

The American way of life has been made possible by interventionist foreign policy. You can't just snap your fingers and withdraw from the world overnight. The military-industrial complex would collapse. This is something you have to slowly do over the course of a generation.

[Greenday]

If the member nations who are able and willing to act are already fully committed to other projects - as Australia often is - then the UN is in the same position as a social worker with no foster homes or shelter beds to place the latest abused child. Helpless.

Fighting off those kangaroos must really sap your energy. Maybe the Canadians can help you when they are done fighting the beaver/moose army!

In all seriousness, the UN is something that looks good on paper, but really, is just a group of people thinking of what the world SHOULD be like. That's all they do. It's all well and good to say that everyone should work towards a certain cause, but every nation has their own problems to deal with as it is.

[DarthRetard]

But I should clarify that I don't disagree with you at all when you say that America's imperialism is both wrong and out of control. I just feel that Ron Paul and his ilk do not fully grasp the fundamental changes in American society that will have to occur should the US stop pursuing its current course of action.

The American way of life has been made possible by interventionist foreign policy. You can't just snap your fingers and withdraw from the world overnight. The military-industrial complex would collapse. This is something you have to slowly do over the course of a generation.


First off, there are plenty of stable economies out there that aren't dependant on a militaristic interventionist policy. How much do you actually know about Ron Paul? I don't simply campaing for him, I, in all honesty, am one of the higher ups in the campaign, and I've met the man on several occasions now. Clinton managed minimal interventionism, with some still going on, and still managed to balance our budget and make our economy stronger. However, he fucked us by reducing our military's strength by 30%. It's not that I don't fully believe in some interventionism, and neither does Ron Paul, he just doesn't think every country's problem requires our "assistance". Iraq took a step backwards after we intervened. Vietnam is just now finally getting it's legs underneath it. Interventionism requires a military obligation that we can't fulfill at our current strength right now. Spending MORE money to accomplish a task that should never have been set out will only damage our economy further by decreasing citizen's confidence in government. The thing is, our American people have been allowed to believe that we're the only moral power in the world. We need to save face and gain the confidence of our allies again. We need to withdraw from NATO, for it simply is now just a military alliance on paper that could, in the future draw us into a war. Jefferson once said, in his inaugural address "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."

It's treaties like the Rio Treaty, NATO, NAFTA and the WTO that will bring our nation down, because we've put the fate of our nation's economy and safety in the hands of people who we dont necessarily know share the same desire for us to succeed.

[DexX]

From my reading, you guys seem to be in ferocious agreement... :)

As for the UN, well, what can it do? Every time it tries to do the right thing, one member country will veto it (and that member country has often been the USA), giving it no power. But then, if we gave the UN an army, some real teeth to enforce its decisions, then suddenly we'd have this terrifying central world government that would probably only last a few years before Geneva copped a nuke.

The UN can only work based on willing cooperation. Saying "Make me!" is not willing cooperation.

[Boozy]

From my reading, you guys seem to be in ferocious agreement... :)

That's what I thought. Glad to see its not just me. :D

I should add that even vaguely maligning Ron Paul on the internet has not been kind to me.

[Seshat]

Hopefully you'll understand what I meant through further clarification:

Thank you for the clarification. What I read in those earlier posts was not what your clarification says.

I was really mainly addressing the issue that it seems like everytime something big is about to go down, the UN is apt to opt for popular decisions, not necessarily the right ones

What do you expect from an organisation that is essentially a democracy?


and when the United States tries to be (as it is commonly called) an example, and try to tread the right path, we're damned if we do, damned if we dont.

That's the curse of being moral and ethical.


The "stfu and help us" argument/statement was mainly for Russia/France because I know Spain, Britain and most other nations did the best to give us the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't help that we fucked up big time, to be honest, but damned if we're not trying.

As I understand it, France at the time was saying 'it's a mistake' and choosing to act according to their morals and ethics. That's one time when they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. If they did, they would be doing something they believed would be wrong. If they didn't, the only remaining world superpower would be pissed off at them. And they couldn't be sure their intelligence was right, any more than the US could.

If you want credit for your own moral stands - and yes, I do give your country credit for them - then give France credit for their moral stand in the 9/11 aftermath. Please? Pretty please with sugar on top?

The American people are good people, for the most part, and we don't really consider ourselves better than anyone, we're just spoiled I think, and we need a wake up call.

Yes, I think that's probably about right. It matches with my assessment.

Fighting off those kangaroos must really sap your energy. Maybe the Canadians can help you when they are done fighting the beaver/moose army!

And when you're done being snarky, you are invited to actually read this thread.

The thing is, our American people have been allowed to believe that we're the only moral power in the world.

Read that sentence, think about it, decide whether it's true or not, and then think about what sorts of mistakes you might be making because of it. And how you would feel, if your neighbour acted towards you as if he was moral, and you were not.

[DarthRetard]

Seshat, even now, with some of the statements in your reply, you're treating me with an attitude that says to me that I'm still being looked down upon because I'm american. No, I will not give the French the same moral standing, and here's why:

It's quite known that they were selling weapons to Iraq, and had monetary influences in Iraq. France's government under Chirac was more two-timing than Cruella DeVille in a poker game. "Sure USA, we're really upset about your loss and everything, and wanna do everything to help, but....uhh.....Hey look over there!"

Before you start on it, I know for a fact that America has done some shady bullshit in the past. I know it, and I hate it. I hate the fact that Reagan, one of the president's I'm most fond of, is responsible for Bin Laden's rise to power. So here I am, acknowledging it, and trying to undo what my country has screwed up. I know we're dumbasses sometimes. I know. I admit it. I'm no supporter of the current administration policies, either.

However, I think that the impression a lot of citizens in other nations get from us, is from our media (not just news, but tv as well) and based on that, I could understand how they think we're idiots. I mean come on, we let Paris Hilton produce an album? Credibility: 0. I formally apologize for that too.

America needs to be given a little more credit than it gets though, because to be fucking honest, we've been thrown into a major role from the beginning of this country's history. The American Revolution led to revolutions in Haiti, France, and set an example that would be used for years to come. We didn't ask for this role, and we're doing the best we can with it. If another country thinks they can do it better, then they can either take some of the burden, and help us out, or they can sit back with their thumbs up their arses and wonder what the hell we're doing.

[Greenday]

And when you're done being snarky, you are invited to actually read this thread.

This whole thread was based on friendly country bashing. I can't help it that you guys went off on a tangent and actually started bashing each other's countries. I'm sorry that obvious comic relief is unwelcome in tense debates that seem to be getting to the point of personal attacks. I'll let you go back to ripping into Darth. You want me to take country bashing seriously? Fine.

I'm still siding with Darth. America may not be doing the best things when dealing with world affairs, but at least America tries to make the world a better place. There are a lot of countries sitting around with their thumbs up their asses. Sure, some countries are helping. I applaud them. But if America didn't get involved first, would any of the other countries have stepped in at all? Sometimes, I really doubt it.

America has its fair share of morons. When Canada or GB ups their populations to the size of the US (well, GB won't, it's just too small to support that many people), they'll have just as many stupid people too. The US just has a population that is MUCH larger and as such, there is more stupidity to be seen.

[AFPheonix]

That's what I thought. Glad to see its not just me. :D

I should add that even vaguely maligning Ron Paul on the internet has not been kind to me.

I know, I come back after a loverly 10 hour shift, and see that the person quoting me for rebuttal is well....restating what I already said? :confused:
Alrighty then.

I have to say, Ron Paul supporters give Obama supporters a run for their money as far as religious fervor goes. Darth hasn't gone all bullet point presentation like most of the rest do. Yet. ;)

I think America gets plenty of credit for the stuff we do. However, we shouldn't be doing stuff just to earn praise, we should do things because it makes the world a better place ultimately. Yeah, it's nice and all now and again to be appreciated, but after the last few decades we've spent crapping all over quite a few key places, we shouldn't really be surprised that there's going to be some blowback. That's how it is when we deal with other sovereign nations with their own voices. They aren't going to be yes-men, nor should we expect them to be. Keeps us honest.

[DexX]

Sure, some countries are helping. I applaud them. But if America didn't get involved first, would any of the other countries have stepped in at all? Sometimes, I really doubt it.

You mean like Australia and New Zealand going into East Timor and thoroughly pissing off our closest and most powerful neighbour (Indonesia) by helping the East Timorese achieve independence? The Indonesians still haven't forgiven us for that, as we knew they wouldn't, but it was the right and moral thing to do, so we did it.

(Of course, we were guilt-tripped into it by New Zealand, and the pigheaded government of the time was guilt-tripped into it by the party in oppostition, but hey, we got there in the end.)

Plenty of countries intervene in others to help make their lives better, not just the US. Please do a bit of research before making claims to the contrary.

[Boozy]

Why are we still talking about morals? Come on, guys. We're smarter than to be fooled by that kind of politicians rhetoric.

Australia helped East Timor gain independence in order to wrest control over that region's oil reserves from Indonesia. The US is always dicking around in the Middle East for the same reason.

In 1994, in resource-poor Rwanda, the Hutus publicly announced that they would spend the next 100 days slaughtering 1 million Tutsis. They kill about 800,000. The world does nothing.

I say it again: Intervention is about resources, economics, and trade.

[DarthRetard]

Why are we still talking about morals? *snip*
In 1994, in resource-poor Rwanda, the Hutus publicly announced that they would spend the next 100 days slaughtering 1 million Tutsis. They kill about 800,000. The world does nothing.

I say it again: Intervention is about resources, economics, and trade.

Sometimes, and more often than not, morals matter to some Americans, and I maintain that for us to be moral and stick to the morals and beliefs our country was founded upon, interventionism is not always necessary nor is it always practical.

Blame that Rwanda incident SOLELY on the UNITED NATIONS. You can find the transcript of a Tutsi informant begging Kofi Annan for help, claiming knowledge of the weapons caches, coordinates everything. Kofi Annan refused to do anything. He since mentioned in a Newsweek article/interview that he regrets it, but do not pin that one on the US, as we had just gotten sour from the Somalian Black Hawk Down incident.

I never said that interventionism was ever solely altruistic, but it's completely unfair to say that interventionism doesn't have it's morality to it, in some cases. For instance, if a government is trying to acquire more oil through interventionism, is it not following a moral and ethical guideline by providing certain means for it's people? I do believe a government's obligation is to provide for the welfare and safety of it's people, along with trying to provide a decent quality of living. Is that not moral?

[AFPheonix]

Why are we still talking about morals? Come on, guys. We're smarter than to be fooled by that kind of politicians rhetoric.

Australia helped East Timor gain independence in order to wrest control over that region's oil reserves from Indonesia. The US is always dicking around in the Middle East for the same reason.

In 1994, in resource-poor Rwanda, the Hutus publicly announced that they would spend the next 100 days slaughtering 1 million Tutsis. They kill about 800,000. The world does nothing.

I say it again: Intervention is about resources, economics, and trade.

I'm frankly arguing that it should be more for morals than for personal gain if we're going to do it. The personal gain part is really what causes us to engage in pretty short-sighted interventions that hurt us down the line.
Not that personal gain isn't all bad, and it should be a consideration in many interactions we have, but we also have to keep the other party's interest in mind, too. We also have to keep in mind that other cultures don't have the same morals we do. I suppose a better phrase than "moral" should be "upholding of international law".
But.....that won't happen until this admin is gone, seeing as they have a small problem with obeying international law themselves.

[Boozy]

I'm frankly arguing that it should be more for morals than for personal gain if we're going to do it. The personal gain part is really what causes us to engage in pretty short-sighted interventions that hurt us down the line.

I agree. It should be about doing the right thing, not doing the profitable thing.

[protege]

As for 'We're not your enemy' - well, the US government sure acted like anyone who didn't get into Iraq with them after 9/11 was an enemy. Your government seriously pissed off a lot of residents of friendly nations. And not all of our citizens are intelligent and fair-minded enough to separate 'government' from 'people'.

Even nations who did go and help got aggressive and unfriendly behaviour from your government. We typically kept our mouths shut at the time because hey, you'd just received a severe shock, we understood. But some of your people still act like we never did - or do - anything to help! Newsflash: not true!


...and as an American, I appreciate it. But, since we'd just lost several thousand innocent civilians, I think our emotions got the better of us. On 9/11, we wanted someone to pay, we wanted to bomb the living fuck out of someone. We didn't want to sit around and wait. I admit, that's not our best hour...but emotions were running high. I really don't think we (well, most of us) intended to piss off our allies. I think the reason some hostility arose, because it not only exposed our vulnerabilities, but we didn't see it coming. That is, 9/11 started out like any other day...only to end in tragedy :(

Let's not also forget that we're not the same country since then. Not only were all those people killed, but we lost our sense of security (remember the anthrax scares?), our economy was wrecked, most of our major airlines filed for bankruptcy, started 2 wars...

Also, we can't pin all the blame for the Iraq war on Bush. There's plenty of blame to go around--let's not forget about *Congress* who gave him the authority to declare it in the first place. From what I understand, most of Congress was supporting it...until things started going south. Now they've changed their minds...

While we're at it, no country is immune from this sort of thing. Plenty have skeletons in the closets

[Greenday]

Also, we can't pin all the blame for the Iraq war on Bush. There's plenty of blame to go around--let's not forget about *Congress* who gave him the authority to declare it in the first place. From what I understand, most of Congress was supporting it...until things started going south. Now they've changed their minds...

And Hussein DID say himself they had WOMDs. He brought that one on himself.

[AFPheonix]

And Hussein DID say himself they had WOMDs. He brought that one on himself.

And yet, Bush ran roughshod over Hans Blix while he and the rest of his army of inspectors were still doing their job. We didn't really determine if they had them until well after we'd invaded. If Bush had just been patient, we could have avoided the whole mess.

Yes, Congress did ok the invasion, however, they along with the rest of us were given bad intelligence and kind of strong-armed into doing it. Can you imagine what the uproar would have been if they'd said no at that point? Seriously, this was the era of Freedom Fries. People, the media and government were all insane.

[Greenday]

And yet, Bush ran roughshod over Hans Blix while he and the rest of his army of inspectors were still doing their job. We didn't really determine if they had them until well after we'd invaded. If Bush had just been patient, we could have avoided the whole mess.

But, he said he had nukes. I mean, usually when people DO have them, they say they don't have any nukes. We've never encountered that before. If he says he has nukes, it makes sense to just take him at his word for it. Saddam made justifying going after him a lot easier.

[DarthRetard]

The whole war is wrong. Congress violated the constitution of the United States when they voted to give the president the power to declare war within 48 hours of notification of congress. The Constitution in big bold times new roman print states that only congress maintains the power to declare war.

[Rapscallion]

But, he said he had nukes. I mean, usually when people DO have them, they say they don't have any nukes. We've never encountered that before. If he says he has nukes, it makes sense to just take him at his word for it. Saddam made justifying going after him a lot easier.

According to my understanding of SALT (strategic arms limitations treaty), signees to this protocol agreed not to use nukes against countries that had no nukes. Ergo, the USSR vs the US would run the risk of nukes being used. The US vs Iceland would not.

By saying publically that he had nukes, Saddam actually opened up the option for the US to use them and get away with having done so. Granted, there would have been a huge backlash about that, but under the terms of the SALT as I understand it they would have been within their rights.

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

I also don't recall him ever actually saying that he did. We thought he was working on DEVELOPING one, but never got it finished. We know for sure he had chemical weapons since he used them on Kurds.
No, they were still trying to track down "yellow cake" and centrifuge parts.

[DarthRetard]

He didnt say that there was ever nukes. In an another unrelated note, it was also well known fact that Saddam Hussein absolutely despised Osama Bin laden and Al Qaeda, so the link of there being a connection was unfortunately minimal.

[Seshat]

Seshat, even now, with some of the statements in your reply, you're treating me with an attitude that says to me that I'm still being looked down upon because I'm american.

Incorrect. I'm rebutting statements that seem to me to be incorrect or based on incomplete information. In my interpretation and intent, I am making criticisms of specific statements made by a single individual. I'm not even criticising you as a person, just a few statements made on a forum on the internet. I don't even know you-the-person!

Making a leap of interpretation from that to a general dislike of an entire nation is really rather surprising.

If another country thinks they can do it better, then they can either take some of the burden, and help us out, or they can sit back with their thumbs up their arses and wonder what the hell we're doing.

Shortly before this post, I commented that Australia and other countries have been doing just that. I mean 'taking up some of the burden', not 'sitting back with thumbs up their butt'.

I'm sorry that obvious comic relief is unwelcome in tense debates that seem to be getting to the point of personal attacks.

I apologise. I do have difficulty interpreting things as they are intended myself. I missed that you intended comic relief, and I apologise for that.

I'll let you go back to ripping into Darth.

Now I'm shocked. Please, if you think you can explain how my intent has been so badly misinterpreted, please PM me. I honestly can't see how I look like I'm 'ripping into Darth personally, rather than rebutting his comments.

...and as an American, I appreciate it.

You're welcome.

But, since we'd just lost several thousand innocent civilians, I think our emotions got the better of us. On 9/11, we wanted someone to pay, we wanted to bomb the living fuck out of someone. We didn't want to sit around and wait. I admit, that's not our best hour...but emotions were running high. I really don't think we (well, most of us) intended to piss off our allies. I think the reason some hostility arose, because it not only exposed our vulnerabilities, but we didn't see it coming. That is, 9/11 started out like any other day...only to end in tragedy

We understand. I, at least, try to not say anything much about the year or so immediately following, and mistakes-in-retrospect America may have made then. You as a people and as individuals were reacting and acting based on both your emotional state and on the information at hand. How could you have done anything else?

But it's now sufficiently later that while the emotional wounds are still there, and always will be, you (should) no longer have raw emotion driving you.

Let's not also forget that we're not the same country since then.

No. You now share a dubious honour with the UK (especially Britain), Ireland, Israel, and many others. You're nations which can expect periodic terrorist attacks. It's an unenviable and difficult position to be in.

[Greenday]

I apologise. I do have difficulty interpreting things as they are intended myself. I missed that you intended comic relief, and I apologise for that.



Now I'm shocked. Please, if you think you can explain how my intent has been so badly misinterpreted, please PM me. I honestly can't see how I look like I'm 'ripping into Darth personally, rather than rebutting his comments.

It's cool. I just saw it as a bunch of friendly bashing at first and then all of a sudden it got really serious.

And I didn't really mean bashing. It just seemed like you two were really going at each other really rough.

[DexX]

Back when the US was first talking about going into Iraq I lost a few rather emotional American friends simply because I said it was a bad idea and linked to a friend of mine's essay on precisely why it was a bad idea and why it violated many international laws.

That very argument came up: "We're all shocked and grieving so we should be allowed to let our rage run free and do whatever makes us feel better."

I made an unpopular analogy. Let's say your friend Bob is a smoker and he suddenly found himself diagnosed with lung cancer, and died within weeks of diagnosis. Bob's wife Mary is livid, and wants to do something, so she tells you she's going to make a bomb and blow up a nearby Phillip Morris distribution centre, almost certainly killing a bunch of innocent employees.

Would you let her go ahead with it? Of course not. Grief-stricken rage is not a free pass to behave exactly as you want with no repercussions.

By refusing to tell my friends that their government was perfectly within its rights to kill untold thousands of civilians in a foreign country because something bad happened to them, I was apparently being insensitive and I lost a few friends over it. Personally I thought, and still think, that it was fucking insanity.

[AFPheonix]

I think this administration would like us to think it was our blind rage and sorrow that drove us into Iraq, but Bush was wanting to get back in there even before he was president, and this was a good excuse to go. I think secretly he wanted to show up his dad in SOMETHING.
Afghanistan was a valid invasion, and frankly I'm ok with our continuing presence there, and from what I've read most Afghans are, too. Iraq was a mistake from the start.

[Seshat]

I think it's time that - if the US government isn't doing so already - the US government reassess what they're doing in the Middle East. As my sig on the CS site says: deal with the situation you have now, however it happened.

Update your information on the nations involved. Sit some new people down to study it with fresh insight: if necessary use analysts from friendly nations like Britain for whom 9/11 didn't come as such a shock (since Brits have been handling terrorist attacks in their home country for a really long time).

Look over the situation and the new analysts' reports. Figure out what you think is the right thing to do NOW. Then do it. Withdraw from places you think you shouldn't be, given what you know now. Interfere in anything that you think you should be interfering in, given what you know now.

It's human nature to continue something you're already doing, but humans also have a long history of 'throwing good money after bad'.

Of course, not being close the US corridors of power (is it possible to get further away than Aussieland?), your government may well already be doing that.

As for you citizens: if you agree with me and you think your government isn't doing something like that, write to your congresscritter. :)

[AFPheonix]

Oh, believe me, I write my congresspeeps.
In fact, I let Gordon Smith know that he'd lost my vote for this year's election because he voted to approve force against Iran. Hello, already embroiled in 2 wars over there...bad idea!
Ron Wyden can do no wrong, as far as Oregon is concerned. I'd have his bald-headed babies if he wanted :D

I got a personal letter back explaining that he was concerned over comments made by Ahmedinijad, but the fact that my own senator doesn't understand that the President of Iran does not have control over the armed forces nor does he direct foreign policy, and thus could offer no teeth behind his words (as stupid and inflammatory as they are at times) did not sway me. Sorry bud, I voted for you before, and now you've just gotten to "republicany" for my taste.

Like I've said in another thread somewhere (maybe even in this one, I don't know) Condoleeza Rice is FINALLY retooling our diplomatic corps to attend to places that have more affects on us these days: getting away from tons of diplomats to Europe and hiring on new ones who are fluent in languages like farsi and other middle-eastern dialects and are more familiar with their cultural mores.
It only took 8 years of trolling around out there to figure that one out.

Also, it's another election year. We will most definitely have a new president and accompanying administration, (a Democratic one, provided they manage to not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again), and new reps hanging onto the coattails of whoever gains power in the White House. There will be a new course of action, one way or another.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I got a personal letter back explaining that he was concerned over comments made by Ahmedinijad, but the fact that my own senator doesn't understand that the President of Iran does not have control over the armed forces nor does he direct foreign policy, and thus could offer no teeth behind his words (as stupid and inflammatory as they are at times) did not sway me.

Ahmadinejad is as nutty as our current jackass. The only difference is that the religion-abusing psychotics aren't in charge of our government - yet (and I hope to God never will be, because they'd make the Talibastards look like fuckin' Disneyland). The Iranian people are at least as disgusted with him as we are with ours.

I have heard very disturbing theories that the only reason we went into Iraq (aside from the fact that Shrubbie wanted revenge for Big Daddy's disgrace) was to use that as a stepping-stone for Iran (which has huge reserves of oil and natural gas and controls a crucial waterway for commerce). Frankly, given this assministration's fuckups, that wouldn't surprise me one bit. But poking this nest of bees when it isn't warranted would absolutely be a fatal error, and I hope to God people realize this and don't let the warmongers charge off on a suicide mission (except, they'd be killing us off instead of themselves).

[Spiffy McMoron]

I could understand how they think we're idiots. I mean come on, we let Paris Hilton produce an album? Credibility: 0. I formally apologize for that too.

Finally! Someone apologizes for Paris Hilton! :p

[AFPheonix]

Any apologies for Celine Dion? ;)

[Boozy]

Any apologies for Celine Dion? ;)

I'll admit she's batshit insane. But I blame the province of Quebec for that one. I'll let them apologize. :D

I will instead apologize whole-heartedly for Tom Green.

[AFPheonix]

That's alright. You guys blessed the world with the Red Green Show, so it's all good in my book :D

[DarthRetard]

I take the South Park route and Blame Canada anyways......

[Spiffy McMoron]

I take the South Park route and Blame Canada anyways......

To be fair, we did create that bitch Anne Murray. :p

[DarthRetard]

I think it's made up for with Dudley Dooright (did i spell that correctly?), though, even if brendan fraser did fuck that up.

And we gave the world Tom Cruise, who, from personal experience, is a bigger bitch than Anne Murray.

[DexX]

You can't blame us Aussies for Russell Crowe - he only lived here a while after being born in New Zealand. Same deal with everyone's favourite anti-Semite Mel Gibson - US born. I will happily lay claim to Guy Pearce, Geoffrey Rush, Cate Blanchett, Anthony LaPaglia, and Rachel Griffiths.

[protege]

And we gave the world Tom Cruise, who, from personal experience, is a bigger bitch than Anne Murray.

Correction. He's a couch-jumping bitch who can't act :p

[DarthRetard]

He didnt like it when I asked him if he really believed in Scientology. I got kicked out of the ATT store for it. :rolleyes:

[Boozy]

He didnt like it when I asked him if he really believed in Scientology. I got kicked out of the ATT store for it. :rolleyes:

What? For real? I need to hear the whole story!

*makes popcorn, waits patiently*

[the_std]

I just wanted to add, back to the topic as it was more discussed in the first few pages, my story about this kind of thing.

My sister and I were visiting some relatives in Belgium (Brussels, specifically) three years ago. We decided to shopping and ended up in a decidedly tourist-trap part of the city. We wandered into a shop and were discussing the wares between ourselves in English. The employee behind the till just stood and glowered at us. We found something we liked, but could see no price attached to it. We took it up to the front and asked, in French (I'm a French-Canadian) what the price was. His face was overcome by confusion and he asked, "You speak French?" "Oui," we answered. He replied that he didn't know that Americans could speak French. We explained that we were Canadian, not American. Instantly, he became all smiles and praises, telling us how much he loved hockey and how much he hated the rude American tourists. We didn't buy anything, but he gave us each a bottle of pop in thanks for stopping to chat with him.

Later on in our trip, we were in France, and were browsing another touristy area, looking at some art displayed by a street vendor. She smiled and said hello, we said hello back. She noticed the Canadian flag sewn on my backpack and asked if I had it there to "disguise my American heritage". I replied that, no, I really was Canadian, and I spoke some French with her. She was so excited by this fact that she offered my sister a free piece of art. We declined, but I gave her a temporary tattoo of the Canadian flag, and she insisted on giving my sister a rather sizable discount on a beautiful drawing because of it.

I just thought I'd share, as it seemed relevant to the topic.

[Wicked_Lexi]

Living outside the US I guess this debate has a different side for me...

I live in Sydney Australia. A fairly popular tourist destination! I have met a fair few Americans. My sisters family lives in Utah. I also have a fairly large group of American internet friends and spend a lot of time on the CS forum and other forums that have a heavy American population.

I worked at the only theme park in Sydney.

A lot of the Americans I met in person (I'm sorry to say) were incredibly stereotypical of what a lot of people in Australia view Americans as: Overbearing loud demanding demeaning towards the country they are visiting. I heard the phrase 'Well back home XYZ" at least 4-5 times a day when I worked at the Amusement park usually when they were not getting their own way! It got to the point where the management approved response was "Well go home then"

HOWEVER this reaction was only when the tourists were being... well arseholes!

I found that these types of tourists tended to find the notion that we (being Australians) don't want to be like America extremely strange and would expound at the length the virtues of being American!

HOWEVER:

I have also met quite a few tourist who were lovely friendly and wonderful people.

I guess it comes down to, a lot of people see you as a representative of your Country. At the moment America is not the most popular country in the world due to political issues... should Americans get harassed and told off for what GWB is doing... NO! Are they going to ... Yes probably... What to do about it?
No Idea!

[aniwahya]

My views can be expressed on this subject with one sentence:
Generalizations are bad.

That is all.

I tried to post more, but the board pwned me.
Mainly I wanted to add that I don't believe people take into account how large the US population is when specifically bashing the US. We have more people of all types for nonUS citizens to have interactions with, and unfortunately people remember the negatives far longer than the positives.

Is anyone else finding themselves becoming jaded with all the US bashing going on that seems to be without purpose other than perpetuating the latest fad in an attempt to be one of the "cool kids"? The legitimate complaints against the US and US citizens are being drowned out by screaming mob of people proclaiming "amerikanz suxxorz LOL! suk my dik amerikaz!" solely for the purpose of being just another lemming jumping off a cliff.

While I am a US citizen, country bashing of any and all countries annoys me greatly, not just of the US. Stereotypes are nothing more than fodder for small minded people, happy to wallow in their own ignorance and negativity.

[protege]

Whenever I'm "bashing" a country, I'm usually kidding. Especially about the "great parking lot to the north" that is Canada. Or how their military has less subs than the average sandwich shop. Just joking around folks--I've been to Canada many times, and everyone I ran into was very nice. Granted, I didn't act like an asshole either :p

[Slytovhand]

I just thought I'd join this debate after coming back in trying to take care of a stack of roos... Boozy - need any help controlling the beavers?

My views can be expressed on this subject with one sentence:
Generalizations are bad.

That is all.

<snip>

Is anyone else finding themselves becoming jaded with all the US bashing going on that seems to be without purpose other than perpetuating the latest fad in an attempt to be one of the "cool kids"? The legitimate complaints against the US and US citizens are being drowned out by screaming mob of people proclaiming "amerikanz suxxorz LOL! suk my dik amerikaz!" solely for the purpose of being just another lemming jumping off a cliff.

Goes a few different ways there Ani (probably shouldn't call you that, you'll turn into another Darth Vader :p)

The "amerikanz suxxorz..." bit is ridiculous just from that alone - let alone the attempt at bashing (aka - fitting in). Though some out there feel quite justified to do that, given what the 'nation' (aka - government and military) have done.

But it does the other way with other nations out there - such as Afghanistan and Iraq... or cultures... or religions.

After all - how much violence was perpetrated against muslims in the last 7 years. And the Taliban... they were quite nice people whom the US Gov't thought were pretty nice... until recently. Does that mean that now they're all evil bastards who deserve to be bombed into the ground?

And Iraq. Even if you happen to meet one of the soldiers whom the US are fighting against, will they automatically be branded as evil just because they were trying to defend what they felt was an important way of life for them. (I personally don't believe that all of those 'insurgents' are nasty people, but have seen what's happened to their beloved nation, and seen the invasion as the destructive force - thus that's whom they fight against...but I'm a bit idealistic :p). Sort of like - if you're walking down the street and see your best friend in a fight - you automatically help them out... without asking who started it or finding out who's wrong.


Slyt

[Hemily]

here in Norway, we have a kinda similar relationship with Sweden, as US/Canada has, kinda silly bickering, all in good humour :p
(a lot of silly jokes, like "why'd the swede bring a ladder to the store? he thought the prices were too high" )

As on the topic of America helping countries, the US really ain't the only one, we've lost troops in iraq too, helping y'all with whatever is going on there now, heck, we even send ya money when there's some huge thing, like what happened in New Orleans, or 9/11, heck, we even train your troops for snow combat
Although, looking away from bombing countries silly after 9/11, that was actually when America started showing it's best side, all gathered, no matter skin color, religion or sexual orientation, they all were one people after that, and that was a America to admire, instead of the one we usually hear about outside the US, about suing people for having warm coffee, and managing to force companies to add warning lables that have most sane people scratching their head
Why is there a warning on the Dodge Viper, to not put children in the back seat? THERE IS NO BACK SEAT! :confused:
why do Oreos need to have eating instructions? :confused:

America's done a lot of great things, but due to a high population, a lot of stupid things too, and because of media, we generally only get the stupid news, yeah... Bush fell off his bike at his ranch... big news... really... can you see how shocked i am? aawh.. his dog died too? poor Bush... WHY IS THIS ON THE NEWS? :confused:

[protege]

WHY IS THIS ON THE NEWS? :confused:

Because of the same reason that such a big deal was made over British royalty or the Kennedy family in this country...because people *watch* that crap.