Do you hate Americans?

Watch
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2141
Report 16 years ago
#2141
Out of the dozens of conflicts in the world, is there a reason why everyone is so obsessed with the ones started by America? Why not protest about the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, the Armenian occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Russian massacres of Chechens and other people from the Caucasus, the murders of tens of thousands by the Brazilian death squads, the Indonesian oppression of the people of Aceh, etc. There are a countless amount of conflicts where the scale of suffering is significantly higher than in Iraq, so why are millions of Brits protesting the American wars but not the other ones?
0
reply
Sam2k
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2142
Report 16 years ago
#2142
(Original post by Bismarck)
Out of the dozens of conflicts in the world, is there a reason why everyone is so obsessed with the ones started by America? Why not protest about the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, the Armenian occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Russian massacres of Chechens and other people from the Caucasus, the murders of tens of thousands by the Brazilian death squads, the Indonesian oppression of the people of Aceh, etc. There are a countless amount of conflicts where the scale of suffering is significantly higher than in Iraq, so why are millions of Brits protesting the American wars but not the other ones?
Simply because everyone has heard of the war in Iraq. Everybody doesn't know of the other things that go on in the world.
0
reply
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2143
Report 16 years ago
#2143
*Sigh* Kondar, kondar, kondar... where do I begin?

(Original post by Kondar)
Firstly, the US was the only super power before the Iraq war. Secondly, your country also thought that there were WMDs and also went along with the war. Are you overlooking Britians involvement in the war in Iraq? I almost blame England more than I blame the US for the war. Britians approval and assistance helped to validate the war, without which, I dont think the war would of be as possible.
The United States is not some mopey housewife that wants to start a career--validation is not a requirement for America to go to war. Goodness, you're from here, you should realize that the United States, as a whole, possesses an attitude that does not require outside approval. It's the old "Oh, hell. If I don't do it, nobody else will"-look that someone gives before they do your work for you, because they consider to too incompetent or irresponsible to pull off the task.

Tony Blair should have known what Bush was up to and told him to piss off, but nope........
What was Bush up to? You just said that the US, and the rest of the planet, thought that there were WMDs in Iraq. Now, Bush suddenly has some evil little plan regarding this? What, that he didn't want Saddam Hussein to use these believed WMDs on anyone, or is it that he didn't want someone else to get ahold of these WMDs and use them on Americans in a terrorist act? That rat b*stard! Trying to protect the safety of America!? Who does he think he is?! :rolleyes:

Of all the things the US has done recently, Britian continues to give their approval and support thereby making it politically acceptable on a global stage.
Yeah, that's really working... :rolleyes:
Is derision considered a sign of approval outside the US?
0
reply
Kondar
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2144
Report 16 years ago
#2144
I was simply trying to illustrate the point the England is very responsible for many of the things the criticise the US for- especially when it comes to foreign policy.

(Original post by psychic_satori)
The United States is not some mopey housewife that wants to start a career--validation is not a requirement for America to go to war. Goodness, you're from here, you should realize that the United States, as a whole, possesses an attitude that does not require outside approval. It's the old "Oh, hell. If I don't do it, nobody else will"-look that someone gives before they do your work for you, because they consider to too incompetent or irresponsible to pull off the task.
The Bush administration has actively sought out and desired international cooperation/support for the war. Bush and cronies considered it very important to get as many key players on board as possible even though this support often goes no further than a vocal approval. Of the 47 current nations included in the 'coalition of the willing' only 4 supply combat troops.

This global acceptance that includes countries such as Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Spain, Australia, England, Poland, Portugal, and the Netherlands is key in minimizing the anti war voice that could of legitatley opposed the war effort through numerous global political and economic channels.
What was Bush up to? You just said that the US, and the rest of the planet, thought that there were WMDs in Iraq. Now, Bush suddenly has some evil little plan regarding this? What, that he didn't want Saddam Hussein to use these believed WMDs on anyone, or is it that he didn't want someone else to get ahold of these WMDs and use them on Americans in a terrorist act?
I stated that it was the position of the British Government, just as it was of the US Government, that Iraq did in fact posses WMDs. The legitimacy of these claims are a seperate matter.
That rat b*stard! Trying to protect the safety of America!? Who does he think he is?!
Seeing that Iraq has never attacked the US or used WMDs against the US combined with the fact that weapons inspectors stated that he had no WMDs I find this last comment rather humorous.
0
reply
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2145
Report 16 years ago
#2145
(Original post by Kondar)
I was simply trying to illustrate the point the England is very responsible for many of the things the criticise the US for- especially when it comes to foreign policy.

The Bush administration has actively sought out and desired international cooperation/support for the war. Bush and cronies considered it very important to get as many key players on board as possible even though this support often goes no further than a vocal approval. Of the 47 current nations included in the 'coalition of the willing' only 4 supply combat troops.
Kondar, your lack of military knowledge shows when you immediately assume that the only way one can make a credible contribution to a military effort is through manpower.

This global acceptance that includes countries such as Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Spain, Australia, England, Poland, Portugal, and the Netherlands is key in minimizing the anti war voice that could of legitatley opposed the war effort through numerous global political and economic channels.
Opposing a war doesn't actually do anything if those carrying it out do not care what your opinion is. Also, the US is a superpower...what sort of economic channels are going to stop it from going to war if it finds it necessary for security?

I stated that it was the position of the British Government, just as it was of the US Government, that Iraq did in fact posses WMDs. The legitimacy of these claims are a seperate matter.
Legitimacy? Their intelligence, as well as the intelligence of a wide array of foreign entities, indicated that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs. This gave them ample reason to believe that he did, in fact, possess them. Hence, the claims were legitimate--obeying logical reason.

Seeing that Iraq has never attacked the US or used WMDs against the US combined with the fact that weapons inspectors stated that he had no WMDs I find this last comment rather humorous.
So, Americans could rest easy because Hussein hadn't attacked them...yet? Oh, I love those doctrines of idleness. "We'll worry about the trouble when it happens. No sense in trying to prevent it!" Come on, you have to be aware that most concern was in Hussein selling WMDs to third parties that would use them against the US. Also, the weapons inspectors did not say that Hussein HAD no WMDs--they said they FOUND no WMDs. There is a significant difference between the two statements.
0
reply
Inverurie Jones
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2146
Report 16 years ago
#2146
(Original post by psychic_satori)
Ever wear a pair of jeans? What about something with a zipper? Ever use a little invention called a telephone?
No

Yes

The telephone was invented by a scotsman from Edinburgh by the name of Bell.
0
reply
Inverurie Jones
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2147
Report 16 years ago
#2147
(Original post by PadFoot90)
What are the advantages of being anti-American? It's trendy?
Oh, no. I've despised yanks since long before the Second Gulf War.
0
reply
Inverurie Jones
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2148
Report 16 years ago
#2148
(Original post by Bismarck)
Or the internet for that matter.
Invented by an Englishman.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#2149
Report 16 years ago
#2149
(Original post by Inverurie Jones)
Invented by an Englishman.
The INTERNET was invented by those at ARPANET... it was an AMERICAN invention. Tim invented the WWW... and Hypertext transfer protcol...

He was English - but he also worked at CERN in Geneva.
0
reply
Apollo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2150
Report 16 years ago
#2150
(Original post by Inverurie Jones)
Oh, no. I've despised yanks since long before the Second Gulf War.
Go on then, lets hear your reasoning.
0
reply
Kondar
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2151
Report 16 years ago
#2151
(Original post by Inverurie Jones)
Oh, no. I've despised yanks since long before the Second Gulf War.
Do you despise British people, Australian people, the Polish, the Spanish, etc... as well?

Im curious, being an American who is against the war, do I have the right to hate the British for their involvement? Can I hate Tony Blair, can I hate John Howard?

What do you think?
0
reply
Kondar
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2152
Report 16 years ago
#2152
(Original post by psychic_satori)
Kondar, your lack of military knowledge shows when you immediately assume that the only way one can make a credible contribution to a military effort is through manpower.
My lack of military knowledge?? Anytime Satori Like I said, most of the 'coalition of the willing' have made very small contributions- some have only gone as far as a vocal approval while others have sent as little as 500,000 dollars of aid. Only a small handful of countries have actually stepped it up and sent ANY kind of real meaningful contribution. Desptie that fact, the Bush Administration is hungry for any kind of approval they can get, even if it is nothing more than a nod.
Opposing a war doesn't actually do anything if those carrying it out do not care what your opinion is. Also, the US is a superpower...what sort of economic channels are going to stop it from going to war if it finds it necessary for security?
France, Germany, Russia, China, etc... are all very powerful countries (comparatively) and have various forms of power in organisations such as the WTO, IMF, World Bank, the EU, etc.. The US is the major power source in each, but if enough countries can vote against it they could face repercussions stemming from the war. By getting as many countries on board as possible the US can minimize the anti-US voice that could hurt it down the road. Certain countries view the Iraq war as imperialistic, whereby the US would gain power/resources/control from their actions. These countries in an attempt to preserve their own power and control DO have outlets where they can try to limit what the US can gain.
Legitimacy? Their intelligence, as well as the intelligence of a wide array of foreign entities, indicated that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs. This gave them ample reason to believe that he did, in fact, possess them. Hence, the claims were legitimate--obeying logical reason.
There was just as much intelligence, if not more pointing to the conclusion that there were NO WMDs. The weapons inspectors themselves, including Hans Blix stated that there were no WMDs. Bush chose to only look at the information that would lead him to war, as if he were trying to prove his case, rather than establish a realistic ascertation of the situation.
So, Americans could rest easy because Hussein hadn't attacked them...yet? Oh, I love those doctrines of idleness. "We'll worry about the trouble when it happens. No sense in trying to prevent it!" Come on, you have to be aware that most concern was in Hussein selling WMDs to third parties that would use them against the US. Also, the weapons inspectors did not say that Hussein HAD no WMDs--they said they FOUND no WMDs. There is a significant difference between the two statements.
The bottom line is that Iraq had no military, Iraq had no WMDs, Iraq had no history of US aggression, Iraq had no means to attack the US if he wanted. I think Belgium is more of a threat to the US than Iraq was. What did Bush do? He spent 500 billion dollars and a full out invasion costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, not to mention 1000s of US lives. Was it worth it? Do I feel safer overseas now?
HELL NO!!
0
reply
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2153
Report 16 years ago
#2153
(Original post by Kondar)
My lack of military knowledge?? Anytime Satori Like I said, most of the 'coalition of the willing' have made very small contributions- some have only gone as far as a vocal approval while others have sent as little as 500,000 dollars of aid. Only a small handful of countries have actually stepped it up and sent ANY kind of real meaningful contribution.
What qualifies as a meaningful contribution in your mind, then?

Desptie that fact, the Bush Administration is hungry for any kind of approval they can get, even if it is nothing more than a nod.
Is that supposed to be shocking? Most people and committees prefer approval to disapproval.


France, Germany, Russia, China, etc... are all very powerful countries (comparatively) and have various forms of power in organisations such as the WTO, IMF, World Bank, the EU, etc.. The US is the major power source in each, but if enough countries can vote against it they could face repercussions stemming from the war. By getting as many countries on board as possible the US can minimize the anti-US voice that could hurt it down the road. Certain countries view the Iraq war as imperialistic, whereby the US would gain power/resources/control from their actions. These countries in an attempt to preserve their own power and control DO have outlets where they can try to limit what the US can gain.
Try, being the operative word. Those countries would also have quite a bit to lose by actively opposing US interests.


There was just as much intelligence, if not more pointing to the conclusion that there were NO WMDs.
Where is your evidence of this intelligence prior to invasion, specifically that there was MORE evidence which pointed to a lack of WMDs?

The weapons inspectors themselves, including Hans Blix stated that there were no WMDs.
No, Blix did not say there were "no WMDs," and if he did, he would have destroyed his credibility. Blix and co "found no evidence of WMDs." A lack of evidence does not prove a lack of WMDs. Logic doesn't work that way. The only conclusions that could be made from their inspections was that they were unable to find any WMDs.

Also, Blix said in June of 2003 that he "wouldn't be surprised" if the US & Coalition forces found WMDs in Iraq.

Bush chose to only look at the information that would lead him to war, as if he were trying to prove his case, rather than establish a realistic ascertation of the situation.
Or, there were two possible bad scenarios that could come from his decision:

1) Go to Iraq, find nothing, "Damn, that was a waste of money and lives," cue ensuing political fall-out.
2) Don't go to Iraq, they DO actually have WMDs, they sell them to some terrorist who uses them against the US, "Damn, if only we had taken pre-emptive action," cue both political and radioactive fall-out (possibly).

If I were in that position, I know which I would pick.

The bottom line is that Iraq had no military, Iraq had no WMDs, Iraq had no history of US aggression, Iraq had no means to attack the US if he wanted. I think Belgium is more of a threat to the US than Iraq was. What did Bush do? He spent 500 billion dollars and a full out invasion costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, not to mention 1000s of US lives. Was it worth it?
Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyway, was it worth it? Ask the people in Iraq who don't have to worry about being killed and thrown in a mass grave now.


Do I feel safer overseas now?
So, it's all about you now, is it? It's your decision to be there. If you don't feel safe, you can always pick a more hospitable retreat.
0
reply
Kondar
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2154
Report 16 years ago
#2154
(Original post by psychic_satori)
What qualifies as a meaningful contribution in your mind, then?
I think you are a smart enough girl to realize the difference between ceremonial gesture and legitimate aid.
Is that supposed to be shocking? Most people and committees prefer approval to disapproval.
Of course not, earlier you dismissed it. Glad to see youve come around.
Try, being the operative word. Those countries would also have quite a bit to lose by actively opposing US interests.
Good grief satori, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing now. The US is not invincible, a large group of nations could team up and take us on in some international arenas such as the ones I mentioned.
Where is your evidence of this intelligence prior to invasion, specifically that there was MORE evidence which pointed to a lack of WMDs?
Ive been over this 100 times, if you have overlooked everything I have said in the past year, Im not going to waste my time here.
No, Blix did not say there were "no WMDs," and if he did, he would have destroyed his credibility. Blix and co "found no evidence of WMDs." A lack of evidence does not prove a lack of WMDs. Logic doesn't work that way. The only conclusions that could be made from their inspections was that they were unable to find any WMDs.
He referred to the Bush administrations call for war as a 'Witch Hunt' and said they only considered the information that would help their case for war. http://www.commonwealthclub.org/arch...ix-speech.html

Or, there were two possible bad scenarios that could come from his decision:

1) Go to Iraq, find nothing, "Damn, that was a waste of money and lives," cue ensuing political fall-out.
2) Don't go to Iraq, they DO actually have WMDs, they sell them to some terrorist who uses them against the US, "Damn, if only we had taken pre-emptive action," cue both political and radioactive fall-out (possibly).

If I were in that position, I know which I would pick.
Thats why we have Jack Bauer, CTU. We could also call up the A-Team, or the Bristow Family.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyway, was it worth it? Ask the people in Iraq who don't have to worry about being killed and thrown in a mass grave now.
The only good thing to come from this.
0
reply
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2155
Report 16 years ago
#2155
(Original post by Kondar)
I think you are a smart enough girl to realize the difference between ceremonial gesture and legitimate aid.
You keep tossing around legitimate as if it were the word of the day.

Of course not, earlier you dismissed it. Glad to see youve come around.
I said the US didn't outwardly seek the approval of others because it doesn't need it. That's not to say that it's going to discourage it or flagrantly offend others.

Good grief satori, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing now.
You're just figuring this out now? I would have thought you would have caught on to that months ago.

The US is not invincible, a large group of nations could team up and take us on in some international arenas such as the ones I mentioned.
I never said the US was invincible, but it's influence, coupled with the harm that damaging the US would bring to the acting nations, is enough deterrence to prevent much dissent.

Ive been over this 100 times, if you have overlooked everything I have said in the past year, Im not going to waste my time here.
Cop out.

He referred to the Bush administrations call for war as a 'Witch Hunt' and said they only considered the information that would help their case for war. http://www.commonwealthclub.org/arch...ix-speech.html
In YOUR article, he also said that he believed that the Coalition forces could find WMDs all the way through to March of 2003.

Thats why we have Jack Bauer, CTU. We could also call up the A-Team, or the Bristow Family.
Glad that you had an argument against that. :rolleyes:

The only good thing to come from this.
Democracy is seen as a positive change to most, as well.
0
reply
Kondar
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2156
Report 16 years ago
#2156
(Original post by psychic_satori)
I said the US didn't outwardly seek the approval of others because it doesn't need it. That's not to say that it's going to discourage it or flagrantly offend others.
The US HAS very activley sought the approval of others!!
I never said the US was invincible, but it's influence, coupled with the harm that damaging the US would bring to the acting nations, is enough deterrence to prevent much dissent.
You stated that the US didnt need anyone and didnt care what anyone thought. Glad to see all this education is not falling on deaf ears
Glad that you had an argument against that. :rolleyes:
Fight fiction with fiction.

Read This
"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said.

"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
0
reply
awesome
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2157
Report 16 years ago
#2157
no amercians are cool
0
reply
Geordie_in_HK
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2158
Report 16 years ago
#2158
I wish Americans would speak English correctly instead of *******ising it.

aluminIum not aluminum for example, or saying an-tie instead of anti.
0
reply
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2159
Report 16 years ago
#2159
(Original post by Kondar)
The US HAS very activley sought the approval of others!!You stated that the US didnt need anyone and didnt care what anyone thought. Glad to see all this education is not falling on deaf ears
You're comparing apples with oranges. I was speaking of the American attitude, not the government attitude, earlier. If you can't keep up with the difference, then there is little point in furthering such discussion.

Fight fiction with fiction.
Then you dispute that two generalized negative scenarios that could stem from making the wrong decision about Iraq, prior to invasion? Could you then enlighten me to the other possibilities, rather than spouting nonsense?

Read This
"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said.

"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
Trying to change the topic yet again, because Blix didn't work out so hot for ya?
0
reply
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2160
Report 16 years ago
#2160
(Original post by Geordie_in_HK)
I wish Americans would speak English correctly instead of *******ising it.

aluminIum not aluminum for example, or saying an-tie instead of anti.
Actually, Sir Humphrey Davy named it aluminum initially, but it was later changed to conform with other chemical names. American texts spelled it as aluminium from the start, but the trades that actually worked with the product used the aluminum spelling. The usage eventually made it necessary to change the spelling to aluminum.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Feeling behind at school/college? What is the best thing your teachers could to help you catch up?

Extra compulsory independent learning activities (eg, homework tasks) (23)
8.52%
Run extra compulsory lessons or workshops (38)
14.07%
Focus on making the normal lesson time with them as high quality as possible (46)
17.04%
Focus on making the normal learning resources as high quality/accessible as possible (38)
14.07%
Provide extra optional activities, lessons and/or workshops (78)
28.89%
Assess students, decide who needs extra support and focus on these students (47)
17.41%

Watched Threads

View All